FEB 22 — I read with interest the letter published in The Malaysian Insider on February 21 titled “A criticism of Islamic practices in Malaysia” written by Syazwan Zainal, and wish to offer several remarks regarding key points put forth in that letter.
In defence of the ulama
1. Definition of scholarship in Islam
In Arabic, the word ulama is the plural form of the word alim, which simply means a learned or knowledgeable person. From this definition, it is clear that the attribution of a person to the role of ulama is based first and foremost on the degree of knowledge attained by this person. Everyone knows this, and it would be folly to disagree with this.
In our time, the term ulama has a special connotation connected to a person’s knowledge on what is termed the “religious sciences”, of which the term “science” here does not refer to the “natural sciences” as it is commonly understood, but rather, the original meaning of the Latin word “scientia”, which simply means knowledge. This is also common knowledge.
From these definitions, therefore, we can distil a few meanings that are of interest, insofar as it illuminates a lot of confusion which has plagued the Muslim community.
As it stands, the term ulama or alim is not a term that is given by any university or formal organisation. Rather, it is given by the Community of Believers to show respect towards a person who has given his or her life to the understanding of religion and, subsequently, communicating that understanding to the masses.
As has been said countless times before, there is, therefore, no formal hierarchy for the ulama — despite the existence of institutions such as the Ulama Association — as the esteem in which they are held in society is due, for the most part, to the level of knowledge that they have.
However, this does not diminish their role in politics and society in general, as we Muslims must believe that Islam is a way of life, of which politics and societal concerns are part of, and that in order to properly engage in both, knowledge is required. The obvious example of this is Dr Yusuf al-Qaradhawi’s “State in Islam”.
2. The rigour of scholarship
From the above explanation, it is worth noting that with regards to matters of religion (meant here pertaining to the religious sciences) and the acceptance of opinion regarding religion, the most important criteria is that of knowledge, implying a training in the tradition.
This is, in truth, no different from any other vocation or discipline. A person suffering from a serious and life threatening ailment does not lightly take advice of a physicist, simply because the physicists has not been trained in medicine, even if the physicist has won a Nobel Prize.
Therefore, to assert that “everyone should be able to talk about religion” and asserting that their opinion is of equal value to someone who is trained in the subject is nonsense, to say the least.
This does not, however, mean that no valid objection can be raised. But it must be recognised that an objection to an opinion is not of the same value to the opinion itself. Furthermore, the reasoning process must first be understood in order to give justice to an opinion.
As an example of this, we see that in fiqh, the difference in opinion on the position of the hands during qiam derives from the different understanding of certain ahadith pertaining to the issue. Similarly, the difference of opinion in what is considered to be a “fair payment” in the case of the wakala model in takaful is also due to a difference in understanding of what fairness might entail.
If we do not go through the rigour of the debate, then our criticism is based on hearsay and conjecture, which cannot be defended.
3. The diversity of positions amongst scholars
As with other fields, there is a gradation of understanding and various degrees of knowledge amongst those who we call the ulama. As a physicist, my personal opinion on, say, the Higgs boson is not of the same value as someone like Stephen Hawking, even if I think that the Higgs boson might not exist. The reasons for this are obvious to everyone.
In order to know where we physicists are coming from, one needs to first understand quantum electrodynamics, quantum chromodynamics, the weak theory and then the standard model (all of which presupposes a lot of mathematics) to be able to get to grips with the debate.
Another way is to go through the philosophy route, but even this assumes graduate level mathematics. If one does not do this, one’s understanding is superficial at best and will probably be erroneous and therefore, useless in an intellectual debate. If one does not want to do the work, then one should take an expert’s opinion on the matter (in this case, Stephen Hawking).
There is a direct parallel between this example and the position of the ulama. It is amazing, if not downright disrespectful, to think that just by reading Orientalist literature and translations of the Quran, one is able to comment excessively on a tradition that has been built for the better part of 1,400 years.
There will be now groans from some quarters saying that “the ulama is controlling the interpretation” and dissent against an institution of the ulama is never acceptable, thereby linking the ulama with the Protestant movement against the Catholic Christian Church.
The problem is that even in the Christian tradition, Martin Luther and Zwingli, the earliest Reformers in the Protestant tradition, were themselves learned in scripture since Zwingli was a pastor and Luther taught theology. They were protesting, in part, against the corruption of the Pope and the Church, which are themselves institutions and of which there are no parallels in the Islamic tradition, despite outward appearances.
In Islam, differing views on certain matters of religion, so long as they do not touch matters of creed and follow the discipline of scholarship, is dealt with using comparative leniency, as is obvious from the many fiqh mazhab, the numerous sufi orders, the various tariqah, etc. The key point here is there is a discipline of scholarship, and this is, in fact, no different from mathematics or physics, which has their own axioms and sacred principles (e.g. the conservation of mass-energy).
Of course there might be issues with the definition of the ulama, as by now the term has been restricted to a people who are only trained in fiqh, tasawwuf, Quranic studies, hadith, usul fiqh, usul al-din, and other similar fields considered “traditional” and are not aware of other fields (Islamic philosophy and kalam seems to be missing in this definition sometimes).
But this does not mean that we should simply dismiss their opinion when it comes to worldly matters. After all, our beloved Prophet (upon him be peace!). said in a hadith that “Whoever Allah wants good for, He gives him understanding of religion” (Bukhari, Muhammad bin Ismail. Sahih al-Bukhari, Dar Ibn Kathir, Beirut, 1987, vol. 1, p. 39, hadith no.: 71.).
If Islam as a deen (religion) is a way of life, then it follows that we should listen to the counsel of those who are given understanding of religion.
4. The proper adab in disagreement
If the ulama (meaning here people classically trained in the religious sciences) misunderstood something, such as has happened in finance and Islamic banking, it is the role of the knowledgeable Muslim in the field to correct the understanding by means that do not degrade or insult the people involved, as we correct our teachers and relatives when they make mistakes. It is only natural that people make mistakes; the issue is then how we rectify it.
Of course one can lament the problems plaguing our ulama — that many fatwas are perceived to be behind the times, and that there seems to be a lack of critical engagement with modern concepts etc. But this is not a license to disregard them, and in fact, strengthens the idea that there needs to be willingness for engagement on both sides; an engagement where both sides actually listen to each other.
Furthermore, there have been constructive suggestions by people like Dr Zaharuddin on how to improve the education system such that the best students are sent for religious studies, as well as other more practical and current suggestions and efforts by the ulama themselves such as the discussion circles of prominent figures in the religious scene in Malaysia. A critique from within, after all, is better received than one from the outside.
There is also the issue regarding criticism of those who are not learned in the religion: That they would want their voices heard and their opinions respected. This is understandable and as human beings, there is bound to be points of disagreements between anyone regarding matters which they consider important. However, within the tradition of scholarship in Islam, it is only through the proper channels that a criticism will be properly heard, and these channels usually are present within any particular tradition.
Take the so-called Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen, or EPR, paradox, as a concrete example. Einstein famously disagreed with quantum mechanics (“God does not play dice”) and subsequently joined forces with a couple of his colleagues to prove that quantum mechanics was indeed incomplete.
To do that, they actually had to provide conceptual puzzles which can be mathematically and experimentally tested, not just by saying “I think quantum mechanics is incomplete because it is probabilistic in nature”.
Bell then came up with the famous Bell’s Inequality, a testable set of inequalities which is implied from the paradox that was proposed by EPR. Bell’s result is still useful to this day in the field of quantum cryptography.
The point here is that the critique was done with substance within the tradition, respecting “the rules of the game”, as it were, not just dismissing it outright as outdated or not making sense (quantum mechanics doesn’t really make sense).
One has to wonder why the same rigour is not applied to the religious sciences in Islam, despite the fact that the tradition is more than 1,400 years old. The issue is more striking when one realises that one learns Socrates, Aristotle, Plato, Descartes, etc when learning philosophy. At times, it does seem that there is almost contempt towards tradition. Contempt, which is, perhaps, the legacy of the present post-modern age.
As a final note, it is worth noting that the ulama are indeed the heirs of the Prophet. Commoners such as myself can only benefit from the knowledge of the Holy Prophet (upon him be peace!) through the diligence of the ulama, whose sanad, or tradition of teachers, reach the Holy Prophet.
It is therefore only appropriate that we commoners show respect towards the ulama, if not for their contributions, then out of deference for what the Holy Prophet (upon him be peace!) said about the role of the ulama. It is only proper that we do so, as it is proper for us to show respect to our teachers and elders.
God knows Best.
* Muhammad Imran Mustafa received a Degree in Physics from Imperial College London and a Masters in Physics from University College London. He is currently working as a Research Officer at the Photonics Reseach Centre, Universiti Malaya.
* This is the personal opinion of the writer or publication. The Malaysian Insider does not endorse the view unless specified.
