Could it really be true that the vast majority of Muslims strayed from Islam?
-
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.
-
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,
EdipYes, I thought someone would use this as an example and it stands up in theory however, the Quran is protected from within therefore withdrawing these dogmatic Hadithist principles from Quran is virtually impossible when you don't twist the verses beyond belief. The Judeo-Christian scriptures are however written by man and aren't intact. Now, upon studying the Quran which all scholars have to do, shouldn't they be coming to the same conclusion that we have?
Although... You never know? Their Quran might have the Hadith literature inside the actual kitab. The first Quran I was ever gifted was 1/4 English translation, 1/4 Arabic script and 1/2 HADITH. I don't know if I have the urge to laugh or cry about that fact? Truth is, I understand that during their scholarly study, they are under the impression that Quran and Hadith go hand in hand and thus any study of Quran must be verified with Hadith or Tafsir and this, their conclusions are completely shaped by the Ahadith.
Thanks for the response.
Peace
-
Peace
Not to mention the incessant desire to 'save' each other (as if a -political- difference of opinion has anything to do with heaven or hell).
I think that?s to do with power hunger but yeh they have an obsession of saving people /guiding to right path. That?s kinda normal though. well I think it is, groups want to prosper.
Although... You never know? Their Quran might have the Hadith literature inside the actual kitab. The first Quran I was ever gifted was 1/4 English translation, 1/4 Arabic script and 1/2 HADITH. I don't know if I have the urge to laugh or cry about that fact?
The Quran is a form of hadith (3923), the term hadith has been misused to only represent Bukhari and co?s work. The Quran you got is just the way the organisation printed it, it should have a stamp or some intro about who authorised it, or why it's like that. Odd though.
Anyway the content of the Quran verifies itself if you have doubts of the origins or soundness of Quran that's something else.
-
The Quran is a form of hadith (3923), the term hadith has been misused to only represent Bukhari and co?s work. The Quran you got is just the way the organisation printed it, it should have a stamp or some intro about who authorised it, or why it's like that. Odd though.
Anyway the content of the Quran verifies itself if you have doubts of the origins or soundness of Quran that's something else.
No, when I said 1/2 Hadith I literally meant, Hadith from the Sunni books of Hadith ie Ahadith from Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Nasa'i and so on and so forth , not in terms of Quranic Hadith. It was given with the text (Arabic/English) in two seperate columns and the Ahadith at the bottom of the page in the footnotes corresponding to numerous reference points placed throughout the text. Not really odd, it was a translation that was distributed by some Saudi prince. They've (the translations) been called into question a few times for the numerous parenthesis placed throughout which attempt to skew meanings of verses . For the Converts though, they really should explain the format, the excessive use of parenthesis and use of Sunnah/Ahadith literature. If I didn't know any better I'd have thought it part of the actual book.
-
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.Those so called 4 madhabs are also divided in 40 maghabs now look arround you if you dont believe me, tempt
-
Those so called 4 madhabs are also divided in 40 maghabs now look arround you if you dont believe me, tempt
Maghabs??? lol rotfl rotfl rotfl
-
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,
EdipYeah but Paul has nothing to do with the Trinity and Christians do not quote Paul to justiy the trinity. Paul simply supported making Christianity universal. Paul was a Pharisee and so he is hated by Jews because he gave up the Talmud for the Old Testament and followed Jesus's ways. Pual today will be considered a Unitarian and not a Trinitarian. Paul also emphasized Jesus's resurrection, but that has nothing to do with the Trinity or Jesus's divinity.
-
At an early period, the ancient Arab idea of sunna, precedent or normative custom, reasserted itself in Islam. Whatever was customary was right and proper, whatever their forefathers had done deserved to be imitated, and in the idea of precedent or sunna the whole conservatism ofArabs found expression. This idea presented a formidable obstacle to every innovation, including Islam itself. But once Islam had prevailed, the old conservatism reasserted itself within the new community, and the idea of sunna became one of the central concepts of Islamic law.
Sunna in its Islamic context originally had a political rather than a legal connotation. The question whether the administrative acts of the First two caliphs, Abu Bakr and 'Umar, should be regarded as binding precedents, arose probably when a successor to 'Umar had to beappointed in 23/644, and the discontent with the policy of the third caliph, 'Uthman, which led to his assassination in 35/655, took the form of a charge that he, in his turn, had diverged from the policy of his predecessors and, implicitly, from the Qur'an. In this connexion, there arose the concept of the 'sunna of the Prophet', not yet identified with any set of positive rules, but providing a doctrinal link between the sunna of Abu Bakr and 'Umar' and the Qur'an. The earliest evidence for this use of the term 'sunna of the Prophet' dates from about 76/695, and we shall see later how it was introduced into the theory of Islamic law.
Also
During the greater part of the first/seventh century, Islamic law, in the technical meaning of the term, did not as yet exist. As had been the case in the time of Muhammad, law as such fell outside the sphere of religion; if no religious or moral objections were involved, the technical aspects of law were a matter of indifference to the Muslims. This accounts for the widespread adoption, or rather survival, of certain legal and administrative institutions and practices of the conquered territories, such as the treatment of the tolerated religions which was closely modelled on the treatment of the Jews in the Byzantine empire, methods of taxation, the institution ofemphyteusis, and so forth. The principle of the retention of pre-Islamic legal practices under Islam was sometimes openly acknowledged, e.g. by the historian al-Baladhuri (d. 279/892), but generally speaking fictitious Islamic precedents were later invented as a justification.
http//www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/schacht.html
Schacht ones again.