Priesthood and the Ulama

Priesthood and the Ulama

Whose work is it to deduce solutions from the Qur’ân and Sunnah for solving the problems that keep arising from day to day, and what are the qualifications required of those who perform this task? The answer to this question was provided by the Prophet r himself when Sayyidina Alî (RA) approached him asking: "O prophet of Allâh, what would be your instructions for me should a situation arise for which we find no guidance (from the Qur’ân or your Sunnah), no command or prohibition?" The prophet replied: "Consult the fuqâhâ [jurists]- and the pious and do not act upon a lone opinion."

Two conditions

The words hardly need explanation. The Prophet lays down two conditions for anyone to be looked upon as worthy of finding solutions from the Qur’ân and his sunnah: the consulted should be jurists as well as pious devotees. The importance of the first is obvious. Only them can understand the purport of the Qur’ân and the prophet's Sunnah, who has an in-depth knowledge of both, should be well-acquainted with their commands, and should have devoted his life towards understanding the spirit of the Sharî‘ah. Similarly, he should be one who does what religion requires him to do. One whose deeds do not correspond with Islâmic commands, who cannot distinguish between the permissible and the forbidden, cannot possibly understand the spirit of any Islâmic requirement. To deduce correctly is indeed, to discover the truth. And Allâh bestows the gift of recognizing the truth on him who reveres truth by performance of deeds. Allâh says in the Qur’ân:

"If you are pious and Allâh-fearing, He will bestow on you the gift of discriminating between right and wrong." (Surah Anfâl, ayah 29)

Pre-requisites

The words of the Qur’ân specify that piety and devotion are prerequisites for the ability to distinguish between right and wrong. None can otherwise qualify for this ability. In the words of Mufti Muhammad Shafi in his ‘Tafsîr Ma'arif al-Qur’ân’, "Resolving problems, not mentioned the Qur’ân and Sunnah can only be by mutual consultation of religious jurists and the pious. To impose an individual opinion on Muslims is criminal." But this is what the modernists do not like. They do not think it necessary to be learned or a jurist or pious for eliciting commands from the Qur’ân and Sunnah. For a long time they have been proclaiming: "The Ulama should not have a monopoly of the Qur’ân and Sunnah; there is no priesthood in Islâm, therefore, the right to formulate laws cannot be left to any particular group. To interpret the Qur’ân and Sunnah is any Muslim's privilege, in matters connected with Islâm, the Ulama cannot be given the right of veto," and so on. Such slogans are to be found in every modernist writing and it is necessary to expose the deviation underlying them.

Criteria

The first slogan is: "There is no priesthood In Islâm, therefore, no special group can be given the right to make laws." It seems that the projectors of this slogan are either unfamiliar with the evils of priesthood or they deliberately want to mislead the simple-minded people. Anyone with the least realistic spark in him can realise that knowledge, juristic talent or piety is not the name of any race, complexion or caste which cannot be obtained by one's own labour, but an eligibility for which anyone may qualify. If priesthood is to be equated with labour for qualifying, there is hardly any department of life which may not be described as priesthood. The qualifications required of the state president, ministers, judges, lawyers and university professors, would be no more than priesthood. If these may not be looked upon as priesthood, why should the qualifications required for interpretation the Qur’ân and Sunnnah, for acquisition of knowledge and piety be so equated? Anyone who has studied Brahmanism and the institution of priesthood will appreciate how different the Ulama of Islâm are from both.

Difference

Brahmanism and priesthood are names of two groups or institutions based on race, complexion and caste. No outsider can become a member of either, no matter how great his abilities may be. Addicts and pirates have been elected as popes but they have not been from outside Italy. On the other hand, an ‘alim is one who does not have to belong to any particular country or race. In the fourteen centuries of Muslim history, Ulama have been of a variety of complexions and arisen in every race. Even slaves have become Ulama and have been recognised as believers. Their distinguishing feature has been knowledge and piety, never family or other status.

The religion of which the pope claims to be an exponent, is silent over many of life's problems, so that his verdict holds sway and cannot be challenged by anyone of his faith. He is not an interpreter of any law, but is himself the law. To the contrary, the Qur’ân and Sunnah are all-comprehensive, their commands and principles thoroughly preserved. Should an ‘alim say or do anything contrary to them, the other Ulama are always there to censure him.

In priesthood, the right to make laws and interpret religion is vested, ultimately, In the pope. He is the shepherd of the flock and successor to the founder of the church, but the word ‘‘Alim’ is not the name of an individual, of the head of an order, but describes one who has acquired knowledge of religion according to well-defined principles. That is why an ‘Alim possesses no authority to impose his opinion on the Ummah. Such being the differences, it is absurd to equate the Ulama with the popes.

[Back|Home]