The umma is experiencing trauma because it drifted from the Book of Allah. It turned from the ayat of Allah to manmade traditions.

Turning away from Allah is the reverse of salat. It turned from the “best hadith” to follow the ways of the predecessors, as if they could guide better than Allah.

The umma drifted from the Book of Allah under pressure. With the authoritarian rule, rulers required a rendition of revelation that would “justify” practices prohibited in revelation, for example, waging wars of aggression.

But wars of aggression entail the perpetrations of war crimes. Wars of aggression are unlawful in the Book of Allah.

For “there is no compulsion in religion. ” To by-pass the restraints on wars of aggression, hawkish rulers engaged ulama to render lawful what Allah ruled unlawful, the propagation of Islam through waging wars of aggression.

A war of aggression is known as jihad al talab. Hawkish ulama pronounced wars of aggression not just permissible; it became a sixth pillar of Islam.

They turned the teaching of reconciliation into a manifesto of war between the dar al-Islam and the dar al-harb. In doing so, the created a monster: political Islam or Islamism.

Rendering unlawful wars lawful required the politicization of research. It required the weaponization of exegesis and jurisprudence.

Rendering the unlawful lawful required a departure from the teaching of revelation. This transpired through recourse to the teaching of abrogation, and the treatment of tradition as revelation.

The rejection of any verse or verses in the Book of Allah, however, is an expression of kufr. This does not exclude the rejection of the verses that teach peace, allegedly “abrogated” by the verses of the sword.

The treatment of tradition as revelation required equating manmade texts with the Book of Allah. This was an expression of shirk.

Recourse to the teaching of abrogation and the treatment of tradition as revelation corrupted the knowledge of revelation. Embracing these misperceptions turned the teaching of peace into its anathema, a teaching of war.

Traditional methodology requires the subordination of revelation to tradition. It also requires the subordination of reason to tradition.

Tradition surpassed both revelation and reason. The treatment of tradition as “revelation” is an expression of shirk.

In so far as the treatment of tradition as revelation treats tradition as a greater authority then revelation, the subordination of revelation to tradition is a greater expression of shirk. The tainting of traditional exegesis and jurisprudence by shirk render them less than reliable.

It is necessary to bring the assumptions on which they rest into accord with the teaching of revelation. Early Muslims placed emphasis on tauhid.

They followed the Book of Allah. Reason and freedom were respected.

There was scant preoccupation with tradition. Military jihad meant self-defense or fighting against persecution.

With time, however, the growing prestige of tradition tainted tauhid. The Book of Allah was deserted.

Reasoning deteriorated. Restrictions upon freedoms heralded the emergence of authoritarianism.

Aggressive jihad replaced defensive jihad. The knowledge of revelation was corrupted and exegesis and jurisprudence and the sharia were tainted by problematic perceptions.

These encompass the perceptions that that tradition possesses the authority to “judge,” “abrogate” and even “replace” parts of revelation. Redressing these problems requires the affirmation of the preeminence of revelation, rehabilitation and reengagement of reason, the desacralization of tradition, rehabilitation of penal legislation, and the purification of exegesis and jurisprudence of shirk.

. .