Could it really be true that the vast majority of Muslims strayed from Islam?
-
One of the main barriers between my acceptance of the true essencnce of Islam, away from all the scaremongering sectarianism was that I simply couldn't comprehend how the vast majority of people claiming to be in submission to Allah (under the name of Sunnism of Shi'ism) could all have so grossly misinterpreted the concept of Islam. I couldn't understand WHY the scholars and learned people would continue to propagate something that was untrue or misguided and dupe countless millions of us into following this belief. Lastly, I couldn't understand why a relatively new movement (namely the 'God alone' movement) could challenge the conventional opinion that had so far completely fit the Muslims of old and new.
So to wrap up, is it comprehensible that the adherents to the Quran could have gone so very wrong and if so, why? If the Ahadith are in violation with the very core of the Quran, why do all the learned scholars keep propagating this view that they are on par with the Quran and why don't they have a critical view point on them? I'll be the devil's advocate and use the oft repeated example of the Ahlul Hadith when they claim 'Surely they (the Ulema) have more knowledge then us and we'de be silly to question them'?
All view points are welcome, I'm just expounding on a train of thought.
-
I have listened to Rabbis talking about a similar thing in relation to the Torah (like our Quran) and the Talmud (like our Hadiths). They talk about how Hebrew in the Torah doesn't have vowels and putting in different vowels changes meanings so scholarly interpretation is required. Also the Torah has principles which require further elaboration and that requires references to other sources and experiences. However it also tends to disunity with different scholars vying for the dominant interpretation. In Islam as in Judaism, though, there have always been various schools of thought, so there never has been only one way of being a Muslim. Even in 'Quran alone' one still has to interpret the texts, so in effect one makes up their own hadiths.
-
I cannot really give much contribution but I thought I'd give it a go.
Based on my observation, and supported by various Qur'anic verses, most people 'inherit' religion. They do not follow what they feel is the Truth, rather, they follow what they have been taught to them.
In my opinion, religion cannot be separated from culture. For example, most will think that Arabic culture defines Islam, even though Arabic culture had existed prior to the establishment of Islam. Culture is very deeply rooted and it is like an identity of someone; it is extremely difficult to change. As we all know, Islam was introduced in the era of ignorance and Islam had the potential to totally revolutionise that. However, I feel that it may be difficult for the Arabs to adopt the Quranic way of life, and instead, they continue living their culture (if that makes sense).
Unfortunately, many believe that Al-Qur'an is only accessible and understood by those who speak Arabic (meaning the Arabs) as Al-Qur'an itself is written in Arabic. Therefore, many rely on the Arabs themselves, even though they cannot yet separate between Arabic culture and Islam. Most of traditional Muslims are not Arabs and do not speak Arabic. You must be aware that the country with most Muslim population is Indonesia (where I come from). They don't understand Arabic and they believe that the Arabs know better since Arabs 'own' Al-Qur'an and Islam (that is my conclusion from talking to some of my friends).
Anyway, the whole culture and religion makes me remember... in the Island where I come from, Java, many Muslims hold this praying-for-the-deceased on the 3rd, 7th, 40th, 100th and 1000th day of someone's death. They recite some Qur'anic verses, they pray together for the deceased, believing that it will help the deceased find peace in the graveyard and afterlife. This tradition has no basis in the Qur'an NOR the hadiths, and it is purely culture and traditions. They know it is not 'Islamic', and yet they still do it anyway, because it is their culture, it is what their ancestors have done for so many years. They infuse culture and religion together. Maybe the same case applies with Arabic culture and contemporary Islam. Maybe the Arabs or the scholars know what they say is Islam may not 100% be Islam. I can't say for sure.
One thing to note, what majority believes may not necessarily be the truth. Most Christians believe that Jesus is the Son of God, will you accept that? And the Qur'an says the majority of the people don't believe.
As of for me, I live my life and what I do here in life, I will bear responsibility in the afterlife. I am NOT going to rest my fate on the shoulder of the 'knowledgable' ones if my mind and reasons tell me what they believe is not the Truth.
-
Peace all,
Doesn?t every one on earth believe they are the true submitters to God?
Your thought always leads me to hadith. Before Hadith wasn?t viewed as divine or a necessity as it is today. So it?s like why now? Why is it so strongly held in the opinions of the majority?
Isn?t it odd how both sunnis and shias have their own hadith for their own political agenda?s?
Isn?t it odd how writing hadith was once condemned and now it?s praised?
Why why why why? It?s all about society I guess.
The idea of trusting a scholar can sounds all nice and pretty kinda like a fruit that looks good on the outside but rotten within. How is it rotten within? Because it is simply a system of verifying blind faith the system is faulty to begin with.
Scholars shouldn?t be given the trust of being just or right just because they study or are revered. No human is infallible right? that?s not to say they should be disrespected, because sure they worked/studied in the field though at the end of they day they are human who can error and follow interpretations based on their opinions. Things need verification with proof otherwise what makes us different from the child who submits to the parents wishes? Parent says I said so, so you accept it, eventually you start asking ?why did the parent say so?.
Tamara you said
In Islam as in Judaism, though, there have always been various schools of thought, so there never has been only one way of being a Muslim. Even in 'Quran alone' one still has to interpret the texts, so in effect one makes up their own hadiths.
We all have our own opinions and interpretations, though it doesn?t necessarily mean they?re right nor that they are wrong. Meaning needs to be verified it has to have substance for the conclusion to be valid. Sectarians use hadith to support claims, Quranists will use Quran to understand Quran, traditionalists will too however, hadith has a huge impact on the conclusion.
Not everything has a black or white answer, that doesn?t mean people make up their own hadith. I believe core things on Quran are agreed upon.
Besides everything in the world needs interpretation, how else are you to live? Whatever route you take is your interpretation of the world.
You know the common images/visuals that have like 2 images imbedded within it i.e. old lady and young girl. people use it for perception exercises. We could see one or the other, or even both and you?re not wrong in either sense. And you could even look beyond that and recognise shapes and strokes and you wouldn?t be wrong either. All those interpretations are acceptable, they all have valid reason. but if i made a claim and it didnt exist in the image it couldn't be valid nor an acceptable interpretation, that would be a made up hadith. In my opinion this could be with everything in life
salam
-
One of the main barriers between my acceptance of the true essencnce of Islam, away from all the scaremongering sectarianism was that I simply couldn't comprehend how the vast majority of people claiming to be in submission to Allah (under the name of Sunnism of Shi'ism) could all have so grossly misinterpreted the concept of Islam. I couldn't understand WHY the scholars and learned people would continue to propagate something that was untrue or misguided and dupe countless millions of us into following this belief. Lastly, I couldn't understand why a relatively new movement (namely the 'God alone' movement) could challenge the conventional opinion that had so far completely fit the Muslims of old and new.
So to wrap up, is it comprehensible that the adherents to the Quran could have gone so very wrong and if so, why? If the Ahadith are in violation with the very core of the Quran, why do all the learned scholars keep propagating this view that they are on par with the Quran and why don't they have a critical view point on them? I'll be the devil's advocate and use the oft repeated example of the Ahlul Hadith when they claim 'Surely they (the Ulema) have more knowledge then us and we'de be silly to question them'?
All view points are welcome, I'm just expounding on a train of thought.
Al-Mutawakkil Al Allh Jafar ibn al-Mutasim (Arabic ; March 821 ? December 861) was an Abbasid caliph who reigned in Samarra from 847 until 861. He succeeded his brother al-Wthiq and is known for putting an end to the Mihna "ordeal", the Inquisition-like attempt by his predecessors to impose a single Mu'tazili version of Islam.
al-Mutawakkil's reign is remembered for its many reforms and viewed as a golden age of the Abbasids. He would be the last great Abbasid caliph; after his death the dynasty would fall into a decline.
Al-Mutawakkil continued to rely on Turkish statesmen and slave soldiers to put down rebellions and lead battles against foreign empires, notably the Byzantines, from who Sicily was captured. His vezir, Al-fath bin Khaqan, who was Turkish, was a famous figure of Al-Mutawakkil's era.
His reliance on Turkish soldiers would come back to haunt him. Al-Mutawakkil would have his Turkish commander-in-chief killed. This, coupled with his extreme attitudes towards the Shia, made his popularity decline rapidly.
Al-Mutawakkil was murdered by a Turkish soldier on December 11, 861 CE. Some have speculated that his murder was part of a plot hatched by his son, al-Muntasir, who had grown estranged from his father. Al-Muntasir feared his father was about to move against him and struck first.
Al-Mutawakkil is said to have been slender, with a light tan complexion, a sparse beard and attractive eyes. He was also a cold blooded and ruthless killer of unorthodox Muslims and non-Muslims
Al-Mutawakkil was keen to involve himself in many religious debates, something that would show in his actions against different minorities. His father had tolerated the Sha Imm who taught and preached at Medina, and for the first years of his reign al-Mutawakkil continued the policy. Imm Al al-Had's growing reputation inspired a letter from the Governor of Medina, Abdu l-Lh ibn Muammad, suggesting that a coup was being plotted, and al-Mutawakkil extended an invitation to Samarra to the Imm, an offer he could not refuse. In Samarra, the Imm was kept under virtuial house arrest and spied upon. However, no excuse to take action against him ever appeared. After al-Mutawakkil's death, his successor had the Imm poisoned al-Had is buried at Samarra. The general Sha population faced repression. and this was embodied in the destruction of the shrine of Hussayn ibn Al, an action that was carried out obstensibly in order to stop pilgrimages to that site, and the flogging and incarceration of the Alid Yahya ibn Umar.
During his reign, the influence of the Mutaziliyya was reversed and questions about over the divinity of the Qur'an were ended. This resulted from the caliph's personal devotion to studying as-Sunna.
http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Mutawakkil
So thats when the Sunnis came to power. Previously it was the Mutazilites who i believe were Quranist since they had no source but the Quran. There was also Ahl Alkalam but my understanding of these two sects is nil so far.
As far as how everybody can go so wrong well Sunnis say that about Christians and Jews. And there is also something interesting
- The Qibla
According to the Qur'an, the direction of prayer (the Qibla), was canonized (or finalized) towards Mecca for all Muslims in or around 624 A.D. (see Sura 2144, 149-150).
Yet, the earliest evidence from outside Muslim tradition regarding the direction in which Muslims prayed, and by implication the location of their sanctuary, points to an area much further north than Mecca, in fact somewhere in north-west Arabia (Crone-Cook 197723). Consider the archaeological evidence which has been and is continuing to be uncovered from the first mosques built in the seventh century
According to archaeological research carried out by Creswell and Fehervari on ancient mosques in the Middle East, two floor-plans from two Umayyad mosques in Iraq, one built at the beginning of the 8th century by the governor Hajjaj in Wasit (noted by Creswell as, "the oldest mosque in Islam of which remains have come down to us" - Creswell 198941), and the other attributed to roughly the same period near Baghdad, have Qiblas (the direction which these mosques are facing) which do not face Mecca, but are oriented too far north (Creswell 1969137ff & 198940; Fehervari 196189; Crone-Cook 197723,173). The Wasit mosque is off by 33 degrees, and the Baghdad mosque is off by 30 degrees (Creswell 1969137ff; Fehervari 196189).
This agrees with Baladhuri's testimony (called the Futuh) that the Qibla of the first mosque in Kufa, Iraq, supposedly constructed in 670 A.D. (Creswell 198941), also lay to the west, when it should have pointed almost directly south (al-Baladhuri's Futuh, ed. by de Goeje 1866276; Crone 198012; Crone-Cook 197723,173).
The original ground-plan of the mosque of Amr b. al As, located in Fustat, the garrison town outside Cairo, Egypt shows that the Qibla again pointed too far north and had to be corrected later under the governorship of Qurra b. Sharik (Creswell 196937,150). Interestingly this agrees with the later Islamic tradition compiled by Ahmad b. al-Maqrizi that Amr prayed facing slightly south of east, and not towards the south (al-Maqrizi 13266; Crone-Cook 197724,173).
If you take a map you will find where it is that these mosques were pointing. All four of the above instances position the Qibla not towards Mecca, but much further north, in fact closer possibly to the vicinity of Jerusalem. If, as some Muslims now say, one should not take these findings too seriously as many mosques even today have misdirected Qiblas, then one must wonder why, if the Muslims back then were so incapable of ascertaining directions, they should all happen to be pointing to a singular location; to an area in northern Arabia, and possibly Jerusalem?
http//www.biblestudymanuals.net/quran6.htm
And even more interesting is that these earlier mosques seem to be pinting towards Beersheeba in south Palestine.
Do Oldest Mosques Point to Beersheba?
Some 200 mosques in Mecca do not point to the Ka'bah for prayers. Neither do the oldest mosques in Iraq and Egypt.The Wasit Mosque (built 705 A.D.) and the Kufa Mosque (built about 698 A.D.) align with a point in northwest Arabia, not with Mecca. According to Islamic tradition, Mohammad's household taught that Kufa Mosque was founded by Adam. Another tradition states that it was built by the angels in accordance with Gabriel's revelation to Prophet Muhammad. No other narrator of Islamic tradition has referred to this however.
The oldest mosque in Egypt is Fustat in Cairo. It dates to the reign of Qurra b. Shira between 709-714 A.D.
The oldest mosque in Saudi Arabia is Quba Mosque (shown right). It was rebuilt in the 1980's.
All mosques have a niche called a "Quiblah" which shows the direction of prayer. The older mosques are aligned with a point north of Mecca but south of Jerusalem. If early mosques were aligned toward northern Arabia or Jerusalem, a Qiblah facing Ka'bah represents a later development. Source BBC News
The Qiblah of the oldest mosques in Mecca, Iraq and Egypt do not align with Mecca. Instead they align with a point in northern Arabia. This has caused some Orientalists to speculate that they may be aligned with Jerusalem, but the calculations don't work out. The Qiblah of the earliest mosques face a point south of Jerusalem but north of Mecca.
This suggests the possibility that the older mosques are aligned with a shrine in the area of Beersheba. This is likely since Beersheba was Abraham's southern settlement, where he lived with his wife Keturah, whose six sons are the ancestors of Arabian tribes who dwell in the region of Mecca and the Southern Arabian Peninsula. Read more here.
Posted by Alice C. Linsley at 559 PMhttp//jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2009/04/older-mosques-point-to-beersheba.html hmm
The information was based on this article
http//www.islamic-awareness.org/History/Islam/Dome_Of_The_Rock/qibla.html
But the point is clear. There are differences we know of between the first and the later Muslims.
-
@Bigmo Interesting post...
But to all, the essence of my question wasn't really about if Muslims strayed or who's fault that is but I'm asking, why would the Scholars continually hide the truth from us? There are countless scholars yet the majority are completely against Quran only as a means of Submission. Why on Earth would they all be so determined in concealing the truth? The knowledge is out there for them, they've studied all of the texts inculding the Quran so why is it that they have reached a conclusion so far from the truth. It's just something I can't really comprehend All these great thinkers and so few of them reject Hadith books partially or absolutely.
I simply wonder why? What is there to lose in telling the truth or examining and criticising Hadith literature (AND Quran)?
-
@Bigmo Interesting post...
But to all, the essence of my question wasn't really about if Muslims strayed or who's fault that is but I'm asking, why would the Scholars continually hide the truth from us? There are countless scholars yet the majority are completely against Quran only as a means of Submission. Why on Earth would they all be so determined in concealing the truth? The knowledge is out there for them, they've studied all of the texts inculding the Quran so why is it that they have reached a conclusion so far from the truth. It's just something I can't really comprehend All these great thinkers and so few of them reject Hadith books partially or absolutely.
I simply wonder why? What is there to lose in telling the truth or examining and criticising Hadith literature (AND Quran)?
They are sectarian and were raised like that. Scholars have a vested interested because their profession and without the sects they will be unemployed. Sunnism give them great power and influence and the Quran will render them irrelevant. How many here care about a cleric? How many of us here bother with fatwas? Imagine if most Muslim were like us. Where would the Qaradawis and Bin Ladens and the Amr Khaleds be?
Clerics more than anybody else will fight us the most even more than the so called Jihadist.
Anyways read some information in the Gospel regarding Jesus and the Pharisees(Rabbis).
-
Sarah said
You know the common images/visuals that have like 2 images imbedded within it i.e. old lady and young girl. people use it for perception exercises. We could see one or the other, or even both and you?re not wrong in either sense. And you could even look beyond that and recognise shapes and strokes and you wouldn?t be wrong either. All those interpretations are acceptable, they all have valid reason. but if i made a claim and it didnt exist in the image it couldn't be valid nor an acceptable interpretation, that would be a made up hadith. In my opinion this could be with everything in life
Bigmo said
Scholars have a vested interested because their profession and without the sects they will be unemployed. Sunnism give them great power and influence and the Quran will render them irrelevant.
I think these two comments give us a good overview of how things work in the area of sacred text - we see what we look for (the cultural and experiential frames/filters through which we look at new information) and power issues. These aspects can be manipulated for good as well as not so honourable purposes. If you want a strong society, you usually have to have some kind of unity and commitment and if no one agrees on what the core values then it can be harder to get commitment to a particular cause/society. So we do need some core values (I'm interested in what you see as the core values Sarah). Power can be used for good purposes, but when a powerful person is in danger of losing that power, it is rarely used against their own interests. That's why a common phenomena is individuals being sacrificed to organisational goals.
-
Peace Tamara
So we do need some core values (I'm interested in what you see as the core values Sarah).
Sure and we have them, they seem pretty obvious when you read Quran. Also I wasn?t too focused on ?values? but rather core message, underlying message/belief etc, though values play a part.
I believe everyone who upholds Quran would agree on these
Monotheism
Doing good deeds
Upholding oaths
Speaking justly and upholding truth
Charity/spending on the needy
Patience
Being kind and refraining from anger.
To not partake in corruption/fasadAlso other things
Self purification/actualisation and salat.We may not agree about how to do the units, or whether there actually are units in salat but I can say we agree on upholding a bond as a dhikr/reminder. a reminder of God a reminder of our purpose, and a reminder to keep us God conscious.
we see what we look for (the cultural and experiential frames/filters through which we look at new information) and power issues. These aspects can be manipulated for good as well as not so honourable purposes
.Inevitably our culture/society will give us a shape, we just skew around with it. We?re born a blank state pretty much then get filtered by family and environment. We make our own conclusions and resolutions by adopting and changing things as we will.
Though culture is not a bad thing (4913) we all have identities and practices and that is fine. The only problem is when they are manipulated, as you said for not so honourable purposes; when it exceeds over justice. When you mandate an ideology or discourse as a must when it is not, when you subjugate people to injustices in the name of culture well obviously that is wrong. And yes hard to break due to societies blind acceptance of practices, happening since the forefathers of the previous centuries.
-
Peace HNF
I don?t believe they are concealing truth, they?ve accepted the system of verification even though it is a weak one.
They?ve reach a conclusion based on accepting a scholar before them who mandated hadith as essential, practically divining it. The scholars gave their reasoning, the students accepted, in turn they became scholars themselves and the cycle repeats. That?s not to say uproar didn?t exist. It did but I haven?t read much on this.
besides no one is asking why you (today's clerics) follow the system you follow, the answer will be the previous scholars did and the previous scholars of them followed them etc. no one asks why did the scholar conclude this. it's gone past that stage to just accept.
The way sunni scholars are accepted are only when they study under a scholar, who?s scholar links to the 4 madhabs, so basically the scholarly study is the study of accepting and promoting the 4 madhabs. basically they?re just retelling another scholars work and adding new fatwa?s to today?s time.
Why can?t they see the evidence of hadith being weak? They do, they even may admit to it but they feel hadith is the sunnah, hadith is the way of the prophet. They recognise weak hadiths but regardless they believe there is truth in them and the ?ONLY? way to sunnah. Because of this they force themselves to accept hadith and blindly accept scholars work of verifying hadiths as "sound" "good" or even sahih/truthful. This illogical thought has led them to what they are. Because they want to uphold the message and they believe we need to follow the rasool, no problem there until they say the only way they feel/believe they can do it is through sunnah which they conclude is hadith.
Because the conclusion of following the messenger = hadith, how can they reject hadith?
Masses follow majority or what they are told. Who needs to think when others think for you?
Well that's my opinion, peace )
-
Peace to you too Sarah
I can subscribe to your core beliefs and to much of what you say about hadiths. Have you listened to or watched any debates or interviews with Dalia Mogahead? She is a rather conservative Muslim, but I love her patient calm manner and what she says about scholarly study does make sense. She talks about the need for a licence (Ijaza) before anyone goes pronouncing fatwas because from her perspective, personal independent study leads to Osama bin Ladens. I think the 4 madhabs give some guidance in Quranic interpretation. We don't all have to believe the same, but if there are as many different opinions as their are people, then there is confusion. Actually Randall Collins in his huge book, "A Global theory of intellectual change' says that for true creativity 3-6 different ideas on any one 'reality' is a good number to work with and can allow people to build on and refine understanding. Any more than this and there is chaos and confusion and not much creativity takes place - only arguments and attacking each other. In this respect the Quran scholars are very wise to limit the schools to manageable numbers. They avoid the suppression of independent thinking but they also avoid the situation that everyone is a law unto themselves and no one works together to try and come up with something that takes from various perspectives.
-
@Bigmo Interesting post...
But to all, the essence of my question wasn't really about if Muslims strayed or who's fault that is but I'm asking, why would the Scholars continually hide the truth from us? There are countless scholars yet the majority are completely against Quran only as a means of Submission. Why on Earth would they all be so determined in concealing the truth? The knowledge is out there for them, they've studied all of the texts inculding the Quran so why is it that they have reached a conclusion so far from the truth. It's just something I can't really comprehend All these great thinkers and so few of them reject Hadith books partially or absolutely.
I simply wonder why? What is there to lose in telling the truth or examining and criticising Hadith literature (AND Quran)?
Ask those Sunni scholars about all those Christian scholars who promote Trinity and many other false teachings in the name of Jesus, and then replace the word Christian scholars with Sunni or Shiite scholars, and replace the name of St. Paul or Tertullian with Abu Hurayra or Bukhari, there you get the best answer to your question.
Peace,
Edip -
Peace be to you too Tamara )
Sure, such beliefs could also be prescribed in hadith. I don?t deny that however hadith adds more to the core beliefs which contaminates the essence. i.e. being kind to parents for example, hadith give parents immense authority such authority that transgresses one?s (child?s) right. or when people pray they praise Mohammed and his family and Ibrahim and his family when salat isa bond for God not about others, just the servant's connection to God.
I forgot to add Freedom of choice, hadith doesn?t support that while some may claim it does it?s clearly contradictory.
There is good in hadith, I just personally am not going to take it as divine law because it?ll transgress the Quran.
Ijaza is what I was talking about to HFN but maybe I didn?t articulate myself properly. Basically a scholar can only be ?recognised? as a scholar if they have the ijaza, however this ijaza just supports the previous scholars which link to the 4 madhabs. Today ijaza is abit well let?s see.. non existent. There is no scholars of our time (that I know of) that has ijaza of another that links back all the way to the 4 madhabs. maybe you know? none to my knowledge.
You think 4 madhabs give some guidance and sure they do but why is it limited to 4 madhabs? BTW It doesn?t mean its true guidance either. There used to be 100?s of madhabs. due to followers, supporters and power they came to 4. I guess 4 can be more comforting than 100. But comfort doesn?t proceed over truth.
Why are we limited to this 4 who don?t exist today? I mean these scholars don?t exist today. Our progress is limited to conforming back to 4 madhabs opinions and interpretations, you can?t include another thought because NO you don?t have the authority unless you have ijaza. which just re-tell rulings to their understanding. oh but ?fatwas? exist, and just about every sheikh can go about giving fatwas. A fatwa is basically an opinion, which forms like a law/rule. how come we can accept 100 billion fatwa?s but only 4 madhabs? Comfort everyone with 4 true madhabs and confuse them all with fatwas?
Is confusion a bad thing? Confusion will happen inevitably. Uncertainty can definitely be annoying but one can eliminate things to come to the truth. One might think well with no madhabs we?ll have everyone doing what they want and interpreting things as they wish. That could happen, even does happen today with both Quran and Hadith. You can?t control what people set out to do.
Sufism is getting big and they make laws out of nothing. Interpretations can happen but they need verification and need not to be contradictory to be accepted.
Why are the 4 madhab leaders considered as pioneers or reformists? Why is it ok for them to think outside the box and progress but not us? Dalia Mogahead believes Bin Laden?s will form out? So independent personal study is bad, when we verify knowledge to have or to gain knowledge of certainty (which Quran supports) we?re actually doing wrong because ?what if?s? could happen? /
Look at the community today, maybe there isn?t any Bin Ladens but I wouldn?t say the next great "sahabi like" came out either
But I think we are looking too deep. The ideas of the Quran are there, we have the idea of how to perform them not everything is a direct step by step procedure. The Quran isn't a task analysis for a child with an additional need. We got the map we can take the routes provided it ends with the goal and doesn?t cross any injustices.
I think that?s why many people don?t like to uphold the Quran alone, they want to be told "this is black and this is white and this is how you do this and these are the exact steps, don?t do it any other way".
You can fold a shirt so many ways, which way is wrong? you can give charity in numerous ways, which way is wrong?
PS I haven't listened to Dalia Mogahead, thanks for letting me know of her )
-
Sarah wrote"
Is confusion a bad thing? Confusion will happen inevitably. Uncertainty can definitely be annoying but one can eliminate things to come to the truth. One might think well with no madhabs we?ll have everyone doing what they want and interpreting things as they wish. That could happen, even does happen today with both Quran and Hadith. You can?t control what people set out to do.One of the dilemmas I am struggling with in my PhD is how a community can have unity and yet at the same time allow freedom of choice and independent thinking. It seems that those groups who have enviable unity (eg Jehovah's Witnesses) don't allow much free thinking, and those which allow more freedom are more fragmented. I often wish we had the unity of Jehovah's Witnesses and the freedom of what I regard as Quranic Islam - no compulsion, focus on social justice and education for all, seeking knowledge even if we have to go to China to get etc. If you have any suggestions for how this can be achieved, please share as the scholars seem to put this in the too hard basket.
I will be interested in knowing what you think of Dalia Mogahed's talks. She is one of the current advisors for Islam to President Obama. Two other speakers I really like listening to are Resa Aslan and eboo Patel. But being female, I guess Dalia is someone who speaks to my needs a bit better.
The way I see it, people have to be motivated to be willing to sacrifice some of their own ideas for unity, but there again, what is too important to compromise on - different people will have different ideas. But if one billion Muslims could get together in peace and unity and work together for a more just world, we could make a difference. Then again, this utopian thinking has always proved dangerous. History shows that all utopian thinking ends up in goulags, concentration camps and other totalitarian governments, so maybe each individual just has to try and be the best Muslim they know how and leave others to be the best Muslim they know how and when we find someone who thinks like us, enjoy it while it lasts! <grin>
-
Peace to you too Sarah
I can subscribe to your core beliefs and to much of what you say about hadiths. Have you listened to or watched any debates or interviews with Dalia Mogahead? She is a rather conservative Muslim, but I love her patient calm manner and what she says about scholarly study does make sense. She talks about the need for a licence (Ijaza) before anyone goes pronouncing fatwas because from her perspective, personal independent study leads to Osama bin Ladens. I think the 4 madhabs give some guidance in Quranic interpretation. We don't all have to believe the same, but if there are as many different opinions as their are people, then there is confusion. Actually Randall Collins in his huge book, "A Global theory of intellectual change' says that for true creativity 3-6 different ideas on any one 'reality' is a good number to work with and can allow people to build on and refine understanding. Any more than this and there is chaos and confusion and not much creativity takes place - only arguments and attacking each other. In this respect the Quran scholars are very wise to limit the schools to manageable numbers. They avoid the suppression of independent thinking but they also avoid the situation that everyone is a law unto themselves and no one works together to try and come up with something that takes from various perspectives.
I'm not sure if I agree with Ms. Mogahead, that independent study leads to terrorists. So does that mean many of us on this forum are like that? I highly doubt it...
While I am not going to go around spouting off fatwas, if I say something I will say 'This is what I think'.
I think that 4 madhabs is not really a lot, and there are only slight differences ... I also think that independent thinking is suppressed, as our choices are to be within the box of the 4 madhabs, not outside of them. For example, if I want to get wudu according to what the Qur'an says - that's not enough for any of the 4 madhabs... it would be close to how the Shia get wudu, but not quite either. -
Difference of opinion is not a choice but a fact of life. To suppress it by force is to cripple society. So I think that nothing needs to be done about difference of opinion, and people will evolve along their lives and change opinion, So that difference of opinion breeds also acceptance of other opinions and personal and social evolution. Now it is when it comes to rules and laws of general application where agreements must be reached and the relative importance and significance for all of differente interests and values will have to be weighed. Generally the best is to have as much diversity and tolerance of different usages as the situation warrants and to have as few impositions as possible. To avoid clashes I can't see a better means than that peope have the real will to cme to the necessary agreements by weighing all possibilities and choosing those thar are less harmful for everubody and can bring best results for verybody. Will and honesty. Other than that I can see no working formula, because then we would be talking bout impossition and tyrany.
Salaam
Salaam
-
Peace Tamara
Maybe the question that should be asked is ?what is unity??
I really dunno much about Jehovah?s witnesses and how they work.. but what unity in them do you see that you wish for?
Muslim sects right, they?re low on freedom of choice/independent thinking. i.e. Need ijaza, no one has it, they don?t undertake independent study some may but still are limited to thought. The mujtahid (independent student studying) won?t be considered qualified nor acceptable. So generally they follow the rulings given by the imams, follow fatwas by the sheikh; otherwise known as taqleed. You?d think they?d have good strong unity, because they?re bound by the rules. I don?t see it though. They seem pretty useless, at least in my community.
Maybe the fragmentation is due to lack of resources or members. basically organisational issues or even maybe too many organisations that don?t consolidate or work together.
One of the dilemmas I am struggling with in my PhD is how a community can have unity and yet at the same time allow freedom of choice and independent thinking.
Aren?t we all united on monotheism and doing good? I don?t agree with all people on the forum and their theories but I can respect and tolerate their choices. I won?t campaign and preach what they believe because well I?m not agreeing with it but I can work with them for a better environment. I.e. in a physical community work together to establish schools, work together to create community functions, work together to petition against certain injustices, work together to share knowledge. Basically support each other with things community needs. The unity isn?t about belief, the unity is more to do with living in prosperity by helping each other in this environment.
We?re all united by the belief of God, God isn?t going to requite my deeds based on community but rather my own individual actions. I don?t need someone to believe the exact same thing as me to be united with them.
Off course people need to sacrifice their time and effort to be part of a community. Would all of us be part of the free-minds forum community if we didn?t respect each other, didn?t respond back to posts didn?t respect the rules? In turn by helping the community you help form unity. For e.g. if someone went against the rules, we could report it and help the moderators be wary of the situation, or whatever. We don?t need to think utopian, we can be realistic.
The best we can do is be the best we can, for sure. That?s something I need to work on, it?s so easy to blame or to just sit in your comfort zone than to be proactive or take risks. so easy that you become numbed by it that you don?t even realise the detriment of your own actions. Well at least for me I keep getting knocked out with wake up calls.
Muslims do try work together, the issue is priorities. what are they working together for, is it a prevention or is it an intervention? Are they focused together on one aim or are they all scattered on different ideas. The different ideas could all be good but could set back other progresses. Why don?t community members who delegate ideas work together on prioritising rather than working on numerous things. that could easily be done by involving members of the community such as by tally voting or something.
Are all associations working together or working individually for their own benefit. Imagine buying a house If you get together with family members and all save and buy one house together, you?re better off. you don?t need to borrow as much or any money from the bank. If you do it on your own you struggle more. If you had worked together paid it off, you could help each other buy another place and struggle less. you have that trust with your family. if the community was given that trust they'd be motivated to help.
I think part of the unity problem is tolerance, greed, power hunger and delegation of priorities.
-
Peace Sarah
Interesting thoughts )
-
One of the dilemmas I am struggling with in my PhD is how a community can have unity and yet at the same time allow freedom of choice and independent thinking. It seems that those groups who have enviable unity (eg Jehovah's Witnesses) don't allow much free thinking, and those which allow more freedom are more fragmented. I often wish we had the unity of Jehovah's Witnesses and the freedom of what I regard as Quranic Islam - no compulsion, focus on social justice and education for all, seeking knowledge even if we have to go to China to get etc. If you have any suggestions for how this can be achieved, please share as the scholars seem to put this in the too hard basket.
Having a Unified environment is great, but it's not the goal in my opinion. The goal surpasses unity especially if the route to unity is supression. You see, the Sushis aren't united because they don't feel the need to suppress their own opinions for the sake of Unity, they believe that the truth is greater than that. So the issue in my opinion is not unity, (variety is the spice of life right?) the issue is airing any concerns in the correct manner and platform, forgetting debate for the sake of debate and coming to a point where, although there may be differences, the right channels can be gone through to promote difference of opinion, understanding and freedom of speech.
I couldn't care less if Sunnis or Shi'a changed their ways or beliefs but the way in which they deal with their differences is my only concern.