Voices of Islam (231 page)

The pre-Islamic concept of
bid‘a
belonged to a wider semantic frame that linked it with its opposite,
Sunna
(established tradition). Islam took over

Creativity, Innovation, and Heresy in Islam
3

the
bid‘a–Sunna
paradigm but redefined its content. In pre-Islamic Arabia,
Sunna
constituted the well-known repository of tribal custom and embodied the norms of acceptable thought and practice. Each instance of
bid‘a
conjured up the image of a long-established
Sunna
that it threatened. Rooted in tribal practice, the pre-Islamic
bid‘a–Sunna
paradigm was doggedly conservative and functioned to insure the status quo.
6

With the advent of Islam, the term
Sunna
came to be closely connected with the normative teaching and conduct of the Prophet Muhammad. The link between
Sunna
and
bid‘a
was maintained, but both concepts were rooted in scriptural authority and complemented by the creative imperative to perform
ijtihad.
7

In contrast to
bid‘a,
the words
zandaqa
and
zindiq
(heretic/atheist) were foreign loan words and did not occur in Islam’s primary sources. They were borrowed from Aramaic or Middle Persian, most likely from the Aramaic
ziddiq
(righteous), a Semitic cognate of the Arabic
siddiq
(eminently truth- ful).
Ziddiq
was used by Aramaic-speaking Manichaeans
8
for their spiritual elite. In the pre-Islamic period, Oriental Christians applied the word to Manichaeans in general, which accounts for its initial restriction in Islamic parlance to Muslim heretics suspected of harboring Manichaean beliefs.
9

Zandaqa
’s foreign origins may account for its comparative lack of semantic breadth in Arabic usage. It was not, as some scholars have mistakenly claimed, the standard Islamic term for sectarian heresy, a role more properly suited for
bid‘a.
10
Zandaqa
was restricted to particular types of extreme religious infidelity, which were essentially atheistic. Although Muslims first used
zandaqa
for dualistic heresies of a Manichaean variety, the word quickly shifted focus to any cynical or generally mocking frame of mind inimical to religious belief. Consequently, in later juristic and theological usage,
zandaqa
was almost inseparable from hypocrisy (
nifaq
) and apostasy. Because the expression of atheistic beliefs or public mocking of Islam was a capital offense,
zandaqa
was usually concealed or expressed only in private. As such, it took on the sense of ‘‘masked infidelity.’’

By contrast,
bid‘a
as a form of heresy rarely referred to people who took their religious convictions lightly or hid them from others. Like ‘‘heretics’’ of other faiths, those of Islam were often zealous and outspoken and under- took missions to win followers. In the standard parlance of jurists and theolo- gians, such highly committed, movement-oriented heretics were not guilty of
zandaqa
but were classifi under the label of ‘‘people of [various types of]
bid‘a
and passionate excesses’’ (
ahl al-bida‘ wa al-ahwa’
).
Zandaqa,
on the other hand, seldom constituted identifiable and coherent movements.
11
Because theological
bid‘a
applied only in extreme cases to denial of faith,

it was rarely a capital offense, but, since
zandaqa,
if proven, was almost always fatal, it served on occasion as a powerful weapon in the ruler’s arsenal to destroy political rivals. When a head of state leveled the charge of
zandaqa
against an opponent, it meant almost certain death. Not surprisingly,

4
Voices of Change

the accusation of
zandaqa
in political circles generally had nothing to do with heresy but was so vague and unfounded that it was virtually impossible to determine the exact nature of the victim’s alleged offense.
12

Defining the content of creedal orthodoxy was a primary goal of traditional Islamic theology and reflected a correlated concern with delineating heresy. Theologians often drew sharp lines where the Prophet had not. It was his habit, instead, to suffice with simple declarations of faith, which he was generally willing to accept at face value as illustrated at the death of Abu Talib, his uncle, clan leader, and chief benefactor. Although Abu Talib vigilantly protected his nephew Muhammad from their tribe’s hostile and powerful oligarchy, he died without embracing the Prophet’s religion. As Abu Talib lay dying, the Prophet stood by his side and implored: ‘‘Uncle, [just] say, ‘There is no god but God,’ a [single] sentence by which I may bear witness on your behalf in God’s presence.’’
13

A similar doctrinal minimalism is refl ted in other frequently attested Hadith (Prophetic Traditions) that report him saying: ‘‘Whoever dies know- ing that there is no god but God shall enter the Garden.’’
14
He also taught: ‘‘Whoever bears witness that there is no god but God and that Muhammad is God’s Messenger, God will forbid the Fire from [touching] him.’’
15
On one occasion, such divine munificence disconcerted the Companion ‘Umar, who challenged another Companion, Abu Hurayra, upon hearing him give the good news of salvation at the Prophet’s behest to anyone ‘‘who bore witness that there was no god but God, having certainty of it in his heart.’’ ‘Umar went to the Prophet immediately and asked: ‘‘Messenger of God, did you [truly] send Abu Hurayra
...
to give good tidings of the Garden to anyone he met who bore witness that there is no god but God, being certain of it in his heart?’’ The Prophet answered: ‘‘Yes.’’ ‘Umar replied: ‘‘Do not do that. I fear people will place their reliance upon it. Let them keep performing [good] actions.’’ The Prophet replied: ‘‘Then let them [keep doing that].’’
16
Conversion to Islam has remained a simple process, requiring little more

than the testimony of faith: ‘‘There is no god but God, and Muhammad is God’s Messenger.’’ But Muslim theologians rarely made it as straightforward to remain orthodox and stay within the fold. Only a few of them were con- tent with the twofold testimony of faith as sufficient proof of accepted belief. Each denomination elaborated its own corollaries of the basic testimony of faith and subsidiary beliefs that they contended the basic testimonies of faith explicitly or implicitly entailed.

BID‘A
IN ISLAMIC SCRIPTURAL SOURCES

The Qur’an contains one reference to innovation directly derived from the root of
bid‘a.
The verse pertains to Jesus and the first Christian believers: ‘‘[We] instilled kindliness and mercy in the hearts of those who followed

Creativity, Innovation, and Heresy in Islam
5

him and monastic practice, which they innovated [
ibtada‘uha
]. We did not prescribe it for them but out of the pleasure of God. Yet they failed to observe it as it should have been observed’’ (Qur’an 57: 27). The passage is especially noteworthy because it refers in an ostensibly favorable light to
bid‘a
in a matter of worship, an area where many Islamic scholars deemed innovations most pernicious.

A common reading of the verse, corroborated by its wording, asserts that monasticism was a human innovation, which God did not prescribe for Jesus’ followers but which they themselves instituted, seeking God’s pleasure. It is not their religious innovation that is reprimanded but their failure to fulfill it. Early Qur’anic exegesis traces this interpretation to a Companion of the Prophet named Abu Umama, who asserted that Jesus’ followers ‘‘instituted [certain] innovations which God had not prescribed upon them, seeking God’s good pleasure through them, but they failed to observe them properly, and God reproached them for their departure from [proper observation].’’ Consistent with this reading, many classical commentators linked the verse to the Islamic law of ritual vows, which, by their nature, have an improvised quality and generally demand fulfi t once one has chosen to perform them.
17

Another reading insists that God Himself ordained monasticism; hence, it was not technically a
bid‘a.
He intended its practice solely for His pleasure and reproached those monks who fell short of what was required. Others construed the verse as condemning monasticism itself for being a religious
bid‘a,
but their reading of the text is the most forced of the three and lacks the textual exactitude required in Islamic jurisprudence to constitute a cat- egorical proof.
18

References to
bid‘a
are common in the Hadith collections of all Islamic sects—Sunni, Shi‘i, and Ibadi.
19
One shared hadith on the subject is the well-known admonition of the Prophet: ‘‘The worst of things are monstros- ities [
muhdathat;
also ‘‘innovations’’], and every
bid‘a
is misguidance.’’
20
For Sunnis and Shiites alike, this hadith constitutes one of the most categori- cal condemnations of innovation and was taken at face value by literalists in both communities. But, in both denominations, the dominant opinion held that the Prophet’s admonition was not a categorical prohibition of innovative ideas or practices but a warning to stay within sound legal parameters in accepting or rejecting them. New ideas and practices had to be consistent with established precedents and recognized principles.

If it seems far-fetched that the apparently literal condemnation of
bid‘a
in this hadith could be honestly construed as anything less than a categorical reprimand against every form of creativity, such a nonliteral approach was not problematic for most classical scholars. Their hermeneutics recognized the polysemic nature of sacred texts, which they interpreted in the light of a number of references like the subtleties of Arabic, historical context, related texts, and relevant Islamic principles. In the case of this hadith,

6
Voices of Change

the hermeneutical tradition unhesitatingly limited its meaning to unwarranted
bid‘a.
Thus, despite the hadith’s apparent generality, it was understood as implicitly qualifi the typical reasoning for which is illus- trated below. As one scholarly commentary states: ‘‘[This is a] general state- ment [understood as having] specific qualifications [
‘amm makhsus
].’’
21

Another hadith well-attested in Sunni and Shiite collections pertains to the sanctity of the Prophetic city of Medina, which Muhammad proclaimed a religious sanctuary like the ancient Abrahamic city of Mecca: ‘‘So whoever introduces [
ahdatha;
also ‘‘innovates’’] in [Medina] a [monstrous] innova- tion or gives shelter there to such an innovator, upon him shall be the curse of God, the angels, and mankind. No disbursement shall be accepted from him or any ransom.’’
22
In a Shiite version, the hadith adds: ‘‘‘Messenger of God, what is the innovation [intended]?’ He replied: ‘Whoever [wrongfully] kills a [human] soul without [legal recompense] for [another] soul, maims [a body] without indemnity, innovates a
bid‘a
having no
Sunna,
or [wrong- fully] seizes plunder of exceptional value.’’’ Another Shiite transmission defines the monstrous innovation as murder, and the word
ahdatha
used in this Hadith occurs in a number of Prophetic declarations with specific refer- ence to that crime.
23

Sunni interpretations of the hadith essentially agreed with the Shiite view. A famous Sunni commentator, Nawawi, parsed the innovation referred to as iniquitous behavior.
24
Ibn Hajar, another renowned Sunni scholar, understood the hadith’s broad wording as implicitly delimited by its context in specific reference to the holy city’s sanctuary status. Thus, for Sunni and Shiite scholars in general, the illustrations given for the damnable innovations referred to in the hadith clearly involved the gross violation of Medina’s sanc- tuary status, especially by acts of lawless violence.
25

An intriguing reference to
bid‘a
in Sunni, Shi’i, and Ibadi Kharijite sources deals with the second caliph ‘Umar’s decision to institute supererogatory group prayers during the nights of Ramadan within a decade of the Prophet’s death.
26
According to Sunni and Ibadi sources, the Prophet once led his Companions in similar prayers for a few nights of Ramadan shortly before his death but discontinued the practice, expressing concern that, if he contin- ued leading the vigils, God would make them obligatory, which Muhammad feared would impose an excessive burden upon his community.

During his caliphate, ‘Umar observed people praying randomly in the Prophet’s mosque during the nights of Ramadan individually and in small groups and took the decision to unite them behind a single prayer leader, instituting the Ramadan vigil as a group prayer. Entering the mosque on a subsequent night and witnessing the congregation praying in unison, he declared: ‘‘What an excellent
bid‘a
this is!’’
27
Sunni sources emphasize that the Prophet’s cousin ‘Ali, who later became the fourth caliph and is revered by all Shi‘i schools as their fi Imam, endorsed ‘Umar’s action and continued his policy. Sunnis report that ‘Ali once remarked that

Creativity, Innovation, and Heresy in Islam
7

‘Umar ‘‘illuminated the month of fasting’’ by instituting the group prayer. Another Sunni version relates that one night in Ramadan during ‘Ali’s caliph- ate, he passed by mosques lit up with candles for the people to perform the congregational vigil and said: ‘‘May God illuminate ‘Umar’s grave just as he illuminated for us our mosques.’’
28