34. Islam is more about objectives and principles than about forms and details! | Is there only one correct approach to interpreting the Quran? | Part 4

The Quran was revealed in seventh century Arabia that had a specific social-economic- political-cultural context hence the directives and laws were issued accordingly.

So, did God want us to take the then prevailing realities and the associated laws (fiqh) to be the eternal ideal to be mimicked until the last day?

Or did He intend only the principles (usul) and objectives (maqaasid) to remain eternally valid, while the fiqh, that is the precise laws through which the intended objectives are achieved and the principles are implemented, was intended to remain flexible and could change with changing ground realities/ contexts?

I have argued in my articles #16 and #25 that Islam has two layers.

The core Islam: that’s derived from its explicit primary sources, that is, the clear verses of the Quran and the concurrently agreed upon/established Sunnah of the Prophet(s)).

Hence it consists of all those things over which there is no disagreement amongst any of the schools of any of the three sects of Islam, viz., Sunni, Shia, and Ibadi. Hence absolute consensus/ijmaa is the identifier of the core Islam that contains only the primary matters of Islam and can be dubbed as the Shariah.

Thus the core Islam is the same in all its different versions across the different schools of thought. It consists of the unanimously agreed upon elements of the following:

The objectives (maqaasid);

the principles (usul);

the beliefs (aqaaid);

the obligations (faraaidh);

the prohibitions (hurmaat);

and the recommended (mustahab) and the discouraged (makrooh) acts.

The non-core Islam: consists of all those matters over which disagreements/ikhtilaaf exist as it is extracted/derived from the ambiguous verses/text of the Quran and from the secondary sources of Islam like the historical reports(akhbaar-e-ahaad/ahadith), analogical reasoning (qiyas), customs (urf) of a community/nation, etc.

These include only the secondary/trivial matters and are contained in the vast secondary corpuses of Islam like the secondary legal opinions (fiqh), detailed theology (aqeedah or kalaam), mysticism (tasawwuf), history (taareekh) or ahadith/akhbaar-e-ahaad/riwaayaat, etc.

The universal-absolute Islam: within the core Islam, comprises only the essential  ‘pillars’ of belief (imaan) and worship (ibaadaat) that are agreed upon by all schools of thought; and also the agreed upon usul (principles) and maqaasid (objectives). These elements of core Islam are for all times and places, hence they form the universal- absolute Islam.

And the details through which the usul are implemented and the maqaasid are achieved are contextual and vary with time and place. That’s local-contextual Islam.

E.g.: To cover the private parts (awrah) in public is an obligation that no scholar disagrees over. Hence it’s a part of primary or core Islam. The objective is to promote decency/avoid indecency in public places. This is a universal.

But how much covering is mandatory in different contexts? What’s the limit of decency? For example, is the thigh of the man considered awrah or not? Is the hair of the woman considered awrah or not? Scholars differed over such details.

That’s secondary detail and forms the fiqh corpus or the secondary layer of Islam. And it’s contextual, not universal. Contemporary and local norms would have a say in it.

The Quran is concerned with covering of the ‘awrah’ (private parts) which is the groin and the butt for men; and for women it’s the groin and butt, plus the breasts.

So surah Noor says that women must cover their private parts in public. What they cover it with is not the concern of the Quran. Cover it with shirts and trousers, or shalwar and kameez, or saree, or jilbab, whatever it is, ensure that the private parts are concealed in public.

Since the women back then were already wearing the head covering or khimar but they weren’t using it to cover their breasts properly, leaving ample cleavage on display, the Quran instructed them to use their khumur (pl. of khimar) to cover up their breasts in public. The objective was to tell them:

Hey girls, your breasts too need to be covered up in public! And since you already wear the khimar, why don’t you use it for the same?!!? No need to take any extra garment(s) huh! The necessary covering up can be done with whatever you are already comfortably used to wearing!

The objective wasn’t to make the khimar mandatory. The objective was to ensure the breasts too are covered up.

To say that the Quran made the khimar mandatory simply because it mentions it in relation to the dress of women, is akin to saying that the Quran made the use of horses mandatory in wars simply because it instructed the Muslims to prepare their horses well for battle!

The Quran famously proclaims that in surah Baqarah! So is that an eternal injunction? Or is it contextual?

Seventh century Arabia was primarily illiterate and women crunching numbers wasn’t a common sight then! It was very rare to have businesswomen or finance and accounts experts belonging to the fairer sex. Men were the main business guys. Financial matters was man’s domain.

In that context, God ruled that in financial transactions/dealings/contracts, the witness of two women is equivalent to one man. It’s clear from the statement:

“…..so if one of the women forgets the other may remind her.”

Women being less pro in these matters, the chances of them erring was more, hence the Quran said what it said. But today, women are as good as men! So the original injunction doesn’t apply anymore.

Again, the objective was/is to ensure fairness and accountability in financial matters; that’s the universal. How you achieve it, through two witnesses, or through digital means, is up to the contemporary system(s) in place in a given society!

Seventh century Arabia, and the world at large, was patriarchal. With patriarchy being the norm, the Quran addressed the people accordingly, as in, “the men (husbands) are ‘qawwaam‘ (in charge of/have authority) over the women (wives).” (Quran, 4:34)

This verse, when interpreted in patriarchal societies, seems to give the general rule that man is supposed to have authority over women.

But the same verse could be interpreted in matriarchal societies as simply stating what was the norm in seventh century Arabia, instead of an overarching rule binding for all times and places. As God didn’t say that man ‘must be’ the qawwaam in all times and places. God said, man ‘is’ the qawwaam (in a given era/community/nation/culture)! God simply stated the then prevalent norm and directed the Muslims to act in the best possible way in that given context.

In cultures that have matriarchy, if they adopt Islam enmasse, do they then necessarily have to transform into patriarchy to align themselves with this verse?

Definitely not!

God essentially prescribes neither patriarchy nor matriarchy. God doesn’t care what system you build and implement. God just cares about justice and equity that are amongst the core objectives (maqaasid) of Islam. Achieve justice and equity through whatever system you can create, it’s up to you! Otherwise, Islam would be a parochial creed, not a universal religion for all times and places!

It made sense in patriarchal societies. If man was the head of the family, and women and children were his ‘subordinates’, then they could be disciplined with physical force too when required, as is still the case with children, beating whom is pretty much in vogue even across the modern world.

So the Quran, addressing patriarchal societies, gave them a solution that could work well in their context, that is, to effectively deal with persistently rebellious or infidel wives on the brink of tearing the family apart, beat them as a last resort (according to the interpretation of most scholars).

But in modern urban societies wherein women are partners in marriage, not subordinates, beating them for disciplinary reasons is as unfeasible as is women beating men! I mean, many people could still be doing it, but it cannot be prescribed as a solution to a problem any more. Beating wives is as redundant today as is using camels for transport!

Several thinkers have asserted that the Quran never ever allowed the beating of wives for any reason or purpose whatsoever! An alternative interpretation argues that the Quran actually vests the state authorities with the right to punish a woman, not her husband. Mufti Kamran Shahzad for example has argued the same, citing earlier classical scholars like Ibn Arabi and Ibn Ashour.    

A regulated and benevolent form of slavery (a system of ’indentured labour’) and consequentially associated concubinage was implemented back then, as a means of fairly dealing with the POWs, there being no established system of prisons back then.

Also, the buying and selling of slaves (who were already in the market as slaves from wars) was also in vogue and wasn’t completely banned by the Quran! The reason being that it was deeply entrenched in the social and economic fabric of the system back then.

Now that we have the system of prisons, will it be fine to practice slavery (and associated concubinage) as a way of dealing with POWs in today’s world? And then the buying and selling of slaves to resume again, will that be fine?

I argue that modern sensibilities and ground realities demand that slavery shouldn’t make a comeback until and unless the same ground realities that were congenial for it in the past arise again!

We got three main points here:

i. The Quran talked to the people of its time and place whose interpretation based upon their mindset was apt for their own context. Today’s changed contexts and mindsets call for reinterpretations.

ii. Different interpretations by different mindsets for different contexts and situations on the ground, are all valid, none more correct than the others, but one could be more relevant, contextually more appropriate, and more useful/convenient than the others.

iii. And in any interpretation, what remains a constant core is the absolute-universal Islam, that is, the essential ‘pillars’ of belief and acts of worship, the principles, and objectives like justice and equity that must be sought with whatever detailed laws (fiqh, which forms the contextual-local Islam) that are appropriate for different times and places!