Islamic Reformation

[Confused 2 94]

No. This is some guy interpreting stuff in light of his twisted ideals using modern political discourse. When THE MESSIAH returns, all GOD FEARING Muslims, Jews and Christians will be united as one in battle against the Anti-Christ.

I hope so at least before everybody kills everybody else.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

No. This is some guy interpreting stuff in light of his twisted ideals using modern political discourse. When THE MESSIAH returns, all GOD FEARING Muslims, Jews and Christians will be united as one in battle against the Anti-Christ.

And what if SEAL Team 6 just killed the Messiah?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I'm not a Muslim, though I am familiar with parts of the Koran:

Qur’an 2:62 states that:

“Those who believe (in the Qur’an), and those who follow the Jewish (scriptures), and the Christians and the Sabians,- any who believe in God and the Last Day, and work righteousness, shall have their reward with their Lord; on them shall be no fear, nor shall they grieve.”

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Sorry, not true. SInce the death of the Prophet, we have had sectarianism, the development of Islamic jurisprudence (encompassing ahadith), the introduction of new cultures that are allowed to consider social norms in their practice and law-making, and various schools of thought that hold to varying interpretations, the current major four Sunni schools differing by about 25% in their legislation.

You are right about how Islam is not a monolithic faith, and its dynamism is why it has been flexible. The basics don't change, but what is considered to be basic does.

Holy Kaffir Overload! People change, Islam is eternal. Islam is the Quran and those well-researched Hadiths and the Sunna. That's it. Religious innovation (bid'a) is verboten. The Prophet Muhammad (SAW) could walk into any mosque and would most definitely recognize what he saw. There are no local customs. Islam has a center, worship HIM only and follow HIS prophets anything else is Shirk. Herding cats? Let's not talk Abu Hurairah, shall we? Islam is not a monolithic religion, there is free will but there are precepts of faith, a Kaffir does things and ascribes them to the ALMIGHTY.

"or do they have partners that legislate some religion which Allah has not given permission for?" (Surah Ash-Shura 42:21)

"follow that which has been revealed to you from your Lord, and do not follow as Friends and Protectors other than Him" (Surah Al-A'raaf 7:3)

"and who is more astray then the one who follows his own whims and desires devoid of revelation" (Surah Al-Qasas 28:50)

The Prophet (SAW) said, "I warn you of the newly invented matters (in the religion),and every newly invented matter is an innovation, and every innovation is misguidance, and every misguidance is in the Hellfire" (an-Nasaa'ee)

Edited May 7, 2011 by Sofiyya

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I agree with the and will not be sucked in by pointed, baiting questions. This isn't new territory here.

A new contender comes on the stage, or is it merely a new manifestation of someone we have met before.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Sorry, not true. SInce the death of the Prophet, we have had sectarianism, the development of Islamic jurisprudence (encompassing ahadith), the introduction of new cultures that are allowed to consider social norms in their practice and law-making, and various schools of thought that hold to varying interpretations, the current major four Sunni schools differing by about 25% in their legislation.

You are right about how Islam is not a monolithic faith, and its dynamism is why it has been flexible. The basics don't change, but what is considered to be basic does.

I must respectfully disagree with your response such as it is. Unfortunately, a simple negation does not vitiate my argument. Indeed your rebuttal, if I may call it that, strengthens my argument. If as you appear to suggest that Islam is not eternal, then you are not a Muslim. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Bid'a is a BIG no-no. The four schools your refer to are Sunnis schools of interpretation based on four scholars and their rulings based on isnad (chain of authenticity of a particular hadith, etc.) and the time each jurist lived. That's it. They deal with the minutiae, not the precepts as I argued. If, as you've suggested, "the basics don't change," yet you go on to opine, "what is considered to be basic does," then you've missed the point of Islam. Itjihad and Fiqh are great but they are opinions and ideas arrived via reasoning of men, qiyas. Tafsir, study of the Quran and the Sunnah (prophetic tradition) are the most important sources of anything Islamic. Interpretation is one thing but that DOESN'T make something Islamic in the least. Rulings can be based on Islamic principles but that's not the same as saying that Islam changes. Not even close. It doesn't, unless you believe that HE changes.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

Once again, you are negating the historical development of fiqh, and certainly misinterpreting my points to the extent that you attempt to "respectfully" bully me by calling takfir. Still, your position that every innovation in Islam is haraam is simplistic, narrow, and misinformed.

Those who believe as you do would be happy to see the intellectual evolution of Islam, as it spreads across the globe, stagnate further and wither from irrelevance to the lives of contemporary Muslims. That was never the intent of Allah, His prophets, nor the early imams, who devoted their lives to the collecting and developing methodologies that could take us into the future and remain true to the Word.

In point of fact, the position that all innovation is a bida is itself a bida from the perspective of the early imams. Imam Imâm al-Shâfi`î, as part of his development of the usl al fiqh, did a great deal to explain that there are good bidas and bad bidas. Innovation that conforms to the Sharia is approved, and innovations that do not conform to the Sharia are disapproved.

A major purpose of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) is to determine the good and approved bida from the bad and disapproved bida, especially where social norms of a given society is concerned. While you say that cultural norms are absent in legal determinations, that has not the case since the advent of the early madhahib. The legal concept of maslaha mursala, considerations made in the public interest, allows for the use of reason to determine what is a good bida in matters of social interactions.

If there was no innovation in Islam, there would be no madhahib, no ikhtilaf al-fuqaha, no agreement between the fuqaha that there is validity in differing interpretations between the madhahib due to regional needs, and the limits of human reason and understanding in contrast to the infallibility of God.

Today's claim that prayers are only acceptable in Arabic is a bida. The mandate that head covering is fard is a bida. That one school gives a father the right to marry off daughters without their knowledge and permission while others do not cannot be explained without considering bida, good or bad.

Islam has changed because it is dynamic and not static. There would be no fiqh if there was no acceptance that Islam is flexible. Your rejection of this while accepting that fiqh is opinion is a demonstrable element of the contradiction in your position. Fiqh, by the authority it holds over the ummah, defines and redefines Islam to a great extent by emphasizing some pretexts over others.

While Islam is somewhat collective, our relationship with Him is personal and distinct. Islam has no leader other than God. Yes, trying to get the majority to follow any human would be like herding cats, because, despite our reputation as easily swayed by tyrants, despots and megalomaniacs bearing fatwas, overall, we don't bank on taqlid as much as it may seem.

I must respectfully disagree with your response such as it is. Unfortunately, a simple negation does not vitiate my argument. Indeed your rebuttal, if I may call it that, strengthens my argument. If as you appear to suggest that Islam is not eternal, then you are not a Muslim. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Bid'a is a BIG no-no. The four schools your refer to are Sunnis schools of interpretation based on four scholars and their rulings based on isnad (chain of authenticity of a particular hadith, etc.) and the time each jurist lived. That's it. They deal with the minutiae, not the precepts as I argued. If, as you've suggested, "the basics don't change," yet you go on to opine, "what is considered to be basic does," then you've missed the point of Islam. Itjihad and Fiqh are great but they are opinions and ideas arrived via reasoning of men, qiyas. Tafsir, study of the Quran and the Sunnah (prophetic tradition) are the most important sources of anything Islamic. Interpretation is one thing but that DOESN'T make something Islamic in the least. Rulings can be based on Islamic principles but that's not the same as saying that Islam changes. Not even close. It doesn't, unless you believe that HE changes.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Sofiyya

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Once again, you are negating the historical development of fiqh, and certainly misinterpreting my points to the extent that you attempt to "respectfully" bully me by calling takfir. Still, your position that every innovation in Islam is haraam is simplistic, narrow, and misinformed.

Those who believe as you do would be happy to see the intellectual evolution of Islam, as it spreads across the globe, stagnate further and wither from irrelevance to the lives of contemporary Muslims. That was never the intent of Allah, His prophets, nor the early imams, who devoted their lives to the collecting and developing methodologies that could take us into the future and remain true to the Word.

In point of fact, the position that all innovation is a bida is itself a bida from the perspective of the early imams. Imam Imâm al-Shâfi`î, as part of his development of the usl al fiqh, did a great deal to explain that there are good bidas and bad bidas. Innovation that conforms to the Sharia is approved, and innovations that do not conform to the Sharia are disapproved.

A major purpose of Islamic jurisprudence (fiqh) is to determine the good and approved bida from the bad and disapproved bida, especially where social norms of a given society is concerned. While you say that cultural norms are absent in legal determinations, that has not the case since the advent of the early madhahib. The legal concept of maslaha mursala, considerations made in the public interest, allows for the use of reason to determine what is a good bida in matters of social interactions.

If there was no innovation in Islam, there would be no madhahib, no ikhtilaf al-fuqaha, no agreement between the fuqaha that there is validity in differing interpretations between the madhahib due to regional needs, and the limits of human reason and understanding in contrast to the infallibility of God.

Today's claim that prayers are only acceptable in Arabic is a bida. The mandate that head covering is fard is a bida. That one school gives a father the right to marry off daughters without their knowledge and permission while others do not cannot be explained without considering bida, good or bad.

Islam has changed because it is dynamic and not static. There would be no fiqh if there was no acceptance that Islam is flexible. Your rejection of this while accepting that fiqh is opinion is a demonstrable element of the contradiction in your position. Fiqh, by the authority it holds over the ummah, defines and redefines Islam to a great extent by emphasizing some pretexts over others.

While Islam is somewhat collective, our relationship with Him is personal and distinct. Islam has no leader other than God. Yes, trying to get the majority to follow any human would be like herding cats, because, despite our reputation as easily swayed by tyrants, despots and megalomaniacs bearing fatwas, overall, we don't bank on taqlid as much as it may seem.

You keep repeating the same error in reasoning, remember those are your words, not mine. Please don't try to lay a guilt trip on me, I'm not bullying you. You know better than that.

On the authority of Abu Sa'id (may Allah be pleased with him), who said that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said:Let not any one of you belittle himself. They said: O Messenger of Allah, how can any one of us belittle himself? He said: He finds a matter concerning Allah about which he should say something, and he does not say [it], so Allah (mighty and sublime be He) says to him on the Day of Resurrection: What prevented you from saying something about such-and-such and such-and-such? He say: [it was] out of fear of people. Then He says: Rather it is I whom you should more properly fear.

It was related by Ibn Majah with a sound chain of authorities.

Calling takfir? Wow, just wow.

31:22 Whoever submits his whole self to Allah, and is a doer of good, has grasped indeed the most trustworthy hand-hold: and with Allah rests the End and Decision of (all) affairs.

31:23 But if any reject Faith, let not his rejection grieve thee: to Us is their return, and We shall tell them the truth of their deeds: for Allah knows well all that is in (men's) hearts.

Your overreachingly bold statements confuse bid'a with cultural sensitivities. Bid'a in religion is forbidden, period. To declare anyone who doesn't agree with your position as being "simplistic, narrow, and misinformed," fails to consider the language and what exactly you wrote and the greater implications of what you're suggesting.

[31:25] If thou ask them, who it is that created the heavens and the earth. They will certainly say, "Allah". Say: "Praise be to Allah!" But most of them understand not.

Islam doesn't change, innovation allegedly based on Islamic principles changes. That is exactly what I stated, your attempt to misconstrue what I said is highly deceptive and just plain sad. That is not, as you've suggested, a distinction without a difference, it is central to the concept of faith. I do not agree with your juxtaposition of ignorance with fidelity, that is patently ridiculous and fails to consider that the immutable and inviolable do not change.

On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Allah said:Sons of Adam inveigh against [the vicissitudes of] Time, and I am Time, in My hand is the night and the day (1).

(1) As the Almighty is the Ordainer of all things, to inveigh aginst misfortunes that are part of Time is tantamount to inveighing against Him.

It was related by al-Bukhari (also by Muslim)

I assume that you misspoke when you suggested that "That was never the intent of Allah," are you now speaking for HIM?

On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: Allah (mighty and sublime be He) said:Pride is My cloak and greatness My robe, and he who competes with Me in respect of either of them I shall cast into Hell-fire.

It was related by Abu Dawud (also by Ibn Majah and Ahmad) with sound chains of authority. This Hadith also appears in Muslim in another version.

You talk at great length about the practical aspects of an Islamic life, there is no dispute there, but orthodoxy and orthopraxy do not change, they are the touchstones of faith. You play fast and loose with those ideas. Religious bid'a is verboten, no matter how you try to alter that or circumlocute. Mans' application of so-called Islamic Principles change. On the one hand you talk about taqlid (following leaders, frequently blindly, as examples) and how Muslims do not do such things but you also talk at great length the about the fiqh and fail to explain that the schools of Islamic Jurisprudence are interpretations of men based on human reasoning. People willingly colour social interactions to match their own desires and base it on "Islam," or some obscure fatwa that has nothing to do with anything. Pseudo-religious snake-oil masquerading as Islam. Do not delude yourself into believing anything else. That IS Shirk. The umma does not answer for your sins and HE doesn't accept "I was just following orders." The example that you cited, "That one school gives a father the right to marry off daughters without their knowledge and permission while others do not, proves my point about mindless parroting of men. Presumably the founder of the school (madhab) came up with this edict using some form of reasoning but that's just his opinion. The founders of other schools have other opinions.

[17:36]And pursue not that of which thou hast no knowledge; for every act of hearing, or of seeing or of (feeling in) the heart will be enquired into (on the Day of Reckoning).

Ijmaa is fine, consult the ulema if you aren't sure, but think for yourself. It's your decision.

[31:21] When they are told to follow the (Revelation) that Allah has sent down, they say: "Nay, we shall follow the ways that we found our fathers (following). "What! even if it is Satan beckoning them to the Penalty of the (Blazing) Fire?

...

[57:13] On that day, the hypocrite men and women will say to those who believed, "Please allow us to absorb some of your light." It will be said, "Go back behind you, and seek light." A barrier will be set up between them, whose gate separates mercy on the inner side, from retribution on the outer side.

[57:14] They will call upon them, "Were we not with you?" They will answer, "Yes, but you cheated your souls, hesitated, doubted, and became misled by wishful thinking, until GOD's judgment came. You were diverted from GOD by illusions.

[57:15] "Therefore, today no ransom can be taken from you, nor from those who disbelieved. Your abode is the fire; it is your lord, and miserable abode."

Despite your grandiloquent phillipic you confuse the idea of Islam (Submission to GOD) with how people justify their actions, both good and bad. You state, "differing interpretations between the madhahib due to regional needs" and, "defines and redefines Islam to a great extent by emphasizing some pretexts over others." RES IPSA LOQUITUR

A man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest.

[Ban Hammer 13,490]

dueling korans.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

dueling korans.

This is how schisms begin.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

No dualing Qurans involved. The interesting thing about this is, she's using bida to try to prove her argument against bida, but fails to realize it despite my explanation that that's what she's doing. She's also not making much sense in context of the debate; the subject matter is way out of her league. We're not even talking about the same thing, really. It would be funny if it weren't so indicative of the poor state of learning regarding Islam. Sigh. I tried.

dueling korans.

Edited May 8, 2011 by Sofiyya

[Confused 2 94]

No dualing Qurans involved. The interesting thing about this is, she's using bida to try to prove her argument against bida, but fails to realize it despite my explanation that that's what she's doing. She's also not making much sense in context of the debate; the subject matter is way out of her league. We're not even talking about the same thing, really. It would be funny if it weren't so indicative of the poor state of learning regarding Islam. Sigh. I tried.

Sofiyya, you keep telling people you are out of their league but are yet to give even one answer to any question. Whenever you are asked a question, its the question that is wrong. For once use your scholarly knowledge and give a convincing answer to all of us laymen otherwise all the (supposed) knowledge you have is of no use, is it?

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

No dualing Qurans involved. The interesting thing about this is, she's using bida to try to prove her argument against bida, but fails to realize it despite my explanation that that's what she's doing. She's also not making much sense in context of the debate; the subject matter is way out of her league. We're not even talking about the same thing, really. It would be funny if it weren't so indicative of the poor state of learning regarding Islam. Sigh. I tried.

Bid'a has to do with matters that aren't covered in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. You keep trying to back away from your own words, because you know EXACTLY what you stated and what the implications of it are. We are not debating since you fail to grasp the most basic tenets of Islam, perhaps you do, hence the evasive arguments. We are not talking about the same thing, I'm discussing faith and you are talking about changing religious doctrine to suit your needs. Of course, you are infallible, so what does anyone else know? New-Age Islam.....CATCH IT!

[2: 256] Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things.

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I'm in no way being evasive or backing away from my earlier statements, and you're crazy for claiming that I don't understand the most basic tenets of Islam. What you fail to grasp is that I'm not discussing basic tenets. I'm discussing Islamic legal tenets that have implications beyond that that is clearly over your head. I spend my time discussing these with verified scholars and jurists, and that's what I should stick to, it seems. With all due respect, this is like discussing quantum physics with a kindergardener. It can't be done and the attempt makes me appear to be arrogant. Bottom line, we are talking past each other, and not about the same thing, either.

Being that you're getting angry, insulting, putting words on my fingers that I didn't type, and you just don't get that you dont get it, it's not possible to continue with you without breaking adab at some point. Please have the last very basic word on any subject, if you like, coz what I have to say you'd have to play catch up to get.

Bid'a has to do with matters that aren't covered in the Qur'an and the Sunnah. You keep trying to back away from your own words, because you know EXACTLY what you stated and what the implications of it are. We are not debating since you fail to grasp the most basic tenets of Islam, perhaps you do, hence the evasive arguments. We are not talking about the same thing, I'm discussing faith and you are talking about changing religious doctrine to suit your needs. Of course, you are infallible, so what does anyone else know? New-Age Islam.....CATCH IT!

[2: 256] Let there be no compulsion in religion. Truth has been made clear from error. Whoever rejects false worship and believes in Allah has grasped the most trustworthy handhold that never breaks. And Allah hears and knows all things.

[Ban Hammer 13,490]