All Islamic Ideology is Human Except Fundamental Facts
 

In a discourse which I conducted with some officials of the Islamic Educational Center, I found him making an objection the gist of which is as follows:

The truth is not anyone’s property. Nobody, not even a mujtahid, can claim that he owns the truth, the whole truth. Islam, with the exception of fundamental facts, is a collection of human viewpoints in the comprehension of the texts. All the Fiqh legacy is human, not divine.

Based on this statement, it does not make any sense to issue severe verdicts, as is the case in regard to this book, against those who hold different views, for the truth is not anyone’s property. He even says that the truth is relative! We did not wish to discuss such an objection had we not found out recently that the man has recorded the same more clearly in some of his books.

Having said “There is no doubt that the Qur’an is the Book of Allah, its diction remains subject to the interpretations of scholars and those specialized in exegesis,” he goes on to state the following:
 

“I believe, therefrom, that our legacy of Fiqh, hadath and philosophy is the product of the interpreters, philosophers and thinkers. It has resulted from their intellectual output. It does not represent the truth except in as much as we feel satisfied with its representation of the truth based on our criteria of what is true. As such, I consider all the Islamic ideology, with the exception of Islamic fundamental facts, as human, not divine. Humans may err in what they comprehend of the Speech of Allah or of His Messenger (A.S.), or they may hit the mark.

“Based on the above, I believe it is very important to look into the legacy that springs from the ijtihad of the thinkers, regardless of their point of focus, with an outlook that distances itself from the sanctity of their lives, qualifications, spiritual or practical lives among others on the level of religious authorities or pious men who fear Allah, Glory to Him and Exaltation. Such is one thing, while the issue of ideology is another. For this reason, I invite everyone to study such legacy critically, a legacy wherein we live our intellectual personality and openness which was lived by the ancient ones who implemented it in their intellectual experience.”^[1]

I say that such an objection, though obviously invalid, is considered as quite serious. It makes it the most weighty and sensitive of all objections. I would like here to state some criticisms, promising to deal with them in detail at another opportunity where elaboration on text and on meaning will be opportune; so, let me say the following:

1. If all of this is “human,” with the exception of a limited number of “fundamental facts” such as belief in the Unity of God, Prophethood, Resurrection, and issues relevant to the Islamic Shara`a that are taken for granted, like the obligatory prayers, fast, jihad, pilgrimage, zakat, enjoining what is right and forbidding what is wrong, prohibiting adultery, theft, wine drinking, gambling, slandering, homosexuality, backbiting, killing someone whose killing is prohibited, in addition to such issues which do not go beyond the cycle of very general issues, without going into their details, for such details are within the range of personal “human” interpretations; they are not divine, something which someone describes as “subject to change.”

If it is so, why then do we invite non-Muslims to accept Islam?! Do we invite them to accept the specifics of these fundamental facts in their cloudy and general labels which are quite a few? Or do we invite them to accept viewpoints of individuals who, like them, are only human?!
 

When it is said that we have to present Islam to others as a creed, an ideology and a system capable of solving all problems, the most exemplary model of conduct for all human beings, in all fields..., which Islam do we present? Should we present the specifics of such fundamental facts, or should we present the human ideology then say to them, “This human ideology is Islam which Allah Almighty revealed to His servants”?! Which ideology of these humans do we present to others?!

2. If what is meant by “fundamental” is what nobody discussed, this is wrong, for the existence of a discussion of an issue does not make such an issue a human ideology. Many may discuss the existence, or the non-existence, of God, and many Muslims may discuss the Prophethood of Muhammed (A.S.), but neither discussion makes it a human ideology. Many sects discuss the ideology of Imamate, but this does not make it a human ideology. Many discuss religious facts and legislative verdicts, but this does not mean that such facts or verdicts become a human ideology.

Take, for example, some people’s attempt to analyze a man looking at another man’s nudity, or a woman looking at another woman’s nudity^[2]. The prohibition of both cases is non-negotiable, yet some people’s permission thereof does not make this fixed verdict, that it is prohibited, a human ideology.

If what is meant by the “fundamental truth” is the issue whose validity is ascertained upon casting a look at it, it is quite obvious that the Islamic truth, though fundamentally true in its own merits, or it may not be so according to some people, can be obtained by signs, proofs and legislation. Deriving a fact from the evidence, or obtaining a consensus in its regard, after exerting some extensive effort, does not qualify it as a human ideology simply because it is not a fundamental issue. So is the case had it not been fundamentally true according to some people, as is the case with the said nudity. But some injunctions or issues may not have definite and final evidences. If they are missed by the indications and evidences, as applied by the Kashfis, then one does not come under any obligation before Allah, Praised and Exalted is He, if he violates the actual injunction. Yet acting upon the principles set by the Shara`a makes all results having an Islamic and a divine characteristic. And if the actual injunction is not validated, the soundness of obtaining an excuse from Allah Almighty through the implementation of means set forth by the Shara`a is a divine injunction, not a human one. My response to those who make such a claim is: Making fundamental facts as characteristic of being a divine ideology is invalid, if we agree on the term “divine ideology” at all.

When obligation becomes the effort to act upon what the Shara`a mandates, or following the basics in their own sources, this becomes a divine injunction that obligates the individual, and it is a divine ideology, as someone would like to term it, not a human one, because Allah is the One Who made it an obligation to act upon it, or to follow the origin of such sources.

The source is characterized by legitimacy, Islamic and divine characteristics due to its being among the sources determined divinely and Islamically for this case and for similar cases.

3. We deeply comprehend someone’s attempt to demonstrate Sha`ism as a human ideology when he says, “Le the Sunni and Sha`i issue be one of two Schools in understanding Islam”^[3] and that Sha`ism is merely a viewpoint when he says, “The issue under discussion may be that Sha`ism is a viewpoint in the line of Islam, a case isolated from the general reality of the Muslims.”^[4]

Then he regards Imamate as “A variable that moves within the world of texts which are subject to ijtihad for their verification and implication, something which was not declared on the level which allows no room for a difference of opinion, nor was it confirmed to the degree that leaves no doubt therein. Such is the condition of debate in which the Muslims were involved, such as debating caliphate and Imamate, what is good and what is bad, and what is rational.”^[5]

This statement implies that there is no text mandating Imamate, that Imamate, even Sha`ism altogether, is a human ideology brought forth by the Imams (A.S.) like any other human ideology brought forth by others, rather than a divine ideology, because Imamate is not, according to some Muslims, a fundamental fact since the time when the Messenger of Allah (A.S.) passed away, as someone claims. It is, then, a human ideology subject to ijtihad and is not divine, as someone claims; had it been divine, the deniers would have been excommunicated from Islam altogether, something which he does not uphold.
 

Does the existence of someone’s doubt regarding a fundamental fact turns what is fundamental into a mere viewpoint, changing it into a human ideology, then sorting it among what is “variable,” such as Imamate?!

4. What is fundamentally true does not need the mandating of Fiqh, Itjihad, Taqlad, or Ihtiyat on people. As regarding what is termed as “a human ideology,” it, too, carries no meaning because it is not mandated and there is no need for it...

5. If someone admits what is Islamically fundamental as being true, then he wishes to follow others in as far as human laws are concerned, or he himself likes to adopt a human, non-divine, viewpoint, then why should he be labelled as having brought about a bid`a? And why should his books be considered misleading so he faces the harsh judgment meted to those who make innovations in the creed and getting his books to be banned because they mislead others? What is the criterion whereby a human ideology becomes at some time acceptable or at others not?

One may say that the existence of things that are not fundamentally true, on the whole, is regarded as fundamentally true, so it, too, is divine. Or one may say that the means of producing the human ideology that are acceptable in such a case are not acceptable to human laws. This may produce the following response: How can a divine ideology, according to their terminology, become human, and how can the human ideology be treated as divine for that sake? In both cases, it is not divine.

6. Let us suppose that the people refuse to uphold what is called a human ideology; should they be sensitive or enthusiastic about that ideology so they are motivated to enjoin what is right and forbid what is wrong, to wage a holy war, to make sacrifices of their lives and of the lives of their offspring as well as of their wealth for its sake? How can we convince them of sacrificing their lives and those of their children?! Would they do so for the sake of a human ideology?! Have all the efforts and sacrifices of the Prophets, elite pious men and martyrs ever been for the sake of firming the foundations of human viewpoints which vary and which contradict with each other?!