Faida za Dhikri kabla ya Kulala

MTU AMBAYE ANATAKA MWENYEZI MUNGU AMPUNGUZIE UCHOVU (UZITO) WA KAZI YAKE

"Fatma, Mwenyezi Mungu amuwiye radhi,alimuomba mtume,Mwenyezi Mungu amfikishie rehema na amani,ampe mtumishi, Mtume akamwambia Fatma;Je nikufundisheni yaliyokuwa bora kuliko hayo mlioniomba? Mkitaka kulala,mlete takbira allaahu akbaru mara 34, na mlete tahmidi alhamduli-laahi mara (33) na mlete Tasbihi subuhaanallaahi mara (33),hayo ni bora kwenu kuliko mtumishi"

Read more...

Taqleed, Ijtihad, and Wujub al-nazr

You drown in an ocean of God and can't breath -Jedi Mind Tricks

Recently I have been digging into different facets of Islamic theology, and it is certainly interesting to see the early theologians having debates similar to what the early Christian theologians were debating (the nature of G-d, His attributes, free will, eternity, oneness.)

What I always find MOST interesting about these debates is the degree to which the debaters assume that all those in the conversation know how to ascertain that something is true. It is rarely questioned HOW we actually KNOW FOR CERTAIN that something is true.

Islamic theologians tried to address this systematically, but even they were limited by the ideas and ideology current at the time. Many of them borrowed heavily from Hellenistic philosophy in order to argue their theological and philosophical viewpoints. However, if one reads the average book of aqeedah, what one generally gets is not sophisticated argumentation but crude propositional logic using mostly hadith. In fact, I have found that these books are rarely encouraging believers towards the pursuit of knowledge but towards the pursuit of certainty and non-argumentation. This is disappointing but understandable, as religious scholars are often tied to state projects of social and political control and religious ideology offers a convenient prop for this. Even if said religious scholar is not tied to a state-project, he still exists within a milieu which requires him to convince his followers that he knows THE way: uncertainty is public enemy number one when it comes to religious knowledge.

After considering all this, and then reading more on the basic principles of knowing (i.e syllogistic knowledge, first order logic, etc) I came across the following concept from Jainism (an an Indian religious and intellectual tradition predating Hinduism and Buddhism):

Anekantavada--the principle of multiple viewpoints

Anekantavada is basically the idea that since everything changes, what we know to be 'true' ought to be tempered by another knowledge: that of our impermanence and extremely limited knowledge of the world. Reality itself is manifold in its manifestations. Special relativity demonstrates this is in regards to the nature of space and time: an object's experience of it may be profoundly different depending on the reference point and relative nature of motion. This is rarely present at the level of ordinary awareness, rather it becomes apparent only as one moves at a significant fraction of the speed of light.

Our experience of the world presents a profound paradox which we can ignore existentially, but not philosophically. To me at least, anekantavada is like saying "Allahu 3lim."

Even math, otherwise one of the purest and clearest ways to see the world, has its own set of inherent limitations. Godel's Incompleteness Theorem shows that since any given mathematical system complex enough to contain arithmetic, contains propositions that are true but not provable from within the system, then it may be possible that no single theory will be able to explain the whole world. To extrapolate beyond the abstraction: If we consider Islam as a "system" or a "special world-system" to borrow John Voll's words, then is it not the case that there are true propositions within it that are not provable using its internal methodology. (i.e the existence of G-d). By extension, doesn't this mean that there are things outside the system which are also true but not demonstrably true within the system? This does not invalidate the system's truths, but it does inject a sense of humility into the conclusions one draws within the logic of that system. In other words, the conclusions from our system or set, have to be part of a larger set of sets (The SET OF ALL TRUTH, if you will)

I will let al-Ghazali have the last word on this one, with his criticism of the Mutazilites:

"Don't you see that when you are asleep you believe certain things and imagine certain circumstances and believe they are fixed and lasting and entertain no doubts about that being their status? Then you wake up and know that all your imaginings and beliefs were groundless and unsubstantial. So while everything you believe through sensation or intellection in your waking state may be true in relation to that state, what assurance have you that you may not suddenly experience a state which would have the same relation to your waking state as the latter has to your dreaming, and your waking state would be dreaming in relation to that new and further state. If you found yourself in such a state, you would be sure that all your rational beliefs were unsubstantial fancies."

Al-Ghazali didn't reject reasoning, he simply said that it had its limits especially in regards to attaining the WHOLE truth of a situation. Thus he indirectly pointed to the principle of multiple viewpoints.

Now let us consider the application of this viewpoint to the science of knowledge leading to right guidance:

The central debate in Islam seems to be between taqleed (following a particular authority out of respect for their knowledge) and ijtihad (making a decision, particularly a legal decision, by independent judgement). Taqleed is what we 'ordinary' humans do, while ijtihad is for those well-versed in Islamic scholarship. There is a place in Islam for both of these concepts (for example, taqleed tells me that when I want an opinion about mathematics, I don't go to any random friend but to a mathematician or math teacher. That doesn't preclude my friend the Calculus II student from offering some brilliant analysis up to his level of expertise.)

Unfortunately the two been distorted into opposite poles (like when Western critics argue that "closing the gates of ijtihad" was the cause of intellectual stagnation in the Muslim world but ignore that there are plenty of Islamic commentators who have parsed this debate in different ways, with great skill.)

My question: Why can't an ordinary person perform ijtihad? Is there anything in the Quran prohibiting this? Unequivocally, no. Therefore, I am convinced that, with the availability of modern knowledge, one can easily perform ijtihad, and indeed should. One ought to have the deepest respect for true scholars, and be quick to point out factual errors, but the arguments against ijtihad only demonstrate how scared some 'ulama are of losing their power, as well as how far some have come from the reforming message of the Prophet Muhammed, peace be upon him.

But even beyond ijtihad is the process of wujub al-nazar, or the obligation to reason to produce truth. Given the above limitations, proof with al-nazar will necessarily still be contained within a system (that of human thought) but it will be a larger system with more points of overlap. Whereas to reason from within ijtihad alone might also produce truth, but within a more limited system (the framework of Islamic law).

Now the question REALLY is: how does one parse out the differences between an obligation to use reasoning, and an obligation to obey the principles of a given system (Islam, for example). This is a very relevant question, especially when it comes to implementing Islamic law.
ASIDE: Please note that I don't use the word 'reason' (i.e. Western rationalism) but the word 'reasoning' to denote the process by which any group of humans produces its fundamental truth and which has produced a pretty stunning plurality of viewpoints on a range of ethical and ontological issues.
Many 'liberal' or 'modernist' Islamic scholars (I have problems with those two labels but we will address that later) have correctly pointed out that institutions which are now basically assumed to be the pillar of Islam as a 'system' are not in fact as ontologically sound as they have been purported to be and thus not to be relied on to establish the truth of a given proposition within that system. See, for example, Kassim Ahmad's Hadith: A Re-evaluation. The most shocking aspect of what Ahmad reveals is that the Prophet Muhammed himself (in an often ignored or misinterpreted hadith) clearly forbade his followers from writing down what he said.

Here is one of the reason's Prophet Muhammed's revelation was so important: he was specifically addressing the corruption and empty formalism that had arisen within the Judaic tradition due to the fact of relying on Talmudic interpretation and scholarly opinion. Using our earlier terminology, the logic of that system (Judaism) had become strained and unharmonious due to its overreliance on taqleed.

This produced a sort of disharmony between the obligation to reason speculatively towards the truth, and the opinions of past scholars. What the early Islamic scholars did, in an attempt to ensure that its system would not be corrupted along the same lines, is to try to ensure that there was a given system in place for discerning the accuracy of a given hadith. (Compare this to the Christian Church fathers decision to implement a priesthood)

But given that compilers like Bukhari didn't begin to write these down until some two centuries after the Prophet's death, isn't it ironic that Muslims would claim that the hadith are more accurate than say, the Gospels? (With a similar time lag between events and recording). I do not make this point in order to incite the ongoing battle of correct revelation; I am merely pointing out that theological controversies in Islam are a function of human limitation within that system, as is the case for Christianity, Judaism, etc. Any given system of religion will necessarily have a degree of pluralism; the question is never about eliminating that pluralism but of establishing its boundaries: how do we discern what is 'of the system' and 'not of the system'. Mathematically speaking, what is our set? And does our set harmonize with the set of sets? We are back to the principle of allahu 3lim.

Read more...

On Pant Legs and Right Guidance

This seemingly innocuous issue keeps popping up in conversation. A while back at Masjid Muhammed in DC the sheikh gave a khutba about this very issue, which answered for me 1) Why some Muslim men roll up their pant legs during prayer, and 2) The root of the hadith regarding the Prophet Muhammed's(SAW) opinion of this practice.

Now the other day I found myself in conversation with a brother about this on the way to Arabic class. We had a debate about this, where he was citing hadith to raise the point that one ought to keep one's pants above one's ankle at all times.

Funnily enough, this style (pants above the ankle) at one time became so popular in Philly that I think it crossed over to non-Muslims; During my freshman year in college, I used to see guys from Philly at Lincoln rocking 'jeans' which stopped at the ankle and high socks to match. They also would rock the beard with the low mustache (another 'sunna' practice).

Anyway, I digress. Even though this brother and I disagreed--I felt that the literal meaning of the hadith no longer applied because no one nowadays wears their pants past the ankles out of pride, while he felt that a hadith is a hadith and we have to follow it.--it was still productive in forcing me to think about some difficult theological issues. It made me search out the sources. So I went online and found this discussion about pant legs, and tried to muddle my way through it.

Ironically, the most sensible response in the discussion was not from any of those quoting the commentaries and hadith collections. It came from another cat on the board, who related the sunna to contemporary practice in a way that was actually relevant:

"If I recall correctly, it is reported that the Holy Messenger (SAW) made a remark to Umar ibn Al Khaatab about his clothes that reached to below his ankle, saying that that was a sign of arrogance. We only have to remember the types of clothing that kings and queens used to wear to be able to understand this.

However, today we do not wear trousers below the ankle as a sign of arrogance.

Trousers that reach below the ankle may collect dirt and other filthy things as we walk. Such clothes would not be OK for Salaah. That's clear enough.

So, if we take the precaution of wearing trousers down to a length that ensures that the trousers do not get soiled, there should be no problem.

Folding the trousers above the ankles for salaah is necessary, because the ankles have to be visible so that all in the same row may align their ankles. It is by aligning ankles that shoulders come in a straight row.

Hope, Inshallah that above throws some light on the issue.

I love this response. Its simple, its logical, it makes sense from a practical point of view, and best of all it doesn't presume that those who have read every single commentary know best. I feel stifled and angry when I read some of these commentaries (especially dealing with issues like pant legs). I often feel as if the scholars are using knowledge to put a straightjacket on ordinary common sense and mislabeling their opinions as being "rightly guided".

If you are reduced to following a practice devoid of its context, and actually having arguments about whether it is a major or a minor sin, then you have missed the point of submitting to Allah, and in fact are close to falling into the trap the hadith warns against: pride! For those with the wherewithall and determination to engage with the difficult work of tracing the correct transmission and interpretation of hadith, I say "more power to you." But please keep in mind that submission to Allah should never be confused with following a law. This is not shirk, but in fact a point made by the Prophet Jesus (SAW).

The Prophet Muhammed (SAW) came to fulfill the earlier scriptures, such as The Bible and The Torah, and to reveal how they confirm the truth of the Quran, yet most Christians as well as Muslims (and no doubt colonialism played a role in this) have made finding the rapproachment between the two religions impossible because each view the other as a 'competitor' for souls. This is not the particular space to comment on this capitalistic model of religion, which views the success of religion by an index of ever-increasing growth, but I will say that a more fruitful path would be for Christians and Muslims to read each others' books and try to come to an understanding of the interrelationship between the Quran and The Bible.

For instance, the Bible is flawed and innacurate at some points, and it most certainly was the work of a committee, but many, if not most Muslims have never READ the Bible, so they have no idea about how to discern the truth from the falsehood. This despite the following verses in the Quran:

Say ye: "We believe in Allah, and the revelation given to us, and to Abraham, Ismail, Isaac, Jacob, and the Tribes, and that given to Moses and Jesus, and that given to (all) the prophets from their Lord; We make no difference between one and another of them: and we submit to Allah.
Surat-ul Baqara (2):136

O ye who believe! Believe in God, and His apostle, and the scripture which He sent to His apostle, and the scripture which He sent to those before (him). Any who denieth God, His angels, His Books, His apostles, and the Day of Judgment hath gone far, far astray.
Surat-un Nisaa (4):136

In fact, I remember being in one class on Islam where a teacher discouraged us from reading The Bible on the grounds that its 'falsehoods' would confuse us, despite the fact that the Prophet Muhammed(SAW) himself invited the believer to seek knowledge wherever he can find it.

Similarly, Christians have only rarely taken the time to understand the Quran outside of those partisans who are reading it to try to demonstrate Christian superiority over Islam. I remember one ignorant Christian I met on a train who told me that God and Allah were two different deities! No doubt she was reciting what she heard at her church, and had never read the Quran. Even those Christians who have read the Quran often lack any contextual appreciation of the Islamic message, have no understanding of the various interpretations of difficult verses, or are reading the Quran in an English translation of often dubious accuracy.

A little while back I was discussing this with a friend of mine, and I had the idea of founding an organization called "Christians For Muhammed" (the title coming from the evangelical organization "Jews for Jesus") which would seek to underline the common basis of thought between Christianity and Islam, as well as engage in a dialogue about how Judaic thought has influenced both traditions. As the venerable Ali A. Mazrui has written, "Precisely because Islam conceived of itself as a restoration of the message of Jesus after it had been distorted, Muhammed's revolution was the first Protestant assertion in history like Luther and Calvin nine hundred years later, Muhammed felt that the message of Jesus had been perverted by his successors in the leadership of the flock." Like Mazrui, I see the message of Islam as being an attempt to restore 'balance' to Christianity by removing the deification of Christ while retaining reverence for his teachings.

From my reading, I believe that, much like early Christians deified Jesus and subsequently distorted his message, the true (often esoteric) meaning of the Quran and Sunna has been missed by those zealous to imitate the life of the Prophet(SAW) in every detail without contextual appreciation of aspects of the Prophet's message, and subsequently denounce all those who differ with them. They refuse to even consider the important question: "Which of the Prophet Muhammed's insights were specific to a particular situation or to that culture?"

But the 'text' is in some ways a false refuge; people turn to its authority without bothering to think about the multiple ways in which they conceive of that text's truth may be formed. The Quran, even as an authoritative text, has to be interpreted, has to be given a context. There is no such thing as a non-contextual reading. Unfortunately, this insight is anathema to many Muslims as well as Christians. This can lead to Pharasaical in such behavior and the detriment of a true spiritual understanding. (see Umar Lee's multi-part series on the "rise and fall of the Salafi Dawa in the US"

Let me stress that there is much to be said for the practice of studying and imitating the Prophet's life, as the Prophet(SAW) was a model for human conduct on this earth. Yet from a "longee duree" perspective of true righteousness and model behavior: if Abraham and Musa and Jesus were all Muslims and they didn't (for example) roll their pant legs off the ground (and may have even listened to music), then doesn't this show that the true essence of Islam is in the heart? In short, the practices, pillars, hadith, and shari'a of Islam are meant as rudders for the steering the heart towards Allah, not some straightjacket for us humans as if we were too ignorant to do anything but obey.

Please forgive me for any theological errors. Allahu alim.

Read more...