Those we love have an inimitable way of humbling us. A few days ago the woman I love told me, "you are a constitutional Wahhabi" -- a reference to my conservative/Originalist leanings when it comes to reading the constitution. The remark, although funny, deserves serious engagement. Let me explain how.

In my own little world, on most days I favour conservative readings of the constitution -- of which ‘Originalism’ is one strand. Originalism advocates a reading of the constitution that is based on the meaning of its provisions as understood at the time the document was written. There are nuances within Originalism (e.g. Justice Scalia versus Justice Thomas) but that is a topic for another day. Let’s focus on the bigger questions.

Should we interpret a text as per its original meaning or should we hold that the meaning changes over time? Do first principles matter or do changed meanings and interpretations placed on them acquire a controlling meaning -- even if they change the original meaning? This is an enduring debate in the interpretation of all texts --scriptural or legal. Anyone interested in constitutional law and any religious person, both in my view engaged in a holy exercise (!), face this dilemma. What matters more? Islam and constitutional law regularly present these fascinating and enduring questions.

The school of thought in Islam popularly (and often polemically) referred to as Wahhabism advocates reliance on Originalism and first principles as laid down in the Quran and Sunnah. It cannot be stressed enough that these Originalists in Islam find the term ‘Wahhabi’ derogatory -- since the whole point of living by principles laid down in Quran and Sunnah is to not elevate any individual thought leaders such as Muhammad Ibn Abdul Wahhab (the 18th century reformer from Najd in present day Saudi Arabia). Wahhab would say that putting him on a pedestal kills his own theory. (Clarification: I have not been raised as per this school of thought so I have only known it, till now, from the outside).

The more apt term is perhaps Salafis -- flowing from the word ‘salaf’ meaning predecessors, thereby following the earliest proponents of Islam. Hence, a Salafi will tell you that you do not need intermediaries (whether pious figures, shrines or practices) to be closer to Allah. All you need to do is access the principles laid down in Quran and Sunnah and you are good to go. This philosophy, no matter whether you are for or against it, has the merit (from an objective standpoint) that religion and salvation is accessible to all -- you do not need to pledge allegiance to any other jurist or devotional figure to understand your religion or attain salvation. Hence, its merit is its democratic appeal and accessibility.

If you manage to establish a monopoly over how the meaning flowing from this accessibility is understood, you have enormous power. Enormous power. I cannot stress that enough. And the Muslim world’s greatest fault is that it abandoned an engagement with Originalism -- allowing others to distort it.

Why do we generalise about originalist readings? Are our generalisations based on the actions of Osama bin Laden and the Taliban? The first question in this respect: why should we believe them to be followers of Salafism just because they say so? Think about it. Do the Muslims not feel aggrieved when non-Muslims generalise about Muslims following a violent religion? Those non-Muslims also generalise by looking at the actions of the few extremists -- ignoring the deeply held precious beliefs of many. We know, nay believe that these violent actions have nothing to do with religion -- and have everything to do with political power and naked aggression.

I myself have been guilty of equating Wahhabism with strict, if not violent, orthodoxy. Here is where it stops. Firstly, we need to shed the term ‘Wahhabism’ -- it may lead to a catchy news story but it does not help us understand much about our religion. Secondly, as argued by Natana J. Delong-Bas in her book "Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad", Wahhab himself is a reviled yet largely misunderstood figure. Most importantly, you do not need someone like Wahhab in order to be convinced of the virtue of an Originalist reading of Islam. And you definitely have no basis to throw around the term ‘Wahhabism’ in a derogatory way just because a few who claim to subscribe to this school of thought start killing people.

The tragedy is that the originalists in Islam have been silent -- even as we (general public, media etc.) have equated Originalism with bigoted conservatism. Those who follow simply the Quran and Sunnah, while deciding not to follow any of the great jurists, need not be painted as blind irrational devotees. Theirs is a belief that is democratic, accessible and hence arguably the one that deserves serious engagement. In fact, because we abandoned engagement with Originalism in Islam, we have reached a point where extremists can twist and turn the meanings of original principles/practices -- we simply have had no response to this distortion.

The responses in the Muslim world, as far as states go, have mostly been misplaced. We saw the militant secularism of Turkey to ‘cleanse’ itself of Islam and we saw the enlightened moderation of Musharraf. These responses chose to forego a much needed engagement with Originalism. We have also seen the petro dollars allegedly funding extremist groups -- but how is that evidence of Originalism in Islam or Salafism supporting terrorism? That proves nothing.

This is not meant to suggest that we have to agree with every strand of Originalism in Islam -- or every interpretation. A decision not to interpret is as political a decision as interpreting something. But the context will always matter. No true Originalist will ask you to ignore the context -- in fact will stress on the original context. Asking you to ignore context is what violent extremists do for political gains and power -- they ignore the context of jihad, treatment of women, permission regarding polygamy etc.

Noam Chomsky once said that he criticises his own state, USA, the most because "I can actually do something about it." And this is why we need to engage with Originalism in Islam -- because we can do something about it. Instead of being apologetic and only selling an ‘evolved’ meaning, we need to wrestle back the distorted views regarding an Originalist reading. We must stop labelling entire schools of thought within Islam (whether inspired by Wahhab or someone else) as being violent. We must learn more about who said what and why -- and by that I mean history.

I do not have all the answers yet -- and maybe I never will. But it is the Muslim world’s failure to ask questions that has led us here and we cannot put it off any longer. What is original is ours -- and it’s about time we begin the journey to reclaim it.