AN ATTEMPT AT AN ALL-ENCOMPASSING METHODOLOGY

The different dimensions of schools of thought make it possible to use them as methods for understanding religion, while also bringing their loss of an all-encompassing character to the fore. Schools of thought offer ways to establish a genuine relationship with religion through particular methods. And this makes them important and necessary. But an All-Encompassing Methodology must qualify as usul al-din—the foundations of religion. Its method must transcend schools of thought while allowing room for schools of thought and differences within its own workings. This basic approach also clearly establishes what such a methodology would entail.

The fundamental methodology of religion must, in essence, embrace religion’s all-encompassing character and develop a perspective and approach accordingly. The question of the foundations of religion has been discussed in the past as well. Indeed, despite their many differences over principles, certain principles have been highlighted as common to the schools of thought. To make the matter clearer, let us proceed by calling this an all-encompassing methodology: it is essential that such a methodology be presented as something capable of encompassing all Muslims. It should be understood that, as it took shape, this methodology emerged as an approach encompassing the periods of the earliest Companions and their Successors as well. There has always been common ground in approaches to verses, hadiths, events and phenomena, and on such matters as the example set by prophethood. This has been so despite these differences. What matters here is that, when a view is put forward, there is agreement that it is based on a transmitted report and that this report has been understood correctly.

An all-encompassing methodology has two fundamental bases. The first is that it is based on a ‘transmitted report’. The second is that both the report and its meaning are certain; that is, they command a shared consensus. The report stands apart as something beyond the human dimension. The certainty of the report rests on common agreement. In other words, what matters is that there is clearly no objection to it. This report also conveys a meaning. It must also be established that this is a single shared meaning rather than a plurality of meanings: an agreed meaning that admits no alternative sense. Islam must embody these two fundamental methodological principles. Just as Islam is built on these two foundations, it also accommodates an internal plurality as a basic feature of its approach. This is like the existence of commands, prohibitions and the sphere of the permissible: every believer is obliged to do what is commanded, and there will likewise be no disagreement over prayer and its five daily prayer times, or over the other fundamental obligations. But within the permissible sphere, individuals remain free to choose whether to do more or less, depending on the nature of their relationship with their Lord. This stands out as an approach that can apply in every sphere.

For example, with voluntary prayers,  anyone who wishes may undertake to pray as much as they choose. But this is not an obligation; rather, it rests on a personal choice made to attain divine approval and draw closer to one’s Lord. Thus, not everyone is accountable for this, but everyone links making some effort in this sphere, however much or little, with piety, and holds that it should be voluntary rather than compelled. Giving charity, for example, has been established as a fundamental precept. It forms the basis of mutual assistance.  Giving, whether much or little, is a basic principle. Yet zakat has been made obligatory, while charity has been presented as voluntary. Even a smile, however, is defined as charity. Thus, sharing whatever one possesses with someone else is said to suffice as charity. The fundamental principle here is to give from what one has. Whether one gives much or little is a matter of personal choice.

At this point, a new methodological rule emerges. In fulfilling personal worship and responsibilities, a Muslim is especially scrupulous about obligatory duties and regards them as things that must never be abandoned. But in the permissible sphere, where one seeks to strengthen one’s piety, shoulder one’s responsibility and attain divine approval, taking on new obligations is voluntary. And no believer should be censured in this regard. The same is true of many matters of Islamic jurisprudence. While all believers are obliged to abide by the fundamental principles, when it comes to their personal development, they may be left to make their own choices.

There are also similarities between these personal choices and collective choices. With one difference: on matters concerning society, different views and approaches are possible. There is no objection to this. But when a choice must be made, the majority’s decision is considered essential. As explained above, this is an important principle because it binds everyone. In other words, there may be different views on a matter. Yet what is agreed upon becomes a binding ruling. While personal preferences are retained, everyone must adapt to the new situation. This also reveals the importance of consultation and its methodological value. In other words, while personal choices bind the individual, in a collective choice, where no religious command or prohibition is involved, the shared view—the perspective agreed upon—should be preferred, and personal preference should take a back seat.

From this methodological perspective, differences in personal development should be left to personal choice within the bounds of responsibility and should never be censured. In the social sphere, however, this methodology requires that collective decisions be treated as binding. Thus, the binding authority of the majority, which turns a decision into a collective decision, also becomes clear.

At this point, it is worth making a subtle distinction. First, the perspective, methodology and practice founded on revelation must be based on transmitted reports. Here, personal approaches and human interpretation will carry no weight. A report will be considered only alongside another report and on the basis of a report concerning it. But wherever human experience comes into play, in events and phenomena outside the scope of commands and prohibitions, a person’s actions in the permissible sphere relating to personal piety bind that person alone; on the social level, shared consultation and acceptance take precedence. It is also worth pointing out the deep divide between religion and interpretation here. A report is not interpreted; an effort is made to understand it. And the conditions for understanding it differ epistemically from the conditions for interpretation. It must be recognized that, without understanding this fundamental reality, it will be difficult to properly understand the Islamic process of acquiring knowledge. Indeed, such errors are becoming increasingly common in the modern period, and religion is being reduced to a human experience, causing it to lose its essential identity.

Let us consider this through a ruling: the punishment for intentional killing is death. There can be no contradiction on this point! But for causing someone’s death unintentionally, revelation indicates three options: forgiving, exacting compensation and demanding the offender’s death… Leaving the choice among these three options to the deceased’s family is important for understanding the matter correctly and revealing the reason for its plural character. This is why certainty of authenticity and certainty of meaning are fundamental, indispensable requirements for a definitive ruling. Neither principles that meet these conditions nor the method of verification can dispense with these two fundamental principles!

Ensuring that this basic approach is also considered in the fields of Qur’anic exegesis and hadith is indispensable to grasping and putting into practice the balance between certainty and plurality. If a hadith derives from the Prophet and the report can be traced back to him through intermediaries, that is one matter. This matters for establishing the report’s existence. But the subject addressed by the report, and whether that subject concerns commands and prohibitions or a matter of manners and upbringing, will allow for other assessments. It is essential, however, to do this without losing sight of the fundamental methodology outlined above.

An essential identity reveals itself through methodology. A methodology, in turn, makes it possible for what is essential to take shape by explaining it. We must therefore ensure, above all, that methodology has an all-encompassing character and corresponds to what is indispensable for unity and wholeness.

It is not right to put a social problem and an individual problem on the same footing! Nor should something made obligatory or forbidden be treated as equivalent to something in the permissible sphere that involves personal choice and responsibility…

Every methodology that takes this fundamental reality into account will feel a responsibility to advance an all-encompassing approach.

Abdülaziz Tantik

Mirat Haber – YouTube