Legitimacy and Authority

Legitimacy and Authority 

The question of both legitimacy and authority is often not framed using either of these words, even though they are central to our understanding of society, at large, and that of our beautiful religion, that concerns itself most with our social order. 

Indeed the Messenger (saw) said “pray as you have seen me pray”. All legitimacy, and therefore authority, is derived from both his actions and his words. 

His words here command us to heed his actions. 

Furthermore he (saw) told us that he learnt the prayer firsthand from the archangel Jibreel (Gabriel) (as). 

Down through 1400 years, this command to pray “as you have seen me pray” is the bedrock of all legitimacy. Not because it talks of prayer, but because it is like a rope extending down the centuries to a terminus within the Messenger’s (saw) own life. 

However when we are faced with multiple schools of thought, how then can we cope with the demand that legitimacy puts upon us, in the face of difference of opinion. 

Many faced with this dilemma resort to a concept which has more to do with the false religions that predated Islam, and some that to this day still advocate “blind faith” as being the kernel of their religion. 

How can we as a Nation justify our behaviour with appellations to “blind following” (Taqleed), when God’s speech declares “are the blind equal to the seeing?”, whilst also declaring that it is a guide to the pious (muttaqun)?

In Ali Shariati’s system of thought one of the pillars of unbelief is the promotion of ignorance. 

The promotion of Taqleed, which came to be defined in the era following on from the cementing of the four madhabs (schools of legalistic thought), is nothing short of the promotion of ignorance. 

And then for scholars to justify it by appellation to the era directly following on from the loss of the revelationary connection, when the Messenger (saw) left this earthy abode, is just plain wrong. 

It is to remove Taqleed (blind following) from its origins within the sectarianism of the Madhabs (four schools of thought) and to transpose it to the generation that the Messenger (saw) called “the best generation is this generation and the one that follows that, ….”  

There was never any sectarianism in Kufa, nor in Medina, neither in Misr, during those first few generations. And the same is true for the centuries that followed up until the cementing of the Madhabs into four schools of legalistic opinion, that demarked what it meant to be a Muslim during that era. 

Granted that we had moved on from that, because we as a Nation realised that sectarianism had no place within our faith. 

But we still live within its shadow when we justify ourselves using arguments that Taqleed is both beneficial and necessary. 

But if those first few generations did not do “Taqleed”, and granted they were also not all scholars who deliberated on all that they did, before putting it into action, what in the body of knowledge of our religion could give them legitimacy within their practice of that same religion?

“Allah t’ala will never unite my Ummah upon misguidance”

It is as if this saying of the Messenger (saw) was made to solve this problem. 

In Islamic legal theory this is the foundation of Ijmaa’ - the consensus of the scholars- as a source of knowledge. 

But it’s power deepens beyond that. 

For it is with this saying that we can escape from accusing the first generations of blind following, for if they were holding to the commonly held views and practises then they were safe in their justification of those things. 

As the centres of jurisprudence developed in spatially distant lands from Kufa to Mecca to Misr, it is clear that so long as you held to the commonly held views and practices within those centres of population you were safe by virtue of this Hadith. 

Alhamdolillah using it  in a descriptive manner blesses us, and saves the honour of our forbears. Indeed it is said that those that curse the prior generations are themselves cursed. 

But taking it in a prescriptive manner makes it even more powerful as a determinant of what and how we should deal with difference of opinion in this age. 

The scholarly classes have used it in a prescriptive manner to advocate for the Ijmaa  (consensus) of the scholars, and here it’s potential for unification has been thwarted. 

However. when we apply it to our selves and the practice of our religion, and we try and understand the implications that this Hadith brings to us, then it opens a door. 

“Allah will never unite my Ummah upon misguidance”

Says to me when I look at it from the perspective of my own practice- “strip away all that is superfluous, and harken to that which is clear and agreed upon”. 

And this understanding in fact resonates with the clear prescription of the Messenger (saw) to make things easy for the people. 

So for example with this understanding the raising of the hands, between the first takbeer and the right and left salutations over each shoulder, is superfluous. 

It is not agreed upon and therefore should be abandoned. Whereas the first raising of hands at the outset of the SALAAT is agreed upon and should never be left. 

In each matter we should endeavour to strip away that which is not agreed upon, in favour of that which is agreed upon, and when we do this we will realise not just the beauty, simplicity and succinctness of the religion, but we will also make the religion more appealing to humanity. 

This prescription to strip away the superfluous is indeed a powerful tool to unite us all, whilst also allowing for further difference of opinion. And it is a means for guaranteeing legitimacy, and legitimate authority for those that would seek it. 

Knowledge is sought l through study and reflection. Not by attending lectures or talks or reading this above. 

I write to stimulate your thought, and not to spoon feed.