Difference of Opinion (Ikhtilaaf) Proves Islam’s Dynamism (1/4)

Many academics have today studied Islam and in order to make it fit into the status quo and current world order cite the science of Ikhtilaaf to justify Capitalist concepts. The chief reason for this is that any revival is measured in the West against only one benchmark - Western secular liberalism. Anything conforming to this is progress and everything else is not. This is the Western view when revival is studied; therefore the secular environment is viewed as a universal one. The result of the process Europe underwent is known as civilisation and anything else is backward. This is the basis of the orientalist argument i.e. that we must rid ourselves of a medieval culture called Islam unless it can be reinterpreted or reformed. At the same time there has been an unfortunate tendency for some Muslims to misinterpret and even abuse some verses in response.

The fundamental reason why such numerous opinions can be derived from the Qur’an, one hundred and fourteen chapters in length, comprising only 6,236 verses is due to the fact that legitimate interpretations can be extrapolated i.e. one verse can be applied to more than one reality or that there can be a genuine iktilaaf (legitimate difference of opinion within certain, restricted boundaries).

The primary reason for this is because most verses of the Qur’an are of a general nature which allows a wide spectrum of derivation. There can be different interpretations of some words and verses taking into account that some verses and their words are general, some specific, some implying restriction, whilst others have metaphorical and alluded meanings. This is what enables Islam to have diverse answers to the wide-ranging issues that may arise.

Difference of opinion is permitted in Islam and has always occurred. However, it is important we view this in an ideological context. This does not mean any individual can interpret the Shari’ah texts in whatever manner desired in order to conform to every whim or impulse. In Islam differences of opinion are permitted in areas where the Qur’an or ahadith allow such a process. The nature of the Arabic language is that one root word can have a number of derivatives therefore differences of interpretation can occur i.e. the reality of the word can be applicable upon numerous realities. There is however a restriction to this. Words in the Arabic language have two elements when anyone is looking to understand, interpret and apply. This is the mantooq (wording) and mafhoom (meaning). This means that interpretation cannot go beyond the meaning being indicated by the wordings. As an example the following verse could incorrectly and maliciously be used to justify homosexuality:

“O mankind! We have created you male and female, and have made you into nations and tribes in order that you may get to know one another.” [TMQ Surah Al-Hujaraat: 13]

This verse is general as it’s an address to mankind, so it would encompass both Muslim, non-Muslim, male and female and ‘get to know each other’ could be interpreted as including sexual relationships between the same genders. However this understanding cannot be extrapolated from the wording of this verse as this contradicts numerous other verses:

“We sent Lut when he said to his people: What! do you commit an indecency (lewdness) such that no one in the world has not done before you? For you practice your lusts on men over women. You are an extravagant people.” [TMQ Surah Al-A’raf: 80-81]

And: “What! Of all the creatures of the world will you approach males and leave what your Lord has created for you of your wives? You are a people exceeding limits.” [TMQ Surah Ash-Shu'ara':165-166]

Hence interpretation has rules and restrictions and is not a limitless process where one can interpret however they wish. Another example is that of interest (Riba), it has been argued that the lender bears the risk of lending money therefore the interest he receives is due compensation for this. It has also been argued that the Islamic texts need to be interpreted in a way which does allow interest as the value of money decreases over time and the lender should receive interest to cover this loss in value. Some have even argued that Islam only forbade high interest as this was the common form at the time the verses of Qur’an were revealed:

“And Allah has permitted trade and forbidden Interest.” [TMQ Surah Al- Baqarah: 275]

The term Riba (interest) as found in the above verse and in other verses of the Qur'an and Hadith came in a general form. This includes every form of interest because it is a generic name associated with the letters alif and lam (the) - meaning that all forms of usury are included whatever its type, whether it is a Riba that was well known at the time of the Messenger of Allah (sallAllahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) or a Riba that is not known and therefore a new issue. Therefore, there can be no place for making Halaal any form of Riba, because the prohibition has come in a general form. The general term will remain general unless there is evidence that restricts or specifies the term i.e. another evidence would need to be sought. In this case there is no evidence to specify it, so Riba can only be considered in its general meaning. Texts which are not of a conclusive nature can be extrapolated to whatever is possible by the limits of the wording and its meaning, on the condition that it does not contradict another evidence.

In every ideology there exists difference of opinion on solutions built upon the creedal tenets. Differences however are never in the creed but rather in the solutions that are derived from the creed. In democratic countries, numerous schools of thought have arisen due to differences in interpretation. In the US today we have Democrats and Republicans. In the UK we have Labour, Liberal Democrats and Conservatives. Across the Western world we have neo-conservatives as well as Libertarians, Fabians, Environmentalists and Christian Democrats. All differ in the manner that liberal ideas should manifest themselves but they all have secularism – the Capitalist creed - as their basis.

Economics is also prone to such difference with the Keynesian school, advocating government intervention, against the Monetarists. Socialism also had a number of schools of thought built upon their creed. Advocates of socialism saw the injustice that resulted from the concept of ‘Freedom of Ownership’ and concluded that the difference in private ownership between people was the problem that required a solution. One school of thought (the Communist school) advocated practical equality in everything and absolute abolition of private property. Another school of thought (the agrarian socialists) proposed abolishing private property in agricultural land only. Then came a third socialist school of thought (known as state socialism) where private property was transferred to public ownership in the name of public interest i.e. nationalization in every situation where public interest called for it.

(Continued)