The paper can be found and read in the Islamic Studies Journal, link below: http://irigs.iiu.edu.pk:64447/ojs/index.php/islamicstudies/article/view/1459

At a cursory glance, one might feel incensed staring at the title of such an article. What could possibly possess someone to rehash an antiquated debate on the legal rulings on coffee? While discussions surrounding issues of faint relevance is the modus operandi among a plethora of academic writers on Islam and the Middle East, the thought still arises when reflecting on the author’s traditional training and keen eye on current dilemmas facing the Muslim society. What could be the broader purpose behind a topic seemingly void of contemporary relevance and merit?

Vahedi masterfully takes an otherwise irrelevant discussion and ties it to broader, very pertinent themes currently assaulting the modern Muslim mind. He employs coffee as a vehicle to tackle distrust in orthodox Muslim scholarship and challenges assertions of primitive jurisprudential thought among them. Along the way, he displays the strength of orthodox scholarship in astutely scrutinizing different issues, often employing various procedural tools to arrive at the facts of the cases presented to them before applying them within a spectrum of rulings most applicable to their societies.

The article initially tackles claims pressed by influential orientalists, aided by reformist Muslim preachers in the likes of Ali Jumuah and Yasir Qadhi. Among his many other absurd claims, Jumuah claims that (in the case of coffee), “it is regrettable to observe the Muslim scholarly class be so slow and ineffective in solving a fairly clear problem.” As Vahedi highlights, Qadhi takes this absurd notion a step further, asserting that, “it was not religious scholars who eventually overturned the ban, but ordinary laypeople that simply employed their common sense in testing and consuming the drink.” He further reiterates fears of traditional scholarship being sidelined if such remains the case in the modern era. He states that the masses “will simply ignore the fatwas of the scholars and live life as they see fit.”

It isn’t a surprise to see Qadhi, whose reformist education often shapes his prior Salafist training in the Ḥadīth sciences, espousing such strange notions of primitive jurisprudential thought among the traditional scholarship. Lacking in grounded traditional methodology itself, the reformist agenda seeks to inculcate distrust among this religious class in competing for relevancy and influence among the Muslim masses. This particular case greatly highlights the shoddy reformist scholarship at play in simply assessing the historical merits of the case brought forward, not to mention the superficial analysis on the textual merit of prohibitionists’ conclusions (which draw much further than the reasoning of intoxication in coffee).

What is of greater note is the assertion of Jumuah – a well-read traditional scholar who otherwise prides himself as the standard-bearer of orthodoxy – making such claims himself. It isn’t surprising, however, considering his many other absurd statements – often driven through sectarian ideals in promoting his secular state-aligned political philosophy. He can be seen quite often deriding other traditional scholars, laden with nonsensical tirades against even those of classical merit, catering his own competing brand to the Egyptian and global secular mindset. His desire to be seen as the savior of Islam in the modern world often overrides his alliance with the institution of traditional scholarship as a whole.

Vahedi carefully elucidates the often disregarded reality on the issue. One which, after careful observation, clearly displays that the majority of scholarship provided rulings of permissibility on coffee. He further clarifies that many scholars otherwise thought to hold the consumption of coffee as impermissible merely discouraged the act due to its various negative associations, a point well worth considering today with the continued proliferation of coffeehouses and shisha lounges that serve, along with coffee, heavy doses of immorality in music and free-mixing among other social vices.

The advent of coffee in the Muslim world took place at the hands of Sūfī sages who found its usage instrumental in devotional acts of worship and litanies among other things. An important detour to explore further (although unrelated to the essay at hand) could be the apprehension of traditional scholarship with many Sūfī practices (though they themselves are often associated with the Sūfī paths). It wasn’t unheard of practitioners of the sublime science often partaking in intoxicating beverages to aid in their rituals. As Ibn Rajab highlights in his epistle on music, numerous vices found abundantly present in the wretched of society trace their roots or can be found preponderant among Sūfī circles. This includes the likes of musical instruments, dancing, free-mixing, drugs and drug paraphernalia, and more. It’s worth further exploring the suspicious attitudes of scholarship present towards Sūfī circles in the scope of such extant practices.

What is abundantly apparent, however, is the asceticism of traditional scholarship itself and their renunciation in studying the proposed harmful effects of coffee. Throughout the paper, one can observe different attitudes towards the beverage – leaning from suspicious to accommodating. Nonetheless, what is of note is the particular restraint displayed by scholarship in experimentation with the substance itself. While many scholars were receptive to the idea of its permissibility and lack of intoxication, they would themselves restrain from consuming the beverage – instead, inviting others to do so and observing their behavior and moods for extended periods of time.

One can’t help but appreciate the attitudes and piety of the traditional scholarship in comparison to the lack of similarly present values among the claimants to their successorship in the present day. Often finds young students partaking in the prohibited, retroactively seeking concessions from scripture. This is as opposed to the attribute of their predecessors – one of restraint to the suspicious even when they assumed probable permissibility.

Academic scrutiny among scholarship is also noted throughout the paper. Demonstrating the practices employed by the scholars through experimentation and other means in building the case for coffee, one finds the independence of scholarship in arriving at conclusions on nuanced topics, a far stretch from the infamous Meccan Assembly employed by opponents of tradition as a blueprint for skewed traditional jurisprudential practice (something discussed in detail in the latter half of the research).

There are certain places the paper provides room for further exploration of issues beyond its scope. Discussions surrounding preponderant suppositions could have been further defined from its relative employment. There are further issues beyond intoxication to be discussed with regards to the prohibition of coffee and similar products, such as addiction and dependency (in the broader discussions of harm (ḍarar)). Legal paradigms such as unavoidable prevalence (‘umūm al-balwā) could be discussed and further analyzed through issues such as music and the positions of scholarship towards it in light of the evolution of societal norms and practices. Even legal maxims posited in the paper such as witness testimony against that which is known through certainty could be further discussed elsewhere (its scope being more apt, perhaps, for coffee than calculations in the moonsighting debates).

Returning once again to the state of classical scholarship as the issue at hand, one can posit many parallels shared among the original prohibitionists of coffee and the present circles pressing for reform. For example, the infamous Meccan Assembly was led by doctors who possessed ulterior economic motives in pressing for prohibition (coffee was being used as an alternative for medicine with arguable health benefits). The prohibitionists leaned on the expertise of the physicians and their citing of intoxicating properties within the substance.

This reliance on supposed expertise without further analysis of the motives shaping various subsets of the scientific community is especially prevalent today among reformist circles. Citing incompetence among traditional scholarship, reformists tend to argue for further dependency on scientific expertise. What is often ignored by such circles is the influence of external biases within the scientific circles found in abundance today, as in the past. Numerous cases of malpractice among physicians can be cited directly corresponding to the corruption of the pharmaceutical industry influencing the field. While reliance on independent scientific inquiry is definitely a means for building a case, reformists often fall into the trap of ‘scientism’ which fails to acknowledge the internal and external biases that exist within the practice itself today. While it serves as part of the process, definitely, it remains far from being the deciding factor in exclusion to other legal maxims and principles employed by traditional scholarship.

The antidote to such a situation, while understanding that the process of ijtihād (independent reasoning) is ultimately human, is to attempt and eliminate the aforementioned biases as much as possible. There are internal mechanisms present within the scientific process of inquiry that assist in this, but Muslims should further develop this by incorporating issues of character and skill within those inquiring as was present in the past. At the least, scholars should consult believing physicians of recognized upright character when developing cases on issues that depend on their expertise.

In absence of these mechanisms to limit corruption, the scholarship remains vulnerable to the abuse of its institutions in serving causes outside of the scope of the faith itself. History is rife with examples of the abuse of scholarship by external parties seeking to employ religion as a tool for imposing their own rancid agendas. Just as the sultans of the past would employ court scholars to baptize their unholy reigns with overt religious declarations (that included justifications of crimes and oppression against their own populace), this tradition continues with modern reformist scholarship today. Modern court scholars seek to uphold the secular status quo – holding gatherings as far as Chechnya – in attempting to redefine and exclude from orthodox Sunnī Islam those schools that don’t configure to the secular framework the political and financial patrons of these reformists desire to see rubber-stamped.

Finally, after reading the paper, one continues to question the level of astute observation displayed by the prohibitionists themselves. Vahedi attempts to defend these scholars citing the axiom that ‘the jurisconsult is the prisoner of the questioner.’ However, this raises more questions than it solves. While it’s certainly understandable that the muftī (jurisconsult) is limited to what is presented by the petitioners, legal rulings shouldn’t exist in vacuums and the assertion merely supports claims put forward by Qadhi and other reformists about traditional scholarship remaining aloof to the reality of the world in which they reside. Rather, one can observe that some scholars did in fact fail – owing to various circumstances – to arrive at proper conclusions on the topic. Some as a result of an inept inquiry into the substance. Others as a result of preconceived biases against the groups associated with the beverage. And yet more due to political and social pressure. These realities shouldn’t be shied away from as, once again, ijtihād is an ultimately human endeavor. It may arrive at correct or incorrect conclusions, both rewarded on the sincerity of their underlying intentions.

What provides the faithful hope is the statement of the Prophet (peace be upon him) that “my nation will never unite on falsehood.” While the discussion of the nuances present in this narration takes up hundreds of pages in the books of Uṣūl al-Fiqh, history speaks to its self-evident truth. At arguably the lowest point for Islamic scholarship, during the reign of the Muʿtazilites in the court of the ‘Abbasids, men of truth were divinely appointed to resist and preserve the orthodox way of life. In cases of creed, and in cases of jurisprudential matters – this principle remains true.

If one is to assert that this principle isn’t ascertained, they risk throwing open the doors of the religion to falsehood. If it is possible for the entirety of the scholarship (those that reflect the legacy of prophethood and represent its true inheritance) to be false, then the religion isn’t inherently applicable in all times and places. If that is the case, it no longer remains divine in the broader sense. This isn’t the case, however, as evidenced through historical record.

The more nuanced approach is the assertion that scholars as individuals are always capable of mistakes. As Imam Mālik would state, “no one save the resident of this grave is ever completely correct.” There are cases of scholars being used by external interests. There are cases of scholars being influenced by their society even when it rests at odds with textual evidence (or in interpreting texts through the scope of their fluctuating realities). This is an inescapable human truth. It affects heterodox academics and reformists just as much as the orthodox traditionalists.

However, as a whole, one can rest feeling content that orthodox scholarship – as an institution – preserves the proper understanding and application of the spirit of Islamic Law. While one scholar may be influenced by societal biases, and another by political pressure – there will remain those that aren’t shackled by those burdens and do arrive at proper conclusions on the issues facing the broader Muslim society. These latter scholars could find themselves in the same position as the prior in other issues or at other times, only to be rebuffed by a third group (or even the first) that would arrive at the correct conclusion. Through this process of internal refinement at every stage, and no singular class of clergy through which religion is prone to corruption as a whole (similar to the Catholic church) – the integrity of the scholarship, Islamic Law, and the faith as a whole, remains intact. The case of coffee is a perfect testament to that reality.

In proper historical purview, the curious case of coffee provides a strong response to orientalists and reformists of the strength and academic integrity of classical orthodox Islamic scholarship. While it reflects all the human struggles one finds in the process of ijtihād, it also displays numerous points of pride and a sense of security for Muslim masses seeking to rely on tradition.

In analyzing this historical event, one not only finds the academic integrity and discernable scrutiny of traditional scholarship, but also their piety and asceticism. And beyond all, the study reasserts the reliability of the orthodox institution of Islamic scholarship as a whole while concurrently displaying the arrogant assumptions of heterodox reformists in claiming objectivity that is, unlike what is observed in traditional scholarship as an institution, far from their own ability and grasp.

And Allah knows best.