Between two extremes

Some argue that wasatiya (middle way) is the path of Islam. Meaning that the truth is always between two extremes. This is in accordance to their understanding of the verse “Thus have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves”. So if two groups exist, one believes that the rulers have no right to be questioned openly, and another holds the position of the priority and Islamic obligation to work to remove them then the truth is between the two extremes. Many groups state they hold the truth based on this argument. For example some from the Shi’ah Imaamiah hold that there are two groups. The first holds that the companions are thiqqa that is they are accepted to be trustworthy, the other holds that the companions are in essence all untrustworthy and the majority of the companions left Islam after the death of the messenger (saws), and hence in this case the truth is between two extremes.

To give a more modern examples we have the Capitalists. The Capitalists holds that their position of separating religion from life is in fact between two extremes or what they call the middle solution. For example they say that on one side we have the Marxist Socialist who holds that there is no God and that the universe is eternal, and the religious Christian of the medieval time who held kings and princes ruled directly in the name of God. So they said that their position of separating religion from life while not denying a Creator emphatically is a middle path between two extremes.

By this way every group argues that they are on the truth because as they state, their position is between two extremes. By this we have countless groups, claiming they are between two extremes and hence on the truth. The whole logic of this argument is faulty from its very basis. This is because these groups argued from a pre-supposition that their position is right in its essence and then based on this pre-supposition, those who differed with them are two extremes, and their path is the best.

In reality no truth can be known from the essence of a position, as there must an external criterion to judge a position to be true. Meaning what is their evidence that the position they held is the truth, is their external evidence that testified their position to be the truth? If this is the case then the truth of the position is not based on the fact that they viewed their position to be a middle path, but rather the truth of their postion is based on the evidence that testified it to be true. Those opinions that differed with them, whatever position and however the other positions are viewed, are false not because they view it as extreme but rather because they went against that external criterion through which we know the truth. (Again this position may be called extreme not because of a pre-supposed opinion but because of an evidence that stated that this position is known as ‘Ghulu i.e. going to extremes)

Another example can be seen from those who view things to be harmful, then based on this, they held as this thing is harmful and therefore it enters under Khabaaith (the bad and impure) in the verse “for he commands them what is just and forbids them what is evil; he allows them as lawful what is good (and pure) and prohibits them from what is bad (and impure)” (7:157) Therefore it must be a forbidden thing. Here is another example of this faulty thinking similar to the example given above. Meaning they built an argument on a pre-supposition that a thing is harmful, meaning the criterion of things being good or bad is whether it is beneficial in their eyes or harmful. Based on this pre-supposition they then stated that this thing is then forbidden. Meaning they built an argument, then use this evidence that their position is correct. Rather the correct method would say that Allah (swt) alone has the right to define what is the khabaaith mentioned in the verse, and this of course is through revelation. After the evidence we say that this thing is khabeeth not because of the essence of the thing or how it is viewed, whether harmful or not, but through the evidence itself.

In reality those who think in the manner described above suffer from an ailment as described by Imaam As-Shaatibi in his book Al-‘Itisam, meaning it is as if they hold that good and bad can be perceived by the mind itself and based on this they can build judgment on this perception, regardless of an external criterion. This as Imaam As-Shaatibi states, is a path of misguidance from the truth. He gives a good example, he states that some people inherit a certain act and they think it is a matter of worship, so when they are asked for the source of such an act and why they do it, they respond this is good and Allah (swt) says “Help ye one another in righteousness and piety, but help ye not one another in sin and rancour” He continues and says if we ask them for the source through which they perceived it to be good they stop, and then say that his mind tells him or inclines him to say it is good. Here the Imaam states that he made his mind the source for the perception of good and bad, he says this is the path of misguidance. (see Al-‘Itisam vol.2 page 510). Here in this example we can see that this person perceived as a pre-supposition what is good then built a judgment, and then used the verse as an evidence for performing this act as it is good, and therefore we must co-operate upon it.

The verse “Thus have We made of you an Ummat justly balanced, that ye might be witnesses over the nations, and the Messenger a witness over yourselves” is a famous verse often quoted by those who argue that Islam is the middle path or middle solution. The middle path here does not mean at all standing the middle way between moderation, and extreme. Nor does it mean what the west say, from the middle route and middle solution, i.e. two sides compromising on their beliefs to reach a false solution. So when Allah says He made this an Ummah of the middle path, then it means the best Ummah. It came in Tafseer An-Nasafi and Tafseer Al-Qurtubi that the middle Ummah means the just Ummah, also when the Arabs say the middle path they mean the best.

The verse provides no evidence for the western ideal of compromises or middle solutions, and based on this as is a middle solution then it is the truth. Nor is the truth what the people view as the truth, the truth is what is pointed to by the evidence, or the criterion of truth. Whoever follows this is on the truth, regardless of the West, treacherous regimes, or government scholars, and what the people think.

Freelance Activist

.