Alhamdulillah, there is a new set of contentions, Contentions 9, by Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad.

The fact that I am nearing the half way mark for Contentions 1 is kind of discouraging as it has taken some time to get to this point. I also don’t want to make this solely a ‘contentions’ blog so I try to talk about other things as well.

It does seem that I’ll have to pick up the pace on the contentions, maybe doing 2 a day instead of 1. Inshahallah, we will see

Shaukh Abu Uthman Hairi sought permission from his own Shaikh, Abu Hafs Haddad, to deliver sermons to the people. His Shaikh asked: “What has caused you to feel this desire?” He replied: “Kindness and compassion for the people!” The Shaikh went on to ask: “What degree of kindness and compassion for the people?” He gave the answer: “The degree of my kindness and compassion for the people is such, that if they put me in Hell instead of them, on account of their sins, I am well content!” The Shaikh said: “It is acceptable for such a person to deliver sermons to the people.” He then seated himself beside the pulpit, ready to hear Abu Uthman Hairi’s sermon.

Abu Uthman had just begun to deliver his sermon, when a pauper begged, in a loud voice, for something to wear on his back. Abu Uthman promptly stripped the cloak from his own back, and gave it to him. At that very moment, his Shaikh, Abu Hafs, yelled at him: “Oh liar! Step down from the pulpit!” Abu Uthman stepped down in amazement and asked his Shaikh: “For what reason am I a liar? Will you explain?”

The Shaikh gave the response: “This is why you are a liar: If you really felt kindness and compassion for the people, instead of taking unto yourself the spiritual reward for giving, you would have left it to others! If you had waited, and no one emerged to seek this reward, only then should you have removed your cloak and given it to the beggar!”

It’s interesting that Haroon managed to get much further with something I had started somewhat feebly almost a year ago.

Interpreting/commenting on Shaikh Abdal Hakim’s writings is often a difficult task. I may plan to finish what I started at some point, but we’ll see.

As far as Haroon’s final thoughts on traditionalism, I must offer some points of my own.

Haroon twice defines ‘traditionalist Islam’ as the antithesis to Modernist Islamists, and I feel that is inaccurate. Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad has quite often in his other works defined what exactly tradition means. Traditional Islam is quite literally the output of interpretation from traditional scholars.

The Shaykh explains in more detail about the founders of the legal tradition in
Understanding the Four Madhabs -
the problem with anti-madhhabism

It hardly needs remarking that although the Four Imams, Abu Hanifa, Malik ibn Anas, al-Shafi’i and Ibn Hanbal, are regarded as the founders of these four great traditions, which, if we were asked to define them, we might sum up as sophisticated techniques for avoiding innovation, their traditions were fully systematised only by later generations of scholars. The Sunni ulama rapidly recognised the brilliance of the Four Imams, and after the late third century of Islam we find that hardly any scholars adhered to any other approach. The great hadith specialists, including al-Bukhari and Muslim, were all loyal adherents of one or another of the madhhabs, particularly that of Imam al-Shafi’i. But within each madhhab, leading scholars continued to improve and refine the roots and branches of their school. In some cases, historical conditions made this not only possible, but necessary. For instance, scholars of the school of Imam Abu Hanifah, which was built on the foundations of the early legal schools of Kufa and Basra, were wary of some hadiths in circulation in Iraq because of the prevalence of forgery engendered by the strong sectarian influences there. Later, however, once the canonical collections of Bukhari, Muslim and others became available, subsequent generations of Hanafi scholars took the entire corpus of hadiths into account in formulating and revising their madhhab. This type of process continued for two centuries, until the Schools reached a condition of maturity in the fourth and fifth centuries of the Hijra.

It is interesting that Haroon mentioned that those who are scientifically minded might flock to a non-traditional interpretation of Islam. (Made further interesting by the mere fact that I just recently posted about those interested in science being attracted to Sufism)

As a traditionalist, I feel it is within the sciences developed -within- tradition that we begin to see the fruits of employing scientific methods towards our religion.

Being “Islamically educated” without the techniques employed by the traditional schools of thought in both fiqh and spirituality leads one to an interpretation of Islam which is truly a reflection of what ones own ‘perfect’ religion should be. While it seems this may result in a single voice finding perfection, I find that it actually leads to many voices all singing a different song, out of tune, each trying to be louder than the person next to him. Eventually, the whole thing collapses with a group of very hoarse throats.

I can compare traditional Islam, on the other hand, to a multitude of voices who have different strengths and weakness. Each of them understanding that any one of them might not be suited to be the star of the show. Traditionalism, when it appreciates those differences and respects the specialities and abilities of the others, leads to a beautiful chorus.

As one who might cast himself as an appreciator of the sciences, I find myself much more attracted to the possibility that there is more complexity to be found within the details of Islam than free reading of a select few hadith compilations with the Quran. As a traditionalist examining Islam, I feel much like a scientist looking through a microscope. First seeing a plant, then cells, then DNA, then molecules, then atoms, and then possibily, super-strings. It seems that Allah Most High has provided more than enough knowledge that it is difficult for the layman to comprehend how much exactly there is to learn about it.

It is, to me, an aspect of the acknowledgement of this complexity that allows for multiple schools within traditional Islam, each with their own ’scientific methods’ on coming to conclusions. Respecting the opinion of the other, while not always consistent throughout history, has generally been the established norm for all these schools.

At the same time I am able to appreciate the ability for Islam to present itself as something meaningful for those who choose to abstain from such complexity.

Haroon writes:

I remember laughing out loud reading Tariq Ali’s “Clash of Fundamentalisms”; he described some of the dubious practices of Sindhi villagers and admitted, in a footnote, that at times such as this, it was hard *not* to sympathize with Wahhabi “impatience” for such “nonsense.”

While there may have been a certain level of impatience for such ‘nonsense’, it may have been that level of patience which brought a people from literal idolatry to Islam. As far as the exact practices within villages, I doubt that traditional scholars view this as the epitome of traditional Islam’s possibilities.

Rather, it seems that Islam has certain abilities to mold itself and survive in the harshest conditions, whether that harsh condition is ignorance and illiteracy, or Soviet imposed atheism. It seems traditional Islam has the ability to drop those things which are unnecessary to survive and flourish in those situations, all the while retaining the ability to attach them back once the barrier has been lifted.

As far as the mention of Salafism and Wahabism as ‘contributors’, I cannot say that I find their contribution of much value. The idea that they “raised Muslim consciousness of the dangers of excessive reliance on human authority, the quietism and decadence of certain Sufi orders, etc.” is absolutely unproven to me. I find that their reliance on human authority, especially their own human authority, excessive to the point of it becoming ego-worship. Believing that their recent interpretive techniques (mostly involving the use of indexes) trumps the collective understanding of centuries of scholarship is, as of yet, unparalleled in it’s audacity. The common representation of their interpretation as the Sunnah, is simply a matter of using polemic to pass off human authority as singular Divine authority. As far as the “quietism and decadence of certain Sufi orders”, I refer back to my quote of “An Introduction to Classical Islamic Philosophy”, by Oliver Leaman:

There were mystics in the Islamic world who could be characterized this way, but the system of mysticism is just as systematic as any other form of intellectual enquiry, and there was a great deal of suspicion even within Sufism of various esctatic and emotional states into which some of their peers threw themselves
…
On the whole, also, they insisted on a serious attitude to the norms of social and religious behaviour, rather than their replacement by other and more dramatic forms of spiritual expression.”

It seems that traditional Islam had a self-regulating approach which existed for some time prior. Now this does not mean deviants did not come to pass, but they by no means lasted long.

Back to the topic at hand, whether scientific thinkers, engineers and the like might be attracted to the Salafi approach, I differ with Haroon’s supposition. I find the Wahabi/Salafi approach towards a singular vision of Islam limiting, too simple to be scientific, and fundamentally appealing to those who cannot understand the interpretive differences and the sciences involved. It is Islam with little or no regard to the possibilities of the multitude of options for the human condition.

As far as the cardboard cut-out enemies of traditional islam, again, it may be what it able to be easily digested by the masses. On the other hand, it is clear that someone of the intellect of Shaykh Abdal Hakim, Shaikh Nuh Ha Mim Keller and the like have the capacity to understand the subtleties involved in the various threats to traditionalism. Some time spent with Shaykh Abdal Hakim’s “Contentions” makes that abundantly clear.

At the same time, identifying the enemy into categories is not necessarily the problem and I fail to see where our leading traditionalist ulema have condemned based off of simplistic boundaries alone. It seems an emphasis of the actual issues of differences, whether it be in aqida, fiqh, or tassawuf, have all been brought to the forefront, in English, since traditionalists participation in the discussion. It is apparent that their knowledge of these differences is immense, as well as their understanding that it is deviation in any of these areas which leads down the slippery slope away from traditional Islam.

Our halaqa a few years back attempted to read Hujjat al Islam Imam Ghazali’s (ra) work, “Incoherence of the Philosophers”. We failed miserably as the work is a very complicated philosophical book. Without the context of the opponents arguments, and maybe even a general summary of what Imam Ghazali (ra) was trying to say our discussions trailed into the confused look / ’scratch our head’ zone.

I still have the book which I often attempted to try to read on my own, but the same problems affected my individual comprehension of this book. I didn’t feel I understood what Imam Ghazali(ra) was trying to prove and why, yet I was fascinated by the book as I knew that it represented one of the most intellectual works our ulema have produced.

I recently came upon this book by a western author, “An Introduction to Classical Islamic Philosophy” by Oliver Leaman. While I am the first to suggest to steer clear of books about Islam from non-Muslims, this book has been very helpful in providing some context to the philosophical discussions that took place in the past. The author really takes an impartial view towards the arguments made in both directions, and I get a feeling that he respects the conclusions that the traditional/classical Muslim community came to. In the absence of a teacher I found this book as a good way to get some context and understand the actual text of Imam Ghazali’s (ra) Incoherence .

It also has some interesting sections on Sufism and its role in lives of the philosophers. He appreciates the difference between the science of Sufism and the mystical traditions of other religions. I especially liked this passage:

“There can be a ’science’ of this (the mystical) experience in just the same way that there is a natural science and a system of logic, and such a science would have as its task the explication, description and organization of our religious experience.

This sounds very different from the normal way of understanding mysticism, which often takes the form of an antinomian contrast with rational approaches to faith that is, the mystic does not have respect for the laws of religion since he has another and more direct route to the truth, that of experience of God. Also, the techniques of the mystic are often far from clear, and highly subjective. There is no reason to think he has hit the mark, as it were, apart from his self-observation, and this is far from scientific in the sense where science is aligned with objectivity.

There were mystics in the Islamic world who could be characterized this way, but the system of mysticism is just as systematic as any other form of intellectual enquiry, and there was a great deal of suspicion even within Sufism of various esctatic and emotional states into which some of their peers threw themselves
…
On the whole, also, they insisted on a serious attitude to the norms of social and religious behaviour, rather than their replacement by other and more dramatic forms of spiritual expression.”

Great talk by both shaykh’s who discuss what is true scholarship.

http://www.zaytuna.org/multimedia.asp

Direct Link to the MP3
————-
http://www.zaytuna.org/audio/AdviceToSeekers.mp3

My outline:

Shaykh Hamza:

Not everyone is a scholar, not everyone has to be a scholar. Everyone has a certain things they love and hate (i.e. Mathematics)

Need to learn some basic aspects of fiqh that deal with life (Marriage, Ikhlaq etc)

Find good company, you don’t want to be around people who argue.

Imam Malik did not argue, did not debate.

Argumentation is makruh for Ulema, and Haraam for common people. HARAAM to argue about religion.

Be with the majority. Hadith from the Prophet(S) those who deviate expose themselves (Wolf and sheep).

What Islam Is:
Follow one of the schools which is valid, which does not negate joining of schools
(Shia are brothers in religion, peaceful coexistance)

A Shaykh said, the door to every evil is asking how so and so is doing.

Learn from valid scholars, are the people who are following what the majority of ulema have been following for hundreds of years.

Fiqh: Follow one of the madhabs

Madhabs are not just taken from the founders of the madhab, they are from the scholars of the school.

Aqida: Follow the sound Aqida of the Muslims. Which are the schools of Aqida which are: Ashari, Maturidi, Athari (Some may disagree on Athari)

Someone gave Shaykh Hamza a paper attacking the Ashari and Maturidi schools of aqida, Shaykh Hamza says it “is fallacious reasoning, I don’t know what else to tell you. … poor shoddy reasoning based on taking things out of context..”

Third school of Aqida: Athari (But not like ‘these people claim now’), no speculative theology.

That is what the ummah agreed on.

Third aspect of the deen: ihsan. Hadith of Prophet(S) The group of people are intoxicated addicted to the rememberance of Allah.

Don’t argue, if people argue say, “Argumentation is not part of the religion”.

I’ll do Shaykh Ya’qoubis part later.

Thanks Deenport staff and Shaykhs GF Haddad and Muhummad Afifi al-Akiti for this fatwa:
Click Here

I am really impressed with this fatwa, especially in the light of the fact that the American media is clamoring all over this:
Click Here for CAIR’s Endorsed Fatwa

It’s all over the airwaves here and its positively wimpy in comparison.

Although both fatwas seem to have the same intentions the CAIR fatwa really addresses none of the topics at hand, relies on no scholarly precedents, and in my opinion, opens the doors for a rebuttal with a similar ‘my ayat, my hadith, my interpretation’ approach to fatwas.

This fatwa shared on Deenport lessons really demonstrates the knowledge required of an islamic scholar and automatically commands the respect and authority that a legacy and community of scholarship provides.

From Wikipedia.org

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_as_a_political_movement

Ziauddin Sardar wrote in 1994 that “In recent times, a number of Muslim countries declared themselves to be Islamic states and ostensibly established the shariah. But what is actually put into practice is a small number of classical juristic rulings concerning punishments, status of women and other spectacular aspects of classical jurisprudence. Thus, great show is made of ‘Islamic punishments’ or huddud laws, and floggings and amputations are advertised. These are in fact ‘outer limit’ laws to be carried out only under extreme conditions and after certain basic requirements of social justice, distribution of wealth, responsibilites of the state towards its citizens, mercy and compassion are fulfilled. What we thus get is an austere state operating on the basis of obscurantist and extremist law, behaving totally contrary to the teachings of the Qur’an and spirit of Islam, yet justifying its oppressions in the name of Islam! The self-declared Islamic states are thus nothing more than cynical instruments to justify the rule of a particular class, family, or the military.”