The rejection of kalam is problematic because it is impossible, without interpretation, to understand the so-called literal meaning of ancient texts.
Western science places so much emphasis on the use of latin language in scientific writing specifically because it is a dead language with a good set of rules. Because it is dead, the meanings of the words and the rules for their use have not changed in centuries.
Living languages change over time, as do their rules.
Who are you to claim to know the literal meaning of the words of the prophet if you cannot be certain - and cannot question - whether those words mean the same thing to you as they meant to the prophet?
In christianity we have the same problem. Even if one learns ancient languages in order to study christian scripture, meaning is not 100% certain across the centuries. In the english language alone we have numerous translations of the bible, and each of them reads a little different.
But there are a number of christian sects that believe that the bible means exactly what they think it means when they read their chosen english translation, and anyone who disagrees is evil.
I understand that many sects of islam reject any translation of the koran from arabic, but if we cannot even have a discussion about how our understanding of arabic may have changed over the last 1400 years, what then? How can you claim to know the truth?
Additionally - the mixture of religious law with civil law tends to sully both.
Living by the laws of your scripture - whatever that scripture may be - is well and good for matters of your faith, your own personal business, your dealings with your neighbors. But even in the prophet's day, there was a recognition that people who have a different faith live to some extent under different laws.
The idea of a pure nation of one unified faith is a good one but how can that nation be free if none within it can seek to worship according to their own conscience?
To answer this problem, we have civil law, which started - in the western tradition anyway - with the british concept of "common law". The concept of common law draws from a lot of tests like "if everybody" and "would reasonably consider".
There is an idiom in the english language that goes "by hook or crook". It means to accomplish or acquire something by whatever method is permissible and sometimes is understood to mean to accomplish or acquire something by any means necessary.
The origin of this idiom comes directly from british common law, about 500 years ago, and was controversial at the time.
In britain, much of the forest belongs to the king, in one sense or other. The finest timbers are for the king's navy, unless the king says otherwise.
But it gets cold in britain, and not everyone has their own woods to scavenge for firewood.
If everyone were to take all the limbs they wanted from the king's woods, the king's woods would die. You see, there is that legal test - "if everyone".
Not everyone does take limbs from the king's woods. At the same time, if no one was allowed to scavenge firewood from the king's woods, they would become overgrown and littered with dead limbs, and many would freeze to death in the winter.
So the compromise was made that the common folk - those for whom common law exists - may take any limb from the king's woods which they can cut out of the tree using a billhook - a traditional hooked knife common in agricultural use - or pull out of a tree with a shepherd's crook, which is basically a walking stick with a hook or loop on the end used for wrangling sheep
Around that time, people began to make shepherd's crooks of extreme length.
But one of the basic concepts of common law is that it is law that is the same for all of the common people.
That does, by the way, include the concept that people who are not common have some other laws working for and against them.
On one hand, 500 years ago in britain, lords and ladies had more privileges in law than commoners. We reject this concept today, and much blood was shed in the process of rejecting it.
On the other hand, 500 years ago in britain, even the king could not boss around a holy man in his own church. This concept seems to be still respected.
So a second reason is, salafis favor the imposition of sharia, and sharia is incompatible with pluralism. And the modern world, any concept of fairness, and general decency depend on pluralism.
15 Sep 2015, 7:41 pm
