And who knows what their original thoughts on the matter were when it was first proposed? Were they averse to the idea or was it natural for them?

Though of course we do know from the story that once the selection was made by God, this proved to be one of the factors which led Cain to become jealous of brother Abel and eventually kill him…and God knows best.

If you see inheritance as something which comes under day to day dealings (which it does, it’s classified under mu’amalaat) you accept that the fine points about who gets how much and when could not have been worked out without revelation?

We could continue mentioning examples, but as this is turning into a hypothetical discussion, I’m not sure there’s much to be gained by continuing! I can see where you’re coming from though, but still don’t agree with your conclusion…

Perhaps we’ll have to agree to disagree? That said, I hope you appreciate the potential slippery slope that this can lead to (and did lead to for some in our history). For example, some Philosophers went to far as to say they held a more honourable position than the Prophets who were merely conveyers of a message, whereas they were engaging in thought which is more noble endeavour!

May Allah guide us all and keep us sincere in our quest for the Truth.

WS
Faraz

Not sure about this – it’s only wrong because that is what we’ve been brought up with. Aadam (as)’s children married – so we can’t say it is human nature – it is something that has changed over time. I might be wrong – usually am

For the former I think these things can be worked out if given enough time and sincerity – note I am NOT saying intellect, for I don’t think that that is necessary to a high degree.

The reason why people would never be guided were it not for the prophets is a) religious guidance – i.e. HOW to worship Allah and b) the fact that we do not have enough time or sincerity to work out the day to day rules ourselves.

(p.s. I think inheritance comes under the day to day rules – I see the beauty of Allah’s commands to us wrt how we interact with eachother is that it is the best way for us. We could try lots of other ways, but eventually we’d end up with choosing His way as the best)

About where punishment fits into this: The third level is the actual application of a criminal law system of trial and punishment and it’s this outward and visible fear that stops some people committing the crime. But the mention of this punishment in the Qur’an for example would also be a deterrent, but a religious deterrent as it’s not the fear of getting caught that stopped you, rather that God is saying that if someone does X, they deserve punishment. Do you see the difference?

The internal deterrant, is one that works with no text and no legal system, i.e. our Fitra, the natural repulsion we have for something that is wrong, e.g. marrying your sister…you don’t need any text or judge to tell you that’s wrong.

WS
Faraz

First off, revelation is a lot more than just a set of laws, so even if we accept your premise that one could given an infinite amount of time and sincerity work out the laws, then what about other stuff like details of the Unseen? (I know you’re not saying this, but thought I’d state it for the record).

That said, I disagree with your premise. When we say Islam is Deen al-Fitra we mean it complements perfectly the inherent nature we have been created on. It complements our Fitra, i.e. completes it, it’s not the same thing.

Your example about people being able to work out the “magic number” of the number of witnesses, do you really think that? I’m pretty sure that given an infinite amount of time and sincerity, no-one would be able to come up with that, or for example the details of wudhu, prayer, fasting, hajj, inheritence etc.

Revelation is key to this…as the dwellers of Paradise will say: “All Praises and Thanks to Allah, Who has guided us to this, and never would we have found guidance, were it not that God had guided us. Indeed the Messengers of God did come with the Truth.” [al-A'raaf v43]

This debate was actually one of the main points of issue between mainstream scholars and the Philosophers who elevated the role of the intellect to a position higher than revelation. The position of Ahl al-Sunnah is Naql then ‘Aql…we’ll come back to it in Usool, Firaq and Aqeeda. Seems like these subjects are more closely linked than I thought! Hope you stick around till then!

WS
Faraz

Let’s take your example of 4 witnesses. I think that given enough time, people would realise that that is the ‘magic’ number.

I guess all I’m saying is that I’m taking a position on the debate you mentioned when you concluded “For now however it suffices us to say that while the intellect has a role in searching for the Truth, this role is limited and needs Divine revelation to guide one to the correct path.” I agree with you here, assuming that the limits are ‘time’ and ’sincerity’.

In conclusion on the first point then, we’re saying that the third category is the only one that contains any specific punishment – although the same subject for deterrent may exist in the other two categories? e.g. alcohol – naturally people may find a deterrent in it, and this may be stated in the Quran, without even punishments being discussed. Others may heed the religious deterrent, with punishments only being stated for the hereafter. Lastly there are the penal deterrents of this world. But they all pertain to alcohol.

Is that the demarkation: 1) punishment not stated – more encouragement, 2) punishment not in this world 3) punishment in this world?

1) Levels of Deterrent
The levels of deterrent are the different methods God has given us to avoid doing what is harmful to us. As in there are a number of lines of defence we have protecting us…

An example where all three deterrents can come into play is theft. Of course it’s something prohibited and for most people the natural “fitri” opposition to stealing is probably enough to keep them on the right side of the law.

For someone else however, the desire to steal might be too strong, so they need a stronger deterrent to keep them in line. There are verses in the Qur’an and ahadeeth talking about the sin of stealing and knowing that it is punishable in the hereafter could be what this person needs to convince them not to take what does not belong to them.

For someone else however, these first two deterrents might not be enough and this is where the penal deterrent comes into play. What stops this person from stealing is a fear of getting caught by the police and being punished by the Courts. And this is what was meant by the quote by Uthman (ra), the role of applying a penal code is the sole reserve of a government and this way the government is “doing God’s work” for want of a better term.

[Note there are detailed conditions for the application of hudood punishments which we'll explore in subsequent posts.]

So in conclusion, all three in their own way prevent us from committing sins and harmful acts. As mentioned in the post, Islam is unique in combining all three deterrents.

About the public/private demarcation, this is another point but Insha Allah one we will come back to when we look at some of the laws in our discussion of the Darooriyaat, the first post of which should be up tomorrow.

2) Deen al-Fitra
As mentioned in the post, we will come back to this point when we discuss Aqeeda and look at how different sects in Islamic History understood this.

In short we can say that while the intellect does have a role in knowing God, this role is limited and cannot (regardless of how much time is spent trying to find the answers) work out all of the details in Islamic Law. Revelation is needed for this. You mention having infinite time and sincerity…why would God leave us on our own?! He has revealed His religion due to this very point, to make things easy for us!

For example, it’s true that our fitra tells us that fornication and adultery are wrong but the details of how many witnesses etc are needed to prove the occurence of the crime cannot be worked out by the intellect alone.

When we say Islam is “Deen al-Fitra”, we mean that the laws are in accordance with our inherent nature, not that we can work them all out by ourselves. But you’re right that given a completely Utopian society, just living based on our fitra would probably be enough to give us a general idea of what is right and wrong…of course this is not a reality as we don’t live in such a world! Even so however, to reiterate the point to know all the details, we need revelation.

Hope that makes sense.

WS
Faraz