Farhad Shafti's essay “Why Am I a Muslim? What Do I Consider the Essentials of Islam?”

Why Am I a Muslim? What Do I Consider the Essentials of Islam?

Farhad Shafti

In the title of this essay, and also in the text, I have purposefully chosen the first-person singular pronoun to negate, from the very outset, any claim of prescribing for others or any pretense of presenting a scientific theory in the realm of theology, religion, or religious epistemology, and to humbly state that what I write in response to the above questions is my perspective based on my understanding of religion and the Quran—a personal understanding with which my mind and heart have found peace. I also hope that this title clarifies that the basis of this essay is not a critique, defense, or response to any of the statements or writings of thinkers in the field of religion and religious epistemology on this specific subject, and the sole purpose is to present my viewpoint for those interested, so that perhaps, alongside other different and diverse perspectives, they might place this one in a corner of the portico of thought.

Furthermore, although it seems more logical to first address "What Do I Consider the Essentials of Islam?" and then "Why Am I a Muslim?", since I have written these lines as a Muslim and for a Muslim reader, it seems to me that the present order is more fitting.

Why Am I a Muslim?

In response to this question, the usual expectation is that we prove that Muhammad is the Prophet of God[1] and that the Quran at hand was the revealed book of this prophet. My being a Muslim, however, is not based on deductive reasoning. I hold that deductive arguments can hardly prove or negate the above proposition and propositions of this kind in a convincing manner. This, of course, is not specific to Islam and the Prophet of Islam; rather, I say the same about other religions and other prophets and spiritual leaders of non-contemporary history. The premises of such arguments, whether for or against, are usually highly conditional and dependent on other premises. What often happens is that what makes these premises acceptable is a prior belief, and not the argument itself.

My being a Muslim, perhaps in the distant past, and disregarding the fact that I am a Muslim because I was born into a Muslim family, was based on the not-so-solid foundation of deductive arguments. At this time, however, from a purely personal perspective, I answer this question as follows:

For me, Muhammad's claim to prophethood is true because I know and have seen that belief in and practice of the outcomes of this very claim has led, for many, to spirituality[2] at the highest level, and for a great multitude, including myself, has led to an effective attention to spirituality. In other words, the very fact that I see this religious path, Islam, has been effective for many, including myself, in the direction of spiritual improvement, is the proof of my being a Muslim. The "spirituality" I refer to here is not a feeling of being heavenly or a feeling of sprouting wings, but rather moral elevation in a synergistic manner in the three relationships with oneself, the other, and the Transcendent.[3] From this perspective, it is a matter that is largely measurable and not an ambiguous phenomenon that might be the result of delusion. I accept that this observation and this experience are not the same for all followers of this religion; for this reason, I emphasized the personal nature of the viewpoint of these lines from the beginning of this essay.

A question that can be raised here is: "Is it not possible that a claim is false, yet acting upon it still leads to attaining spirituality at the highest level?" My answer would be: "Of course, but if we consider the function of religion to be spiritual elevation, then what difference does it make? Unless the falsity of that claim has been proven to the individual, in which case following him as a prophet would not be aligned with honesty and upholding honesty, and consequently would be contrary to ethics and spirituality." For me, the question of the validity of the claim of prophethood arises from a spirituality-seeking origin, and not a theoretical origin for knowing history. If this second origin is the standpoint of such a question, I see no motivation or interest in myself to answer it.

Muhammad claimed prophethood, and a book has been attributed to him as the fruit of revelation. In this book, that is, the Qur'an, based on my understanding of the concept of God, religion, and the phenomenon of revelation, I find nothing incompatible or inconsistent with Muhammad being a prophet.[4] I have read and I see that belief in this very Qur'an, the worldview contained within it, and the practice of the devotional duties of this religion have advanced many on the path of spirituality, with that purpose I mentioned. I see that, to my own extremely limited extent, I too benefit from these duties, and my reading of the Qur'an, if I apply myself, leads me toward spirituality.

This observation and experience alone are sufficient for me to, in practice and in spiritual conduct, regard Muhammad as God's prophet and the Qur'an as the product of revelation, even though, in theory and in intellectual inquiry, I continue to pursue historical discussions about Muhammad and the formation of the Qur'an—discussions that, especially in recent decades and in Western academic research, do not necessarily conclude with those same traditional beliefs. I also know that this spiritual conduct is, by its nature, certainty-inducing, but this intellectual inquiry is far from leading to definitive results and will, at best, arrive at probabilities. The certainty-inducing nature mentioned earlier is not in the context of imagination, nor is it limited solely to heartfelt assurance, but is in the arena of ethics and, as I wrote, is measurable. Despite acknowledging the inability of history-oriented reasons to prove or disprove the claim of a path, I consider continuing on that path, which has been fruitful for many, including myself, to be both ethical and rational, and I do not see it as being in contradiction with rationality. I see that ethicists and rational people have the same approach toward other matters whose practical aspect is predominant. I also find within myself the courage to have an open mind toward deductive arguments refuting what I believe in, and if a set of such arguments proves convincing to me, to revise my position.

I will explain and emphasize three important points:

First, I am fully aware that followers of other religions can say the same thing about their attachment to those religions. With the pluralistic view I hold and for which I have argued,[5] I do not find it necessary to concern myself with arguing for the invalidation or abrogation of other religions. I do not consider the justification of a religion other than Islam for its followers to be a threat to the justification of Islam for myself, although as a Muslim I allow myself to disagree with certain beliefs of other religions. In these sentences, by religion, I mean the general meaning of the word, which includes formal religions as well as spiritual paths that do not consider themselves among the formal religions.

The second point is an emphasis on what I mentioned above due to its importance: I hope what I have written clarifies that my approach is not that, regardless of any reason that might prove the falsehood of the claim of prophethood, I will consider the claimant of prophethood truthful only if practicing his creed brings me spiritual benefit. Far be it! "Spiritual benefit" is a criterion for remaining in a path whose reasons for refutation have not convinced me. If, from a theoretical perspective, the falsehood of the claimant of prophethood's claim is proven to me, then I would consider following him ethically impermissible and contrary to the path of spirituality.

Third, what I wrote about the impossibility of attaining certainty through deductive arguments in proving or disproving the claim of prophethood applies, in my view, only to the claim of prophethood in history, and not to the claim of prophethood in the contemporary era, a period where living witnesses and accessible documented reports are usually usable for the theoretical proof or refutation of such a claim.

What Do I Consider the Essentials of Islam?

Before posing this question, I find it necessary to explain that what I mean by Islam here is not its Quranic meaning but its conventional meaning. I believe that "Islam" in the Quran derives from the literal meaning of the word and signifies submission to God, and in more precise terms, sincere submission to that which we deem to be true. Here, however, by Islam I mean the religion and tradition that Muhammad Mustafa received through revelation and conveyed to his followers. Nevertheless, I will later point out that attention to the Quranic meaning of Islam is effective in deepening one's understanding of its conventional meaning.

Although I think it is clear, due to the importance of the matter, I emphasize that the discussion is not about "Who is a Muslim?" I, like many others, believe that a Muslim is someone who considers themselves a Muslim. I must also explain that by the essentials of Islam, I do not mean the obligatory duties of Muslims, but rather the essentials of Islam in terms of what Islam is. That is, which understanding of Islam, regardless of whether I agree with it or not, do I still consider an understanding within the spectrum of possible concepts for Islam.

To answer the question "What do I consider the essentials of Islam?" I need another explanation:

I can only answer the question of the essentials of Islam when I divide it into two separate questions: What is the "form of Islam" and what is the "purpose of Islam"?

I consider this separation important for myself because Islam has a form that all or most Muslims believe in, but they disagree with one another in the reading of that same form. I have a specific opinion on what the components of the form of Islam are, which will follow, but I cannot judge, using only my own understanding of the form of Islam, which reading of the components of the form of Islam can still be presented as Islam. For me, what organizes this fluidity in the reading of the form of Islam and grants it a relative but reassuring tranquility is the "purpose of Islam." Here, I will first state what I consider the form of Islam to be, and then I will address the purpose of Islam.

- What is the "form of Islam"?

The form of Islam, based on what I understand from the Quran, is faith and righteous deeds. Again, based on the Quran, the subject of this faith is God, the angels, the heavenly books including the Quran, the prophets including Muhammad Mustafa, and also the Resurrection. Also, arising from this faith and in its direction, are righteous deeds and the rulings and laws of Sharia that are found in the Quran and in the practical and agreed-upon tradition.[6]

It is very difficult for me to consider an intra-religious description of Islam as a complete description if it lacks one of the above elements. For example, if someone says that in Islam there is no belief in the Resurrection, or there is no belief in the books of the prophets, or says I accept an Islam without the Resurrection or an Islam without belief in angels, from my perspective, what they are referring to is not the entirety of Islam. Likewise, if someone says that in Islam there is no ritual prayer or that usury is not forbidden, again I cannot consider this a complete description of Islam.

This statement, while relatively straightforward, has an inescapable bottleneck for me, and that is the possibility of different interpretations and esoteric exegeses of this very form mentioned. Indeed, it is more precise to say that, like any other religion or creed, one can look at the form of Islam, but one can only see it after interpreting and exegeting its components. I think that Avicenna, Sheikh Mufid, and Mulla Sadra all believed in the Resurrection, but was their understanding of the Resurrection identical? Is the understanding that Ibn Arabi has of God the same as Kulayni's, and is the understanding of any of them the same as Tabatabai's? In the belief of what the Quran is, are all thinkers in the history of Islam, from Tabari to Fakhr al-Din al-Razi to Fazlur Rahman, of one opinion? Do all jurists have a consensus on what the usury forbidden by the Quran is? I answer myself: certainly not.

Faith in God is the form of Islam, but what God is like—whether personal, impersonal, or neither—depends on individuals’ interpretive and exegetical understanding. Faith in angels and the afterlife can be based on taking the descriptions of angels and the afterlife in the Quran as literal fact, or it may be based on the language of allegory or the language of mystery, and in general, on understanding these words as going beyond their literal meaning. On the subject of faith in the Book, the conception of the Book varies with different understandings of the nature of revelation; within this broad spectrum, some view revelation as a one-way, top-down experience, and others view it as a one-way, bottom-up experience. Still others consider it the result of a two-way experience, or an experience during which sender and receiver become one. The reading of the components of Islam’s form can also be influenced by historical research, for instance, whether the present Quran is exactly the same as the Quran of the Prophet’s time or has undergone changes. In the realm of rulings and laws, some consider them eternal and for everyone, some consider them specific to the time and place of revelation, and some differentiate between permanent rulings and laws and those dependent on social conditions. Furthermore, some do not consider these rulings and laws as obligations and, in the present time, view them only as recommendations. In a more general view of Islam’s form, some present this religion as universal and the sole path to salvation, while others consider it local and one of the paths to salvation.

Accordingly, if someone presents me with a reading of Islam’s form that differs from my reading, I will disagree with their view, and as long as I consider my own reading correct, I will consider their reading incorrect. However, I will not deem their reading to be outside the scope of Islam merely because it differs from my reading, or from the well-known reading.[7]

This fluid conception of Islam’s form, although it employs the undeniable components of Islam, cannot, due to its fluid nature arising from the need for interpretation and its capacity for interpretation, serve alone in formulating the essentials of Islam. By laying the foundation of what I call the goal of Islam, I try to bring this fluid form to a relative state of stability and tranquility.

     -     What is the goal of Islam?

I consider religion, including Islam, not as the goal itself but as an approach toward the goal. For this very reason, I seek the essential root of Islam not in Islam’s form but in Islam’s goal. Based on the Quran, I consider the ultimate goal of the religion of Islam to be the purification of the self (or spirituality)[8], and therefore I see an unbreakable link between the essentials of Islam and the purification of the self. This goes back to the concept of the “pragmatic God,” which I consider a Quranic concept, meaning that the God of the Quran is concerned with sincere action toward the purification of the self more than with true belief.[9] It is here that the link I mentioned between the meaning of Islam in the Quran and the conventional meaning of Islam becomes apparent. The principle is sincere surrender before what we deem to be true, and this very sincerity is directed toward the goal of the religion and is a prerequisite for reaching this goal.

Using the basis I have explained, I formulate the essentials of Islam as follows:

The essential of Islam is the use of a reading of Islam’s form that serves the path toward Islam’s goal, the purification of the self (or spirituality). In other words, I do not consider theoretical matters alone to be the essentials of Islam. These theoretical matters arise from a human reading of Islam’s form, and that form itself is the result of a human encounter with the Transcendent. I consider the effectiveness of the reading of these matters in reaching the goal of the religion to be the essential of Islam.

Therefore, any sincere reading of Islam’s form that potentially or actually leads to the use of Islam as an approach for wayfaring toward the goal of Islam, that is, the purification of the self, is, in my view, respectable and within the scope of the religion of Islam, even if that reading differs from the Islam that I or the vast majority of Muslims follow as vastly as heaven from earth.

Thus, the essentials of Islam from my perspective are the combination of these two:

1- All the components of Islam’s form, as detailed above, regardless of how these components are read

2- A reading of these components that serves the path toward reaching the ultimate goal of Islam, the purification of the self

The first criterion, as I explained, is a straightforward one. If any scrutiny or deep reflection regarding the essentials of Islam is necessary, it is not in the theoretical domain but in the domain of practice, for examining the degree of efficacy of a sincere reading of the form of Islam in achieving the goal of Islam.

I will conclude this essay with three points:

First, this discussion concerns the criterion for identifying the essentials of Islam, meaning which reading of Islam can still be considered within the scope of Islam. This is not a discussion about the criterion for deeming a reading of Islam correct or superior. Certainly, to arrive at a correct and superior reading of the form of Islam, alongside attention to the goal of Islam, philosophical and theological discussions and exegetical and hermeneutical arguments will also be necessary. To clarify this point, I will give an example. Two traditional conceptions and readings of the afterlife are bodily resurrection and spiritual resurrection. Both readings are aligned with the goal of the religion of Islam. Belief in the afterlife, whether bodily or spiritual, can be very effective in directing attention and effort toward the purification of the soul. Therefore, I see both readings as within the scope of Islam. This criterion, however, is not useful for identifying the correct or more correct reading. If, for instance, we hold that belief in bodily resurrection works better for the purification of the soul than belief in spiritual resurrection, we cannot conclude that bodily resurrection is therefore the correct or more correct reading. Only through the exegesis and interpretation of verses and theological and philosophical arguments can one reach reliable conclusions about the nature of the afterlife.

Second, using the second proposition to assess whether a reading of the form of Islam falls within the scope of Islam is usually a personal matter. Only by experiencing a reading of Islam can one reach the conclusion of whether this reading is on the path toward the goal of Islam or not.

The final point is that I know and accept that although attention to the goal of Islam reduces the degree of fluidity of the essentials of Islam, it does not bring this fluidity to complete stillness. In my belief, this degree of fluidity in the essentials of Islam is an inseparable property of the concept of religion and contributes to the coherence of religion and the vitality of the faithful. This degree of fluidity is particularly compatible and aligned with religious pluralism, which from my perspective is a Quranic concept.

.

---

.

[1] To avoid prolixity, I will proceed on the basis that we have accepted the existence of God as a premise. I hold a similar view and approach on this matter, which I have briefly written and expressed here.

[2] In the article “Beyond Mīm and Wāw and Mīm and Nūn: An Easy and Difficult Question on Religion and Spirituality” (Negaah-e Aftaab Quarterly, No. 4, pp. 244 – 250), I have tried to formulate the concept of spirituality.

[3] The explanation and elucidation are provided in the above article.

[4] In this talk, from minute 8:50, I briefly explain four general different views on the nature of revelation and elucidate my chosen view.

[5] Two writings related to the subject of religious pluralism: “Pluralism or Scholarly Exclusivism?”, “The Quran: Exclusivist or Pluralist?”

[6] What is meant is not hadith but the practical tradition of the Prophet, which has been continuously and by consensus of Muslims, generation after generation and in practice, transmitted to the present era. A similar expression, “sunnatihi al-jāmiʿah ghayr al-mufarriqah,” is narrated from Imam Ali in Letter 53 of Nahj al-Balagha.

[7] I referred to what I mentioned in this part with the term “form of Islam,” but I think this is the same as (or close to) the “shirʿah and minhāj” mentioned in verse 48 of Surah Al-Ma'idah.

[8] The "or" in this sentence is not born of doubt or ambiguity, but rather stems from the formulation I have of the two concepts of tazkiyah (purification) and spirituality. In truth, from my perspective, the more precise sentence would have been: "I consider the ultimate goal of the religion of Islam, based on the Quran, to be the purification of the self (tazkiyat al-nafs) and, in its highest form, spirituality." In the essay "Beyond the Meem and Vav and Meem and Noon: An Easy and Difficult Question on Religion and Spirituality" (quarterly journal Negah-e Aftab, no. 4, pp. 244–250), I have attempted to also formulate the concept of tazkiyah and explain its difference from spirituality. Also see section "3-1. What is the Ultimate Goal of the Quran?" in A Presentation of Farhad Shafti's View Offered in the Series of Sessions "The Quran and Three Fundamental Questions" written by Mehdi Iranmanesh.

[9] See the heading "The Pragmatic God of the Quran" in the article "The Quran: Exclusivist or Pluralist?"

.

---

.