نحمده ونصلى ونسلم على رسوله الكريم
The following
are several spheres that wield living religious leadership and authority among
the Muslims;
1.
State-controlled institutions like al-Azhar University
2.
Independent institutions and schools of Ulema such as Deoband
3.
Intellectuals and Western-educated professionals (Tariq Ramadan)
4. Televangelists
and popular preachers on social media (Dr. Zakir Naik, Amr Khaled)
5.
Sectarian Ulema (Twelver Shi’ite clergy based in Najaf and Qom; the Salafi scholarly
community based in Medina)
6. Sufi
mashayikh and spiritual guides
7. Organized
groups particularly political ones (Muslim Brotherhood; the various Jama’aat)
I believe
that, for the most part, all of these various spheres which have assumed the
religious leadership and authority in the Muslim world are essentially corrupt
or at the very least problematic, some more than others. The substance of the
Islamic doctrine of ‘Finality of Prophethood’ is, in the words of ‘Allama’
Iqbal: “No spiritual surrender to any human being after Muhammad.”
The Prophet
Muhammad ﷺ was the final person sent as being
deputized and authorized by God to speak on His behalf. While ‘prophet-like’
figures may come after him, such as the Messiah, Mahdi, Mujaddids, etc., none
of them possess the authority to overrule the delegated divine authority of
Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, but are in fact subject to it, and their function is only to
reaffirm that divine authority. Therefore, when I speak of the contemporary
spheres of leadership and authority, I mean authority in the sense of
interpreting the teachings of Islam. Some sects are bordering on rebellion
against this fundamental doctrine of Finality of Prophethood, such as the
Twelver Shi’a and certain extreme Sufis, who have relegated their Imams and
Shaikhs to a position rivaling that of the Last and Final Prophet ﷺ.
But the
question of who should wield the position of greatest influence, living
religious leadership of the community and authority to interpret and impart the
teachings of Islam is a very critical one. At the most basic level, the Sunni
tradition holds that the line of rightly-guided Caliphs who succeeded the Prophet
ﷺ after his death only wielded
administrative and political authority, that is, in the realm of the executive
and the judiciary in terms of running the affairs of the Muslim community. The
Caliphs do not possess any religious authority to speak on behalf of Allah Most
High, nor is their interpretation and understanding of the Religion necessarily
authoritative in the sense of being the final word or unquestionable. The
Salafi trend, however, emphasizes the collective authority of the Salaf,
particularly the Prophet’s Companions (Allah be pleased with them) in terms of
understanding and interpreting the teachings of Islam. In modern times, the
Salafi trend tends to emphasize the authority of the Ulema of their sect, again
collectively and not individually, in interpreting the teachings of Islam. Academic
based quietist Salafism is therefore very much attached to a group of Ulema who
are based in the Arab Middle East (Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Gulf countries, Jordan
and Yemen in particular).
The Imamiya
Shi’a, as pointed to earlier, regard their 12 Imams as infallible guides and
authorized to speak on behalf of Allah like Prophets, and have the final word
to interpret the teachings of Islam based on their delegated divine authority. But
what about the question of legislative authority? The standard Islamic belief
is that the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ was the final person to be delegated with authority
to legislate and formulate the laws until Judgment Day. Hence, his Shari’a is
final and perfect, not a jot of it can be abrogated or amended. But the Imamiya
Shi’a have not plainly denied that their Imams have authority to legislate in
the Religion. They in fact affirm that the Imams are delegated with both
Takwini and Tashri’i (legislative) authority. Orthodox Islam, however, teaches
that only the Angels are delegated with Takwini power and only Prophets can be
delegated with Tashri’i (legislative) authority in the Religion.
Some extreme
Sufis hold that their Shaikhs and Awliya possess Takwini and Tashri’i
authority, though in the latter (Tashri’i) if they do not assent to that
doctrine formally, at least practically based on their unquestionable blind
obedience to their Shaikh or Murshid. Similarly, those Muqallideen who take
their Taqlid to the extreme of obeying the Mujtahid and the Madhhab in a matter
that plainly and unquestionably contravenes the Nass of the Quraan and Sunna.
Take the
example of a heretical “Sufi” who does not hold that Salat is obligatory upon
him anymore because supposedly he has reached a position of enlightenment that
he is no longer bound by the Shari’a, or the modernist Sudanese thinker Mahmoud
Taha who declared that all of the injunctions of the Medinese Verses of the
Holy Qur’an were no longer applicable in this age. Such an approach to Islam is
undoubtedly a repudiation of the substance contained within the idea of
Finality of Prophethood, which Iqbal defined as: “No spiritual surrender to any
human being after Muhammad.”
The Sunna
and Hadith-rejecting groups such as the so-called ‘Ahl-al-Quraan’ or ‘Quraaniyyun’,
in theory hold that the Revelation to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is final and authoritative, and there can
be no other delegated legislative authority in the Religion after it, but their
problem is that they dispute with the Muslim mainstream as to what constitutes
the divine Revelation in the first place, as they reject the Sunna and Hadith
as sources of divine inspiration and therefore a source of divine legislation
from Allah through the agency of His final Prophet ﷺ.
In
practical terms, many States in the Muslim world have also contravened the
essence of Finality of Prophethood by legislating laws that are plainly
contrary to the Shari’a of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, for example by declaring Khamr (hard drink and
intoxicants) as Halal when it is in fact Haram, or by forbidding something
Allah has made Halal, such as polygamy, etc. If the Constitution of such States
proclaims that it is secular, that sovereignty rests with the people (and not
Allah), or that Religion has no place in the affairs of the State, then
understand that such a State has formally rejected the core Islamic doctrine of
Finality of Prophethood: “No spiritual surrender to any human being after
Muhammad”.
Coming back
to those spheres of influence and living religious leadership which do not
ascribe to themselves delegated legislative authority in the Religion, their
corruption or shortcomings are in other matters. Much of the contemporary Ulema
can be said to be afflicted with the tendency of making Religion a means of
profit and personal earning. It is not necessarily due to personal and
character flaws in the Ulema as individuals but rather an institutional
shortcoming. Likewise, spiritual guides and leaders, such as many Sufi
mashayikh, are making their religious activities and personality cults they
have constructed around themselves, as well as their control over shrines as a
means of profit and earning. This is the corruption of the traditional
religious leadership in the contemporary Muslim world. In countries where the
Ulema are employees of the State, the situation is arguably worse as their
sincerity and objectivity is easily compromised. This is especially true of
al-Azhar University, about which it is erroneously but often stated that it is
the highest authority in the Sunni world. State-controlled Ulema issue Fatawa
and teach an approach to Islam which is favorable to the interests of the State
or the ruling class, without regard to whether such Fatawa are in accordance
with the teachings of Islam.
As for the
organized groups (Jama’aat) such as the Muslim Brotherhood and its affiliates,
a fundamental flaw with such groups is that leadership within that group is
often times not based on level of piety or knowledge, but rather by amount of
service to the cause of the group, especially financial service. So for example,
if an extremely pious and knowledgable Muslim decided to join the organization
one day, he would not be given a position of leadership over someone who is not
known for piety and is ignorant, but who has a long history of service and
involvement in the organization. In such groups, piety becomes defined more by
service and involvement in the group. Of course, service is an act of piety in
it of itself, but the mentality results in a kind of factionalism or Hizbiya,
where the cause of the group becomes synonymous with the cause of Islam
absolutely, leading to a very narrow practice of Islam at best (provided the
cause of the group is Islamic in the first place). Registered members of the
group have favorable treatment compared to those Muslims who are outside the
group. Like the corruption of the Ulema and contemporary spiritual leaders, the
salaried leadership of such groups are often times getting their bread and
butter from their position, hence here too Religion becomes a means for profit
and earning. Another problem with these Jamaa’at is they tend to gain control
over the Mosque, and once they do so, actively seek to stifle out or not
tolerate other voices, especially those which are critical of them. All manner
of religious activity, so long as basic Islamic guidelines are observed within
the reasonable confines and worshipers are not disturbed, has to be allowed in
the Mosque and no administration or group has the right to prevent that. For
example, if some Muslims, independent of the administration or group which is
maintaining the Mosque, decide to have a study circle in the Mosque, they
cannot be prevented from their religious activities by anyone.
وَإِنِّي خِفْتُ الْمَوَالِيَ مِن وَرَائِي وَكَانَتِ امْرَأَتِي عَاقِرًا فَهَبْ لِي مِن لَّدُنكَ وَلِيًّا يَرِثُنِي وَيَرِثُ مِنْ آلِ يَعْقُوبَ ۖ وَاجْعَلْهُ رَبِّ رَضِيًّا
And indeed, I fear the successors after me, and my wife has been barren, so give me from Yourself an heir, who will inherit me and inherit from the family of Jacob. And make him, my Lord, pleasing."
(Sura 19: 5-6)
In his explanation of this passage, Ibn Kathir writes in his Tafsir: “The reason for his fear was that he was afraid that the generation that would succeed him would be a wicked generation. Thus, he asked Allah for a son who would be a Prophet after him, who would guide them with his prophethood and that which was revealed to him. In response to this I would like to point out that he was not afraid of them inheriting his wealth. For a Prophet is too great in status, and too lofty in esteem to become remorseful over his wealth in this fashion. A Prophet would not disdain to leave his wealth to his successive relatives, and thus ask to have a son who would receive his inheritance instead of them. This is one angle of argument. The second argument is that Allah did not mention that he (Zakariyya) was wealthy. On the contrary, he was a carpenter who ate from the earnings of his own hand. This type of person usually does not have a mass of wealth. Amassing wealth is not something normal for Prophets, for verily, they are the most abstentious in matters of this worldly life.”
In other words, the Prophet and Priest of the Aaronide order, Zechariah (peace be upon him) supplicated to Allah to grant him a successor for the religious leadership of the community. He knew that the other contemporary religious leaders were corrupt and that anyone from among them who would inherit authority after him could potentially misguide the community. This is why, as the exegetes explain, Zechariah prayed that Allah raise up another Prophet after him to lead the community. Now a Prophet is not necessarily someone who is delegated with legislative authority in the Religion. In fact, most Prophets were not bringers of a divine Law, but instead acted upon the Shari’a of a previous Prophet. Most of the Israelite Prophets, for example, either followed the Laws of Abraham, or after Moses, the Mosaic Law, despite the fact that there were thousands of such Prophets. Neither Zechariah, nor the Prophet he had in mind as succeeding him, would be a prophet delegated with legislative authority, but would nevertheless guide the community upon the truth and be an example of legitimate and pure living religious leadership.
Therefore, for the contemporary Umma, it needs to pray for and seek out a “Prophet-like” figure who is in communion with Allah, i.e., a Saahib-al-Ilhaam and if such a leader emerges, by the Grace of Allah, the Umma should recognize him and look to him for contemporary leadership and guidance, even if he is opposed by the powerful spheres of influence on the religious scene such as the Ulema, the States, the political Jama’aat, or Western-educated “intellectuals”.
