Islamic Unity
Islam is the Deen of Peace. Peace begins with ceasing hostilities with Allah, and with each other. One of the most grave mistakes we can make as Muslims is to break that peace through fitnah. Allah SWT has told us that Fitnah Akbar Min al Qatl. Fitnah is worse than killing. It kills whole communities.
Allah SWT always seeks to bring us together. He never encourages division or strife. Shaytan is the one who loves fitnah. He loves to divide and conquer. Division weakens us, and makes us susceptible to Shaytan's wiwas. Therefore, anything which tears us apart is from Shaytan, and should be avoided.
Shaytan is our avowed enemy. And he knows all the tricks to fool us. Allah SWT tells us in the Qur'an that he lies in wait for us on the Path of Sirat al Mustaqim. He lures many away from the path with promises of the Hayyat ad-Duniya. But, for some, that is not attractive, so he fools them with distortions of the Deen. He preys upon everyone's desire to be the best, to be noticed, to standout in the crowd. He preys upon our own ego to make us arrogant. Allah SWT has told us that arrogance will only gain us Jehannum.
39:60 And on the Day of Resurrection thou will see those who lied concerning Allah with their faces blackened. Is not hell the home of the arrogant (al-mutakabbireen) ?
40: 35 Those who wrangle concerning the revelations of Allah without any warrant that hath come unto them, it is greatly hateful in the sight of Allah and in the sight of those who believe. Thus doth Allah print on every arrogant, disdainful heart.
Arrogance is born of ignorance. No one with knowledge would ever be arrogant, for knowledge stems from the realization that you know nothing. Ignorance stems from the lack of knowledge that you know nothing.
It is a great irony that the most arrogant are those who are the most ignorant.
An-Nahl 16: 22. Your God is One God: As to those who believe not
In the Hereafter, their hearts Refuse to know, and they Are arrogant.
In the Hereafter, their hearts Refuse to know, and they Are arrogant.
Ignorance and Arrogance
Ignorance of our Deen is widespread today. For the most part, we have only ourselves to blame for this condition. For almost 200 years, sincere scholars have tried to revive the Deen of Islam. But, in our arrogance, we insist that we already know the Deen, and we refuse to study and learn. Imams offer classes, but no one attends. Daiyyas offer lectures, but only a few attend. And those who do attend do not really listen. They strut and show off their hiked up thowbs to each other, and argue about minor points of fiqh with others who are as ignorant as they. Our Deen is in trouble.
Many blame the traditional four Sunni Madhdhaahibs. However, it is not the madhdhaahib that are the problem. It is blind following that is the problem.
41:17. As to the Thamūd, We gave them guidance,
But they preferred blindness (Of heart) to Guidance:
So the stunning Punishment Of humiliation seized them,
Because of what they had earned.
However Allah SWT has also instructed us to follow His guidance.
4:59. O ye who believe! Obey God, and obey the Apostle,
And those charged With authority among you.
If ye differ in anything Among yourselves, refer it To God and His Apostle,
If ye do believe in God And the Last Day:
That is best, and most suitable For final determination.
Based upon this command, the scholars have developed the concept of taqlid. Taqlid is an most misunderstood term.
39:8. Those who listen To the Word, And follow ahsanahu :
Those are the ones Whom Allah has guided, and those Are the ones endued With understanding.
To "fanattabi'uun ahsanahu" means "then they are those that follow the best and most complete understanding and interpretation of what they have heard." "Ahsanahu" comes from "ahsan" which comes from the root -H-S-N. This term is difficult to translate and not so easy to understand even in Arabic. We understand it best when we look at the term from the perspective of its relationship to the terms, "islam" and "islah." All of these terms, islam, islah and ihsan, mean "peace." They are the three steps of the Peace Process of Islam. Islam is to cease hostilities with Allah SWT and with each other. Islah is to seek reconciliation between ourselves and Allah, and between ourselves and each other. Ihsan was defined by Rasul Allah, SAW, as "worshiping Allah as if you see Him, and if you do not, then to know with certainty that He sees you." It is the most complete understanding and the most complete stage of the Peace Process - the state that generates salul - communion with Allah and community (Ummah) with each other. This is not some hokey mystic communion; this is real peace with Allah. No more rebellion, ungratefulness, and hate. Only love of Allah, love of His Rasul, and love of all of His Creation.
"Ahsanahu," then means a following, "tabi'u" that is based on complete understanding and voluntary obedience. Allah then confirms this by saying, "Those are the ones whom Allah has guided, and those are the ones endued (by Allah) with understanding." (In other places we have discussed the approaches to the Shariah of the Muqalliduun, the Middle Position of Imams and Daiyyas, and the Ulema. We would refer the reader to that discussion for an understanding to the scope of permissible taqlid).
However, some of the established madhdhaahib have advocated the different concept of taqlid. Some interpret this term to mean following without asking for dalil. For example, in his book, Fiqh al-Imam; Key Proofs in Hanafi Fiqh, Abdur-Rahman Ibn Yusuf states the technical meaning of the term, "taqlid" is "The acceptance of another's statement without demanding proof or evidence ..." (Fiqh al- Imam, p. 3). He bases this incorrect interpretation on a ridiculous notion that if we did not uncritically accept everything our teachers and parents taught us, we would "be deprived on even the basic and preliminary needs of humanity." (Id. p. 4). He claims man has a natural ability to imitate. While this may be true, we also have a natural ability to innovate, otherwise humanity would never have progressed to its present level of technology and social organization.
Allah SWT has clearly prohibited this kind of uncritical following.
2:170. When it is said to them: "Follow what God hath revealed:"
They say: "Nay! we shall follow The ways of our fathers."
What! even though their fathers Were void of wisdom and guidance?
As Muslims, we must never blinding follow anything. We must first determine that what we are following was revealed by Allah. If it was revealed by Allah, then we must follow it. And in this ayat, Allah tells us why. The knowledge that Allah has revealed to us through wahy is guidance and wisdom. Any other form of knowledge is subject to doubt - dhann. This is confirmed by what we have stated before in regard to both inductive and deductive logic. Yes, they may appear rational (aql) or guided (huda), but ultimately, they can only be determined to be so based on first principles which can only be confirmed through the most certain form of knowledge - wahy or revelation. Thus, revelation, here the Arabic is "anzala," is what should be "followed," and not any blind or irrational traditions and practices or forms of traditional knowledge.
5:04 When it is said to them: "Come to what God Hath revealed; come To the Apostle":
They say: "Enough for us Are the ways we found Our fathers following."
What! even though their fathers Were void of knowledge And guidance?
On the other hand, some of those who denigrate established madhdhaahib, or make fun of those who are muqallid, are brainwashing their own followers with an even more vehement and dangerous form of blind following. One of the numerous branches (furu') of the Harikat as-Salafiyya has been using these insidious brainwashing techniques to turn our youth off the path of Islam. They quote the ayat from Surah al-Anbiya:
21:7. Before thee, also, the apostles We sent were but men,
To whom We granted inspiration: Then ask the Ahl al Dhikr, if you do not have Ilm.
First, they cut this ayat into pieces, which is haram. The Jews and Christians erred before us because they chopped their books into pieces through the process of exegesis and scholastic interpretation. The ayat tells people that if they do not believe that Allah could send down revelation through wahy to a human being, then ask the people of dhikr. Dhikr, in the Qur'an, generally means Remembrance of Allah. If a person is one who has Dhikr, then he will know that Allah has always sent down revelation through human prophets, not through any other means. If a person does not see that this must be so, then they are not endowed with Ilm. Ilm is not just knowledge, but knowledge and understanding that leads to wisdom of action.
However, the takfiri branch of the Harikat as-Salafiyya say this ayat means that if you do not have knowledge of deen, then you must ask those who know. They do not mention that this following of "ahl al dhikr" should be critical. So, in affect, they are mandating blind following.
They are so blinded by this brainwashing, that they do not see that this policy is the same as the "taqlid" they condemn in other madhdhaahibs.
And their "blind following" is so extreme that it results not just in blindness, but in a gouging out of the "eyes" of reason. The followers of these real extremists are told not to speak to others, that "so-and-so" is dangerous. What are they afraid of? The truth is mubin. The Qur'an states that it is mubin. "La ikraha fi deen, qad tabayyana al rushdu min al ghaiy." "There is no compulsion, duress, force, or hate in deen, guidance stands out clearly from error." 2:256. If your doctrine is the truth, why would you fear hearing other points of view?
With their chosen "shuyuk," whose only qualifications are that they attended a certain school, or that they wear a ghutrah and hiked up thowb, they fill our childrens' minds with arrogance that they are of the "chosen sect," while all the time they are leaving them in utter ignorance.
Their intent to misguide is clear. In calling themselves Salafi, they claim that the term "Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jamaa" means that the sources of Islam are the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and the positions of the Salaf and Khalaf. First of all, the term "Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jamaa" refers to the return of the Ummah to following the Sunnah, and coming together after the fitnah of Umayyads and the Mu'tazillah, who followed Rayy or reasoned opinion, rather than revelation. They claimed that after the death of the Prophet, the State had the power to enforce, interpret and even to make law. The Ahl as-Sunnah said no. Only Allah SWT has the power of legislation to make Shariah law. The Abbasid State followed this understanding and so coined the term, "Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jamaa."
As for the Khalaf, the Khalaf are the generation that followed after the Prophet, and the Salaf are those of the generation that followed after them. In other words, they are the Tabi' and Tabi'tabi'een. These terms have other implications, beyond the scope of this blog entry to detail, but here we shall note that no human being may be followed blindly. The Qur'an warns us that the Jews erred by taking their Rabbis as Lords, infallible in their interpretation of Jewish Law. The same is true for Muslims. No Alim is infallible, and no Alim should be followed blindly, without critical evaluation of his credentials and dalil.
We should also note that the Harikat as-Salafiyya may use the term "Salaf," but that does not make them Salaf. This is the reason why I have distinguished between the "Salaf" and the "Harikat as-Salafiyya." The term "Salaf" denotes our elders in deen, while the "Harikat as-Salafiyya" denotes a doctrinal position.
These misguided brainwashers not only hold that the sayings of Scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim must be followed, and are hence Fard, but they also distort and twist hadith and aathar. Aathar are sayings of the Sahabi and Tabi' and those after them. These accounts are not as rigorously scrutinized as are hadith of the Prophet SAW. These so-called Salafi purposefully quote these aathar as if they are hadith, and so must be followed. And not only that, but they sometimes misquote them to make them sound like hadith.
Several years ago, a group of these brainwashers propounded an aathar that mentioned the Sahaba, Ibn Masud. Another Sahaba was visiting Ibn Masud in Iraq and found the people of Kufa doing itikaaf in the masjid during Ramadan. He asked Ibn Masud if he had ever heard the Prophet SAW mention that itikaaf was only permissible in three masaajid, the Haram in Makkah, the Masjid An-Nabawiyy, and Al-Quds. Ibn Masud said he did not know of this. The brainwashers distorted this aathar to make it sound like a hadith of the Prophet related by Ibn Masud.
Many fall into this error of blind following because of a misinterpretation of the following ayat:
4:59. O ye who believe! Obey God, and obey the Apostle,
And those With authority among you.
If ye differ in anything Among yourselves, refer it
To God and His Apostle, If ye do believe in God And the Last Day:
That is best, and most suitable For final determination.
As we have stated elsewhere, "wa uly al-amri minkum" means to obey those who have the power of interpretation of the Shariah, the Ulema. Certainly, we are told here that to obey Allah and His Prophet is fard or obligatory. To disobey Allah and his Rasul is haram, sinful.
So what about those who have the authority of amr bi ma'ruf wa nahi al munkar? Is it fard to obey them?
The next part is critical. Allah SWT says that if the scholars should differ, then the issue is to be resolved by looking to the revelation sent by Allah to his Rasul - in other words, if there is a difference of opinion, then we must seek to resolve it by supporting our positions by evidence from the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Allah then says that this is best and the most ahsan ta'wil or most complete and competent interpretation.
Here, we see that it is fard to obey Allah and His Rasul, and the interpretations of the Ulema, when they agree and their positions are based on the Qur'an and Sunnah. This is why many Scholars of Usul al-Fiqh consider Ijma or Unanimity of Scholars on an issue to be binding, or Fard.
However, if the Scholars do not agree, and there is rationally based iktilaf, then we must seek the position that we consider, through due diligence and ijtehad, to be as close as possible to the Qur'an and Sunnah. Since reasonable people can disagree, as long as the positions are based on rational daleel, then we must not fight or create fitnah over these differences. We must accept these differences; respect one another; and let Allah SWT decide between us on Yawm al Qiyamah, as He has said He will do in the Qur'an.
However, the Harikat as-Salafiyya, no matter what furu', continues to hold that only one position is possible, and acceptable, and that one does not hold their position, then one is kafir. Their intolerance and lack of respect for reasonable iktilaf is simply unIslamic. When the two groups differed over the Prophet's command to pray Asr before coming to the fort of the Bani Quraizah, they asked the Prophet about their respective ijtehad. Each group was sincere and each applied due diligence. The Prophet responded by not rebuking either group. THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.
He could have said both were correct, or he could have said one was correct, but he did not rebuke either. This means that we are not limited by two fiqh approaches. One group chose a more literal approach, the other chose a more totality of the circumstances approach. But he did not rebuke either, meaning that we are not limited. And reasonable approach is possible. Again, Allah SWT will judge us on that in which we differ.
So to advocate that one group is "the saved sect" and all others are kafir is clearly in violation of the spirit of this hadith and the command to unity and the prohibition of fitnah.
41:17. As to the Thamūd, We gave them guidance,
But they preferred blindness (Of heart) to Guidance:
So the stunning Punishment Of humiliation seized them,
Because of what they had earned.
However Allah SWT has also instructed us to follow His guidance.
4:59. O ye who believe! Obey God, and obey the Apostle,
And those charged With authority among you.
If ye differ in anything Among yourselves, refer it To God and His Apostle,
If ye do believe in God And the Last Day:
That is best, and most suitable For final determination.
Based upon this command, the scholars have developed the concept of taqlid. Taqlid is an most misunderstood term.
Taqlid
Taqlid comes from the Arabic root, Q-L-D, "to follow." A "muqallid" is one who follows. The term does not necessarily denote that this "following" be without thought or reason. It simply means to follow as is described in the following verse from Surah Zumar.
39:8. Those who listen To the Word, And follow ahsanahu :
Those are the ones Whom Allah has guided, and those Are the ones endued With understanding.
To "fanattabi'uun ahsanahu" means "then they are those that follow the best and most complete understanding and interpretation of what they have heard." "Ahsanahu" comes from "ahsan" which comes from the root -H-S-N. This term is difficult to translate and not so easy to understand even in Arabic. We understand it best when we look at the term from the perspective of its relationship to the terms, "islam" and "islah." All of these terms, islam, islah and ihsan, mean "peace." They are the three steps of the Peace Process of Islam. Islam is to cease hostilities with Allah SWT and with each other. Islah is to seek reconciliation between ourselves and Allah, and between ourselves and each other. Ihsan was defined by Rasul Allah, SAW, as "worshiping Allah as if you see Him, and if you do not, then to know with certainty that He sees you." It is the most complete understanding and the most complete stage of the Peace Process - the state that generates salul - communion with Allah and community (Ummah) with each other. This is not some hokey mystic communion; this is real peace with Allah. No more rebellion, ungratefulness, and hate. Only love of Allah, love of His Rasul, and love of all of His Creation.
"Ahsanahu," then means a following, "tabi'u" that is based on complete understanding and voluntary obedience. Allah then confirms this by saying, "Those are the ones whom Allah has guided, and those are the ones endued (by Allah) with understanding." (In other places we have discussed the approaches to the Shariah of the Muqalliduun, the Middle Position of Imams and Daiyyas, and the Ulema. We would refer the reader to that discussion for an understanding to the scope of permissible taqlid).
However, some of the established madhdhaahib have advocated the different concept of taqlid. Some interpret this term to mean following without asking for dalil. For example, in his book, Fiqh al-Imam; Key Proofs in Hanafi Fiqh, Abdur-Rahman Ibn Yusuf states the technical meaning of the term, "taqlid" is "The acceptance of another's statement without demanding proof or evidence ..." (Fiqh al- Imam, p. 3). He bases this incorrect interpretation on a ridiculous notion that if we did not uncritically accept everything our teachers and parents taught us, we would "be deprived on even the basic and preliminary needs of humanity." (Id. p. 4). He claims man has a natural ability to imitate. While this may be true, we also have a natural ability to innovate, otherwise humanity would never have progressed to its present level of technology and social organization.
Allah SWT has clearly prohibited this kind of uncritical following.
2:170. When it is said to them: "Follow what God hath revealed:"
They say: "Nay! we shall follow The ways of our fathers."
What! even though their fathers Were void of wisdom and guidance?
As Muslims, we must never blinding follow anything. We must first determine that what we are following was revealed by Allah. If it was revealed by Allah, then we must follow it. And in this ayat, Allah tells us why. The knowledge that Allah has revealed to us through wahy is guidance and wisdom. Any other form of knowledge is subject to doubt - dhann. This is confirmed by what we have stated before in regard to both inductive and deductive logic. Yes, they may appear rational (aql) or guided (huda), but ultimately, they can only be determined to be so based on first principles which can only be confirmed through the most certain form of knowledge - wahy or revelation. Thus, revelation, here the Arabic is "anzala," is what should be "followed," and not any blind or irrational traditions and practices or forms of traditional knowledge.
5:04 When it is said to them: "Come to what God Hath revealed; come To the Apostle":
They say: "Enough for us Are the ways we found Our fathers following."
What! even though their fathers Were void of knowledge And guidance?
On the other hand, some of those who denigrate established madhdhaahib, or make fun of those who are muqallid, are brainwashing their own followers with an even more vehement and dangerous form of blind following. One of the numerous branches (furu') of the Harikat as-Salafiyya has been using these insidious brainwashing techniques to turn our youth off the path of Islam. They quote the ayat from Surah al-Anbiya:
21:7. Before thee, also, the apostles We sent were but men,
To whom We granted inspiration: Then ask the Ahl al Dhikr, if you do not have Ilm.
First, they cut this ayat into pieces, which is haram. The Jews and Christians erred before us because they chopped their books into pieces through the process of exegesis and scholastic interpretation. The ayat tells people that if they do not believe that Allah could send down revelation through wahy to a human being, then ask the people of dhikr. Dhikr, in the Qur'an, generally means Remembrance of Allah. If a person is one who has Dhikr, then he will know that Allah has always sent down revelation through human prophets, not through any other means. If a person does not see that this must be so, then they are not endowed with Ilm. Ilm is not just knowledge, but knowledge and understanding that leads to wisdom of action.
However, the takfiri branch of the Harikat as-Salafiyya say this ayat means that if you do not have knowledge of deen, then you must ask those who know. They do not mention that this following of "ahl al dhikr" should be critical. So, in affect, they are mandating blind following.
They are so blinded by this brainwashing, that they do not see that this policy is the same as the "taqlid" they condemn in other madhdhaahibs.
And their "blind following" is so extreme that it results not just in blindness, but in a gouging out of the "eyes" of reason. The followers of these real extremists are told not to speak to others, that "so-and-so" is dangerous. What are they afraid of? The truth is mubin. The Qur'an states that it is mubin. "La ikraha fi deen, qad tabayyana al rushdu min al ghaiy." "There is no compulsion, duress, force, or hate in deen, guidance stands out clearly from error." 2:256. If your doctrine is the truth, why would you fear hearing other points of view?
With their chosen "shuyuk," whose only qualifications are that they attended a certain school, or that they wear a ghutrah and hiked up thowb, they fill our childrens' minds with arrogance that they are of the "chosen sect," while all the time they are leaving them in utter ignorance.
Their intent to misguide is clear. In calling themselves Salafi, they claim that the term "Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jamaa" means that the sources of Islam are the Qur'an, the Sunnah, and the positions of the Salaf and Khalaf. First of all, the term "Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jamaa" refers to the return of the Ummah to following the Sunnah, and coming together after the fitnah of Umayyads and the Mu'tazillah, who followed Rayy or reasoned opinion, rather than revelation. They claimed that after the death of the Prophet, the State had the power to enforce, interpret and even to make law. The Ahl as-Sunnah said no. Only Allah SWT has the power of legislation to make Shariah law. The Abbasid State followed this understanding and so coined the term, "Ahl as-Sunnah wa al-Jamaa."
As for the Khalaf, the Khalaf are the generation that followed after the Prophet, and the Salaf are those of the generation that followed after them. In other words, they are the Tabi' and Tabi'tabi'een. These terms have other implications, beyond the scope of this blog entry to detail, but here we shall note that no human being may be followed blindly. The Qur'an warns us that the Jews erred by taking their Rabbis as Lords, infallible in their interpretation of Jewish Law. The same is true for Muslims. No Alim is infallible, and no Alim should be followed blindly, without critical evaluation of his credentials and dalil.
We should also note that the Harikat as-Salafiyya may use the term "Salaf," but that does not make them Salaf. This is the reason why I have distinguished between the "Salaf" and the "Harikat as-Salafiyya." The term "Salaf" denotes our elders in deen, while the "Harikat as-Salafiyya" denotes a doctrinal position.
These misguided brainwashers not only hold that the sayings of Scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah and Ibn Qayyim must be followed, and are hence Fard, but they also distort and twist hadith and aathar. Aathar are sayings of the Sahabi and Tabi' and those after them. These accounts are not as rigorously scrutinized as are hadith of the Prophet SAW. These so-called Salafi purposefully quote these aathar as if they are hadith, and so must be followed. And not only that, but they sometimes misquote them to make them sound like hadith.
Several years ago, a group of these brainwashers propounded an aathar that mentioned the Sahaba, Ibn Masud. Another Sahaba was visiting Ibn Masud in Iraq and found the people of Kufa doing itikaaf in the masjid during Ramadan. He asked Ibn Masud if he had ever heard the Prophet SAW mention that itikaaf was only permissible in three masaajid, the Haram in Makkah, the Masjid An-Nabawiyy, and Al-Quds. Ibn Masud said he did not know of this. The brainwashers distorted this aathar to make it sound like a hadith of the Prophet related by Ibn Masud.
Blind Following of Scholars
4:59. O ye who believe! Obey God, and obey the Apostle,
And those With authority among you.
If ye differ in anything Among yourselves, refer it
To God and His Apostle, If ye do believe in God And the Last Day:
That is best, and most suitable For final determination.
As we have stated elsewhere, "wa uly al-amri minkum" means to obey those who have the power of interpretation of the Shariah, the Ulema. Certainly, we are told here that to obey Allah and His Prophet is fard or obligatory. To disobey Allah and his Rasul is haram, sinful.
So what about those who have the authority of amr bi ma'ruf wa nahi al munkar? Is it fard to obey them?
The next part is critical. Allah SWT says that if the scholars should differ, then the issue is to be resolved by looking to the revelation sent by Allah to his Rasul - in other words, if there is a difference of opinion, then we must seek to resolve it by supporting our positions by evidence from the Qur'an and the Sunnah. Allah then says that this is best and the most ahsan ta'wil or most complete and competent interpretation.
Here, we see that it is fard to obey Allah and His Rasul, and the interpretations of the Ulema, when they agree and their positions are based on the Qur'an and Sunnah. This is why many Scholars of Usul al-Fiqh consider Ijma or Unanimity of Scholars on an issue to be binding, or Fard.
However, if the Scholars do not agree, and there is rationally based iktilaf, then we must seek the position that we consider, through due diligence and ijtehad, to be as close as possible to the Qur'an and Sunnah. Since reasonable people can disagree, as long as the positions are based on rational daleel, then we must not fight or create fitnah over these differences. We must accept these differences; respect one another; and let Allah SWT decide between us on Yawm al Qiyamah, as He has said He will do in the Qur'an.
However, the Harikat as-Salafiyya, no matter what furu', continues to hold that only one position is possible, and acceptable, and that one does not hold their position, then one is kafir. Their intolerance and lack of respect for reasonable iktilaf is simply unIslamic. When the two groups differed over the Prophet's command to pray Asr before coming to the fort of the Bani Quraizah, they asked the Prophet about their respective ijtehad. Each group was sincere and each applied due diligence. The Prophet responded by not rebuking either group. THIS IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT.
He could have said both were correct, or he could have said one was correct, but he did not rebuke either. This means that we are not limited by two fiqh approaches. One group chose a more literal approach, the other chose a more totality of the circumstances approach. But he did not rebuke either, meaning that we are not limited. And reasonable approach is possible. Again, Allah SWT will judge us on that in which we differ.
So to advocate that one group is "the saved sect" and all others are kafir is clearly in violation of the spirit of this hadith and the command to unity and the prohibition of fitnah.
Blind Following and Closing the Doors of Ijtehad
Others blame this mindset of blindness on the closing of the doors of Ijtehad. It is true that sincere attempt to codify fiqh into a legal code resulted in stagnation and a retreat in to traditionalism. When the Ottoman Empire codified Islamic Law in the Mejellah, they inadvertently encouraged blind following. Who needs ijtehad when you have a code? If you have a question, just go to the code. No need for daleel, or even an appeal to the Qur'an and Sunnah; it's in the code.
So, Islamic Law stagnated and tradition took over. Scholarship also declined, because there was no need for ijtehad or to teach how to make ijtehad. We were left with tradition and opinion, instead of revelation and reason.
However, the Islamic revival opened those doors again. Although some scholars still seem to feel the need to argue in favor of opening these doors, no serious scholar can doubt the principle of Nur al An.
Upon what foundation is our Islamic unity to be based? Can there be any doubt that our unity must be based on the revelation from Allah? What Allah SWT revealed to us is memorialized in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. We understand the Qur'an to be the revealed word of Allah, revealed through the agency of the Angel Jibreel, to the Prophet Muhammad. We understand the Sunnah to be the sayings, actions, approvals, and disapprovals of the Prophet SAW. The Sunnah is his actual words and actions, not any memorialization of these. Many mistakenly think that the Sunnah is hadith or that hadith are the Sunnah. This is false. Hadith are the recording recollections of those who saw or heard the Prophet say or do something. Although our elders strived to be as accurate as possible, their recollections are just that, recollections; not the actual word or deeds of our Prophet. Only the Sahabi who witnessed these words and deeds can be said to actually "know" the Sunnah. We only have recorded accounts.
One might argue the Qur'an is also written. However, the Qur'an had two lines of transmission, oral and written. Moreover, it is mutawattir, transmitted through so many lines of transmission and transmitters that they could not have all agreed on a lie. Hadith do not share this property. The Ahadith literature is considered in Usul al Fiqh as a dhani source, one that is subject to doubt. The Qur'an is considered a qati or absolutely certain source.
We should also note that the Sunnah is not only recorded in hadith, but in other forms of even less reliable literature, including Seerah, Taarikh (History), Fiqh Books and other texts. These recorded accounts are not considered to be acceptable as proof in fiqh. This is important because many of our Daiyyas recount stories of the Prophet and his Companions from Seerah literature and then misguide people, intentionally or unintentionally, into thinking these stories can be the basis of fiqh or that any practice mentioned in these stories is "Sunnah." These practices may or may not be Sunnah, but Seerah literature is not proof of such a status. Only hadith literature is acceptable as proof text in fiqh.
And not all hadith are acceptable as proof texts. The doctors of Ulum al Hadith have graded hadith based on their strength in several areas. The doctors of Fiqh have then used these grades to determine which hadith to accept as proof texts, and which cannot be accepted as proof.
We should note here one of the biggest problems with the positions of the Harikat as-Salafiyyah. Many quote hadith in support of their positions and then state that the hadith is sahih. What does it mean to be sahih? There are different criteria used by the Ulema. Imam Bukhaari has the most stringent criteria. Sheikh Albani, whom many see as the absolute authority who must be followed, has the weakest criteria. Some have foolishly attacked the Sheikh. Such attacks are evil. The Harikat as-Salafiyya engage in this evil of attacking Ulema as well. It is logically invalid and Islamic haram to do so.
Sheikh Albani had a lofty goal to try to evaluate all hadith. However, scholars, including Sheikh Bin Baz, and Sheikh al-Uthaimin, noted that his minhaj was not sound. Sheikh Shahrazuhri, the great scholar of hadith, stated in circa 1100, that it was not possible to evaluate hadith by Ilm al Rijal alone, yet Albani sought to do so. There are two books of Ilm al Rijal; one Sunni and one Shia. Since fitnah ruled at the time they were written, we cannot rely on either. Although some knowledge of narrators is important, it cannot be the exclusive means for judging the authenticity of a hadith. We must also look to the matin, to reason and common sense, the the circumstances and other aspects of the hadith in the effort to rule out hidden defects.
Knowing the narrators is not enough. If one can fake the matin, one can fake the isnad.
So, Islamic Law stagnated and tradition took over. Scholarship also declined, because there was no need for ijtehad or to teach how to make ijtehad. We were left with tradition and opinion, instead of revelation and reason.
However, the Islamic revival opened those doors again. Although some scholars still seem to feel the need to argue in favor of opening these doors, no serious scholar can doubt the principle of Nur al An.
The Basis of Islamic Unity
Upon what foundation is our Islamic unity to be based? Can there be any doubt that our unity must be based on the revelation from Allah? What Allah SWT revealed to us is memorialized in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. We understand the Qur'an to be the revealed word of Allah, revealed through the agency of the Angel Jibreel, to the Prophet Muhammad. We understand the Sunnah to be the sayings, actions, approvals, and disapprovals of the Prophet SAW. The Sunnah is his actual words and actions, not any memorialization of these. Many mistakenly think that the Sunnah is hadith or that hadith are the Sunnah. This is false. Hadith are the recording recollections of those who saw or heard the Prophet say or do something. Although our elders strived to be as accurate as possible, their recollections are just that, recollections; not the actual word or deeds of our Prophet. Only the Sahabi who witnessed these words and deeds can be said to actually "know" the Sunnah. We only have recorded accounts.
One might argue the Qur'an is also written. However, the Qur'an had two lines of transmission, oral and written. Moreover, it is mutawattir, transmitted through so many lines of transmission and transmitters that they could not have all agreed on a lie. Hadith do not share this property. The Ahadith literature is considered in Usul al Fiqh as a dhani source, one that is subject to doubt. The Qur'an is considered a qati or absolutely certain source.
We should also note that the Sunnah is not only recorded in hadith, but in other forms of even less reliable literature, including Seerah, Taarikh (History), Fiqh Books and other texts. These recorded accounts are not considered to be acceptable as proof in fiqh. This is important because many of our Daiyyas recount stories of the Prophet and his Companions from Seerah literature and then misguide people, intentionally or unintentionally, into thinking these stories can be the basis of fiqh or that any practice mentioned in these stories is "Sunnah." These practices may or may not be Sunnah, but Seerah literature is not proof of such a status. Only hadith literature is acceptable as proof text in fiqh.
And not all hadith are acceptable as proof texts. The doctors of Ulum al Hadith have graded hadith based on their strength in several areas. The doctors of Fiqh have then used these grades to determine which hadith to accept as proof texts, and which cannot be accepted as proof.
We should note here one of the biggest problems with the positions of the Harikat as-Salafiyyah. Many quote hadith in support of their positions and then state that the hadith is sahih. What does it mean to be sahih? There are different criteria used by the Ulema. Imam Bukhaari has the most stringent criteria. Sheikh Albani, whom many see as the absolute authority who must be followed, has the weakest criteria. Some have foolishly attacked the Sheikh. Such attacks are evil. The Harikat as-Salafiyya engage in this evil of attacking Ulema as well. It is logically invalid and Islamic haram to do so.
Sheikh Albani had a lofty goal to try to evaluate all hadith. However, scholars, including Sheikh Bin Baz, and Sheikh al-Uthaimin, noted that his minhaj was not sound. Sheikh Shahrazuhri, the great scholar of hadith, stated in circa 1100, that it was not possible to evaluate hadith by Ilm al Rijal alone, yet Albani sought to do so. There are two books of Ilm al Rijal; one Sunni and one Shia. Since fitnah ruled at the time they were written, we cannot rely on either. Although some knowledge of narrators is important, it cannot be the exclusive means for judging the authenticity of a hadith. We must also look to the matin, to reason and common sense, the the circumstances and other aspects of the hadith in the effort to rule out hidden defects.
Knowing the narrators is not enough. If one can fake the matin, one can fake the isnad.
Understanding Iktilaaf
Finally, in order to find unity, we must understand difference. The Islamic science in which we differ most is fiqh. So what is Fiqh?
Shariah is a well-worn path to a watering hole. It is a path, with limits, but also with a wide road bed. It is Divine and immutable. But, it is not just a set of rules or ahkam. It contains commands and prohibitions, as well as maqaasid, qawaaid, principles of ijtehad, and all that makes up what we call the Law. Fiqh, then, is the human understanding of Shariah. It is human, and hence not perfect, and it is our understanding. For example, in the Qur'an Allah mentions the waiting period for a woman after divorce. It is three quru'. What is a quru'? It is three mensus, but is that counted from one blood to the next, or from one period of cleanliness to the next? It could rationally and literally be either. Because both views are possible, we must respect either opinion, as well as the opinion that we should seek the safest route and go with which ever period of time is longer. The Shariah is clear - quru', the fiqh is our understanding of the meaning of this term.
The Shariah is immutable and does not change. It was revealed to the Prophet Muhammad SAW and cannot be augmented. Fiqh, on the other hand, is conditioned upon the circumstances. Our world view, culture, technology, language, environment, system of government, education level and every aspect of our lives affects our understanding. Fiqh is of two branches, fiqh al ahkam and fiqh al manaat. So, from the sources of the Shariah, the Qur'an and Sunnah, we derive the rules, but then we have to also apply the rules to real life situations. We look to the totality of the circumstance to understand the Shariah in our time and place. This explains why Imam Shafii changed his ruling when he moved from Iraq to Egypt. Conditions were different.
Here we must not forget that Fiqh is not just about how we pray. There are two substantive branches of fiqh: Fiqh al Ibadaat and Fiqh al Mu'amalaat. Fiqh al Ibadaat is based on ayat of the Qur'an and descriptions of acts of ibaadah from the Sunnah, in particular the main source texts of the Sunnah, the hadith. (I use the term "hadith" here as both singular and plural as this has become customary in both Arabic and English, today.). Shariah is all-inclusive, a way of life. Hence, fiqh is also a complete system, and not just rules of worship and wudu, or family law. For many of us, this is what Islamic law has become. But Islamic Law is far greater. It is the most just, equitable and fair system for the Rule of Law upon this earth. This is the reason why practicing Muslims seek to live by it. And the reason it is so fair and just is that it always takes into account the totality of the circumstances and does not seek to impose ruling derived a thousand years ago on people living today. Those rulings may still apply, but they also may not. Each generation has the duty and right to apply the law to its own circumstances.
When Umar suspended the Hudd during a time of famine, he did so following this principle of Nur al An. To have imposed the penalty for theft at a time of starvation would have been oppressive and unjust. To preserve the overarching maqsid of justice, he suspended the Hudd and made every effort to help those who were in need.
On the other hand, we cannot allow circumstances to overrule the Maqaasid ash-Shariah themselves. For example, many argue that it is ok to celebrate Halloween in America. They even have programs at mosques, with candy and face painting. They say that just because this holiday has pagan origins, does not mean that Americans are supporting some form of paganism. They claim that the modern impetus for these events is merely commercial. That is true, to a certain extent, but then we must consider what these holidays really celebrate - greed. They are commercially connected; in fact they are capitalist. Islam does not support a capitalist economy because it promotes hoarding - the accumulation of capital - and greed. We support a free enterprise - capital flow economy based on la riba and purification of earnings through zakat. Is Halloween really so harmless when it teaches people to be greedy, to hoard candy, to dress up as evil creatures. Ask your kids - they all talk about monsters, zombies and other brainwashed, mindless beings. This is what the predominant culture is turning them into. And that is really scary, but we do not see it. We are blind.
Our devolution into entrenched positions and cultural practices is destroying Islam from every side. Our ignorance leads us to gobble up Western culture and traditions, while viewing our own as backward and foolish. We have allowed ourselves to be brainwashed into thinking the West is Best. But our ignorance also fuels the reverse reaction, which is to label anything Western haram. Boku Haram. What does it mean? Education is Haram - Ignorance is Bliss I guess. But, in reality, ignorance is painful and destructive, which is why Allah SWT, over and over, encourages us to seek knowledge. We have become mired in fitnah.
On the other hand, we cannot allow circumstances to overrule the Maqaasid ash-Shariah themselves. For example, many argue that it is ok to celebrate Halloween in America. They even have programs at mosques, with candy and face painting. They say that just because this holiday has pagan origins, does not mean that Americans are supporting some form of paganism. They claim that the modern impetus for these events is merely commercial. That is true, to a certain extent, but then we must consider what these holidays really celebrate - greed. They are commercially connected; in fact they are capitalist. Islam does not support a capitalist economy because it promotes hoarding - the accumulation of capital - and greed. We support a free enterprise - capital flow economy based on la riba and purification of earnings through zakat. Is Halloween really so harmless when it teaches people to be greedy, to hoard candy, to dress up as evil creatures. Ask your kids - they all talk about monsters, zombies and other brainwashed, mindless beings. This is what the predominant culture is turning them into. And that is really scary, but we do not see it. We are blind.
Our devolution into entrenched positions and cultural practices is destroying Islam from every side. Our ignorance leads us to gobble up Western culture and traditions, while viewing our own as backward and foolish. We have allowed ourselves to be brainwashed into thinking the West is Best. But our ignorance also fuels the reverse reaction, which is to label anything Western haram. Boku Haram. What does it mean? Education is Haram - Ignorance is Bliss I guess. But, in reality, ignorance is painful and destructive, which is why Allah SWT, over and over, encourages us to seek knowledge. We have become mired in fitnah.
Fitnah Akbar Min al Qatl
After World War I, Kamal Attaturk dismantled the Ottoman Empire to further his own ambitions and appease the Western Powers, who had desired to destroy the long-lived Ottoman Saracen state, since the days of the Crusades. The Western Powers carved up the map of the Middle East while sitting in luxury in Europe. They subjected the population of the Middle East to the humiliation of occupation, and brainwashed the youth into believing that Middle Eastern culture, religion and morality was backward, resistant to progress and barbaric.
The "best and brightest" of the Middle East, the intelligencia, either adopted Western ideas, or left and became ex-pats in Paris or London, or even Minnesota. The poor and uneducated had no choice. They had to stay. They became fodder for movements and political groups, whose used either Western ideas or old-fashioned anti-Western ideas, to pull in money and followers.
However, amongst some who really sought knowledge, some also saw an opportunity for real change. After all, most of the Middle East had been subject to occupation for over 500 years; occupation by the Turks. The Arab populations had been subject to the military and cultural control of the Turks. They had developed a subservient mentality. Some realized the best hope was not to blindly follow the West, but to develop a solution that grew naturally out of the soil of the Middle East; something of our own. Such a solution would lead to greater collective self-esteem, encourage independence, and allow for appropriate progress. These thinkers looked to Islam as providing the greatest hope for such a solution.
Muhammad Abdul, Rashid Rida and other reformers understood the promise of Islam as a progressive force for appropriate change, that was moral and just, not oppressive. Their ideas led to Islamic movements, such as the Harikat al Islamiyy/Ikhwaan Al-Muslimeen, and the Harikat al-Salafiyya. These movements had two goals - revival of ibadaah and deen, and providing solutions to the crisis of authority in the vacuum created by the demise of the Ottoman State.
As we have mentioned else where, there are three forms of authority; legislative, executive and interpretive or judicial. We, as Muslims, have generally agreed that only Allah SWT has the legislative power. And many of us hold that executive/enforcement power and interpretive power should be independent from each other. However, both the Harakat al Islamiyy and the Harakat al Salafiyya held that executive power and interpretive power should be under one roof.
The Ikhwaan al-Muslimeen is noted for its says, "The Qur'an is our Constitution." They countered the trend toward secular governments, and especially the Civil Code of Samhuri, who borrowed from every legal system in the world including Ottoman code, by advocating Shariah as the legal code and source of executive power. Only those governments who agreed to rule by the Shariah were entitled to executive power. Of course, governments staffed by Ikhwaan had the most right to exercise such power. And this concept led to its corollary that only the Ikhwaan had the proper interpretation of the law, and so had the authority to interpret and exercise judicial power.
This understanding of authority, and insistence that only those that follow specific dogmas are qualified as both executive and as interpreters stems from an exclusiveness that has lurked in the background in the Islamic world for a long time. It has generally been overcome by the Islamic policy of tolerating ikhtilaaf. Ikhtilaaf is natural, due to differences in methodology, minhaj, and use of reason. Muslim scholars have always encouraged tolerance and respect for other points of view. But, Islamic history is not a bed of roses. Many scholars, including Ibn Hanbal and Ibn Taymiyyah were jailed by rulers who did not share their interpretations of Shariah. Some scholars were even killed after rulers declared them heretics in one way or another.
So, with the tradition of this takhfir lurking in the background, the Harikats began to label opponents as munaafiq or kafirs. Labeling enemies as such not only allowed the Harikats to refuse to follow others or exclude others from power, but also gave violent elements the excuse they needed to kill opponents. And so Muslims began to kill Muslims. All we needed to do is declare the other guy as Kafir, and we had every excuse to violently overthrow governments, or kill political opponents. We could be as oppressive, corrupt and violent as our Western influenced opponents.
We have mentioned the Harikat al Islamiyy first, because they were the most interested in political power. The Ikhwaan envisioned a government with "Qur'an as our Constitution;" and their interpretation of the Qur'an as the only legitimate one. They also envisioned a certain form of government. Rooted in the Communist Revolution of the day, they created cadres and a "brotherhood" comrade-like structure, that passed on training and information, but was not easily penetrated by Egyptian government spies and such. Paranoid and inward-looking, the cultivated secrecy and taqiyyah. And the suppression of the Ikhwaan by the government did not help it. They gained no experience in governance, nor could they. Yet, they did little to try to. Scattering to the wind in Europe and America, the Ikhwaanis did nothing to gain experience that would have enabled them to run a state. Instead, like the old-boy system they really were, they gave each other fundraising jobs at Islamic organizations and gave each other degrees at degree mills created by them.
Now they are nothing more than a strident group of fundraisers and speech makers who have no practical skills and have failed to maintain the interest of the youth, who are far more sophisticated and who have more practical management and technical experience that the "old-boys."
The Ikhwaan's priority in governance and authority is further revealed in its approach to fiqh. They speak much of fiqh of this or fiqh of that, but they do not have a defined minhaj of usul. The Usul of the Ikhwaan is the "Jamhuriyya", following the majority opinion. On one hand, this approach reduces fitnah, especially in Egypt and Sudan, where both the Maliki and Shafii schools are present, but where Muslims have also been influenced by various Sufi schools and the presence of Ismaili Shia. So, to prevent fitnah, the Ikhwaan follows the majority of the scholars.
As for the Harikat al-Salafiyya, they also sought to counter the trend toward secular governments. However, they, like the majority of Muslims, and unlike the Ikhwaan, felt that enforcement power and interpretive power should be independent. The term Salafi refers to the Salaf or Righteous Generations after the Prophet, His Companions and their Khalaf or Followers. The Salaf were a real group of people. The Harikat as-Salafiyya is a movement. Despite their lip service to the Salaf, they follow their own opinions, as we have mentioned above.
While the Ikhwaan tried to prevent fitnah to some extent, the Salafiyya have wallowed in it. They have encouraged fiqh disputes, aqeedah disputes, and political disputes. Several furu' have develop around the issue of rebellion against secular governments. Some, particularly those favored by the Saudi Royal Family, have held that waliyy liamru minkum refers to enforcement authority and hence the State. Therefore, it is prohibited to rebel against a State. Some have held that this only applies to States that judge by Shariah Law, such as Saudi Arabia, but not to States that rule by secular or mixed law, such as Egypt. Still others, particularly those that follow Albani, say that you cannot rebel against any government, even if they judge by only secular law. Still others hold that even if the government is unjust, one cannot rebel or disobey.
However, still others say rebellion is required - Fard. They cite the command to amr bi ma'ruf wa nahi al munkar and the hadith regarding prohibiting by the hand, the tongue and the thought. This would mean that it is fard to make "jihad" against states that judge by secular law. This position has fueled "jihadism" and violence, despite other evidence that mitigates how to deal with disobedience, and with non-Muslims.
The biggest problem we face with these misguided interpretations of Islam is that they cite one or two texts, often taken out of context, and ignore a multitude of other evidence from Qur'an and Sunnah that would lead to a more correct interpretation. We are commanded to ihsan ta'wilaan - not this cut and paste methodology.
In the final analysis, we are commanded to Unity - the be an Ummah Wahid. We must, then follow paths that lead to unity and shun those that lead to fitnah.
As for the Harikat al-Salafiyya, they also sought to counter the trend toward secular governments. However, they, like the majority of Muslims, and unlike the Ikhwaan, felt that enforcement power and interpretive power should be independent. The term Salafi refers to the Salaf or Righteous Generations after the Prophet, His Companions and their Khalaf or Followers. The Salaf were a real group of people. The Harikat as-Salafiyya is a movement. Despite their lip service to the Salaf, they follow their own opinions, as we have mentioned above.
While the Ikhwaan tried to prevent fitnah to some extent, the Salafiyya have wallowed in it. They have encouraged fiqh disputes, aqeedah disputes, and political disputes. Several furu' have develop around the issue of rebellion against secular governments. Some, particularly those favored by the Saudi Royal Family, have held that waliyy liamru minkum refers to enforcement authority and hence the State. Therefore, it is prohibited to rebel against a State. Some have held that this only applies to States that judge by Shariah Law, such as Saudi Arabia, but not to States that rule by secular or mixed law, such as Egypt. Still others, particularly those that follow Albani, say that you cannot rebel against any government, even if they judge by only secular law. Still others hold that even if the government is unjust, one cannot rebel or disobey.
However, still others say rebellion is required - Fard. They cite the command to amr bi ma'ruf wa nahi al munkar and the hadith regarding prohibiting by the hand, the tongue and the thought. This would mean that it is fard to make "jihad" against states that judge by secular law. This position has fueled "jihadism" and violence, despite other evidence that mitigates how to deal with disobedience, and with non-Muslims.
The biggest problem we face with these misguided interpretations of Islam is that they cite one or two texts, often taken out of context, and ignore a multitude of other evidence from Qur'an and Sunnah that would lead to a more correct interpretation. We are commanded to ihsan ta'wilaan - not this cut and paste methodology.
In the final analysis, we are commanded to Unity - the be an Ummah Wahid. We must, then follow paths that lead to unity and shun those that lead to fitnah.
