Allah tells in the Quran that if this had been the word of someone other than Him, there would be discrepancies in it (4/82). This statement is at the same time a criterion for extracting meanings from the Quran that are not explicitly mentioned in it. That is, anything you claim in the name of God must be consistent with the entirety of the Quran. Only by looking at a single verse and claiming something based on that is not enough to authenticate that meaning. Worse, without looking at any Quranic verse and claiming something in the name of God just because it sounds logical or because it is how it should be in your opinion is completely baseless. So, trying to resolve a complication must involve ideas that are consistent with the entirety of the Quran.
Coming to our issue about who to blame for all the evils befalling a person, telling spiritual words and escaping rational inquiry is unacceptable, because in nowhere Allah approves of such practice. On the contrary, He constantly invites both the believers and the disbelievers to think rationally. Accordingly, what is done in the second episode is finding an explanation to the verse 4/79 that is consistent with the entirety of the Quran and is compatible with the reason and heart. Once this basis is established, the four explanations that are provided in the first episode can be used as supplementary comments on the issue.
The conclusion we arrived at about 4/79 was that all events can be perceived as good, if the subject person can see the hand of God or feel His company throughout the events. And this perception of good is through God. Once that tie is severed or if seeing the hand of God or feeling His company is difficult for the person, than an atmosphere of solitude settles on the psyche of the individual, which multiplies the burden; and this state is from the self. As you see, according to this interpretation, there is no blame on the individual about the evils ailing them. However, they are alerted about the different perspectives, which have the potential to burden them psychologically, and are invited to the ones related to God.
This change of perspective, it should be noted, may not be that easy, though. The intensity of the situation and the emergency of the needs may hinder rational approaches. This is why the believers are described as those who suggest each other the truth and patience (3/200, 103/3). This kind of mutual support has the dimension of spirituality in it, which can fill in the time gap necessary to calm down and rationalize the events.
The last point we left the discussion was that why the Islamic scholars could not, or did not, think about this solution, when it is not that revolutionary or novel. To see this, we are going to compare the two readings of the same verse, i.e. the classical one and the one presented in this series.
According to the classical reading, as God is talking to the prophet, He suddenly interrupts the talk and tells a word of wisdom, which is "anything good is from Him, anything bad is from the self". Then, God continues His talk with the prophet. About this, the scholars say that, it cannot be the prophet Muhammad (pbuh) who is blamed of mistakes, because he is the messenger of God, and is supported by God in his actions. Furthermore, if the prophet is faulty in some of his deeds or interactions with people, then this becomes a flaw in the representation of the divine mission. If the teacher is faulty, how can you expect the students to be perfect? Accordingly, it doesn't make sense that God addresses the prophet Muhammad in this verse, where He exclusively connects the mistakes of a person and the evils befalling them. Then, God must be giving his messenger a lesson to be conveyed to every single person: your mistakes are the root cause of the misfortunes troubling you. And this message is not an announcement to a group of people. It is an individual address, where the second singular person is used.
Now let's see the meaning of 4/79 through the perspective we formed in the previous episode. Since in the previous verse, God explicitly tells that all that is good or evil in our perspective comes from Him, this verse must be talking about how we perceive things. Therefore, the intention here is not to burden someone with the responsibility of evils befalling them. Rather, the attention is drawn to the role of self in how we perceive things. And so, God admonishes us to look at life events through His light so that we can see the goodness. This reminder is done in the second singular person to the prophet Muhammad, because he, too, is a human being and he is also subject all human conditions including the psychological and neurological aspects. So, he, too, must be reminded of this fact so that he can become a perfect role model for the people. After all, a messenger who is not subject to the same challenges as his people could not become a true example and teacher. The fact that God addresses in this verse individually is a way of saying "look at me! you are not alone here and I am with you; focus on your duty and never mind what is not in your hand but is in my hand."
If you compare the two interpretations, first of all, we saw that the first one leads to a discrepancy (first episode) but the second doesn't (second episode). Beyond that, the first one, which is the classical interpretation by the scholars, portray a figure of Muhammad that is free of humanly weaknesses. He is described as a perfect being, free of mistakes. The second interpretation, on the other hand, considers the prophet Muhammad as a human being with all the associated weaknesses and challenges. Accordingly, unless he is explicitly informed by God about something or supported through a special treatment, prophet Muhammad can exhibit the same states any other human can, such as happened when his wife Khadijah died or towards the end of the battle of Uhud.
The second observation above is a red line for the scholars. When the discussion is about whether the prophet is human-like or god-like, the scholars clearly take the position on the human side. But when you follow logically through this, they start perfecting the prophet so much so that he becomes super-human. That is, the messengers of God are flawless and perfect individuals so that they can be excellent examples to the people. Otherwise, if the messengers have mistakes and weaknesses, their messengership would become flawed and the disbelievers would have an excuse not to believe. As a side note, this is the same reason that some scholars reject the fact that Moses (pbuh) had a speaking defect; but this is not the topic here. In short, the underlying reason for the classical interpretation of 4/79 is the scholars' axiom of perfection regarding the messengers of God.
Just to remind, the understanding proposed in this series does not necessarily say that the prophet is making mistakes that cause troubles for him later; rather, it says that the prophet's perception of events and the subsequent emotional states can become a challenge for him, regardless of him having done any mistake. So, this discussion is not really about a prophet who has his own mistakes, but who must monitor the way he considers the life events.
Of course, when you put it this way, you may hear sharp criticism from the scholars to defend their position, and they list cases from the Quran where God criticizes the prophets for their mistakes, including Muhammad (pbuh). But when you want to progress on that fact, the scholars return to their classical discourse: "the mistakes of the prophets are mistakes for their level, but not like what we consider as mistake for ourselves. Their mistakes would be virtuous acts for us. So, you cannot really build a conclusion on their being mistaken. Such effort itself would be a mistake." Why are they so sensitive on the issue? What aren't they comfortable with a messenger figure who is not necessarily as perfect as they think? After all, mistake-free messengers cannot be perfect examples for the mistake-prone people. Why is it so hard to accept the fact that the messengers have their own humanly weaknesses and challenges, unless supported by a divine intervention?
Here are a few ideas I have as an answer. One, when you open the door to accepting the prophet as a human being like us, then some can proceed to producing no matter what about the prophet, thereby unjustly undermining the foundaitons of faith. In order to avoid such baseless and disrespectful actions, the scholars may have chosen to elevate the prophet's status.
Another reason for perfecting the prophet could be the interaction with the members of the other faiths where the messenger has already been perfected above human levels. For example, if you are in a psychology to compete with a Christian, for who Jesus is a divine figure free of mistakes and deficiencies, how can you do so with the figure of a prophet who is only human? But this mindset is clearly misguided.
Last but not the least, when the Islamic scholars were building a body of jurisdiction that deals with virtually all aspects of life, they needed a hierarchy of knowledge. In this hierarcy, Quran was at the top, naturally. Second in the line was the prophet Muhammad, again naturally. So, in order to defend a jurisdiction on the status of a given action, you need unshakeable grounds. So, bringing the actions of the prophet to question by virtue of being a human does not serve to that end. But of course, this kind of tendency emerged after some time following the death of the prophet, when the mentioned efforts became most prevalent.
God knows best.
No comments:
Post a Comment