Avoiding Bibliolatry The importance of Revitalizing the understanding of Islam

By Ulil Abshar-Abdalla[1]

Sirrul Qur’ani wa lubabuhul Ashfa, wa maqshaduhul aqsha Da’watul ‘ibadi ilal Jabbaril A’la

--Imam Al Ghazali, Jawahirul Qur’an

Wherever bibliolatry has prevailed, bigotry and cruelty have accompanied it.

--T.H. Huxley, Science and Hebrew tradition

I

Qur’anic Inter-textuality and the living revelation

One matter that has been haunting the Moslem ummah (the worldwide Islamic community) is this: How can we live in accordance with the demands of religious text on the one hand, and on other hand adjust our selves to historical developments? How could we, on one hand, adapt incessantly to change, and on the other hand, keep being good Moslems? How do we become authentic and modern all at once? How do we transform while staying faithful to the fundamental bases determined by the religion? How do we keep the balance between “ashalah” and “hadatsah?

An Egyptian writer, Prof. Nasr Hamid Abu Zaid, issued an important statement for us to consider: “wa laisa min qabilit tabsith an nashifal hadlarat ‘arabiyyatal Islamiyyah bi annaha hadlaratun ‘nash”[2]. It’s not untrue to say that Islamic civilization and Arabic civilization is a civilization which always revolves around the text. The central role of the text makes it become a “paradigm” which frames almost all Moslems lives throughout history. Of course this statement of Prof. Abu Zaid is rather exaggerated, but, as I shall show you later, the text indeed takes an importance position in all Moslems lives. I said that his statement is exaggerated, since actually what we are observing in real practice is the interaction between religious text and social realities which change regularly. Text and context in real life always interact with each other such that sometimes the context is capable of determining the text itself. The contextual position as something essential has been endorsed by Islamic principles of jurisprudence (qa’idah fiqhiyah) al ‘aadah muhakkamah; i.e, that social customs and traditions can become the source of law. In reality, the text therefore has been interpreted leniently in accordance with the dynamic development of society. However although the contextual position as an important requirement for understanding the text is recognized by our interpretive tradition, eventually we have to admit that the text has supremacy. Therefore Prof. Nasr’s statement is true that Islamic civilization (which is none other than Arabic civilization) is a textual civilization.

I want to draw out Prof. Nasr’s observation further, by saying that Islamic civilization is a civilization which has as its fundamental base the “word” or “lafadz” , and not merely the text. Briefly it can be said that the supremacy of text or “lafadz” is a basic principle in Islamic teaching. Why does the text have supremacy in our religion? It is related obviously to a “theological insight” which is un-trivial and which to deconstruct needs much courage; that God talks directly to humans via the prophet; that God’s word is superior to the human one; that God’s word, as far as there is no strong and well-built reasons against it, should be understood textually. The theological insight which supports this “scripturalism” depends upon a rather silly assumption as follows. The more textually we comprehend God’s word, the closer we are to His true will; while the more careless we are in “ta’wil” or non-literal interpretation, the further we are from His true will. Text is a sort of axis around which all believers’ deeds rotate. The closer we get to the central point of the axis, the greater the possibility for us to get close to the essence of the religion; the further we are from the axis, the further we are from the essence of the religion. The closeness and the distance are measured by “lafadz” or text. This “ultra-Theo centric” theological insight explains why the text is placed in the centre, whereas the real and contextual human experience is given an inferior, secondary, and even meaningless status.

Had does one do “something” which positively revitalizes Islamic thought? First, how do we approach this text? If we realize that the Qur’an and the Sunnah (prophetic tradition) are none other than a bundle of texts, the question becomes: What should we do with these two great texts? The question I raised in the beginning relates to the demand of balancing between “obeying the teaching” and “changing it in accordance with progress”, between being authentic and being modern at once. It relates to another question : Is it right to abandon the physical substance of the text in order to keep up with progress? How far can the religious text be taken in terms of a physical understanding? At what limit do we say “good-bye” to those physical meanings of the text? Where, with a peaceful heart, can the literal meaning of the Great Text (Qur’an and Sunnah) be abandoned and substituted by another non-literal meaning which is more appropriate with contemporary human needs?

Another question which comes up is this: If the “ultra-Theo centric” theological insight is fully responsible for the tremendous supremacy of the text, can we formulate another theological insight which is more anthropocentric? It is ridiculous, for example, that the optimistic and advanced Islamic concept of the human (humanity is treated as khalifah for instance, in QS 2:30 and QS 17:70 which talk about the concept of “takreem” or human dignity), does no give “agency” to interpret the text; and when it is considered, agency is under the control of the text. That is why in classic Islamic law it is said “al ibrah bi’umumil lafz, la bikhususis sabab” that the fundamental guide is the universality of text, not the particularity of context. This principle, directly or indirectly, positions the particularity of life experience as secondary to the text of Qur’an or Sunnah. Yet this concept indirectly, contradicts the fundamental core of the Qur’an where the human is placed in a high position. I have remarked that the Qur’an has a bright and optimistic perspective regarding the human (takreem concept). In my perception however, humans are not “abstract beings” which are idealized, but beings with concrete experience.  Honoring the human also means admitting the complexity of his experience which cannot be subjugated by the “universal” text. The “ultra-Theo centric” theological insight which leads to the supremacy of the text alienates the human from his or her own experience.

We frequently hear that a specific legal verdict in Islam (qishash or inheritance being the most commonly quoted example) is considered as something final. It is taken for granted being based on a simple understanding that the law is Allah’s word and command. One Qur’anic verse (33:36) is regularly quoted as the primary basis for this: Had Allah and His Messenger decided something, it is not allowed for the believers, men and women, to refuse that decision; there is no other choice for them except to obey it. The verse demonstrates the commonly perceived belief by many Moslems nowadays that the text must be submitted to without any reserve, without taking into account the changes which take place in life. Furthermore, is it true that the verse is a well-built argument supporting the supremacy of the text, that the more textual your understanding is, the closer you are to the meaning of the text, and thus the more obedient one is towards Allah and His Messenger’s decision? I doubt that the verse determines such understanding. Based on “takreem,” the concept or honor which is introduced by the Qur’an it self, the human with his or her entire experience is the most essential core in our submission toward Allah.

The elemental meaning of Islam is “submission”. Does submission towards Allah mean submitting the concrete experience of human history to Allah’s will? It is a vital question which should be constantly asked so that we are not trapped into the narrow elucidation of several verses of the Qur’an - for instance verse 36 sura Al Ahzab which I have quoted above. Submission means ignoring real human life experience in order to maintain the honor of the Qur’anic text. I prefer to see submission in terms of human honor, that is according to the concept of takreem. Obedience of Allah’s laws does not have to sacrifice human experience.

The appropriate way to observe Islam is to view two dimensions at once, i.e., the dimension of “Islam/istislam” as submission, and the dimension of “takreem’ as honoring human dignity. Instead, in the popular rhetoric of Islam, the dimension of “submission” and the dimension of “slavery” (‘ubudiyyah) are emphasized over the dimension of honor and human experience. Thus Allah’s laws and determinations can not be understood except through submission to literal interpretations of the Qur’anic texts. Islam is thus reduced to “worshipping the text”, or, in Huxley’s term which I quoted at the beginning of this article --“bibliolatry”.

Like or not, all religious communities which are based upon the Holy Scripture, or the codified Holy Book, have this tendency. The social phenomena that we observed recently, fundamentalism, is in fact the result of the modern tendency of holding the text above concrete human experience. The elementary base in religious fundamentalism (including Islamic fundamentalism) is the desire for upholding the text. The text is calling believers constantly to turn back to it, since this is where and how they will find God. That is why the call for the return to the text (in the well-known jargon: ruju’ ilal kitab was sunnah), has a tremendous pull on Moslems. It is not so surprising that the texts are so important to the ummah.

There are also socio-political reasons which support all of this. According to Prof. Nasr, in Islamic history, the central supremacy of the text cannot be detached from the political context. As we know, the maturing process of Islamic schools or mazhahib occurred in about the 3-4^th century of Hijra. This phase is called the taqnin period when Islamic schools (madzhab) were codified in Islamic tasyri’ history and it was in that period that the threat of political disintegration began to appear. The Abbasiyah dynasty in Baghdad began to be threatened by the emergence of “duwailah” or small kingdoms in the Islamic emporium. Due to feelings of “insecurity”, one mechanism for achieving security was for the ulema to enact the authority of the text as the absolute guide.[3] This heritage has been preserved up till today.

The word “fitnah”, which means social disorder, is a ghost which haunts Moslem social history. Enacting thea supremacya of the texta is an attempt to compensate (‘amaliyyah ta’widliyyah , in Prof Nasr’s terms) for social disorder. Roxanne L. Euben , in “Enemy in the Mirror”, explained the emergence of modern fundamentalism in a similar way. In modern fundamentalism, the “discourse of authenticity” based on the text is born due to the Moslem’s feeling of deep anxiety in facing Western hegemony which is viewed as injuring their “dignity.”[4] In short, in critical circumstances Moslems rely on the text. As explained by an intellectual Moslem in the Ustmaniyah period in the 19^th century, Muhammad Syakib Arsalan wrote that progress in the West happened because they left their Holy Book behind; but in contrast the progress of the Moslem ummah depends on upholding the Qur’an. The holy book or text, in Arsalan’s observation, is viewed as the source of both the ummah’s problem and the solution.

My question is this: Why does the text attract Moslem’s attention so easily, and why, in the crisis of identity, is the text always “called” upon as a safeguard from the threat of disorder? This might not have occurred if the text had not taken a central position in the ummah’s religious insight. In Prof. Nasr’s terms, the Qur’an and Sunnah have become an “axial concept” (mafhum mihwary). If there is no effort to deconstruct the theological insight which placed the text in that central position, the evil circle of religious understanding which is “alkitabiah” or scripturalistic cannot be handled. Bibliolatry will be an unavoidable threat. The danger of bibliolatry is “the loss of the human dimension” (ghayabul insan , Hassan Hanafi’s terms) in the religious modus. aaaaa

There are at least two fundamental assumptions in textual religious understanding:

Firstly, the pre-assumption that the text is transparent, that anyone who reads the text can understand the text without any trouble and arrive at the same understanding in any time and place. There is however an “epistemological distance” across time in which interpretations changea depending upon the context.The assumption cannot be accepted for another simple reason: that text contains layers of interpretation which is stratified. The text cannot speak by it self to the society. The Qur’an, cannot speak in the name of God without an “interpretative society” (ahlut ta’wil as the balance of ahlul kitab) who make the Holy Book talk for them. “Innama yunthiquhur rijal” Ali RA remarked : In point of fact it is men who give the Qur’an sound and of course the word rijaal or men here is very gender biased; as though it is only men who are capable of “sounding” the Qur’an, whereas the women can only keep silent and passively listen to the “voice” of those men.

The religious text cannot be meaningful without any agent. I have a hypothesis: The further we are from the text, the more agency we need to link us who live in this 21^st century with the Qur’anic text born in the context of the 7^th century social. Moreover we have never known exactly what was the structure and context of society when the Prophet had the revelation. The comprehension concerning the context of revelation is an absolute requirement for understanding the text.

Secondly, another assumption is this: It is as though the so called Qur’an is merely verses mentioned in the mushaf. We cannot accept this assumption either. Supposing that athe Qur’an is no more than text declared in the mushaf, is the same as supposing that the Qur’an is only a dead text. Quoting Prof. Nasr again, the revelation process is “amaliyyat ittishal” , a communication process which supposes the present of two: one who sends the message (Allah) and one who receives the message (Prophet Muhammad). Since the Prophet was not someone who was isolated from the context, but someone who lived in an actual community of “meaning”, the revelation is not merely lines of dead text, but a living text in an actual context.

In this regard, I would like to address a concept regarding “the alive revelation”. The text we read in the Qur’an at the moment is a “part” of the revelation which should be completed by the comprehension of the concrete context in which it was given. We should not view the Prophet as simply an individual, since the prophet was a part of a real community. When the Qur’an was codified and legalized in “mushaf”, in sheets, the context in which the revelation came down was unwritten. In reducing the Qur’an to a dead text, the Islamic movement does not realize at all that it is refering to a revelation document which has lost its context. Here is the difficulty in accepting the “naïve” understanding of verse which is quoted by scripturalists most of the time (QS 4:59) : fa in tanaza’tum fi syaiin farudduhu ila Allahi wa rasulih. Whenever you argue about a matter, return to Allaah and His Messenger. With its smooth “naivety” this verse can trap us with the simple idea that returning to the Qur’anic text is what is meant by the verse.

For me, the main question is this: how could we return, when we only inherited the written document of Qur’an without the detailed records of its context. And actually, if we want to be honest, there is not any Holy Book in this world which is codified and which provides its context at once. Thus Ali is right to remark that the Qur’an is a dead text (since it is codified without enclosing the document of its context). It is people who make it live and “speak.”

In other words, a “mediation” of an interpretation is necessary. This is the point of an “interpretive society”. Something rarely remembered by the advocates of returning to the Holy Book as text is that the Holy Book itself was presented to an interpretive society. The Prophet’s companions, even the Prophet himself, were not passive acceptors of the revelation, but were an active society which interpreted the revelation itself. Az Zarkasy, in Al Burhan fi Ulumil Qur’an, writes that the Qur’an came down upon the Prophet as a bunch of notions, while the “wording” of those notions in the context of Mecca and Medina’s society was done by the Prophet himself.[5]

If we pursue this view, according to Fazlur Rahman, Umar might be called a “co-author” who also “created” the Qur’an since there are many Qur’anic verses which confirm Umar’s view and deny the Prophet’s view.[6] I would like to ago further by saying that in fact all the companions and the whole Medina community are, indirectly, “co-authors” of the Qur’an. In this sense we can comprehend Muhammad Arkoun’s conception of the “Medina experience” as a battle between revelation and the society who receive it, where both sides interact with each other. This experience is a participative process in which the society of the companions are actively involved in “an act of co-authorship”, in “creating” and elucidatinga the Qur’an.

The notion of “mediation” or agency between us and the Holy Book denies the claim that Qur’an is a transparent text, which is accessible without supposing sufficient knowledge regarding the context from which the verses came from. That notion also denies the claim that the text by itself is adequate. Qur’anic text is not a “self sufficient” thing. Why does not the Qur’an suffice in itself? It is because the Qur’anic text is in fact the binding text with another one. Qur’anic text is inter-textual. Another text surrounding the Qur’an, for instance, is the social history of Arab society, their rich and highly developed literal traditions, the political context and the power relations at the time of the revelation, and the beliefs and religious traditions from that time and so on.

Briefly, the main problem in Islamic understanding currently is the presence of the dominant view regarding the text as something “supreme”, such that the comprehension of the text often denies reality and concrete human experience. The effect is an alienation from experience. A more balanced notion about the text is necessary, one in which the text or revelation lives in a real context, where the society is involved actively in the elucidation of the text. Human experience and revelation are two things which suppose each other, and cannot be separated from each other. In other words, revelation and human experience (including thought) should have an equal position and “epistemological” status in the interpretation.

In the classic hierarchy regarding the sources of law in Islam, there are four sources: Qur’an, Sunnah, Ijma’, Qiyas/Ijtihad. In the light of the interpretative insight mentioned above, I would declare two sources only: revelation and human experiences. Sunnah, Ijma’ and Qiyas are the reflections of the experiences of society (Medina) in its battle with the revelation. Both sources have equal positions. According to the Qur’anic conception of “takreem”, it is natural that we uphold the historical experience of society as a source which is equal to the revelation itself. What I mean with the term “experience” here is the developments of conditions in each society. In other word: I do not elucidate the revelation as a “text” which is completely separated from human life which is constantly in progress.

Revelation, in the most views, is observed as “external” to the Human reality, therefore that is “above” it or superior. If ones life reality contradicts or diverges from the revelation, the answer is certain: costume the reality in accordance with the revelation. Because, quoting the words of our “million ummah” preacher, Zainuddin MZ, Qur’an is “imam” (the leader), while we are “makmum” (the follower). On the contrary, what I desire is that the revelation and human life experience and reality work together dialectically in formulating the truth of religious teaching.

II

The “new” review of the Qur’an : Going beyond the text

After a long “journey” in positioning the relation between revelation and experience and also human’s life reality as two thing which are co-required, the next question is : What is our attitude towards the Qur’anic text. Should we strictly obey the literal meaning of the verse, or are we allowed to abandon it whenever that literal meaning cannot be maintained? What is the standard?

One of the classic principles which has became “the game’s rule” is la ijtihada fi muqabalatin nash, ijtihad or law’s reasoning in sectors where the text had already explained clearly that their regulation is impossible. The assessment in that case is called the definite and fixed stipulation, qath’i. Prof. Ibrahim Hosen has addressed his view concerning this case. In his opinion, the stipulations in the Qur’an which could be identified as qath’I (positive and fixed) are very limited, and to achiaeve that status demands a profound requirement. He pointed out, for instance, that such stipulations should “deny all kind of ihtimal (possibilities) on the mutawatir base. For example, nash (text-UAA) do not enclose the possibility or ihtimal majaz, kinayah, idlmar, takhshish, taqdim and ta’khir, naskh, or ta’arudl ‘aqly.[7]

This view is less eminent among the majority ulama (the learned, the religious scholars), especially as this view requires that a qath’I text does not have logical contradictions (ta’arudl qath’I). I consider Prof. Hosen’s view to be progressive and bold. Using this standard, we could easily value some Qur’anic verses which are asserted to be qath’I, yet contain ihtimal (possibility of meaning) which are none of the literal meanings which are commonly understood from those verses. Although it is a cliché, we frequently listen to the classic debate which was lately triggered by Munawwir Sadzali through the issue of re-actualization of the Islamic teaching, or by Abdurrahman Wahid (Gus Dur) through his notions concerning Islamic indigenous . One problem at that timea regards inheritance lawsaaa. The old scheme 2:1 where the boys got twice more than the division got by the girls, considered by Munawwir as un-qath’I decision, even though there is a very clear resolution in Qur’an (QS 4:11) regarding that case. Ihtimal or objections which are addressed by Munawwir are: that the division is unfair in the current life’s context where the burden of house-maintenance is undertaken by men and women equally. Justice which is definitely one pillar of Islam, become the main source of deliberation to re-value the decision of inheritance division.

At the present time we face the central issue of the demand for implementing Islamic syari’ah. Again, we are facing an old matter which has not been solved yet. What is Shari’a? Is it possible for shari’a to be the foundation for managing Moslem society in this modern age? Is shari’a a stipulation which should be considered as binding all the Moslem ummah since it is “God’s law”? I suggest a question and a new answer at once in the controversial article in Kompas[8]: Is it true that there is such a “God’s law” (meaning “Divine law”) in the comprehension attached by the majority of modern people towards the word “law”, law which is valid universally upon the subjects of the law without regard to religion, tribe, race etc., and enacted through the state’s power?

In that article I said: Such law is unavailable as what is available are simply the central values described as “maqashid shari’ah” or the public objectives of Islamic Shari’a. Here I am trying to answer the main topic which has became an old debate: What is Qath’y and what is Zhanny? Which Qur’anic verses (and also Sunnah) could be included in the qath’y status, which could not, and which are zhanny, in Prof Hosen’s terms “ihtimal,” negotiable based on temporal and spatial progress?

Those two words, qath’y and zhanny, in the classic and modern tradition of Ushul fiqh, were defined inappropriately. Qath’y means a legal argument (dalil) which doesn’t carry double meanings (la yahtamilu ma’nayain). Zhanny argument (dalil) is ambiguous. The qath’y dalil (argument) is divided into two categories: qath’iyyul wurud and zhanniyul wurud. An argument with no doubt is qath’iyyul wurud. Only some of thea arguments from the prophetic tradition are qath’iyyul wurud, the rest are zhanniyul wurud and qathiyud dilalah—arguments which illustrate the unambiguous.

The zhanny dalil (argument) is divided into two categories: zhanniyul wurud (arguments which cannot be traced definitely to the Prophet), and zhanniyud dilalah (arguments which show double meanings). The definition of qath’y and zhanny in our legal tradition are based on the wording. An argument or text is considered as qath’y whenever it is used without ambiguity. An argument will be considered as zhanny whenever it has ambiguous wording or lafadz,—a double meaning. I understand, that a teaching regarding the codified Holy Book should be based on the written text in that Holy Book. In this case, the theory about the “word” plays an important role. That is why, in the classic ushul fiqh there is a long discussion about “Bab al alfadz”, essentially a chapter about the word because the “word” is an essential foundation in the law’s reckoning based on the codified Holy Book. Nevertheless here, I would like to address another view, the urgency of a “paradigm shift”.

For me, the theory about qath’y and zhanny could not maintained as a mere theory about the “word”. It should be a theory of value. The discourse concerning value is not developed seriously by the Moslem scholars, classic or modern one. The foremost intellectual energy of Moslem ummah is given to the fiqh—Islamic jurisprudence centered upon the “text”. Once more, quoting prof. Nasr, Islamic thought is truly a tradition which revolves around the “text”, the text of the Qur’an and the Sunnah.

A number of modern Moslem intellectuals have begun offering an alternative to the old paradigm of qath’y and zhanny. Fazlur Rahman, for instance, in Major themes in Qur’an, has attempted to initiate a new tradition in excavating what he calls ethical-religious concepts of the Qur’an which are the basis of the “Islamic worldview”. In his book, Toward an Islamic reformation, Abdullah Ahmed An Na’im, pursued the example left by his teacher, Muhammad Mahmud Taha, which was to reformulate the definition of qath’y and zhanny. He divided the Qur’anic verses in the same way as classic ulama’ but with new meanings taken from the verses of Makkiyah and Madaniyyah.

The Makkiyah verses are more relevant for an endeavor to reformulate the new Islamic value hierarchy since the Makkiyah verses refer to universal ethical concepts whereas the Madaniyyah verses are concerned with the interpretation of those ethical concepts in the specific context of Medina. Thus it might be said that the universality of the Makkiyah verses is greater than that of the Madaniyyah verses. The qath’y verses, therefore, are verses which came down at Mecca, while the zhanny verses came down at Medina.

Masdar F. Mas’udi, in Agama keadilan (the religion of justice), attempted to review both concepts of qath’y and zhanny. Masdar formulated the qathiyyah verses as assessing universal ethical values which are unchangeable due to temporal and spatial progress. Zhaniyyah verses concern the interpretation of those universal ethical values in a specific context.[9]

The building “bricks” of arguments which are initiated by the modern Moslem thinkers are sufficient for supporting all of us to evaluate our method of “reading” the Qur’anic and Sunnah verses. As I have addressed before, the Holy Book’s text is not a transparent text. Since there is a long historical and epistemological distance between us and the text, in order to “get across” it we need “rational ware” which is un-trivial. This is what I call “rational mediation”. In the previous section, I have argued that the position of revelation and concrete human experience in daily life should be put in equal positions, since the revelation cannot “speak” without the context. The codified revelation – is an “explicit revelation”, whereas the context is an “implicit revelation”. In the more popular use, two terms are used: Qauliyyah verses and Kauniyyah verses. I have alsoaa used the terms “verbal revelation” and “non-verbal revelation”. Both should interact with and require each other.

Based on this, I would like to introduce a new perspective on “reading” Qur’an. It is not really something “new” at all, since its precedent is found already in previous Moslem scholar’s thought. I only attempt to formulate the case “differently” in the new challenges and context we are facing today. A radical new perspective should be addressed to transform the dominant perspective among the ummah nowadays, which might called “bibliolatristic”. We have to restore the Moslem’s awareness regarding what is described in fiqh tradition as “hikmatut tasyri’”, the philosophy behind the lawsa legislation. In other words, the ethical aspects of Islamic teaching should be addressed persistently and vocally to compete with the modern fundamentalist tendency. Fundamentalism is shallow in that it reduces Islamic comprehension to “political ideology” or a bundle of teachings which should be followed since it is God’s commandment. Instead, theory about religious value or ethical vision must be addressed clearly.

The new method of reading Qur’an is not based on the old assumption that all the stipulations which are “literally” mentioned in the Qur’an (or Sunnah), are binding, permanent, and valid in every time and place. This, in my opinion, is a “bibliolatristik” method of reading Qur’an, reading which stops at the text only. Three verses of sura Al Maidah (QS 5:44-47) which often used to promote the “bibliolatrism”, that whoever do not pursue God’s law, he is kafir, zalim and fasik, should be reviewed and not in such textual frame. We have to read the Qur’an in the light of ethical concepts derived from the Qur’an itself. Rahman has pioneered an “ijtihad” which is very useful in this field. Nevertheless the new reading of the Qur’an should be also based on the deliberation that human experience is also something constitutive in the “formation” of Qur’anic revelation. The Moslem ummah’s experience in the period called by Abdullah A. An Naim as the “post-colonial period” must be considered seriously. The reading of the Qur’an that has been valid ignores the context of the modern century, for example, the experience of modern colonialism, the experience oaf the nation-state, the introduction of western law, global economic integration, the development of democratic systems as the new dominant “polity” form in the entire world, and so on. The “revivalistic” and “bibliolatristic” reading of the Qur’an suppose that Moslems can be easily taken back to the Prophet’s age as if they had not endured a significant discontinuity after the industrial century. All of these are moslem’s life realities which have to be considered in the reading of the Qur’an.

In conclusion, positioning the Qur’an as a text isolated from surrounding realities, and on that base summarizing that certain teachings are binding and permanent merely due to the literal provision in the Qur’an, can no longer be accepted. This outlook should be rejected. The quotation of Imam Ghazali in the preamble of this script might be considered. The secret of the Qur’an is an invitation for God’s slaves to return to Him. This sentence has a radical effect if we interpret it as: the secret of the Qur’an is not inviting Moslems to return to the Qur’anic text itself, but to return to the “transcendental essence” behind the text.

The situation we are facing today is totally different: the ummah return to the text, to the scripture, not to the ethical vision which is thea basis of those texts. Because text becomes the main pillar in the dominant religious view, so the Islamic thought reformations constantly face the main question which is repeated from time to time: is your observation in accordance with the Qur’an and the sunnah or not? Where is the dalil (argument)? Those questions are fundamentally weak because the accordance with the Qur’an and Sunnah is measured based on the textual accordance only. The fact that revelation from its beginning is a text which its interpretation related strongly with the community of companions who received it, and that the textual revelation is only “half” of the real Qur’anic revelation (the rest is “implicit revelation” in the form of the social context), is neglected at all. We have to be bold “to cross” behind the text, by turning around to the universal ethical vision of the Qur’an, and the social milieu of Moslem ummah which always changes. Go beyond the text, that is the challenge.

The ethical vision of Islam has been formulated by a classical Islamic jurista and is described as “al kulliyatul khamsah” (the five principle pillars) or “al kulliyatul kubra” (the magnitude pillars). That vision is formulated as “safeguarding” (1) reason, (2) religion, (3) spirit, (4) wealth, and (5) honor and family. The Qur’anic verses should be read in light of this ethical vision, on one hand, and on the other hand meshed with modern Moslem experience.

With the exception of the verses related with the pure ritual such as prayers, fasting and pilgrimage, and provision regarding the food and beverage (math’umat and masyrubat), so all “ayatul ahkam” or law verses which were revealed at Medina, should be considered as the verses which are valid, temporary, contextual, and limited to the social experience of Arab nation in the 7^th century. Those verses regard inheritance, marriage, woman’s position, jilbab, qishash, whipping, handcuffing, to mention a few. There is no more fatal mistake than the perspective which views the Qur’an as the Book which contains provision which are all permanent, universal and eternal. The claim which is always mentioned is that the Qur’an is “shalihun likulli zaman wa makan”, proper and relevant whenever and wherever it is, and that the Qur’an is a perfect Book which contains all solutions to all problems. This is the view of the Qur’an as a “panacea”, the view which is commonly used today to deceive the common Moslem. That jargon is used as a political strategy by the new parties and certain Islamic group—as cheap politics.[10] In the Qur’an there are some teachings which are permanent, and some which are temporary and contextual. We should go beyond bibliolatrism and re-catch the ethical vision of the Qur’an putting it in the context of the modern age.

---

[1] Speech at Paramadina, on 8^th February 2003. The word “bibliolatry” literally, means “worshipping Bible”. Commonly, this word means over “glorifying” upon any Holy Book that it seemed as worshipping. In this script, that word used as synonym (with the further and deeper comprehension) of over “scripturalism”. I quoted that from T.H. Huxley, Science and Hebrew Tradition. Another quotation I took from Imam Al Ghazali in Jawahirul Qur’an. Means : The secret of Qur’an, which its smartest idea and its main aim is “invitation” for the human toward God.

[2] Nasr hamid Abu Zaid, Mafhumun Nash : Dirasat fi ‘Ulumil Qur’an (Cairo : Al Hai’ah al Mishriyyah al ‘Ammah lil kitab, 1993) p 11

[3] Ibid, p 12

[4] Roxanne L. Euben, Enemy in the mirror : Islamic Fundamentalism and the limits of modern rationalism (Princenton : Princenton University Press, 1999)

[5] Badruddin Muhammad bin Abdullah Az Zarkasyi, Al Burhan fi ‘Ulumil Qur’an (Beirut: Darul Ma’rifah, 1972) vol I, p 17.

[6] In the case of Badrs capture, Umar viewed that they should be prosecuted, while Abu bakr viewed that they should be deliberated by the ransom, the Prophet pursue Abu Bakr’s view, so the verse came down in sura Al Anfal which denied the Prophet’s decision, and confirmed Umar’s decision. (QS *:67-68)

[7] Ibrahim Hosen, “Beberapa catatan tentang reaktualisasi hukum Islam,” dalam Reaktualisasi Ajaran Islam : 70 tahun Prof. Dr. H. Munawwir Syadzali, MA (Jakarta : IPHI&Paramadina, 1995), p 251-284.

[8] Ulil Abshar-Abdalla, “Menyegarkan kembali pemahaman Islam”, Kompas, 18^th November 2002

[9] The critical survey regarding the difficulties of implementing Islamic Sharia in the modern context, especially regarding the family law, could be observed in “shari’a and Islamic family law: Transition and transformation” in Abdullahi A. An Naim, Islamic family law In changing world: a global resource book (London: Z Book,2002) p 1-36

[10] Asghar ali Engineer recently wrote a short article in the serial Newsletter secular perspective under title “Islam and secularism”. This article unpublicized, only spread via internet to some customer. There he emphasize the urgency of distinguishing between “politic” and “theologic”. Mixing both of them will only profit the narrow-minded politician.