Islam and Intervention in Lifestyle; How Are Islam's Permissible and Forbidden Practices Formed?

Islam presents itself as the most complete religion and its prophet as the last prophet; a religion that has dos and don'ts for all aspects of life. How have these dos and don'ts, and the permissible and forbidden practices of Islam been formed? Majid Mohammadi, a sociologist with religious education, and Hojjatoleslam Mohammad Hedayati, Secretary General of the Traditional Clergy Association of Contemporary Iran, are the guests of this week's taboo. If you don't mind, let's start the discussion with Mr. Hedayati. How is it that Islam introduces itself as a complete religion, including that it has rulings for all matters and all aspects of life? In your opinion, is this a positive feature or, as some perceive, a form of constant intervention in the lifestyle of believers? Hojjatoleslam Mohammad Hedayati, a traditional Iranian cleric and director of the Salam satellite network in the United States, is the Secretary General of the Traditional Clergy Association of Contemporary Iran (Rasam), a non-profit organization that supports an independent and free government in Iran, rejecting any form of violence, and also based on freedom of belief for all Iranians. Hedayati: In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. The Quran claims that everything a believer needs for their upbringing and to achieve spiritual perfection is provided, and gradually through the prophets, other religions brought it step by step, and the Prophet Muhammad completed it. There is nothing, wet or dry, that is not mentioned in this clear book, the Quran. As for your question about whether this is an interventionist act, I must say no, because in the same verse that is famously known as the verse of the Throne in Surah Al-Baqarah, it states, "There is no compulsion in religion"; however, it goes on to say, "The right path has become distinct from the wrong." When a believer accepts that they must be religious and that religion is good, they investigate - you know that one of the jurisprudential rulings of Islam, especially Shia Islam, insists that the principles of religion must be accepted through research - when they go and accept that God is one and that He created me and brought me to this world, did He leave me aimlessly and without purpose in this world? Or did He send me a teacher - which are the prophets, the Quran, and the heavenly books - He says when I accepted the God who created me, the God who is wise and knowledgeable, I accept everything that this God wants; the God whom I accepted through research and understanding. Such a believer does not feel intervention and interference; they willingly and wholeheartedly accept to submit to this religion and faith, like an employee who is hired by an institution, first studies the laws of this company, and when hired, fully dedicates themselves to the employer. Mr. Mohammadi, Mr. Hedayati made an interesting point that there is nothing, wet or dry, that is not mentioned in the religion of Islam. What is your view? Do you see this as a positive matter in Islam? Moreover, this issue is contradicted over time; there are many wet and dry matters after 1400 years that are no longer in the text of Islam or the holy book of Muslims. Majid Mohammadi, a sociologist and analyst of Iranian issues residing in the United States, has shared his views and analyses with Persian-speaking audiences for years in Iranian publications and also in Persian-language media outside of Iran. Mohammadi: Mr. Hedayati's remarks were about spirituality and worship. In fact, when the discussion of lifestyle and Islamic interventions - even in the personal lives of non-Muslims - arises, we mainly deal with Sharia, which unfortunately today is backed by Islam of power and Islam of identity, and these have created hell for those who live in Muslim societies and do not believe in these commandments. They have even created hells for Muslims as well. The claim that Islam is a complete religion, [must be said] in the marketplace of religion, all religions make such a claim, but whether this claim is true or not, I believe that a complete religion in the general sense is neither possible nor desirable. Religion only responds to part of human needs because in today's world, society is complex, individual needs are complex, and no religion can claim that I have given you everything you needed and my job is done. Mr. Mohammadi, from your last statement, I continue the discussion that today's world is a complex world and human needs are constantly changing, from here I return to the issue of lifestyle, focusing more on the rulings that Islam issued for the daily lives of believers. Mr. Hedayati, many verses of the Quran were revealed for the reason that, for example, an issue arose, there was a necessity that the Prophet needed to know what to do, or what newly converted Muslims should do, and as a result, a ruling was issued. If we want to speak specifically, what is the root of the ruling that prohibits pork in Islam? The Quran mentions that animals that are slaughtered without the name of God are forbidden, and some ask why this ruling should be issued in the Arabian Peninsula where pigs did not even exist? I want to start with examples from here and move forward. Hedayati: This matter you mentioned again enters the issue of rulings and details. When a believer accepts the principles, part of the branches is explained to them with reasoning and argument, and part is not explained or has been explained but has not reached us as to what the reasoning for certain rulings is; in any case, the believer accepts and does not question, and if they do question, they seek to find the reasons. Regarding your question about pork, in Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 173, it is stated, "He has only forbidden to you dead animals, blood, and the flesh of swine..." Swine is the same as pork, and dead animals are carrion and blood, and "what has been slaughtered in the name of other than Allah" is what you also referred to, meaning that anything that the name of God has not been mentioned over it is forbidden for you. Again, verse 3 of Surah Al-Ma'idah, verse 145 of Surah Al-An'am, verse 115 of Surah Al-Nahl, all state that pork cannot be consumed and is forbidden, which falls under the collection of individual rulings that are presented for a believer. This reference you make that "is presented for a believer" means that a believer should not ask why? Hedayati: Why can a believer ask why? The believer's answer is that it is stated in the Quran. Before the believer poses this question, they have accepted the Quran, accepted that it is from God. Some of these whys have been answered. The causes of the rulings; two volumes of the book of the late Sheikh Saduq address many of these whys; however, I want to say that if one of these whys had not been mentioned, the believer would not abandon their religion because of the fact that the religion cannot answer this issue. This contradicts your statement because you said at the beginning of the discussion that believers are asked to accept the religion through research. Hedayati: [It is said] to accept the essence of the religion through research, not the rulings, not the details. That is, from a part, one should not reach a whole. From the whole, one should reach the part. Religion does not claim that it interprets every detail of human material life; it says, "This is the book about which there is no doubt, a guidance for the righteous." Perhaps I could not express this longitudinal relationship correctly. I understand your point. However, the relationship between piety and pork for me, if I want to have faith in Islam, is not clear. Mr. Mohammadi, can you assist with this discussion? Mohammadi: You see, many of the matters presented to you within the framework of religion are not rational. Therefore, from the very beginning, anyone who wants to be religious within a specific framework must have made this decision for themselves beforehand. Because a significant portion of them, especially when we reach the rulings or even the claims of prophets regarding revelation, ascension, or miracles, many of them cannot be proven by reason nor can they be denied by reason. This discussion of the philosophy of rulings is, in fact, a construct of the jurists. The causes of the rulings that are mentioned are mainly constructed by principled jurists, not by news jurists. Undoubtedly, most people in the Arabian Peninsula did not consume pork. If they had, that is, if the majority of the people in the Arabian Peninsula consumed pork and it was their only food, you can be sure that pork would have been approved by the Prophet of Islam because the result would have been hardship for those living in that society. No Muslim jurist would go to a society and declare the main food of those people as forbidden. [They were] familiar with pork because the Prophet was a trader and traveled, but in the Arabian Peninsula, pork was not a staple food; the main food was mainly goat or camel meat. So what necessity was there to declare pork as forbidden if we accept your view, Mr. Mohammadi? Mohammadi: Here we approach a historical dispute; that is, the dispute between Muslims who believe in revelation, those who believe that the Quran is the literal word of God, and those who believe that the Quran is not the literal word of God and that a large part of it consists of the tastes, views, and dreams of the Prophet of Islam. If the second view holds, meaning we see the Prophet as a human and religion as a human matter, these instructions are for the continuity of the life of these religious institutions. Thus, with the discussion that Mr. Mohammadi is making, I ask Mr. Hedayati whether these instructions can be subject to change; the same question exists regarding the prohibition of drinking alcoholic beverages - if Mr. Hedayati does not want to return to this discussion that since we accepted the Quran, we must accept everything in it - I ask you why drinking alcoholic beverages, which in many countries of the world is a part of people's meals, should be forbidden and haram for Muslims? Hedayati: Now, in this collection of discussions that Mr. Mohammadi has raised, a series of objections and doubts have been presented, so I will summarize. For example, Sheikh Saduq is not a principled jurist at all; he is from a thousand years ago who wrote the causes of the rulings. Or this [issue] that Islam is not compatible with reason, do all believers lack reason and thought? For example, Avicenna, who is a great scholar, is believed in by the East and West of the world; did he not have this much understanding and comprehension or could not use his reason? We have so many university professors, we have so many Islamic sociologists. Yes, part of the causes of the rulings and the philosophy of the rulings has been addressed within the framework of sciences; for example, the matter you mentioned about wine. In the Quran, in various verses, in Surah Al-Baqarah, in Surah Al-Ma'idah, it is stated that wine is forbidden. The latest research by English scientists concluded that alcohol consumption, in any amount - Islam considers even a drop of it haram - leads to cancer. Regarding pork, there has also been a scientific perspective that a specific worm exists in pork that does not disappear under any circumstances, even at very high temperatures. In addition, psychologists have concluded that the states that an animal has exist in all its meat tissues and do not disappear under any circumstances. An animal like a pig has conditions that its states, including its lustful behavior, always remain in the meat of the pig. Of course, perhaps this does not mean that we should only investigate; if the matter were false, we would not act. Therefore, we have a devotional view of issues and rulings. Since you spoke from a non-religious perspective, I have other questions for you. Millions of people around the world consume pork or drink wine throughout the day and night, and they are in perfect health, and thousands of Muslims also do not eat or drink these and contrary to the research you mentioned, may also get cancer. Now, if science proved otherwise, for example, many studies say that wine is good for the heart, would you, as a Muslim, accept it? Here, how is it that you use science to prove the Islamic ruling? Hedayati: Here, a contradiction and conflict arise between two scientific studies; one says wine is good and one says wine is bad. We have a rule in religion and Islam that says when two things contradict each other, we set both aside. If we are a believer, we turn to our teachings. [Islam] says it is forbidden, do not eat. There is a rational rule that avoiding potential harm is rationally obligatory; here, we must rationally decide to avoid wine because there is a possibility of harm. Yes, I understand your reasoning. Mr. Mohammadi, now that we have heard Mr. Hedayati's remarks, these discussions usually reach the point where we also draw on modern scientific research to understand Islamic rulings. I want to ask you why there is such a high sensitivity around wine in Islam. Even in the tools of Shiism, you read that the Prophet of Islam says if we gather all sins in a house, the key to that sin is wine. What is the reason for such sensitivity? Is the issue only related to health and the points that Mr. Hedayati has raised?