my cousins and uncle constantly bring this up ‘Islam came 1400 years back, how can u follow it completely now? how can u get up for Fajr etc’, however i gave them daleels and tried to explain them (because i know Islam is for all times and all people), but can you give me comprehensive reasoning about this (logically) and daleels from Quran and Sunnah that Islam is meant for all people and all times and so are its injunctions (Like i read this Hadith in Bukhari saying ‘All prophets came to a nation i came to whole mankind’) daleels like that
Kindly refer http://www.alinaam.org.za/library/iotimes.htm
ISLAM FOR OUR TIMES – how and why
Islam, exactly as it was revealed to Prophet Muhammad sallallaahu alayhi
wasallam, and without any changes or alterations, is the religion that Allah
chose for all people from the time he sent His Messenger till the end of
time.
Islam is thus for recent times just as it was for earlier times. But while
the texts of this religion are immutable, people’s conditions are not. What
can we do? In answering this question, people these days have been,
basically, divided into two main camps: the faithful and the revisionist.
THE REVISIONIST SAYS: Keep the religious texts as they are but give them
meanings that suit contemporary culture just as those before you gave them
meanings that suited their particular cultures. The texts are divine
revelation, but their understanding is a human endeavor. Divine words are
absolute, but their human understanding is relative.
THE FAITHFUL ANSWERS: But the Qur’an was revealed in clear Arabic words
whose meanings are well known to Arabic speaking people, “we send it down as
an Arabic Qur’an in order that you may understand.” [12:2] The Prophet,
sallallahu alayhi wasallam, explained the Qur’an verbally and by example.
All the Prophet’s words and deeds are considered to be a living commentary
on the Qur’an. The companions of the Prophet were better placed to do so
than later generations because Arabic was their mother tongue, and because
they had knowledge of the occasions on which the verses were revealed, and
the situations in which the Prophet’s words were uttered. Then came
generations after generations of great leading scholars whose extant works
are a living witness to the fact that they understood the basic meanings of
the verses of the Qur’an in generally the same way as they were understood
by the first generations. Your claim that each generation gave the words of
the Qur’an and those of the Prophet meanings that suited their contemporary
cultures is one that history belies.
REVISIONIST: Are you saying that they never differed?
FAITHFUL: They differed only slightly as far as the basic meanings of the
verses and the Ahadith are concerned. But they naturally differed sometimes
on matters like what was to be deduced logically from the text or the way
rules were to be applied to a new situation. What is important here, is that
the differences, whatever they were, did not come as a result of differences
in culture. They were individual differences that occurred even among
contemporaries living in the same cultural milieu. True, there were drastic
differences, but they were among those who adhered to the correct method as
well as those who adopted irrational methods.
REVISIONIST: Are you claiming that there is a scientific method for the
interpretation of Islamic text?
FAITHFUL: I am saying rather that there is a scientific method for the basic
understanding of every text, Islamic or otherwise.
REVISIONIST: How?
FAITHFUL: If you want to understand a poem by say, Shakespeare, what do you
do?
REVISIONIST: I consult the books that explain what Shakespeare meant by it.
FAITHFUL: Do you mean that you do not understand it in the light of your
contemporary culture?
REVISIONIST: No, because my aim is to understand what Shakespeare meant by
his poem.
FAITHFUL: Do you mean that you give his words and phrases the meaning that
he meant by them at the time that he wrote his poem, even if they differed
from what current English usage might suggest?
REVISIONIST: Of course; because my aim, as I said, is to understand what
Shakespeare actually meant. If I give his words meanings that he did not
intend by them, I would be attributing to him something that he did not say.
FAITHFUL: Do you follow this same method if you want to be, say, an
Aristotle’s expert? Do you try, for example, to learn ancient Greek in which
he wrote his philosophy?
REVISIONIST: I certainly would, and would try not to confuse it with Modern
Greek, because my aim again is to understand what Aristotle said.
FAITHFUL: Are there any ways, besides his language that you think would help
you in understanding his philosophy?
REVISIONIST: Yes, I would for example, try to see how his contemporaries
understood it because they were better placed to do so than I am. I would
also consult the works of the experts who preceded me, and so on.
FAITHFUL: Well, that is the method that we called scientific, and it is the
method we advocate for understanding Islamic texts.
REVISIONIST: But you are now ignoring the great differences between ordinary
texts and Islamic texts.
FAITHFUL: Would you please elucidate those differences for me?
REVISIONIST: One of them is that I can understand what humans like myself
really mean because I am human being, and because they address me in words
that are human; therefore limited. But God is absolute and what He means is
absolute, and cannot therefore be couched in limited human words. But if
every reader of Islamic text is given the right to interpret them the way
the reader understands them, there will be a multiplicity of meanings which
approaches the absolute.
FAITHFUL: Leaving aside your vague talk about the limited and the absolute,
the gist of what you are saying is that while human beings have the ability
to successfully communicate their meanings through a medium like Arabic, God
fails to do so. This is despite the fact that He himself says that he used
this human language so that those who speak it may understand his message.
REVISIONIST: This looks like a good argument. But related to the difference
we just mentioned is another important one. Islam, we say, is good for all
times and places. If we give the words of its texts the same meanings that
an earlier generation like the Prophet’s companions gave, we would be
limiting Islam to a particular age.
FAITHFUL: So, what is the alternative?
REVISIONIST: The alternative is what I propounded at the beginning Of our
dialogue. Every generation of Muslims should give them the meanings that
suit their culture.
FAITHFUL: Is this the understanding of the principle of the suitability of
Islam for all times and places?
REVISIONIST: It is, and I don’t see how it can otherwise be.
FAITHFUL: if the characteristic of the suitability of a message for all
times and places is what you take it to be, then any message, even one that
is advocated by the most stupid human beings can fit it.
REVISIONIST: I think you’re exaggerating.
FAITHFUL: I am not, suppose that some one called Mr. Donkey formulated what
he thought was a comprehensive ideology that consisted of many doctrines on
different aspects of life. Suppose that, to make it suitable for all times
and places Mr. Donkey concluded his ideology with this statement; I hereby
give all believers in this world ideology the right to make any changes in
it they deem necessary to make it suit their different times and
circumstance.
REVISIONIST: Change will start to be made in donkeyanism soon after it is
issued so much so that after a short lapse of time nothing remains of it
except that concluding statement. But the Donkeyans will continue to boast
of the suitability of their ideology to all times and places.
FAITHFUL: Is this how you conceive Islam to be?
REVISIONIST: Of course not. But then, what is your conception of this
characteristic of the Islamic religion?
FAITHFUL: I conceive it to mean that Islam, as it was revealed to Muhammad,
and without the slightest alterations, is good for all times and places.
What makes this miracle possible is that Islam is not a manmade religion. It
is a message of guidance from the Creator of mankind who knows who they
essentially are, and who thus addresses them as human beings, and
irrespective of their different cultures, colors, times, places, standards
of living and so on.
REVISIONIST: What do you then mean by the phrase ‘Islam for our times’?
FAITHFUL: I am saying that though the religion does not change, people’s
circumstances and problems do change. And so, to make the immutable religion
relevant to their special circumstances, we need to present it in a language
that our contemporaries understand, evaluate, in the light of it, any new
ideas or ideologies that have a bearing on it, refute any claims that throw
doubt on it, find in it solutions for new intellectual problems.
Finally it is important to make use of scientific discoveries to strengthen
the faith of its adherents, and to use them as means of invitation to Islam.
And many other things, all of which are made possible because though the
texts are limited, what can be deduced and learnt from them is not.
Dr. Jafar Shaikh Idris