Continuation of my Contentions Series.
Link to Sheykh Abd al Hakim Murad’s Contentions part 1
50. The recipe for chaos: the qati grows until the zanni is almost abolished.
Key Terms:
qat’i = definitive
zanni = speculative
An interesting contention considering some of the concerns towards what we call “Traditional Islam” presented by some of our more liberal minds.
I think this contention is another example of a sentiment that exists well within the traditional understanding of Islam: literalism and definitiveness is something that when applied to the exclusion of an interpretive tradition, leads to disaster.
One of the key aspects of our understanding of all aspects of the religion, the Sacred Law, and the science of spirituality is the possibility to find multiple conclusions on subjects within a certain boundary.
Of course, the need for the qat’i is just as important as the zanni. Without definitiveness in certain matters, the religion becomes completely liquid, and unable to assume the responsibilities of managing the lives of people who are under the control of their own nafs.
The nafs is a tricky thing, at one level it wants to find a definitiveness to everything. In Islam this essentially means finding a meaning to something and deciding why it alone can be correct to the exclusion of all other possibilities. This approach creates an inflexible person. The shaykh above interestingly describes this very rigid, yet stable situation as “chaotic”, and it is indeed the case.
If more than one person takes this rigid approach and reaches different conclusions we suddenly achieve total chaos, bickering, and eventually violence. On the other hand, an understanding that some things are speculative in nature opens us to the possibility that the “other” may just be correct as well.
At the same time, it is probably an important reminder that the nafs at another level wants to find a speculitive nature in every possible thing, and therefore allowing it the freedom to pick-and-choose a religion much like Build-A-Bear.
Continuation of Contentions Series
49. Literalism is the laziness that masquerades as courage.
My Interpretation:
The literalists of our community are often those that are proud of their literalist interpretation. They hold that there is nothing that can bring them closer to Allah than their literalist behavior and interpretations. In fact, since it seems so extraordinarily ‘out-of-place’ in regular society, they are able to wear this literalism as a badge of courage. They proclaim, if not silently, “We are a beacon of what Allah desires for us, and we have faired through hardship due to our choices to follow Allah alone.”
“Mashahallah” we all say when they pass by, but what the Sheykh is pointing out here is that such literalism is easy. It is infinitely more easier to believe that one can toss aside deep meanings and begin to interpret Islam through the narrow lense of literalism.
Actually, it is an elevation of ones intellect if one is able to grasp the concept that there is more to a story than its apparant meaning, even if we are not able to determine that hidden meaning on our own.
Instead of viewing literalism as a badge of courage, it really is a badge of foreit. Where we decide to abandon additional thought on any subject, it is our own minds which have shrunk.
Shrunk back, most probably, from the fear of what the hidden could mean to us.
48. Text without context is pretext. He withdraws knowledge by withdrawing the ulema.
Definition:
pretext: something serving to conceal plans; a fictitious reason that is concocted in order to conceal the real reason
Interpretation:
Masha’allah!
We all know today the movement dedicated to the belittlement of the ulema of Ahl ul Sunnah Wa’l Jamma’. Frankly, many Muslims today continue to be unaware of the names of the greatest of scholars of our history.
Sure, it certainly is an appealing argument of theirs. “Why do you pray as you do? I have a hadith here which says this, or a hadith here which says that. Now, come, pray like me and forget what your father taught you, and what his father taught him.”
This is invariably followed by quoting some ayat directed towards the kuffar and applying it to Muslims. These are ayats which we are all familiar with, which deride the Kuffar for blindly following in their father’s footsteps.
This is an interesting tactic, and it works -so- very well.
That is, until one begins to contemplate on a few matters. First and foremost, a Muslim father’s, and his father’s father source of knowledge is directly available. And quite unlike the Kuffar, it is firmly grounded in Quran and Sunnah, regardless of whatever hadith the reformers have found and interpreted to support their personal opinion.
If one cares to study and determine it, the sources of fiqh are quite detailed in their explanations on all aspects of religious ritual and beyond. These detailed fiqh manuals which the knowledgable ulema taught to our forefathers still exist to this day. While these books may not be easily accessible to you, and the author’s names unmentioned in your household, nevertheless they exist and existed… Fortunately for us, these sciences continue today with those who spend their lives in the ulema’s tradition of excellence.
The key point that I derive from this Contention is that the usage of text’s (Quran, Hadith), in this above manner, without the context of the sciences and knowledge of the great personalities within the study of Sacred Knowledge, becomes merely a means to conceal one’s own personal desires and agenda under the cloak of religion.
The second part is under quotes, though I could not find the direct reference to it. If anyone can help me with that it would be appreciated.
The quote reinforces the idea expressed by the previous sentence since it associates knowledge, not with the source texts, but with the people have the capacity to memorize, understand, and apply the source texts.
Continuation of my Contentions Series.
Link to Sheykh Abd al Hakim Murad’s Contentions part 1
47. The dietary laws are an opportunity to fast.
The dietary laws we ‘struggle’ with include: not eating pork, not consuming alcohol, eating Zabihah, etc. Often, we may begin discussing with others, ‘why’ we follow these dietary restrictions.
I’m a firm adherent to the concept that trying to explain the ‘why’ of a command which has come from Allah, Most High is near sacrilegious. This is quite clear when one has a very clear sense of tauheed, since one can understand that to attempt to fit God’s purpose into a neat little box of human rationality is literally impossible. It either involves elevating our minds to the level of the Divine, or bringing down the Divine’s level to our own. Both of which are concepts that I am not too keen on.
What the Sheykh does here is give us an additional perspective. Why do we fast? Like I discussed in the Ramadan posts, we are fasting to follow His Command, and by doing so earn favor from Allah. Although we all love Ramadan for all of its opportunities to gather blessings and forgiveness, we should also realize that some of our standard dietary laws also exist as a form of fasting.
We say “no” to that cheeseburger, not because there is some deep social consequence to eating it, but because, in a way, we are always fasting now, in this life. We are fasting from certain things to earn the same type of favor and blessings that we try to achieve when we fast from food completely.
The way that the Sheykh is reminding us to look at dietary laws is not as a chain of restrictions, but rather a chain of opportunities.
yursil on 
syed fareed amad on 
burhan on 
Australian Muslim on 
Ghulam Rasool on 
Abdul Malik on 
Abdul Jabbar on 
Contentions 1 (51)
Shaikh Abdul Hakim Murad wrote a number of “Contentions“, which often require a moment of reflection, thought, or research. I continue to make a weak attempt at finding some meaning within them, with support.
muezzin : One who is calling Azhan loudly, clearly, and usually in a beautiful voice.
One simple interpretation: a sign of a false scholar is one who does not listen but speaks a lot.
There are different levels in every possible thing, and in this as well. Before our ego gets carried away we should realize that this contention should not imply that the scholars need to take orders from laymen, like you or I.
Yes, indeed, above every knower… there is a knower. So everyone accomplished is listening to someone in one way or another.
The true Wali’s and scholars eventually begin to hear completely differently than what we may expect, they begin to watch and listen with the hearts ear. When one achieves that… well, MashaAllah.
At the same time we need to realize where it is we stand, and whether we are listeners or talkers. Just a few lessons I took from this contention.