Politics, Anti-rationalism and Authoritarianism in Islam

Islam is an Abrahamic faith, a teaching of reconciliation. But this is not reflected in the perceptions of militant preachers or hawkish rulers. Neither is the perception that Islam is a teaching of reconciliation reflected in the umma's encounters, past and present, with non-Muslims. Power-hungry rulers endeavored to enlarge the empire through wars of aggression, prohibited by revelation. To bypass the prohibition of aggression in revelation, hawkish rulers tasked engaged hawkish ulama with furnishing a justification for waging wars of aggression. Misguided by politicized renditions of revelation, Muslims embarked upon a warpath. Muslims became embroiled in wars with non-Muslims, in the clash between the dar al-Islam and the dar al-harb, an early version of the "clash of civilizations" thesis. The justification of wars of aggression required a reinterpretation of Islam as a religion of war. The reinterpretation required a weaponization of exegesis and jurisprudence. Weaponization transpired by turning to hawkish traditions and the teaching of abrogation. This was assisted by recourse to practices and perceptions against the teaching of revelation. These encompass treating tradition as "revelation from God" and treating tradition as a "judge" of revelation. They also encompass recourse to the teaching of abrogation, and treating wars of aggression as a "sixth pillar of Islam." Recourse to problematic perceptions, not in line with the teaching of revelation, in turn required the repression of reason. For which person in his or her right mind would endorse the perception that traditions, paraphrased reports attributed to the prophet in defiance of his prohibition of recording his traditions, are "revelations from God"? As a result of the reluctance to engage reason, parts of revelation began to strike exegetes as "unclear," "insufficiently detailed" and "contradictory." Accordingly, exegetes asserted that parts of the Book of Allah are "unclear," "insufficiently detailed," and "contradictory." The allegedly "unclear" and "insufficiently detailed" verses would be "clarified" and "completed" by recourse to tradition. The alleged "contradictions" in revelation would be redressed by recourse to the teaching of abrogation. But the Book of Allah presents itself as "clear," "fully detailed," and "free of contradictions." In different words, the reinterpretation of revelation as a teaching of war required a corruption of the knowledge of revelation. For rejecting any verse in the Book of Allah is tantamount to kufr. Accordingly, the practice of clarifying revelation by recourse to tradition, and the reconciliation of allegedly contradictory verses by recourse to the teaching of abrogation are based on kufr and therefore cannot be reliable. Recourse to the teaching of abrogation of parts of the Book of Allah "changed" its message. Recourse to the teaching of abrogation enabled reinventing Islam as Islamism. The reinterpretation of revelation required the repression of reason. Reason was subordinated to tradition and the use of reason in religion was treated as a form of kufr. The repression of reason also transpired in politics, in the form of the persecution of the rationalists and the shutting of the gates to ijtihad. The repression of reasoning engendered "a tradition of intellectual retardation." The repression of reason proved detrimental. It prevented Muslims from understanding revelation. By being prevented from understanding revelation, the umma was also prevented from following revelation. The repression of reason detached the umma from its religion. In reinterpreting revelation as a teaching of war, the ulama transgressed the bounds. For "Allah does not love aggressors." In rendering halal what Allah prohibited, they permitted exegesis and jurisprudence to descend to rank of propaganda. They became mercenary. Traditional scholarship could no longer be relied upon to provide a faithful rendition of the teaching of revelation.