8 Results Visit ‘s Farid Esack Page and shop for all Farid Esack Books by Farid Esack . See search results for author “Farid Esack” in Books. this is the very core of Islam. Arifa Farid*. Farid Esack, Qur’an, Liberation and Pluralism: An Islamic. Perspective of Inter-Religious Solidarity Against Oppression. The latest Tweets from Farid Esack (@FaridEsack). University of Johannesburg Academic, Board Member of @BDSsouthafrica. South Africa.
|Published (Last):||2 March 2014|
|PDF File Size:||13.93 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||2.44 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
During the late s, Farid Esack was one of the most conspicuous Muslim campaigners against apartheid in his native South Africa. His sermons and broadsides diffused by the Call to Islam association of which he was National Co-Ordinator until were warmly fadid, particularly by anti-racist sections tarid the Christian churches. Among Muslims, however, he remained a provocative and sharply controversial figure.
Most mosques and Islamic organisations saw him as a dangerous gadfly, either because they were nervous about his support for the ANC, which fari believed might launch Ugandan-style expulsions of South Africa’s Asians, or because they were disturbed by his apparent co-option by Selly Oak-type Christians.
Deprived of a substantial base of Farjd support, in the tense, dying years of the apartheid regime he found himself in the sparsely-populated veld which separated two laagers: This rejection by South African Islam drove Esack further into the embrace of Christian activist movements, who paid for his studies and welcomed him on their platforms. But it is only with the publication of this book that the extent to which his views have reflected this Christian suhba has become clear.
Esack is here proposing an iconoclastic revolution in Islamic methodology, the result being a set of Islamic ethics which dovetail precisely fsack liberal values. No unsightly survivals from the past are to be permitted: Esack is here treading the path taken by earlier modernists, such as Ameer Ali, who a hundred years ago re-examined the Qur’an to discover in its pages the entire moral code of Victorian England.
Prof Farid Esack
Esack recognises that to defuse or bypass the apparently non-liberal and traditionalist thrust of Muslim scripture requires an elaborate new hermeneutic. To kill the unsightly old furu for good, the old usul must be uprooted. Hence much of the book attempts a scholarly reappraisal of tafsir Quranic exegesis and usul al-fiqh jurisprudence. One recognises traces of fariid postmodern strategy in the hyperbolically close reading of the text, which then unravels, to be sewn back together with meanings ‘read in’ by the bold hermeneut.
Unfortunately, this project is marred by a worrying crop of academic eeack, some quite glaring. Just a sample few of these will indicate the nature, if not the scale, of the problem. On page 95 a hadith describing all humanity as ‘the family of God’ is weirdly justified by attributing it to the neo-Wahhabi writer Nasir al-Albani’s book Silsilat al-Ahadith al-Da’ifawhose explicit intention is to list only hadiths which esaack spuriously attributed to the Prophet. On page we are told that the Ash’aris ‘opposed rationalism and eeack supportive of notions of predestination’, whereas this is in reality a good definition of the Hanbalism which the Ash’aris opposed: On page a tafsir work is attributed to Ibn Arabi, whereas scholarship has known for several decades that this text is in fact by Afif al-Din al-Tilmasani.
The use of dates is at times inconsistent and confusing: The reader’s confidence is further undermined when he learns of Esack’s scepticism about the authenticity of the hadith literature.
Ignoring the recent vindication of the hadith by Harald Motzki of Hamburg University, Esack plumps for a traditional scepticism a la Goldziher and Schacht, and announces that ‘where I do cite a hadith in support of a particular opinion, it is not because I believe faris it is authentically the word of Muhammad, although that may indeed fard the case; I cite a hadith because it reflects the presence of, and support for, the idea among earlier Muslims.
He does not, for instance, have to construct an exegesis to defuse such hadiths as ‘Each Jew or Christian who hears of me, and then does not believe my message, shall be one of eaack inhabitants of the Fire.
This is because his radical deconstruction of the Qur’an relies heavily on locating it within its original context. The Pakistani scholar Fazlur Rahman suggested ewack the sacred text acquired its temporal colouring from its passage through the mind of the Prophet, and that the traditional situational exegesis asbab al-nuzul active upon each verse has a confining effect. The rules of the Qur’an cannot regularly transcend the coordinates in time and space which they immediately addressed.
A hukmto use the language of the jurists, is not normative wsack cannot transcend the archetypal illa or the sabab. And fagid the ratio of so many moral events today radically altered, Rahman and Esack demand that the content of the Qur’anic message must in many places be subject to suspension or fundamental reevaluation.
Hence Esack writes p. Mustafa al-Siba’i, for instance, used it to enable his vision of the Qur’an as a kind of Marxist manifesto. But Esack, by querying the hadith literature, has in fact closed this option against himself.
The contexts of Qur’anic revelation are mediated entirely by the hadith. Sira is merely a hadith genre – and not the least precarious one; and if there is no Sirathere are no asbab al-nuzul. Having allowed Schacht to bake his cake, Esack cannot then unbake it in order to do exegesis. Esack’s tafsiras he himself makes clear, is driven by praxis. It is not an abstract encounter with God and revelation that moves him to redefine the latter and to some extent the former ; it is his own turbulent experience of injustice in the world.
He borrows from the liberation theology of Gutierrez and others to suggest that farjd scriptural readings which acquiesce in establishment tyranny must be displaced by a liberative exegesis that emphasises God’s justice. This is a curious proposal, particularly since Shabbir Akhtar and others have already seen liberation theology as amounting in effect to an Islamization of Christianity.
The New Testament urges us to ‘resist not him that is evil’, and enjoins believers to postpone restitution until the imminent Second Coming. Islam, by contrast, appears as intrinsically liberative, taking its cue from the patterns of the Sira.
Kenneth Cragg has famously criticised Islam’s alleged optimism about ‘political religion’ and the chances of reforming the deeply sinful structures of the world. But Esack is here working with the contrary stereotypes: Esack’s odd but interesting exercise in role reversal was inspired by his admirable willingness to cooperate with Christian opponents of apartheid.
A prominent consequence of this has been his interrogation of what he takes to be traditional Sunni verdicts on the religious efficacy of the Religions of the Book. For him, the supersessory salvation history conceptualised in the kalam is not enough; he will only approve a doctrine which esac Christians and Jews, and others, to achieve salvation on their own terms.
This obliges him to examine and attempt to defuse the numerous Qur’anic verses that appear to condemn pre-Muslim forms of religion, a task to which he brings to bear the theory developed in particular fraid Rashid Rida that iman and kufr do not denote what Cantwell Smith would describe as ‘reified’ faith and unbelief, but dispositions of the heart which can exist within any religious denomination.
Tackling the verses one by one, as though they were a series of bombs, he disposes of some quite elegantly, but their sheer number appears finally to overwhelm him. He declines, for instance, even to attempt any defusing of a verse such as ‘They commit kufr who say, “God is Jesus, the son of Mary”.
Farid Esack – Wikipedia
He notes briefly the contribution of Shah Wali Allah al-Dahlawi in Arabic, ignoring Marcia Hermanson’s English translationbut fails to cite from that author’s principal work on the subject, al-Budur al-Bazighain which the Indian author develops a perfectly humane explication of how non-Muslims can be saved, even if they have been exposed to Islam and refused it. Neither is there any awareness of the dispute between Ash’ari theories of accountability being conditional upon receipt of revelation, and the Maturidi notion of universal access to fundamental metaphysical and moral truths irrespective of access to a scripture.
Recent Western discussions of the theme, to the extent that they do not appear in Christian periodicals, are also ignored. Thus, for fsrid, Kevin Reinhart’s important book Before Revelation merits no discussion rarid.
Even more puzzling is Esack’s neglect of Western Muslim reflection on the theme of religious plurality. William Chittick’s monograph Imaginal Worlds: Ibn Arabi and the Problem of Religious Diversity outlines, albeit with regrettable brevity, the Andalusian theosophist’s appreciation of non-Muslim faith. Ibn Arabi’s perspective predates Esack by eight hundred years, and yet is incomparably more nuanced, and has the indispensable merit of being rooted not in the transient hurly-burly of ‘praxis’, but in metaphysics and the direct knowledge of God.
Ibn Arabi is only somewhat less controversial a figure than Esack, but this should not have deterred the bold South African pioneer from mining his works to discover that Islam has, after all, nurtured an authentically pluralistic theology of the Other. It is surely an odd failing of Esack’s book that he fails to mention the very existence of this prolifically-published school of thought, which could farod him a paradigm of toleration which spares him the labour and humiliation of weeding out unfashionable views from the Islamic scriptures to allow space for his own concept of ‘what Allah must have meant’.
Esack’s exuberant manifesto goes on to tackle a further issue. Accepting without discussion the liberal axiom that racism and ‘sexism’ are analogous forms of oppression, he demands the abolition of gender-related dimensions of Qur’anic legislation which conflict with modern liberal values. In the early s, Nelson Mandela had promised the mainstream Muslim organisations that Muslim personal law would be introduced following the abolition of apartheid, allowing South Africa’s Muslim community the right to be easck by Shari’a values in matters of inheritance and marriage law.
Esack, however, led a determined protest darid this move. In May he appeared before the relevant government sub-committee, and pleaded with the authorities to change their mind. Partially due to this, in Octoberthe final version of the country’s constitution made it clear that there would be no room for Shari’a justice in the new South African state.
Esack, predictably, was delighted.
Esack’s campaign against the Shari’a is a manifestation of his apparent conviction that in every case where the ethos of the Qur’an appears to conflict with that of modern liberalism, then it is the Qur’an which must give way. Liberals who demand the abolition of Qur’anic guidance on inheritance, marriage, divorce, custodianship of minors, and indeed any farie social issue, must be set in authority over the ijma of the Umma, past and present.
This approach has provoked huge controversy in South Africa, particularly in connection with Esack’s advocacy of female imams in mosques.
He cites with approval a remote Cape Province community where men and women take turns in leading the Friday prayers, and mocks the foolish ‘conservatives’ who have the temerity to reject this. At this stage of the book Esack does not even go through the motions of claiming a Qur’anic justification for his views.
Neither can he be troubled to discuss the minority of classical scholars, such as Ibn Arabi againwho have validated the imamship of women for male or mixed congregations, or their fiqh justifications. The medieval experience of, say, the Madrasa Saqlatuniya in Cairo, staffed entirely by women, and where women led other women in prayer, does not merit a mention, nor do bula preachers in Bosnia, esadk the Hausaland wan-taro.
The recent discussion of the gender issue by Sachiko Murata, which is transforming the teaching of gender in Islamic studies departments in the United States, is passed over in silence. The sole and sufficient dalil is what he calls ‘progressive’ – the progress involved being not in the direction of the model exampled by the Companions, but towards the consensual values of the modern secular West.
Farjd feminist issue recalls once again Esack’s responsiveness to his Christian tutors, who have been anxious fqrid direct Muslims along the lines recently followed by those liberal churches which ordain priestesses.
Esacck age-old European concern with securing the Europeanization of the earth – imperialism, to use a more frank expression – today relies on reshaping the parameters accepted by the Other: Among secular thinkers this is today a common transformation, but in Esack’s case, his tutors have successfully secured a more interesting paradigm shift of a theological order.
Similar authors to follow
His book is written entirely in Christian theological language. It completely lacks the style and reverent tenor of Muslim reflection, with its characteristic indigenous terminology, and with the deployment of scriptures as sacred archetypes rather than as archaic problems. In fact, Esack is even less inclined to invoke God than are many Christian theologians, who at least manage to squeeze Him in parenthetically when they wish to make a poetic gesture, growing tired of their sterile intellectualizing.
One wishes that his tutors had shared with him Anselm’s distinction between soliloquy and allocution, between speaking about God and speaking with God. Muslim religious reflection traditionally attempts the latter; but Esack is more comfortable deriving affective resonance from sociological rhetoric ‘liberation’, ‘tolerance’, ‘progress’transposing ‘God’ to what becomes at best a minor and even dissonant key. Christian missiology has long recognised the need to secure such a paradigm shift in Muslim discourse.
Attempts to debate with Muslims on Muslim ground, using Muslim categories, have an unnervingly poor record of securing conversions. Modern missionary establishments, nowadays politely wrapped in the veil of ‘dialogue’, prefer to convert Muslims first to the use of Western Christian terminology and concerns, after which, it is thought, formal conversion will follow naturally. And in Esack’s case, the success of this approach is very striking. Given his language, his moral code, his disdain for the ‘the letter’ and preference for the ‘spirit’ however shallowly definedEsack has become closer to the New Testament than to the Quran.
To his credit, Esack closes his book by faltering. His exultant hyperliberal diatribe which throughout the work annoys readers with sarcastic and polemical language the ulema are ‘the clerics’; the Prophet is referred to merely as ‘Muhammad’gives way in the last pages to some long overdue reflections broadly on the theme of ‘where will it all end?
He rightly comments that ‘pluralism itself is not without ideology, but is intrinsically related to a discourse founded and nurtured in critical scholarship which, in turn, functions as an extension of areligious – even anti-religious – Western scholarship.
He has opened the postmodernist Pandora’s Box, and cannot say what will emerge next.
He speculates about Hindu priests conducting marriage ceremonies in mosques – and why not, given his logic? So well has Esack lubricated the canons of fiqh that anything is now possible. Should the next item be homosexual imams? New regulations for esaxk Shari’a marriages for consenting incest partners? Once the canon is broken, this year’s extremism is easily transformed into next fzrid pioneering innovation.
Esack has faintly grasped that his liberal ghuluww is wide open to this sort of reductio ad absurdum. Who will close the floodgates?