Reflection 2 Islamic governance any better?

Assalam Alaikum

So this was the 2nd paper I wrote last semester. It is comparing the Islamic form of governance with a Buddhist kingdom. Like last time I have left teacher comments present. Much thanks to my fiance Sara for helping me write 4 drafts of this paper. And who will give me even more help and support when I do my master's thesis InshAllah.

Bismillahirahmaniraheem.

Comparing Islamic leaders from different time periods and places, to King Ashoka and other Buddhist figures, we find that theologically the two societies are very different. Buddhism is not theistic at all; in fact, some teachings of Buddhism are against the belief of a God while Islam’s central principle is Tawheed, the oneness of God and His isolation as the only thing to be worshipped and pleased. However even with this fundamental difference, both religions share a similarity in their treatment and tolerance of other faiths and their own. After reading about Buddhism, in particular chapter 14 of Neusner the case of King Ashoka, has made me wonder if is it necessary to have an Islamic form of government or even a theistic centered government to form a coexistent and peaceful society[ml1861] .

Both Buddhist and Muslim families portray themselves of being accepting of diversity. Ashoka’s father and grandfather were from different religious backgrounds. His grandfather became a Jain late in life, and his father was of the Ajivika sect. Many Khaliphs had mothers who were usually from the lands that their fathers laid conquest, specifically the Ottoman Empire where most of the mothers were Armenians but the Ummayyads in Spain also intermarried. Some of the mothers remained with their original faith and others converted to Islam. The two societies are different in that Muslim men were allowed to marry women of other faiths but women were not allowed to marry outside of the faith. However both societies had families, even ruling families, who accepted some form (not all forms) of religious diversity in their homes.

Both societies have an idea that there is no compulsion in religion and everyone has the right to follow any faith. Ashoka believed in honoring other religions. Kristin Scheible writes, “For Ashoka, other faiths have inherent self-worth as well as occupy a crucial role as a mirror to reflect and amplify one’s own faith. “The faiths of others all deserve to be honored for one reason or another. By honoring them, one exalts one’s own faith and at the same time performs a service to the faith of others.”” Furthermore in Buddhism other religions were not the result of some evil force [ml1862] but rather other paths to the same destination.[1] Muslims on the other hand, at least the majority of the Khaliphs, believed in respecting other faiths because the Quran says, “Do not curse the idols they set up beside Allah, lest they blaspheme and curse Allah out of ignorance.” Also, unlike Ashoka, Muslims believed that other faiths were due to evil forces contaminating the pure word of God[ml1863] . Even with these different views and mindsets towards the other, Islamic societies and Ashoka developed similar institutionalized forms of tolerance. Ashoka’s Rock Edict XII admonished attempts to overtly proselytize and the Kaliphs forbade forced conversion following the prophetic command: there is no compulsion in religion by writing such treaties like the Pact of Umar. These institutionalized forms of tolerance are still put on a pedestal by the present followers of both religions; India has the symbol of the wheel, which signifies many things one of which celebrating the reign of Ashoka, on its flag, and Muslims speak very nostalgically of certain past leaders.

The Ashokan edicts and the Khaliphate either elevated their religion or put limits on other religions. In Edict VII Ashoka announces that he will have officers spreading the Dharma and the Khaliphate allowed other faiths to proselytize to each other but not to Muslims. Both the theist and non-theist religion are very similar in furthering their religions.

Ashoka, like some Kaliphs, also limited followers of divergent views of his own religion. Ashoka had intolerant edicts directed towards the sangha. Disruptive monks and nuns under the Sarnath Pillar Edict are expelled from the anabasasi and forced to wear white robes instead of saffron robes. Kaliphs on the other hand would punish theologians and jurists who disagreed they disagreed with. The kaliph would either make takfeer (claiming that one has done something that makes him an apostate making it legal to kill him) on those he disagreed with, causing the theologians and jurists to change their views, or straight out torture people until they agreed. Ashoka and some Kaliphs were tolerant to others who disagreed with them but not so much to their own people if they disagreed.

Both of these societies, the Kaliphate and Ashoka’s kingdom, were based on very different faiths but ended up being similar. Both the societies are put on a pedestal by the followers of these faiths as evidence of the faith’s greatness. But both Muslims and Buddhists have also acted intolerant in different times in history, for example in some of the Taifa kingdoms, Muslims were intolerant towards Jewish people. Also during a period of the Ottoman Empire, Muslims acted very intolerant by force converting then drafting children into the military, creating the Janissaries. Some may argue the Janissaries went on to live a luxurious life but their parents did not agree with their children’s force conversion and draft. Buddhists also at some points of history acted intolerant and warlike in Lanka due to nationalism discussed in the following chapter in Neusner. The Muslim teaching that the only way to have coexistence and peace is through an Islamic form of government and the belief of one God is challenged by the fact that at times Muslim society acted just as intolerant as others they believed themselves better than, and that those who Muslims believed they were better than, in this case a people who do not even believe in a god, also formed a society similar to the best of Muslim society[ml1864] .

My reflection does not dissuade me from Islam but rather makes me turn more towards it and makes my belief stronger. In Islam we are constantly told to be sincere, and the fact a that non-Muslim can accomplish the same thing as a rightful Muslim ruler as long as he or she is sincere gives credence to that teaching. Furthermore Muslims may call me blasphemous for my claim that Islam is not a requirement. However I believe I uphold Islamic principles. We do not implement an Islamic form of government because it is the only way to achieve an ideal society; rather we do it because we wish to show submission to God[ml1865] . If we wish to implement Islamic law to form an ideal society then the intention is not to please Allah but rather to please ourselves. And Allah will give us what we want in this life, a good society, but not in the next, paradise.

9/10 points: You draw some nice comparisons between Buddhist & Islamic thinking. I’d like to hear more of your personal thoughts on the Ashoka chapter.

---

[1] Kristin Scheible writes, “Other religions were conceived as more or less effective means to the same end. They were not considered the consequence of evil forces…”

---

[ml1861]Are you suggesting that the ethics of coexistence and peace are primarily derived from a concept of – or relationship to – God?

[ml1862]Do other traditions (Christianity, Islam, etc) view other traditions as the result of evil?

[ml1863]This answers my question above …

[ml1864]Interesting point. So, what is it, in the end, that makes the cornerstone of a just society?

[ml1865]But, does making an Islamic form of government force this submission on non-Muslims?

Read more...

Reflections on the Enlightenment

Bismillahiramanhiraheem
So I just finished my first semester of Graduate studies at Hartford Seminary. This was the first paper I wrote. I received an 8.5/10 on this paper. I have added the Professor's comments to show how true professors teach and how academic theological writing should be instead of being extreme polemics. (I am grateful for this grade because it helped me see where I needed to improve.) This paper was a simple reflection paper on one of the readings.

Reflections

I knew I would disagree with the philosophers and theologians that were going to be mentioned before reading chapter nine. I was pleasantly surprised how Karkkainen approached the subject, not portraying the Enlightenment as a majestic age of reason. After reading this chapter I am surprised that Enlightenment theologians, at least the ones mentioned, were not writing about rejecting religion instead they were trying to prove Christianity was superior to other religions. The reading upheld my firm belief that Enlightenment thinkers were not practicing reason but rather practicing blind dogma and acting like children[MCL1] . They closed their eyes and covered their ears, refusing to listen to the proof of any religion.

Karkkainen dispels the idea of it being an age of reason by mentioning that periods before the Enlightenment, such as the Middle Ages, were also called the “Age of Reason” and great scholastic theologians such as Thomas Aquinas came before the Enlightenment. By doing so, he does not discredit the advances and ideas of past generations rather, he correctly writes that it was the first time reason was exercised independent of church authority and supervision. However, it was not the first time a period was recognized as an age of reason. (p90)

Having properly explained the Enlightenment period and not portraying it as majestic, he goes on to explain the ideas of theologians and philosophers of the period. Personally I would have taken a more hostile approach because of my exclusivist leanings. I commend Karkkainen for only presenting the ideas of the Enlightenment thinkers and not let his own opinions seep [MCL2] through which I would have done.

There was a time that I avoided reading Enlightenment era works with the impression they were exclusively about disproving the idea of God and I only used to read works that were polemics against the thinking of the Enlightenment because of this misconception. Having avoided Enlightenment era writing, it certainly was eye opening to read a presentation about the it. [MCL3] Before I was under the impression the Enlightenment was fully secular, however it seems like it was only a move towards secularism and a different flavor of religious superiority thinking. The different flavor of religious superiority was a move towards inclusivist thinking, such as Schleiermarcher, not believing the Christianity was the only way but the best way (Karkkainen, p93) or Troeltsch view that all religions share the divine presence or revelation but other religions cannot be brought closer to Christianity.(Karkkainen, p97) The tools this new process used to look down on other religions were “history”, “common sense” and “reason” instead of using doctrine. By doing so they effectively neutered all religions of any supernatural elements making debates of what is right and what is wrong divorced of any divine guidance and subjugate them to logic, reason[MCL4] , and worst of all human temptation.

Reading about their denial of the supernatural elements in religion and the use of the new tools such as “reason” upheld my firm belief that Enlightenment thinkers were practicing blind dogma and not using reason at all. If they are truly reasonable and open to ideas, why do they ignore the proof[MCL5] that religions bring as if they were children. Denis Diderot’s claim that even if the entire population of Paris told him a dead man had just been resurrected he would not believe it (Karkkainen pg91), shows that Enlightenment thinkers were not trying to be “open minded” or anything of the sorts rather they had their beliefs and would ignore any evidence that ran the contrary. If we were to use reason and history, the fact that we have multiple sources from the earliest periods giving accounts of supernatural happenings, would that not be enough proof? Maybe not enough proof to know exactly which miracle happened or didn’t happen, but enough to know something did happen. But the Enlightenment thinkers stick to the “see it to believe” mentality. If we use this reasoning then we should just ignore all of history. If we have a large number of people giving the same account[MCL6] , all of who were eye witnesses, and have not had enough time to cooperate and make a story up[MCL7] , reason would dictate that there is some truth in what they say. Now if we live many years after the event, we should investigate the claims and see where each claimant’s source is coming from. Meaning we should trace back their claims to the eye witnesses of the event. If we find all the claims are coming from the same eye witness there may be room to be skeptical, but if all the claims trace back to many different eye witnesses then reason would lead us to two options: either there was a global conspiracy going on amongst the people who lived in the past and wanted to fool future generations by claiming they were eye witnesses to supernatural events, or miracles had actually occurred. [MCL8] Which is more likely, a grand hoax that requires impossible logistics or the event actually occurring?

Furthermore ignoring miracles and following people based on them being “ethical teachers” is a step towards relativism [MCL9] which people see as chaos and the absence of divine guidance. Who is to decide what one teaches is ethical? Many practices are considered ethical in one culture’s reasoning and completely abhorrent in another. The only way to know what is truly ethical and truly abhorrent is by divine guidance. To know the source of the divine guidance is through the miracles.

The reading has encouraged me to delve deeper in Enlightenment thinking which is surprising to me because it only upheld long standing beliefs. At the end of the day I am an exclusivist and to disagree with something without fully knowing it, is arrogant[MCL10] . Instead of avoiding it I should learn about it to see why people think in this manner and why it is so attractive if I wish to effectively articulate my objections to this type of thinking.

8.5/10 – This chapter obviously was thought-provoking for you. You do a good job of articulating some of the issues at play in the chapter and are ready to apply them to your own thinking. Be sure to push your own assumptions; hold them up to the same critique you’d want applied to Enlightenment thinking.

---

[MCL1]Those are strong words.

[MCL2]Objectivity is important in academic research.

[MCL3]?

[MCL4]Are logic and reason such bad things? Don’t we want our traditions to be logical and reasonable?

[MCL5]What is the proof? How are some of the claims of our traditions “provable”?

[MCL6]But where is this recorded? In a time when there were no newspapers or reporters? If there is only one text that records an event (e.g. the Bible) how do we really know that a large number of people offered the same account?

[MCL7]And, how do we know that this was not the case with texts that were written down hundreds of years ago? Or with texts that were written down decades after the events in question?

[MCL8]I’m not sure these are the only two options.

[MCL9]How so?

[MCL10]Absolutely. It’s important to be able to articulate clearly why you disagree with something and to propose a better scenario.

Read more...

Education not Competition

Bismillahiramanhiraheem
I have been in Indonesia for the last eight months and have been very busy. However that is not the reason for the absence. This piece took me seven months to write. I had so many things to say but no direction. This piece was edited time and time again taking out unnecessary ranting and provocation. I ask Allah that if any of my writings have a positive effect on people it will be this one. Ameen.

Education not Competition

"Education is the passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to those who prepare for it today."

Every parent will nod their heads in agreement to the words attributed to Malcolm X (better referred to as EL-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz in the Muslim community) quoted above. Then they will probably menacingly beam at their children. The child will understand this look as a command that they must never be wrong or make a mistake in the classroom or never fail a test.
This fear holds the child back from learning. An essential part in the learning process is to make mistakes. However, students who have succumb to fear would rather stay quiet and opt not to answer a question rather than trying. Their fear causes them to hesitate answering simple questions that have no right or wrong answer such as a simple, “How are you”. I had a student who is very bright and was probably the smartest child in the class but she was so afraid to get a question wrong you could literally see her whole body tremble and then see her eyes look from right to left out of fear. My question was “What did you do on the weekend”.
Why do parents instill this fear in their children? Is it for the child’s benefit or the parents’? The main reason parents put this fear in their children is because of competition. They must realize that education is not competition and there is no shame in failure. Failure helps the student by allowing him to redo what he or she may be weak in. However, parents are more concerned about saving face with their peers they do not concern themselves with what their child actually needs. Sometimes the parents go so far as to use under handed tactics to have their children pushed into the next grade or level just to save face. If the student is pushed forward because of their parents’ under handed tactics, the student will just have more troubles in the future. Furthermore the fear does not benefit the child at all specially during assessments because instead of actually thinking and stressing about the assessment they have in front of them, they stress about the consequences that will be brought upon them if they do not succeed. This factors into the student’s failure on a test and has no benefit to them. The parents get no benefit because now they must save face.
How does this factor into Islam? Well first we must look to a fictional character to understand where fear leads us. Yoda from the star wars films said, “Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.” Fear (of anything except Allah) leads us to the dark side, we start to hate what we fear. When a teacher punishes a student for making a mistake the student subconsciously starts to hate the subject being taught and the teacher. If the student is punished for making a mistake while reciting, such as being slapped across the face or having his or her fingers being squeezed together with a pencil in the middle, do we really think he will love the Quran or the teacher?
Instead of having students compete against one another and live in fear we should promote cooperation between them. One of the best ways to learn is to teach the subject to others. Have stronger students help the weaker ones. It will enforce the subject to the stronger students and having their peers explain the subject the weaker students will be brought up in level. For parents who are skeptical, try to remember a time you did not listen to your child so they had to go to another adult who got through to you.
In secular education this helps because we start to have less dropouts and failures and a bigger percentage of people succeeding and working towards the betterment of society. However if we make students compete we create winners and losers. We have losers who become nothing of use and unable to better society and have the winners go on to become professionals but because they are so ingrained with the competition mentality they do not work for the betterment of society. Greatest example is of all these immoral doctors only caring about money. A doctor is no longer seen as a noble profession but rather is seen as a criminal.
As for Islamic knowledge this approach also has many advantages. For example one of the reasons for major sectarianism is because people cannot admit they are wrong. The arrogance a teacher develops that they could never be wrong is only an extension of their fears of making a mistake when they were students. However if we take out competition in Islamic learning we would effectively close one of the paths leading to arrogance. Another reason for a person to become arrogant is because a teacher is a person who has extreme power and even more trust; this position is an easy road to feel powerful. If we have stronger students help weaker students when the students eventually become teachers they will not be arrogant because part of their learning career was also teaching weaker students.
Education is not competition. Competition is when we have parties trying to get to the top while not caring for the other. Competition is when we step over others. Competition enforces arrogance. Leave competition in the sports arena and do not bring it into the centers of learning. Stop treating education like a sport. Parents should not be spectators who get into fights because their team lost. Our children are not football teams and schools are not arenas.

Read more...

Secrets of Fast

Bismillahiramanhiraheem
InshAllah I will get straigh to it. This is the Ramadan fasting blog. It is the secrets of fast by Imam Ghazzali.

Secrets of Fast

Know, 0 dear readers, that there are three classes of fast. (I) Fast of the general Muslims. It are to restrain oneself from eating and drinking and from sexual passion. This is the lowest kind of fast. (2) Fast of the few select Muslims. In this kind of fasting, besides the above things one refrains himself from sins of hand, feet, sight and other limbs of body. (3) Fast of the highest class. These people keep fast of mind. In other words, they don't think of anything else except God and the next world. They think only of the world with the intention of the next world as it is the seed ground for the future. A certain sage said: One sin is written for one whose efforts during the day are made only to prepare for breaking fast. This highest class of people is the Prophets and the near ones of God. This kind of fast is kept after sacrificing oneself and his thoughts fully to God. This is the meaning of the verse: Say God and then leave them sporting in their vain talks (6 : 91).
The fasting of select few pious men rests on six duties for gaining perfection. (1) To restrain eye sight from what is evil and from things which divert attention from God's remembrance. The Prophet said: Eye sight is a poisonous arrow out of the arrows of the devil. If a man gives it up, God gives him such a faith of which the taste is tasted by his mind. The Prophet said: Five things destroy fasting-falsehood, backbiting, slander, perjury and look with sexual passion. (2) To restrain the tongue from useless talk, false-speaking, backbiting, slander, abusive speech, obscenity, hypocrisy and enmity, to adopt silence and to keep the tongue busy with the remembrance of God and reciting the Quran. The sage Sufiyan Saori said: Backbiting spoils fast. Hazrat Mujahed said: Two things spoil fast, backbiting and falsehood. The Prophet said: Fast is like a shield. If a man keeps fast, let him not rebuke and dispute. If a man wants to assault or make quarrel, jet him say to him : I am fasting. There is in Hadis: Two women kept fast at the time of the Prophet. They were so much overstricken with hunger at the end of the day that their lives were about to end. They were sent to the Prophet so that he might order them to break fast. He sent a cup for them telling them that they should vomit in it what they ate. One of them vomited fresh blood and fresh flesh which filled up half of the cup. Another vomited similarly and filled up the cup. The Prophet then said: The two women fasted with !awful food but broke it with unlawful food. The two women back-bited the people and ate their flesh.
(3) To restrain the ear from hearing the evil talks because what is unlawful to utter is also unlawful to hear. For this reason, God placed the eater of unlawful food and the hearer of unlawful words on the same level. God says: The hearers of falsehood and eaters of unlawful food (5 : 46). God says: Why do not the God-fearing men and the worldly renunciated men prohibit talking sinful words and unlawful eating (5 : 68)? To remain silent at the time of backbiting is unlawful. God says: You are then like them (9 : 138). Thus said the Prophet: The backbiter and the hearer of backbiting are equal co-sharers in sin.
(4) To save hand, feet and other organs from sins from evil deeds and to save belly from doubtful things at the time of breaking fast. There is no meaning of fasting if it is kept with lawful food and broken with unlawful food. He is like a man who destroys a town for constructing a building. it is also injurious to eat lawful food in excess and not to eat it little. He who fasts and does evil deeds is like a patient who restrains himself from eating fruits for fear of disease but who swallows poison. A sin is like eating poison. He who drinks this poison is a fool. An unlawful thing is like poison and it destroys religion and a lawful thing is like a medicine. Its little does benefit and its much spoils. The Prophet said: There are many fasting men who do not gain by fasting except hunger and thirst. On being asked the reason, he said: He refrains from eating lawful food and breaks fast by eating human flesh by backbiting. That is unlawful.
(5) To eat even lawful food so much at the time of breaking fast that it fills up the belly. A belly filled up with too much lawful food is hated more than all other reservoirs. A fasting man eats in full at the time of breaking fast what he could not eat during day time. He prepares different kinds of foods. The object of fast is to keep belly vacant in order to control passion and to increase God-fear. if the belly remains full from morning to evening, sexual passion rises high and greed and temptation reign supreme.
(6) To keep the mind of a fasting man between fear and hope, because he does not know whether his fast will be accepted or not, whether he will be near God or not. This should be the case for every divine service. Once Hasan Basri was passing by a party of men who were playing and sporting. He said:' God this month of Ramadan for running in which the people will 14 running for good deeds and competing with one another. The object of fast is to anoint one with one of the divine attributes. That attribute is Samadiat meaning to be bereft of hunger and thirst and to follow the angels as far as possible, being free from passion.
The rank of a man is far more superior than that of a lower animal as he can control his passion by dint of his intellect, but his rank is lower than that of an angel as his passion is strong and he is tried by it. Angels are near God, This nearness keeps connection with attributes but not with space. The Prophet said: Fast is a trust. Let everyone of you keep that trust. When he read this verse: "God orders you to give trust to its rightful owners (4 : 61)", he placed his hands on his ears and eyes and said: Ear is a trust and eye is a trust. If it had not been a trust of fasting, the Prophet would not have said: I am fasting. In other words, I have kept my tongue as trust for saving it. How can I give it up for replying you? So it appears that for every affair there are secret and open matters.
It is now open to you to observe both secret and open matters or to observe either of them.

Read more...

Jarh wa Ta'dil

Bismillahiramanhiraheem

This post will be an original piece by yours truly, The Ghazzali Blogger! I have been meaning to write an article on this topic for a long time but always decided not to because I may get over passionate and offensive. Furthermore I told myself it was not my place to write about this topic. However the more I read the more I kept coming back to this. It did not matter if I read about hadith or fiqh or madhabs or a tafseer this topic just kept creeping back up and haunting me. So I finally decided to speak out and Alhamdulilah I believe Allah willed that I would put off this topic because he wanted me to read more and obtain more sources. InshAllah the Ramadan fasting post will also be posted up today or tomorrow.

Jarh wa ta’dil

"The people shall always be in a good state as long as they take their knowledge from their elders, their trusted ones, and their people of knowledge. When they start taking it from their boys and their reprobates, they shall be destroyed." - Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud
When people listen to a speech or read a book or observe any type of media retain different things. Someone might watch a movie and appreciate the stunts while others may appreciate the story telling or dialogue, the artists may appreciate the rendering and lighting of the movie, others may appreciate that the movie addressed many different philosophies of a certain part of life, while some people may appreciate the fact they can draw parallels from the movie to real life; I have met people who believed the last Lord Of The Rings movie was about the Palestine and Israel conflict. Furthermore something that may seem interesting to one person can be dull to someone else. Sometimes when listening to a speaker, we may misunderstand and our understanding of their talk may be the complete opposite of what they were saying. The same holds true when reading Islamic books or when listening to a Muslim scholar give a talk. Why people appreciate different things or are impacted differently or obtain a different message by the same speech or book maybe because of their values, upbringing, environment, their psyche and their experiences.

One time listening to a talk given by a graduate of the Islamic University of Medinah, I witnessed this first hand. The speaker talked about the history of Muslim communities in the United States and how active and how much we have grown since the 70’s. In my mind this talk was to encourage the up and coming generation to ride the momentum of the previous generation to make bigger and better marks on the world that the previous generations, when they first started off, could not have imagined. I believe we should be grateful for the tedious foundational work the previous generation did so that my generation has an easier time to do more extravagant work. However my colleague sitting right next to me understood the talk as the complete opposite. He believed that our parents came here for money and were not interested in Islam and if they were it was because of culture and not out of sincerity. Furthermore he claimed that our parents did not teach us anything about Islam and that it must be sour for them to see us (their children) not to go after materialistic goals but rather be religious.

To children with that type of attitude I ask; how many Masjids did we build? The hundreds of Masjids in New York City alone, did our generation build them or did our parent generation? The very conference we are attending to listen to the talk we cite as evidence that our parents are materialistic and not good Muslims, did we organize that conference? Did we even start the organization that held that conference or did our parent generation? If our parent generation did not care about Islam and came here for material wealth only then who laid the foundation that allows us to learn Islam in America from people who studied in places such as the Islamic University of Medinah? Furthermore when we claim our parents did not teach us anything about Islam then why did some of us keep our relationship with our girlfriend a secret when we were not practicing? Why did we hide our tattoo from our parents? Why did we hide our piercings from them? How did we learn about the word Muslim and Islam that allowed us to seek out guidance in the first place? And when we claim it must be sour for our parents to see we are religious are we sure it is not because that we do not have the manners that the scholars have told us to have and we talk to our parents as if they were the children and not us?
Point is our parents did teach us. They taught us we were Muslims and we followed a religion called Islam. Otherwise why else did we hide our wrong doings? Some of our parents do not observe all the practices of Islam and we may observe more of the practices. But it is the job of the parent to make their children better Muslim than they were. Our parents did not pray but told us we were Muslims and we followed Islam. We took what our parents taught us and then we pray and do the rest of the five pillars Alhamdulilah. Then InshAllah our children will take what the previous two generations did and become scholars and then their children will inshAllah be greater. The mere fact we are more religious than our parents proves that our parents did their duty when they raised us. So we should give due credit to them and until we can raise a child to be better than us, we should keep quiet because we have not succeeded like our parents have. The child is supposed to be better than his or her parent.
Humility and moderation should come with knowledge but instead arrogance and extremism is implanted into the Muslim youth. The arrogance has become so unbearable that not only do we attack our parents but start to call righteous scholars deviants and throw 1400 years of scholarship out the window. We fall into the false assumption that “stricter is better”. When we hear a scholar give a fatwa which is laxer than something we follow we do not hesitate one second to say that the scholar is ignorant; often forgetting that the scholar studied more years than we have been alive!

Then the arrogance becomes even more! We start to act like we are scholars; we sit and preach without having paid our learning dues at the feet of the Ulema because we cannot wait for others to sit at our own feet. We start to take fatwas from websites and quote them to seem like we have authority and if someone comes with another fatwa we say that the hadiths our dissenter used were weak and fabricated; not only do we believe ourselves to be faqihs but also muhaddiths! We start to rank hadiths and anything we do not think are strict enough we call it fabricated. Not realizing “that as long as the proof of forgery is un-established beyond reasonable doubt and short of compelling assumption regarding a weak report, it becomes a lie to cry forgery and bar people from the benefit of belief in it. This holds true even if the chain of transmission falls short of the rank of “sound” (sahih). God fearing precaution toward the Prophet (pbuh) goes both ways: not only with respect to steering clear from attributing to him what he never said or did, but also with respect to steering clear from belying what he might have said or done.” We start to give our opinions on everything and anything as if we are experts on all Islamic knowledge when two of the greatest scholars, Hujjat al-Islam Imam al-Ghazzaali and Imam Ibn Qudama in their respective books al-Mustasfa and Rawdat al-Nazir said that an Alim may be an Imam in a particular science and an uneducated common person in another. In the end we believe ourselves to be absolute mujtahids like the four great Imams, saying such things as “Abu Hanifa did not have that evidence” implying that we know more than the Mujtahid Imam of the Tabieen.

Then when we are called out on the fact that we are acting as if we are absolute mujtahids we counter by saying, “we are only students of knowledge and only teaching what the righteous Ulema who are on the Quran and Sunnah have said.” (As if the four Mujtahids were not on the Quran and Sunnah and as if people who sacrificed their time and livelihood to learn Islam and spread it to the west and east are not on the Quran and Sunnah) How do we claim to be “students of knowledge” when we never sat at the feet of the Ulema and drank from their knowledge? Are we really teaching what the Ulema have taught or are we only regurgitating what we read on the internet or in some book? When Ishaq ibn Rahuyah sat in Iraq with the likes of Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Yahya ibn Ma’in he would rehearse many transmissions and evidences just like his fellow companions but when he asked what was the intent or explanation or fiqh, all remained mute except for Ahmad ibn Hanbal. They understood anyone can quote and recite hadiths and evidences but only a few can determine and understand what they mean; do we understand what we read? Have any of the Ulema told us to be of ill manners towards non-Muslims let alone our parents who we believe to be deviants just because they do not have a beard like we do? Did the Ulema give us the right to call any scholar who we think is lax in his rulings a deviant?
Real knowledge is a light, not what is memorized and quoted by individuals to look smart in front of his peers. Al-Shafi says, “Knowledge is what benefits. Knowledge is not what one has memorized.” How does knowledge benefit us? Al-Dhahabi says “Knowledge (al- ‘ilm) is not the profusion of narration, but a light which Allah casts into the heart. Its condition is followership (ittiba’ and the flight away from egotism (hawa) and innovation”
Which brings us to the narration that I began with: “Sa'id ibn Wahb narrated that Abd Allah ibn Mas'ud said "The people shall always be in a good state as long as they take their knowledge from their elders, their trusted ones, and their people of knowledge. When they start taking it from their boys and their reprobates, they shall be destroyed." Notice who are the first people Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud (rA) mention; it is the same people that we accuse of only caring about money and do not want us to practice Islam but rather pursue materialistic goals. Either we want to admit it or not our elders are the first people we learned Islam from. Even if your family does not observe all of Islam and in the past you were not religious and now you are you still learned about Islam from them. The second people mentioned are our trusted ones not the most educated. An example of this is when Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal (rA), a absolute mujtahid whose school still exists today, and Ihya ibn Mayen could not agree on a certain matter they would go to Maruf Karkhi, a man who was not their equal in the sciences of practical religion. They said to Maruf Karkhi:“The Prophet (pbuh) said, “What will you do when you will not find a matter in the Quran or Sunnah? He said: “Ask the pious men among you and consult them in this matter.” We (Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal and Ihya ibn Mayen) have come to you for this. The last people who we should take knowledge from are the people of knowledge or the scholars. If someone sacrificed blood, sweat and tears for years and years to learn Islam at any of the prestigious learning centers he should be considered a scholar, specially one who could have lived a materialistic life but chose to study Islam. Then after all that sacrifice he or she came to us, regardless of where we are, to give the knowledge to us. There is this new ideology going around that claims that “there are no scholars in the west”. Someone does not forget what they have learned if they sit on a plane and travel to the west or the east, knowledge stays with you no matter where one is! The first people who we should not follow according to Abd Allah ibn Mas’ud (rA) are the boys. And the truth is we are all still boys who are barely into our mid-twenties and think we are more intelligent than anyone else. We throw hissy fits when someone does not agree with us as if Islam was not a way of life but a philosophy. We treat discussions of fiqh as if it was a prelaw college class where instead of saying something is unconstitutional (which students say when they do not agree with a law when in truth the law is constitutional) we say it is not the sunnah (when it does fall under the sunnah) and just like a prelaw class where three quarter of the people do not know what constitutional means, we do not know what sunnah means.

The truth is we need to be active and stop sitting and talking about those who are active. We are too lazy to do anything so we pick out faults of those who actually help the community. We feel good about picking out faults in people who actual do something and act like we are practicing Jarh wa ta’dil when in reality we are only back biting. We are back biting not only our parents, the people who are either the door to Jannah or have it under their feet, but also people who are fulfilling our Fard-i-Kafiyah. We need to stop attacking our parents and our teachers by quoting obscure sources and do something useful with our time. If we really want to be scholars then we should know of al-Hasan al-Basri’s report that the Prophet (pbuh) said, “The energy of the Ulema is care and help while the energy of fools is to quote” and the statement of the Abbasi Caliph ‘Abd Allah ibn al-Mu’tazz: “The learning of the hypocrite consists in his discourse while the learning of the Believer consists in his deed.”



1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LumwYGp729w A Great talk given by Nouman Ali Khan
entitled Contradicting Community advising Muslim youth and new Muslims on how to deal
with their Families. This talk is very closely related to this article which is also about religious
youngsters and their parents. At 36:00 he makes a point that some speakers will have
different impact on different people. Some speakers are purely entertaining but impact
non-practicing Muslims to pray while the educated practicing Muslim did not learn anything
because he wanted more academics such as more hadith quotations. Similarly an Academic
talk will have less impact on non-practicing Muslims.
2. G.F. Haddad, Sunna Notes Volume 1 Hadith History & Principles, Aqsa publications UK, pg.
53
3. Ibid., 45
4. Narrated from al-Khallal by al-Bayhaqi in Manaqib al-Shafi’i
5. Siyar A’lam al Nubala’
6. Narrated by Abu Ubayd and Ya’qub ibn Shayba as cited by Ibn Hajar in the Fath, Ibn
al-Mubarak in al-Zuhd, Ma’mar ibn Rashid with a sound chain in his Jami, al-Tabarani in
al-Kabir and al-Awsat through narrators that were declared trusthworthy according to
al-Haythami, al-Khatib chainless in al-Faqih wal-Mutafaqqih, Ibn Abd al-Barr in Jami’
Bayan al-‘ilm and Abu Khaythama in al- ‘Ilm.
7. Imam Ghazzali Ihya Ulum-Id-din (trans:Al-Haj Maulana Fazlul Karim) pg.37
8. Narrated mursal from al-Hasan by Ibn ‘Asakir and al-Khatib, al-Jami’ li Akhlaq al-Rawi
(1983 ed. 1:88) cf. al-Jami’ al Saghir and Kanz.
9. Narrated by al-Khatib in Iqtida’ al-Ilm al-‘Amal pg.38

Read more...

The Meaning of Biddah (good biddah, bad biddah)

Bismillahiramanhiraheem
This article was written by Dr. Buti and I believe somes up the whole good biddah and bad biddah debate.

The Meaning of Bid ' a by Dr. al-Buti

The first innovation (bid'a) that took place after the Messenger of Allah 0. was satiety (al-shab`). - Aisha 40151
The lexical meaning of bid' a in the Arabic language is "novelty" while its technical meaning in Islam is a novelty begun after the time of the Tabi' in in contravention of the Qur'an and Sunna as defined variously by the authorities:
Al-Jurjani: "Whatever contrivance (1' latun) contradicts the Sunna, and it is named bid'a because whoever supports it innovated it without basis from an Imam. It consists in a novel matter which the Companions and Successors did not follow and which is unsupported by a legal proof."'
Imam Abu Shama and Imam al-Suyilti: "Everything invented without precedent" (kullu mukhtard in min ghayri aslin sabaq);'53
Imam al-Lacknawi: All that did not exist in the first three centuries and for which there is no basis among the Four Foundations of Islam" i.e., Qur'an, Sunna, , and Qiyas.'
Imam Ibn Hajar al-Haytami: "Bid'a in terms of the Law is everything innovated in contravention of the Lawgiver's command and the latter's specific and general proof's'
Ibn al-Jawzi: "Bid'a in legal convention is whatever is blameworthy in contravening the foundations of the Law."
Qadi Abu Bakr Ibn al-'Arabi: "Only the bid' a that contradicts the Sunna is blameworthy.'
All of this elucidates Imam al-Shafi's luminous subdivision of bid' a into two types, which we examine below. Thus, it is not enough for something to be novel to be a bid'a, contrary to the misunderstanding of those who use that term most vocally nowadays.
Some of the best works on the precise definition of bid` a are:
[1] Imam `Abd al-Hayy al-Lacknawi's Tuhfat al-Akhyar and
[2] the first part of his lqamat al-Hujja - both with a comment tary by Shaykh `Abd al-Fattah Abu Ghudda;
[3] Al-Sayyid `Abd Allah Mahfuz al-Haddad's masterpiece alSunna wal-Bid` a;
[4] The most concise, most practical textbook on the topic to date. Kalimatun Ilmiyyatun Hadiyatun fil-Bid'ati wa-Ahkamiha by our beloved teacher Shaykh Wahbi Sulayman Ghawji al-Albani;
[5] Dr. Izzat `Atiyya's al-Bid` a: Tahdiduha wa-Mawqif minha;
[6] Al-Sayyid `Abd Allah ibn al-Siddiq al-Ghumarrs Itqan aiSun'a fi Tahqiq Ma' ria al-Bid` a ("Precise Handiwork in Ascertaining the Meaning of Innovation");
[7] Shaykh isa al-Himyari's two works, Daw' al-Sham` a fi T Ma' na al-Bid' a ("The Candlelight in Verifying the Meaning Bid' a") and
[8] al-Bid' atu al-Hasanatu Aslun min usul al-Tashri` ("The lent Innovation is One of the Sources of Islamic Legislation");

The fourth part of Sayyid Muhammad ibn 'Alawi's book haj
[Chapter 15 of al-Sayyid Abul-Hasanayn Abd Allah ashimi's al-Salafiyya al-Mu` asira and
1] his al-Ittiba' wal-lbtida' .158
ykh Muhammad Sa'id Ramadan al-Buti said:
There is no doubt that innovation (bid `a) is absolutely prohibited and that it is misguidance. [...] However, what is innovation? Innovation is "every matter that was innovated and injected into the Religion while it is not part of it (al-bid` atu kullu amrin ustuhditha wa-uqhima fit-dini wa-huwa laysa minh)." As much as the expressions of the Ulema differ in explaining bid' a and defining it, none of those various expressions differs from this comprehensive meaning: "every matter that was innovated; that is, it did not exist beforehand; "and injected into the Religion while it is not part of it." In this [specific] way, an innovation cannot be other than an innovation of misguidance.
An example of this [innovation of misguidance] is if a person should invent a prayer other than the five prayers which Allah Most High has made Law. Another example would be those invented additions pertaining to funerals, such as the supplications that are raised out loud at the forefront of funerals,' the adhan that was innovated upon lowering the deceased into his grave, and those invented states during dhikr such jumping [up and down] and what the jurists "dancing
call "dancing and
swaying from side to side" (al-rag wa1-tamayul)1 and the matters were innovated and injected into the Religion al-h they are not part of the Religion in any way whatsoever.
As for the matters that were innovated and were not existent re but were not injected into the Religion, the people iced them as habits and procedures in which they found lness for themselves, whether such were connected with worldly sphere or with their Religion. f...]
There are many, many examples of this type. We can give an ple for these many habits and procedures which the *ms have innovated after the death of the Messenger of
0, or even in his time. Among them are the innovations ected with food and drink. Also among them are the connections connected with dwellings, their decoration and their architecture. Among them also are the matters connected with ufacture, commerce, agriculture and the like. Among them are the matters connected with dress in all its variety. (...1
All of those are innovated matters but they were not injected
- o the Religion. That is, the people did not practice them as ifthey
were part of the Religion. Hence, the definition of the legal
[innovation does not apply to them.
No doubt, someone is bound to ask: "What does the Law sayabout
these innovations which entered like waves into the life
the Muslims?" Let us hear what the Messenger of Allah said in his authentic hadith: "Whoever institutes a good practice in Islam has its reward and the reward of all those who practice it until the Day of Judgment, and whoever institutes a Ind practice in Islam bears its onus and the onus of all those rwho practice it until the Day of Judgment"' which is part of a well-known longer hadith. Many are those who imagine a contradiction between the dith of the Messenger of Allah 0 "Every innovation is mis ance" and this hadith. They see a problem here and confused when in reality there is no problem at all.
Innovated matters that are injected into the Religion and not part of it are aptly described by his hadith 0, "Ev innovation is misguidance." As for innovated matters am habits and procedures that are connected to daily life in their varieties, without people intending them as Religion without their being injected into the Divine Law (such matt not being part of it): they fall under the [twofold] distincti mentioned by the Messenger of Allah ["Whoever institutes good practice.."]. We look at the results of these habits regimens. Whatever of them have a good effect on the life people or their Religion are classed under the "good sunna" which the Messenger of Allah 0 called. And whatever of thee leave bad effects on the Religion or on the worldly affairs people - for Allah Most High commanded people to take
of their religious and worldly interests - then such are cl under the "bad sunnas" against which the Messenger of Allah I warned. The Ulema of the Law have explained this at length and in great detail under the subheading of "matters of welfare" (masalih al-mursala).
When are such matters of public welfare lawful and notwithstanding their being "widespread" (mursala), since Book and the Sunna did not say anything about them? IN are such matters imaginary and corrupt, that is, part of the sunna? The Ulema of Islamic Law have clarified this. In
case, what the people innovated without injecting it into the Religion - of which it is not a part at all - is not part of meaning of the legal innovation which is always misguidance and always a forbidden practice.
The conferences which are held here and there are among those innovated matters. How are they assessed? We look at the types of these conferences and the effect they have. Whichever of them supports the Religion is classed among the good sunnas; whichever has a harmful effect is classed among the bad sunnas. All those universities which were innovated out of nonexistence; the various media, including publishing houses and all kinds of means for disseminating information; all these are innovated matters that did not exist before. This development which has touched the script of the Qur'an including dotting, vowelization, division into tenths, and so forth - and the chain of developments is endless - all these are among innovated matters. However, those that innovated them at no time claimed that they were part of the Religion or part of the Divine Law.
All of those matters are assessed on the basis of this scale of which the Messenger of Allah 0s informed us. Whatever part of that serves the Religion of Allah Most High or preserves the lawful worldly matters of public welfare for people is classed together with the good sunna and one is invited to practice it, and whoever does so with sincere intention toward Allah is rewarded. And whatever part of those newly innovated matters is harmful to the Religion or harmful to the lawful worldly matters of public welfare for people, is classed together with the bad sunna against which the Messenger of Allah warned.
People have this custom of celebrating the memory of their great personalities. They may do this on the occasion of the L birthday of one of them or on that of his death. This is among innovated matters; but no one ever said that they belong to the Religion. Nor has anyone ever said that they are an integral part of worship or of the Law which Allah Most High has commanded. They can only be described as cultural or social activities by which a certain goal is sought. We examine this .211 goal: if this goal is good and benefits the Muslims in thew Religion or in their lawful worldly matters, then it is a good sunna as the Messenger of Allah said. [...]
Let us now look at the people's celebration of the commemoration of the birth of the Messenger of Allah 4ia. Is it a 1 matter that was innovated and injected into the Religion and I then considered one of the types of worship that was made law I for us? If anyone celebrates this event to that intention then he I is an innovator! For this celebration is not an integral part of the Religion, that is, not one of the types of worship that was made law for us, nor a ruling from the Divine rulings that cane down in the Qur'an or came in the Sunna.
As for those that celebrate the commemoration of the birth of the Messenger of Allah after the model of those who organize conferences to publicize a legitimate principle or a cause or a right which Allah Most High ordered us to uphold, or to defend something which Allah Most High allows in His Lot this is a social activity by which good in the Religion is sought
This is exactly like those who organize conferences and seminars to commemorate one of their great personalities. I toil you once how I was invited to a conference in one of our dear Arab countries on the occasion of the passing of this or
many years after the death of Muhammad ibn Abd al-W
I am not among those that say that such activities are innovation or express disapproval and warn people them. This is because the brothers who organized this ference only did so as a social activity, like all conferences. did it on the basis of a benefit which they considered such activity would bring about. The criterion [of assessment] this is the same as that for information media or television channels - innovated matters by which is sought, When Muslims use them well, a spiritual or temporal benefit Allah has allowed in His Law. What is sought in all this is same good sought by those people who refined the writing of the Arabic language by developing the script of the Qur'an and including in it the dotting and vowelization and division into tenths which you can see, and of which all the Ulema approved. Is there any person who proceeds from a sound and meticulous basis of knowledge who will say: "A conference that is organized to commemorate the passing of this or that many years after the death of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abd al Wahhab is a forbidden, innovative act?" I do not think so. Not at all. And since this is the case, then why is such an act [of commemoration] licit or even a good sunna when it is for the sake of Muhammad ibn `Abd al-Wahhab, Allah have mercy on him, but it becomes a "forbidden, innovative act" when the very same act is for the sake of Muhammad ibn `Abd Allah ?? There is no difference.' I believe that this discourse ends all noise and din over the issue.'

Read more...