Oman and Ibadhism: Part IV

 

11

On Islam and Faith

 

ISLAM and Faith have been among the many topics which have been subjected to long discussions among the learned Muslims for quite a long time. People have differed and divided into various groups and sects. Attempts have been made by the righteous Muslims to unify opinions regarding this question but differences still prevail. The Ibadhis, like others, have their opinion which is based on the Quran and The Sunnah.

          In his book “Ibadhism—ideology and sect”, Sabir Taimah blames the Ibadhis that they mix between Faith and Islam, saying: “The Ibadhis derive from ideological sources opinions found in the book of ‘AL-RABII BIN HABIB’ in spite of the fact that this book does not guarantee the research workers that its contents will be acceptable to the Sunni scholars. The source may come like this “AI-RABII has said: I have been informed from the Prophet of God, and as it is well known that AL-RABII was not a companion and does not tell us who taught him, particularly as he lived during the period of severe political disturbance, and being a scholar of the later years of the Mission, his narrations cause much hesitation”. He continues to say: “And when we criticise Al-Jaytaly, who is an Ibadhi Scholar, for generalization of Faith and Islam that they are synonymous and are not only linguistically but also lawfully related, and then quoting references from the Quran and the Sunnah to prove that Faith and Islam come by way of disparity and interference, and that mixing questions of ideology is not favoured, especially in matters like those, he replies by saying what may be considered flexibility of using the mind for various versions relating to a question among the questions of ideology till the result becomes a proof which is needed. This is a mental procedure for the Ibadhis which we have previously said that is adoption causes embarrassment and criticism”.

          Also, according to what has come in the book, Sabir Taimah blames the lbadhis for their considering Faith and Islam as synonymous and he considers this as a mixing which contradicts with the opinion of Imam Abi Hanifa Al- Naaman,—to say nothing about its contradiction with the position of the previous Imams and scholars.

          In order that the question is correctly understood, we try to explain the opinion of the Ibadhis step by step using the opinions of other non-Ibadhi scholars to support it. Al-Salmy says that Faith and Islam have been used in the Sharia contrary to their usage in the language because Sharia has taken them from their linguistic meanings and used them synonymously in absolute obligation; and that obligation was only a consent by mouth or by heart with a word of mouth or by both, for a matter which is essential to do.

          Hence, Faith and Islam are jointly understood and cannot be separated. We say: “I have faith in God”—meaning I have understood Him confidently, and I have surrendered to Him— meaning I have submitted to His Will in obedience and compliance”. This is the linguistic understanding but the two words—Faith and Islam—are synonymous or intrinsic in the opinion of the Sharia.

          The reality of Islam requires fulfilling the required worships, which means belief in God and implementation of His Will; and the reality of Faith requires the correct knowledge of Islam and implementation of its obligations—hence, the meaning of submission which is observed in the Faith. Without conviction Islam is not acceptable, in the same way as Faith without submission to God is not acceptable. This should be the correct meaning. God says: “And they have been commanded no more synonymity 5), and again: “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (Submission to God), never will it be accepted of him”. (III:85).

          The word ‘ISLAM’ has been known to indicate the Religion which was brought by Muhammad (S.A.W.) and all the generations have recognised this fact; and similarly, faith which is recognised is that which comprises hearing, submission and free from denying God’s will.

          Al-Salmy here considers the approach to the synonymity of Islam and Faith is itself religion, and the Religion is essentially Islam and whatever is non-Islamic is not religion. Hence, it has been known that Islam means Faith.

          Sayyid Mohamed Al-Ghazaly insists on synonymity of the two words and expounds as follows: “Matters pertaining to Faith and the Sphere in which it expands in our Religion will be incorrect—in our opinion—unless it is synonymous with Islam or is linked to it”. He further adds by considering faith void if it is mixed with rebellion, and committing crimes as wantonness against the required obligations as well as rebellion on God’s Sharia. But this general understanding certifies that Islam totally refuses any policy involving wantonness against the needed activities and rebellion against God”. He continues to say: “For that, we consider disobedience to God as defection from Islam, straying from the Religion and destruction of Faith, even if that disobedience is supported by knowledge and certainty. The sins which this rebellion compares are those which remove the sinner from faith; and it was the feeling of this fact which made Aba Bakar equalise between one who gives no alms and a sinner, notwithstanding their claim that they are faithful—this ruling is equally true in all similar conditions. Desisting God’s word, disdaining the duties of Religion and taking pride in sinning cannot be called obedience or surrender unless if ignorance is considered knowledge and lies are called truth.

          Our conviction regarding synonymity of Islam and Faith is supported by Al-Qartaby in his translation of (The Verse III: 19): “The Religion before God is Islam (Submission to His Will)”. He says that Religion in this verse means obedience and confession, and Islam means faith and submissiveness. Also, Abu Al-Aliyah—and he is supported by many commentators—has said that it may carry the meaning of synonymity and each be called by the name of the other, as in the speech of the delegation of Abdul Qais who ordered them to have faith in God alone and said: “Do you know what is Faith? They said: “Only God and His Apostle know”. And he said: “To confirm that there is no God but Allah and Muhammed is His Apostle, to establish regular prayers, to give Zakat, to observe fasting during the holy month of Ramadhan and to give a fifth from the gains”.

          Also, the statement of the Prophet which says: “Faith is seventy and a few fractions, the least of which is to remove the nuisance and the highest is to say there is no God but Allah” (Related by Al-Tirmidhy). And Muslim added that modesty is part of the faith and it may also mean integration in that one may be used and be meant for the original (meaning) and another (meaning) just as the Quran says: “The religion before God is Islam” which comprises confirmation and actions. Also, the statement of the Prophet: “Faith is knowledge in the heart and utterance by mouth and actions by basic principles. (related by Ibni Majid).

          It is strange, therefore, that a person should understand from the Quran and the Sunnah in a wrong way, and separates Faith from Islam whereas we do not see in the Quran any version which mentions faith singly, but there is connection with the action made on strong bonds which cannot be stripped by weakness and in most cases it is referred to Islam.

          Al-Razy in his translation of the verse: “Religion before God is Islam” has given the same explanation as Al-Qartaby. He says: “As for legal understanding, Islam is faith, and the proof for that has two sides:

(1)   The verse requires that the religion acceptable to God should not be other than Islam, and had faith been other than Islam, it would not have been an acceptable religion to God—and certainly, that is not correct.

 

(2)  God’s world: “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted of him”. If faith is not Islam then it could not be a religion acceptable to God.

          Now look at the verse LI: 35 which says: “Then we evacuated those of the believers who were there” That is when we wanted to destroy the people of Lot (Qaum Lut) we evacuated those who were the believers among his people so they would not be destroyed. But verse LI: 36 expounds: “But we found not there any just (Muslim) persons except in one house”. That is Lot and his children; the believers and the Muslims being the same people.

          Sayid Qutub gives a comprehensive explanation of the verse: “The Religion before God is Islam”, and says that Islam does not merely mean belief in God and performing some warships, but considers faith and Islam to mean taking every small and big in God’s Law; otherwise there is no faith and no Islam. He insists that the essentials of faith and Islam are the same as in the verse: “Moses said: O my people: if ye do (really) believe in God, then in Him put your trust if ye submit (your will to Him) (CX: 84). So, putting the trust in God is a sign of faith and its requirements and Moses has mentioned to them faith and Islam and considered trusting in God a requirement of this, and that a requirement of belief in God and a requirement of submission of self to God entirely, and performing what He requires.

          As for the verse: “The desert Arabs say: “we believe”, say, “Ye have no faith; but ye (only) say, ‘we have submitted our wills to God, for not yet has Faith entered your hearts”. (XL IX: 14). Some people may understand it as separating faith from Islam; but the Islam which the verse had mentioned is not the Right Religion which was meant by God’s word: “If anyone desires a religion other than Islam, never will it be accepted”. (III: 85) but it is surrender from subjugation and hypocrisy while the Right Faith is that which comprises hearing, Obeying and purifying (the soul) from the crimes (sins) and from turning away from God’s Will.

          Also, the verse: “And never would God make your faith of no effect” (II: 143) ensures synonymity of Faith and Islam. Many translators have interpreted “your faith” here to mean—‘your prayers’—and some who see separation of Faith from Islam have not found any reason to avoid mentioning prayers when translating this verse because of many supporting proofs given in the Prophetic sayings (Hadith) which have been related by the Companions or Commentaries of the early translators. But in the end, they attempt to find translations suilab1e for their opinion and have interpreted the version “Your Faith” to mean “your faith in the obligation of Prayers”.

          Al-Qartaby said in his translation of the same verse that there is a consensus among the scholars that it has been prescribed for those who died before the Qiblah was diverted to Mecca from Al-Quds (Jerusalem). This is said to have been related in Al-BUKHARY quoting Al-Barai bin Azib.

          Al-Tirmidhy related from Ibni Abbas that when the Prophet (S.A.W.) was directed to face the Kaaba for prayers, his companions asked: “O, Prophet of God: How about our brethren who died before the order to face the Al-Kaaba?” and God prescribed the verse and never would God make your Faith of no effect”. Then the prayers were called faith because they comprise determination, declaration and action.

          Also, it has been related by Ibni Wahab, Ibni Al-Qasim, Ibni Abdil Hukum and Ash-hab, (all) quoting Malik who said: “And never would God make your faith of no effect” means ‘your prayers’. Ibni Hiyyam in his translation—AL-BAHAR Al-MUHIYT—follows the pattern. He says: “And never would God make your faith of no effect” means prayers facing the Quds. Also, Al-Bukhary and Al-Tirmidhy have similar opinion. Also, Ibni Abbas, Al-Barani bin Azib, Qitada, Al-Saddy, Al- Rabii and others hold the same opinion—so, enough to be faith tantamount to prayers since prayers are derived from faith and are among its greatest components.

          Al-Tabry gives an evidence quoting Ismail bin Moosa who told him that Shariq told (them) that Abi Is-haaq quoted Al-Barai that ‘faith’ in this verse means your prayers towards Quds. Similarly have Ibni Zayd, Said bin Al-Museeb, and in the translation of AL-MANAR it has been asserted that many translators have interpreted faith in this verse to mean prayers.

          In Al-Dhalal, after translating faith to mean prayers, the author says: “Then the Muslims are assured about their faith and their prayers; that they are not astray and that their prayers are not lost.

          This is the most important explanation regarding synonymity of Faith and Islam, and if we trace all the translations, we shall find that most of them agree on this verse. Hence, it is clear that there is strong relation between faith and Islam and the two cannot be separated.

          But if we refer to the Great Translation and find that Al-Razy, in spite of his agreeing that faith means prayers, he nevertheless asserts his opinion and looks for an exit from the consensus of the translators and gives the word a figurative or a metaphorical meaning, and translates the verse by quoting Al-Muutazilah who argued that faith is a noun of the verse “Pious deeds”, and by Faith—God meant—Prayers in this version.

          We do not agree that ‘faith’ here means prayers, but it means ‘consent and confirmation’, as if God (wishes to) say: “That He does not make your consent for the obligation of that prayers”. Only by way of metaphor can faith be called prayers in this version, knowing that prayers is the highest faith and its results and benefits are most honourble.

          After giving many opinions regarding this question, it is now clear that Faith is ‘The Islam’ and the relation of Faith to Islam is the relation of binding, abiding and synonymity. If a person believes in God and in the Day of Judgement, and in the teachings of the Prophet, he will be quick to please his Lord and to follow His Straight Path’—otherwise there is no meaning in his word of mouth if he never enters a mosque and does not fulfil his religious obligations nor respects the God’s shrines.

          Mohamed Al-Ghazaly says: “It is a pity that scholars of religion do not care. If a person utters a word about Unity of God (TAWHIID) he takes shelter behind it and it becomes easy for him not to fulfil his obligations and not to abstain from committing crimes.

          From the foregoing, we observe the following:

1.     Sabir Taimah began his statement on Faith and Islam by expressing doubt in the book of “AL-JAMII” AL-SAHIH of Al-Rabii bin Habib (which is the Ibadhi main source of Sunnah). We say that many scholars have commented on this book which is among the ear1y books written on the Sunnah. Its sources of the narrations are considered among the most correct ones as the narrators are among the most trusted persons.

1.Ezzi Al-Din Al-Tamakhy says: “The three-fold sources of Al-Rabii bin Habib (who are Abu Obaidah— receiving from—Jabir bin Zayd—receiving from—Ibni Abbas. These people of Al-Rabii are among the most trustworthy, most memorious and truthful, and none has suspected their narrations because they are thrice-supported and all the three sources form a strong y lineage”. He also says: “The three-fold of Al-Rabii bin Habib Al-Azdy and its narrations are among the most accurate Traditions and most notable are the three people of reference who are Abu Obaidah Al-Tamimy, Jabir bin Zayd Al-Azdy and (the Ocean of Knowledge) Abdullah Ibni Abbas—teacher of Jabir and others among the companions who are all distinguished for their memorization, accuracy, faithfulness and guardianship.

1.This is but just a short review of the book of Al-Rabii and we hope it may remove some doubts.

 

2.    Sabir Taimah considers the Sunnites as the only correct standard of judging the others. We do not agree with him as all matters are referred to the Quran and the Sunnah for judgement. The Quran asserts: “No does he say (ought) of (his own) Desire. It is no less than inspiration sent down to him” (LIII: 3,4).

 

3.    Sabir Taimah repeats many times that Ibadhis derive their beliefs according to what has been written in the book of Al-Rabii bin Habib which they consider a source of their opinions. We assure him that ideological sources of Ibadhism are the Quranic versions first and foremost, and that the singly-related traditions (related single without support) though they are capable for actions, they are not accepted in ideology because of the suspicion of their source. The Ibadhis take such traditions merely for assistance and support.

 

4.    The Ibadhis are not alone in this opinion. We see many Commentators and scholars agree with the Ibadhis on the question of Faith and Islam. From where then, comes this confusion after we have given many references to prove the Ibadhi opinion. Hence, there is no reason to accuse Ibadhism of extremism.

 

5.    Sabir Taimah insists that Ibadhis are guided by mentality in the texts and thus contradict with their statement that mentality has nothing to do with matters of obligations and jurisprudence. We have to distinguish here between applying mentality before jurisprudence and using mentality to understand the texts. The Ibadhis like others, use their mentality to understand God’s words.

 

6.    Briefly speaking, the believer faces two things:— language and law. By language is meant decision, and by law is meant faithfulness to the Religion by word of mouth, activities and belief. This is what Al-Jaytaly as well as other scholars of the sect and many commentators and non-Ibadhi scholars have said. Al-Jaytaly himself says: “You should know-that faith has positions: “the first is introversion of the hearts and self-consciousness in believing the Unity of God (TAWHID) linguistically and lawfully. The second is pronounciation by mouth and expression of consciousness indicating acceptance before consenting. The third is about faith—that is working by principles and supported by activities performed lawfully and obediently.

 

12

On God’s Characteristics

(Qualities)

 

SABIR Taimah’s insistance on the Ibadhi’s refusal to accept God’s Characteristics and removing God’s uniqueness from the Characteristics which He has ascribed for Himself, and what has resulted from refusing to classify the Characteristics which the Ibadhis have classified—according to his opinion—and what has resulted therefrom in refusing the arm, the eye and the face . . . . such an insistence may lead the reader to think that the Ibadhis deny God’s Characteristics.

          The truth is that the Ibadhis are unanimous in denouncing anyone denying any of God’s characteristics—nay, but even a mere doubt for any of such characteristics is considered blasphemy and polytheism. Taimah has mentioned that the Ibadhis consider God’s names and His Characteristics as conditional and has praised them for their stand. Ascribing this stand to the Ibadhis is sufficient to consider them as being among those who accept all God’s Characteristics; but what does this acceptance mean? Are such Characteristics real in God’s Uniqueness or are they merely symbols? The Ibadhis do not see that they are real but are merely indications not having any outward reality. God Has ascribed them for Himself in order to teach us that to ‘contrast’ them is to misunderstand His Uniqueness. Thus, characteristic of life is a fact and it is not a denial of His Uniqueness—that is His Uniqueness is sufficient as a prerequisite of a Characteristic of life and there is no need to indicate another quality to prove the fact of life for Him. Also, the Ibadhi’s doctrine “God is Alive” indicates God’s Uniqueness is not dead, and their doctrine “God is Able” indicates that His Uniqueness is not incapable. And this is what the author has indicated when he presented one of the Ibadhi’s explanation of Characteristics.

          Hence, it is clear that the Ibadhis do not deny the Characteristics, but they deny the actuality of such Characteristics tantamount to qualities of other things.

          As for the actual Characteristics, they are demonstrations of the sources from which things have been derived. For example, availability of the provision indicates that there is one who provides, and this is a real meaning which indicates the existence of the provider in the same way as it indicates the Creator.

          The Ibadhis do not deny these Characteristics as belonging to God but the Ibadhis from the Eastern part have denied the qualification “did not still” as it is not proper to describe God as “did not still” but should be described as “still yet” i.e. (Maa Yazal). You cannot say: “God Has still” continued to provide and to create, but you should say: “God still yet” continues to provide and to create” i.e. (if you say “has still” it may mean that when He was in eternity, He did not create anything and did not find anybody to provide him with livelihood; but creation and means of subsistence came later).

          It is essential here to draw the attention of the reader to the author’s statement regarding the difference between the Ibadhis in the East and those in the West. There is close similarity in their writings and what may be called difference is merely literal.

          Quoting Al-Talaty, we see in the book “MASHARIQ ANWAR AL-UQUL” the following statement: “All Gods Characteristics are ancient and eternal as seen by the (Ibadhis) in the West, because it is said: “God Creates eternally—meaning He will create, and provides eternally—meaning He will provide. In this statement, it is clear that the difference is merely literal and the understanding is the same, that is, the qualities of action are in fact recent but the difference is only in naming them.

          In the book “MAARIJ AL-AAMAL”, Al-Salmy gives a briefing of Al-Talaty as follows:

          “Characteristics of God’s Uniqueness are those which God Has ascribed Himself for action in eternity, and action is that which is described as “Still Yet” (LAA YAZAL) and not that which is referred to action, and it indicates the speech by occurrence as its explanation shows, and as the Eastern people say—May God forgive them all.

          And when the Ibadhis in the West said that it is permissible to say: “God was still the Creator, the Provider and the Originator”, they connected that with three conditions:  

—   That the statement should be added to mean “God Will Still be the Creator for a creature yet to be created, and the Provider to one yet to be provided with.

—   That it should mean power (ability) to Create.

—   That by that, is meant active noun—meaning that it is not suitable for present and future if it is nunnated.

          In the same context, the author of the Dictionary of Law sees from the people of the West similar statement, and he says: “It is also said: God is eternal and is still the Creator, that is He will (continue) to Create, and Provide, and discontented, that is He will (continue) to be discontented with the blasphemy, and pleased, meaning He will (continue) to be pleased with the Muslims. This proves God’s power and ability to create, and using this doctrine indicates God’s power in the future.  

          Hence, anybody observing these statements will see the extent of approximation of the Ibadhis of the West with those of the East. That is when they approved the statement that God Creates in eternity, they meant confirmation of the power of God in Creation and made a reservation for permissibility to use this expression to indicate occurrence of Characteristic of Creation in the future.

          Whence, therefore, comes a serious difference and separation between the Ibadhis of the West and those of the East? Does not the judgment of the author on the depth of difference among the Ibadhis indicate inflation of the size of the difference.

          As for the author’s reference regarding the Ibadhis refusing the Characteristics of hand, aye, face and his opinion that their refusal has come about by their denial of Characteristics and their sections, the truth is contrary to that, in that the opinion of the Ibadhis in interpreting the versions which—in their face value—are parables, is, to avoid associating God with physical characteristics in accordance with the God’s word “There is nothing whatever like unto Him”. (XLII: 11).

 

13

On Interpretation

INTERPRETATION simply means moving the apparent meaning of the word from its original meaning to that which needs indication without which it does not change the apparent meaning. In other words, it is seeking the deeper meaning of the word or statement other than that understood when taken on the face value.

          With regard to interpretation of the Holy Quran, there are divided opinions as to its permissibility, some learned people forbid interpretation and say that no attempt should be made to seek meanings other than those understood on the face value of the verses. Others see that there are certain verses, which, if taken on their face value, contradict with other verses and make the meaning ambiguous. Hence, they permit interpretation in order to understand the Quran correctly.

          Among those who see interpretation as permissible are the Ibadhis, and for this, they have been accused of making interpretation without comparison and that they follow their minds (especially in regular matters). Hence, they deviate from the principle of interpretation, and consequently deviate from their own principle of placing the Law before the mind. The accusation continues to say that they (the Ibadhis) also rely on figurative language to the extent of transforming the apparent meaning (of the language) and impairing its criterion and, hence, violating the Quran and Sunnah. Also, their position with regard regularity is consider invention (i.e. innovation).

          The Ibadhis have their own opinion, and it is therefore prerequisite to see their opinion and to deduce the extent of the truth in this accusation.

Ibadhi Opinion on Interpretation

1.   The Holy Quran

          Ibadhis base their opinion for permitting to interpret the Quran from the Quran itself relying on the verse: “He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book: In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book; others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except God. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: “We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord”. (III: 7).

          The Ibadhis see that in this verse there is an indication permitting those who are firmly grounded in knowledge to interpret—this is evidence in the other verse which says: “If they had only referred it to Apostle, or to those charged with authority among them, the proper investigators would have tested it from them (direct)”. (IV: 83).

          This proves to them the need to understand the Quran and not merely be satisfied with its apparent meaning. Sheikh Muhamed Abdo has cited differences among the scholars with regard to interpretation and he himself leaned to permit it. Also, the author of “LISANUL ARAB” cited the interpretation of one of the scholars who said: “God Has taught (us) that, in the Book which He has sent down are verses basic or fundamental; there are no doubts about them as (because) they are understood and are well-known. And He sent down other verses which are allegorical, and the scholars have commented on them by way of independent judgement while knowing that the real meaning is known to God alone. That caused differences of opinions among the interpreters. Consequently, Ibni Al-Anbar supported interpretation. Also, Ibni Al-Mandhur supported interpretation by quoting the verse: “Nay. They charge with falsehood that whose knowledge they cannot compass, even before the elucidation (interpretation) thereof hath reached them”. (X: 39).

2.  From the Sunnah

          In the book of Al-Rabii bin Habeeb—Al-JAMII AL-SAHIH—we read the saying of the Prophet: “There is no word but has two sides; so give the words their best objectives”.

          Also, the Prophet (S.A.W.) prayed for Ibni Abbas, saying: “O Lord, make him understand the Religion and teach him interpretation”. (Ibni Abbas is reputed as the best interpreter of the Quran.

3.  From the Sayings of the Companions

          Apart from the interpretation of Ibni Abbas, other companions and their successors have their interpretations, most distinguished being: Al-Dhahaak, Mujahid, Ans bin Malik, Al-Hassan, Abiyy bin Kaab and Ibni Masoud. Had it not been for their conviction in permissibility of interpretation, they would not have dared or felt free to interpret a single version of the Holy Quran. The Ibadhis agree with Sheikh Muhamed Abdo on the permissibility of interpretation who give, among his reasons, the support from many sayings of the Companions of the Prophet and their successors.

          These are the sources of the Ibadhi’s opinion on interpretation. They see that it is the manifestations of the Quran to have versions which are allegorical to give the human intellect horizons for drawing out the meanings there of and for exerting effort notwithstanding the differences in abilities and eras. They also argue that if the Quran was taken at its face value, it would be contradictory and misleading. Many of the verses would lose their significant meaning if it is forbidden to seek the hidden meanings. If, for example, we look into the verse: “But those who were blind in this world, will be blind in the Hereafter, and most astray from the Path”. (XVII: 72). This verse, taken at its face value, indicates that those who are blind will also be blind in the Hereafter; but does it really and significantly mean that? Will the blind who is pious observing all the religious teachings be considered most astray in the Hereafter? Similarly there are several other verses indicating that a person shall be asked about his activities (sins) in the Hereafter—for example—“Therefore, by the Lord, we will, of a surety, call them to account”. (XV: 92). Other verses say that on that Day of Judgement no man or Jinn shall be asked about sins—for example—“On that Day no question will be asked of man or Jinn as to his sin ” (LV: 39).

          So, how can these verses be accommodated if they are not interpreted?

A.The Ibadhi’s Principle on Interpretation

          If the Ibadhis have their reasons for permitting interpretation, they do not interpret by following their whims with a mere wish to realise success for their sect. They have their principle to which they strictly adhere, and do not open a loophole for deviation from it. They make a condition that there must be a linkage for diverting a word from its significant meaning to its indicative meaning. They consider any interpretation void or faulty if it is outside the limits circulating in the Arab tongues.

          Here a question arises: What, then, is the essential and preferred principle for interpretation and what are the limitations? Their principles are:

1.   Narratives

          The Ibadhi school of thought has been founded on the teachings of Imam Jabir bin Zayd—an Omani who took his knowledge from Abdulla Ibni Abbas and from seventy of the companions among the survivors of the Battle of Badr. According1y, much of their interpretations have been narrated as having been made by Ibni Abbas, the best of all interpreters. Although many examples could be given, we shall discuss only three:

(a)  Al-Rabbi bin Habeeb relates from Abi Obaidah (who relates) from Jabir bin Zayd (who relates) from Ibni Abbas that he (Ibni Abbas) interpreted the “Two Hands” in the Quran in the verse: “Nay, both His hands are widely outstretched” (V :67) to mean the blessings of the Religion and the world.

 

(b)  Ibni Abbas has interpreted ‘The Right hand’ in the verse: “And if the Apostle were to invent any sayings in Our name, we should certainly seize him by his right hand” (LXIX: 45), to mean force.

 

(c)  Ibni Abbas was asked about the verse: “(God) Most Gracious is firmly established on the Throne (of authority)”. (XX: 5), and he said: “His invocation and Commendation have elevated above his creation and not as the defamators say that He has equals and parables. See Al-Jamii Al-Sahih No. 871).

          This is about interpretation of the Quranic versions which, on their face-value indicate embodiment. This has been based on the narration on condition that this interpretation should be in harmony with the topic, and on the principle of ‘strictly refraining’ from comparing God with anything in His Uniqueness, Characteristics and actions.

          With regard to stories which are said to have been narrated by the Prophet, and which are apparently allegorical, Al-Bashariy, in his book “MAKNOUN AL-KHAZAIN” says that such stories, if given by trusted people, will be examined. If they agree with the Quran, they will have acceptability in the Arabic language and will be given a meaning for their beauty and will be justified through interpretation. If they contain information which is doubtful, they are dropped because there is no way the Prophet can differ with the Quran with which God has guided him. The Prophet himself has asserted: “O, people, do not accept from me anything, because I do not permit except that which the Quran has permitted and I do not forbid except that which the Quran has forbidden; and how could I say anything contrary to it (The Quran) when God has guided me?” He also had said: “No prophet but has been refuted, and I shall (also) be refuted afterwards. So, what is related to you as having originated from me, should be exhibited to the Quran. If it agrees with it, then it is from me—I have said it—but if it contradicts with it, then it is not from me (See Al-BASHARY: MAKNOUN AL-KHAZAIN V, .I/169).

          The Ibadhis and non-Ibadhis alike do not complain about ideology except for stories related in succession. Each story which indicates allegory should either be interpreted in strict adherence to the rule of impartiality or it should be dropped if it does not agree with any possibility of interpretation and if it contradicts with the principles of ideology which have been established in the Quran.

          A1-Jnwainy says: “Stories which they insist upon are unilaterally related and they do not lead to (new) knowledge. If we drop all of them we could reach interpretation without them—hence it is permissible to abandon them”.

2.  Language

          The Ibadhis strongly insist that the interpreter must essentially be competent in the Arabic language, and they warn against interpreting words at will, lest the meaning is distorted. Also, they warn against interpreting the texts at their face-value. Examples of such interpretations are as follows:

(a)    Interpretation of the ward ‘EYE’:

(a)In the Book—MAKNOUN AL-KHAZAIN—we read: “As for the eyes, we say: This with my eyes and this with your eyes; meaning protection. “I have pardoned so and so for the eyes of so and so; and I have entertained so and so for the sake of so and so’s eyes”. Meaning for himself and for his eye by which he sees. “I have taken money —its eye, meaning money itself, and money does not have eyes.

 

(b)    Interpretation of the ‘FACE’:

(b)“I have not done this except for the face of so and so”—meaning for his sake. “I have done this in respect of your face”—meaning for your respect. “I have spent this (amount) for God’s face”—meaning the sake of God. Also “face of the town” means the Chief.

 

3.  Steadiness

          The Ibadhis have followed the verses of “steadiness” in their seven topics word by word, and have concentrated on the verb “become steady” and on the meanings of “On” and “Then”. The Arabs say: “So and so has become steady on the Throne”—meaning he has occupied the Throne; and they do not mean straightness after crookedness as it may be understood in the apparent meaning. Abu Ammar Abdil Kaafy replies to one who claimed that the “THEN” means resumption; that is, taking place of a thing after another—basing his argument on the verse: “Or the giving of food in a day of privation to the orphan with claims, or to the indigent (down) in the dust. Then will be those who believe, and enjoin patience, (constancy, and self-restraint), and enjoin deeds of kindness and compassion” (XC: 14-17). Does it mean that he did what he did and ‘Then’ after that there were those who believe?

          We also see Aba Sitta giving the meaning of “THEN” to indicate relaxation, respite as well as the ordinary meaning, as it is used for the world “AND”—as in God’s word: “Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as smoke).

          As for the word “ON”, people have sought its different meanings such as ‘affix’ over, spur, before and superiority.

          Hence, interpreting ‘straightness’ for ‘compulsion’, ‘sovereign’ and ‘superiority’ has not been outside the meanings of the Arabic language and their usages. There is no any pretext of yielding to the Quranic Versions for wishes or passions or inclinations, but it is the wideness of the Arabic language which enabled understanding of these versions in a way agreeing with the solid God’s word: “There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him”. (XLII: 11).

          We have previously mentioned that Al-Juwainy was among those who agreed with the Ibadhis in interpreting some of the characteristics, and we particularly refer to the question of ‘Straightness’. He has interpreted ‘Straightness’, like the Ibadhis, to mean compulsion, sovereign and victory; and conquest. He says that there are tributaries in the usage of words in the Arabic language. In his own words: “And that is common in the language, in that the Arabs say—so and so has become straight on the Throne when he takes the power and assumes responsibility”.

          Al-Juwainy further explains the value of specifying the throne saying that it is the Highest Creation in the opinion of the pious. Also, Al-Salmy is of the same opinion when he says: “the throne has been specifically mentioned in this verse and in similar other verses that it is the Highest Creation”. He referred it for praising saying that if God is the possessor of what is the Highest Creation and Governs it, then His domination of what is lower is stable and is in a better method.

          Will the reader then detect any proof on the accusation that the Ibadhis apply their intellect-ignoring the Sharia-in their interpretation of the Quranic versions? Will they agree that the Ibadhis have interpreted the characteristic by exercising their own efforts in order to clearly understand the Sharia? The Ibadhis exercise effort merely to understand the Sharia depending upon the linkage of the texts themselves and compare them. They explain their interpretations in strict adherence to the language usages. There is no ruling on the intellect and they never give the mind a free rein without restrictions. The observer or researcher cannot find reason to judge that the Ibadhis interpret at whims and that their interpretations are mere innovations. They sincerely invite interpreters to make efforts to understand the Quran in conformity with the principle of not involving God in the circle of the requirements of the Arabic language.

          Al-Juwainy has, like the Ibadhis, explained that if interpretation has a wide sphere and a possibility of elaborate stream, there is no need to burden the verse with what needs sings to prove the meaning. He also draws attention that taking some of the verses at their face-value—such as ‘straightness’, needs embodiment (imagining a body) and he warns against the danger of ignoring interpretation (to get the hidden meaning) and assures (but insists upon) its necessity and the need for it on the strict condition that the versions be given mindful consideration and proper lawful treatment.

          Can anyone judge the Imam of the two Holy places that he is an innovator? One should study his interpretation of the words: “light, eye, face, near, foot, coming, descending, leg, image, two arms, straightness and the like—Will he see any difference with those of the Ibadhis?

          Is Al-Juwainy also among the innovators who advance intellect before the Sharia, or is he exempted from them, and could be the exception? Certainly, the matter requires that all should exercise their efforts aiming at freeing God from what is not proper for Him among the characteristics of the inventors in accordance with the verse: “There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him. There is no connection in this principle with invention or advancing the intellect before the Sharia.

          Al-Juwainy is not alone among the scholars who certified interpretation in this respect. Others who came after him followed the same procedure, such as Al-Qafaal (leader of the Shafite in Iraq), Al-Saad Al-Jaftazany, Al-Ayjiy and Al-Jarjany.

          Sheikh Muhamed Abdo has grouped the scholars into two: Predecessors, who see that characteristics should be maintained at their apparent meanings with due respect. Successor, who interpret the apparent (meanings) basing their reason as the permissibility in a manner that the change agrees with the intellect, (according to his opinion).

          Al-Taftazany—for example—explains his opinion about the characteristics which are controversial, and says that giving them their real meanings is forbidden because of the possibility of allegorising them and embodying them. He assures that these characteristics are but images and imaginations of the intellectual meanings given in the form of sensation.

          Also, Al Razy—before Muhamed Abdo—has said the same thing except that he regarded the people of the first group as people who affirm God’s Being as Supreme (distinct) from place and direction, and who abstain from indulging into interpretation of the verses in detail. The people of the second group do not see any reason to forbid interpretation and elaboration and, among them, Al-Qabal is said to have interpreted the “THRONE” as follows: The Throne is tantamount to the King we say: “the Throne has been toppled” to mean the authority has been terminated. If the authority prevails and the order continues it is said: He has controlled his authority, Al-Razy comments on this opinion and says: “And I say that what he has said is true and correct”, but he chose to support the first group.

          It is worth mentioning here that we do not intend, by mentioning the views of some scholars, to consider them reasons for judging the justification of the Ibadhi opinion or think that were it not for such views the Ibadhis would not have reasons to clarify their opinion. What we actually want here is to ask the observer the following question: “Why have some authors taken the liberty of accusing the Ibadhis of innovation and of advancing the intellect before the Sharia in this particular topic, and at the same time keep quiet on those scholars we have mentioned above? Do they have the courage to accuse them of innovation and of avoiding the Quran and the Sunnah as they have done to the Ibadhis?

          The authors who have discussed the topic would be doing justice only if they judge other scholars—non-Ibadhis having similar views, as innovators. Our aim in the argument is not for the sake of the argument. It is rather an attempt to remove the confusion and to eradicate the doubt of embodiment comparison. “There is nothing whatsoever like unto Him”.