Rehabilitation Of The Knowledge Of Islam

This work explores how Muslims veered from the teaching of revelation in favor of tradition and how the authentic teaching of Islam may be retrieved. Much has been written about the reconciliation of reason and revelation. It is also necessary, however, to reconcile tradition and revelation, especially where tradition veers from revelation and provides a foundation of religion. For it appears that tradition veered from revelation. This is unsurprising. It would hardly be the first time it happened. There is no reason to assume that we always act the way we should. There is no guarantee that the Is always follows and reflects the Ought, that there will always be a harmony between obligation and inclination. For humans are wont to follow their desires. Practice does not always reflect theory. It is assumed that there could not be difference between revelation and tradition. In fact, an examination reveals that there is as much tension between revelation and tradition as between reason and revelation, if not more so. The tension is evident in the discrepancies between tradition and revelation. The denigration of reasoning and the designation of reason as kufr, enabled these distortions to go unnoticed. How did the tension between tradition and revelation arise? For it appears that "traditional" exegesis features aberrations. These aberrations take the form of punishments in penal law without a foundation in, and even in defiance of revelation. These are the penalties for blasphemy, apostasy and adultery. These punishments also make Islam appear extreme. They provide believers with reasons to want to dissociate from a religion that is perceived as cruel and unreasonable. Blasphemy is not a punishable offence in revelation, yet tradition prescribes the death penalty. Apostasy is not punishable in this life according to revelation, yet tradition prescribes the death penalty. Adultery - after a verdict reached using the testimony of four reliable witnesses - is punishable by lashing, but tradition prescribes stoning to death. These punishments are based on departures from revelation. But revelation warns against judging by what God did not reveal. Evidently, the rulings of persons were permitted to "abrogate" the rulings of God. This is problematic, as it flouts a basic requirement of exegesis and jurisprudence, which is that revelation is the chief authority, which is to be followed, not overruled. The abrogation of revelation by tradition flouts the sovereignty of Allah. What is required is a re-affirmation of the superiority of revelation in relation to tradition. This should assist in the rehabilitation of the penal code and the elimination of aberrant rulings caused by the abrogation of revelation by tradition. It should bring penal law into agreement with the teaching of revelation and address the perception that Islam is bent on punishing rather than dispensing reconciliation and mercy.