Whats the deal with this?

Society Religion & Philosophy
1

Why are the Islamic reasoning texts, for example a dissertation by some muslim scholar on some specific issue, so confusing in nature? I mean, it seems that each Arabic word can be interpreted in at least three different ways. And then depending upon those interpretations every scholar comes up with his own view about the subject. In the end, the conclusion thus seems to be peppered with the personal inclinations of that particular individual.

If Islam is the best and the final religion, as we muslims believe, then why was it left with (what seems to me) so many loose/open ends? Here is a religion that is moe than 1400 years old and its followers cant even agree upon even the simple issues. Why weren’t all the issues decided upon once and for all and things made easier for the followers, rather then provide them with opportunities to make their own “daRhe eenT ki masjid”, their own firqas and then fight among themselves?

2

If one looks at the broader, fundamental aspects of Islam you will find a general consensus that is firmly backed by Divine revelation. For example, all Muslims agree that only Allah should be worshiped; that Prophet Muhammad (s) is the final Prophet and that any claim to Prophethood after him is false; that mankind is accountable to Allah; there will be a Day of Resurrection and Judgement; Heaven and Hell are true and exist; Allah has revealed scripture to guide mankind, and so on. In such cases, there is no room for differences of opinion and the Muslim community from the earliest generations has agreed that these and other similar matters form a critical part of Islam and there's no room for dispute. So here there are no "loose/open ends" as you put it.

You also said: "Why weren't all the issues decided upon once and for all and things made easier for the followers." Making things one way only without scope for variation isn't necessarily the best way of making things "easier for the followers". Allowing differences of opinion in those areas where differences can be tolerated is perhaps a far better method of ensuring that people are able to adhere to religious precepts.

Some differences were inherited by subsequent generations of Muslims simply because those differences had always been there from the start. It may be that, for example, the Prophet Muhammad (s) allowed his community to do some things in different ways.

Divine revelation is one thing whilst deriving directives from it is another. While the former is pristine and faultless, the process of deducing laws and rules from it is a purely human endeavour. Since scholars have varying abilities and specialities, it is natural to expect them to differ. But as in all cases, where differences do arise, one has to look at the arguments presented and in most cases you can usually sift out those that have little or no evidence to support them.

And Allah knows best.

Iqbal

3

Scratch, what you've described is the best evidence for the concept of flexibility in Islam. Also it illustrates that obedience to God is not about the small things, like whether or not to wear nailpolish while praying, but about the big things, of which a true muslim has no doubt of, and which are clear-cut in the Quran.

Believing is better than saying you believe. And knowing is better than believing. If you dont KNOW the things in the Quran as you KNOW that you have 5 fingers on one hand, then (my bias), you're missing out.

4

Oh and I don't know if this helps, but there are a lot of double-meanings in the verses. Sometimes even multiple-meanings. I suppose, depending upon your state of mind at the time, you see things differently as another sees it. The Quran is written poetically, and sometimes, it helps to interpret it as one interprets poetry, rather than a historical textbook.

5

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Iqbal1089: *
that Prophet Muhammad (s) is the final Prophet and that any claim to Prophethood after him is false
[/quote]

There is a sizeable community which brings forth the fundamental difference in the interpretation of the words 'rasul' and 'Nabi'. Sects differ in that, hence differing beliefs. Now if one sect 'overpowers' the other and declares them non-Muslims, it still doesn't solve the problem of interepretation which is out there for anyone to read up and then argue on those lines.

[quote]
that mankind is accountable to Allah
[/quote]

but many sects have interpreted verses on 'intercession' to the extent that they believe in Prophet Muhammad 'saving' them (a la Jesus) on the Day of Judgement.

[quote]
Allah has revealed scripture to guide mankind, and so on. In such cases, there is no room for differences of opinion and the Muslim community from the earliest generations has agreed that these and other similar matters form a critical part of Islam and there's no room for dispute. So here there are no "loose/open ends" as you put it.
[/quote]

absolutely incorrect. care to explain why there are so many sects in Islam?? Read up on Muslim History to discover differences beginning the day the Prophet died... did somebody say Khawarij?

6

Iqbal, the fact that people can misconstrue different meaning (as pointed out by PA in his reply) even from the divine revelation fully endorses the fact that there are indeed many loose ends.

Well anyways, as you have rightly pointed out that there are two aspects to this matter: 1) divine revelation 2) deriving directives from it.

The differences concerning divine revelation give rise to sectarianism in Islam. This I think is a well known fact. My main idea for this post was the latter of the two i.e. deriving directives. Just as an example, we can look at the this other thread by Coconut concerning musical instruments. No one has a final answer to that issue. There are as many point of views as there is the number of scholars (well ok not that many but close to it). And I was amazed to see ( in link that you provided in that thread) the way the scholars tend to twist and turn meaning of every word so as to make it closer to the conclusion that they wish to draw. Why this opportunity for people to argue and then not to reach a conclusion?

*Originally posted by Iqbal1089: *
You also said: “Why weren’t all the issues decided upon once and for all and things made easier for the followers.” Making things one way only without scope for variation isn’t necessarily the best way of making things “easier for the followers”. Allowing differences of opinion in those areas where differences can be tolerated is perhaps a far better method of ensuring that people are able to adhere to religious precepts.

Alright but then who decides who is right? Is this thing, “scope of variation” as you call it, doing us any good at all? Here we have people (mullahs) condemning other people to hell on petty issues. They show no tolerence at all.

*Originally posted by Iqbal1089: *
Some differences were inherited by subsequent generations of Muslims simply because those differences had always been there from the start. It may be that, for example, the Prophet Muhammad (s) allowed his community to do some things in different ways.

What are these differences?

*Originally posted by Iqbal1089: *
Since scholars have varying abilities and specialities, it is natural to expect them to differ. But as in all cases, where differences do arise, one has to look at the arguments presented and in most cases you can usually sift out those that have little or no evidence to support them.

Varying aiblities?!!! No doubt it is so but why the general Muslim popuace has to depend upon a certain group of people for such an important matter as their religion and their lives after death?

Gudia, whats the use of such felxibilty? Even if this flexibility then I think we have very wrong concept of it. Probably, such flexibilty was put in intentionally, for the puepose of “Ijtihaad”. But I dont see it happening.

PA, dude I have nothing to say to you. You are always a step ahead :k:

7

I also appreciate your posts very much PA. Islam is a lot more simpler to understand when basic logic and reasoning is used instead of pure dogma and insults as done by the mullas.

8

Gudia, whats the use of such felxibilty?

If there was no flexibility in the Message, then how can you expect flexibility in society? We already saw what the lack of flexibility in society can lead to. Remember Afghanistan under the Taliban? Check out our own feudal and tribal laws in Pakistan.

Inflexibility kills society's growth.

Even if this flexibility then I think we have very wrong concept of it. Probably, such flexibilty was put in intentionally, for the puepose of "Ijtihaad".

That's what i'm talking about. Also flexibility in the sense that - "well, these are small and unimportant things and what matters really is your intention."

If you pull this latter view to music, you'll see that the reason why the Quran never directly discusses music is because PERHAPS its not an important issue. Granted there are some bad musical productions, but its up to you to not be influenced. I think God understands we're smart enough to decide what is Good to hear, and what Evil. Thus, there is no discussion on the morality of music in the Quran. I think God probably covered it when He asked us not to listen to Evil. Whether a particular musical piece is evil or not, well, we're intelligent enough to decide that.

But I dont see it happening.

I intend to become rich, but I dont see that happening either :( . One concept is that not every muslim will be a PERFECT muslim. We're bound to fail somewhere. The Lack of Itjihaad today, however, is not a minor flaw. I think Old Lahori has posted up some good articles as to why science and reasoning have declined in the muslim world. I think this pattern is very parallel to the decline of itjihaad. Perhaps its the insecurity of muslims that they're too afraid to decide anything on their own. Perhaps its a small, yet smart, group of individuals that imposes senseless rules on the muslim world by misusing Islam and "stopping people from thinking" so that they can carry on their own political agendas. Who knows?

Listen, Islam doesn't tell you how to tie your shoes. It just gives you a big picture supported by a lot of details. As long as you get the big picture and you REALIZE God, then you've got the hang of the Religion.

Whether one person wants to paint his house blue, and the other red - that is small business, and really doesn't matter in the end. What matters is what is in your heart.

Sorry for the long post.

9

Re: Whats the deal with this?

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Scratch: *
Why are the Islamic reasoning texts, for example a dissertation by some muslim scholar on some specific issue, so confusing in nature? I mean, it seems that each Arabic word can be interpreted in at least three different ways.
[/QUOTE]

It is not only Arabic but I am having some tough time explaining the difference between these 3 Urdu words PYAR, ISHQ or MOHABBAT. Care to explain why Urdu is such a complicated language...use the same reasoning for Arabic.

[QUOTE]
And then depending upon those interpretations every scholar comes up with his own view about the subject. In the end, the conclusion thus seems to be peppered with the personal inclinations of that particular individual.
[/QUOTE]

Sometimes yes. But as long as it doesn’t go against the book and Prophet Sunnah then it is not an issue.

[QUOTE]
If Islam is the best and the final religion, as we muslims believe, then why was it left with (what seems to me) so many loose/open ends? Here is a religion that is moe than 1400 years old and its followers cant even agree upon even the simple issues. Why weren't all the issues decided upon once and for all and things made easier for the followers, rather then provide them with opportunities to make their own "daRhe eenT ki masjid", their own firqas and then fight among themselves?
[/QUOTE]

We didn’t have much issue 1400 years ago because there was no madhab (in the time of prophet). The reason we can’t agree on one solution is because everyone thinks he/she is right. Everyone believe their own firqa is the most correct one.

10

Dear Scratch,

That is precisely why the Prophet - salallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam - was sent with the message: to explain the Qur'aan, and as an example to be followed.

And those whom he explained it to (i.e. the Companions) were upon the best understanding of the Qur'aan and Islaam.

The problem is, that people have began to interpret the Qur'aan using their own intellects and in many ways to suit their own preferences and desires. This kind of 'open' interpretation can lead to almost as many opinions as there are Mulsims - now that would be confusing!

For example, in the Qur'aan in clearly states that Muhammad - salallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam - is the seal of the Prophets (i.e. the last Prophet) but 1 or 2 groups have interpreted the verse as they desired, and introduced a prophet after the demise of the Prophet - salallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam. However, such people have gone against the understanding of the Companions. This is not how the Companions understood the Qur'aan.

So it is essential, that if we wish to be upon the true understanding of Islaam, we return to the Sunnah and the understanding of the Qur’aan according to the Companions. And only when we have a common ground to unite upon in understanding Islaam, will this Ummah be successful.

This is precisely what the enemeies of Islaam (from men and the jinn i.e. shayateen) do not wish, for the Muslims to unite upon Islaam - the truth. And this is why the British during their colonial empire, invented new 'brands' of Muslims, by indoctrinating selected Islamic figures, in order to misguide the rest of the Muslims. Two such groups include Qaadyaanees (ahmedies) and Parvezees (qur'aaniyeens), who are being financially supported by the British up until today. This is why you find these groups being loyal supporters of western governments, and many of these people are willing to compromise their beliefs to please a people, namely those who initiated them two and a half centuries ago, and their allies.

These groups, and their likes, did not ever exist during the time of the Prophet - salallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam – and hold many contrary beliefs to Islaam as understood by the Companions.

Many non-Muslim governments who oppose Islaam, fund newly invented Muslim groups to spread their da’wah and fight, on an intellectual level, those Muslims who are upon the truth – Qur’aan and Sunnah as understood by the Companions. Just as the plan of Iblees, the aim of the enemies of Islaam is to take the Muslims astray, by infiltrating their minds with evil doctrines and thought, while striving to spread their propaganda against what Islaam really teaches, and the revivers of Islaam. Such was the instigation of the term ‘Wahhaabi’, to defame and ridicule by labelling the people of the Sunnah. The Bristish supported the innovation of this term, which is used today in a derogatory manner. There is no such thing as ‘Wahhaabi’, as there wasn’t during the time of the Messenger – salallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam. But you’ll find that it is the enemies of Islaam who shout it the most and are eager to use this term and promote it for their cause of ridiculing and mocking the people of the Sunnah. No one claims to be a ‘wahhaabi’, but if you were to ask the shi’ites, they would say they were shi’tes, the ahmedies would say they were ahmedies, the barelwis would say they were barelwis etc. So then why is it that the people of the Sunnah are being labelled with something they do not even recognise themselves by? Simple, to mock, ridicule and slander Islaam … and it’s working!

So turning the sails back into line, it is of paramount importance that while grasping Islaam, we revert back to the expalantion of the Religion according to the Messenger Muhammad - salallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and upon the understanding of the Companions - radhiAllaahu anum - if we wish to be successful in this life and the Hereafter.

... and Allaah knows best.

May Allaah uide us all,
&peace

11

I guess Gudia is right to certain extent. We are supposed to read Quran again and again and given the circumstances in which we are reading it, we might get some different meaning from the same Ayat which meant something different to us earlier (but believe me this different meaning wouldnt be contradictory to the earlier by any means)

btw we, as muslims, are not supposed to follow what a scholar right away. He may be wrong out of his ignorance or his inability to grasp the depth of a certain concept. This is the reason why I believe we should learn Arabic so that we may better understan the true meanings of Quran and not percieve it the way some scholar has perceived it.

It is for sure that if we follow a certain scholar, and assuming he told us something wrong...deliberately or just out of ignorance....we can not hold him responsible at the day of judgment, that he asked us to do such n such things...we are lucky that we have Quran and Sunnah with us to follow, and the only way we can do it right is if we understand it by ourselves.

12

Husnain…you are making as much sense as a donkey. If Suunis call themselves Sunnis, and Shias call themselves Shias, what is wrong with other people calling themselves as they wish? Saudis admit that they follow Abdul-Wahab’s interpretation of Shariah, hence they want to be known as Wahabis. They make a distinction between themselves and regular mainstream Sunnis. Haven’t you seen the dozen mosques per neighborhood in Pakistan? In my mohalla alone, there is a Wahabi mosque, 5 or 6 Sunni mosques, and 1 Shia mosque. Now people who never get out of their house (you know the saying, Mullah ki dor Masjid tak) will never know what goes on on the ground.

If you have problem with Ahamdis, that is your problem. Most Sadui Wahabis don’t give a damn about Ahmadis, it is only the Pakistani variety that gets up so uptight because they have nothing to show for themselves.

13

Scratch,

Such differences in opinion are not only reserved for Muslims but all other revealed texts have been interpreted differently by different people. Its the very nature of revelation.

Secondly, if Quran is to be for all nations of the world till eternity, you are bound to encounter new things, issues and ideals as time progresses. The power of divinity of Quran is that it claims to hold all answers. If only one interpretation was to be the true case than it would limit Quran for people 1400 years ago.

So you ask which interpretation to follow? Whichever comforts your heart, after all that's what belief is all about. As Quran says in the very beginning "it is a guidance for the righteous" (mind you, not for the learned, not for intellectual, nor for an Arabic linguist unless they don't have a rightous nature)

Husnain,

Your comments to me are disturbing to say the least and show the utter ignorance on your part. Considering Ahmadis "agents" of the British only points to the frustration & jealousy Maulvi sahiban have to the successes of Islam. As they can't accept it as a favor of Allah, they have to blame somebody.

I also sense a great deal of hatred towards "the West" in your posts, and in your post above you make it abundantly clear that you consider them as an enemy of Islam & the sole reason for all the problems faced by the Muslim world.

Anyway, I would suggest that you go visit an Ahmadi mosque, talk to a few around and maybe attend a few Ijlas or meetings. Maybe you will have a different opinion afterwards.

14

[quote]
we revert back to the expalantion of the Religion according to the Messenger Muhammad - salallaahu 'alayhi wa sallam - and upon the understanding of the Companions - radhiAllaahu anum
[/quote]

and that leads you to become one monolithic Islamic nation???

Hasnain have you checked the mail lately for your reality check?? why were the 2nd, 3rd and 4th caliphs murdered in cold blood?? because there were no differences in Islam at that time cuz everyone followed the Prophet and the 'rightly guided companions'??

Why do people who follow one companion differ with the other.. why is there a need to follow 'Imams' then if everything from the companions is a clear explanation.

why today you still need to go 'fatwa-shopping' when trying to decide if wearing nail polish while offering Salat is permissible??

15

That’s a good observation Ahmadjee, but those who hate everyone should not be expected to love anyone. Their miserable existence is perhaps their biggest reward (or punishment).

16

You know Nya, i also made quite an observation. Fancy reading it?

17

[quote]
Originally posted by NYAhmadi:

** Husnain…you are making as much sense as a donkey.**
[quote]

We’ll see exactly who’s making as much sense as what in a minute!

[quote]
Originally posted by NYAhmadi:

Saudis admit that they follow Abdul-Wahab’s interpretation of Shariah, hence they want to be known as Wahabis. **
[/quote]

Firstly, Sh. Abdul Wahhaab did not have an interpretation of the Shar’i’ah, as he was not a faq’eeh (jurist). His concentration was on ‘aqeedah and Tawheed. Secondly, it is a well known fact, Saudi Arabia bases it’s Shari’ah upon Imaam ibn Hambal’s interpretation of Shar’iah. Not a single Saudi would say that he wishes to be referred to as a Wahhaabi!

[quote]
They make a distinction between themselves and regular mainstream Sunnis
[/quote]

Is that why in every school in the country they teach the ‘aqeedah of ‘Ahlus-Sunnah wal-Jamaa’ah’!?

[quote]
Originally posted by NYAhmadi:

*In my mohalla alone, there is a Wahabi mosque, 5 or 6 Sunni mosques, and 1 Shia mosque. Now people who never get out of their house (you know the saying, Mullah ki dor Masjid tak) will never know what goes on on the ground. *
[/quote]

And who never leaves the moon will not know what goes on on earth. I don’t know where you live, but you need to move! Is your so called ‘Wahhaabi’ mosque an Ahles-Hadith mosque by any chance?

[quote]
Originally posted by NYA:

*If you have problem with Ahamdis, that is your problem. Most Sadui Wahabis don’t give a damn about Ahmadis, it is only the Pakistani variety that gets up so uptight because they have nothing to show for themselves. *
[/quote]

Another lie! … During my time in Saudi, I did not know of a single Saudi who knew about Qaadyaanees with something positive to say about them – it was all negative. Please read:

Quote – The Council of the Islamic Fiqh Academy during its second session held in Jeddah(Kingdom of Saudi Arabia), from 10 to 16 Rabiul Thani 1406 H (22-28 December 1985);

Having looked into the request for juristic opinion submitted to it by “The Islamic Legal Council, Cape town (South Africa)” about the ruling concerning “The Qadianiya” and the group branching from it, referred to as the “Lahorites”, to examine whether to consider them as Muslims or otherwise, and whether it is possible for a non-Muslim to adjudicate in a controversy of this nature;

In the light of research works and documents presented to the members of the Council of the Academy related to this subject and about Mirza Ghulam Ahmad (Al-Qadiani) who appeared in India in the last century and to whom the Qadiani and Lahorite sects are attributed;
Having looked into the facts presented concerning these two sects and after having verified that Mirza Ghulam Ahmed has declared to be a Prophet sent and revealed upon, and such claim having been established about him through his writings some of which he claims to be revelation made upon him; and that he had continued to proclaim such a status all his life, inviting people through his books and speeches to believe in his Prophethood and being a messenger and moreover, it has been proven that he has denied many of the very obvious teaching of Islam such as the Holy War(Jihad);

*Having further considered * the declaration made by the Islamic Fiqh Academy of Makkah Al-Mukarramah on this same issue;

RESOLVES

1. The declaration by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad concerning his Prophethood and his claim of inspiration by the Divine Revelation, is an open rejection of the obviously and categorically established religious doctrine concerning the ending of Prophethoood with Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and that there is no revelation after him. Therefore, the said declaration from Mirza Ghulam Ahmad make him, along with all those who accept the same, apostates (Murtad), who have apostatized Islam. As far as the Lahorites are concerned, they too, like the Qadianis are apostates (Murtad) despite their description of Mirza Ghulam Ahmed as the shadow and incarnation of our Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

2. No non-Islamic court or non-Muslim judge is entitled to make a judgment about someone’s Islam or apostasy, particularly when they defy the consensus of Muslim nations represented by its academies and scholars. This is so because a judgment concerning Islam and apostasy is not recognizable except when it is issued by a Muslim who knows all prerequisites for entering into Islam or parting with it as an apostate and who has the grasp of the essence of Islam and disbelief and knows in depth what has been established by the Book, the Sunnah and the consensus. Therefore, the decision of such a court is void.
Verily, Allah is All-Knowing

From the Book "Resolution and Recommendations of the Council of the Islamic Fiqh Academy (1985-2000)”

"No leaf falls except that He knows of it, and no rain drop forms except that He has willed it."

18

Yeah Husnain, as if all Saudis go to that academy? Most Saudis that I know do not know about Ahmadis. As they say that “Mulla ki dour Masjid tak” that’s very true in your case. You will only to find places where your hatred is also shared by others. So there’s a no surprise there. I wonder if any of those 19 hijackers also came from that academy. Most probably they did.

You are right, those mosques have Ahle-Hadees written on them, why don’t they just call it a Muslim mosque? Are Wahabis not muslims?

19

Ahmadjee,

I’m sorry if you found my comments disturbing and ignorant. I don’t consider all Ahmadies to be agents of the British govt …

If you investigate for yourself, rather than blindly follow what you have been told, you’ll find in various history sources that the Ahmedi movement is a recent occurrence. Where did it suddenly come from? Who was Mirza Ghulam Ahmad? Was he a Masiah? Was he a Prophet? All the prophets have come with signs and all the Messengers have come with miracles - what did Mirza Ghulam Ahmad come with? Why did he call himself Ghulam ‘Ahmad’, and not Ghulam ‘Allaah’, particularly for someone who was supposed to be preaching the Oneness of Allaah?

… so many unanswered questions.

Perhaps the whole west is not an enemy of Islaam, but clearly Western governments have an anti-Islamic agenda … and yes many of the western governments do consider Islaam as a threat. As a Muslim, I’m surprised you find that difficult to absorb.

I will take up your suggestion. Perhaps if I can make it to the US this year, you yourself can take me to an Ahmedi mosque. But I would also like to make a suggestion in the meantime. I sincerely urge you to investigate the historical emergence of the Ahmadi/Qaadyaanee movement. Please do your own personal research.

regards

"No leaf falls except that He knos of it, and no rain drop forms except that He has willed it."

20

<

Hasnain: I have to laugh when I see this. Islam is a recent occurance. What a mere 1500 years. When you have reached at least 3000 years then come back to me. Until then...no soup for you!