Changing In The Wording Of The First Line Of The First Principle Of Sunnah
But I think that distinction is still considerable and should be there because, as he himself clarifies, that somethings can be said to be a part of the Islam without a second thought, such as worship rituals, or information regarding the Hereafter. For the rest of the worldly things, God has not given any detailed guidance but only guided there where a blunder could take place, given the objective of religion: purification. Such as mutual consultation, usury, pork etc. The moral filth of things like exploitation, extortion, bad behaviour etc., is felt easily through the Fitrah (Human Nature) God has given us. The places where our Fitrah could not help a reaching a conclusive state were taken into the account of religion in order to reach the objective: purification. Therefore, I think that distinction should have been there. Or Ghamidi sahab might have thought about it this way that in the same way our Fitrah was to a great extent enough in order to guide us through life for the purification. Regarding the things where humans could not reach a conclusive state, e.g. the existence of God and his attributes, the occurence of the Day of Judgement etc., were taken into an account, and called that account Islam, to give humans a conclusive guidance. So, in the same way the Fitrah could not help us reaching a conclusive state regarding many things, Allah took them into an account, e.g. Hereafter, and with regard to that took many other things into the account, of religion/Deen/Islam, where our Fitrah was obvious, but in principle , e.g. keeping body clean and purification of morals. So, in the same way the places where our Fitrah could not guide us enough, Allah took them and called that religion; mentioned many Fitrah obvious things, but in principle, to make a relation between them; a similar thing happened here where, e.g. in the case of usury, pork, our Fitrah could not guide us reaching a conclusive state. So, when the same thing has happened and we are calling the first thing religion in its nature then why creating a distinction of calling the other “given the status of Deen”. What do you say about this? If the above thought process is right, then I still think that the distinction should have been there. It is because in a similar way shirk (polytheism) is something about God which God has not told about Himself, but in Araf:33 God tells both separately because to make that distinction was important in order to bring attention to the shirk as being something very very grave sin. It would have been enough If God had only said “Say, “My Lord has only forbidden open and secret indecencies, sinfulness, unjust aggression, and attributing to Allah what you do not know.” removing the “… associating ˹others˺ with Allah ˹in worship” part because this already comes under the principle of “attributing to Allah what you do not know”, but Allah still describes that so distinctively. So, the religion usually guides us in the matters of worship rituals and in order to achieve the objecitve of purification, religion took into account the morals etc. but in principle. The religion usually does not guide us in the worldly matters, but when it guides us in that then a distinction of “something being Deen in its nature and given the status of Deen” is more clarifying, in a similar way as in Araf:33.