"The Moderate Muslim: ‘Islam is against mass murder! Deep down, we’re just as lovely as you! er … Where’s the buffet?’"
- Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad. Source. # 26 of Contentions 15.
Moderate Islam is that of extreme apologeticism, forged in the fire of Protestantism. It is being shaped by the policy makers of Imperial Power of America through funding of "moderate voices." This is the greatest of pitfalls of terms because Muslim ummah is that of middle path, who always strives to be moderate in its actions and even in theory. We can no more use this currency anymore. Seyyed Hossein Nasr i believe came with a better solution who is opposed both to modernism and fundamentalism. He places mainstream, orthodox Sunni-Shia dimension of Islam at the Centre, and judges all other sects or interpretations from their proximity to the Centre, to the Orthodoxy. Those interpretation which seek to by-pass 1400 years of orthodoxy, a diverse yet unified systematized development of an understanding of Islam, are extremists. It is so because they're away from the centre. This is both evident in the wrongdoings of Al-Qaeda and Progressive/Modernists/Re-formulationist (or Deformists) movements. There's at least one monograph dedicated to this very topic but which limited its scope to fundamentalism alone, edited by Joseph Lumbard (a Muslim scholar of Islam) entitled, Islam, Fundamentalism and the Betrayal of Tradition. There's now greater need of a detailed surgical analysis of modernist Islam as well.
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Islam. Show all posts
"Extremism is not the Problem"
"Extremism is as American as Apple Pie." Shaykh Hamza Yusuf
"Violence is." Argues Hamza Yusuf, especially when talking to Amerikanos about Muslims. He points out that Amerikano culture is based on all kinds of extremism. If you think that's true, be sure you don't know basic facts about Amerikanos :P
He's not arguing about 100% elimination of violence, rather persecution of dissenting voices, and dominance of one strand of thought over the other.
Without being apologetic about anything, one founder of a school of Law Imam Shafi or perhaps Imam Malik was asked by Khalifa Mansoor: i want to implement your interpretation on all of my dominion. To this Imam replied in an emphatic nay. In the presence of other towering luminaries and in the light of one's legitimate right to recourse to a differing expert opinion, he refused this historical choice that could've influenced heavily the religious and legal history of Muslims, perhaps. It is exactly the betrayal of tradition that sects have taken up arms against each other while we dialogue non-Muslims with such civility that bewilders a local who had the nightmare of watching sectarian strife. Of course, honorable, respectable academic intra-dialogue is only necessary and perhaps sufficient if executed.
An Old Debate: Islamic & Western Imperialism
My friend Bilal Zubair had a debate with his friend on Facebook. I am reproducing verbatim the debate here. His answers/arguments are still in vogue and require detailed additions, editings and expansions from various perspectives, if applicable. The arguments, which are basically that of orientalists, he is up against are not new; and i believe muslim scholars would have replied in detail of voluminous books. Please do give references to books and scholarly articles on these historical, political and theological questions from Islamic point of view.
Focus on bold and italic sentences. Plus, words in brackets '[ ]' are mine.
________________________
Friend's comment: The wars they fought in order to take some river in possession, or take same agrarian lands. And this was done most in his time, The 1st khalifa was not that violent. Hazrat umar ki to personality ke baray main documented hai ke wo violent thay. Ab ye na kehna i am making this up. Ye har superpower karti hai theek hai na? imperialism musalmano ne bhe kiya tha. Aaj america imperial hai. UK buhat ziada imperial raha wa hai. USSR has remained imperial. Power is exploitative. And if you really need a justification for imperialism. Musalmano ki directions on war. 1) accept islam. No? 2) Pay jizya No? 3) war. If you talk about USA breaking UN resolutions when attacking in gaza, you policy of jizya and accept islam, if applied today breaks more than half of UN resolutions i guess. And one fundamental law, the freedom of religion, which interestingly is a part of islam as well. [Bold & italics mine]
Bilal ZubairViolent? To me violence lies in transgressing Divine Laws and Hadud. If you agree with this definition, by God there wasn't more god-conscious, just, believer of equality of men and women before Law and God, upright, soft than Umar I. If you mean to say that revealed Islamic Law is violence, I'm done with you. For you've lost any Sacred perspective on the nature of things, and you alone are required to re-consider your world-view. It is clear your source of these otherwise discredited pesudo-intellectual arguments come from centuries old Isalmophobes, who to this day spare no arrow, no missile to kill innocent Muslims; whereas, a birds-eye-view of medival and current history is enough to prove who benevolent and just Muslims have been on battlefield. For instance, Jersulam was captured with spilling how many drops of blood? None.
And as for other wars on Persia and Rome, I recently started to read up on these, and what serious historical documentation shows is only 180 degrees opposite to the Islamophobic propaganda you're spouting without any sense of decency and sanity, with at most hatred, haughtiness and sheer ignorance. In 20th century, it was for Amir Abdl Qadir who saved thousands of French, including those with whom he was fighting for decades in Algeria. and he saved them from irrational Muslims, who in the garb of Islam, were acting in treason to Prophet, s.a.w. Oh, and ever heard about the conduct of Hazrat Umar bin Abdal Aziz, who's known as Second Umar? Probably not.
I've read the kind of fictiotious pseudo-historical interpretations you're reproducing without any serious reflection, out of mere sentimental reactionism, many times refuted in scholarly books. Time for me to read up again, and probably you should hear the other of the story. Maybe you don't have time to find books from Islamic point of view. And nothing is more heinous, laughable, mistaken, horrible and ad hoc than comparing medival history with present day extreme war of terror being unleashed on little children. It shows where your allegiance lies. A child is attacked by alleged taliban and it is enough to arouse whole nation, but dead bodies of innocent infants, doesn't even stimulate a goose-pump. Why? Your heart lies our Colonial Masters.
Superpower? Please take an online course in comparing and contrast simple ideas. How dare you compare a mere force of 50,000 simplest, sincerest, and extraordinary human beings with agents of an Empire that believes in no Divine Power, cares not an iota about sanctity of human life. Perhaps, reading up on modern Imperial powers would do some good to you.
Produce one incident where Sahaba engaged in collateral damage, and attacked civilian buildings killing infants. Produce one incident where took jizya and didn't protect the populace from tyrants. In fact, in one case, they gave jizya back to people when they left the area, and people lamented. The jizya sahaba charged was way too less the taxes their tyrants charged.
And as your over-simplifications about Islam threatening then Superpowers (Rome, persians, byzantines), try reading an impartial account before assaulting Sacred personalities and Sacred history of a civilization with your childish, orientalist fiction. But if you feel you're a mr know-all and Islam is deen of indiscriminate violence, don't bother.
Friend's reply: I do get that you are an amazing intellectual. Lets lay some of ironies in all that you just stated with alot of emotional element and ofcourse acrimony and fury. Because you are ''done with me''. here goes. There are some terrible generalizations in all these accounts you put up. And some ironies too. Now that you question my knowledge i question yours. Look how you call it a mere force of 50,000 and then go on to say they CANNOT be compared with those who do not believe in divine power. [He failed to understand B's point here, which was bit confusing though.] Here the implication is ke jo divine power main believe karta hai wo koi buhat aalim faazil aur superior cheez hai. [He didn't imply that. He meant they don't care about hadood Allah, which in case of Islam do not have any room for collateral damage, and killing of non-combatants.] Talk about muslims of cordoba, was that a mere force of 50k they send into Europe? And captured alot of it we know that. Wasnt that imperialism? You say muslims were people who were not imperial, you say jizya was justified. Here you make another generalization. ''Their tyrants'' you say. As if each of these tribes were under tyrants. The tribes from whom you took jizya and went to war, you call them the mischief makers which is one of the stupidest terms ever created.
Now lets think about it. You live in an area, open. And someone comes and says 1) accept islam. You impose on someone, you IMPOSE on them by denying them the freedom to follow their own religion, i am sorry this is not preaching, you asked them to follow islam. But no? 2) Pay jizya. [Please share any articles that explain Islamic point of view.] haha. Yes they protected them right. Tell me something, if they turned Muslims, they wont pay jizya, but would be given protection, both of the protections are at a cost. One is giving up your religion and two is paying money. And if you dont pay the price. You die. You go on war and die. They might not kill women and children(which has not always been the case in muslim dynasties) but they do kill men. Men who refuse to pay them money in exchange of protection and refuse to give up their religion. If i come to you and say pay me and i will give you protection. will you accept? what if the other party does not want protection? Ajeeb log ho. We used to use their lands, have them pay jizya and use the surplus of their lands to our own use, that how the pre industrial societies have worked all along before the industrial revolution. Now the biggest piece of induction you did ''Why?your heart lies and is in love with zio-nazi terrorists of the diesease known as western civilization.'' These are your sugar coated words. See how my criticism of some behavior of past muslims turns out to be a supporter of westernization. You induced that information, created a narrative and then put it all in front of me trying to portray it as a fact. What is this ''disease'' you say is ''westernization''. I am sorry. facebook is a western product. Stop using it. You read your books in light, a light which a western scientist made, you travel in cars, use androids. Put a display picture which is made on a western software. You call westernization a disease? then to hell with half the things you do everyday. Stop doing them. You induce things and call me a supporter of something just because i criticize some behavior. Your wonderfully sensitive heart bleeds for muslims does it? it bleeds for infants of gaza. Well look at this place you sit it, the one you call islamic republic of pak. Thousands of muslims die here, everyday. Their infants get devoid of their own parents. If your heart is that much in solidarity with infants have some for these too. You all sit there with displays when america does something, shout against drones and never do you raise your voice on what goes in pakistan. Mukhtara Mai case, aap sab so rahay thay. Murder of the Governor, people called it islamic. Jeez man look at your stupidity i mean uff. 1 lac Shia's killed in pak in the last 2 years. Some fear a slow genocide. Yesterday we had blasts killing people just because they were Shia and you sit here and tell me if i ask people like you to raise a voice for your own country i am a westerner. Well good. Look at your pre programmed mind. Inter sectarian wars started in khalifa periods. Not all the khalifa's were angels. They were human beings and they did make some mistakes. If you hate the west that much, then stop all this crap, say no to half the technology you use. Its a disease known as westernization. You think you can bring US under the control? seriously? The country gave alone 580 million dollars of aid in the reign of Ghulam muhammad. they are not conspiring against muslims, they have helped alot of them too. But stop criticizing US, thats easy to do, pinpoint others. FOR F***'s SAKE. POINT THE NEEDLE ON YOUR OWN COUNTRY AND ONCE IT Is FIXED. ONLY THEN DO YOU GET ANY RIGHT TO CRITICIZE SOMEONE ELSE.
Bilal Zubair: 1. Leaving childish, you’re-so-stupid-and-I’m-the-only-logical-luminary, slutty, toilet-humor kind of mumbo-jumbo aside: I had restrained myself to the period of Khulafa-e-Rashideen. And you attacked the person of Hazrat per se. I've nothing more to say here. Suffice to quote my own words: "Time for me to read up again and probably you should hear the other of the story." So the debate isn’t over here. And for other sultans coming after 4 caliphs till Hazrat Umer bin Abdal Aziz, there is certainly division of opinion amongst Traditional Muslim historians, who fully subscribe to Islamic point of view, their conquests have been questioned. One such scholar is Khalid Blankinship, who in his book “The End of Global Jihad,” mentions how Hazrat Umar bin Abdal Aziz himself stopped wars on all fronts and recalled people back, and encouraged people to engage in commerce. To assert that there’s no difference of opinion amongst Muslim scholars is being childish, over the conquests and details of which are purely a historical matter NOT A THEOLOGICAL ONE. And please spare me from the vulgar conclusion that all my opinions are crystallized. I’ve just embarked on re-reading Islamic history, but from Sacred point of view. So I’m gonna read in detail the causes, factors and consequences of these conquests, Allah willing.
2. Yes, I dare make statements about your state of mind, which is purely evident from your attacks on our right to go out Muslims all over the world, to which you objected. And a big hahahahaha! for the Euro-centric and now American-centric propaganda lines you are spouting: leave this and that. Thanks for taking the pain, it was very entertaining. One day our native-Brown-sahib-orientalists’ll conclude that we poor, worthless, ignorant Muslims – who aren’t zio-nazi bootlickers/admirers of Dajjalic armies* – should stop breathing air cause it’s being cleaned and provided by the West. In fact much of the environmental crises third world is facing are directly a consequence of indefinite economic progress in America and the West. And mind you, without the massive import of the intellect, US would not have achieved all of this, including too-massive imports of enslaved Africans (on whom the enlightened scientists performed experiments by injecting viruses of worst sorts). Perhaps reading this article would help you realize really how “Eurocentric/Americo-centric” an Amerikanos’ and Europeans’ days are: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2009/974/op5.htm
3. How did you assume that I am not troubled by the madness being done in Pakistan against my shiah brothers, or in other parts? Why is that not mentioning one thing at a time leads you to conclude that I’m totally against it? And besides, there’s no difference in principle here. Nobody suggested we should send Pak Army to Gaza. Nobody objects to Pak soldiers serving in UN. Why shouldn’t they serve in Muslim lands as contingents?
4. And your equating westernization with TECHNOLOGY which is neither western nor eastern is way too hilarious and saddening at the same time. This is purely a philosophical, sociological, political and intellectual issue, an idea and a process. I’ll try finding articles and books and paste links here. Perhaps reading an Iranian thinker’s book may help one understand the disease: “Occidentiosis,” by Jamal Al e Ahmed. PDF book here: http://multiworldindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/occidentosis.pdf
Note.
* Dajjalic: evidence is corner-stone of any field of knowledge. Please leave your pre-conceived notions about the ‘way things are’ and re-read the Prophecies of Prophet about the End of Times and Dajjal. However, if you are going to label these FACTs as religious, hence unscientific: you’re plain wrong. Rather the hard evidence provided by ahadith of Prophet is termed by legal experts as Prophecies and nothing else.
Focus on bold and italic sentences. Plus, words in brackets '[ ]' are mine.
________________________
Friend's comment: The wars they fought in order to take some river in possession, or take same agrarian lands. And this was done most in his time, The 1st khalifa was not that violent. Hazrat umar ki to personality ke baray main documented hai ke wo violent thay. Ab ye na kehna i am making this up. Ye har superpower karti hai theek hai na? imperialism musalmano ne bhe kiya tha. Aaj america imperial hai. UK buhat ziada imperial raha wa hai. USSR has remained imperial. Power is exploitative. And if you really need a justification for imperialism. Musalmano ki directions on war. 1) accept islam. No? 2) Pay jizya No? 3) war. If you talk about USA breaking UN resolutions when attacking in gaza, you policy of jizya and accept islam, if applied today breaks more than half of UN resolutions i guess. And one fundamental law, the freedom of religion, which interestingly is a part of islam as well. [Bold & italics mine]
Bilal ZubairViolent? To me violence lies in transgressing Divine Laws and Hadud. If you agree with this definition, by God there wasn't more god-conscious, just, believer of equality of men and women before Law and God, upright, soft than Umar I. If you mean to say that revealed Islamic Law is violence, I'm done with you. For you've lost any Sacred perspective on the nature of things, and you alone are required to re-consider your world-view. It is clear your source of these otherwise discredited pesudo-intellectual arguments come from centuries old Isalmophobes, who to this day spare no arrow, no missile to kill innocent Muslims; whereas, a birds-eye-view of medival and current history is enough to prove who benevolent and just Muslims have been on battlefield. For instance, Jersulam was captured with spilling how many drops of blood? None.
And as for other wars on Persia and Rome, I recently started to read up on these, and what serious historical documentation shows is only 180 degrees opposite to the Islamophobic propaganda you're spouting without any sense of decency and sanity, with at most hatred, haughtiness and sheer ignorance. In 20th century, it was for Amir Abdl Qadir who saved thousands of French, including those with whom he was fighting for decades in Algeria. and he saved them from irrational Muslims, who in the garb of Islam, were acting in treason to Prophet, s.a.w. Oh, and ever heard about the conduct of Hazrat Umar bin Abdal Aziz, who's known as Second Umar? Probably not.
I've read the kind of fictiotious pseudo-historical interpretations you're reproducing without any serious reflection, out of mere sentimental reactionism, many times refuted in scholarly books. Time for me to read up again, and probably you should hear the other of the story. Maybe you don't have time to find books from Islamic point of view. And nothing is more heinous, laughable, mistaken, horrible and ad hoc than comparing medival history with present day extreme war of terror being unleashed on little children. It shows where your allegiance lies. A child is attacked by alleged taliban and it is enough to arouse whole nation, but dead bodies of innocent infants, doesn't even stimulate a goose-pump. Why? Your heart lies our Colonial Masters.
Superpower? Please take an online course in comparing and contrast simple ideas. How dare you compare a mere force of 50,000 simplest, sincerest, and extraordinary human beings with agents of an Empire that believes in no Divine Power, cares not an iota about sanctity of human life. Perhaps, reading up on modern Imperial powers would do some good to you.
Produce one incident where Sahaba engaged in collateral damage, and attacked civilian buildings killing infants. Produce one incident where took jizya and didn't protect the populace from tyrants. In fact, in one case, they gave jizya back to people when they left the area, and people lamented. The jizya sahaba charged was way too less the taxes their tyrants charged.
And as your over-simplifications about Islam threatening then Superpowers (Rome, persians, byzantines), try reading an impartial account before assaulting Sacred personalities and Sacred history of a civilization with your childish, orientalist fiction. But if you feel you're a mr know-all and Islam is deen of indiscriminate violence, don't bother.
Friend's reply: I do get that you are an amazing intellectual. Lets lay some of ironies in all that you just stated with alot of emotional element and ofcourse acrimony and fury. Because you are ''done with me''. here goes. There are some terrible generalizations in all these accounts you put up. And some ironies too. Now that you question my knowledge i question yours. Look how you call it a mere force of 50,000 and then go on to say they CANNOT be compared with those who do not believe in divine power. [He failed to understand B's point here, which was bit confusing though.] Here the implication is ke jo divine power main believe karta hai wo koi buhat aalim faazil aur superior cheez hai. [He didn't imply that. He meant they don't care about hadood Allah, which in case of Islam do not have any room for collateral damage, and killing of non-combatants.] Talk about muslims of cordoba, was that a mere force of 50k they send into Europe? And captured alot of it we know that. Wasnt that imperialism? You say muslims were people who were not imperial, you say jizya was justified. Here you make another generalization. ''Their tyrants'' you say. As if each of these tribes were under tyrants. The tribes from whom you took jizya and went to war, you call them the mischief makers which is one of the stupidest terms ever created.
Now lets think about it. You live in an area, open. And someone comes and says 1) accept islam. You impose on someone, you IMPOSE on them by denying them the freedom to follow their own religion, i am sorry this is not preaching, you asked them to follow islam. But no? 2) Pay jizya. [Please share any articles that explain Islamic point of view.] haha. Yes they protected them right. Tell me something, if they turned Muslims, they wont pay jizya, but would be given protection, both of the protections are at a cost. One is giving up your religion and two is paying money. And if you dont pay the price. You die. You go on war and die. They might not kill women and children(which has not always been the case in muslim dynasties) but they do kill men. Men who refuse to pay them money in exchange of protection and refuse to give up their religion. If i come to you and say pay me and i will give you protection. will you accept? what if the other party does not want protection? Ajeeb log ho. We used to use their lands, have them pay jizya and use the surplus of their lands to our own use, that how the pre industrial societies have worked all along before the industrial revolution. Now the biggest piece of induction you did ''Why?your heart lies and is in love with zio-nazi terrorists of the diesease known as western civilization.'' These are your sugar coated words. See how my criticism of some behavior of past muslims turns out to be a supporter of westernization. You induced that information, created a narrative and then put it all in front of me trying to portray it as a fact. What is this ''disease'' you say is ''westernization''. I am sorry. facebook is a western product. Stop using it. You read your books in light, a light which a western scientist made, you travel in cars, use androids. Put a display picture which is made on a western software. You call westernization a disease? then to hell with half the things you do everyday. Stop doing them. You induce things and call me a supporter of something just because i criticize some behavior. Your wonderfully sensitive heart bleeds for muslims does it? it bleeds for infants of gaza. Well look at this place you sit it, the one you call islamic republic of pak. Thousands of muslims die here, everyday. Their infants get devoid of their own parents. If your heart is that much in solidarity with infants have some for these too. You all sit there with displays when america does something, shout against drones and never do you raise your voice on what goes in pakistan. Mukhtara Mai case, aap sab so rahay thay. Murder of the Governor, people called it islamic. Jeez man look at your stupidity i mean uff. 1 lac Shia's killed in pak in the last 2 years. Some fear a slow genocide. Yesterday we had blasts killing people just because they were Shia and you sit here and tell me if i ask people like you to raise a voice for your own country i am a westerner. Well good. Look at your pre programmed mind. Inter sectarian wars started in khalifa periods. Not all the khalifa's were angels. They were human beings and they did make some mistakes. If you hate the west that much, then stop all this crap, say no to half the technology you use. Its a disease known as westernization. You think you can bring US under the control? seriously? The country gave alone 580 million dollars of aid in the reign of Ghulam muhammad. they are not conspiring against muslims, they have helped alot of them too. But stop criticizing US, thats easy to do, pinpoint others. FOR F***'s SAKE. POINT THE NEEDLE ON YOUR OWN COUNTRY AND ONCE IT Is FIXED. ONLY THEN DO YOU GET ANY RIGHT TO CRITICIZE SOMEONE ELSE.
Bilal Zubair: 1. Leaving childish, you’re-so-stupid-and-I’m-the-only-logical-luminary, slutty, toilet-humor kind of mumbo-jumbo aside: I had restrained myself to the period of Khulafa-e-Rashideen. And you attacked the person of Hazrat per se. I've nothing more to say here. Suffice to quote my own words: "Time for me to read up again and probably you should hear the other of the story." So the debate isn’t over here. And for other sultans coming after 4 caliphs till Hazrat Umer bin Abdal Aziz, there is certainly division of opinion amongst Traditional Muslim historians, who fully subscribe to Islamic point of view, their conquests have been questioned. One such scholar is Khalid Blankinship, who in his book “The End of Global Jihad,” mentions how Hazrat Umar bin Abdal Aziz himself stopped wars on all fronts and recalled people back, and encouraged people to engage in commerce. To assert that there’s no difference of opinion amongst Muslim scholars is being childish, over the conquests and details of which are purely a historical matter NOT A THEOLOGICAL ONE. And please spare me from the vulgar conclusion that all my opinions are crystallized. I’ve just embarked on re-reading Islamic history, but from Sacred point of view. So I’m gonna read in detail the causes, factors and consequences of these conquests, Allah willing.
2. Yes, I dare make statements about your state of mind, which is purely evident from your attacks on our right to go out Muslims all over the world, to which you objected. And a big hahahahaha! for the Euro-centric and now American-centric propaganda lines you are spouting: leave this and that. Thanks for taking the pain, it was very entertaining. One day our native-Brown-sahib-orientalists’ll conclude that we poor, worthless, ignorant Muslims – who aren’t zio-nazi bootlickers/admirers of Dajjalic armies* – should stop breathing air cause it’s being cleaned and provided by the West. In fact much of the environmental crises third world is facing are directly a consequence of indefinite economic progress in America and the West. And mind you, without the massive import of the intellect, US would not have achieved all of this, including too-massive imports of enslaved Africans (on whom the enlightened scientists performed experiments by injecting viruses of worst sorts). Perhaps reading this article would help you realize really how “Eurocentric/Americo-centric” an Amerikanos’ and Europeans’ days are: http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2009/974/op5.htm
3. How did you assume that I am not troubled by the madness being done in Pakistan against my shiah brothers, or in other parts? Why is that not mentioning one thing at a time leads you to conclude that I’m totally against it? And besides, there’s no difference in principle here. Nobody suggested we should send Pak Army to Gaza. Nobody objects to Pak soldiers serving in UN. Why shouldn’t they serve in Muslim lands as contingents?
4. And your equating westernization with TECHNOLOGY which is neither western nor eastern is way too hilarious and saddening at the same time. This is purely a philosophical, sociological, political and intellectual issue, an idea and a process. I’ll try finding articles and books and paste links here. Perhaps reading an Iranian thinker’s book may help one understand the disease: “Occidentiosis,” by Jamal Al e Ahmed. PDF book here: http://multiworldindia.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/occidentosis.pdf
Note.
* Dajjalic: evidence is corner-stone of any field of knowledge. Please leave your pre-conceived notions about the ‘way things are’ and re-read the Prophecies of Prophet about the End of Times and Dajjal. However, if you are going to label these FACTs as religious, hence unscientific: you’re plain wrong. Rather the hard evidence provided by ahadith of Prophet is termed by legal experts as Prophecies and nothing else.
Heavenly Roots: Eternal Unworldiness of Islam & the Individual
From which 'modern' and 'post-modern' (i assume there are) angles we can approach this passage from Gai Eaton's autobiographical essay? I do not mean to disrespect French or Englishmen by means of opinions of this particular writer, but my soul gains fire from the message of it.
"Even so, I might at least have had a homeland. I had none. Although born in Switzerland, I was not Swiss. My mother had grown up in France and loved the French above all others, but I was not French. Was I English? I never felt so. My mother never tired of reminding me that the English were cold, stupid, sexless without intellect and without culture. I did not want to be like them. So where-if anywhere-did I belong? It seems to me in retrospect, that this strange childhood was a good preparation for adherence to Islam. Wherever he may have been born and whatever his race, the Muslim's homeland is the Dar-ul-islam, the House of Islam. His passport, here and in the Hereafter, is the simple confession of Faith, La ilaha illa 'Llah. He does not expect - or should not expect - security or stability in this world and must always keep in mind the fact that death may take him tomorrow. He has no firm roots here in this fragile earth. His roots are above in That which alone endures."
Story Of Early Life Of H. Gai Eaton (b. 1921) Sh. Hassan Abdul Hakeem
Delusions of Progressive Muslims: Critique of Shaykh GF Haddad
Introduction - first draft :P - to a paper by Shyakh Gibril Haddad, "Amina Wadud's Innovation of Misguidance"
There are two ways to shake, challenge or try destroying the Pillars of Islam: from outside without using any argument from Islamic Tradition, and the second is to manipulate arguments, evidences from within to make a caricature out of the religion to meet a given ideological, political or cultural agenda.
I've no problem with the first mode or type of critique on Islam. The proponents of that type are usually academic in their style, many of them are honest in their critical statements which are in congruence with their own world-view, and are not usually stimulated externally to attack Islam. I cannot pass the judgment of these type of critics as being truly intellectual, although the challenge is intellectual in its appearance, because rationalism is not Intellectuality (see works of Rene Guenon, Seyyed Hossein Nasr and other 'traditionalist' writers).
The second type of critique of Islam is not critique or critical at all, but a set of cacophonies - usually by pro-regressive Muslims & Islamophobics - aimed at twisting, modifying, and changing the rituals, practices, doctrines and overall world-view of Islam as such. I also include world-view because they hardly understand the genius of Islamic world-view and since they are purely sentimental, reactionary or politically motivated in their approach, it has nothing to do with any sort of systematic world-view. This explains their utter contradictions and huge blunders. This is the lowest of all kinds of attacks on any religion, because these stem from the stimulation to surrender a divinely revealed religion to one's whims or to satisfy others. And it is exactly in this category that the Progressive Muslim movements fall.
The beginnings of these movements can easily be traced to post-establishment of colonial rule in Muslim world, when 'spirited' "thinkers" of the ummah relegated to themselves the task of defining the orientation of the efforts, inclinations, thoughts and inspirations of all Muslims: namely, to reform, modernize, and colonize Islam so as to catch-up with more "advanced" nations. One wonders what has reforming a Divinely revealed religion to do with gaining expertise at man made things we call technology. The contradiction was evident. The self-proclaimed reformists were not moved by the ideals and philosophies of Islam to present the world with alternatives to atheistic and man-made ideologies/discourses, but by their unchangeable inferiority complexes vis-a-vis the glitter of Western world. Many of them, even today, also in West, mistake the success of profane physical sciences with Western social sciences (see, 'Origin of Western Social Science', by Dr Asad Zaman).
Come 2004, post-9/11, Muslims needed to go many steps further to please New Colonial/Imperial masters of West. It was America's turn to launch war of ignorance coupled with that of terror to neutralize once for all the 'edges' in Muslim - intellectual, cultural and political - that threatened for centuries the Europeans. American academia may not have been fervent at all about taking the propaganda of Orientalists of reformation or an Islamic renaissance a step further - of the sympathetic ones perhaps. The urgency was felt more in westernized circles of pro-regressive Muslims who are the lowest of lowest in character than their predecessors in British and post-British Raj.
And this brings us to Amina Wadud. I would not like to spoil the show for you with my incoherent, non-scholarly ramblings about such an "esteemed liberator" and her "magnanimous movement," namely, that of Progressive Muslims. Please read and benefit from this scholarly paper by Shaykh Gibril F Haddad, a Lebanese Islamic scholar. It's in PDF format with beautiful type-font and 2-column format that makes it more readable.
Amina Wadud's Innovation of Misguidance
__________________________
Further reading:
1. Quran-only Feminists by Shaykh GF Haddad
2. For forensic and direct exposition of treacheries and lies of Islam-sellers in USA and West, visit the archives of: Dr Maxtor's Blog
There are two ways to shake, challenge or try destroying the Pillars of Islam: from outside without using any argument from Islamic Tradition, and the second is to manipulate arguments, evidences from within to make a caricature out of the religion to meet a given ideological, political or cultural agenda.
I've no problem with the first mode or type of critique on Islam. The proponents of that type are usually academic in their style, many of them are honest in their critical statements which are in congruence with their own world-view, and are not usually stimulated externally to attack Islam. I cannot pass the judgment of these type of critics as being truly intellectual, although the challenge is intellectual in its appearance, because rationalism is not Intellectuality (see works of Rene Guenon, Seyyed Hossein Nasr and other 'traditionalist' writers).
The second type of critique of Islam is not critique or critical at all, but a set of cacophonies - usually by pro-regressive Muslims & Islamophobics - aimed at twisting, modifying, and changing the rituals, practices, doctrines and overall world-view of Islam as such. I also include world-view because they hardly understand the genius of Islamic world-view and since they are purely sentimental, reactionary or politically motivated in their approach, it has nothing to do with any sort of systematic world-view. This explains their utter contradictions and huge blunders. This is the lowest of all kinds of attacks on any religion, because these stem from the stimulation to surrender a divinely revealed religion to one's whims or to satisfy others. And it is exactly in this category that the Progressive Muslim movements fall.
The beginnings of these movements can easily be traced to post-establishment of colonial rule in Muslim world, when 'spirited' "thinkers" of the ummah relegated to themselves the task of defining the orientation of the efforts, inclinations, thoughts and inspirations of all Muslims: namely, to reform, modernize, and colonize Islam so as to catch-up with more "advanced" nations. One wonders what has reforming a Divinely revealed religion to do with gaining expertise at man made things we call technology. The contradiction was evident. The self-proclaimed reformists were not moved by the ideals and philosophies of Islam to present the world with alternatives to atheistic and man-made ideologies/discourses, but by their unchangeable inferiority complexes vis-a-vis the glitter of Western world. Many of them, even today, also in West, mistake the success of profane physical sciences with Western social sciences (see, 'Origin of Western Social Science', by Dr Asad Zaman).
Come 2004, post-9/11, Muslims needed to go many steps further to please New Colonial/Imperial masters of West. It was America's turn to launch war of ignorance coupled with that of terror to neutralize once for all the 'edges' in Muslim - intellectual, cultural and political - that threatened for centuries the Europeans. American academia may not have been fervent at all about taking the propaganda of Orientalists of reformation or an Islamic renaissance a step further - of the sympathetic ones perhaps. The urgency was felt more in westernized circles of pro-regressive Muslims who are the lowest of lowest in character than their predecessors in British and post-British Raj.
And this brings us to Amina Wadud. I would not like to spoil the show for you with my incoherent, non-scholarly ramblings about such an "esteemed liberator" and her "magnanimous movement," namely, that of Progressive Muslims. Please read and benefit from this scholarly paper by Shaykh Gibril F Haddad, a Lebanese Islamic scholar. It's in PDF format with beautiful type-font and 2-column format that makes it more readable.
Amina Wadud's Innovation of Misguidance
__________________________
Further reading:
1. Quran-only Feminists by Shaykh GF Haddad
2. For forensic and direct exposition of treacheries and lies of Islam-sellers in USA and West, visit the archives of: Dr Maxtor's Blog
Occidentiosis: A Summary of Introduction of Hamid Algar (I)
******
One of the few Muslim scholars of Islam that i'm fascinated these days is Hamid Algar. I should mention that my fascination with him is not newly born. It is only that he falls into that category of few luminaries who have the immense capacity to critique Western modernism from Islamic point of view, and write with no apologetic tinges on Islamic subjects that can be well understood by a modern reader and someone trained in classic thought, I believe.
More on Hamid Algar is necessary before , as the deliberate mentioning of his name in the title necessitates (with premediatation) a personal introduction to him. It is going to be personal, as you can look up his credentials online.
First time I ever saw the name of Hamid Algar and his books in a bookstore was 3-4 years backs. Two books I encountered were two printed lectures: Sufism and Al-Fatiha. In those days i every somewhat aware of the disease of Occidentiosis, secular fundamentalism and reformist literature by the books of Seyyed Hossein Nasr, most important being Nasr's collection of essays Islmaic Life & Thought. However, i wasn't able to critically discern an authentic one from the rest - although i doubt i can critically evaluate even now.
Hence, the very first reading of his books conveyed a hidden message that here is a scholar with high level of objectivity, understanding and depth that i hardly encountered in DAWN's book reviews or few books by westernized muslims or non-muslims on Islam. For instance, in Al-Fatiha he advocated the transcendent roots of word Allah, challenging the scholarship of Orientalists. I didn't understand much of the high-level semantic discussions; although most of the discussion in Al-Fatiha can't be termed semantic, it was on another plane altogether. Here I must apologize that this recollection is 3-4 years old, and new after reading fully the book is due.
Another example of author's independent, non-apologetic and scholarly attitude, stemming from an Islamic worldview from within: in the book Sufism, he rejected the modernistic/western notions of Sufism, and even refused to discuss subject further with this very Sufism, and preferred traditional term of tasawwuf, as it lacked the secularized connotations attached by westerners and modernized muslims with this traditional, integral part of a religion who principles are Immutable and which always resisted Reformist kind of change.
The most clear and sharpest critique on modern western intellectual thought to come in the form of an essay in a monographic book, The Challenge of Islam. His essay was about intellectual challenges that modernism presents to Islam. He was conscious to mention that in reality modernism cannot present a challenge to Divinely Revealed religion of Islam as such; in fact, it is Islam that presents a challenge to idols of western ideologies. I will inshaAllah write a summary of arguments presented in the essay.
Please do look forward to introduction to Occidentiosis by Jamal Al-i Ahmed.
Islam, Family & Muslim Feminists
The following excerpt is perhaps one the most authentic critiques on feminism from islamic point of view from Dr Seyyed Hossein Nasr's book Ideals and Realities of Islam:
Found the piece at: http://www.islam101.com/women/jameelah.htm
From the point of view of social structure, the teachings of the Shariah emphasize the role of the family as the unit of society - the family in the extended sense and not in its atomized, nuclear modem form. The greatest social achievement of the Prophet in Medina was precisely in breaking the existing tribal bonds and substituting religious ones which were connected on the one hand with the totality of the Muslim community and on the other hand with the family. The Muslim family is the miniature of the whole of Muslim society and its firm basis. In it, the man or father functions as the Imam in accordance with the patriarchal nature of Islam. The religious responsibility of the family rests upon his shoulders. In the family, the father upholds the tenets of the faith and his authority symbolizes that of God in the world. The man is in fact respected in the family precisely because of the sacerdotal function that he fulfils. The rebellion of Muslim women in certain quarters of Islamic society came when men themselves ceased to fulfil their religious function and lost their virile and patriarchal character. By becoming themselves effeminate, they caused the reaction of revolt among certain women who no longer felt the authority of religion upon themselves.
The traditional family is also the unit of stability of society and the four wives that a Muslim can marry, like the four-sided Ka’aba, symbolize this stability. Many have not understood why such a family structure is permitted in Islam and attack Islam for it as if polygamy belongs to Islam alone. Here and again Muslim modernism carries with it the prejudice of Christianity against polygamy to the extent that some have gone even so far as to call it immoral and prefer promiscuity to a social pattern which minimizes all illicit relations to the extent possible. The problem of the attitude of the Western observer is not as important as that segment of modernized Muslim society which itself cannot understand the teachings of the Shariah on this point simply because it uses as criteria categories borrowed from the modern West.
There is no doubt that in a small but significant segment of Muslim society today, there is a revolt of women against traditional Islamic society. In every civilisation a reaction always comes against an existing force or action. In Islam, the very patriarchal and masculine nature of the tradition makes the revolt of those women who have become aggressively modernised more violent and virulent than, let us say, in Hinduism, where the maternal element has always been strong. What many modernised Muslim women are doing in rebelling against the traditional Muslim family structure is to rebel against fourteen centuries of Islam itself although many may not be aware of the inner forces that drive them on. It is the patriarchal nature of Islam that makes the reaction of some modernised women today so vehement. Although very limited in number, they are, in fact, more than Muslim men, thirsting for all things Western. They seek to become modernised in their dress and habits with impetuosity, which would be difficult to understand unless one considers the deep psychological factors involved.
From the Islamic point of view, the question of the equality of men and women is meaningless. It is like discussing the equality of a rose and a jasmine. Each has its own perfume, colour, shape and beauty. Men and women are not the same. Each has particular features and characteristics. Women are not equal to men. But neither are men equal to women. Islam envisages their roles in society not as competing but as complimentary. Each has certain duties and functions in accordance with his or her nature and constitution.
Man possesses certain privileges such as social authority and mobility against which he has to perform many heavy duties. First of all, he bears all economic responsibility. It is his duty to support his family completely even if his wife is rich and despite the fact that she is economically independent. A woman in a traditional Islamic society does not have to worry about earning a living. There is always the larger family structure in which she can find a place and take refuge from social and economic pressures even if she has no husband or father. In the extended family system, a man often supports not only his wife and children but also his mother, sister, aunts, in-laws and sometimes even cousins and more distant relatives. Therefore in city life, the necessity of having to find a job at all costs and having to bear the economic pressure of life is lifted from the shoulders of women. As for the countryside, the family is itself the economic unit and the work is achieved by the larger family or tribal unit together.
Secondly, a woman does not have to find a husband for herself. Site does not have to display her charms and make the thousand and one plans through which she hopes to attract a future mate. The terrible anxiety of having to find a husband and of missing the opportunity if one does not try hard enough at the right moment is spared the Muslim woman. Being able to remain true to her nature, she can afford to sit at home and wait for her parents or guardian to choose a suitable match. This usually leads to a marriage which, being based on the sense of religious duty and enduring family and social bonds between the two sides, is more lasting arid ends much more rarely in divorce than the marriages which are based on the sentiments of the moment that often do not develop into more permanent relationships.
Thirdly the Muslim woman is spared direct military and political responsibility although in rare cases there have been women warriors. This point may appear as a deprivation to some but in the light of the real needs of feminine nature, it is easy to see that for most women, such duties weigh heavily upon them. Even in modern societies, which through the equalitarian process have tried to equate men and women as if there were no difference in the two sexes, Women are usually spared the military draft except in extreme circumstances.
In return for these privileges which the woman receives, she has also certain responsibilities of which the most important is to provide a home for her family and to bring up her children properly. In the home the woman rules as queen and a Muslim man is in a sense the guest of his wife at home. The home and the larger family structure in which she lives are for the Muslim woman her world. To be cut off from it would be like being cut off from the world or like dying. She finds the meaning of her existence in this extended family structure which is constructed so as to give her the maximum possibility of realizing her basic needs and fulfilling herself.
The Shariah therefore envisages the role of men and women according to their nature, which is complimentary. It gives the man the privilege of social and political authority and movement for which he has to pay by bearing heavy responsibilities, by protecting his family from all the forces and pressures of society, economic and otherwise. Although a master in the world at large and the head of his own family, the man acts in his home as one who recognize the rule of his wife, in this domain and respects it. Through mutual understanding and the realization of the responsibilities that God has placed on each other’s shoulders, the Muslim man and woman are able to fulfill their personalities and create a firm family unit which is the basic structure of Muslim society.Reference: Ideals and Realities of Islam, George AIIen &; Unwin, London, 1966, pp. 110-113.
Found the piece at: http://www.islam101.com/women/jameelah.htm
Reflections on my Faith Islam & how Muslims Encounter Faith Today
In the Name of Allah; I seek refuge in Allah from the evil of Satan
[Forgive v poor sentence structures & grammar.]
Like Imam Ghazzali (r.a.) i've immutable belief on 3 things:
- In the Existence of Allah (swt) - is there any doubt about Allah?
- The Day of Judgement
- Truth of the institution of Prophethood
With these beliefs, one may presume that there is no room for skepticism, not that kind which doubts one's own existence. But, that is not the case- one can still have doubts about one's religion with these beliefs. When we're born we become Muslims, Christians, Atheists, etc., if we were born in that particular family. But, its only with the dawn of consciousness, if you might call it, that we're sometimes forced to reexamine our acquired belief, perhaps due to external stimuli or even due to one's own disposition to question things. In this age, former is more true than the later. Nonetheless. Having watched videos/stories of so many converts to Islam - be them atheists, Christians, etc. - it was either of the two, while predominantly external stimuli played a greater role, thanks to 9/11, terrible news about Muslims, new Biblical scholarship that proves almost all the stances of Islam on Christianity such as tehreef or human interference in Bible, etc.
Muslims rarely venture into uncomfortable waters of examination and use of intellect, especially those who're not well trained in traditional Islam, because the students of Qur'an and Sunnah know the proofs, evidences, and narrations of the truth of Islam. Nonetheless, overall atmosphere is that of fear when it comes to talking to people of other belief and to those having no faith at all, except, perhaps, in the desires of their nafs. (I'm not proposing that their kufr is due to following their desires of soul, merely, but perhaps a historical process that led to 'the eclipse of soul and intellect', namely modernity or renaissance, which has very well defined features, that really closed their eyes to Divine Realities.)
This is not how our great scholars of the past behaved. Imam Abu Hanifa used to debate (in most beautiful manner) with atheists in the masjid saying to the effect, "Let's see what you've got." Imam Ghazzali wrote in his autobiography that he had (so deeply) analyzed the skeptics and atheists that they could not hide their real reasons for disbelief. This is very interesting.
It is high time we see/question things logically - because logic can even give us life through Islam or kill us with disbelief. It is only those confused people who're afraid of not talking to other. We've to start from understanding the hidden assumptions of this deen and that of disbelief. Our assumption is that there is an Unseen, and we believe in it, we believe in the ghaib. Why we believe in it and we humanity cannot risk not believing in it - this is the point from where the discussion may start. And, everything that is Islamic worldview is very logical and is very clear. Most of the rational people in US or West who came to Islam came to it because they could not bring an argument against islam that Qur'an or Muslims could not refute or at least provide an equally logical perspective on that.
In the end, i'd like to say that because of our heedlessness in acquiring both Islamic worldview and modern sciences, our own brothers and sisters are becoming mental victim of a Dajjalic civilization that is based on the idea and force of deception and deceiving people from seeing things the way they actually are. Biggest enemies of Islam are living within us, and they just like us, but it's logical fallacies they're really a victim of; a lack of clear understanding of world, matter and soul.
wa ma taufiqi illa billah
[Forgive v poor sentence structures & grammar.]
Like Imam Ghazzali (r.a.) i've immutable belief on 3 things:
- In the Existence of Allah (swt) - is there any doubt about Allah?
- The Day of Judgement
- Truth of the institution of Prophethood
With these beliefs, one may presume that there is no room for skepticism, not that kind which doubts one's own existence. But, that is not the case- one can still have doubts about one's religion with these beliefs. When we're born we become Muslims, Christians, Atheists, etc., if we were born in that particular family. But, its only with the dawn of consciousness, if you might call it, that we're sometimes forced to reexamine our acquired belief, perhaps due to external stimuli or even due to one's own disposition to question things. In this age, former is more true than the later. Nonetheless. Having watched videos/stories of so many converts to Islam - be them atheists, Christians, etc. - it was either of the two, while predominantly external stimuli played a greater role, thanks to 9/11, terrible news about Muslims, new Biblical scholarship that proves almost all the stances of Islam on Christianity such as tehreef or human interference in Bible, etc.
Muslims rarely venture into uncomfortable waters of examination and use of intellect, especially those who're not well trained in traditional Islam, because the students of Qur'an and Sunnah know the proofs, evidences, and narrations of the truth of Islam. Nonetheless, overall atmosphere is that of fear when it comes to talking to people of other belief and to those having no faith at all, except, perhaps, in the desires of their nafs. (I'm not proposing that their kufr is due to following their desires of soul, merely, but perhaps a historical process that led to 'the eclipse of soul and intellect', namely modernity or renaissance, which has very well defined features, that really closed their eyes to Divine Realities.)
This is not how our great scholars of the past behaved. Imam Abu Hanifa used to debate (in most beautiful manner) with atheists in the masjid saying to the effect, "Let's see what you've got." Imam Ghazzali wrote in his autobiography that he had (so deeply) analyzed the skeptics and atheists that they could not hide their real reasons for disbelief. This is very interesting.
It is high time we see/question things logically - because logic can even give us life through Islam or kill us with disbelief. It is only those confused people who're afraid of not talking to other. We've to start from understanding the hidden assumptions of this deen and that of disbelief. Our assumption is that there is an Unseen, and we believe in it, we believe in the ghaib. Why we believe in it and we humanity cannot risk not believing in it - this is the point from where the discussion may start. And, everything that is Islamic worldview is very logical and is very clear. Most of the rational people in US or West who came to Islam came to it because they could not bring an argument against islam that Qur'an or Muslims could not refute or at least provide an equally logical perspective on that.
In the end, i'd like to say that because of our heedlessness in acquiring both Islamic worldview and modern sciences, our own brothers and sisters are becoming mental victim of a Dajjalic civilization that is based on the idea and force of deception and deceiving people from seeing things the way they actually are. Biggest enemies of Islam are living within us, and they just like us, but it's logical fallacies they're really a victim of; a lack of clear understanding of world, matter and soul.
wa ma taufiqi illa billah
A Perennial Fact
Muslims who want to live as authentic Muslims - rooted in Traditional Islam, as not defined by RAND though - and do not want to betray their Tradition to the whims and shallow slagons of secular fundamentalism, must keep in mind the Qur'anic message to enhance their confidence: Non-Muslims would never, ever like you unless you become like them.
Think about it... Every time you leave a meeting for prayer, or do not listen to certain sounds, or do not do various unIslamic or unnatural things - hypocrites and disbelievers are going to frown. You're mocking them, they think. Well, they should realize that hubris and arrogance.
Unfortunately this is an age of one-eyed vision. People always take one thing and forget the other part. The statement above - i hate making disclaimers - in no way means we've to hide ourselves in a closet, or become rude to non-Muslims, because that's against sunnah or way of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. Arab non-Muslims were rude to him; but he never returned their rudeness with rudeness. He used to give back something good and better to eliminate evil. That's our Tradition.
We're saying, "You follow your way; we follow ours." This doesn't mean you have to necessarily frown at us and be divided amongst ourselves. Our tradition teach us that are all people are children (in purely metaphorical sense) of Allah, and we've to be kind to them. We'd always praise and enjoin if a disbeliever or whoever does a good deed. This is how we operate. Is this way of life not worth living?
Think about it... Every time you leave a meeting for prayer, or do not listen to certain sounds, or do not do various unIslamic or unnatural things - hypocrites and disbelievers are going to frown. You're mocking them, they think. Well, they should realize that hubris and arrogance.
Unfortunately this is an age of one-eyed vision. People always take one thing and forget the other part. The statement above - i hate making disclaimers - in no way means we've to hide ourselves in a closet, or become rude to non-Muslims, because that's against sunnah or way of Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. Arab non-Muslims were rude to him; but he never returned their rudeness with rudeness. He used to give back something good and better to eliminate evil. That's our Tradition.
We're saying, "You follow your way; we follow ours." This doesn't mean you have to necessarily frown at us and be divided amongst ourselves. Our tradition teach us that are all people are children (in purely metaphorical sense) of Allah, and we've to be kind to them. We'd always praise and enjoin if a disbeliever or whoever does a good deed. This is how we operate. Is this way of life not worth living?
Reflections on keeping beard
In Pakistan, and perhaps in India too, keeping or not keeping beard for muslims is a big issue. In previous times, if one didn't keep beard, people used to inquire as to why he didn't keep it. Today, the situation is the opposite. This is a very personal topic for all. For me, as few years of successfully keeping beard have passed, it is important to revisit this matter.
One way to measure the authenticity or truthfulness is to see if one group of people dislike/condemn a thing, and other group like it (as in the case of Mutta Imam Malik). Same is the case with beard. On the one side, you've people having schizophreniac, fundamentalist and paranoid-al reactions to it. They're most often modernists to dislike from their very core religious symbols and statues. And on the other side, you've people who think Islam is manifested in true colors in white, brownish, black or grey beard on men.
Both are extremes and do not follow the middle way. I kept beard - though i don't know telling about my reason to keep of would be of any use - because i read an answer by a Mufti which mentioned a hadith which clearly condemned not keeping beard. Alhamdulilah, i fulfilled this sunnah, which is an awesome weapon of protection from various fitnah in this age, amazingly. Its amazing because how a physical feature can stratify you from evil, and create repulsion in things evil from coming to you. Its amazing because in reality one assumes that battles are fought at the nafs level, against the cunning-ness of Devil. This is where the exaggerated reverence from beard dies out. It alone cannot do any good to a believer. It is just like another aspect of sunnah or obligation that one has to fulfill. I thought that since i have kept beard, i will not be prone any serious and dangerous sin. But i have remained fully exposed to hundred more fatal sins and diseases that beard protects one from, like hypocrisy, bad manners, not praying, etc.
In conclusion, i would like to glorify this feature on believer because it differentiates us from most non-believers, easily giving us an Islamic character, which in case of women happens to be hijaab. Also because, it forces us sometimes to reform our other matters to achieve harmony and completeness of Islamic character. As for fighting off more fatal diseases, one can take lot of help from spiritual shariah, or Sufism of our islaaf, and not the one favored by West (see small book, Sufism, by Hamid Algar). This guidance is needed by all to counter deceptively creative and subtle attacks of the Devil.
Work of Tableegh: How ignorant i've been
At the tender age of 16, my heart became hard and shut to the light of Tableegh movement. Since then i've never went out of home with them to "strive (your utmost) in the Cause of Allah", let alone strive in the way of Allah with my property, assets and life... I have been repellent to their simple message which can make one a true Muslim - belief in the kalimah and following the way of Prophet, and spreading his message to millions of people who are in need of the light of Islam... This so far nascent awakening has come from this talk given by a former devoted Christian who came to Islam after a long journey of searching for Allah.
'Description of the beauty of Holy Prophet Muhammad'
A description of the Beloved, Sal Allahu 'alayhi wa salam, from "The Sunnah as Primordiality" by Shaikh Abdal Hakim Murad
paraphrased by Mustafa Miroku Nemeth
Here is a condensed recollection, a kind of verbal icon, of that Prophetic beauty. It is paraphrased from a passage by Imam al-Ghazali, in Book 19 of his Revival of the Religious Sciences, Ihya Ulum al-Din.
‘The Messenger of God (s) was the mildest of men, but also the bravest and most just of men. He was the most restrained of people; never touching the hand of a woman over whom he did not have rights, or who was not his mahram. He was the most generous of men, so that never did a gold or silver coin spend the night in his house. If something remained at the end of the day, because he had not found someone to give it to, and night descended, he would go out, and not return home until he had given it to someone in need. From what Allah gave him [...] he would take only the simplest and easiest foods: dates and barley, giving anything else away in the path of Allah. Never did he refuse a gift for which he was asked. He used to mend his own sandals, and patch his own clothes, and serve his family, and help them to cut meat. He was the shyest of men, so that his gaze would never remain long in the face of anyone else. He would accept the invitation of a freeman or a slave, and accept a gift, even if it were no more than a gulp of milk, or the thigh of a rabbit, and offer something in return. He never consumed anything given in sadaqa. He was not too proud to reply to a slave-girl, or a pauper in rags. He would become angered for his Lord, never for himself; he would cause truth and justice to prevail even if this led to discomfort to himself or to his companions.
‘He used to bind a stone around his waist out of hunger. He would eat what was brought, and would not refuse any permissible food. If there was dates without bread, he would eat, if there was roast meat, he would eat; if there was rough barley bread, he would eat it; if there was honey or something sweet, he would eat it; if there was only yogurt without even bread, he would be quite satisfied with that.
‘He was not sated, even with barley-bread, for three consecutive days, until the day he met his Lord, not because of poverty, or avarice, but because he always preferred others over himself.
‘He would attend weddings, and visit the sick, and attend funerals, and would often walk among his enemies without a guard. He was the most humble of men, and the most serene, without arrogance. He was the most eloquent of men, without ever speaking for too long. He was the most cheerful of men. He was afraid of nothing in the dunya. He would wear a rough Yemeni cloak, or a woolen tunic; whatever was lawful and was to hand, that he would wear. He would ride whatever was to hand: sometimes a horse, sometimes a camel, sometimes a mule, sometimes a donkey. And at times he would walk barefoot, without an upper garment or a turban or a cap. He would visit the sick even if they were in the furthest part of Madina. He loved perfumes, and disliked foul smells.
‘He maintained affectionate and loyal ties with his relatives, but without preferring them to anyone who was superior to them. He never snubbed anyone. He accepted the excuse of anyone who made an excuse. He would joke, but would never say anything that was not true. He would laugh, but not uproarously. He would watch permissible games and sports, and would not criticise them. He ran races with his wives. Voices would be raised around him, and he would be patient. He kept a sheep, from which he would draw milk for his family. He would walk among the fields of his companions. He never despised any pauper for his poverty or illness; neither did he hold any king in awe simply because he was a king. He would call rich and poor to Allah, without distinction.
‘In him, Allah combined all noble traits of character; although he neither read nor wrote, having grown up in a land of ignorance and deserts in poverty, as a shepherd, and as an orphan with neither father nor mother. But Allah Himself taught him all the excellent qualities of character, and praiseworthy ways, and the stories of the early and the later prophets, and the way to salvation and triumph in the Akhira, and to joy and detachment in the dunya, and how to hold fast to duty, and to avoid the unnecessary. May Allah give us success in obeying him, and in following his sunna. Amin ya rabb al-alamin.‘
This moving portrait by Imam al-Ghazali depicts our role model, and simultaneously our ideal of humanity lived in the form of absolute beauty. His was a life lived in fullness. There was no aspect of human perfection that he did not know and manifest. And his perfection also indicates the nature of specifically masculine perfection. He was a great warrior; a sound hadith narrated by Imam al-Darimi tells us, on the authority of Ali, that
‘On the day of Badr I was present, and we sought refuge in the Prophet (s.w.s.),
who was the closest of us all to the enemy. On that day he was the most powerful
of all the combatants who fought.’One of the Companions described him riding his horse, wearing a red turban and holding his sword, and said later that never in his life had he seen a sight more beautiful.
In 23 years he became undisputed ruler of Arabia. Through his genius and charisma, and the attractive force of his personality, he united the Arabian tribes for the first time in their history. He took his people from the depths of idolatry into the purest form of monotheism. He gave them a law for the first time. He laid down, in his mosque in Madina, a system of worship, self-restraint and spiritual fruitfulness that provided the inspiration and the precedent for countless generations of later worshippers and saints. In affirming the Ka‘ba, he affirmed beauty; so that all else that he did was beautiful.
And in all this, he attributed his success only to Allah. He was, as Imam al-Ghazali records, the most humble of men. He was forbearing, polite, courteous, and mild. He paid no attention to people’s outward form, but assessed and responded to their spirits. He forgave constantly. He was indulgent with the simple Bedouin of Central Arabia, the roughest people on earth. When one of them. who wanted money, pulled his cloak so violently that it left a mark, he merely smiled, and ordered that the man be given what he wanted.'
paraphrased by Mustafa Miroku Nemeth
Here is a condensed recollection, a kind of verbal icon, of that Prophetic beauty. It is paraphrased from a passage by Imam al-Ghazali, in Book 19 of his Revival of the Religious Sciences, Ihya Ulum al-Din.
‘The Messenger of God (s) was the mildest of men, but also the bravest and most just of men. He was the most restrained of people; never touching the hand of a woman over whom he did not have rights, or who was not his mahram. He was the most generous of men, so that never did a gold or silver coin spend the night in his house. If something remained at the end of the day, because he had not found someone to give it to, and night descended, he would go out, and not return home until he had given it to someone in need. From what Allah gave him [...] he would take only the simplest and easiest foods: dates and barley, giving anything else away in the path of Allah. Never did he refuse a gift for which he was asked. He used to mend his own sandals, and patch his own clothes, and serve his family, and help them to cut meat. He was the shyest of men, so that his gaze would never remain long in the face of anyone else. He would accept the invitation of a freeman or a slave, and accept a gift, even if it were no more than a gulp of milk, or the thigh of a rabbit, and offer something in return. He never consumed anything given in sadaqa. He was not too proud to reply to a slave-girl, or a pauper in rags. He would become angered for his Lord, never for himself; he would cause truth and justice to prevail even if this led to discomfort to himself or to his companions.
‘He used to bind a stone around his waist out of hunger. He would eat what was brought, and would not refuse any permissible food. If there was dates without bread, he would eat, if there was roast meat, he would eat; if there was rough barley bread, he would eat it; if there was honey or something sweet, he would eat it; if there was only yogurt without even bread, he would be quite satisfied with that.
‘He was not sated, even with barley-bread, for three consecutive days, until the day he met his Lord, not because of poverty, or avarice, but because he always preferred others over himself.
‘He would attend weddings, and visit the sick, and attend funerals, and would often walk among his enemies without a guard. He was the most humble of men, and the most serene, without arrogance. He was the most eloquent of men, without ever speaking for too long. He was the most cheerful of men. He was afraid of nothing in the dunya. He would wear a rough Yemeni cloak, or a woolen tunic; whatever was lawful and was to hand, that he would wear. He would ride whatever was to hand: sometimes a horse, sometimes a camel, sometimes a mule, sometimes a donkey. And at times he would walk barefoot, without an upper garment or a turban or a cap. He would visit the sick even if they were in the furthest part of Madina. He loved perfumes, and disliked foul smells.
‘He maintained affectionate and loyal ties with his relatives, but without preferring them to anyone who was superior to them. He never snubbed anyone. He accepted the excuse of anyone who made an excuse. He would joke, but would never say anything that was not true. He would laugh, but not uproarously. He would watch permissible games and sports, and would not criticise them. He ran races with his wives. Voices would be raised around him, and he would be patient. He kept a sheep, from which he would draw milk for his family. He would walk among the fields of his companions. He never despised any pauper for his poverty or illness; neither did he hold any king in awe simply because he was a king. He would call rich and poor to Allah, without distinction.
‘In him, Allah combined all noble traits of character; although he neither read nor wrote, having grown up in a land of ignorance and deserts in poverty, as a shepherd, and as an orphan with neither father nor mother. But Allah Himself taught him all the excellent qualities of character, and praiseworthy ways, and the stories of the early and the later prophets, and the way to salvation and triumph in the Akhira, and to joy and detachment in the dunya, and how to hold fast to duty, and to avoid the unnecessary. May Allah give us success in obeying him, and in following his sunna. Amin ya rabb al-alamin.‘
This moving portrait by Imam al-Ghazali depicts our role model, and simultaneously our ideal of humanity lived in the form of absolute beauty. His was a life lived in fullness. There was no aspect of human perfection that he did not know and manifest. And his perfection also indicates the nature of specifically masculine perfection. He was a great warrior; a sound hadith narrated by Imam al-Darimi tells us, on the authority of Ali, that
‘On the day of Badr I was present, and we sought refuge in the Prophet (s.w.s.),
who was the closest of us all to the enemy. On that day he was the most powerful
of all the combatants who fought.’One of the Companions described him riding his horse, wearing a red turban and holding his sword, and said later that never in his life had he seen a sight more beautiful.
In 23 years he became undisputed ruler of Arabia. Through his genius and charisma, and the attractive force of his personality, he united the Arabian tribes for the first time in their history. He took his people from the depths of idolatry into the purest form of monotheism. He gave them a law for the first time. He laid down, in his mosque in Madina, a system of worship, self-restraint and spiritual fruitfulness that provided the inspiration and the precedent for countless generations of later worshippers and saints. In affirming the Ka‘ba, he affirmed beauty; so that all else that he did was beautiful.
And in all this, he attributed his success only to Allah. He was, as Imam al-Ghazali records, the most humble of men. He was forbearing, polite, courteous, and mild. He paid no attention to people’s outward form, but assessed and responded to their spirits. He forgave constantly. He was indulgent with the simple Bedouin of Central Arabia, the roughest people on earth. When one of them. who wanted money, pulled his cloak so violently that it left a mark, he merely smiled, and ordered that the man be given what he wanted.'
Prophet's enduring Wish
Prophet has been reported saying: "I wish, Surah Yasin is in every Muslim's heart."
He also said that who ever recites it would get purified of all previous sins.
May Allah give us taufiq to memorize it and recite daily.
He also said that who ever recites it would get purified of all previous sins.
May Allah give us taufiq to memorize it and recite daily.
SMS Conversation: History and Relgion, 'Policy Lessons' for Each Ego
Umer: One must have a basement in a house especially if he wants t0 launch a business. Shams and Nirwani, founders of Telezoo.com, invested $1 million in this start-up of theirs. To keep it low-cost in the beginning, the office of Telezoo was located in the basement of their home.
Bahawal: As far as the basement idea is concerned, I'd rather prefer to have an underground air-conditioned gym or a cozy library/study then 'waste' it for entrepreneurial purposes :-) :P
... We scholars usually don't like to talk much this money making business. Just give us a little respect, a bit of fame and acknowledgement and a few fat books to analyze. That's all you want. Lols...
Umer: (After critizing on fame part with a Urdu couplet, asks) And what books and articles are you reading these days?
Bahawal: Hmmm... I'm reading but haven't fully understood a book by Dr. Sayed Abdul Latif, The Mind that Al-Quran Builds. (Also) I'm reading a book History of the Saracens by Syed Ameer Ali. Then I'm also reading, History of the Arab Peoples. Apart from that, I've been reading some articles on internet on Babylonia, its culture, the city of Ur, etc. And, the major points of conflicts b/w the three Abrahamic religions, and the list goes on.
Umer: Please keep telling as long as you can comfortably. Its so informative foe me.
B: (Smiles, through a gesture) ... To sum up its been all history and religion (that I am studying). And, I realize that we need badly to turn back to Allah, repent asap, understand the balanced path, and start hating in ourselves what we hate in others. We stupid and idotic people have already cost ourselves a lot through petty egos and pathetically limited reserves of knowledge, which we assume to be too much but which actually is too little. What do you say?
U: Yar! Excellent analysis! That's what many top pious scholars (more or less) are saying! SubhanAllah! May Allah guide us to the right path and give us taufiq (power) to realize and act upon these useful insights.
B: May it be so! I wish we all see the right path.
Bahawal: As far as the basement idea is concerned, I'd rather prefer to have an underground air-conditioned gym or a cozy library/study then 'waste' it for entrepreneurial purposes :-) :P
... We scholars usually don't like to talk much this money making business. Just give us a little respect, a bit of fame and acknowledgement and a few fat books to analyze. That's all you want. Lols...
Umer: (After critizing on fame part with a Urdu couplet, asks) And what books and articles are you reading these days?
Bahawal: Hmmm... I'm reading but haven't fully understood a book by Dr. Sayed Abdul Latif, The Mind that Al-Quran Builds. (Also) I'm reading a book History of the Saracens by Syed Ameer Ali. Then I'm also reading, History of the Arab Peoples. Apart from that, I've been reading some articles on internet on Babylonia, its culture, the city of Ur, etc. And, the major points of conflicts b/w the three Abrahamic religions, and the list goes on.
Umer: Please keep telling as long as you can comfortably. Its so informative foe me.
B: (Smiles, through a gesture) ... To sum up its been all history and religion (that I am studying). And, I realize that we need badly to turn back to Allah, repent asap, understand the balanced path, and start hating in ourselves what we hate in others. We stupid and idotic people have already cost ourselves a lot through petty egos and pathetically limited reserves of knowledge, which we assume to be too much but which actually is too little. What do you say?
U: Yar! Excellent analysis! That's what many top pious scholars (more or less) are saying! SubhanAllah! May Allah guide us to the right path and give us taufiq (power) to realize and act upon these useful insights.
B: May it be so! I wish we all see the right path.
Islamic Perspective on Fundamentalism: Historical Analyses I
Now, we've popular writers like Karen Armstrong taking lead, writing 'interesting' books on the development of so-called fundamentalism in Christianity, Judaism and Islam, interpreting the past 300-year history essentially from a modern, "secular-fundamentalist" * perspective. She and her likes are committed moderns calling all religious people fundamentalists, without distinguishing them from those who commit indiscriminate violence against innocent people, who resist the onslaught of modernity that threatens their religion. Hence again, we see a deep-rooted Euro-centrism in the works of such scholars who are many in number and dominate the scene.
In such a condition of intellectual bankruptcy in Muslim world, such lectures, presentations, interpretations from an Islamic point-of-view are blessings from on high to those who want freedom from the fetters of this world and coercive modernity that robes people of freedom to choose their own destiny.
________________________
* This latter term, "secular-fundamentalist," has been coined by Nasr, I came across in The Heart of Islam of the author, which perfectly fits with the mentality and acts of moderns who profess secularism imposing on others, and curtailing the freedom of 'other civilizations to be themselves'. This fundamentalism is most brutal and harsh 'than the most extreme of religious fundamentalism'.
Dynamics of Canonical Prayer
As soon as I enter salat/canonical prayer in Islam, I immediately am transformed from a state of anxiety, irritation, restlessness, and confusion, lack of concentration to a state of utter calmness, inner silence, flow, peace, and harmony. The greatest blessing is that I can’t sin anymore. I’m from the worldliness of ghaflah. I no more am in a state of dreaming or vulnerable to ‘create a dream around my world’ and forget really what my purpose is. People are safe from the bitterness and harmfulness of my tongue and hands.
In fact, whole society, whole world transforms beyond our imagination due to congregational act of salah. Because. As Islamic scholar Mahmoud Ayuob states in his book on Islam that when a believer enters salah ‘time and space are sanctified … whole world is purified [for her/him]’.
Hazrat Umer, second people’s caliph/servant of Islam – and I repeatedly use this example – wrote to all of his governors a letter. And in that letter he started off with what was most essential of him that all his governors must protect and establish – Salah! Sacred rituals revealed to mankind in this final, universal revelation* [listen to Abdal Hakim Murad on 'Islam and West' part 3-4] of Islam are greatest gifts to humanity. Unfortunately, the ‘native Orientalists’ (Shahid Alam’s article, Native Orientalists at the Daily Times) and those whose intellect has been atrophied fail to appreciate the Treasure salah and other rituals are.
* Christianity, first of all, a religion that has historically claimed and to a far degree succeeded to be a universal one, was never meant to be Christianity by its founder Sayyidina Isa (A.S.). He came as a Prophet to Jews. Modern biblical scholarship has proven that beyond doubt. First time I came to know of this apparently less known fact to many Christians was in, What Islam did for Us?, by Tim-Wallace Murphy. Then in works of Karen Armstrong, who even made a TV-documentary, The First Christian, on St. Paul, exposing using historical data how St. Paul made a new religion out of the message of Prophet Jesus.
In fact, whole society, whole world transforms beyond our imagination due to congregational act of salah. Because. As Islamic scholar Mahmoud Ayuob states in his book on Islam that when a believer enters salah ‘time and space are sanctified … whole world is purified [for her/him]’.
Hazrat Umer, second people’s caliph/servant of Islam – and I repeatedly use this example – wrote to all of his governors a letter. And in that letter he started off with what was most essential of him that all his governors must protect and establish – Salah! Sacred rituals revealed to mankind in this final, universal revelation* [listen to Abdal Hakim Murad on 'Islam and West' part 3-4] of Islam are greatest gifts to humanity. Unfortunately, the ‘native Orientalists’ (Shahid Alam’s article, Native Orientalists at the Daily Times) and those whose intellect has been atrophied fail to appreciate the Treasure salah and other rituals are.
* Christianity, first of all, a religion that has historically claimed and to a far degree succeeded to be a universal one, was never meant to be Christianity by its founder Sayyidina Isa (A.S.). He came as a Prophet to Jews. Modern biblical scholarship has proven that beyond doubt. First time I came to know of this apparently less known fact to many Christians was in, What Islam did for Us?, by Tim-Wallace Murphy. Then in works of Karen Armstrong, who even made a TV-documentary, The First Christian, on St. Paul, exposing using historical data how St. Paul made a new religion out of the message of Prophet Jesus.
Qada Umari: Making up Salats Missed in a Lifetime
Q. Is there any proof from authentic ahadith of Qada Umari?
A."Hazrat Anas ibn Maalik (R.A.) narrates in a hadith of Sahih Bukhari that Rasulullah mentioned:
من نسي صلاة فليصل اذا ذكرها لا كفارة لها الا ذلك
" Whoever forgets to pray a Salah, it is obligatory upon him that he pray that Salah when he remembers. There is no other way that this can be made up." ( Sahih Bukhari , Kitaabul Mawaaqeet - Hadith 597)The words of Rasulullah in a hadith of Muslim are as follows:
اذا رقد احدكم عن الصلاة او غفل عنها فليصل اذا ذكرها فان الله عز و جل يقول اقم الصلاة لذكري
" Whenever one of you misses a Salah due to sleeping or due to negligence, it is obligatory upon him that he pray the Salah when he remembers it because Allah (SWT) has metioned, "Perform Salah when you remember me" (Hadith 1569)In a Hadith of Sunan Nas'ai it is mentioned:
سئل رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم عن الرجل يرقد عن الصلاة او يغفل عنها قال كفارتها ان يصلها اذا ذكرها
" Rasulullah was asked regarding a person who misses a Salah due to sleep or negligence. Rasulullah mentioned that its compensation is that he should perform the Salah when he remembers. "(Nasaai p 171)These Ahadith as well as many others are clear that any Salah that has been missed must be performed when one remembers. In fact the ayah of the Qur’an recited by Rasulullah in the hadith of Muslim above, also indicates that this ayah of the Holy Quran refers to qada Salah as well, as it was recited in the context of qada.
There is a consensus among the jurists that qada must be made for missed Salahs.
And Allah Ta'ala Knows Best!
Source.
In search of guidance
Today, I spent a day with a friend of mine who is in search of guidance. He wants it. Simply. So we visited a scholar of deen in Punjab University, and after his weekly bayan/lecture sat down with him and asked, my friend: 'How does guidance come?' The scholar replied, 'Through the desire of it.' 'And does one develop it?' my friend asked. 'By (a) praying to Allah for guidance, and (b) "striving" for it, just like the way an ill-person goes to a saturated market of doctors and healers, and seeks the best out of them. The litmus test he has: Firstly, the person is a qualified doctor, i.e., he knows deen well; and secondly, the doctor has to have a good reputation of curing people well, i.e., the person acts upon what he knows about deen.''Prayer' and 'to strive' are the keys that are also mentioned in a hadith elementary for success. On returning, I enquired my friend about how useful the conversation had been. Clearly, he wanted to see some other people as well, but his instant positive remark reflected satisfaction in the theory or answer of the scholar.
Mitigation & Rediscovery
Allow me to clear the fog. I am forced to read the autobiography of a writer on world religions, Karen Armstrong: The Spiral Staircase. I haven't yet read her works, except a page or two. Because it is 'an exceptionally impressive autobiography' (Daily Telegraph), it to an extent tends to erode my originality of being a Hanif, follower of Sayyidina Ibrahim, and since i am not left untouched by the power of writing and gifted memory she has, I also tend to imitate her in the way I express myself, even to my own self. This is what I detest.
***
Karen left her family and college at 17 for convent just 'to find God', and then led a very austere, soul-crushing, self-negating, and, as she calls, 'unhygienic' life as a nun for 7 long years at her own will. Failing to find God for a single moment, she left convent and 'returned to secular life'. Later she finds 'transcendence' and 'ecstasy' in comparative study of world religions and discovered the Golden Rule common to all religions: Compassion. I yet have to read those chapters... Nonetheless, I have made a long story short for you.I was thoroughly impressed by the first part of her life, i.e., the intent of Catholics behind their illegal activities (according to Islam, such monasticism is prohibited). Every single moment and movement, of mind and body, at convent was directed towards God, to attain His presence, and 'to soar like an eagle', as Bible promised. Here they confronted their nafs boldly, directly and brutally, and missed no opportunity to subdue it to God.
But what went wrong with her. Why no one at convent could experience God, the single aim of the experiment, as Karen says? This is the rediscovery. This amplified my own belief in Islam. What ever the Order of Christianity promised to the seeker failed. It is important to note here that this particular Order/System Karen belonged to took Prophet Jesus as son of God (nauzbillah). She failed to find happiness and peace, Allah because Allah has closed all doors to Him, except Islam!
Beautiful part of the ongoing reading is unexpectedness: My certitude in Islam increased by a story of nun who turned secular!
.jpg)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)