Additional information
by Leslie Terebessy (Author)
There are arguments whether Islam is a "religion of peace." After all, Islam also means peace. This paper argues that Islam properly understood is indeed a religion of peace. The problem is that the knowledge of Islam was warped by problematic, tribal exegesis. As a result, what began as a religion of peace, turned into a religion of war. This was a result of a series of connected events. The transformation began with anti-rationalism. Anti-rationalism among Muslims arose from the disputes between the traditionists and the rationalists about the right way to "understand" revelation. Traditionists "argued" that tradition the knowledge of revelation should be accessed through tradition. Due to their proximity to the prophet, the friends of the prophet possessed the "best" knowledge of revelation. Hence their perceptions should be followed. The traditionists asserted that tradition "explains" revelation better than reason. By comparison, rationalists asserted that revelation is understood better through reason than tradition. Traditionists faulted reason for misleading the faithful. They equated the use of reason with kufr and following "capricious opinion." They had a predisposition for imitation. Rationalists, by contrast, had a predisposition for reflection. Anti-rationalism was encouraged by feudal regimes as it made the masses tolerant of the misdeeds of ruling elites. Traditional Muslims were encouraged to embraced anti-rationalism in the expectation that it would "save Islam" from alleged threats presented by rationalism. This was a less than reasonable expectation, as revelation exhorts us to use reason. To reject reason, therefore, is to reject a part of revelation. Unsurprisingly, the results of the rejection of reason were the reverse of what was expected. The rejection of reason brought the fall of Islam through a sequence of events. It began with the disparagement of reason. It ended with the fall of a civilization. With the endorsement of political elites, philosophers were condemned as heretics and persecuted. Reason became a fugitive. It had to leave the precincts of tradition and exist "off the grid," go "underground" on the edge of civilization. Anti-rationalism "saved" tradition as well as its advocates, but it did not "save" Islam. In fact, it produced a range of harmful effects. The first effect of anti-rationalism and the rejection of analysis was a deterioration of reasoning. The deterioration of reasoning produced a "crisis in the mind." The deterioration made it hard to understand revelation. Exegetes began to encounter "unclear" and "contradictory" verses in revelation. Reduced knowledge of revelation made it harder to follow revelation. We cannot follow what we do not understand. However, rather than relaxing the prohibition of the use of reason in understanding revelation, traditionists resorted to tradition to "explain" the "ambiguous" parts of revelation. But in light of verses 44, 45 and 47 of chapter 5, which prohibit judging by what Allah did not reveal, traditionists felt compelled to assert that tradition to was revelation, albeit of a different kind. They asserted that tradition was "internal revelation" (wahy batin), "supplementing" and "explaining" the "manifest revelation" (wahy zahir) of the Quran. The elevation of tradition to revelation proved to be a colossal faux pas, with dire consequences. In elevating tradition to revelation, the traditionists blurred the difference between tradition and revelation, and thereby paved the way for the fusion of tradition and revelation. The amalgamation of tradition and revelation was problematic. The elevation of tradition to revelation could be perceived as an attempt to "fabricate" revelation. Tradition was fused - and confused - with revelation. Tradition became a "surrogate" revelation. As a result of the fusion of revelation and tradition, the knowledge of revelation became diluted.
