Qur'an Only?

The standard, normal, orthodox, traditional foundations for the religious traditions we call Muslim are the Qur'an, of course, and the sunnah, which is the example of Muhammad. Sunnah kind if means pattern or life-style or way of doing things. The sunnah is derived both from actual lived practice and from the hadith literature. The hadith literature is the collections of accounts of Muhammad's sayings and doings. There are currently groups of people forming who claim to be Muslim, and to follow the Qur'an, but completely reject the sunnah and thus the hadith literature. I completely disagree with this for the following reasons. I've written this up a number of times before for usenet, and I think an early version is on someone else's web site.

First, I can understand where this tendency originates. Intra-Muslim fights and sectarian tendencies are often over the issue of what, exactly, is the sunnah. We are all familiar with those who throw "hadith bombs" during any discussion or difference of opinion. These have the effect of shutting down discussion and stifling people's legitimate theological issues and concerns. Indeed, among those who would say "there is no god but God and Muhammad is a messenger from God" there is not agreement even over which hadith are legitimate. The hadith literature is indeed problematic. Especially by today's standards of textual criticism. In my opinion we need to take into greater account the fact that this literature developed over a period of time and most likely-- in spite of the good culling process-- reflects more theology then we tend to think. We must be much more wary than we are when we approach the hadith literature as specifically biographical or historical. (Similar to what must be done when reading the Christian Gospels.) We must also spell out in much greater detail the culture at the time of Muhammad (God love him!) and then situate the hadith firmly within that cultural milieu. In short, just as the Qur'an or any text must be interpreted, so too must the hadith literature. The methods guiding that interpretation need some updating and refreshment, imho. Regardless of such matters, the fact is that Muslims often abuse each other in the name of the sunnah an in light of the hadith literature, and certainly strongly disagree over proper understanding of sunnah and hadith. So, it is understandable that people sick of this might make a move to just toss it all out.

However, as tempting as it might be to do this.... as easy as it would be and thus possibly solve the problem of much intra-Muslim fighting... it is a completely self-destructive move. Rejection of the sunnah (and so also the hadith literature) as a foundation for Islam leads to absurdities that no thinking person can support. Indeed, it seems clear to me that rejection of the sunnah-- the position of "Qur'an Only"-- leads to rank dehumanization. Indeed, it is automatically an expression of already present dehumanizing trends, imho. And this, I would argue, is obvious on the basis of pre-theological thinking--- even pre-Islamic thinking. That is, based upon just what it is to be a human being-- regardless of being Muslim, Jew, pagan or anything else.

Now, imho, the strength of tradition itself is an argument for Qur'an and Sunnah and against Qur'an Only. But one must first have some respect for tradition in and of itself to begin with for it to be a convincing argument. Qur'an Only advocates are obviously contra-tradition.

Muslims often argue for the sunnah from the Qur'an: verses that say "Obey God and obey the prophet" are the basis for Qur'an and Sunnah. Also not convincing. Why? Because this verse can indeed be interpreted in such a manner that it is relevant only for those who were contemporaries of Muhammad. Which is what Qur'an Only advocates do. They say this verse is irrelevant to us because there is no prophet here, alive, to obey. I do not consider this an unreasonable hermeneutic.

So, what makes the position not only unreasonable, but dehumanized as well?

Well, it is almost obvious. Following some kind of sunnah-- someone else's example in life-- is part and parcel of being human. ALL people EVERYWHERE at ALL TIMES follow a sunnah. It is part of our ontology-- the roots of our human form of being. What is more is people always WANT to follow a sunnah. When we are kids, and often through our lives, we follow the sunnah of our parents. American adolescents often follow the sunnah of music, sports, or other entertainment figures. They even have a name: "wannabes." (Get it? Want to be...) So, young girls who imitated the dress and mannerisms of the singer Madonna were called "Madonna wannabes." Michael Jordan is a popular basketball player. There were TV commercials in heavy rotation that declared "I wannabe like Mike." This is all sunnah. Simple. Obvious. In essence, it is that the human being is always social, always in community with others. Even a hermit living alone in the deep woods is heir to, and carries with him, the symbols, meanings, values, mannerisms and examples of other people. Indeed, being a hermit may be for him the following of a sunnah! When we are born into this world it is always into a world of examples-- of sunnahs.

So, right off, if we reject the very idea or concept of sunnah as a source of guidance and example-to-follow in our lives what have we done? Well, we have done something very drastic: we are rejecting part of the nature and structure of human being itself. We have engaged in an act of dehumanization. A great sin. Indeed, we have, in fact, rejected community. We have rejected others and their examples. Follow that thought far enough and you enter into rejection of love. (From this perspective the rejection of sunnah per se is very American: the exaltation of subjectivity over community. Some sociologists identify the great American myth as the belief that one can continuously and repeatedly re-make or re-invent one's self. But because our lives are always intertwined with others this will inevitably effect others. If this negatively effects others, but I still insist on re-inventing myself, I must reject that community with others and thus exalt my own subjectivity: its desires, wants, and fantasies. In essence, rejecting sunnah to some degree; rejecting the following of others for the sake of what I want to do.)

So, right off, anyone who rejects the very idea of following a sunnah is into a realm of absurdity and denial of simple in-your-face reality. Frankly, this type of disconnection or denial of reality could be construed as symptomatic of mental illness.

The sloppy thinking of such a rejection should also be clear: the people who reject the concept of the sunnah are themselves always following SOMEONE'S sunnah(s) just by virtue of being human beings!

Now, when we turn specifically to Islam and the rejection of the sunnah of Muhammad (Again! God love him greatly!) and the call for Qur'an Only we develop even more problems. (As if what has been pointed out isn't enough!) To the point: if we reject the sunnah we end up with a meaningless Qur'an. Or rather, the Qur'an then becomes a hermeneutic blank upon which we can, and will, project our own desires, propensities, prejudices, speculations, etc. The Qur'an will cease to tell us about Allah in the Highest and, like a Rorshach ink blot, tell us only about our self.

All texts must be interpreted. We might say we always need to "do a hermeneutic" on a text. It is by means of hermeneutics that we then say what the text means. In the Qur'an itself is a description of the Qur'an-as-text: in this book you will find parables, some will be clear in meaning (a smaller range of possible valid meanings) some parables will be ambiguous (allowing for a greater range of meanings). So, how do we begin to articulate these meanings? How do we decide that one interpretation is valid or true and another is invalid or false-- an incorrect hermeneutic of the text? We need a method. Without the discipline of a method ANY interpretation must be seen as equally valid as any others. Some methods we use we call "science," or "logic."

When we go to "do a hermeneutic" on the Qur'an what is our method? Well, the sunnah! It is the sunnah that places boundaries around our interpretation of the Qur'an. It necessarily places the Qur'an in a socio-historical context-- the incidents of revelation-- it roots the Qur'an in actual space-time, human reality. It is the only way we are able to articulate that each incident of revelation was in response to a specific historical episode-- something that happened in real life to real people-- so obviously of vital importance for a proper interpretation of the Qur'an. It is the only way we are able to maintain the linguistic integrity of the Qur'an as being the spoken Arabic of the day-- thus preserving at least some of the original meanings. Often, Qur'an Only advocates dismiss the importance of language and translation. By any methodology whatsoever this is an absurd position held only by the most uneducated. Translations are never exact, regardless of language.

By means of the sunnah that which is transcendent-- revelation from Deity-- is made practical and immanent and concrete. It is the sunnah-- however we may actually understand it-- that grounds our interpretations and keeps them from floating off into overly-imaginative flights of fantasy. Reject the very idea of the sunnah and the gates of interpretation are wide open, shapeless, overly subjective, speculative, thus approaching meaninglessness. At the very least, it admits the worst forms of extremism and breakdown of community.

In addition, it must be mentioned that this crop of Qur'an Only advocates have spawned from the ideas of Rashad Khalifa. One of these ideas is that there is a magical mathematical code in the Qur'an based upon the number 19 and its multiples. Ok. Fine. Its called numerology and clearly shown to be fraudulent. Currently there is a book that does the same thing with the Bible. Talk to actual professional statisticians however and they will tell you that this is all invalid nonsense. But to my mind, as a Muslim, there is something even much, much worse about the 19 numerology that often goes hand in hand with calls for Qur'an Only.

In the Qur'an God repeatedly asks which of God's blessings will you deny? The 19 numerology is, in essence, a denial of God's blessings.

It is a denial of 1) the magnificence of creation, of 2) God's commands in the Qur'an to look at the patterns in creation as ayats or signs from God, and of 3) the essential simplicity of the Qur'anic message: there is no god but God.

1) The insistence on the 19 nonsense is the need for a big, non-ordinary miracle of some sort to justify one's faith and belief. It is the hallmark of a banal, tranquilized world view that misses the true miracle that is right in front of them, and in them. It implies a message to God that creation just isn't a good enough sign of God's. Rather insulting, wouldn't you think? On top of it, it is with the Qur'anic revelation that humanity becomes old enough, in a religio-spiritual sense, not to need a Las Vegas type of show from God to remind us of Him and encourage the proper way of life. Many of the Qur'an Only advocates insist on the Las Vegas-Hollywood garishness from Allah in the Highest Glory.

2) Over and over and over again we read in the Qur'an-- from God Himself-- to look at the patterns (sunnat/sunnah) in the natural world, in ourselves and in human history. For these too are signs from God to us. (In other words, we are to do science.) The Qur'an Only advocates who also ascribe to numerology are acting in direct opposition to these commands. Rather than reading the Qur'an, taking its lessons to heart and then turning back to creation they focus on every jot and tittle of the Qur'an-- counting letters and verses, calculator in hand. This is a parody of science and study! And thus, imho, again, not only a failure to follow the Qur'an itself, but another insult to Allah the Glorious!

3) What?!? We have to be accountants and statisticians to grasp the message of the Qur'an? No way! Intellegence is not a necessary condition. If the Qur'an does not prove itself to you without tons of complicated gobbledy-gook then you have not understood it. It is a simple message that speaks to a person willing to be guided by God regardless of their intelligence or mathematical skills! Even if there was some super-mathematical structure it would be completely irrelevant to the man or woman of true, healthy faith! It simply isn't needed except by those who would will to reject true submission to the will of God.

In addition to their (imho) very wrong ideas regarding sunnah, Arabic and other related issues, the Qur'an Only adherents also reject the second half of the shahada-- the words that initiate one into the Muslim ummah-- the post-nationalist, post-ethnic, global community based upon belief.

Our Muslim statement is "I bear witness that there is no god but God and I bear witness that Muhammad is a messenger from God." The Qur'an Only people do not ritually state the second part, and consider it wrong to do so.

The full statement seems to me to contain within it not just some bland assent to an abstract idea, but an entire statement about Reality and the relationship between God and creation, between God and us, even though it specifically mentions Muhammad. (I'm sure I've read something similar to this in the standard literature.) Those who reject the second half of this statement thus, for me, seem to imply a rejection of the proper ordering of God to creation-- the very definition of religio-spiritual rebellion.

There is nothing all that special or distinctive about saying only "there is no god but God". I would have agreed with that all my life as would most Americans. (Recent survey: 95% of Americans say they "believe in God"). Now don't get me wrong! It is certainly better then NOT saying it or saying something else! But, it is, in essence, the most highly abstract statement we can utter. God, by definition, is that Who (or which) is Transcendent to us-- the Unseen. "There is no god but God" recognizes the importance of the Transcendent Unseen, but it does not say much about it-- what or how He/She/it is other than Deity. It could be a cruel, revengeful God, it could be a Trinitarian God, it could be pantheistic-- "everything is God/God is everything", it could be panentheistic-- "God is in everything".

We could say that the first half of our statement, when in isolation, is hermeneutically "open"-- it allows for a wide range of imaginative interpretations. Too imaginative actually. One can easily become a "holy floater" or engage in "navel gazing" with "there is no god but God" alone... or even justify horrendous acts "in the name of God".

"There is no god but God", in isolation, is not necessarily the tawheedian "God is One (ahad)" revealed to humanity as discussed in the Abrahamic traditions. Not necessarily at all.

The second part of our statement grounds the first part in actual, mundane, sensate, immersed-in-history-and-actual-human-life reality as does the sunnah discussed above. It makes the highly abstract "practical". (New Agers would find here the real holism the are always looking for.)

When we immediately follow "there is no god but God" with "and Muhammad is the messenger of God" we are placing certain theological boundaries around our understanding of the Transcendent Unseen. We root our understanding of the Transcendent Deity in and to a specific time and place-- in creation-- and thus assert a particular and specific type of relationship between God and creation, God and us-- the relationship of "Islam" in the best and fullest sense of that word.

If we reject the second part of the statement we leave open the door to inordinate, and even possibly perverted, speculation about the Transcendent Unseen.

It is absolutely, completely, standard practice and belief among all Muslims I've experienced to point out that when we say "Muhammad is a messenger from God" there is implied the understanding that we are asserting our assent to ALL messengers from God, not just Muhammad, and not just those we know of that are specifically mentioned in the Qur'an. Even the worst "Intro to Islam" pamphlets usually point this out. Without such an understanding of "and Muhammad is a messenger of God" it might even be questionable whether someone's shahada was existentially valid.

So, the second part of our statement-- rejected by those who call Qur'an Only-- not only grounds our religio-spirituality, roots our religio-spirituality in actual historical created reality, thus keeping our talk about the Unseen within proper bounds, but it also orients us towards the actual human history of Divine Revelation-- across time and culture...

From a mysterious time-before-time when the angels witnessed the presentation of Adam...

through tender-hearted Abraham (neither Jew nor Christian nor did he have the Qur'an) (Subhan Allah!)...

to the revelation of Torah (forging the first Islamic State wisely ruled by the likes of David and Solomon)...

to Jesus' gentle "Abba"...

to that grand moment: the confirmation and summing up that is the Qur'anic revelation. ALL of this is contained in "Muhammad is a messenger from God" which then qualifies "there is no god but God".

The full statement speaks of both space-time particularities AND the incomprehensible Infinite AND the two together. If you aren't knocked on your butt by it you don't get it.

It is truly excellent, imho.

If we reject the second part of our statement-- refuse to ritually "give witness" to it-- have we not rejected all of the above as well? Assuming such a rejecter is sane, and understands... what is one to conclude? Well, I have used termss such as dehumanized, rejecting of love, rejecting of community, meaninglessness. In my understanding of things, these are just other ways of talking about evil. And that is what I think Qur'an Only teaching is: actual evil-- not just a normal theological difference of opinion.

Of course and always: Allahu 'alim.