[sunniskeptic]

Sorry for writing so much already but I forgot to add that unless we develop critical thinking amongst our elite--who tend to be (or at least are regarded as such) the ulema and sufis--we will not progress.
Yet we just get people who are reactionaries because they have just been told that X said that you can choose any colour as long as it is black and if anyone else says you can also wear white it makes
you a non-Sunni as how can you go against Shaykh Fulan. We have made our ulema and mashaykh into demi-gods and infallible de facto if not de jure! As far as I am concerned ONLY the Beloved
Prophet is infallible. Anyone else is fit for us to critique. That also establishes the difference between us and atheistic free-thinkers.

[Tahir-Riaz]

sunniskeptic, on 19 December 2011 - 05:58 PM, said:

Yes, we were great once but we are stuck in the past and the reason for our succss then was the people were briefy allowed to think what they wanted and study without fear of fatwas etc. Then we lost it. The irony is those great Muslims are not considered role models for us to emulate by our pirs and maulanas
but as heretix.

For me, this is post of the month

[sunniskeptic]

Visit any forum and we Muslims spend most of our time fighting other muslims over obscure matters of theology because they happened to disagree -- or heaven forbid! -- criticise our own Shaykh/Hazrat/Pir/maulvi's point of view.
And many of us--if not most?--aren't intellectually mature enough to think that the other person has a right to air his opinion just as much as we do--no matter how distateful that opinion
might be to us. Its because we are taught like that from a young age--taught to respect authority no matter what. That produces nations which are easily led by dictators.
We are mentally terrorised of the fatwa or what the uncles and aunties down the road may say. Comments welcome...
Rant over!

[Fatema-the-resplendent]

Br Sunniskeptic

I really enjoyed reading you views, so refreshing

And you have such an interesting viewpoint of our history.

[sunniskeptic]

Sorry for the typos in my long post--it was written in haste! Secondly, I should explain for those not knowing Farsi that, "pidaram Sultan bood" means "My father was the King!"

FTR - salam az man! Thanks. I just try to read history from both sides whenever possible--the truth is usually somewhere in the middle!
Sadly, we are taught a mythical, perfect, version of history where every Muslim leader is like the Perfect Ruler, every Muslim soldier is the gallant
chivalrous knight-at-arms, all the ruled are pious, and everyone does everything for Islam and the Afterlife and there is no injustice or poverty or
illiteracy and we taught the world everything there is to know! Sorry but that is a load of bull. If we keep perpetrating this idea of a mythical caliphate
which lasted unbroken from 632 CE to 1922 CE we will only fool ourselves.

[piara-madinah]

sunniskeptic, on 19 December 2011 - 06:16 PM, said:

Visit any forum and we Muslims spend most of our time fighting other muslims over obscure matters of theology because they happened to disagree -- or heaven forbid! -- criticise our own Shaykh/Hazrat/Pir/maulvi's point of view.
And many of us--if not most?--aren't intellectually mature enough to think that the other person has a right to air his opinion just as much as we do--no matter how distateful that opinion
might be to us. Its because we are taught like that from a young age--taught to respect authority no matter what. That produces nations which are easily led by dictators.
We are mentally terrorised of the fatwa or what the uncles and aunties down the road may say. Comments welcome...
Rant over!

Because we give more time and care to lookafter the teachings of a murshid /scholers etc than the teachings of our book but bhai if we taught to respect the authority from childhood but when we passed childhood if we use sense we can learn more teachings but we all same we dont use brain and you right 75% our time we waste and waste and waste.

[badman]

Salams,

SunniSkeptic - how many times have you been called an agent of the west? May ALLAH Protect your truthful speech!
We are our worst enemies then we blame others. Saudi King, King Abdullah is trying to build some form of an educational institute in his country for future generation and he has his detractors (from all sides - salafies, sunnies, shia's and all other sects ive not heard of) we are living in a society where there is one ladder and everysingle one is trying to climb the same ladder at the same time, all along whilst pulling the person who takes the first step on to that ladder - not thinking for one second how to design a second/third/fourth and so on ladders so everyone can have a ladder each! its small fish eating the small fish!

(speaking from somebody who lives in the UK) Welfare system - excellent point. look what some ethnic minorities have done to Britain? a vision of Hazrat Umar R.A which was meant for the vulnerable, today we have the same kind of system in place in Britain but look at the kind of people who are abusing this system - benifit frauds - who are they? what religion are they?

(now speaking from an outsider) look at the indian subcontinent railway's - still running on the same tracks what Britain left them with! look at the far east - China, Korea, Japan how far theyve come in the last 20 years? Britain left the railway designs but our people could not build on that - went backwards - who's fault is that? the west? no! (rant over for the day)
we have to hold our hands up and admit the wrongs we have done, have to be honest with ourselves. it all starts with honesty. a mans word has to be thicker than the oak! we're to busy chopping up the oak for paper (money)

Masha'ALLAH you have great knowledge pass it on to others as well, Insha'ALLAH.

what was this thread all about ....... oh yeah Christopher Hitchens!!!

[Merazul]

Tahir-Riaz, on 18 December 2011 - 10:46 PM, said:

If that is the case then why does the Holy Quraan address similar objections?

The answers to objections do not require further intricate objections to appear even more concrete and complete.

[Tahir-Riaz]

Merazul, on 19 December 2011 - 09:23 PM, said:

The answers to objections do not require further intricate objections to appear even more concrete and complete.

Thus, such objection do have a relevance for the believer. Thank you, this was exactly my point.

[Qadri-Jilani]

Of course it's true that freedom is completely subjective. It may well be argued that people living in hyper capitalist-materialistic societies are least free. They way people in these countries are enslaved to buy the latest products and behave/dress in a certain way is unbelievable. Sadly, many of us have fallen pray to this. People do not have much value beyond being commodities, yes that's the 'value' they have.

Hitchens believes that people without religion are free, free from the dictatorship of a god. This is absolutely ridiculous because these atheists/secularists/westerners submit to the dictatorship of their rulers, the capitalist society, the TV, advertisements, their pay masters and people in authority all around them. They are the slaves of men.

As Allama Iqbal says:

woh eik sajda jisei tu giran samajta hei
hazar sajdoun sei deta hei aadmi ko najaat

That one prostration which you look down upon,
liberates man from a thousand prostrations.

We bow our head in front of the Lord, you bow your head to the world - that's the difference. If man realises this then he has no fear of the dunya and the people in it.

[Mudassar-Rana]

Ironic that in this ode to Hitchens and his alledged "free thought" we have forgotten the muslims and other innocents all across the globe who lost their lives. Lost their lives to the actions that resulted exactly from what he was a proponent of. Capitalism and Zionism.

Syedna Umar r.a said that Allah sent this deen to free man from the enslavery of fellow man to the slavery of God. None of the sahaba nor the esteemed messenger s.a.w himself ever said that restrict yourself to 4/5 schools of thought. It was our deduction to limit ourselves. As we declined as a civilisation it is no surprise that so did the level of scholars we produced. To the current day and age where really it is a violation of the trade descriptions act to refer to the majority as scholars. It should not be lost that the majority of the technological innovations are founded upon the thought of the islamic world.

However in order to proclaim the superiority of secularism over and above the deen that the messenger of allah s.a.w brought and that produced a civilisation the envy of the world it is a falsehood to compare the best of western civilisation with the worst of the islamic world. It is akin to asking mohammad ali at this age to box the present world champ and then stand over a flattened ali and tell him he was rubbish and weak all along!

So in awe are we of western achievements that we fail to forget that the rail tracks the british laid down in the sub continent were to transport the wealth of our forefathers out of the country! Yet we massage our intellectual loins over what to the british was a necessary introduction to ensure efficiency in looting.

Sheikh Hamza a few years ago when discussing the ottoman empire said that he would prefer a corrupt ottoman empire to the disgrace and indignity we suffer today, and that is the reality that minus statehood it was inevitable that we would never reach any sort of potential. Neither are we muslim and neither are we secular.For those who sail on two ships rarely reach the shore.

[sunniskeptic]

Qadri-Jilani, on 20 December 2011 - 12:36 AM, said:

Of course it's true that freedom is completely subjective. It may well be argued that people living in hyper capitalist-materialistic societies are least free. They way people in these countries are enslaved to buy the latest products and behave/dress in a certain way is unbelievable. Sadly, many of us have fallen pray to this. People do not have much value beyond being commodities, yes that's the 'value' they have.

Hitchens believes that people without religion are free, free from the dictatorship of a god. This is absolutely ridiculous because these atheists/secularists/westerners submit to the dictatorship of their rulers, the capitalist society, the TV, advertisements, their pay masters and people in authority all around them. They are the slaves of men.

As Allama Iqbal says:

woh eik sajda jisei tu giran samajta hei
hazar sajdoun sei deta hei aadmi ko najaat

That one prostration which you look down upon,
liberates man from a thousand prostrations.

We bow our head in front of the Lord, you bow your head to the world - that's the difference. If man realises this then he has no fear of the dunya and the people in it.

Freedom is subjective? Really? It is ironic brother QJ to hear you saying that. Tell that to the people of North Korea, or to the Afghans who lived under Taliban rule. Tell it to the Hazara tribes of
Afganistan or to the Pakistanis who live in those areas controlled by the TTP who threw acid on women's faces for having the freedom to go out without a hijab or shopkeepers whose shops were burnt down because they had the freedom to sell music tapes. What about the freedom of the Saudi schoolgirls burnt to death inside their school because the mutawwa didn't open the doors in time because they free mixing was haram between girls and firefighters? It is ironic Muslims saying this when they live and enjoy the very freedoms of the West which they condemn.
Materialism? I am a Muslim and a Paki but I have never seen anyone more materialistic than our own people. Keeping up with the Jones' is a religion with us! And as for our respected maulana hazrats -- and yes there are some real hunble men of Allah still amongst them but rarer than the red sulphur of the alchemists!--I don't think anyone is more greedy for material wealth than they are! Without naming any names I remember listening to a well known pir sahib who was waxing eloquently about the virtues of poverty --and daring to say that poverty was preferable to wealth because our Master sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam preferred poverty--whilst owning himself one of the biggest mansions in Islamabad amongst other things! I have yet to see a poor maulana in the UK.

You could perhaps argue thar Muslims living in the West have been corrupted by the materialistic West which then poses the question, why do you choose to remain in such a decadent land--why not emigrate to an islamic land? --but the more important question is that if you think the West are materialistic go and visit any Muslim country. Just look at how much we spend on weddings! Just last week the Prime Minister of Pakistan's wife --the PM who is a Gilani Sayyid -- spent, according to the Pakistani press--£800, 000 eight HUNDRED THOUSAND pounds whilst shopping in Harrods. Subhan Allah! Which community is it who sign onto social security cheques weekly (or is it every two weeks) whilst calling the hand that feeds them---literally--harbis and kafirs? And cheats every which way to get social security and housing benefits?

Yes, if we lived up to Iqbal's model Muslims we wouldn't be in his predicament but he was only a poet and poetry doesn't change facts on the ground.
He also wanted to modernise fiqh and Ataturk was his hero...

He also said,
Tere azaad bandoN ki na yeh duniya, na voh duniya
Yahan marnay kii paabandi, vahaan jeenay kii pabandi.

And

ravish e taqleed se tau hai khud-kushi behtar...

But he only got fatwas for his efforts. Read his biography written by his son which is THE most authoratative academic work in Urdu called Zindarud.
One great alim compared Iqbal's writings to that of Satan! No names mentioned...
Yet after his death our maulvi hazraat are eager to claim him. Yes, he had a deep love for the Prophet but no one is even disputing that.

[Khalid_the_Warrior]

sunniskeptic, on 20 December 2011 - 07:08 PM, said:

Freedom is subjective? Really? It is ironic brother QJ to hear you saying that. Tell that to the people of North Korea, or to the Afghans who lived under Taliban rule. Tell it to the Hazara tribes of
Afganistan or to the Pakistanis who live in those areas controlled by the TTP who threw acid on women's faces for having the freedom to go out without a hijab or shopkeepers whose shops were burnt down because they had the freedom to sell music tapes. What about the freedom of the Saudi schoolgirls burnt to death inside their school because the mutawwa didn't open the doors in time because they free mixing was haram between girls and firefighters? It is ironic Muslims saying this when they live and enjoy the very freedoms of the West which they condemn.
Materialism? I am a Muslim and a Paki but I have never seen anyone more materialistic than our own people. Keeping up with the Jones' is a religion with us! And as for our respected maulana hazrats -- and yes there are some real hunble men of Allah still amongst them but rarer than the red sulphur of the alchemists!--I don't think anyone is more greedy for material wealth than they are! Without naming any names I remember listening to a well known pir sahib who was waxing eloquently about the virtues of poverty --and daring to say that poverty was preferable to wealth because our Master sal Allahu alayhi wa sallam preferred poverty--whilst owning himself one of the biggest mansions in Islamabad amongst other things! I have yet to see a poor maulana in the UK.

You could perhaps argue thar Muslims living in the West have been corrupted by the materialistic West which then poses the question, why do you choose to remain in such a decadent land--why not emigrate to an islamic land? --but the more important question is that if you think the West are materialistic go and visit any Muslim country. Just look at how much we spend on weddings! Just last week the Prime Minister of Pakistan's wife --the PM who is a Gilani Sayyid -- spent, according to the Pakistani press--£800, 000 eight HUNDRED THOUSAND pounds whilst shopping in Harrods. Subhan Allah! Which community is it who sign onto social security cheques weekly (or is it every two weeks) whilst calling the hand that feeds them---literally--harbis and kafirs? And cheats every which way to get social security and housing benefits?

Yes, if we lived up to Iqbal's model Muslims we wouldn't be in his predicament but he was only a poet and poetry doesn't change facts on the ground.
He also wanted to modernise fiqh and Ataturk was his hero...

He also said,
Tere azaad bandoN ki na yeh duniya, na voh duniya
Yahan marnay kii paabandi, vahaan jeenay kii pabandi.

And

ravish e taqleed se tau hai khud-kushi behtar...

But he only got fatwas for his efforts. Read his biography written by his son which is THE most authoratative academic work in Urdu called Zindarud.
One great alim compared Iqbal's writings to that of Satan! No names mentioned...
Yet after his death our maulvi hazraat are eager to claim him. Yes, he had a deep love for the Prophet but no one is even disputing that.

Good post bro SS....

"The problem is that we dump everything which have the "Western" as something non-islamic or immoral For example , I was reading this the other that day what would an average pakistani think about “Western” culture – the first thing that pops into the mind on hearing the words, “Western values,” is the image of a scantily clad blonde chugging down beer in a sleazy bar. If you ever find yourself being referred to as a believer of Western values, know that the word “allegedly” is implied. How true is that?

Whenever one dares to rise and speak up for the rights of women, religious minorities and individual freedom, he’s often shot down with the “westerner-wannabe” taunt. Are feminism, secularism and plain personal liberty such alien and outlandish concepts for us?

Freedom does not have an area-code. There’s no such thing as “Western” freedom or “Islamic” freedom. It’s just freedom, plain and simple. The liberty to speak out and express oneself openly is a “value” worth adopting by every nation on the planet. The liberty to live your life the way you want to, as long as you’re not impinging upon somebody else’s freedom to do the same, is the right of every man and woman in the world."

[Know-the-Ledge]

George Bernard Shaw said that the problem with religion, is religious people. SS you made a charge against 'islam' specifically in your post, yet your following 'essay with no word limit' has gone on a hunt of accentuating the historical human failings in history of 'muslims'; albeit a one sided view which can be tarred upon western civilisation also, by enlisting a whole tome of failures and crimes of The West, does this derogate from the ideals?

I don't see where our argument is...


Although a good read and i don't dispute it's historical legitimacy, i'm personally disinterested; my motto "Thank God i've finally met islam and not muslims". Sometimes, it's better to be saved than clever, what I tarry on this Earth is more important to me than what millions of others have tarried in history. My own sanity is being sourced from the fact that I don't mither about 'muslims' anymore, not in the historical context nor contemporary; i've tried to 'beat that system', but the system just dismantled me.


I co-sign Merazul's first post on the first page and also FTR's reply to me. SS the monocle from which we are viewing our world-views is not the same, it's just disaplced from each other it seems.



SS said :I am l a believing and practising Muslim; if I didn't believe in it or was not convinced why would I stay? But I have to say that it is not because of the rational or intellectual thoroughness of Islam but because it has produced in its civilisation saints ;like
Ghawth al Azam and Hallaj and Ghazali. i.e. for the spirituality.


Well it was the content of his character that He (s) convinced and changed a whole peninsula in twenty-three years; imam malik said that knowledge is not how many Qur'an or hadith you know, but a light which Allah puts in your heart. As Merazul states, no amount of rationalising can place that light in someone's heart, good character it the heat which melts the heart to make room for that 'light'.

This post has been edited by Know-The-Ledge: 21 December 2011 - 01:55 PM

[Malaaikah]

In my eyes there is no such thing as freedom as I have always said. When this word is mentioned we all have different ideas.

Muslims may think of being free as detaching themselves from the satanic influences, non Muslims on the other hand would think of being free either from oppressors or from religion itself. Observing the thoughts from both sides i think both parties can claim to be free, however, each will think that the other is oppressed.

I don’t mean to say that as Muslims we are not free but I would make this bold statement that as Muslims living in this world amongst others we are not free.

I think one can be relieved from something but to call that freedom i would have to disagree. Living as social beings I think there will always be something or someone shaping or influencing our lives. Would you call this freedom?

[The-Mughal-Sister]

Malaaikah, on 21 December 2011 - 07:03 PM, said:

In my eyes there is no such thing as freedom as I have always said. When this word is mentioned we all have different ideas.

Muslims may think of being free as detaching themselves from the satanic influences, non Muslims on the other hand would think of being free either from oppressors or from religion itself. Observing the thoughts from both sides i think both parties can claim to be free, however, each will think that the other is oppressed.

I don’t mean to say that as Muslims we are not free but I would make this bold statement that as Muslims living in this world amongst others we are not free.

I think one can be relieved from something but to call that freedom i would have to disagree. Living as social beings I think there will always be something or someone shaping or influencing our lives. Would you call this freedom?

Freedom, liberty and all that is hocus pocus claptrap, they say you are free but it's just an illusion.

Read the following article for in depth information, it'll open your eyes:

Perverted Libertarianism Makes 'freedom' An Instrument Of Oppression

Here is a little something to whet your appetite:

"Freedom: who could object? Yet this word is now used to justify a thousand forms of exploitation. Throughout the rightwing press and blogosphere, among thinktanks and governments, the word excuses every assault on the lives of the poor, every form of inequality and intrusion to which the 1% subject us. How did libertarianism, once a noble impulse, become synonymous with injustice?"

This is how people justify war!

[Qadri-Jilani]

Some incoherent thoughts from what I remember from the last few days (mainly on Islamic intellectual history).

SS you mentioned how you preferred the spiritual path of Islam as expressed in al-Ghazali and Ghawth al-Azam etc., over the strictly "rational" or philosophical but you also seem to objurgate Imam al-Ghazali's attack on philosophy, that "hindered the progress of rational thought"? You can't have it both ways brother. What seems to have happened is that Muslims overwhelmingly preferred and accepted the experiential-spiritual path over the Hellenic-Greek influenced philosophical way. It's no wonder why the name of these great Sufis were celebrated all over the Muslim world while names such as Avicenna and Averroes became extremely popular in the Western world. The inverse is of course true where the names of great Sufi sages were unheard of for centuries in the Western world while the rational philosophers were forgotten in the Muslim world. It's about preferred paths (or perhaps more accurately that the views of the philosophers were considered dangerous), and most took the same one that you took.

That's not to say Imam al-Ghazzali killed off all philosophical influence in Islam, far from it as firstly his own works are evident of a high mastery in philosophy (we know that he studied philosophy to great depths and before refuting the philosophers in the Incoherence he wrote Maqasid al-Falasifa which was an accurate exposition of the views of the philosophers) and the fact the Avicennian philosophical though forever changed the writing of Islamic of scholastic theology (see Wisnovsky's writing on Avicenna for more on this).

You must also note that as well as conceptually, philosophical enquiry geographically shifted towards the East and took shape in Ishraqi philosophy, with exponents such as as Suhrawardi and Sadra (please provide a reference for takfir of Mulla Sadra). Not to mention the philosophical mystical reality expressed by Shaykh al-Akbar Ibn Arabi.

By the way there is nothing wrong in declaring people as heterodox or even apostates when it is justified (and deliberated with utmost caution), it's necessary to have this in the religious system otherwise you have no way of preserving the Deen.

Regarding purely rational arguments for the existence of God, it was Muslim scholars that mainly developed the arguments in the Middle Ages and they were appropriated by the mutakallimun. Yes they have their criticisms but many have been refined since where in today's age they are proving to be quite forceful against atheists. Others combine different proofs such as the cosmological and ontological. My own view is that they have tremendous use and benefit but our belief in God does not ultimately rest on these rational proofs. They can, nevertheless, play a substantial role in our understanding of God.

Oh and Iqbal, a philosopher par excellence, was also critical of the influence of Greek philosopher in Islam. This is what he says:

Quote

Socrates concentrated his attention on the human world alone. To him the proper study of man was man and not the world of plants, insects, and stars. How unlike the spirit of the Qur’an, which sees in the humble bee a recipient of divine inspiration and constantly calls upon the reader to observe the perpetual change of the winds, the alternation of day and night, the clouds, the starry heavens, and the planets swimming through infinite space! As a true disciple of Socrates, Plato despised sense-perception which in his view, yielded mere opinion and no real knowledge. How unlike the Qur’an, which regards hearing and sight as the most valuable divine gifts and declares them to be accountable to God for their activity in this world.

On Iqbal and Ataturk (both died in the same year incidentally): he may have admired the modernisation which he saw in the early years of the revolutionary movement but this is before the secularisation of society which is completely antithetical to Iqbal's view of state and society with regards to which he says on many occasions that Islam is a complete way of life and the shari'a law covers both the public and private realms of life, and knows no divide between the spiritual and the temporal.

Your response to KTL about African scholarship for example is totally informed and seems to reflect a certain Western view of the Islamic intellectual tradition, perhaps even quite Orientalist in that sense. The works of Islamic scholars from all over the Muslim world were not mere imitation but were the most original and important works in many fields of knowledge. The Islamic world produced the best jurists in the whole world, for example. Just because you work within a framework it does not mean you are simply imitating.

This brings me on to your point on taqlid, mentioned in another thread. Again, it's a very Western slant on taqlid reflected by Western scholars on Islamic law such as Schacht as well as modernists on the other side of the discussion who believe that progress is only possible without taqlid. What they have failed to understand is that there are different types of ijtihad and ijtihad can and did take place within a mazhab (the categories of mujtahid fi'l mazhab, mujtahid fi'l masail and so on). Qiyas is completely ignored. Proof of the pudding is that muqallid fuqaha for centuries provided answers to many new problems facing Muslims of the day. More recent scholarship is now demonstrating this through a study of classical fatawa and fiqh works. Dynamism and progress can exist within the framework of adhering to a mazhab. In any case, it is much more robust and even safer to remain within and build upon established schools instead of having a free-for-all in matters pertaining to law. Can you provide an example of a modernist ghayr muqallid faqih who can match the standard of a muqallid faqih?

It does, unfortunately, seem to me that you have been inflicted by the project of Oreintalism or at least that there is a certain type of Western thinking and literature that has absorbed you; a kind of perception that the Muslim world is inherently inferior to the West.

As I mentioned, freedom is very subjective and it can be strongly argued that people in Western-capitalist societies are least free. You replied by citing the Taliban and other other examples. The first thing to note is that the Taliban would not claim to be giving their subjects freedom anyway. Secondly, it's a fallacy to cite an adulterated and aberrant form of Islamic legal practice and make that representative of every Muslim who aspires to live in an Islamic society, magnifying the 1% as the media loves to do is a simple way to smear. Thirdly (or perhaps linked to the second point), we are talking about ideals and you can clearly see Western-secularist ideals being fulfilled in secularist societies, of which there is not much comparison in the Muslim world yet. Your post seems to suggest everything is good in the West and bad in the Muslim world, some points have already been mentioned by others but just one example from an infinite number of others is the complete break down of the family in the West (not just nuclear family). Notice how your message does not cite say Turkey, Malaysia or Indonesia as examples of Muslim countries. At the same time you could mention the Summer 2011 riots and looting that happened across the UK and the abhorrent behaviour that many (especially toffs) were shocked to see. The behaviour probably shocked many in the Muslim world too.

I better stop before I start boring people...

[sunniskeptic]

Thank you QJ for a very detailed and intellectual response at last. It was a long post and i will reply to it in detail tomorrow. Let me say that I do agree with some of what youve written with qualifications.

[Qadri-Jilani]

sunniskeptic, on 25 December 2011 - 12:31 AM, said:

Thank you QJ for a very detailed and intellectual response at last. It was a long post and i will reply to it in detail tomorrow. Let me say that I do agree with some of what youve written with qualifications.

Well I'm glad we agree on something! Take care my brother and may you enjoy your sleep, insha'Allah.

[Brother_MGS]

Qadri-Jilani, on 24 December 2011 - 08:41 PM, said:

Some incoherent thoughts from what I remember from the last few days (mainly on Islamic intellectual history).

SS you mentioned how you preferred the spiritual path of Islam as expressed in al-Ghazali and Ghawth al-Azam etc., over the strictly "rational" or philosophical but you also seem to objurgate Imam al-Ghazali's attack on philosophy, the hindered the progress of rational thought? You can't have it both ways brother. What seems to have happened is that Muslims overwhelmingly preferred and accepted the experiential-spiritual path over the Hellenic-Greek influenced philosophical way. It's no wonder why the name of these great Sufis were celebrated all over the Muslim world while names such as Avicenna and Averroes became extremely popular in the Western world. The inverse is of course true where the names of great Sufi sages were unheard of for centuries in the Western world while the rational philosophers were forgotten in the Muslim world. It's about preferred paths (or perhaps more accurately that the views of the philosophers were considered dangerous), and most took the same one that you took.

That's not to say Imam al-Ghazzali killed off all philosophical influence in Islam, far from it as firstly his own works are evident of a high mastery in philosophy (we know that he studied philosophy to great depths and before refuting the philosophers in the Incoherence he wrote Maqasid al-Falasifa which was an accurate exposition of the views of the philosophers) and the fact the Avicennian philosophical though forever changed the writing of Islamic of scholastic theology (see Wisnovsky's writing on Avicenna for more on this).

You must also note that as well as conceptually, philosophical enquiry geographically shifted towards the East and took shape in Ishraqi philosophy, with exponents such as as Suhrawardi and Sadra (please provide a reference for takfir of Mulla Sadra). Not to mention the philosophical mystical reality expressed by Shaykh al-Akbar Ibn Arabi.

By the way there is nothing wrong in declaring people as heterodox or even apostates when it is justified (and deliberated with utmost caution), it's necessary to have this in the religious system otherwise you have no way of preserving the Deen.

Regarding purely rational arguments for the existence of God, it was Muslim scholars that mainly developed the arguments in the Middle Ages and they were appropriated by the mutakallimun. Yes they have their criticisms but many have been refined since where in today's age they are proving to be quite forceful against atheists. Others combine different proofs such as the cosmological and ontological. My own view is that they have tremendous use and benefit but our belief in God does not ultimately rest on these rational proofs, they can, nevertheless, play a substantial role in our understanding of God.

Oh and Iqbal, a philosopher par excellence, was also critical of the Greek philosopher influence in Islam. This is what he says:



On Iqbal and Ataturk (both died in the same year incidentally): He may have admired the modernisation which he saw in the early years of the revolutionary movement but this is before the secularisation of society which is completely antithetical to Iqbal's view of state and society with regards to which he says on many occasions that Islam is a complete way of life and the shari'a law covers both the public and private realms of live, and knows no divide between the spiritual and the temporal.

Your response to KTL about African scholarship for example is totally informed and seems to reflect a certain Western view of the Islamic intellectual tradition, perhaps even quite Orientalist in that sense. The works of Islamic scholars from all over the Muslim world were not mere imitation but were the most original and important works in many fields of knowledge. The Islamic world produced the best jurists in the whole world, for example. Just because you work within a framework it does not mean you are simply imitating.

This brings me on to your point on taqlid, mentioned in another thread. Again, it's a very Western slant on taqlid reflected by Western scholars on Islamic law such as Schacht as well as modernists on the other side of the discussion who believe that progress is only possible without taqlid. What they have failed to understand is that there are different types of ijtihad and ijtihad can and did take place within a mazhab (the categories of mujtahid fi'l mazhab, mujtahid fi'l masail and so on). Qiyas is completely ignored. Proof of the pudding is that muqallid fuqaha for centuries provided answers to many new problems facing Muslims of the day. More recent scholarship is now demonstrating this through a study of classical fatawa and fiqh works. Dynamism and progress can exist within the framework of adhering to a mazhab. In any case, it is much more robust and even safer to remain within and build upon established schools instead of having a free-for-all in matters pertaining to law. Can you provide an example of a modernist ghayr muqallid faqih who can match the standard of a muqallid faqih?

It does, unfortunately, seem to me that you have been inflicted by the project of Oreintalism or at least that there is a certain type of Western thinking and literature that has absorbed you; a kind of perception that the Muslim world is inherently inferior to the West.

As I mentioned, freedom is very subjective and it can be strongly argued that people in Western-capitalist societies are least free. You reply by citing the Taliban and other other examples. The first thing to note is that the Taliban would not claim to be giving their subjects freedom anyway. Secondly, it's a fallacy to cite an adulterated and aberrant form of Islamic legal practice and make that representative of every Muslim who aspires to live in an Islamic society, magnifying the 1% as the media loves to do is a simple way to smear. Thirdly (or perhaps linked to the second point), we are talking about ideals and you can clearly see Western-secularist ideals being fulfilled in secularist societies, of which there is not much comparison in the Muslim world yet. Your post seems to suggest everything is good in the West and bad in the Muslim world, some points have already been mentioned but just one example from an infinite number of others is the complete break down of the family in the West (not just nuclear family). Notice how your message does not cite say Turkey or Indonesia as Muslim countries. At the same time you could mention the Summer 2011 riots and looting that happened across the UK and the abhorrent behaviour that many (especially toffs) were shocked to see. The behaviour probably shocked many in the Muslim world too.

I better stop before I start boring people...

Fantastic post brother QJ. Orientalist and secularist scholars and authors haven't been answered efficiently by Muslim academics for a very long time. I believe in many cases orientalist and secularist scholars are crying for a battle between pens. You and I including ever user on this forum know Islam is the religion of Haq. We as Muslims have seen the beauty of our religion, especially the muslims who live in the West. In the west we practise a religion that is the complete opposite to the lifestyle and alot of morals currently held in the west. We are constantly at Jihad with ourselves especially living in a society where Sin is everywhere where you turn. We haven't sold our religion as we see it to the west and thats where the problem lies. In todays world the western non believer sees 4 shades of Islam. Theres the Sunni, Shia, extremist and the Sufi. The Sufi code of life is seen as peaceful and as a way of intoxinating one in God via meditation etc. Sunnis and Shia are seen in the same light Catholic and Protestants are. Extreme elements have been blown out of proportion by the media especially lower quality and conservative media. Islam in the eyes of many is seen as the enemy of the west. Our beliefs, cultures, morals etc. clash. Academically we haven't been able to provide answers to questions raised about our religion here in the west and neither have we been able to sell Islam efficiently to the non believers as infact having the soloutions to the ills of the west.

The one religion that can provide the likes of Hitchen with all the answers he will ever need to shut him up just doesn't seem fit for the challenge. Christianity has been doctored soo much in its history that it doesnt provide the intellectual challenge athiest scholars are looking for. Islam does.

Ever since 9/11/2001 Islam has been attacked in the media, by right wing politicians, writers etc. This image of Islam being a blood thirsty almost Nazi like religion has emerged. Dr Tahir Ul Qadri released a Fatwa last year on the topic. Its a start but thats 9 years too late. We as a community in the west and most importantly as a religion needed to release texts of that kind as soon as we came under the kosh. Our scholars do Kuft of fellow muslim scholars who also happen to be of the same Aqeedah as them. But why can't the same scholars do kufr of the people who burn poppies. Do it in the public eye, that would be beneficial to the muslim community. Living in the UK, I can only talk of what I experience in this country. There is at times a very anti Islamic feel in the air BUT Im still entitled to the same rights as any other British citizen is.

In Islam we have come out with some fantastic soloutions to problems and theories about existance etc. Take the concept of Wahdat-ul-Wajood and the counter theory of Wahdut-ul-Shahuud. Shaykh Ibn Arabi was behind the concept of Wahdut-ul-Wajood, in my opinion it brilliantly can answer the existance of God. I think my fustration is why haven't we effectively in the 21st century answered our critics in the west?

Freedom is just a fairy concept. We defo are not free in the west, being morally corrupt and living a life of sin at free will doesn't make you free. It makes you the biggest prisoner of the system and in Islam as they say the Shaitaan. The amount of CCTV cameras installed, electronic money, even schemes like Tesco clubcard. Movements are constantly monitered for various purposes even for selling products.

I think I have gone really off topic here but the post got me thinking.