Innovative Research and Renovation
In the midst of legislative orders and modern necessities

On the subject of interpretation and renovation the Qatari magazine 'Al Ummah' had the following interview with the author of this book:

A: Ijtihad started since the time of the Prophet (PBUH), as it was stated in "the story of the 'Asr prayer in Bani Quraydhah " and in the Hadith of Mu'ad when the Prophet (PBUH) appointed him in Yemen, and asked him: "How do you judge amongst people when you are called upon to do so?". He said "I use the Book of Allah". "What if you cannot?", "Then, I use the Prophet's Tradition". The Prophet said :" What if you cannot?", he responded "Then I use my mind and I do not fail". Then he congratulated him and maintained him in his post. This is a famous Hadith whose authenticity has been recited by many religious leaders, among these are Ibn Taymiyyah, Ibn Al Qayyim, Al Dhahbii, and Ibnu Kathir. Many of the Prophet's companions have made independent judgement concerning different issues while they were not in the vicinity of the Prophet (PBUH), and when the Prophet learned about that, he either approved of their judgement or he corrected their errors.

After the Prophet's (PBUH) time, his companions (God Bless them) had to rely on interpretation and faced the changing problems of life in the communities of deep-rooted civilisations which they inherited. They reached Islamic solutions, which they adopted from Islamic texts or from Islam's general guidance. They found in Islam, a solution to every problem, and to each ill a cure.

The independent judgement of the Prophet's (PBUH) companions concerning the events of life and their knowledge of the solutions recommended by the religion of Allah to these events, represents the real and authentic knowledge of Islam, which is characterised by realism, leniency, the consideration of people's interests by Islamic law, without exaggeration in the interpretation of the texts.

When one looks at the knowledge of the guiding Caliphs, or that of Ibn Mas'uud, ibn 'Abbes, or 'Aishah and others (God Bless them all), one will confirm that it is crystal clear that the Prophet's Companions (PBUH) constitute the generation that is the most knowledgeable of the essence of Islam. One example that will best illustrate this is the attitude of Omar and his contemporary scholarly companions, such as Ali and Mu'aad, when he refused to divide Iraq upon the conquerors, considering its four fifths as their booty, as it is clearly stated in the holy verse: "And know that whatever ye take as spoils of war, Lo! A fith thereof is for Allah," (Surah 8, Verse 41) and decided that the land should remain to serve the interest of the following generations of Islam. He told those who opposed him: "Do you want the last of the people to come to find nothing left for them?" Then Ali and Mu' ad said to him: "Find a solution to suit both the first and the last to come". Upon this, he decided that solidarity between the different generations of the Islamic nation, as well as that of the different countries, is obligatory.

The same attitude is that of Othman (GBH) towards stray camels. In the Hadith it is commanded that any stray camels will be left alone, and he said to whoever asked him about them: "Leave them alone, they have their shoes and their water, they go to the water and feed on the trees, until their owner comes." Thus, during the reign of Abu Bakr and Omar, stray camels were left to themselves moving freely and reproducing, without anybody disturbing them, until their owner finds them. During the time of Othman, he found that people changed and started to catch stray camels, and it became difficult for some of them to return to their owners. Then he decided that for the interest of the people it was time to start to collect these stray animals. So he appointed a shepherd to collect them and identify them. When he does not find their owner, he sells them and keeps the money until the owner comes back.

During the era of Ali (GBH), he established a system that insures people's property when they leave it to a workman for repairs, holding the latter responsible in case the property is lost, in spite of the fact that workmen were generally trustworthy. He said: "That is the only way to correct people ", as he had noticed the change in people's behaviour.

Thus it is clear that the knowledge of the companions resided in the width of its horizons, its realism and leniency while it certainly never lost sight of the foundations.

The disciples and followers of the companions toed the same direction and attitude, especially those who established jurisprudence schools throughout the land, by teaching and advising in the case of novel situations and issues. They faced each event with a Hadith. Within these schools and universities which were established inside some of the important mosques, emerged the most famous Imams, leaders of the rites, each of whom had its followers, such as: Abu Hanifah, Maalik, Al Shaafi'ii, Ahmed, Al Thawrii, Al Awza'ii, Al Tabarii, and Dawuud Al Dhaahiri ...

In the first centuries of Islam, the number of interpreters was larger than could be counted. They had various ways and means of understanding and interpreting the laws, while they agreed that the basic source of Islamic law are the Book and the Tradition. The Book is the foundation and the Tradition is the explanation and the clarification. After that come the secondary sources, which follow suit, such as Al Istihsaan, Al Istislaah Wa Saddu Al Dharaa'i', Ri'aayatu Al'Urf, Shar'u Man Qablanaa, and others about which the scholars have disagreed. Some of them authenticated these sources, others denied them, while others expanded or restricted them.

The important fact is that jurisprudence grew and expanded. The number of real, expected and hypothetical issues became bigger; books were written and its rules were established. The ways of extracting these rules from the foundations of jurisprudence were established. Such a science was invented by Muslims, and nothing like it is found in any other nation. It is considered as one of the prides of the Islamic heritage.

Islamic jurisprudence remains the basis of justice and legal opinion in all the Islamic societies. This remained as such until colonisers invaded Islamic countries, and separated Islamic Law from justice and legislation, except in the narrow domain which they named 'Personal Statute'.

It is important to note that what is usually said, concerning the idea that Islam was impaired directly after the period of the guiding Caliphs, is not true. It is undoubtful that during twelve centuries, Muslims did not have any constitution or law which they followed except from Islamic law, in spite of what might have happened in terms of misunderstanding, or misapplication of its lenient rules.

The closing of the practice of innovative research

As to the notion of the closing of the chapter of interpretation, we think that the Ottoman Empire has become a rack, upon which all errors and slips in all areas are hung by many. In reality, the domination of tradition, and religious chauvinism, and the waning of expert interpretation, are issues which arose before the era of the Ottoman Empire. They have also spread to the different countries of the Arab World to different degrees, in spite of the fact that there was no period which had no interpreters. Then we find Imam Al Suyutii (d. 911 H) announcing that he reached the level of unbounded interpretation, hoping to be the renovator of the ninth century. He is well -known for his understanding of the Hadith stated in Al Tajdiid. He also wrote his book Al Raddu'alaa man 'akhlada ila L'ard wa Jahala 'anna l'ijtthauda fii kulli'ishriin fard.

In the twelfth century, there was the great innovator, the wise man of Islam, Ahmed Ben Abdul Rahiim, alias, Shah Wali Allah Al Dahlawi (d. 1176 H). He is the author of Hujjat Allah Al Baaligha, and other original books. In the thirteenth century, we find in Yemen the expert interpreter, Imam Muhammad Ben Ali Al Shuukaanii (d. 1250 H), and whose interpretation resides in the sections and chapters of his books Naylu L'awtaar, Al Saylu Ljarraar, and Al Daraarii Al Mudiitah, as well as his book of interpretation Al Durar Al Bahiyyah and Irshaad Al Fuhuul ilaa Tahqiiq Al Haqq min 'Ilm Al 'Usuul.

In order for us to be fair to reality and history, we have to state the following: The Ottoman Empire has given much importance to the Holy fighting, more than it did interpretation. Islamic leadership requires both: interpretation, in order to know the true path and the true religion which Allah sent through His Prophet (PBUH), and holy fighting in order to protect and preserve such religion. The scholar of Islam, Ibn Taymiyyah, said: "Religion requires both a guiding book, and winning iron", thus referring to Allah Almighty's holy words: "We verily sent Our messengers with clear proofs, and revealed with them the Scripture and the Balance, that mankind ma y observe right measure; and He revealed iron, wherein is mighty power and many uses for mankind ..." (Surah 57, Verse 25).

QQ: During the Ottoman Empire, more importance was given to iron, i.e. they gave more importance to the military aspects of life than to the intellectual ones, until the overwhelming shock of confronting the rebirth of the west. Some scholars consider that renovation in the contemporary era was started by Jamal El Diin Al Afghaanii, except that his followers gradually started to rely simply on the text, and became closer to tradition, especially Muhammad Rashiid Redaa. So, "is it possible to put these efforts in the right perspective from the point of view of the renovation movement? "

A: This quote shows that its author did not have full awareness of the full meaning of renovation, its extent and its rules. Had he had such knowledge, he would have realised that the process was gradual, and did not relapse as it is claimed. It started with generalities, then continued with improvements, until it reached specialisation. It was not steady at the start, and then began to take control. Sheikh Muhammed Abduh was closer to control in the courts of justice, than his master Al Afghaanii, thanks to the profound culture he acquired in Al Azhar. Sir Muhammad Rashiid Redaa was close to control in the courts of justice, than his master Professor Al Imam, thanks to his wide knowledge of

the books of tradition and heritage. He was also well acquainted with the publications of the Salafi school which was represented by Imam Ibn Taymiyyah and his disciple Ibn Al Qayyim. It is he who started the strong campaigns against inertia and imitation in his valuable magazine Al Manar. He also wrote reformative articles and innovative scientific opinions, during a third of a century or more. The interpretations of Sheikh Rashiid and his innovative opinions spread throughout the Muslim World, and were met with greater acceptance than the innovations of his master, in spite of the fact that they were few. As to the interpretations of Sir Jamal El Diin, we hardly know any precise ones. His personality was that of the revolutionary leader, who awakened the minds, aroused the feelings and triggered ambition and commitment. He did not have the personality of the scholar who is consistently led by sources and rules. So each one follows the path that he was born for.

Some of the views of Sheikh Muhammed Abduh in the interpretation of Qur'an were adopted by others. Some of them are those concerning the story of Adam, his statements about the birds of Babel, and the like. His excuse was that the Western civilisation was in its heyday, and admiration thereof was at its highest. Thus, the rational bias was preponderant; and so were the attempts to bend the text until it fit the new concepts, and the adaptation of the commands of religion to the intellectuals who had a western culture. And all this was done even when it required affectation.

As to those who want to evaluate any person, and to qualify his thought and works, it seems only fair to put the latter in their special historical context, and not to compare his time and space to our own time and space. Some of the views that seem to us today to be clear and obvious, were not so in his time. God bless a man who is fairer to others, and who gives every worker what he deserves and is a fair witness for the sake of God.

Legal interpretation is a collective duty at times and an individual duty at other times. It has its meaning, its extent and its rules. Can these issues be clarified so that confusion does not set in and so that those who are not fit for interpretation, do not undertake it.

Innovation should be construed as making one's utmost effort and pouring one's widest knowledge in the extraction of the legal rules from its proofs through observation and thinking. It is a collective duty that applies to the whole nation. The nation becomes like an orphan if a number of its members do not satisfy its need in innovation. Thus it becomes an individual duty of anybody who feels that he is qualified and has the capability to undertake it, if he does not find anybody to undertake such responsibility in his place.

Innovation is needed in two situations:
First: The situation in which there is no legal text available, and where the legislator has deliberately left a gap, out of compassion and not out of forgetfulness. This allows the innovator to fill the gap in a way that satisfies the expectations of the people, according to the paths which are followed by such innovators as analogy, preference or adaptation to the situation, as well as other reasons.

It is to be noticed that in some areas of jurisprudence there is a proliferation of texts dealing with points of detail sometimes, for example: worship and family issues, which hardly change throughout the ages and places, while there is dire need for texts that forbid disputes, as long as it is possible. Besides, there are areas where the texts are to a large extent scarce, or too general and summarised, thus leaving to people the freedom to innovate by themselves - in light of the overall sources - according to the interests of their society, and the conditions of their era, instead of finding detailed texts that would tie them or restrict their movement. This is exactly the case in the issues of consultation, the ruling system, the proceedings at law, the legal steps, and the like.

Second: The area of hypothetical texts, whether they are hypothetical in their occurrence, and that is the case of most of the Prophet's Hadiths, or hypothetical in their meaning, and that is the case of most of the texts of Qur'an and the Tradition. The fact that a text exists does not prevpeople from interpreting it, as it might be imagined by some. Nine tenths of texts or more are amenable to interpretation and the extension of the number of views. The Holy Qur'an itself may allow different ways of interpreting. Even if we take a verse such as the one dealing with cleanliness, in the Surah of the Table Spread, and read all the interpretations of its rules, we will confirm what is being stated here.

Along these two areas which are open for innovation, there is an area in Islamic Law which is firmly closed to interpretation, and is not concerned by it: it is the area of absolute certainties in the Law. This is the case of the obligatoriness of the ordinances of Allah, such as the prayers' almsgiving, fasting and the forbidding of impermissible acts such as adultery, consumption of alcohol, lending interests. On the other hand, there are the principal absolute certainties, such as the rules of inheritance, which are clearly defined in the Qur'an. There are also the bounds and punishments, and the period of waiting for the divorced or widowed women, and the like of what has been stated in the texts that are factual in their occurrence and in their meaning.

These kinds of rules which are not available for interpretation are what constitute the intellectual and behavioural unity of the nation. So, there is no need to enter the battlefield of interpretation, and address questions such as the following:

Can we allow the drinking of alcohol for the sake of tourists?
Can we disallow fasting in order to increase production?
Can we suspend pilgrimage in order to save hard currency?
Can we suspend almsgiving and rely simply on state taxes?
Can we abandon the bounds and punishments in compassion with criminals, as if we were more compassionate than Allah towards his subjects! "Say, do ye know best, or cloth Allah ? "(Surah 2, Verse 140).

And that is what one should be watchful of: to innovate in areas where we should not, or to let one who is not well qualified or who does not satisfy the conditions to undertake innovation. This is what lead some scholars in the ancient times to call for the closing of the area of innovation and interpretation, in order to stop the impostors and pretenders. But the area of innovation will remain open, and no one can close it after it was opened by the Prophet (PBUH). No one or group of people, when faced with an event that they are presented with, can say: 'we don't have the right to innovate and interpret, because the scholars of the past said nothing about it'. It is obvious, though, that the law has to govern all the deeds of the officials and has to have a say concerning every event, and nobody disagrees with this.

Q: Q: It is imperative that anyone who undertakes innovation in the field of Islamic law should satisfy the required conditions. What are these conditions? Do they apply to all innovators, in general? Or, is there a difference between the ones who undertake total innovation and the ones who undertake partial innovation?

A: There is no special group in Islam that monopolises or inherits innovation. There is no priesthood or clergy in it. There are, though, scholars who are specialists in their fields, and who have the tools and instruments of innovation to satisfy the requirements thereof. It is the one who interprets all events and situations that are presented to him, and whereof he states his view in accordance with the results of his interpretation, be he right or wrong.

The conditions required for an innovator are stated and detailed in the books of the foundations of jurisprudence. Some of these conditions are scientific and others are cultural, such as knowledge of the Arabic language, knowledge of the Holy Book and the Tradition, knowledge of the issues of absolute consensus, knowledge of the foundations of jurisprudence, the ways of analogy and derivation, knowledge of the complete aims of Islamic Law and its rules. The last point is what Imam A1 Shaatibii concentrated upon and made the reason why we have to innovate. Besides all of this, he has to have the gift o f derivation, which improves with the exercise of jurisprudence and awareness of the differences between the scholars' interpretations. That is why they said:" He who does not know the difference between the scholars, has not had a whiff of jurisprudence".

Another condition which was pointed out by Imam Ahmed, and was, mentioned by Ibn Al Qayyim in I'laam al Muwaqqi'iin is: 'knowing people'.. This is an important issue. The innovator, who advises people, should not live. in an ivory tower or an isolated minaret and pronounce advice that is unrelated to the reality of the people. The same scholar should not issue judgements which are related to bygone times and ancient people and apply them to other peoples and times. This would mean that this scholar will have ignored the most important rule which says that counsel changes with the change of time, place, situation and usage, as was stated by the scholars.

This requires that the innovator be aware of the realities of his society, and master the general foundations of the culture of his era. This requirement avoids the situation whereby the scholar will be living in a world of his own, while his contemporaries are living in another. He is the man whom the people may ask about something whose background, original, philosophical, psychological or social bases he may not know about, with the result that he might stray in its contextualisation and its judgement. Because judging something is part of understanding it, as the scholars of logic confirm.

The real innovator is the one who looks at the texts and the evidence with one eye, and at the reality of his era with another, so that he may harmonise between obligation and reality, and give to each event the judgement that is appropriate to its place, time and situation.

Ibn Al Qayyim, the authenticator, said that his master, Sheikh Al Islam Ibn Taymiyyah, passed during his time by a group of Tatarian soldiers who had been drinking too much. Some of his companions rebuked them, but he said: let them to their drinking and their playing. Allah forbid the drinking of wine because it prevents people from invoking Him and from practising their prayers, but in this case it prevents them from the killing of people and the pouring of blood.
This goes hand in hand with an established rule, the gist of which is that it is better not to rebuke for a sin lest a bigger sin may be committed, so that it is the lighter damage that is caused and the lesser of two evils that is committed.

There is another requirement that the innovator must fill, it is a behavioural and religious requirement. He must be just and must have an acceptable morality. He must fear Allah in all what he does or says, and he should know that his advice must coincide with that of the Prophet (PBUH). He should not follow his whims, and should not give priority to worldly goods over religious matters, especially if those goods belong to somebody else.

If Allah has commanded that the prerequisite for people's witness to be accepted is that they themselves be just, then how should that not be the case for somebody who is a witness in the religion of Allah, and who discusses what Allah has allowed and what He has Forbidden, what He has Made compulsory and what He has Authorised.

The scientific conditions that we have mentioned are required of the total innovator, i.e. the one who interprets all the facets and aspects of jurisprudence. As to the partial innovator, it is enough that he be knowledgeable of the matters that relate to his area of specialisation, along with a general scientific qualification. All this assumes that the field of interpretation lends itself to compartmentalisation, and this is what many of the scholars assume.

The professor of Economics can undertake research in a specific matter in the domain of his speciality, if he is knowledgeable of all what has been written about it, and the kinds of innovations tit might have undergone. He also has to master the foundations of the evidence, the rules of argumentation and preponderance, amother matters.

Q: Q: Many discussions have taken place over the last few years concerning innovative research, which led to some deviant interpretations in this field. Since the situation is what it is, it has become imperative to establish some rules that must be respected in the field of contemporary legal research, so that Muslims may be aware of these flaws and may reject them. In your opinion, what should these rules be?

The rules that should be followed in modern research may be summarised in the following points:

A: One should not deal with certainties. Research should concern issues whose evidence is hypothetical in judgement, and we should not heed impostors who attempt to turn what is factual into what is hypothetical, and what is certain into what is doubtful. In this situation we will no longer have certainties that we can rely upon, or sources that we may refer to. In the same vein as we did not allow turning what is factual into what is hypothetical, we should not allow the opposite, either, as we should not pretend consensus where there is difference. Thus, we should not raise the sword of consensus in the face of every researcher, as did the contemporaries of Ibn Taymiyyah in his choices and his innovations. Al Imam Ahmed said: "Whoever pretends that there is consensus is a liar. Who knows ? People may have differed in their views and he is not aware of that".

What I fear most is psychological failure before the coming civilisation, and giving in to the present reality in our societies. This is a reality that has been produced neither by Islam, nor by the Muslims. It has been produced for them by the impudent colonialist who imposed it on them by force and tyranny. This intruding injustice took the place of the authentic justice during a spell of absent-mindedness of the Muslims.

This is why we should refuse that kind of innovation - if we may call it thus - which is that of making up motivation for the reality, especially if that aims at a satisfaction for the governing authorities. It may also be an imitation of the other, as in the innovation of those who try to forbid divorce and polygamy, and who fight private property, and allow lending at usurious interests, and so forth.

The innovator should free himself from fear in its different forms, fear from the authority of the governing tyrants, who request ready-made Fatwa for their acts to make them lawful. They should free themselves also from the fear of the rigid imitators among the scholars, who lead campaigns on any new idea. It is the likes of these who were the cause of the imprisonment of Ibn Taymiyyah, and the successive miseries that he underwent. His misery was caused by them not by the sultans. The scholar should also free himself from the fear of the power of the crowds and the populace who could be aroused by the imitators against any view that differed from anything that they are used to.

We have to open our hearts to scholarship, even if it opposes the views that we have been raised with, we should also expect errors from the innovator, and should not be disturbed by him. He is a fallible human being. It may also be that what we have considered an error the exactly correct view. There are views which one day are refused by the majority of the people, then afterwards they become the right and accepted ones. In Islam there is no papal authority, which dictates: "this view is the correct one for everybody and deserves to remain so, while that view is the wrong one and is thus erased from existence and receives capital judgement"( See the section entitled "The characteristics and rules of a modern and sound scholarship" in our book Scholarship in Islamic Law, published by Dar Al Qalam, Kuwait.).

Q: Q: There are contemporary issues which require Muslims to come up with an innovated jurisprudence in order to find solutions to their problems. What are these issues, and how do you view them within the framework of this innovative research activity?

There is also what I call selective innovative research, that is to choose the most plausible views from our great scholarly heritage,( . See our book The Law of Islam, how do we select from our Islamic heritage?, p. 110,, published by the Islamic Bureau, Beirut) which seem to come close to coinciding with the aims of the law, the interests of the people, and the context of our era. The choice may come from within the four Islamic rites, as in the weighting of the Hanifi rite's view that almsgiving should be paid on all the crops of the land, and the weighting of the Shafi'i rite's in providing, the poor with enough to live on for life, and the weighting of the Maliki rite's in the maintaining of the bonds of those whose hearts have been reconciled.

The choice may come from outside the four Islamic rites. In spite of their majesty and favour, the four Islamic rite leaders are not the only scholars. There are those of their contemporaries who may have surpassed them, and there are those of their masters who preceded them, and the masters of their masters including the scholars who were companions of the Prophet (PBUH), and their followers, who have certainly undertaken greater actions.

There is no objection to adopting one of their rites if it seems the most reasonable in legal terms, and to follow, for example, the view of Omar (GBH) restricting marriage with the women of the Scripture, if there is fear of harm to the Muslim women and children, or if there is fear that the condition of virtue may not be observed with precision. This condition is mentioned in the following holy verse: "...and the virtuous women of those who received the Scripture"(. Surah 5, Verse 5) , i.e. those who behave virtuously. Other examples include the adoption ofthe idea of the obligation of mut'a for every divorced woman, or the idea of some of the predecessors who suggested that divorce should not take place when it is the result of great anger. That is how they explained the Hadith: "No divorce in the cases of anger or madness or drunkenness". Or the view of some of them who suggest that final divorce, uttered in one setting, should be taken as a cancelled divorce only once. That is what Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Al Qayyim and their like advised. Not to accept contrived divorce, i.e. divorce when the woman has her period. The same goes for divorce which is motivated by the forcing of someone to do something or not to do it. This kind of divorce is treated as swearing and is atoned for in the same way as swearing.

The same goes for the adoption of the view of some of the predecessors that legacy is obligatory for those of the relatives who cannot inherit. It is on the basis of this that arose in Egypt the law of the "obligatoriness of legacy" for the children if their fathers or mothers die while their grandparents are still alive. In this case they inherit the share of both their parents, with the condition that it is not more than the third of the legacy, not that of the inheritance.

It is on the basis of that that the scholar Sheikh Abdullah Ibn Zaid Aal Mahmuud, the President of Legal Courts and Islamic Affairs in the state of Qatar, favoured the view of Ataa' and Taawuus, in allowing the pelting of Satan during pilgrimage before the afternoon starts, in order to make it easier for people, and to remove the embarrassment and hardships which people have to incur in terms of crowding around the aim to the point of being walked over to death.

The innovative research which we need today is one undertaken by a group which could take the form of a world learned circle, which would include qualified world scholars, who would issue their judgement after study and examination, with courage and freedom, far from the pressure of governments and populace.

In spite of all this I would like to insist that there is no way around individual innovative research which lights the path for group innovative research, thanks to the careful and thorough studies it brings.

Q: Q: Some advocates of Islam are sometimes considered as proponents o f inertia and rigidity, and enmity towards any innovation. Does this coincide with any real situation or is it linked to some hidden cause?

A: Regarding innovation, people can be classified into three groups:
1) The enemies of innovation, who want every old idea to remain as it was; their famous wise adage is: "the first left nothing for the last, and their heralded motto is: it is impossible to be more creative than the past. "

Because of their inertia, they stand in the way of any innovation in science, thought, literature and life matters, let alone religion. The term innovation itself is considered heresy for these people.

In the area of religion, I found out that there are two groups whose attitude aims at making Islam rigid. I wrote about them in some of the articles I published in the magazine Al Ummah on the occasion of the celebration of the beginning of the Hegira fifteenth century. First: the fanatic imitators of the rites, who refuse to make any small deviation. They also deny any contemporary individual or group the right to search and innovate, except within the framework of what their rites alone dictate and what was written and advised by the scholars of that rite. So, it is unacceptable to them to deviate from the opinion that was pronounced within the rite, even to other sayings or opinions from within the rite itself.

The other group is what I named ' the new superficial scholars', I mean by these those who take texts strictly at their literal level and face value, and do not consider their deeper meanings. They do not understand the details in light of the general issues. It is no surprise to find that they start heated fights over marginal issues in the religion. While these and those are people who are faithful to Islam, they still are like the mother who caused the death of her infant because she locked him up in his room from fear of the heat of the sun, or the passing of the hot wind.

2) In opposition to these, we find those who overdo innovation. They want to annihilate all old ideas, even if these constitute the foundation of the essence of their society, its raison d'etre, the secret of its permanence; as if they wanted to delete yesterday from time, and the past tense from the language, and the science of history from human sciences.

The innovation undertaken by these is westernisation itself. What is old in the western world is new to them. They advocate imitating it in its bitter and sweet aspects. These are the ones that were laughed at by Raafi'i (God Save his soul) when he was in a dispute with them under the banner of the Qur'an and said: "They want to renovate religion, language, the Sun and the Moon".

The poet of Islam, Mohammad Iqbaal, replied to them by saying that "the Kaaba is not renovated by bringing to it a stone from Europe". Ahmed Shawqii, the king of poets, referred to them in his poem about Al Azhar:

Had they had their will, they would deny in public
Their parents whether they died or lived for a long period
Whoever is keen on the destruction of all past things,
When he has to build, fails

This group, and the one mentioned before it are the two that Prince Chakiib Arsalaan complained about, when he said in his book "why the Muslims lagged behind" that religion was lost between the rigid and the infidel. One alienates people by his inaction and the other by his unbelief.

3) Between these two groups emerges a mid-way group. It refuses the inaction of the first and the unbelief of the others. It looks for wisdom from any source. It also accepts innovation, even advocates it and calls for it, as long as it is an innovation which comes within the authenticity of Islam, and distinguishes between what is acceptable and what is not, and between what is adequate and what is not.

It advocates the adoption of material and technical science as much as it is necessary for the nation, under the condition that we understand technology and create it, not just buy it and remain foreign to it!

This is the point of view of the true preachers of Islam. Their motto is: the association of the useful old and the sound new. We have to be open to the world without melting in it, firm about our aims, and lenient about our means, firm about the foundations and lenient about the secondary issues.

Q: Q: There is a link between research and innovation as a contemporary issue. If Islam considers innovative research as an instrument of the understanding of the commands of the Qur'an and the Tradition, does it accept innovation as it accepts scholarship? Or, does it contradict the nature of the religion which came to control life with its beliefs, values, concepts and wisdom. Or does each one of them have a domain within which it acts?

A: I was surprised by the denial of a good scholar of the relationship between innovation and religion, in an interview with one of the journalists. This scholar assumes that religion is stable and does not evolve nor does it innovate. His reason for this, I believe, is his fear that people might understand that by pronouncing the expression 'the innovation of religion' people might understand the intervention of the hand of change to delete or add things. So, he firmly closed the door by absolutely denying innovation.

In reality, the noble Hadith of the Prophe(PBUH), has discussedthis issue in detail, as it has been mentioned by Abu Daawuud, Al Haakim, Al Bayhaqii and others, on the basis of a sound authentication: "Once every hundred years Allah sends to this nation a man who innovates its religion." ( Authentic, see the Sahiih Al Jaami' Al Saghilr, no. 1873, second edition. )

And there is no saying after that of the Prophet, or no judgement after his.

Many loyal scholars deny established notions, because of misuse by some people. Thus, the former want to straighten a wrong deed by another wrong deed. The sound method is to confirm the established notions by providing the correct interpretation and refuting every wrong understanding, explanation, or unsound application.

The innovation of religion is confirmed by the texts, but it is not innovative research in itself. In spite of the fact that scholarship is part of it, and one of its aspects, scholarship is an innovation in the intellectual and scientific aspect, innovation concerns the intellectual, spiritual and scientific aspects. These are the aspects which are included in Islam: science, faith and action.

Our nation is today in the direst need of someone to innovate its religion, its qualities, the characteristics of its personality. Someone who will work towards the emergence of a Muslim generation which will achieve in today's world what the companions of the Prophet (PBUH) achieved in their time. That is what we called the 'Generation of the pursued victory'. This innovation was started by the people who undertook what they promised Allah to do. There are those of them who died, there are those who are waiting like Hassan A1 Bannaa, Abdelhamiid Ben Baadis and Abu 'All Al Mawduudii (God Bless them all). It is the duty of those who follow them to continue on the same path, and straighten it until Allah Completes His light.

The noble Hadith: "Once every hundred years, Allah sends to this nation a man who innovates its religion" gives significant importance to this issue. Does the word 'who' as it figured in the Hadith mean that the Muslims remain in a state of expectancy waiting for an innovator at the beginning and end of each century. In light of the Islamic understanding of the role of the community, it seems that the meaning of the Hadith makes every Muslim responsible for the duties and follow up on the activity of innovation of religion.

This Hadith, which was quoted by Abu Dawuud in his Al Sunan, by Al Haakim in Al Mustadrak, by Al Baihaqii in Ma'rifat Al Sunan wal 'Aathaar, by Al Tabaraanii in Al 'Awsat, gives the Muslim nation a strong ray of hope, and dissipates the obscurity of despair. It instils in it the spirit and hope that Allah is not leaving it to the fangs of weakness until it is devoured by them, or to the smoke of quietness until it suffocates in it, or to the claws of fragmentation until it is killed by them. In fact, He sends between one century and the next one who will gather it, resuscitate it, and awaken it. These are some of the meanings of innovation, so he innovates it by religion and innovates the religion by it.

Most of the interpreters of the Hadith, as it has been made clear by the discussion above, understood that the sense of 'who innovates its religion' includes one individual, upon whom God bestows scientific, moral and practical qualities that allow him to rejuvenate the religion, and brings back to it liveliness and strength, through a knowledge that is useful to all, an action that is sound, a struggle for the cause of a religion that is great. This is what made them endeavour to identify this innovator at the beginning of each century, so they sometimes agreed and did not at others. So they agreed that the innovator of the first century is the fifth Rightly Guided Caliph Omar Ben Abdulaziz, the innovator of the second century is Imam Muhammad Ben Idriss Ashshaafi'ii, the innovator of the fifth century is Abu Haamid Al Ghazali, the innovator of the sixth century is Ibn Daqiiq Al 'iid, and widely disagreed as regards the rest of the innovators.

I think the 'who' in the Hadith, and in the Arabic language in general refers to the plural as well as the singular. In this particular case, it refers to the plural as well. So innovating the religion in a particular century is not necessarily the responsibility of a single individual, but a group of people. These may be scholars, the rulers, or the senior officers, or the educators. They may be in one country or they may be in a number of countries. Each one of them may work in his own field, or they may collaborate with each other within the framework of a league or an association. The innovation of some of them may be in the field of preaching and culture, another or others in the field of jurisprudence, another group in the field of education and training, others in the field of social reform, another group in the field of economics and another in the field of politics. There is nothing wrong with the diversity of fields and the diversification of the forms of action and innovation. These differences have to reflect diversity and specialty, not a difference reflecting contradiction and enmity. What is meant here is that there should be complementarily, coordination and cooperation between these different kinds of action, so that they complete each other, and they support each other. They should not deny each other, or obstruct each other's work, which would lead to weakening all of them and strengthening their common enemy.

The linking of innovation with the name of a single uncommon individual, makes people live in the hope of his emergence, and all they do is wait until the ground opens for him to appear and innovate what they were incapable of doing. This is the secret of letting people expect the idea of the Messiah. I think that innovation should be linked with a group or a school or movement, within which each individual Muslim would do his share in the innovation process and would contribute in accordance with his capabilities in its effort. In this case, the question is no longer 'When is the innovator of religion going to appear?', but 'What can I do to innovate religion?

Q: Q: In the Muslim world innovation and innovators were linked with various trends and untrue allegations of secularity, or of latent atheism, in order to deprive Muslims from the reality of their religion. Is this true innovation? Are these true innovators?

A: Calling these innovators is an erroneous appellation. These are squanderers not innovators, because they have no real relationship with actual innovation. The innovation of something means taking it back to the way it was at its beginning and when it first appeared, and mending all the disorders it may, have undergone over time, while keeping its authentic character and its distinctive features. This is exactly what we do in a palace or an old monument which we want to renovate or restore. We do not allow anybody to change its nature, or change its essence, its form or its traits. In fact we endeavour to take it back to its original state. But, if we do destroy it and build in its place a skyscraper of the modern kind, this is not innovation at all.

Those you have mentioned in your question are the kind of people who want to destroy the old mosque to build in its place a new church, with al1 its components and characteristics, except that they put the name of a mosque on top of it.

Whoever called these people innovators is not other than colonialism, its disciples and its agents amongst orientalists. Their real name is 'the slaves of western thought'. They do not even rise to become the disciples of the western thought, because a real student argues with his teacher, and may even oppose him and reply to him. But the attitude of the ones you have mentioned towards western thought is an attitude of alignment and slavery, which leads them to think that whatever the west believes in is the right thing, and whatever it says is the truth, and whatever it does is beautiful. The same thing applies to the slaves of the right and the slaves of the left. They both come from the same source and they al1 constitute a bof the tree that is damned in the Q'an, the Old Testament and the Bible: that is the tree of wicked materialism, which deprives man of his soul, life of its faith and society of the guidance of Allah. The falsity of these impostors of innovation was uncovered by Dr. Mohammad Al Baahii, God Bless his Soul, in his valuable book Modern Islamic Thought and its Relation with Western Colonialism (In order to read more about this topic refer to the chapter entitled 'Authenticity not regression, and innovation not westernisation' in our book entitled Certainties of the Islamic solutions and the uncertainties of the secular and the westernised Mu'assasat Arrisaala, Beirut.)

The real innovator is the one who innovates religion by religion and for religion. But he who wants to innovate religion from outside, i.e. with imported ideas and intrusive thoughts, and innovates to the advantages of the west or the east, is farthest from true innovation.