Islam's Reformers by Huseyin Hilmi Isik - HTML preview

PLEASE NOTE: This is an HTML preview only and some elements such as links or page numbers may be incorrect.
Download the book in PDF, ePub, Kindle for a complete version.

In religions, in social systems, shortly, in all the divine and social rules, there is one common thing; fear. Islam can be put in such a manner as to accomplish the social advantages and prohibit the social evils. If the scholars of fiqh had had this point of view, the most beautiful laws would be Islam today. But by associating all the affairs with the tortures in Hell and the blessings in Paradise, the scholars of fiqh deprived Islam of a social order. Instead of observing and understanding the greatness of Allah and the delicacies in nature and thus loving Allah, Muslims fear His Hell and fear that He may make them fall into the hands of the cruel. The children fear their fathers and women their husbands. This fear in Muslims fastens the arrangement of social life with a chain of fire. The society of those who have come together with a heartfelt happiness being attached to one another through reason, intelligence and mutual love is certainly better, more sincere and more lasting than a made-up, false and temporary society bound by the power of fear. Men should love their Allah, their Prophet, their religion, their government, themselves, their families and nation not out of fear, but because they are Allah, the Prophet, the religion, the government, the families and the nation.”

The reformer observes the fear of Allâhu ta’âlâ and fear of government and of parents from one single point of view and attempts to make religious, political and social reforms with a scratch of the pen. Islam, too, rejects the societies based on dictatorship and cruelty. The hadîths, “The most beautiful of alms is the true word uttered in the presence of the cruel men of administration,” and, “If my umma fall into such a state as to abstain from saying, “You are cruel,” to the cruel, Allâhu ta’âlâ does not help them,” indicate this. Then, it is an obvious injustice to impute the social diseases caused by cruel governments to Islam. Islamic religion has always rejected the fear arising from false and temporary forces of the cruel. The reformer mixes the various reasons of fear with one another. The reason for the fear of Allâhu ta’âlâ is quite unlike these false and temporary forces, nor does the chain fastened to it ever break. As the force increases it unites with right. It is for this reason that the result of combats and revolutions furnishes a right for only the winning side. If there is a mediator country stronger than the two warring countries, that can limit the right of the winner. It is seen that force can be limited and deprived from right, too, even if it is more. Allâhu ta’âlâ’s power, above which there is no power and which is the source of all powers, is also the source of right and truth. It is for this reason that it is as sublime and spiritual to fear and shiver from Allâhu ta’âlâ’s power as it is to love Him.

In this world, it is regarded a humiliation to fear the great, though loving and respecting them is not considered as something damaging one’s honour and esteem. In contrast, those who are exalted in Islam deem it the greatest honour to humiliate themselves before Allâhu ta’âlâ. This very difference is the subtle point which make fear valuable. As man becomes mature and spiritual, he will still be interested in material needs and material dangers since he cannot escape being material. Therefore, the attachment through fear is the strongest and most valuable. The reformer says that this is not strong, for he sees that the person who attaches himself to Allâhu ta’âlâ through fear changes whenever he finds an opportunity. However, not even for a moment can man find an opportunity against Allâhu ta’âlâ, who sees and knows all his secret and public behaviour and who is never mistaken. The hadîth, “What a good human being Suhaib ar-Rûmî is. He wouldn’t commit any sin even if he didn’t fear Allâhu ta’âlâ,” provides for unity and indicates that fear is a strong means. Reformers suppose that the fear of Allâhu ta’âlâ and love of Allâhu ta’âlâ are different, and they like the latter and are against the former only because they are foreign to the religious knowledge and sources of Islamic religion.

Men are advised to fear Allâhu ta’âlâ in the âyats, “Those who have much knowledge fear Allâhu ta’âlâ much” (sûrat al-Fâtir, 28); “There are two heavens for the person who fears the greatness of his Allâhu ta’âlâ” (sûrat ar-Rahmân, 46);“They alone are the believers whose hearts feel fear when Allâhu ta’âlâ is mentioned,” (sûrat al-Anfâl, 2; sûrat al-Hajj, 35) and “Those who obey Allâhu ta’âlâ and His Prophet and those who fear Allâhu ta’âlâ and who are cautious of Him are the ones that will be saved on the Day of Judgement.” (sûrat an-Nûr, 52) It is easy to understand now why the reformers who know nothing about these âyats do not have any right to attempt to reform Islam or to criticize the religious scholars who have placed the fear of Allâhu ta’âlâ into Muslims’s hearts. If it were bad to place the fear of Allâhu ta’âlâ in Muslims, it would be necessary (Allah forbid!) to criticize the Qur’ân on account of this. Almost every page of the Qur’ân invites Muslims to the fear of Allâhu ta’âlâ with the command, “O ye who believe! Fear Allâhu ta’âlâ!” It is declared in the thirteenth âyat of the sûrat al-Hujurât, “To Allâhu ta’âlâ the most valuable of you is he who fears and is cautious of Him.” ‘Ittiqâ’ in these âyats means ‘to fear’. It originates from their imitating European Christians that reformers want to eradicate the fear of Allâhu ta’âlâ in Muslims and to replace it with the thought that Allâhu ta’âlâ is only benevolent, merciful and protective over His human creatures, as Christians believe. To love Allâhu ta’âlâ considering Him only as merciful, bountious and not to fear His wrath and punishments means to consider Him weak like a ruler who is unable to operate the law or like the parents who spoil their children by doing what they wish. Those who make progress in a path of tasawwuf, when they are suffused in His attribute of Jalâl (Severity), can not think of the Divine Mercy or of the love of Allâhu ta’âlâ, and when His attribute of Jamâl (Beauty) surrounds them, they forget about the torture in Hell and the fear of Allâhu ta’âlâ; in these states called ecstacy of tasawwuf, they utter words slighting love or fear, respectively, but when they recover, they repent for such words.

The âyats “Those who work should work for these very happinesses!” (sûrat as-Sâffât, 61) and “Those who compete one another should compete for this,”(sûrat al-Mutaffifîn, 26) order to work willingly for the blessings in Paradise.

Ahmed Mithat, a so-called modernist reformer, in his book Nizâ-i ’Ilm ve Dîn (The Disputes Between Knowledge and Religion), tries to flout the belief in the Rising Day, which is a fundamental of îmân, while he represents each of the blessings of Paradise such as food, drinks and houris as concepts pleasing one’s greed and materialistic desires. It is glaringly evident that the religion reformers, whose sole concern in this worldly life is to run after these pleasures, who castigate the Islamic scholars because they do not state that the religious practices also should be intended to attain these worldly pleasures, and who say that people should devote themselves to worship in order to attain these worldly pleasures, which, to them, are more attractive, more delicious and more effective than anything else, expostulate about the existence of these pleasures in Paradise for the purpose of maligning the Sharî’at. Such unpleasant allusions to Islamic scholars, who struggled to get Muslims absorbed in performing ’ibâdât in order that they might attain the blessings of Paradise and escape punishment in Hell, have been seen so often. For example, a Bektâshî said:

“Whenever a zâhid[8] mentions Paradise,

He talks about eating and drinking.”

Such words direct unplesant allusions to the eighteenth âyat of the sûrat al-Wâqi’a. Another group in denial of the blessings of Paradise and the punishments in Hell say that they are of no value when compared to love of Allâhu ta’âlâ. Yet the fact is that a person’s performing ’ibâdât for them does not indicate that he does not love Allâhu ta’âlâ. Those whom Allâhu ta’âlâ loves are in Paradise and Allâhu ta’âlâ is pleased with those who are in Paradise. Indeed, the greatest felicity is to attain His approval. But one cannot attain Allâhu ta’âlâ’s approval by ridiculing the blessings in Paradise which Allâhu ta’âlâ praises and tells Muslims to strive to attain. Because religion reformers want ’ibâdât not in order to escape the punishment and to win reward in the next world but for worldly order and comfort, it is understood that they do not think of Allâhu ta’âlâ’s approval.

Love of Allâhu ta’âlâ is the teaching which Islam considers as the most important. But saying that this love alone will suffice for worldly order and regarding the fear of Allâhu ta’âlâ insignificant and unnecessary, although it is the source of every sort of happiness, is a clear sign of knowing nothing about the Qur’ân al-kerîm and Hadîth ash-sherîf. Hadrat Muhammad (’alaihi ’s-salâm), the most exalted of men in every respect, said, “It is me who, among you, fears and stands in awe of Allâhu ta’âlâ most!” This hadîth and the preceding one about “Suhaib’ point out that the fear of Allâhu ta’âlâ is necessary. Fearing Allâhu ta’âlâ should not be supposed like fearing a cruel person! It is the fear combined with reverence and love. In poems which lovers wrote to their darlings there are many couplets telling about similar fear in them. A lover who regards his darling much higher than himself does not deem himself worthy of this love and explains his feelings in such a fear.

Fear of Allâhu ta’âlâ and love of Allâhu ta’âlâ are like two wings taking people to salvation and happiness. The Prophet (sall-Allâhu ’alaihi wa sallam) said, “If a person fears Allâhu ta’âlâ, everything fears him. If he does not fear Allâhu ta’âlâ, he fears everything,” and “The extent of one’s intellect will be evident in the extent of his fear of Allâhu ta’âlâ.” A person who fears Allâhu ta’âlâ tries strictly to carry out His commands and to abstain from His prohibitions. He does not harm anybody. He shows patience towards those who harm him. He repents for his faults. He is a man of his word. He does every goodness for Allâhu ta’âlâ’s sake. He does not cast malicious glances on the possession, life or chastity of anybody. He does not wrong anybody in trade. He does favours to everybody. He abstains from doubtful things (between harâm and halâl). He never flatters the occupiers of high posts or the cruel. He respects men of knowledge and good morals. He likes his friends and they like him. He gives advice to wrong-doers and does not follow them. He is compassionate towards those younger than him. He shows honour to his guests. He does not talk behind anybody’s back. He does not run after his pleasures. He does not say anything harmful and even useless. He never treats anybody harshly. He is generous. He wishes property and rank in order that he may do favours to everybody by means of it. He does not behave hypocritically. He is not arrogant. Thinking that Allâhu ta’âlâ sees and knows every moment, he never commits evil. He is firm to His commands and runs away from His prohibitions. In short, those who fear Allâhu ta’âlâ are useful to their country and countrymen.

35 - The reformer says:

Because the Ottoman state was based on the principles of the religion it started everything with madrasa education. In madrasas today, Arabic, sarf, nahw, logic, fiqh, badî’, bayân, ma’ânî are taught. They teach them in order to correctly understand the religious books which are in Arabic. They say that the gate of ijtihâd has been closed. The majority of those who got education in the madrasa have remained on the first steps of these branches of knowledge. Not [even] one out of a hundred hodjas knows how to read and write correctly. Many of the hodjas, whose lives elapse in the madrasa, cannot pass beyond reading and writing as if it were a sea without shores, and the meaning remains unknown to them like the poles. They are lazy, ignorant and fanatical. I wish their fanaticism were for something which they knew. They are fanatical in defending something which they do not know. And their purpose is to exploit Muslims and live comfortably. Though these hodjas are ideally and morally ignorant, they are in the disguise of religious scholars. There are real scholars among them. It is a debt for us to respect them. Today, there is nothing left of Islam in madrasas. Pulpits, made in order to teach the religion, decency and the Qur’ân, are used for nothing but deceiving Muslims.”

When the excessive reformer Baykiyev of Kazan, Russia, said these words, Islam, whatever was left of it on the earth, existed only in the madrasas which he disliked, and today in communist Russia, whose programs begin with the statement that it is necessary to eradicate religions, none of those madrasas and mosques, which offend the eyes of this excessive reformer, remains. Religion reformers should know also that religious hodjas who, to them, are reactionaries in every respect are also behind in robbing the people when compared with them. Since their lives elapse in contentment, they get little use from the people. On the other hand, they do not neglect rendering even small services to them. When no hodja was left behind within four years of the First World War to wash dead bodies in villages, it was understood that even the hodjas, who were regarded ignorant, were not unnecessary or useless. Later in the time of Sultan Vahîddedîn Khan, many of the subjects that are taught in today’s high schools were reinstated in the curricula of the madrasas in Istanbul, yet it was seen that no hodja was graduated as qualified as the earlier ones. We have told briefly in the preface about the reasons that caused the decay of these centers of knowledge which in the past had educated Molla Fenârî, Molla Husrev, Ebussu’ûd, Ibn Kemâl, Gelenbevî and many others. Freemasons had not only deprived the madrasas of knowledge and monetary funds but also spread the nickname ‘softas’ (bigots) for ‘students’. It is surprisingly fortunate that, despite such defeatism and neglect shown to them, madrasas have produced men of knowledge who could more or less rebut the enemies of religion, and this must be because of the faid and baraka (blessing) in the exaltedness of the profession of teaching Islam. Some madrasa graduate men of religious profession, being unable to endure the insults directed to them through official tongues, have had to throw themselves into other areas of business in order to protect their honour, while some others, taking no notice of the insults, have adhered to their religious and national customs and continued living in an endeavour against their nafs. It is obvious that those who graduated from the madrasas which had been brought into an undesired state and deprived of teaching knowledge and science could not be men of knowledge. For this decay, there was another more effective reason, which was unnoticed and therefore not mentioned by religion reformers: the hodjas who should have performed the duty of al-amru bi ’l-ma’rûf wa ’n-nahyu ’ani ’l-munkar more than others kept silent against and even followed the cruel who put the madrasas into such a state, even sometimes helping the degenerate who introduced irreligiousness into this country and eradicated the religion. Although the fingers distinguishing right from wrong with unmistakable attention and unshaken conviction should belong to religious hands and there should be men of religion ahead of fighters for Islam opposing to injustice, the recent state of men of religion has been more tragic. Men of religion, who, while teaching that the intended couple had to be of the same social class, held the madrasa student and the Sultan’s daughter in the same category and regarded helpers of the cruel baser than everybody, have been replaced by those who are much baser in piousness than they are in knowledge today.

In the following, the news reported in the daily Vakt dated June 20, 1928, is given:

The professors of the Faculty of Theology in Istanbul have announced the program of the improvements that will be done in our religion suitably with the modern life and progress. This announcement is signed by Köprülü Fuâd, Ismâil Hakkı of İzmir, Sherâfeddin Yaltkaya, Mehmed Alî Aynî and their friends and says: “Like other institutions, the religion also should follow the current of life. The religion cannot remain dependent upon its old forms. In the Turkish democracy, the religion also has to undergo its development. Our mosques should be made inhabitable; desks and coat-racks should be put in them, one should be allowed to go in them with shoes. Language of worshipping should be Turkish, and the Qur’ân and the khutba should be read in Turkish. Musical instruments should be placed in mosques. The khutba should be delivered not by imâms but by religious philosophers. The Qur’ân should be studied not with the view-point of kalâm or tasawwuf but of philosophy. We request that this program, which concerns the ultimate policy of Turkey and will have a creative effect on all Muslim countries, be accepted.”

36 - The reformer says:

Children, after learning religious knowledge and believing in many things at home, study mathematics, biology and scientific subjects when they go to school. The things in which they have believed before without seeing and the knowledge which they learn by seeing and thinking about in high school conflict with each other in the children’s brains. The belief and morals which they have learned before deteriorate. And they cannot establish a new belief or morals with their fresh information. I have not seen a youngster who has formed a new belief and morals firm and based on knowledge.”

The religion reformer means that the youngsters who have graduated from high schools have neither religious knowledge or religious morals nor morals that is independent of the religion and based on sheer thought and mental knowledge. The lessons taught in the high school, science, biology and astronomy do not harm or annihilate the îmân attained at home; on the contrary, they consolidate it. Islam commands learning the latest scientific knowledge with the intention of making îmân conscientious and firm, living comfortably and being ready to stand against disbelievers’ attacks.

37 - The reformer says:

The child believes that the skies are made of layers of ceilings; the student believes that it is an endless space and that the earth stands on the horns of a water-buffalo. When they learn that the earth is not plain but it rotates in space and how our globe has formed, the geologic lessons, how life began, light and electricity; their îmân deteriorates. Those who prepared the curricula in high schools could not think of uniting experimental knowledge, that is, scientific knowledge, with religious knowledge. Astronomy tells the greatness of Allah better than religious books do. Could science and biology be thought of as different from the religion? As religious feelings in school children slacken, morals, customs and national bonds gradually melt. This situation facilitates the establishment of new morals and belief; yet, since there is not a leader to establish them, it easily makes them immoral or easy preys for any malignant influence. Let us compare incomplete knowledge of a student with the religious and moral knowledge and belief of an uneducated person. The student’s thought progresses very slowly and his valuable bonds have melted. As for the uneducated person, he is ignorant but his religious bonds are rather strong. He is willing to die for them.

If, instead of melted religious bonds, an education based on knowledge and an idea of patriotism are established in the youth, the youth can live on. But they cannot achieve this. In a confused mood, they recoil from the morals and customs of their country. They admire Europeans but they cannot get their morals, either. What they learn from Europeans is confined within the arid zone of imitation.”

At this point, the religion reformer seems to have perceived the facts and to be rather reasonable. However, if due attention is paid, he implies that the lessons taught in high schools harm îmân and morals. This is quite wrong. Knowledge, whether it is much or little, is not harmful, but it is useful. The harmful thing is to place ignorance and evils into the heads in the name of knowledge, and to appoint ignorant, immoral people to be teachers. It is not knowledge and science but irreligious, ignorant teachers who harm the religious knowledge and beautiful morals the youngsters have acquired from their mother homes. Such an inefficient, irreligious teacher puts his own irreligious, immoral ideas, lies and slanders secretly amid the scientific facts he teaches. The callow brains cannot distinguish these lies from science and are deceived by believing them as truth. The pure children who fall into the traps of the enemies of faith and chastity are made to read the papers, magazines and novels of the enemies of Islam, which in turn undermine their morals and îmân. This is the method whereby the younger generations are misled out of their faith in communist countries.

It is understood from his writing that this reformer, too, had received pure family education in his family home and later fell into the talons of a vicious teacher hostile to Islam and was poisoned and deceived. When he heard that the skies were made of layers of ceilings, he himself might have supposed that they were storied like an apartment house. He imputes his own misunderstanding to Islam, thus attacks Islam through this way, too. However, Islam teaches that the space which they consider endless and which is full of millions of stars each of which is a sun is only the first sky. This first sky, which they suppose to be endless, is only a drop of ocean beside the second sky. And each of the seven skies is as much bigger than the one it surrounds. Scientists, let alone being opposed to this teaching of Islam, admire it. The poor reformer once took it that the earth was on the horns of an ox the like of which he had seen in the shed. If he knew about the group of stars arranged in the shape of an ox as defined in the entry ‘thawr’ in Qâmûs, he would not write ill of Allâhu ta’âlâ’s Messenger (’alaihi ’s-salâm) in such a manner now. It is estimated today that when this hadîth sherîf was uttered this constellation was on the extension of a straight line that is imagined to be extending from the sun to the globe. Our Prophet (’alaihi ’s-salâm) held out his blessed sword and said, “My Allâhu ta’âlâ created my sustenance on the point of my sword.” He meant that he fought against unbelievers to make his living on what his share of the booty was. A villager who was listening to him asked, “Where is my world?” He said, “Your world is on the horns of the ox.” He meant, “You plough your land with your ox and earn your sustenance.” The Arabic word ‘dunyâ’ (world) is a noun. One of the infinitives derived from this word is ‘adnâ’, which means ‘to subsist’ as it is defined in Qâmûs. In those days the ropes of the plough were fastened to the horns of the ox. Because its horns were useful, the Prophet (’alaihi ’s-salâm) said so. He signified that the villager should plough his field. This hadîth might have various meanings, but we should avoid interpreting it with our short sight and limited knowledge lest we should fall into the pitfall of denying or doubting it.

Religion reformers frequently recommend national bonds in place of religious bonds in order to unite and improve individuals. However, the original meaning of the word ‘milla’ is ‘dîn’ (religion), and it has been used later for a community of people born and live on the same land, that is, for ‘nation’.

Let’s give some deatils about religion and nation.

Dîn al-Islâm, the religion of Islam, is the belief in Allâhu ta’âlâ, in His Oneness and in all His prophets (’alaihimu ’s-salâm).

Allah is the Being who creates everything, whose existence has no end or limit and whose state cannot be comprehended with mind, but whose attributes forming His Divinity and Creativeness only are known. He exists by Himself and is One. Nothing besides Him can exist by itself. He alone is the One who creates and keeps everything in existence.

He exists by Himself’ does not mean ‘He has come into existence from Himself.’ If it meant so, He would have come into existence later. On the contrary, His existence is necessary, and He was never nonexistent. To exist by Himself means that His existence does not need anything. His existence is necessary for the existence of all beings. He has the perfect attributes for creating and keeping everything in such an orderly state. Deficiency, fault or defect cannot exist in Him.

If there were not a single being creating all creatures, everything would come into existence by itself or nothing would exist. It is not reasonable that everything exists by itself; for existing by itself requires being existent before itself, that is, to have existed always; everything had to be wâjib al-wujûd (indispensable being). If it were so, it would not come into being out of nonexistence, nor would it cease from existence. Indeed, every creature comes into existence after it has been nonexistent, and it later ceases to exist. Then, it is obvious that no creature is wâjib al-wujûd. Besides, coming into existence by oneself is not easily understandable to reason. Wâjib al-wujûb has to be single. The Single Being who creates all beings except Himself is necessary. If the existence of the single wâjib al-wujûd were not necessary for the existence of creatures, we would not accept His existence by Himself, either.

Existence of every creature by itself is so far from being scientific that even the naturalists say, “Nature made so,” or “Natural forces made it.” Thus, inadvertently, they explain that creatures do not come into existence by themselves, but there is One Maker. However, they refrain from acknowledging this Maker’s Names and Attributes worthy of Him. They adhere to a concept of nature which is without knowledge or will. We do not see any physical or chemical event occur by itself. We say that certainly some force affects an object to start moving or to change its motion or stop moving. To suppose that all creatures have suddenly come into existence in such an order and regularity would be to deny physical and chemical events. Nothing can be as ignorant as denying the One Creator who possesses Knowledge, Power and Will and creates everything from the atom to the ’Arsh out of nothing, and supposing that every event happens by chance, which is a concept incompatible with the laws of physics and chemistry.

It is not reasonable to say that there is not a creator creating these creatures out of nothing or that everything comes into being by itself, for some work must be done to come into existence from nonexistence and, according to laws of physics and chemistry, every work is done by a force. That is, according to scientific point of view, a source of force certainly has to exist beforehand. If the existence of a preceding being were necessary to create every being, beings’ creating one another would have to go on continuously from eternal past to eternal future. If the case were so, nothing would exist. For, beings which have no beginning and all of which have been born from one another mean nonexistence. This can be explained with an example; I have a dollar which I have borrowed from you. And you borrowed it from a friend of yours. And he had borrowed it from someone else. Now, if this succession of lending goes round to all the people in the world, if it does not have a beginning, that is, if it does not begin with the last person on the world who initially possessed it not by borrowing but in some other way, the dollar which I say I have, does not exist. That is, it belongs to nobody, for if we suppose that it belonged to someone, he must have taken it from someone else, who does not exist on the earth to give it to him. How can it pass from hand to hand while there is not someone to lend it first? If someone had lent it first, someone else would now posses this dollar. The existence of the dollar indicates that it has been given not from eternity but from someone first. In other words, if such a chain of dependence were supposed to begin from eternity, every being depending upon another being for its existence without reaching a being whose existence did not depend upon another, nothing would exist. As long as the existence of a being needed another, which needed another and another, and thus one needed another endlessly, nothing could be thought of existing; everything which we see in existence would have to be nonexistent, for it would also need something else which would have to exist before itself, but which in reality did not exist, for it would also need something else to exist before itself. It is the same with the third, the forth, the fifth... it is always the same.

The existence of Hadrat Âdam can easily be understood after this reasoning. If Hadrat Âdam had not existed and men’s fathers had been infinite, there would have been no man on the earth; for, if the number of fathers had been infinite, there would have been neither the first father nor his children, that is, mankind. Since men exist, the first father has to have existed.

It is very important to believe in the next world, like believing in Allâhu ta’âlâ. If the next world did not exist, the good deeds which have not been rewarded and the evils and wrongs that have not been punished in this world would never be recompensed, which woul