The Middle Path of Moderation in Islam by Kamali Essay (Book Review)

Introduction

Mohammad Hashim Kamali is an Islamic scholar, often described as the most widely read living author on Islamic law in the English language. In his award-winning book, The Middle Path of Moderation in Islam: The Qur’anic Principle of Wassatiyyah, he argues that scholars, policymakers, and religious communities must acknowledge the governing principle that drives most Muslims rather than focusing on the extremist edge. With his contemporary approach to Islamic traditions, the much-needed moderation can be understood and correctly interpreted with the centrality of the Islamic message. This is accomplished by highlighting and interpreting verses of the Qur’an, each of which addresses moderation, and by using scholarly works to conclude the understanding of the higher goals of Islam. These goals depend on moderation related to the concept of gradualism, wisdom, purity, courage, and justice. According to the author, these principles are crucial yet sometimes misunderstood when trying to attain the middle path in ethically challenging situations.

Spiritualism and Legalism

Widely associated with the poetry of Rumi and often equated with whirling dervishes, Sufism is often perceived as a development different from mainstream Islam. Sufism is best expressed as Islamic asceticism or following, which through constant practice and firm belief, helps Muslims attain nearness to God through direct personal experience with the Almighty.¹ Hassan al-Basri, a famous and exceptional pioneer in the discipline of scholastic theology, led the earliest Sufis in Iran and Syria.² The ascetics devoted themselves to nightly vigils and constant battles with the Naf (the lower soul that instigates evil) because, according to a proverb of the prophet, combating the Naf is the greatest Jihad (the truly sacred struggle in the service of God). Kamali asserts that “the unceasing struggle for control of each thought and action was refined to become a science of its own so that one’s whole life could be led in sincerity and purity through remembrance of God.”³ In other words, Islam was created with purity of intentions in mind.

Kamali argues that the laws of fiqh and Shari’ah are externally focused and based on the manifestation of human behavior in practice. At the same time, Sufism tends to focus intimately on the inner life and spirituality of a Muslim.⁴ Further, he asserts that Fiqh and Sufism are accurate manifestations of Islam in their respective rights and that it would be a grave error to acknowledge the former while disregarding the latter.⁵ The objective is to find a middle ground between two extremes so that Islam is not misunderstood as a collection of laws and governed by the dry logic of rules and unbending rules. Indeed, this is the case with advocates of literalism who place a disproportionate amount of emphasis on the literal and obvious meaning of the text.⁶ He notes that it would be misleading to pair Sufism with the entirety of Islam to escape the adherence to the rule of law.

Kamali further argues that the popularity of Sufism even in the west is vastly attributed to the total preoccupation of Muslim masses with ritualism and adherence to the exteriors of Islam. Often, this is at the cost of its spiritual practice and moral standards, particularly the adoption of a tendency toward literalist conformity and ritualism in place of purpose and meaning. On Fridays and religious holidays, the mosques in these regions are typically packed.⁷ Kamali asserts that the balance is tilted towards legalism, which calls for another chance to ensure it is on the right track for the revival of its spiritual essence. The author notes that the law is typically concerned with the externalities of conduct or those aspects of behavior that can be observed and proven in court.⁸ In contrast, morality is generally good advice that, unlike the law, is not obligatory, demonstrating that the challenge is to strike a balance between inner and outer aspects of Islam concerning devotional practices and ethics.

Harm (Darar) Must Be Eliminated

“Harm Must Be Eliminated” is the direct interpretation of the Islamic law maxim. Legal maxims are established principles of law that are universally accepted, and the practitioners of law are conversant with them.⁹ According to Islamic teachings, restoring the balance disrupted when the offense was committed by the offender and received by the victim is a common means of restitution for harm done to another person or party. Any harm caused to another must be addressed, and the affected party compensated accordingly.¹⁰ The legal maxim under review originates from many references in the Qur’an to situations where perils may arise. The Hadith has also been absorbed in the legal maxim with its exact wording. The ruling it contains includes all harmful actions, whether direct or indirect.¹¹ Kamali also states that as per the additional legal maxim, harm must be eliminated within reasonable limits so that the aftermath does not result in further harm.

The chapter further highlights another Islamic law maxim stating that harm cannot be eliminated through revenge or comparable harm although personal injury can be tolerated to prevent injury to the public. In case harm is unavoidable, the lesser evil will be chosen.¹² These maxims have the public interest at hand and seek to minimize harm to the society for which the state is responsible for taking corrective action. These and other similar maxims of fiqh help realize moderation in social relations and include numerous instances of restoring equilibrium when it has been disturbed by judicial and corrective action.¹³ Thus, they give power to the law to take necessary action to eliminate damage in the public’s best interest, indemnifying individuals and imposing sanctions on all whose activities cause damage.

However, where the Shari’ah dictates that harm should be eliminated as much as possible, some individuals and non-profitable organizations may be powerless, especially against more powerful entities like multinational companies. It is here that binding documents and international conventions apply to develop consensus and curb lawlessness. Kamali and Ramadan¹⁴ opine that the shari’ah does not necessarily support the concept of imposing rules only to have rules. Law and order must be formulated for the purposes of public good. As such, if the law itself stands in the way of greater goals, it has to compromise for these goals.

Therefore the Shari’ah tends to change to accommodate the Qur’anic guidelines on Wasatiyyah. According to Kamali and Ramadan¹⁵, the Shari’ah further permits authorities to place regulating boundaries on activities that inflict damage on people, especially when the harm exceeds possible benefits. It is permissible to take action under the legal principle that damage prevention must always take priority over the pursuit of self-interest. However, if the community comes under hardship, stringent action called to prevent further damage to public safety may be considered¹⁶. Thus, normal rules are suspended in situations of necessity which must be measured by their true proportions, including research to ascertain their proportions

Conclusion

From the analysis of the book, it is clear that the main objective is to find a neutral middle ground between the two extremes so that Islam as a religion is not viewed as a collection of rules and governed by the dry logic of rules and inflexible laws, but is portrayed as adaptable based on the circumstances, with the interests of those governed by the laws in mind. Frequently, repairing the harm done to another individual or group entails restoring the equilibrium disturbed in the first place.

In addition, Kamali states that harm shall be eliminated within reasonable limits, following the supplementary legal maxim, so that the aftermath does not lead to further damage. The maxims of fiqh help realize moderation in social relations and encompass many instances of restoring balance in the society and amongst individuals and the concerned parties. The author and the Islamic teachings mention that redress of inflicting harm on another person necessitates restoring the original equilibrium, and the affected party compensates accordingly. However, reproach and punishment may be overlooked in the general public’s best interest. Kamali investigates wasatiyyah in theoretical/historical and modern/applied contexts. He establishes that wasatiyyah has an extensive and rich history in Islamic law by connecting the concept’s meaning and breadth back to the Hadith and Qur’an, the founding texts of Islam.

Bibliography

Kamali, Mohammad Hashim, and Tariq Ramadan. The Middle Path of Moderation in Islam: The Qurʼānic Principle of Wasaṭiyyah. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.

Footnotes

1. Mohammad Hashim Kamali, and Tariq Ramadan. The Middle Path of Moderation in Islam: The Qurʼānic Principle of Wasaṭiyyah (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 115.
2. Hashim and Ramadan. The Middle Path of Moderation in Islam, 115.
3. Mohammad Hashim Kamali, and Tariq Ramadan. The Middle Path of Moderation in Islam: The Qurʼānic Principle of Wasaṭiyyah (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 115.
4. Hashim and Ramadan. The Middle Path of Moderation in Islam, 115.
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. Ibid.
8. Mohammad Hashim Kamali, and Tariq Ramadan. The Middle Path of Moderation in Islam: The Qurʼānic Principle of Wasaṭiyyah (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 115.
9. Hashim and Ramadan. The Middle Path of Moderation in Islam, 123.
10. Ibid.
11. Ibid.
12. Ibid.
13. Mohammad Hashim Kamali, and Tariq Ramadan. The Middle Path of Moderation in Islam: The Qurʼānic Principle of Wasaṭiyyah (New York: Oxford University Press, 2015), 123.
14. Hashim and Ramadan. The Middle Path of Moderation in Islam, 123.
15. Ibid.
16. Ibid.