“1) American culture is the primary definition of the way we dress, the food we enjoy, the entertainment we seek (Movies, TV, video games).
2) Islam can be understood practically as a filter of the ‘bad’ aspects of the American lifestyle out of ones life. The bad aspects are the obvious haraam (forbidden actions). It can also be an encouragement of the ‘good’ aspects of American life.”
Response:
A culture can be understood as the output of a ‘program’ with various inputs. The inputs, in this case, are principles on theology, philosophy, human nature, rights, etc.
We can see this easily through examples. If the input is the principle that all humans are equal in all ways, then a culture emerges which reinforces that position, with regards to the overall lifestyle including the art, entertainment, workplace, definition of justice, and overall relationships.
The same can work in reverse. If the input is that humans are not equal at all, then a culture emerges which reinforces the degradation of the unfortunate class, and this permeates through the culture down all the way to how news is reported and how different people are depicted in art, film and even casual conversation.
Everyone accepts this so casually that it is largely a matter-of-fact, and we end up with American slavery and the colonial era.
Western culture is the output based on its own inputs, and the fact of the matter is that it is too young to have any firm inputs. The example of slavery is clear on this matter, within a few hundred years attitudes towards slavery changed as a result of new principles being applied. Within another few decades attitudes towards everything from body image, sexuality and religion have dramatically changed.
On the other hand, Islamic cultures which developed out of 1400 years of exposure to Islam also have had their own independent inputs. These principles have stood the test of time. Further to this, Middle Eastern and Eastern cultures did not just deal with Islam as a matter of choice or an alternative lifestyle, it totally consumed their whole being.
This went to such an extent that even non-Muslims in the polity were affected by Islamic culture, much like today where the situation is reversed and Muslims are affected by non-Islamic culture. And frankly, Muslims have been affected maybe even more than their non-Muslim counterparts were in Islamic times.
The situation with Muslims today is that the West defines principles (inputs), and we get a culture out of it (western culture), and then Muslims attempt to filter the result through ‘Islam’. The problem with this approach is that Islam is not just a filter of culture. It contains within it the seeds of creating new culture.
The principles of Islam, when applied in a thorough fashion, led people to a thriving, principally independent, culture from the west. We see in history, when Islam was applied and Islamic societies emerged, that Islamic art was not just ghetto art used now for Arabic calligraphy. Islamic music was not harmonizing boy-bands singing about the Prophet (S). Islamic family lifestyle was not the American dream. Islamic governance was not democracy. Muslim children weren’t raised with a Muslim muppet on TV.
But if Islam remains a filter, that’s all we’ll ever get. A slightly adjusted version of a culture based on un-Islamic principles. We won’t get music that’s entirely our own, we won’t get a dress that is entirely our own, we won’t get art that entirely our own, we won’t have a perspective that is entirely our own, and we certainly won’t get a spirituality that is entirely our own.
Historically, converts to Islam, and specifically we see this in the European converts of the pre-industrial age, were people who totally accepted adoption of faith, principles and culture. When they converted, yes, they totally adopted the culture and perspective of the people which taught them Islam, and they abandoned that which was based on kufr in their hearts. They had no alternative, really. They knew what they were putting aside and what they were picking up.
But today, even Muslims born into the faith find it unfathomable to wrap their minds around the concept that the West needs to first be abandoned in order to build something Islamic.
We all know the maxim, “if you see something wrong the least we can do is dislike it in our hearts.” But today we give excuses to this capitalistic materialistic society and try to find why it *is* Islam, and why its cultural output is ‘not so far’ from Islam. Just let us tweak it here and there. Add some minority-fiqh and it’s all legal too.
Forget abandoning Western culture and kufr based principles from which it arose, we don’t even want to dislike it in our heart.
Is it even possible to abandon the Western culture? With commitment and a guide who is carrying that Prophetic message, yes, it is. Because they replace that void with something fresh and growing and alive.
But at the same time we must know it is difficult to separate from any lover, even ones who are bad for us. So, of course, inching progress will occur and compromises will be made. But until this fundamental decision is made in the heart to (at least) incline away from the West, little progress towards a true Islamic lifestyle in one’s own household will be possible.
The following hadith and excerpt demonstrate that the order of prayer rows is based on rank of understanding, wisdom, prudence, sedation. Since the one who has all these qualities follows the sunnah the best and most perfect, the order must take into account Sunnah in ones lifestyle. The nearest to the Prophet (S) are the ones who are nearest to him inwardly and outwardly.
–
The Messenger of Allāh, peace and blessings of Allāh be on him, used to touch our shoulders at the time of prayer, and used to say:
“Keep straight and do not be uneven, for in that case your hearts would disagree. Let those from among you, who are possessed of understanding and wisdom, stand nearest to me, then those who are next to them, then those who are next to them.”
- Sahih Muslim, Mishkat 4:24
Abdullah b. Mas’ud reported: The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Let those who are sedate and prudent be near me, then those who are next to them (saying it three times), and beware of the tumult of the markets.
Sahih Muslim Book 4, Number 870:
Anas reported on the authority of the Prophet, peace and blessings of Allāh be on him, (who) said:
“Arrange your ranks properly, for the proper arrangement of ranks is part of the keeping up of prayer.” (Bukhari )
Mukhtasar al-Quduri – Hanafi Fiqh Manual
The men line up, and then behind them the boys, and then the women at the back.
What are Sirhindi’s views regarding the guardians of the sharia, the ulama ?
The classification of the ulama, offered by Sirhindi faithfully reflects his views of the sharia as described above. The form of the shariah, which according to Sirhindi is contained in the unequivocal verses of the Quran (muhkamat), is the domain of the superficial ulama (ulama-i zawahir). They are captivated by the form, deny the existence of any essence in it, and are guided solely by books on fiqh, such as the Hidayah (of al-Marghinani and Bazdawi). The essence of the sharia , on the other hand, is dealt with by the profound ulama (ulama-i rasikhan). It is found in the ambiguous verses of the Quran (mutashabihat), which are the kernel and heart of the Book. The unequivocal verses, though called ummahat-i kitab, are nothing but a means t o reach the substance (nataij) contained in the ambiguous ones. The profound ulama understand the dual nature of the shariah, insist on attaining both its form and essence, but concede that the form is sufficient for the person to be a Muslim…
We may say in conclusion, that in his discussion of the Shariah, Sirhindi clearly values its inner, ‘essential’ aspects above it outward and formal ones. This preference results in his according the highest status to the ambiguous verses of the Quran in which the essence is thought to be contained. Sirhindi maintains this view despite the fact, according to the Quran itself, only ‘those in whose hearts there is a deviation follow the ambiguous [verses] desiring dissension [Surah 3:7]. At the same time he maintains that the outward form of the shariah cannot be dispensed with, since the form can never be separated from the essence, and no one can reach the essence while disregarding the form. The concept of shariah is thus fully incorporated into the Sufi world-view. The characteristic Sufi dichotomy of form and essence is thoroughly applied to it. Those who compliance with the shariah is merely formal are rather condescendingly accepted into the Muslim community; their inferiority to those who reach the essence is, however, made abundantly clear.
ref: Friedmann (2000). Sheykh Ahmad Sirhindi, An Outline of His Thought and a Study of His Image in the Eyes of Posterity. pub: Oxford University Press (India)
Imam Rabbani (ks) work, where he distinguishes and emphasizes the distinction between the ulama rasikhin and ulama zahir:
Istidlal means to infer the existence of the doer of the work by seeing the work, that is, to know the existence of the Creator by seeing creatures. The ‘ulama-i rasikhin and the ‘ulama-i zahir always perform istidlal and say that creatures have been communicating [the existence of] the Creator. Those savants who, as stated in a hadith, are prophets’ inheritors are called ‘ulama-i rasikhin. Not all the Islamic scholars are so. Those savants who are not rasikh understand the existence of the Creator by knowing the existence of creatures. They say that the existence of the work communicates existence of the doer. Thus, they believe in the existence of the doer. But the ‘ulama’-i rasikhin have passed beyond all the high grades of Wilayat, that is, of being Awliya, and have reached the grade of da’wat (call, invitation), which is peculiar to prophets. After the happening of tajallis and mushahadas in them, they, too, deduce the doer from the work. And through this way they believe the real doer, that is, have iman in the existence of Allahu ta’ala. After reaching the end, they realize that everything which they have found out through mushahada and tajalli is not the real being but one of the shades of the appearances of the real being. “It cannot be believed as the real being. One cannot have iman in the real being without istidlal,” they say. By doing istidlal, they go on searching for the real being without the shades coming between. Because they love the real being only and because they will sacrifice everything else for the real being, they attain to the real being through such istidlal. As it is stated in the hadith, “A person will be together with whom he loves,” they attain to the real being, who actually exists beyond the tajallis and zuhurs, which are mixed with shades. Being pulled with the rope of love, these great people reach the true origin in person while the savants of zahir reach there in knowledge only.
-THIRD VOLUME, 50th LETTER
What the savants obtain of the din and their following Rasulullah is first their correcting their belief. Next comes their learning the teachings of the Shariat and practicing what they have learned. And what the men of tasawwuf obtain is hals, wajds, pieces of the knowledge of tasawwuf and marifats, together with those that are attained by the savants. And as for what the ‘Ulama-i rasikhin obtain of the din who have been blessed with the glad tidings that they are prophets’ inheritors, along with the fact that they have been blessed with the lot of obtaining all of what the savants of the din and the men of tasawwuf have obtained, they have been blessed with many a piece of secret and subtle knowledge. These pieces of secret and subtle knowledge are indicated by the concealed and covered ayats in the Qur’an, which are called mutashabihat. They have been explained by means of tawil. It is these superiors with rasikh (perfect) knowledge who adapt themselves to Rasulullah fully. These only are the inheritors of Rasulullah. Since they adapt themselves to Rasulullah precisely, and being prophets’ inheritors, they get a share from the blessings bestowed upon prophets. They, too, are made to hear secret knowledge peculiar to those great people. They, therefore, have been honored with the glad tidings: “The savants of my Ummat are like the Prophets of the sons of Israil.”
-SECOND VOLUME, 13th LETTER
Excerpted from Mukhtasar al-Quduri, a highly revered manual of Hanafi fiqh -
In Sunan Ibn Majah and elsewhere is the account of a Sahabi who was teaching writing and Qur’an to a man of the people of the Suffah. Later on, the man gave Mu`adh a bow. Mu`adh thought that there is nothing wrong in taking it, and besides, he will use it for fighting in the path of Allah, but he was still uncertain so he thought to ask the Prophet (may Allah bless him and grant him peace). The Prophet told him that “if you want it (the bow) to be girdled around your neck with fire on the Day of Resurrection, then take it.”
Based on this hadith, the authentic view of the Hanafi school is that it is prohibited to take money for teaching of Qur’an. This is the more precautionary view, and is in keeping with the apparent sense of the hadith. The Shafi`is, however, reasoned that the reason for the prohibition issued to Mu`adh here was that they had not fixed any price for the teaching, and that Mu`adh had therefore been teaching only for the sake of reward in the Hereafter, such that if he were to take a material payment, this would reduce or annul his reward. So, they said there is no harm in taking payment if the price was arranged beforehand. They also drew support from the hadith where a group of Companions took a payment of food for ruqyah (curing someone by reciting verses of the Qur’an). The Hanafis respond that this hadith is an evidence for the permissibility of taking payment for ruqyah, but not for teaching the Qur’an.
The hadith does not apply to selling of Islamic books and other materials; it is specifically about _teaching_. Even selling the Qur’an (muSHaf) is not Haram, (except according to a view of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal), but it is makrooh. Although, the salaf used to shy away from accepting money for books and the like also, and this is undoubtedly more precautionary, so as to reserve all reward for the Hereafter. Yet, if someone is making a living by selling books, then there is no harm in charging a profit, w’Allahu a`lam.
The issue of teachers and schools raises another point. As I have mentioned, the authentic view of the madhhab is that taking a fee for teaching Qur’an is Haram. However, later on when Islam became weaker, and the state no longer took the same care of the religion and its people, such that the `ulama and teachers of the Qur’an were no longer provided for by the state, these people came into dire circumstances. They had no source of income, and no education or training (other than religious sciences) which they could use to earn a living. It was quite literally a matter of life and death for them. Under these situations, fatwa was given in the madhhab on the permissibility of taking payment for teaching Qur’an, since necessity dictates exceptions and makes the prohibited temporarily permissible. Ibn `Abidin has mentioned this in sharH `uqood rasm al-muftee.
It should be note, however, that this was a specific fatwa for a specific situation, and that the authentic view of the madhhab remains one of prohibition of accepting payment. So, if a person is in such dire circumstances, with no other way out, he could take by this fatwa then and accept some payment. If no such mitigating circumstances exist, it remains prohibited. w’Allahu a`lam.
The reality is today it is possible to live a mediocre lifestyle with a job that requires very little training.
Are we in the life or death situation today that has made charging for ‘Islamic knowledge’ permissible? Or, do we really believe it is a life or death situation for our scholars to be able to afford macbook pro’s?
While the above excerpt mentions the two categories of teaching Quran and charging for the text, the reality is when teaching Islam *you are teaching Quran*. What did ‘teaching Quran’ mean in a society where everyone spoke Arabic? It meant understanding, developing of knowledge based on the Quran and its lessons. This prohibition clearly applied to the entire field of Islamic study, much less the very explicit study of tajweed and qirat.
Later jurists have extended the permission (of payment) to similar duties like leading the prayer (imamah), calling for prayers (adhan), teaching Hadith and Fiqh, etc., for they are related to the teaching of the Holy Qur’an, and survival of Islam equally depends on them.”
[Mufti Muhammad Shafi, Ma'ariful Qur'an, Vol. 1, p191]
In the above excerpt, it is interesting to note how the wording of the exception is to ‘accept some payment’ vs demand some payment. With expensive books and classes, Muslims in the pursuit of ‘Islamic knowledge’ have created a subculture that excludes the poor and the unread. Some Sheykhs of the ‘spiritual sciences’ charge even for their sohbet. Now we even have major islamic ‘conferences’ with “pay-per-view“.
Why aren’t all these books and tapes available online for free? Empire building.
The new industry of disseminating ‘Islamic knowledge’ or, in modern days called ‘Sacred knowledge’, has reached a new peak. Any and all stigma related to collecting of personal money under the name of Islam has been lost. Instead of doing it quietly, with discretion, it is now brazen and up-front. What is the wisdom in the Hanafi position above, which ruled over Muslims for centuries? A personal examination will demonstrate quite a few lessons.
It is reported by Jabir that the Prophet said: The flesh and body that is raised on unlawful sustenance shall not enter Paradise. Hell is more deserving to the flesh that grows on one’s body out of unlawful sustenance. (Ahmad).
Excerpted from http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=3&ID=2934&CATE=415
Q. What is the ruling of the sacrifice?
A. The slaughter of Eid al-Adha (in Arabic: udhiya; in Urdu: qurbani) is a confirmed sunna (sunna mu akkada) and only becomes obligatory if one vows to perform it by saying, for example, I hereby owe Allah to perform a sacrifice, or I hereby owe Allah to sacrifice this animal, or if one says something like, This animal is my sacrifice. Not performing the sacrifice is disliked (makruh), because some scholars (such as the Hanafis) say that it is obligatory. (al-Yaqut al-Nafis fi Madhhab Ibn Idris, 204; Tuhfat al-Muhtaj, 9.346)
..
Q. Do I have to slaughter myself?
A. It is sunna for males to slaughter themselves if they can slaughter well, although it is valid to commission (tawkeel) someone else to do it on their behalf. If one cannot slaughter well, or if one is a female, it is sunna to commission someone else to perform it on one s behalf. If one commissions someone else to do it, it is sunna (but not necessary) to be present and witness the actual slaughter.
The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said to the Lady Fatima (Allah be pleased with her),
Stand up to your sacrificial animal (udhiya) and witness it, for at the first drop of its blood, all your previous sins will be forgiven. (Hakim)
It is best to commission a Muslim who knows the fiqh of the sacrifice.
If one slaughters oneself, one must intend at the time of slaughtering that this is the sunna sacrifice of Eid al-Adha. If one commissions someone else to slaughter, one can intend when one authorizes them to slaughter on one s behalf.
(Mughni l-Muhtaj, 4.378; Reliance, j14.3-j14.4; I anatu l-Talibin, 2.335)
yursil on 
Andrew Hasin on 
Aaminah on 