Modernism in Islaam (part 3)

Modernism in Islam - Jamal Zarabozo(part 3 of 4)

HOW DO MODERNISTS GO ASTRAY?

The observer can easily point out the following points as the driving force for this trend:

1) Their premises and assumptions are wrong Modernists look to the West and try to reinterpret the “old religion” with modern science and modern times. They assume that:

a) the present situation is advanced or different (i.e. “this is not the Prophet’s time!”). However, the idea of progress and that things are better now is Marxian and Hegelian. It is against the hadith, as the Prophet said each generation is getting worse. They must prove that there has been progression (no definition of it given). Islamically the advanced society is the one that comes closer to Allah, and understands and applies Islam better (such as the sahaaba). In fact, the current societies have the things of the old societies (such as homosexuality, etc.) as mentioned in the Qur’an;

b) religion is relative to time and place (i.e. “therefore we need to judge Islam in light of modern science”). Modernists are “people of science” and judge Islam according to modern science. They think that the West is based on science, but they fail to notice that not all science is based on fact. In reality, much of science is only hypothesis (not a fact). Also, every science has its own philosophy, which will lead to its own conclusions;

c) the way of thinking of a society is based on (is a product of) its enviroment. Modernists say most of religion is from the people and their environment and it can be judged by later times, and hadith are related to that time only. However, there is no proof for the modernist hypothesis that religious truth is relative. Allah says the Qur’an is Haq (truth). Modernists are saying (by inference) that if the Qur’an is not true now, then it was never true.

2) The methodology they use is wrong. The methodology of the modernists is the way they mislead people to the wrong conclusions. They claim to be scientific, but they are usually inconsistent or have no proof or foundation for their beliefs. Some of the means and principles they use include:

a) Sunna and Hadith. They claim the Qur’an is authentic and they only follow “authentic” hadith. This implies that they have a way to judge hadith (different from that of the traditional scholars), yet most give no new way to judge hadith, and are using their 'aql (intelligence) to determine this (like the female ruler hadith). Modernists especially dislike hadith which have specific meanings and prefer ones which only have general principles.

b) Use of weak hadith to help their points and arguments (while they are calling for the use of authentic hadith). For example, in the area of women in Islam (the two areas the modernists try to change the most are the sunna and women) they like to quote two stories from the time of Umar: 1) when Umar was giving a Khutbah he tried to restrict the amount of dowry, a woman opposed, and Umar corrected himself and thanked the woman, and 2) Umar appointed Umma Shifaa as a market-regulator (used by modernist to say women can work in the government). However, both of these stories are not authentic.

c) Use vague terms without defining them. Modernists use terms like democracy, freedom, and equality, but they do not define what they mean by them. The danger in using vague terms is that a knowledgeable person will pass over the word or concept, thinking they meant the Islamic or acceptable definition while in fact they did not, while others may believe what they are saying is true.

d) Do not present all of the relevant information that is available on the subject. That is, from Qur’an, sunna, etc. They only present that which will support their views. This tactic is used to avoid unliked beliefs, so they just do not mention them.

e) Force their interpretation onto the text. This is what the Muta’zilla did, when they said 'aql takes precedence over what is from the Prophet. Many modernists say Islam is the “rational” religion. This is true if you mean everything is from Allah and there is no contradiction, but to say that we can study everything in Islam by judging it with only our intellect is unacceptable and there is also no proof for this. To avoid implementing what the Qur’an and sunna says, the modernists say we need to follow the “spirit” of Islam and not worry about the laws specifically. But it is clear from the Qur’an and Sunna that we are to take both. They will argue that the text of the Qur’an only says for women to dress modestly and they do not like to talk about the specific details of hijaab and say we only need to follow the “spirit” of the law.

f) They tend to oppose scholars by saying they meant something else. They say that the door to ijtihaad is open, which is something accepted by the Ahl As-Sunna Wal Jamaa’. However, it is not open to everybody on any subject. Modernists claim that anyone would make ijtihaad until Imam Shaffie narrowed the qualifications (not true), and today anyone can do it. In one magazine, on the question of polygamy and divorce, some said that these two can be restricted by ijtihaad. They often misquote scholars and give their own meanings for what they said.

g) Often follow strange and rejected opinions. They try to revive some of the old opinions because they like it and say that this writer said it in the past. Modernists try to open the door to these opinions and choose what is the most suitable and easy to follow. However, we are supposed to look for the fiqh opinions that are the closest to the truth. They usually bring bad hadith such as “The differences in my Ummah is a mercy” or reject authentic hadith such as the one about the breakup of the Ummah into 73 sects.

h) Follow their desires. They often make rulings and fatawa without permissible daleel (evidence). One said music is permissible because he did not see something wrong with it, so it is halal. But he did not check what the Qur’an and the sunna say about this subject.

Salaam

Thanks Hasnain :)

W'Salaam

[This message has been edited by sabah (edited June 25, 1999).]

Hasnain:
Thanks, it is a great piece of Information

Asalaamu alaikum brother,

A most informative series.

(That makes me sound like a critic on the back of a novel!)

Wasalaam

Bro. Hasnain,

That was an excellent article however just a few minor points

1) the hadith 'difference of opinion is a mercy in my Ummah' is an authentic hadith not a fabricated one. However it refers to differences, to my limited knowledge, between the scholars of ijtihaad--and like you say not any one can do ijtihaad; in fact by ijma' of the Ahle Sunnah, no one capable of doing absolute ijtihaad [mujtahid MATLAQ==there are grades of ijtihaad :)] has appeared since the time of Imam as-Suyuti even. This hadith refers to the differences in matters of fiqh between the Imams of the 4 madhhabs. Wallahu aalam. Astaghfirullah for any mistakes on my part.

2) A big problem is that none of the modernists will be traditionally educated ulama; rathr they will have a PhD in Islamic studies from say, SOAS, or Harvard. In Shar'iah these qualifications do not make one an aalim, let alone someone capable of ijtihaad!! Traditionalscholarship is based on the ijaza system, where one scholar learns a science of islam --eg- fiqh--from someone who lwearned it from someone-all with ijaazas--right back to the time of the salaf, and eventually, the Beloved Nabi themselves sal allahu alayhi wa sallam.

eg a man asked Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal how many hadiths a person should know by heart to be a scholar of hadith--the Imaam said 300, 000 [three HUNDRED THOUSAND] (Of course by this the Imaam is including all the chains of transmission].

The reality is, as Abdul Hakim Murad says in answer to a question that a modernist is really just another name for lack of imaan.
!!! [an example of a so-called modernist 'scholar' is fatima mernissi!]

That was a great article.The way for Muslims is to return to the traditional ulam for knowledge and the Way of the Ahle Sunnah.

wa salaam

:)

" Ask those who know, if you do not know" (Qur'an)

[This message has been edited by Abdal Mustafa (edited June 25, 1999).]

Salam Masnoon

Br. great effort.

Vassalam

Asalaamu ‘alaikum brother Abdal Mustafa,

Jazaak’Allaah khair for your kind words and your response. It was most appreciated and I read it with considerable interest.

With regards to the hadeeth endorsing ikhtilaaf (disagreement, differing) “The differences in my Ummah is a Mercy”, Shaikh Al-Albaani (hafidhullaah) has ruled this weak in his book Silsilah al-Ahadeeth and Da’eefah wa’l-Mawdoo’ah (58-62).

Firstly the Shaikh calls it ‘Laa Aasla Lahu’ (baseless) and says that the muhadditheen have tried to find an isnaad for it but have not found one, to the extent that Suyooti said in his al-Jaami as-Sagheer, “Perhaps it was collected in one of the books of the huffaadh which did not reach us”!
This suggestion is very far-fetched, al-Albaani says, since it would mean that some of the sayings of the Prophet (salallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) have been lost to the ummah forever, something which is not permissible for the Muslim to believe.

Manaawi quoted Subki as saying, “It (i.e. the saying) is not known to the muhadditheen and cannot find any isnaad for it, whether saheeh, da’eef or mawdoo’”, and this was endorsed by Shaikh Zakareeyyah al-Ansaari in his notes on Tafseer al-Baidaawi [92/2].

Further, the meaning of this hadeeth is also incorrect as shown by the verifying scholars, hence Ibn Hazm says in al-ihkaam fi Usool al-Ahkaam [5/64] after indicating that it is not a hadeeth, “This is one of the most incorrect sayings possible, since if ikhtilaaf were a mercy, then agreement would be a punishment, something which no Muslim would say, because there can only be agreement or disagreement, and there can only be mercy or punishment.”

Secondly, this hadeeth contradicts the Qur’aan, which has condemned ikhtilaaf in many places.

I trust this will Insha’Allaah clarify the matter ... and I pray that Allaah unites all the Muslims upon the truth. Ameen.

W’salaam,
kindest regards