To All the Parents...

I wonder sometimes if they are really little children or angels sent by Almighty on earth. The perplexity fades away slowly when they exhibit emotions which are very much human. They have their own lilliputian way of ad-lib expressionism. The emotional make up of which is too familiar and strange simultaneously. Familiar as it is not unpredictable like grown ups – strange as it is magically dexterous and shrewd. Yet the blend looks completely natural as the flow of emotions is ostentatious and unpretentious at the same time. With time they learn to act like adults but their reactions portray their strangeness to the mature world around them.

A display of extraordinary deviation from the adult behavior is absolute fearlessness, perhaps because of the raw energy that they inherently possess in mammoth amounts. It also proves the psychological hypothesis that fears are not inherent yet we let ourselves trained to be afraid by internal and external agents. Another surprising feature of their disposition is absolute and selfless love. They simply do not know how to hate – the notion is totally alien to their physiological patterns. In short they are the shadow of original and impure matter of creation – which might be the nature’s way of reminding us how far we have deviated from the standard.

As parents, we fall into believing almost instinctively at subconscious level that our children are because of us. Which may be true in a hackneyed sense, yet in a realistic sense, nature uses us to bring them into this world. They have to face their own pitfalls, conquer their own heights and get stuck in their own quagmires as they naturally proceed to grow up. Heading towards the unknown terminus, they have their own labyrinths to navigate through and completely strange puzzles to solve. It is true that we share the same genetic make up with our children but do not own and predict their destinies. We as parents generally fail to overcome the urge that our child’s future must trace the not-so-well-trodden tracks of our past. This urge is a process, dynamics of which are dictated by a myriad of intangible inputs like the glow of their eyes, the sound of their giggles, touch of their rubber skins and warmth of their arms when they cling to us. The outputs of this transformational process are high expectations, desires to exercise control, excessive possessiveness and most importantly desperation, when they fail to achieve what we want. Those of us who overcome the negatives of this emotional quandary are exceptional human beings beyond doubt.

The extremes of this behavior are the manifestations of conscious and subconscious drivers. At one extreme plays the desire to hit the bull in the eye and on other lies the belief that we could have chosen not to take the aim. The borderline notion that we had the ultimate choice to bring our children to this spatial reality and can lead their course to the other one is completely subjective and false. On one hand its a paradoxical trap to which we actually fall prey and at the same time, - the most difficult testing ground for human faith. A glaring example is uncontrollable grief of the one who loses a child. The deprivation is certainly incomparable to any material loss. Yet the absoluteness that humans tend to attach with this spontaneous feeling of loss is philosophically wrong. At the end we can only lose what is ours…

Your children are not your children.
They are the sons and daughters of Life’s longing for itself.
They come through you but not from you,
And though they are with you, yet they belong not to you.
You may give them your love but not your thoughts.
For they have their own thoughts.
You may house their bodies but not their souls,
For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit,
not even in your dreams.
You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them like you.
For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth.
The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite, and He bends you
with His might that His arrows may go swift and far.
Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
For even as he loves the arrow that flies, so He loves also the bow that is stable.[1]
___________________________________________________
1. Khalil Gibran, On Children, The Prophet.

Creation of Quran - a Mutazilite perspective

In the end of 846 AD, a motley fool named Ibaadah entered the court of Wathiq and said "May Allah increase the reward of Amir ul Mumineen in hereafter in regards to his favors on Quran when it (the Quran) is still alive". "What do you mean", Wathiq asked in obvious confusion, "Do you think Quran is perishable somehow". The jester explained wearing a solemn look on his face, "O' Amir of the faithful, every creation is bound to perish and I am afraid how Muslims will observe Taraweeh prayers in Ramadhan after the sudden death of Quran". Wathiq laughed and kicked him out of the court with some peculiar vocal insults that was the characteristic lingo at that time.

That was the drop scene of the drama that began in the time of Mamun and ended at the time of Wathiq with Mutasam maintaining status quo in between. Reading through the letters of Mamun to Ishaq who was his governor in Baghdad, helped me grasp and analyze the matter more profoundly. The political dimension is the one that keeps coming up in the history books as Ibn Abi Dawood influenced Mamum considerably to use coercive methods against the noble scholars of that time, Ahmed Bin Hanbal being on top of the list. However the theological dimension does not hit the surface so often. An unbiased reader of history might agree if I assert that Mutazilites were not so insincere in their intellectual approach towards the whole matter of creation of Quran.

The theological debates between Mutazilite school with Christian missionaries made them look towards the matter in a different way. They sincerely believed that the idea of Quran not being created would make them closer to canons of Christian belief. It would in a way make the Quran eternal which ultimately means that there are numerous eternals rather then a single one. That seems close to Christian dogma of trinity which is a union of three eternals. A peculiar methodology of dialog by John of Damascus is mentioned in Kitab al-Tiraas which he used to propose to Christian missionaries in their debates with Muslims. The hypothetical dialog as visualised by the author of the book can be concised as follows:

Arab Muslim: What is your belief regarding Jesus Christ?
Christian Missionary: He is the word of God. What does your Quran states about him?
Arab Muslim: [hesitates for a moment and after thinking a lot recites a part of this verse]... "Christ Jesus the son of Mary was a messenger of Allah, and His Word, which He bestowed on Mary, and a spirit proceeding from Him..." [al-Quran 4: 171]
Christian Missionary: What is the word of Allah, and what is 'spirit' and are these created or not created?

The rest of the exchange is pretty obvious as If the Muslim replies that it is not created, he would himself give a weapon into the hands of missionary of multiple eternal entities. If on the other hand he resorts to the choice of created word of God, debate might continue and missionary can always switch to circular arguments that the all three can't be created simultaneously.

Such inter-faith theological debates were the common practice among adherents of Mutazilite methodology. They strongly believed that whoever holds the opinion that Quran was not created actually gives the weapon of multiple eternals in the hands of Christians and thus makes their argument stronger. Jahiz while explaining the shrewdness and nefariousness of missionary approach simplifies the whole argument as were seen by fresh Christian converts as well as Muslim skeptics of that era:

The complete word of God is eternal and as Jesus is the word of God, he is also eternal and this ideology seems to be affirmed by Quran.

However this apprehension of Mutazilites moved them to take coercive actions against the scholars who disagreed with them by insisting calmly that word of God should be taken as such and no external ideologies should be mixed into it. Analysis of these discourses is not the subject of this article and should be left to some other time.

Damiri writes in kitab al-haywan that Wathiq discontinued shoving his ideas into the minds of others before his death. A stranger once indulged in a debate with Ibn Abi Dawood regarding creation of Quran in the court of Wathiq few days before his death. He boldly said to Ibn Abi Dawood, "How do you claim to force an ideology which was not forced by the Prophet and neither by the righteous caliphs succeeding him? If the Salaf were familiar with this ideology and chose to keep quiet, you should also do the same. If on the other hand you believe that they did not know it at first place, how can you claim to know the issues of faith better then them".

It is said that Wathiq jumped up from his seat as if this was a new revelation to him and conciliated his opinion with the opinion of the Salaf. I have a hard time believing in such an undramatic ending but that's how the sages narrate it.

A Concise Definition of Fiqh

In religious and sometimes pseudo-religious discussions in media as well as formal and informal gatherings, it has become customary to throw around various legal cliches. The discussion would seem strange if terms related to particular disciplines of theology are not used to enforce the argument. 'Fiqh' is one such term and rarely a common person using it, holds a fair idea of actual meaning, implication and scope of the term itself. I tried to carry out an informal survey among friends so as to gauge the different shades of understanding about this term. Those who rightly comment upon the meaning of the term have difficulty expounding upon the exact scope which the term carries.

While going through my informal studies of basics of different schools of Fiqh, it never occurred to me that I am not myself clear about the exact definition and nature of the term. It was this sense of confusion that compelled me to revisit and reflect upon the term itself rather then wasting my efforts on the methodologies of particular schools of Fiqh. I have tried to study the definition from few books[1] but I have found Nyazee's book to be best in terms of clarity and teaching method. I try to concisely summarize my understanding of definition of Fiqh here.

The method Nyazee uses in his book is the most common in Islamic Law. It consists of selection of a word called definiendum, setting of the word into its genus and distinguishing it from other members of the genus.[2]

The Literal Meaning

The literal meaning is 'understanding', 'perception', 'discernment' or to some extent 'appreciation'. When it is used in Quran 4: 78 and 7: 179, it means what a judicious person is likely to conclude from obvious evidences.

Earlier Definition

By earlier definition I mean the informal definition that was used before al-Shafi'i came on the scene and developed a more technical definition. The pre-Shafi'ite concept of Fiqh incorporated the meaning of the term kalam within it. It was not separated until the time of al-Mamun (d. 218H). The definition[3] coined by Abu Hanifa includes both the theological problems as well as the legal issues. However at the time of Mamun when the term was restricted to law, it was sometimes called al-fiqh al-asghar to distinguish it from the wider definition of Abu Hanifa.

Shafi'ite Definition

The definition which is attributed by some to al-Shafi'i himself is generally held to be developed by the Shafi'ite jurists of later time. In a technical sense it is as follows:

It is the knowledge of the shar'ai ahkam (legal rules), pertaining to conduct, that have been derived from their specific evidences.

This definition is presently of our interest and requires a brief analysis for developing a better understanding. Each word in the definition affects the required meaning and helps us understand the scope better.

It is Knowledge
This is the first segment which identifies the genus we are concerned with. If the definition is restricted to this segment, it will mean all kinds of knowledge.

Knowledge of ahkam
The wider meaning of knowledge is again qualified by the word ahkam (rules) thereby excluding all kinds of knowledge not pertaining to rules.

Knowledge of shar'ai ahkam
The meanings are further narrowed down by the term shar'ai. It is pertinent now to have a brief look at ghayr shar'ai rules which are of three types:

1. Rational rules like 2 + 2 = 4, meaning that the sum is always greater then the parts.
2. Those perceived by senses like fire burns.
3. Those discovered through experience.

These are the non legal rules and compared to this, the shar'ai ahkam are of two types:

1. Those related to belief (aqeedah).
2. Those related to acts (aa'mal). These are further divided into three categories:

• Pertaining to physical acts like prayer etc.
• Those that take place within heart like intention, love and hate.
• Those pertaining to speech like recitation in prayer.

Rules pertaining to conduct
In this step the knowledge is further restricted to rules pertaining to acts (ahkam-e-amaliyah) and those related to belief are confined to the discipline of ilm al-kalam.

Derived rules
Next the definition is further qualified by the use of word al-muktasabah, which means derived or acquired. This in turn excludes following types of knowledge of legal rules:

• Knowledge of rules that rests with Allah.
• Knowledge of rules that was granted to Prophet.
• Knowledge of rules granted to Jibril (Gabriel).

Derived rules through specific evidences
Further restriction comes with inclusion of phrase, adillah tafsiliyah or specific evidences. These evidences are primarily the individual texts whether Quran or Sunnah. This term actually excludes from the definition of Fiqh, the knowledge of layman (muqallid) and only restricts it to knowledge of the faqih (jurist).

The final definition of Fiqh thus includes knowledge of the rules of conduct that are derived by the jurist from specific evidences find in Quran, Sunnah, ijmaa and qiyas. It is actually the knowledge of Islamic law and not the law itself. It excludes the opportunity for the layman to derive law from the specific evidences, as does the faqih. The muqallid gets his knowledge from the jurist, as in other laws, the layman gets his knowledge of law from legal experts.

Fiqh is thus an important term to understand for a student who further likes to dwell into the detailed discussions about different legal schools. Making distinctions between terms like fiqh and usul al-fiqh, mujtahid and faqih, ijtihad and taqlid and muqallid and faqih also becomes easy if one grasps the in depth understanding of this term.

1. A good book for elementary understanding is Asim Haddad's Usul al-fiqh. The book from which I have concised this definition is Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee's Islamic Jurisprudence.
2. Imran Ahsan Khan Nyazee, Islamic Jurisprudence, footnote [2] to p. 18
3. A person's knowledge of his rights and duties.