The Naksibendi way is about working on the ego. But what does that mean? Working on the ego means doing things you don’t like to do, or hearing things which you might not want to hear about ourselves. Working on the ego involves submitting it, truly, in the Islamic understanding, as Islam is submission.
As the child submits to the parent in order to improve and learn, so does the real servant of Allah submit to his teacher.
Contrary to this traditional approach, today’s common understanding of the religion (especially suitable for liberal Islamic reformers and puritans) is that ’submission’ implies a direct two-way relationship with God. This is a submission which involves conceding only to a self-created construct understood as ‘God’. Unfortunately, this approach suffers from the fatal flaw in that it presupposes that we have a exact understanding of what God wants from us. In this matter there have been innumerable levels of confusion, terrorists have found their own understanding, and ungrounded spiritual ’seekers’ have found completely different understanding.
Within the spectrum of these groups we also find the legal ‘experts’ of Islam who attempt to find out (worldly) how God wants us to behave, and here too we have wide ranges of expression. From the modern to the ancient and from the extremely liberal to the conservative, everyone has found their place and laid their stake in ‘Islam’.
The one thing in common between these experts is that they have understood Islamic Law (Shariat) as being the bulk of Islam itself. Most of the work they do now is spending time trying to ‘clarify’ legal realities for the personal and the public sphere. Many have spent their lives in trying to fit Shariat into some sort of modern political system or movement. For them Islam is no longer submission of the nafs, but submission of the body to the letter of a law that they themselves have interpreted and deemed ‘authentic’. Ensuring that our wills are legally sanctioned, that our business contracts are legally sound, that our food is certified, that courts settle disputes with Islamic legal precedence, and that our worship fits into some authentic teaching from the Messenger (Salallahu’alaiheewassalam).
These are all noble goals, when they are executed with Hikmat (wisdom) and with permission stemming from those ‘in authority’ amongst us, the Awliyaullah. On the other hand, the same goals, when sought in complete disconnection of spiritual authority lead to darkness and despair. Without the spiritual authority powering the engine of the law, we find movements destroying Buddhist temples and eliminating musical expression. We find movements looking to kill apostates and divorcing converts from their husbands. In the absence of traditional spiritual authority, we find that what is called ‘Shariat’ becomes a doorway to hypocrisy, and what is meant as a protection for us becomes an opening for tyranny.
Spiritual authority is also something which is not obtained by memorization or degrees from institutions. Unlike knowledge of legal matters, it is not something sought after, but rather given and bestowed. It is with the teachings of traditional Islam, and by that very definition, the Sufi tariqats, that Shariat finds meaning, balance, and moderation. It with spirituality that wisdom comes to determine where a people need to be in the various levels and applications of the Law. Is the Muslim community more like the early Muslims of Makkah to be treated softly towards understanding the belief and faith in One God, or are we more like the established community of Madinah? The development of a law without the wisdom behind understanding a character-focused, fluid, and spiritual approach towards religion, is what leads us to a pseudo legalistic ego found in many ’scholars’ of today.
In a recent article, it was suggested by some of these same pseudo legal experts that they deal with traditional Sufi’s as mistaken children:
Ultimately, the point of any spiritual training is its efficacy, by the grace of God, in producing a godly soul, even if the spiritual adept believes in some false ideas – as long as the religion is not undermined and people of piety are produced, then why are we to argue over such matters - Andrew Booso
The message within this statement is truly an insight into the pseudo-legalistic ego. From the perspective of these ‘experts’ it is now possible to be a pious, spiritually trained Muslim, with a godly soul and exist with an ‘undermined’ religion. It is within this framework that the Isnad (the chain of transmission) and the authority to judge ‘authenticity’ becomes all of Islam, and anything which does not conform to this standard is something that is patently a ‘false idea’.
This, I believe, is representative of a leftover inferiority complex coming from an environment of textually altered and spiritually unprotected religions.
Yet, Islam is a religion of effortless protection on our part:
“Lo! We, even We, reveal the Reminder, and lo! We verily are its Guardian” (15:9)
It is the mental complex focused on purification, developed deep within their developing Muslim psyche, which drives many of our converted and born-Muslim scholars with excessive exposure to such religions and Western ideologies, to spend their entire lives with a deep focus on the sciences of textual authenticity instead of the sciences of character development and faith.
In the Sahih it is related that the Prophet (Sallalahu’alaiheewassalam) said, “I do not fear whether you will become polytheists after I die. I fear that you, because of worldly interests, will kill one another and thus be destroyed like ancient tribes.” The Prophet (Salallahu’alaiheewassalam) did not fear us worshipping the wrong God in the wrong way, but that we would be too attached to this world. He (Sallalahu’alaiheewassalam) feared lack of character and spiritual development, which is part of the attachment to the dunya. Today’s scholars attachement to dunya is represented by a focus on ‘authenticity’, a focus on very earthly paper and people.
This is the fundamental departure of the legalistic ego from that of the traditional understanding of Islam, which has accepted Uwaysi transmission of spiritual knowledge for centuries. It is the modern day legalistic scholar who has trouble accepting spiritual transmission of knowledge, or the existence of any knowledge which was not completely documented. Such knowledge does not even have room to exist within an accepted, but different, ‘opinion’: it simply does not exist. For them, any faith in it, is faith in a mistake.
Without documented proof of physical transmission the spiritual knowledge of the saints is treated like a freak sideshow or a collection of fairy tales. For purposes of determining the letter of the law, certainly the Awliya do not apply their wisdom in changing the laws of the books, rather we find that they change the law of practice. Umar (R) suspended the Hadd punishment, by which authority did he do so? Did he deny the law existed? No. He applied wisdom in its applications. Similarly, the Awliya are not using this form of knowledge in order to change the Shariat, but they are using it to give meaning, context, subtlety and life to it.
When speaking of spiritual knowledge and transmission, if the modern day existence of a cell phone isn’t sufficient to explain ‘wireless transmission’, the many hadith about seeing the Prophet (Sallaahu’alaiheewassalam) in a dream (does he remain silent?), and the Hadith relating the Karamat of Umar (R) should be sufficient proof for the transmission of knowledge:
‘Umar sent an army and he put at the head of them a man called Sariyah. While ‘Umar was delivering the khutbah he began to cry out, ‘Sariyah, the mountain!’ three times. Then later the messenger of the army came and he asked ‘Umar, ‘Amir al-Muminin, we were being defeated and in that situation we heard a voice crying out, “Sariyah, the mountain!” three times. We put the mountain to our rear, and then Allah defeated them.’ Someone said to ‘Umar, ‘You cried out with those words.’ That mountain, where Sariyah was, is close to Nahawand in the land of the non-Arabs. - as-Suyuti
The Quran addresses these types of legalistic people in the example of Musa (AS), far below his stature they are. In the journey’s he subdued his ego to that of Khizr (AS), yet reacted with a few outbursts before he was left. It is with reading the story of Khizr (AS) that we find the true reason and what knowledge Khizr (AS) had about his actions. Being taught knowledge directly from the Divine Presence gave Khizr (AS) the ammunition to take drastic actions which contravened Musa’s (AS) Torah, yet he did it with wisdom and permission.
BismillahirRahmanirRaheem
“How canst thou bear with that whereof thou canst not compass any knowledge? ” (18:68)
The reality is that this legal process which exists outside of spiritual authority, is in fact ego-worship, the antithesis of ego submission. It assumes that the fundamental truth lies in between lines of text and our interpretation. This futile search for God within legal disputes darkens the soul and has only really ended in fruitless wheel-spinning of the collective Muslim Ummah. It is this textual understanding of Islam which has caused people to lose sight of the fundamental goal, dying with faith and seeking to cleanse the ego of bad characteristics.
Is this really what the Prophet (Sallalahua’aliheewassalam) brought? Were his khutbas and sohbets about such legal realities as drawing up contracts and this and that? Yes, maybe, to some extent. But the far greater part of the Prophet’s (Salallahu’alaiheewassalams) message was about improving character. When he (Sallalahu’alaiheewassalam) was calling people to Allah at the beginning, did he do it with a corpus of law in his hands, or was it with faith? The goal was taking the worst of people in Jahiliyya and making them *better people*, removing evil characteristics within themselves. Not making them into pseudo-lawyers.
August 14th, 2007 - 3:31 am
AA- Yursil bhai,
Excellent post. Thank you for bringing attention to these fading aspects of our modern understanding of Islam.
But I do wish that we could find a balance as our great fathers in this deen had established. Surely you aren’t suggesting that the legal aspect is unimportant, but that we create a proper balance.
But I fear that in making this point (of highlighting the other-worldly aspect), we may end up creating our own extreme - relegating the worldly, legal side to the books or to the courts - by focusing only on the soul.
Where is that balance?
Or maybe there needs to be specialization - some who are dedicated to the spirit, some to politics, some to law, and so on. I’m not comfortable with that.
Br. Saifuddin had a recent post on fiqh before tariqat that touched on a similar topic and I had commented on the danger of such compartmentalization of our deen.
I have found that those of us who are focusing on the development of our soul and suppressing of our nafs end up alienating those who see import in the legal or political aspects of man’s existence. How can this be balanced? Clearly denying their concerns is not practical nor recommendable.
WA-
Naeem
August 14th, 2007 - 4:29 am
[...] has his thoughts about ego and Islam- today’s common understanding of the religion (especially suitable for liberal Islamic [...]
August 14th, 2007 - 8:33 am
Selamualaykum,
BismillahiRahmaniRahim,
Mashallah! This is my most favorite article of all time! Youve really out done yourself this time!
-Hashim
August 14th, 2007 - 8:40 am
BismillahirRahmanirRahim,
Selam Aleykum Yursil,
Excellent, Mash’Allah.
And Selam Aleykum to you Hashim. Hope you are well, Insh’Allah Rahman.
- Hyder
August 14th, 2007 - 11:04 am
Assalaamualaikum Naeem
I believe that the legal aspects of Islam find their true development when it is applied and administered with wisdom (hikmat). The issue is that todays pseudo legal scholars have forgotten how to apply the law with this focus. The excuse by the modern day ’scholar’ given to eliminate the authority of those with that wisdom and spiritual authority ranges from lack of documented ‘evidence’ for their positions to outright accusations of shirk. The seperation of wisdom from the legal verdict is the true compartmentalization of the religion.
August 14th, 2007 - 11:09 am
Asalaamu alaikum.
I’d like to step in and comment on Naeem’s question. I think that the problem you speak of is a lack of understanding of tariqat (not on your part personally, I mean in general). Because the tariqa is based in shariah compliance and the law first. That is it’s basis and building stage, so to speak, before the other inner and deeper introspective aspects. So no one who is a member of a tariqa, who is serious about working on their nafs, is saying that the fiqh/law issue is unimportant or less important or any such thing.
These are not two polar extremes: the “fiqhis” and the “tariqis”. The fiqhis represent one extreme that often stagnates in law and does not move beyond that into internal purification. There is much focus on external show and little or none on internal sincerity and growth. But tariqis are not the other extreme because they are rooted in the fiqh to begin with but have moved on into the next level of application and understanding of it - i.e. how it isn’t just about following the letter of the law but about how you change your character and intentions to match that law, to make it sincere.
August 14th, 2007 - 11:20 am
Sorry… I hit the submit button instead of the enter button….
To finish up my thought, it is that the compartimentalizing that we are complaining of is not within tariqa. Tariqa does not separate the fiqh from the inner jihad, the external and internal. In tariqa, it is understood that this is all part of the whole and that they are interrelated and cannot be separated from each other.
Fiqh is just dry bones without inner awareness of it. It’s not unimportant, but it is incomplete by itself. Tariqa is taking the fiqh to it’s next step, inshaAllah, to a deeper meaning and realization. Not stepping away from the fiqh, not neglecting the fiqh, just moving it into the heart.
August 14th, 2007 - 11:26 am
BismillaharRahmanirRahim
as-salaamu ‘alaikum, mashaAllah Yursil excellent post!
This is the point that I was making in the Tariqat Before Fiqh article. That presently the identification of these facets of the religion (tariqat and fiqh) is some how seen as opposing or separate entities. Yet in reality tariqat is the sunnat and the sunnat is that meeting place where you find the “balance” as you’ve described Naeem. To many have assumed that tariqat is somehow outside of or loosely related to the shariat and the implementation of the shariat.
Perhaps this is why Yursil would write,
This is a good point and adds to a statement that you made in a recent rant on your blog saying,
But it this statement becomes even more pertinent if we add, And don’t trust the scholar who is found standing alone rather trust the scholar who is found at the feet of the awliya.
August 14th, 2007 - 1:12 pm
AA- Thank you all for your thought-provoking comments,
Yursil – “The excuse by the modern day ’scholar’ given to eliminate the authority of those with that wisdom and spiritual authority ranges from lack of documented ‘evidence’ for their positions to outright accusations of shirk.”
Your criticism of ‘their’ criticism is completely valid and correct. But do you really believe that *our* current-day scholars have properly incorporated the hikmat, the siyasat (politics), and the shariat (law).
Personally speaking, I find great spiritual benefit when sitting at the feet of our shuyukh, but sadly I don’t believe them to be at the forefront of developing and/or pushing the limits of Islamic legal theory in these strange times that we live in. When it comes to such jurisprudential innovation, I tend to fall back on specialized legal experts – those who have done more than simply study the fiqh of their madhhab.
And I find my need to do so very problematic. I so wish that weren’t the case.
Aaminah – Your comments really hit the nail on the head! I couldn’t have put it better myself dear sister. I share your understanding of tariqa. But for some reason, the popular perception of the tariqis and in many cases even in the practice of said individuals, there seems to be an overemphasis on the spiritual resulting in a neglect of the legal.
Are we then not partly to blame for this division?
Saifuddin – “Too many have assumed that tariqat is somehow outside of or loosely related to the shariat and the implementation of the shariat.”
You are correct bro. But again, are we not complicit in this misrepresentation when so much of our emphasis is placed on hadra, mawlid, and the like?
WA-
Naeem
August 14th, 2007 - 1:53 pm
[...] The (Pseudo) Legalistic Ego [...]
August 14th, 2007 - 1:55 pm
Salamu’alaikum Naeem,
I think we are too quick to find faults with our Shayukh, rather than ask why they themselves are not concentrating on ‘legal theory’ for themselves and their students, we find something missing within them and move on to those who are not grounded in the control of their ego at all. The poison of their ego contaminates any of the ‘purification’, ‘clarification’, and ‘theory’ that they exercise.
The reality is the majority of jurisprudential questions have been answered, in practice, by the Awliya and the living tradition which has had to deal with the issues presented on the rise of Fajr in each day.
We should consult with them. It really is quite simple.
August 14th, 2007 - 2:02 pm
Asalaamu alaikum.
“… the popular perception of the tariqis and in many cases even in the practice of said individuals, there seems to be an overemphasis on the spiritual resulting in a neglect of the legal.”
Brother, this is not possible. As I said, the spiritual is grounded in, rooted into, the legal. Perhaps you are misunderstanding what you see, or perhaps you are simply surrounded by those who are not true mureeds. Granted, I have limited experience, but the mureeds I know are ALL rooted in the law and the spirituality is the outgrowth and deepening of the law. I would suggest that there is reason to put more emphasis on the spirituality because without it the law is basically dead adherance. But I would not say that they are neglecting the law at all.
Unless you can say that they are actually disobeying the law, such as not making salat or fasting, are out fornicating or such, how can you say they are neglecting it? All the tariqas I know, and all the adherents I know, are complying with those laws and are strengthened by their adherence to them. Those laws are the base of the rest of their practice.
And no, I don’t take responsibility nor feel complicit in misrepresentation that is made by those who may call themselves Sufis but know nothing of Islam. That is entirely on them to explain before Allah.
August 14th, 2007 - 3:12 pm
AA- Yursil,
Yes, you are right – indeed we are very quick to judge the ‘faults’ of our teachers. Such is the result of the society we live in – where parents and elders are open to the same criticism we hurl at our peers.
But to be honest, the times that I have presented questions concerning politics and the like, I really haven’t gotten an answer to my liking. Could it be a sickness within my self? Highly probable.
But I have found greater peace when looking to Hashim Kamali, Ahmed Hassan, Imran Nyazee, Tariq Ramadan and their ilk in my search for socio-political-legal thought. Now why haven’t any of our Ulema produced works to rival them where Islamic legal and political theory is presented in light of Hikmat?
How come Imam Qushayri could author his Treatise on Tasawwuf while also writing works on Naskh and Mansukh in Hadith? The same can be said for SOO many of our great scholars of past – they beautifully combined the esoteric sciences with the exoteric to present the proper balance.
With all due respect to the scholars of today, our great teachers of yesteryear weren’t one trick ponies.
WA-
Naeem
August 14th, 2007 - 3:22 pm
AA- Aaminah,
Thank you for the correction. I misspoke when I said that the legal aspect has been neglected. I didn’t mean to imply that ‘tariqis’ or mureeds are going around breaking basic Islamic legal tenets.
What I’m trying to say is that the emphasis on Shariat and its ‘development’ for present-day application has been put on the backburner for the benefit of spiritual development. Would you agree with that?
Yes we have emphasized the importance of the basic fiqhi issues that are required for our daily existence (ibadaat, muamalaat, etc. - micro issues, if you prefer), but when it comes to economic or political issues (more macro issues), I feel that we are lacking.
Hikmat dictates that the people aren’t ready for such advanced issues. Instead, focus should be placed on the hearts and purifying the nafs.
Well, if we don’t address these ‘advanced’ issues, then others will and the results will not be very pretty, IMHO.
Allah knows best.
August 14th, 2007 - 3:56 pm
Salamu’alaikum Naeem,
Maybe. My Grandshaykh and Shaykh are emphasizing a natural lifestyle seeking to escape the afflictions to the mountains and valleys where governments and war machines and political ideologies are left far, far behind. So if you were to ask them about the current theoretical model of corporate governance within the Islamic context, you might be left wanting.
Are we really ready to hear that? So.. the answer they give is really the answer that is necessary for this day and age.
Because in general the Awliya are not seeking to ‘produce works’ on matters of theoretical confusion. They are seeking to save souls through living Islam day in and day out. They have already addressed the place of freedom of religion in daily life, they don’t need to write a book on it. They live it. They have already addressed capital punishment, already addressed jihad. It is based on a living understanding and a living connection to Allah. They have already addressed human rights.
We have forgotten the delicateness in dealing with problems as they arise in a living circumstance, today we deal with theoretical questions which are a result of our theoretical answer to a previous theoretical question:
We are remembering…
BismillahirRahmnirRaheem
‘O you who believe! Ask not questions about things which, if made plain to you, may cause you trouble.’ (5.101)
In this one talk: click here, one may open hundreds of secrets about governance and human rights, animal rights, freedom of religion, terrorism, and control of the ego. The subtleties present could fill volumes if one intended on documenting it, but doing so would be infinitely more crass.
Of course, every day and age is given what it needs. That was necessary in that time. In this day and age of confusion, the goal is not to join the confusion with our own voices. Rather we are calling towards submission to the Allah via the means of the hierarchy of true knowledge. We are looking to find sincerity in servant-hood and through that achieving the real highest title: Abdullah.
Not at all, they were and are handling every situation with grace and class and divine support.
August 14th, 2007 - 8:56 pm
Asalaamu alaikum Naeem.
Your thought process is fascinating and a challenge to me, alhamdulAllah. Actually, I am probably naive (and ignorant) but I don’t feel like Sharia needs a present-day development. I don’t think that we, humankind, are so different now than we were at the time of the Prophet salalahi alahi wa salaam. I don’t think that our scholars should feel compelled to engage in political debate and help us determine how to relate in modern political contexts. Not because I think I live in the 7th Century, but just that I think the challenges are not that different and can be answered to by the base of what has already been developed. I also personally feel that if we worked more on the existant fiqh and on our inner condition, we would know the answers to modern challenges. If we maintain our “required” things, our prayers and fasts, and zakat; if we add on the basic adab of how to treat our families, our neighbors, animals, etc., and if we were cleansing our hearts and souls, we would already know how to answer to what comes up now. Like, how hard is it to grasp what is minimum coverage for a woman? Or the moral high road in business dealings? Or our responsibility to our children? Have those things really changed that much in 1400 years? Or do we just want to change with the times? I don’t think we need to change to match the times. Not that we stagnate in the 7th Century, but just that we shouldn’t feel compelled to meet up on so-called equal footing with modern expectations. We have the basis of society already laid out for us. The fiqh answers of today are not so different than those of 100 or 1000 years ago.
August 15th, 2007 - 4:36 am
RE: Comment #16
MashaAllah. I’ve not seen a better summation of that position (which I believe is 100% correct).
August 15th, 2007 - 11:02 am
AA- Aaminah,
I’ve been thinking about what you wrote and I’m a bit troubled by your approach. I agree that everything we need for our existence is found in the Shariah. However, I believe there needs to be a constant effort (ijithad) to extract the ahkam shari’ (legal rulings) pertinent to our contemporary needs. Some, like our dear friend Jinnzaman (see comments here), believe that our scholars are very active in performing the requisite ijtihad. I’m not so convinced, especially in macro matters.
Although I don’t agree with Yursil’s methodology, at least I see a bit more intellectual candidness. Basically, as I understand him, he’s saying there is no need to add confusion by delving into such inconsequential areas (such as law, politics, economics) when faced with the fundamental dangers our souls are facing.
I understand his approach as a defensive measure – sorta like anchoring our souls to protect them from the spiritual monsoon currently engulfing us. This is a valid approach, even Prophetic when read in light of the Hadith he cited in comment #15.
But what worries me is that you believe that our Fiqh is in little need of evolution, development, or growth. Your approach seems to be saying that we are facing no problems in applying our traditional understanding of the Shariah to our current-day situations. I respectfully disagree.
There are gaps that need to be filled and as I mentioned before, non-traditional scholars are filling those voids.
“I don’t think we need to change to match the times”
Why not? No one said that we should sacrifice our core principles, but what is wrong with changing within the expansive limits of our Shariah?
Let’s not deny that certain aspects of our tradition have become ossified and have failed to keep up with the demands of our time (especially in the post-modern west).
“The fiqh answers of today are not so different than those of 100 or 1000 years ago.”
That may be true in issues of ibadaat and aqeedah, but not in the other areas that I’m focusing on.
Let me finish by stating that my comments are purely about methodologies and approaches, not about personalities or individuals. So please don’t take anything personal as that is not my intent.
WA-
Naeem
August 15th, 2007 - 12:55 pm
Asalaamu alaikum Naeem,
Nothing personal at all about it, brother.
Two points:
One - I disagree that brother Yursil is saying “there is no need to add confusion by delving into such inconsequential areas…”. I don’t think he is saying they are inconsequential at all; I think he is saying that the answers to them lie in the root of our heart issues. But I could be wrong about that, and it is better if he clarifies if he feels the need to.
Two - My approach *is* saying there is no problem with applying our traditonal fiqh to current conditions. That is what I really believe. I am not limiting it to ibadat and aqidah issues. I cited specific matters such as business dealings, how to treat our neighbors, and how to raise our children.
You feel there is something lacking in our traditional fiqh and today’s scholars are not sufficiently addressing these gaps. I respectfully disagree because I don’t feel there is anything lacking to begin with, nor do I agree that our current scholars are ignoring important matters or refusing to answer them. They have answered to “modern” problems such as the fact that we do live in a riba based economy, or issues like cloning. They have answered to what our allegience to nationality and state should be in the context of being Muslims in either non-Muslim lands or corrupt Muslim lands. I guess I am a bit offended (not by you personally, brother, but on a broad basis) by how many of us presume to say what our scholars are or not doing without realizing the breadth of knowledge out there that we do not ourselves possess. Our scholars are the servants of Allah, not our servents per se. They aid us, but they are not on our dime so to speak.
They do what they do, as people of knowledge, and we may not understand or fully appreciate what they are doing.
Perhaps you can be specific about the issues that you think have not been sufficiently addressed, because I don’t understand what they are. Maybe we are not so much in disagreement as perhaps not necessarily talking about the same thing. Or perhaps you are just touching on an issue on which I am not knowledgeable enough to speak at all.
Here is my simplistic theory: If we get our hearts right, not only in the basic ibadah and aqidah, but also in the actual purification and adab, EVERYTHING ELSE WILL FALL INTO PLACE. This is why I do not think we need more fiqh evolution, because if our hearts were pure and we were adhering to the Qur’an and Sunnah and fiqh as it already exists, we would naturally know the answers to any “modern” and “current” problems that we are faced with. If our hearts were in the right place, we would not need to ask how to handle this or that, or if this or that is haram, or what our role in this or that should be.
But, yeah, I realize that sounds simplistic. It’s a bit utopian, right? And I am so far from it that I have no right to suggest it as a solution to anyone else. But I believe in it. When my heart is right with Allah, when I have purged it of selfish desires, when I have cleansed it of base whims, I will not need to be told how to handle anything else because the purity will inform my every move, inshaAllah.
August 15th, 2007 - 2:25 pm
Salamu’alaikum,
I think we need to use a specific example about what we are discussing here, from Naeem.
In many cases, I believe some Muslims are entering into theoretical matters which have no practical relevance for today. On the other hand I also believe a number of new practical matters have already been addressed by the Awliya without the need for new essays or journals to be written. If we move past essays and journals, definitely the need for an amendment to a corpus of law held by no state would be a futile effort, one might even consider it an aspect of madness. And finally, I believe a great deal of practical matters have been dealt with by the saints and scholars of Islam of the past.
The question when dealing with these matters is first and foremost:
Is this question a result of living in an prophetic and Islamic *reality* or a result of the consensus reality formed by today’s various economic and political systems?
This is still a big question mark for many, many issues, and the prophetic imperitive has always been grounding people in escaping from dunya (aka: consensus reality) and back into that practical and spiritual reality. I think the modern day focus of most of the pseudo legalistic ’scholars’, who are seeking to work outside of tradition, is a result of having ceded to dunya in many matters. Now, with that confused foundation, they are struggling with trying to fit a square peg into a circle hole and need to write volumes of conflicting texts to create a bridge. They just seem to be collapsing.
-Yursil
August 15th, 2007 - 11:18 pm
AA-, Thank you both for indulging me,
Yursil, with all due respect, it’s the ‘fiqhi attitude’ of addressing examples that has caused the problems that I speak of. I think you and Aaminah are focusing on the traditional fiqh, which as a closed system of canon law has fulfilled (and to a greater extent is still fulfilling) the individual needs of so many.
I am referring to the more expansive Shariah which includes with it a comprehensive worldview that can challenge the ideologies of our current time with a more balanced solution to our problems.
I’ll quote a relevant passage from Fuad Naeem’s ‘Traditional Islamic Response to the Rise of Modernism’ that sums up my point:
“…for the traditional ulama generally did not respond to modern ideas and ways upon their arrival in the Muslim world in the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries – except in a juridical (fiqhi) level, and more rarely on a theological (kalami) level…the responses that were made were usually facile and inadequate.”
I believe that we have two very loud and dominant forces in the Muslim world that are dictating the narrative. On one hand, you have the literalist reformers who are calling for a return to the Q/S in the model of 7th century Arabic. On the other hand, the modernist seculars who are calling for adherence to western standards in public life while retaining a skeleton of Islam in our private life.
In this very global tussle between the two, the silent majority are the traditionalists. And my problem is with the silent part.
From calls for an Islamic state to addressing a multi-religious society to engaging in military jihad, the traditionalists, who once were trailblazers in similar macro issues (Yursil, I recall a post you had on great Sufis actively participating in the jihad of their times), have failed to step up and speak up.
Rather, I see many of the Ahl-tasawwuf partaking in a sort of escapism, denying the import of this, dare I say, civilizational struggle (sorry to sound so Huntington-like). As I said before, for some this approach may be valid, but lets not claim this to be the ONLY approach or even the best approach.
While modernism and rationalism (and all other ism offshoots of the Enlightenment) are taking over the world, what serious intellectual alternatives have our scholars given us? From my experience, they are basically teaching us to build a spiritual cocoon and wait out the storm.
“I believe some Muslims are entering into theoretical matters which have no practical relevance for today”
I strongly disagree Yursil. There is great relevance to the macro issues that I’m talking of. When Muslims from Morocco to Malaysia are talking of an Islamic state, the silence of our Ulema is deafening. In this era of a globalized riba-system, what serious foundational alternatives have our scholars come up with?
Aaminah, with regards to your NOT so very simplistic theory (its actually quite profound): “If we get our hearts right, not only in the basic ibadah and aqidah, but also in the actual purification and adab, EVERYTHING ELSE WILL FALL INTO PLACE.”
I actually believe that our scholars have already accomplished this – that’s why we turn to them for guidance. And it is because of this transcendental foundation that they have achieved, that I’m expecting so much more from them with regards to the challenges we are facing.
I share your unfailing respect for our scholars. And it may just be that I haven’t sat down with the right ones or asked the right questions with the ones I have sat down with.
“Maybe we are not so much in disagreement as perhaps not necessarily talking about the same thing.”
That may be the case. Or better yet, it could be that we both have valid, but differing, approaches on how to please our Creator. Nothing wrong with that.
Allah knows best.
WA-
Naeem
August 15th, 2007 - 11:56 pm
Salamu’alaikum,
I think you misunderstood me.
Can we get an example of an issue at hand? Even if it is a broad ‘worldview’ type issue, there still has to be something of contention?
I am surprised at the mention of a response at the “Kalami level”… really surprised.
I don’t think they have failed to speak up. They have answered all these macro questions. Just ask a question. Jihad occurs with permission, from those in authority amoungst us and those are the ones who receive that permission from even higher stations. There is no permission for Jihad today. So it is the Ahl ul Tariq who, in the past picked up the guns… and now are not picking up the guns, why is that? Have you not wondered? I think in that example we have perfect clarity, did the trailblazers answer the questions as a matter of a practical reality, or did they live within a intellectual subculture, spouting their ideas for journals for peer review?
I think they might view worrying about dunya in this approach as the real escapism. Escapism from the reality of the true nature of things to the pseudo reality of dunya.
Is an intellectual response not already provided? Or is it not intellectual because it is not in the form of what is considered intellectual today?
The silence is not deafening, we just are not listening.
I mean, it really does boil down to a matter of faith. Do we believe in the prophecies of the Prophet (Salallahu’alaiheewassalam) as understood by ahl ul Tassawuf or not?
There is no permission for an “Islamic state”, without building an islamic state within ourselves. If they try to build it without permission, we will see the result will be far more western than it will be Islamic, it will decay and fall as everything else Muslims have attempted when it comes to political ideologies.
Let us just take the hadith about the order of events for Muslims:
The Prophet said - Allah bless and greet him: “This business began as prophethood and mercy, then mercy and a khalifate, then a voracious kingdom, and then arrogance and tyranny and corruption will enter the community.
Which part of this includes the rise of an Islamic state ‘by the people’? Which Islamic state of any success had the shepherd chosen by the sheep.?
Belief in Imam Mahdi (AS) is obligitory, so.. are we ready to realize the dangers that are approaching? The dangers of consequence, the mass numbers who will be fooled? Are we sure we won’t be of those ones? Is this discussion of ‘modernity’ and ‘intellectual response’ an aspect of that?
Let us just say the Prophet (Sallalahu’alaiheewassalam) was here right now, an ummi, in what manner would he be responding to ‘modernity’? His inheritors (the awliya) have responded in that manner.
August 16th, 2007 - 11:24 am
AA-
Here’s a list of issues that I feel have not been properly addressed by our classic ulema (and its not exhaustive by any means).
1. Islamic state
2. Jihad
3. Economics
4. Pluralist society
I admit that there is much overlap in these categories, so in addressing one subject matter others can possibly be tackled.
Islamic state
We all believe in the supremacy and comprehensiveness of the shariah. We also believe that in order to fully achieve the Uboodiyah that is asked of us from our Creator, we need to fully actualize the Shariah. And there are components of the shariah that can not be implemented without an Islamic governance.
Is the state our goal? No. It is a means to an end, the end being perfect worship of Allah.
But the fact remains that we are incomplete in our worship of Allah without the political vehicle needed to perfectly realize the Shariah.
Jihad
“Jihad occurs with permission, from those in authority amoungst us and those are the ones who receive that permission from even higher stations.”
I totally agree with you. I do believe that a higher authority must give us permission. However, I am uncomfortable in our silent voice (and lack of action) when it comes to the oppression taking place all over the Muslim world. We are seeing the abuses of Jihad by the uprooted (ie. they have lost their foundations) jihadists due to the lack of direction that should have been provided by our scholars.
The reality on the ground is that Muslims are being slaughtered and oppressed all over and our Ulema, in whom I have the utmost faith, have done very little but give lip service. Instead, those without the proper traditional foundation have filled in the void and the sad results are plain to see.
“So it is the Ahl ul Tariq who, in the past picked up the guns… and now are not picking up the guns, why is that? Have you not wondered?”
Yes, I have wondered. I see oppression *on* the Muslims and I see oppression *by* the Muslims and all the while I see nothing from our teachers, but calls for restraint.
Economics
I find it quite intellectually lazy that our great scholars have not been able to come up with an economic model to rival free-market capitalism or state-dominated socialism. I mean we have the resources (Q/S, our tradition, our scholars) yet we have been left without guidance in these murky riba-filled waters. Why is that? Have you not wondered? I certainly have. (But to be honest, I haven’t completed my research on this topic…I was recently referred to the works of Taqi Usmani, which I have yet to read).
However, my question will still remain as to how come our Islamic model (as we believe it to be better than the alternatives) has not produced any ‘buyers’? That may be due to the lack of a state with which to implement such a model and show its superiority…
Pluralist society
How do our scholars envision a state in which Muslims live side-by-side with non-Muslims in which Muslims are NOT in power? What are the legal/political ramifications of such a scenario? What would entail a just, fair, equal legal system for citizens of such a state? What are the implications of a new world order, different from the dar-harb and dar-Islam dichotomy from centuries past?
Yursil, I’ve noted one thing in your methodology. You seem to be taking an either/or approach. We must either learn the reality of the true nature of things or indulge in the pseudo reality of the dunya. Why such a binary attitude?
“I think they might view worrying about dunya in this approach as the real escapism. Escapism from the reality of the true nature of things to the pseudo reality of dunya.”
Why can we not teach and learn the ‘reality of the true nature of things’ while also dealing with the ‘worldly’ issues? After all, that was the sunnah of our Akabir (elders)?
“Is an intellectual response not already provided? Or is it not intellectual because it is not in the form of what is considered intellectual today?”
That could be true. But does it not make sense that our scholars converse in the dialect of the dominant discourse of the times?
WA-
Naeem
PS. I think this is a very interesting conversation, but one that just isn’t done justice in the comments section of a blog. Also, there is a intellectual/spiritual ceiling that we are fast approaching which I am confined to. After that, you’re on your own.
August 16th, 2007 - 3:08 pm
Salamu’alaikum Naeem,
Well I think the deeper question is where is the Shariat failing in the above regard? People just don’t want the Shariat as a whole in terms of governance, and that is why it is not in practice.
Even those who proclaim they want the Shariat are an extreme minority. In cases where they proclaim they want Shariat, they implement a set of brutal laws with no chance of putting the awliya in authority or consultation.
The transfer of authority from the saints to the people is complete. In Ottoman times the Sultans came to the feet of the saints for direction, today we go to the polls.
I’m not sure here what type of intellectual response is necessary, rather, a spiritual renewal is necessary to allow the nations of Muhummad (Salallahu’alaiheewassalam) to desire the Shariat as a whole, and do it properly.
What don’t we like about the message of restraint? The Ahl ul Dhikr are telling people to not fight right now, to not blow themselves up, to not attack. Do we feel that we need to be privy to their plan for the next 100 years?
They have given them same advice as the Prophet (Salallahualaiheewassalam) gave to those living in Ahir Zaman… run from the afflictions, to retreat. It seems the only messages that Muslims want to hear is one of offense. Yet countless Hadith speak about obeying even tyrants, and not rebelling.
But what did the Prophet (Salallahu’alaiheewassalam) say? We are living in this time:
The Messenger of Allāh, peace and blessings of Allāh be on him, said:
“A time will come over people when not a single person will remain who does not swallow down usury, and if one does not swallow it, its vapour will overtake him.”
Do we not live in these times? The Companions asked what to do, and the answer was always to retreat with our faith, and live simple lives, seek safety for our faith. There innumerable references to this approach, yet none that indicate forcing our way out of it. Again, the hadith speak of no one who will be untouched by usury, this means believers and non-believers.
People have forgotten the prohibitions against usury was not just a prohibition against the action of charging interest, but also paying it. And what does that mean? That meant to *AVOID* borrowing in excesses, to *AVOID* usury is really to say, we don’t buy what we cannot pay for, to borrow from friends and family. To *AVOID* usury is to not desire to copy the West in its false-coating of pseudo-worldly-success (even they are realizing its illusion), yet debt filled society with some Sharia/economic loopholes.
Muslims seem to want to live the same as the West yet want to eliminate the usury from it.
Allah Allah!
But however, if we live in a practical reality we realize that what it is we need to survive? Food and shelter, a few animals. Trade your chickens for a goat and you got an economic system without usury. MashaAllah.
Things have to get worse before they get better regardless, if we believe in the return of Isa (AS) do we think it will happen in the midst of our own self-created paradise? Will Imam Mahdi (AS) and Isa (AS) be fixing problems or not?
I don’t understand this question. Muslims are living in states where Muslims are not in power right now. Whats the issue of contention? If we are not in power why are we being asked what would entails a just fair equal legal system for citizens? One of those theoretical questions that has no impact.
Because I’m a computer programmer? haha! I don’t think there is much ‘grey area’ for living in a pseudo reality and living in an islamic -real- one.
I’m not certain you are understanding me, and I’m sure its due to my weakness in writing and conveying what I mean.
The true nature of things is dealing with worldly issues. There is a reality of dunya and there is a pseudo reality of dunya. If people are choosing to live in the latter, is doesn’t mean the former is all ’spiritual’ clouds of effervescent peace.
One example is given above, living like kings while racking up trillions of dollars of debt per second, that is a illusionary world. Engrossing oneself in an intellectual subculture with zero effect on real world activities and situations is no different to me than spending the day playing ‘World of Warcraft’ as an imaginary philosopher character.
Rather the Islamic understanding of the dunya is about living in a real grounded practical reality.
I don’t think the Awliya believe it is the dominant discourse of our times. This intellectual subculture is just that, a subculture. I view this as an aspect of the pseudo-reality of the dunya. In what way has it influenced any thing of the reality on the ground for Muslims? A short khutba can lead to extreme mobilization while volumes of books fall within western libraries and publishing houses, doing little except to peak the intellectual curiosity of some non-Muslim readers and some confused Muslims.
August 17th, 2007 - 8:48 am
AA- Yursil,
You are a very very interesting brother. Next time I come to the States, I will kidnap you for a weekend and run some experiments on your brain.
With regards to my comments on the Islamic state issue, you said:
“People just don’t want the Shariat as a whole in terms of governance, and that is why it is not in practice.”
Not sure what you are getting at here. I don’t care much for what the people want. I would like for our scholars to address the need for a state in which the shariah can be fully realized.
“I’m not sure here what type of intellectual response is necessary, rather, a spiritual renewal is necessary to allow the nations of Muhummad (Salallahu’alaiheewassalam) to desire the Shariat as a whole, and do it properly.”
Perfect! So you agree that “Shariat as a whole” is a desirable goal? So what are our teachers suggesting the long term plan is the proper way to achieve this? I can accept that it may be a serial approach (as opposed to parallel) with the inner Islamic state being a prerequisite of the outer Islamic state. But I have yet to hear of a plan in which such a methodology is laid out.
On the issue of Economics, you said:
“Muslims seem to want to live the same as the West yet want to eliminate the usury from it.”
Well said. I can’t agree with you more. I have a serious beef with the current form of ‘Islamic financing’, but that’s a whole ‘nother can of worms. But you didn’t really address my point of the need for a complete economical solution for the 21st century. Oh wait, I think you did:
“Trade your chickens for a goat and you got an economic system without usury.”
Now, I thought the Jamaati Islami folk who said that a system based on Zakat is all we need were a bit oversimplified.
Seriously, I get your point. We can’t expect to conform to the current consumerist lifestyle and expect to establish an Islamic system. Fine, then let the Muslims in the East create a model for us to learn from. I really would have liked to see the Taliban version of economics. No, seriously. I would have been interested in seeing how they were planning on running a nation cut off from the global economic system. That would have been a neat experiment.
About my question: “How do our scholars envision a state in which Muslims live side-by-side with non-Muslims in which Muslims are NOT in power?”
Brain fart. Sorry for the poor wording. I meant ‘…in which Muslims are NOT in power like the empires of old’. I mean that if ever a state were to be created, I don’t foresee it following the model of the Ottomans or the Moghuls. I see a totally different socio-political structure in the shadow of today’s globalized society.
How would justice and equality (as understood in the 21st century by both Muslims and non-Muslims) be guaranteed to all citizens?
“This intellectual subculture is just that, a subculture. I view this as an aspect of the pseudo-reality of the dunya. In what way has it influenced any thing of the reality on the ground for Muslims?”
I’m not wholly convinced that dedicating our efforts to purely theoretical matters is a waste of time. After all, the dominant ideologies of today are built upon the purely theoretical works of the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Additionally, did not our classical ulema delve into theoretical matters giving us the volumes of works that we so dutifully rely on?
I believe that if we create a strong intellectual foundation, generations to come will be able to benefit from the fruits of our labor.
No one is suggesting that we do away with the inspirational and educational khutbas. But why can’t our teachers do both? Teach and inspire while also laying down the theoretical foundation for the future.
Yursil bhai, I think we can go back and forth for quite some time. I really don’t mind, but my wife does.
So allow me to summarize what I see as essentially our difference.
I have been raised in the darkness of western post-modernity. I have been schooled in and lived in the stench of this spiritual wasteland. I am limited to thinking everything out practically and logically. My thought process does not go beyond cause and effect. Since I can remember, I have always thought that problems can be solved via a calculated process*.
That was until I got married. Seriously. Woman has taught me that life is NOT a rational organism. And during this phase of my life, I also began to see that Islam is more than a calculus of rights and wrongs. Marriage gave me the practical hands-on experience in breaking away from the rational, logical mindset. Marriage prepared my mind for the introduction of Ihsan and what you term Hikmat (if I understand it correctly) into my life.
And therein lies my problem.
I am a living paradox in trying to balance these two paradigms. The worldview of modernity and the afterworldview of Ihsan.
My heart calls me to run to the hills and cease with all these petty concerns for this world. My ultimate concern must be to present myself to Allah with a Qalbun Saleem (a sound, peaceful heart). Everything else is details.
My brain tells me that the pleasure of Allah is as simple as a mathematical equation. I am convinced that all we need is an intellectual, rational response to all the lewd ideologies congesting the hearts and souls of man combined with the inner purification of the hearts and we will see an Islamic revival unparalleled in history.
My inner post-modern nerd is fighting with my inner Islamic ascetic. You have come to terms with your inner nerd. I have yet to, nor do I feel the need to. And since I have not, I am not convinced of your approach.
I think these last few paragraphs have given me fodder for a full blown post on my blog.
This comment ended up WAY too long and thus I will end with it, allowing you to get in the last word, if you so wish.
WA-
Naeem
*The absurdity of this mindset can be seen in my thoughts on raising children. Since my teenager days, I was always under the belief that raising children Islamically simply required me to scientifically analyze the experiences of those who came before me. I simply had to look at all the success stories and imitate them and look at all the failures and avoid them. Needless to say, anyone who has children understands the ludicrousness of my ways.
I have since learned that raising children is NOT a science. Nor is life.
August 17th, 2007 - 9:22 am
Alhamdulillah