Removing the Veil: Freeing Islam from Its Traditions

Much debate has taken place about the veil, a product of tradition rather than a requirement of revelation. However, there is a different veil that is of greater concern. This is the veil of ignorance. This veil was placed on revelation, "covering up" its teaching. The veil encompasses tradition and the rulings of the ulema. Tradition evolved from revelation. In time, tradition superseded and even surpassed that which gave birth to it in the first place: revelation. We refer to this as the second of three "theological coup d'états." These took place early in Muslim intellectual history when a particular authority was "replaced" by a different aspirant to rule. The first "coup" was the subordination of reason to tradition. The third "coup" was the subordination of revelation, tradition and rationality to the ulema. The subordination of revelation to tradition led to confusion. Hence, it is necessary to free the truth from what is covering it. Revelation was revealed 1,400 years ago, and there is no shortage of attempts to hide it. This would not be the first time that the adversaries of revelation attempted to taint religious knowledge. How did this happen? First, reason was repressed in favour of tradition. Second, tradition was presented as "revelation." The effort to "explain" revelation by recourse to tradition, however, resulted in an "eclipse" of revelation by tradition. The subordination of revelation to tradition is encapsulated in the expression that "the sunna judges the Quran," popular among traditional exegetes. The "addition" to revelation in the form of tradition was to mitigate flaws in revelation. These encompass "ambiguity," "inconsistency" (the presence of contradictory verses), and "incompleteness." Referring to revelation as "ambiguous," "incoherent," and "incomplete," however, suggests that revelation is "flawed." For example, it is alleged that revelation does not provide sufficient "detail" on the right way to pray. These assertions are made notwithstanding the fact that revelation presents itself as "clear," "consistent" and "detailed," and makes no reference to any "additional" revelation. In different words, the effort to "explain," "make consistent," and "detail" revelation is predicated on a rejection of key attributes of revelation: perspicacity, consistency and perfection. The concept of a "supplementary" revelation of tradition is a juristic invention. It aims to present an alternative understanding of religion. This perception is grounded in tradition but presented in the attire of revelation. The relationship between tradition and revelation requires rethinking. It requires an epistemological paradigm shift. For the traditional paradigm has failed to live up to expectations. The relationship between reason and revelation reflects the relationship between Allah and man. The relationship between reason and revelation received substantial attention. It is the subject of extensive enquiry.
What is the right way to use reason to understand revelation? Traditional Muslims are reticent to use reason. They have been informed that it is wrong to use reason in matters of religion. To be a Muslim, we are admonished, requires the abdication of reason upon the altar of tradition. The prophet allegedly warned against reason-based exegesis of revelation, referring to it as a form of non-belief. But this advice appears to go against the teaching of revelation, that exhorts us to do exactly the reverse, to use reason. May we assume that traditional ulema understood everything in the right way? Especially if their methodology precluded recourse to reason? Are we to believe that there is no room for further reflection? The Mutazilites (rationalists) were faulted for allegedly elevating reason above revelation. The traditionists, however, went further than that. They elevated not just tradition but also their rulings above revelation.