A Brief Exposition of Sunna Position toward Al-Quran

As we know some scholars hold that Prophet’s Tradition is in the second status under al-Quran regarding with Islamic law. This can be accepted so far as theological position is concerned in the sense that Al-Quran has higher position from theologian (mutakallimun) viewpoint—as Shathibi describes. But, in practice, to deduce law from both is inevitable. Both are inseparable in the domain of law.


Traditionally, it is widely understood that Muslim scholars have different opinion about this matter, i.e. the position of Prophet’s tradition in deducing laws. Some of them are said to have opinion that Sunna is “secondary” compared to al-Quran. Still, we should to know what they mean by this secondary. We can take an example from an eminent scholar of Granada, al-Shathibi, who argues in his book that Sunna is in second position after Al-Quran. He proved this with several arguments. The first is that while Al-Quran is wholly and particularly definitive (maqthu’ jumlatan wa tafshilan), Sunna has no such certainty as Al-Quran does. It is definite in general not in particulars (maqthu’ jumlatan la tafshilan). Secondly, Sunna is either explanation to what is contain in Al-Quran or addendum to it. In first case Sunna has to be considered in second place. For, if what is explained is gone, the explanation would be gone not vice versa. In the second, where Sunna does not explain Al-Quran, Sunna should not be taken into account unless we do not find answer within Al-Quran. The other arguments Shathibi used are derived from Sunna itself, like hadith reported from Mu’adz when he was asked by the Prophet, “With what will you judge?”, “With Al-Quran” he replied, “If you do not find?” the Prophet asked for second time, “With the Tradition of the Prophet of Allah”, he replied, “If you do not find?” the Prophet asked, “I will strive my opinion”. But Shathibi’s viewpoint about Sunna regarding, especially, laws does not mean that, as he then explained , we abandon it if we already have an answer within Al-Quran. On the contrary we remain use it as one of unavoidable sources in deriving laws—and understanding Islam generally.
The other opinion about Sunna’s position with Al-Quran says that Sunna as long as law is concerned is the same as Al-Quran in the sense that we have to refer to both in deducing laws. We cannot deny the role of Sunna together with Al-Quran.
I argue, based on these, that there exists no intrinsic difference between scholars. In fact, either they talk Sunna as secondary in theological perspective or if they put it in juridical matter, they merely put Sunna secondary theoretically in the sense they first refer to Al-Quran and then to Sunna, but both remain inevitable in inferring laws. Essentially, they hold the same idea that Prophet’s Tradition has essential role in deriving laws. waLlahu a’lam.

Read More...

Some Intellectual Positions and Roads Ahead

Several years ago we heard shocking incident in Bandung where some students openly do some acts to be considered as insulting religion, particularly Islam. For some, it is ironic to see such acts happen in UIN (formerly IAIN) Bandung in which students are hoped to learn more and in-depth about religion. It happened to new students in campus introducing and study orientation (OSPEK). The old students, the committee of the program, demonstrated things which may be regarded as violating Islam. Some of them said “Welcome to the free-God campus”, other said “Let’s recite together ‘anjinghu akbar’” which to them it was an expression of free-speech, though, even for average Muslim, it sounds like trivializing sacred symbols of Islam. It is not interesting to talk about something in past, but it is widely perceived within society, at least for some, that IAIN is no longer a representative institution to learn Islam in Indonesia. Several books have been written concerning this very fact, to remind society of, to say, dangerousness of inappropriate using of freedom in understanding Islam.



In IAIN Surabaya we have nothing with what happened in Bandung. But to some extent, several cases do happen. If we go to any IAIN (or UIN), we will find the same pattern of thought. We see in Jakarta, Jogjakarta, and Surabaya—to name some axis—domination of, say, “liberal” or “rationalist” reformism—to use Tariq’s mapping of trends of thought.[1] I would like to use this typology used by Tariq in his book Western Muslim and the Future of Islam to read phenomenon in IAIN particularly in Surabaya.
According to him, there exist, at least, six tendencies within Muslim world today relating with how to read the Two Sources. It implies that what we are talking about is relating to those who remain concerned to involve the Sources in their way of thinking. It has nothing with people who deliberately put aside the role of Al-Quran and Prophet’s tradition in their thought.
Here are those tendencies in turn. The first of these is scholastic traditionalism. This bears the restricted understanding of Islamic scriptural Texts. People who uphold this tendency read the Texts by the mean of classical Muslim scholars. The extent to which to interpret the Text is very limited and, therefore, not enabling further elaboration. Even, they do not dare to read books written by classical Ulama but in literal way. For many of them, Islam is recognized by religious practices more to which they emphasize their concern. In Indonesia we may find this trend in some Pesantrens which insist on maintaining the old-tradition.
The second trend is salafi literalism. Apparently it seems to be the same with scholastic traditionalism, for they too give emphasis to religious practices. But while the first read the Texts in mediated way, they reject this kind of reading and stress on reading the Texts immediately and, as the name implies, literally. The word salafi refers to the first generations, as mentioned in Prophet’s tradition[2]. It is found in Wahabism in Saudi Arabia and its affiliates around the globe. These two emphasize more on religious practices and tend, with rare exception, to forget the social plane. In the West they are marked by alienation from the society to protect Muslims from Western cultural influences.
The third is political literalist salafism. As the name expresses, it has similarity with the former in the method of reading the Texts. However they differ in their stressing on social and political activities. Their literal reading of the Texts and their inclination to interpret the Text in political connotation place those in difficult situation where they have to face the reality, which is opposite to their ideal, while remain faithful to their literal reading. It gives birth to radical and revolutionary activism against all they consider violating to their values. Typically the goal of this movement is to establish what they call Islamic state; the caliphate. The representative of this movement can be found in secular circumstances, such as in Europe, as well as in religious one, such as in Indonesia. One of which popular example is Hizb al-Tahrir.
The next is Sufism which gives emphasis to spiritual reading of the Sources. They, to me, rather represent the practical aspect of Muslim community. But, to the extent that they have different behavior toward the Texts, it is possible to consider them as one of the approaches by which Muslims think of their scriptural Texts.
The following trend is salafi reformism. They are attached to the first generation as well, but they differ from ‘other salafism’ in contextualized reading to the Texts. Although the Texts remain inevitable for them, they avoid strictly literal interpretation of the Texts and, furthermore, try to read it in the light of context in which they live. Taking example from the Prophet, they also concern more with social issues within Muslim community, not forgetting religious matters—in the sense understood in the West.
The last is “liberal” or “rationalist”[3] reformism. In various degrees, they limit the function of the Texts which at most they reduce them into mere spiritual and ethical matter. It is also valid to call this way of thinking as secular, since, like showed by some scholars, it originates from Western experience of secularism. Within Muslim society, they suggest that the Texts can only be recognized as long as ethical norms are concerned, or at best they consider them merely as inspiration to derive laws relating with social affair. In the matter of daily life, i.e. cases connecting with humanity, they, in different degrees, disregard the Texts, elevating the role of reason over them. Most of them are in opposition to any utterances, actions or even clothing they consider identical to exclusivism and fundamentalism. Sometimes they judge such aprioristically as irrational seclusion.
In the light of this typology, we find the same trends in IAIN. Nevertheless, there is one dominant thought that is the last, almost in major IAINs (or UINs). It is noteworthy to recall this fact, since IAIN foremost is aimed to be centre for Islamic studies at high education level. Many lecturers say that, in IAIN, all Islamic schools of thought should be treated equally. But the fact that almost nothing of Islamic schools—to say the least—are studied deeply and comprehensively and that thought resulted from the West dominates make us have to think more deeply. It is not the question of being fundamentalist, but rather of intellectual balance and, for some, of identity.
On the other hand, the so-called Western thought is widespread consequently. This statement should not be read politically; one dominates other, but intellectually. Not only is it not desirable to reject any of Western stuffs blindly, but it is a matter of being more fair to the society we live in and, in academic sphere, to offer more various discourses both from West and East; Islam and secular, Left and Right—to say so. It is important to underline this, for, here, in IAIN Surabaya, as I feel, there is too hegemonic discourse, while other discourses are marginalized and cannot compete fairly intellectually. The fact becomes like what G. W Bush said when declaring war against terrorism “Either you are with us or with terrorist”.[4]
To build a healthier intellectual sphere, we need to free any discourses, to use more diverse reading ranging from Left to Right, and more important not to discriminate any of these readings. To make an example, here, we hardly find discourses offered by majority, and indeed, many lecturers, which is not identical to liberal. There is no room for other thought that is opposed to it, or if any it is very limited to those who hold it, no common ideology but liberalism and its descendants. We need to be more open, more pluralist, and more tolerant. Moreover if we recall that we are Muslims—whatever it implies for you. We must have differences, but with an open dialogue we can acquire better understanding. “Acknowledged differences may create mutual respect, but hazy misunderstandings bring forth nothing but prejudice and rejection”[5], said Tariq Ramadan. We need to get closer each other for the future of humanity. We hope together next we will be able to see a discussion involving leftist, salafist, liberalist, fundamentalist, atheist, and traditionalist where all are able and will to respect others no matter how sharp divergences they have.

endnotes:

1.Tariq Ramadan, Western Muslims and the Future of Islam, pp. 23-30.
2.See, for instance, Al-Bukhari. Al-Jami’ Al-Shahih, XI/481.
3.These labels should not be understood that other trends have no liberal or rational tendency.
4.In this context we can paraphrase this sentence to: “Either you become liberal or you will be marginalized from campus intellectually and socially”. This, of course, is to say the least.
5.Islam, the West and the Challenges of Modernity, pp. 3.

Read More...