Jihad & Ijtihad

[muse]

Jihad revised

By Q. Isa Daudpota


IMAGINE you are a radical Islamist leading a war against the infidels from the badlands bordering Afghanistan and Pakistan. In front of you is the statement, “We are prohibited from committing aggression, even if the enemies of Islam do that.”

You are Ayman al-Zawahiri, the second highest leader of Al Qaeda, and this thunderbolt comes from your comrade, a long time spiritual and intellectual leader of your group and a former fellow medical student in Cairo University.

Around 1977, the author of the statement, Sayyid Imam al-Sharif, joined Egypt’s Al Jihad terrorist group formed by Zawahiri. Sharif (Dr Fadl being his underground identity) and Zawahiri were two of the original members of Al Qaeda, the formation of which dates back to August 1988 when they met Osama bin Laden in Peshawar. Earlier, Dr Fadl escaped arrest when thousands of Islamists were rounded up after the 1981 assassination of President Anwar Sadat by soldiers affiliated with Al Jihad. Zawahiri suffered torture in prison and was released after three years, thirsting for revenge. His reputation also came under serious doubt in prison as he divulged the names of his comrades under torture. Dr Fadl, during this time, moved to Peshawar to join the Afghan war and worked as a surgeon for injured combatants.

Jihadis needed guidance through a text on the real objective of fighting battles which was not just victory over the Soviets but martyrdom and eternal salvation. Fadl’s The Essential Guide for Preparation appeared late for the Afghan war but became one of the most important texts for jihadis’ training. Lawrence Wright, the Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist, notes that the Guide begins with the premise that jihad is a natural state of Islam: Muslims must always be in conflict with non-believers. Fadl asks that peace is recommended only in moments of severe weakness. Otherwise every Muslim must seek divine reward through sacrificing his life for Islam and thereby bring about an Islamic state.

After 1989 Zawahiri and most of Al Jihad moved to Sudan. From there they watched the Islamic Group wage a vicious war against the Egyptian state. The Group launched a social revolution, ransacking video stores and cinemas, demanding hijabs for women and bombed churches of the Coptic minority. One of the founders was Karam Zuhdy, who ended up living in prison for two decades with about 20,000 Islamists. During the ’90s, the Group killed more than 1,200 in terror attacks.

In 1994, Fadl wrote the 1,000-page Compendium of Pursuit of Divine Knowledge. In it he declared war on the rulers of Arab states and considered them infidels who should be killed. The same punishment was to be meted out to those who served them and to others working for peaceful change. The Compendium gave Al Qaeda the mandate to murder all who opposed it. This is just the book that Zawahiri wanted, but it went a bit too far. Fadl was livid when he learnt that parts of the book had been removed and the title changed and published under Zawahiri’s name.

With so many years wasted in prison since 1981, the leaders of the Islamic Group began reading books and analysing their past, and realised that they had been manipulated into pursuing a violent path. Zuhdy, the Group’s founder, found that any such discussion led to strong opposition within and outside the prison.

Meanwhile, secret talks continued with the Egyptian government until they became known in 1997. Zawahiri was disappointed by the move away from violent jihad, which to him was the main galvanising force for his movement. Along with Islamic Group leaders outside Egypt, he arranged for the murder of 62 tourists near Luxor, hoping the move would derail rapprochement between the Group and the state.

The Group’s leaders countered by issuing a statement condemning the act, and followed up with writing a series of books and pamphlets collectively known as The Revision in which they explained their new thinking. Zuhdy publicly apologised to the Egyptian people for the Group’s violent deeds. The government responded by releasing over 20,000 Group members.

Meanwhile Fadl who had landed in a Yemen prison was smuggled onto a plane and taken to Cairo in 2005. It is from his cell that he wrote his latest book, Rationalising Jihad. To avoid the charge that he had been tortured or coaxed into writing it, a majority of the Al Jihad members in prison signed the manuscript. To exclude the possibility of coercion, an editor interviewed Fadl extensively.

Here’s a summary of some of the controversial points raised which clearly will not go down well with radical Islamists such as Zawahiri: (a) There is nothing more that invokes divine wrath than the unwarranted spilling of blood and wrecking of property; (b) the limitation placed on jihad restrict it to extremely rare circumstances; (c) it is forbidden to kill civilians — including Christians and Jews — unless they are actively attacking Muslims, (d) indiscriminate bombing such as blowing up hotels, buildings and public transportation is not permitted, (e) there is no legal reason for harming people in any way, (f) one cannot decide who is a Muslim or a non-believer, and (g) the end does not justify violent means.

Zawahiri warned that Fadl’s revision of the jihad concept placed restrictions on action which, if implemented, would destroy the jihad completely. Zuhdy commented that this exchange between the Al Qaeda ideologues showed that the movement is disintegrating due to internal dissent.

Pakistan, which is being torn apart by jihadis from within and across its border, needs to make Fadl’s latest work widely available in translation, to be studied in madressahs and discussed in the media. Who knows what reformation this could bring about?

The writer is an Islamabad-based physicist and environmentalist.

 

[muse]

Ijtihad in our times

By Dr Asghar Ali Engineer

OURS is one of the most progressive religions. The Prophet of Islam (PBUH) was surprisingly open and modern in his concepts. He not only accepted validity of other religions before him through divine word but emphasised peaceful coexistence with all, if others do not take up arms against Muslims.

He drew up the Covenant of Madina to promote harmonious co-existence between all faiths and called it one community. The Quran emphasised the doctrine of freedom of conscience (la ikrah fi’deen – 2:256) which was no less than a revolutionary concept in those days. It is also a harbinger of human rights as it declares, “We have given equal honour to children of Adam” (17:70).

The Quran also declared gender equality when it says, “And women have rights similar to those against them in a just manner.” (2:228). These are revolutionary declarations. The world realised equal dignity of human beings, gender equality and freedom of conscience only in the 20th century whereas Islam had declared this more than 1,400 years ago.

But today we see very different practices in the Muslim world. Many even accuse Islam of not permitting human freedom and deny human rights; women enjoy few rights in the Muslim world. Partly it is due to misconceptions and partly the Muslim world is responsible for all this. The conservatism which we see in the Muslim world today is more cultural and due to social structures, as it developed through centuries of monarchical or colonial rule which strengthened feudal values.

What developed by way of jurisprudence during these centuries was taken as authentic teachings of Islam representing its values. However, fact was that Quranic teachings were too revolutionary for the early medieval society to be accepted and hence the then social values became predominant and the dream of a Quranic society remained unfulfilled. Time has now come to realise this dream in more concrete terms.

The Prophet of Islam (PBUH) with his vision had realised that the Quranic teachings may not be easily accepted as prevalent social structures would try to overwhelm the Quranic values. Also, he wanted society to move ahead and not remain stagnant. He thus left room in the Sharia for the doctrine of ijtihad i.e. maximum assertion of human intellect to resolve new problems arising in society.

We find this doctrine enunciated in the hadith pertaining to his companion Ma’az bin Jabal who was appointed by the Prophet as governor of Yemen. The Prophet advised him to resolve problems through ijtihad if he did not find their solution in the Quran and the Sunnah. He also said that if one commits a mistake in doing ijtihad, one would be rewarded for the sincere effort; if one finds the correct solution then the reward would be twice as much.

One will hardly find such parallels in history of other religions where intellectual freedom to solve problems is promoted instead of falling back on conservatism. There is complete consensus among ulema on the concept of ijtihad as the way forward, yet the tragedy is that none encourages its application. This is not because of Islam but because of social conservatism pervading the Muslim world.

It is not only a necessary exercise today, it is, I believe, obligatory on scholars committed to the Quranic values to attempt ijtihad in order to rediscover the spirit of the faith. Many extremist and militant Islamic groups have promoted serious misunderstandings about the values and teachings of Islam and have thus hijacked it for their own political agenda.

Also, unlike during the Muslim rule in the first few centuries, a vast number of Muslims live as minorities in various non-Muslim-majority countries. There is a great need to develop a new code to serve the needs of these substantial Muslim minorities so that they could live with a good Islamic conscience.

Only ijtihad can make that a reality.

The writer is an Islamic scholar and heads the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism, Mumbai.

 

[AgNoStiC MuSliM]

What I gather from the first article, is not that moderate scholars or progressive scholars and literature does not exist in Islam, it is that Governments and institutions are not necessarily actively seeking it out and promoting them.

 

[muse]

AM

It's the best of times and the worst of times - more is being written, more is being read and discussed among Muslims and Non-Muslims than at any time before -- read, change is in going to come - but it will divide, some will move on and others will seek to retreat in caves, but the numbers of the cave dwellers is going down and will go down even further.

You will note the juxtaposition of the pieces and you will note who the authors are and what kinds of experience they reflect.

It is a hope ful time and there is also Dr. m. Scheuer's piece about AQ's incitment. There is a lot of work to do to ensure more and more Muslims read or rather are able to read and have a wide variety of ideas available.

 

[muse]

Making a mockery of jihad
By Asghar Ali Engineer



Recent terror attacks in India and abroad have created an impression that jihad is central to Koranic teaching. First of all, as we have asserted repeatedly, jihad does not mean war in the Koran as there are other words for it like qital and harb. Jihad has been used in the Koran in its root meaning: to strive for betterment of society, to spread goodness (maruf) and contain evil (munkar).

But supposing jihad means war, as some Muslims believe, even then it still isn't central to Koranic teachings. The word "jihad" occurs in the Koran 41 times though not a single verse uses it in the sense of war. The four most fundamental values in the Koran are justice ('adl), benevolence (ihsan), compassion (rahmah) and wisdom (hikmah). Thus, the Koran is an embodiment of these values and a Muslim is duty-bound to practice them above all.

One who fails to practice these values can hardly claim to be a true Muslim. Jihad is not even obligatory in Islamic jurisprudence whereas these values are indicative of a Muslim's character and hence quite important. It can be said that compassion is most central to Koranic teachings. The words "compassion" and "mercy" in their various forms occur in the Koran 335 times.

There is great emphasis in the Koran on justice in all social and political matters and it uses three words for justice - 'adl, qist and hakama. These three words occur 244 times in the Koran. To seek revenge is human weakness, not strength. Thus, a devout Muslim tends to forgive, like Allah who forgives his servants if they sincerely repent. Those who are waging jihad in the form of terror attacks are bent upon seeking revenge whereas a good Muslim would tend to forgive just as Allah does.

In sharia law, jihad can be declared only by the state or those empowered by it. Terror attacks, on the other hand, are planned and executed by a few individuals unrepresentative of any state or state institution. So their attacks cannot be legitimate by any Islamic or sharia law. That is nothing but committing the murder of innocent people. Also, according to Islamic laws, in jihad no non-combatant can be attacked, much less women, children and the elderly and no civilian property can be destroyed unless it is being used for military purposes or for purposes of combat.

It can be seen that the rules laid down for war by Islamic laws are no different from modern laws of warfare or the Geneva conventions. But terror attacks are a gross violation of all these Islamic rules and there is no way these attacks can be characterized as jihad. The terrorists are described by the media as jihadis. This is a gross misuse of the word as there is no word like "jihadi" in the Arabic language. It is in fact "mujahid" and it is used in a laudatory sense - one who devotes oneself to a good cause like fighting against social evils.

The Koran advises Muslims: "And cast not yourselves to destruction with your own hands and do good (to others). Surely Allah loves the doers of good." This advice of the Koran not to throw oneself to destruction with one's own hands is important and relevant even today. What did the September 11, 2001 attack result in? Did al-Qaeda not invite great disaster to the entire Islamic world, especially in Afghanistan and Iraq? Did they not throw themselves into perdition with their own hands? What good did that attack do to anyone? Was there any wisdom in that rash and ruthless attack?

Revenge only satisfies our ego and injures the ego of the enemy and thus the war of attrition continues. What terrorists are doing is seeking revenge, and from a weaker position. Every attack brings nothing but disaster for themselves and others. Various verses quoted to justify jihad are generally taken in a literal sense and ignore the value system of the Koran. It is a well-known fact that be it al-Qaeda or any other terrorist organization, they do not represent any government or larger Muslim organization. They succeed in mobilizing some angry youth who are carried away by "Islamic" rhetoric and commit terrorist attacks taking lives of innocent people. These attacks violate all Koranic values.

Seventh century Arabia cannot be compared to conditions in the contemporary world. Today's world is radically different from that period and we should go more by Koranic ethics than injunctions about war. There are several institutions now available for arbitration, reconciliation and solving disputes. One should not rush to resort to violence.

In the Indian context, one cannot avenge violence by terrorist attacks on innocent Hindus and Muslims in marketplaces. It is the same sin which was committed against innocent Muslims. Wisdom requires that one should patiently mobilize public opinion through democratic means, win over the hearts of common people and expose evil forces.

One hopes that the misguided Muslim youth resorting to violent actions will realize the futility of terror attacks and renounce such sinful and criminal acts, concentrating instead on excelling in learning and acquiring a superior moral character.

Did not the Prophet say that the "ink of a scholar is superior to the blood of the martyr"?

Asghar Ali Engineer is an acknowledged authority on Islam and director of the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism in Mumbai.

 

[muse]

Catholics, Muslims open landmark talks at Vatican

* Scholars deliver lectures on how their faiths understand concept of love of God

VATICAN CITY: Senior Vatican and Islamic scholars launched their first Catholic-Muslim Forum on Tuesday to improve relations between the world’s two largest faiths.

The three-day meeting comes two years after Pope Benedict angered the Muslim world with a speech implying Islam was violent and irrational. In response, 138 Muslim scholars invited Christian churches to a new dialogue to foster mutual respect through a better understanding of each other’s beliefs.

In their manifesto, “A Common Word”, the Muslims argued that both faiths shared the core principles of the love of God and one’s neighbour. The talks focused on what this means for the religions and how it can foster harmony between them.

The session began with a moment of silence so that the Roman Catholic and Muslim groups, each comprising 28 delegates and advisors, could say their own prayers for its success.

After introductory remarks by delegation leaders Cardinal Jean-Louis Tauran and Bosnian Grand Mufti Mustafa Ceric, a Catholic and a Muslim scholar delivered lectures on how their faiths understand the concept of love of God.

Head of the Pontifical Council for Inter-religious Dialogue Tauran, told the French Catholic daily La Croix on Monday that the Forum “represents a new chapter in a long history” of often strained relations. A Muslim delegate, Swiss philosopher Tariq Ramadan, wrote in the British daily Guardian that dialogue was “far more vital and imperative than our rivalries over the number of believers, our contradictory claims about proselytism, and sterile competition over exclusive possession of the truth”.

‘The Common Word’ meeting takes place one week before Saudi King Abdullah visits the United Nations (UN) to promote a parallel interfaith dialogue that he launched last summer. These and other meetings reflect a new urgency among Muslims in recent years, since the September 11 attacks, the “clash of civilisations” theory and Pope Benedict’s Regensburg speech showed a widening gap between the two faiths.

The Vatican was at first cool to the Common Word initiative, arguing that talks among theologians had little meaning if they did not lead to greater respect for religious liberty in Muslim countries, where some Christian minorities face oppression.

The Vatican delegation includes bishops from minority Christian communities in Iraq, Syria and Pakistan. Among the Muslims are converts from the United States, Canada and Britain. reuters

 

[niaz]

The following post is written with the historical perspective only and is not meant to say what is right or what is wrong. I have tried to explain what IMO is the reason for the decline of the Muslims from their peak 500 years ago.
.

Muslims of the period just after the Prophet were enlightened people and not afraid of questioning things and practiced Ijma as well as Qiyas to overcome day to day problems of the Muslims as well as rationalize interpretations of the Quran and Sunnah.

At the time when our holy Prophet (SAW) passed away. There was no Islamic currency, no Islamic calendar. No Tarveeh prayers. Fajr azaan did not include “Assalata khairum minan noum”. Quran was not in the formalized written down form. Only taxes payable were Zakat (income tax at 1/40th) and Khums (1/5 of the war booty). Great Khalifa, Hazrat Omer (RA) instituted a new tax called Usher on the agricultural income, formalized Tarveeh prayer and added Khairum minan noum in the morning azaan. He constituted a consultative assembly called Shura to resolve the problems not explained thru Quran and Sunnah. All these changes were accepted by majority of the ummah.

It was about three generations later that the Shariah that we know today, such as Hanafi, Shafaii, Maliki and Hanbali started to take shape. Imam Hanbal was the one who insisted on literal interpretation of Quran, for example if Allah says ‘YAD’ it does not imply power but hand in the literal sense. Imam Hanbal was not very popular during his life time and was hounded out of Baghdad. Muslims until the 10/12th century carried on the liberal tradition and we find debates on the various on interpretation of Quran and Sunnah. Thus Ijtehad was practiced in its fullest sense. Unfortunately, Mongol invasion and resulting death of the last Abbasid Khalifa, Al Mustaasim in 1258 closed the door of Ijtehad on Sunni Islam which constitutes nearly 75 % of all Muslims of the world.

IMO this was the greatest tragedy that befell the ummah. Some the scholars from the 12th century onwards tried to adopt holier than thou attitude, thereby confining the Islam into narrower and narrower interpretation. As if thinking stopped and only the literal interpretation remained. Ibne Timiyia was the foremost critic of the scholars of the period and considered that only his views represented pure Islam to the exclusion all others. He said that the reason why Arab Muslims have been subjugated by non Arabs was that they have ignored the practices of their forefathers. (Salafin). He was dead against Ibne Arabi (Sufi guru) and issued a fatwa against the Ziarat ul Qabr of the Prophets and Saints. It is ironic that while Ibne Timiyia was found guilty of heresy by eighteen leading scholars of the day and Qazis of Cairo ordered him to be imprisoned. Today he is considered as 5th Imam by the Salafin and Wahabis of Saudi Arabia.

Simple students of history such as I are astonished to note that today many believe that other jurists who sentenced Ibne Timiyia were some how wrong. This is probably due the fact that force was used to gain the acceptance of the Ibne Timiya’s doctrine when the followers of Imam Hanbal and Ibne Timiya gained power thru Wahabi movement. Does this mean that the Muslims that went before were in the wrong? The possibility therefore exists that what Wahabis preach today may not be the Islam as practiced by the early Muslims but the one that Ibne Timiyia imagined should have been practiced.

One of the clearest examples of “holier than thou” approach is evident in the Islamic coins. I have seen coins of the Umayyad period in the museum in Damascus where La ilaha illalah is embossed. In some cases it is super imposed on the face of the Roman coins. No one cared or worried too much. It is hard to imagine that there were no Islamic scholars at the time of Walid bin Abdul Malik. (The exhibits are still there for any one who wishes to see). Aurangzeb comes on the scene and decides that since coins can fall to the ground and are often handled by unclean hands, this constitutes an insult to Allah, therefore no Quranic Ayat or Allah’s name should be written the coins. How can we claim to be better Muslims than those of the period of 65/70 Hijra? Especially Aurangzeb! Who was clearly a usurper as he dethroned his own father and killed off all his brothers? Shah Jehan was imprisoned in the Agra fort for 15 years until his death. Pray tell me, when many Tabaeens were still alive (Umayyad period) it was not considered blasphemous to write name of Allah on the coins, why should it be banned 1000 years later.

The above examples are quoted to illustrate that it was not until the 13th century that interpretation of the Sharia by the scholars became regressive. Islamic scholars in their zeal to make others better Muslims; changed a very progressive religion into a religion which stopped all fresh thinking. Muslims who produced all leading light of the scientific world until the 13th century; all of a sudden were pushed back into dark ages during the subsequent centuries.

Wahabi and Salafin movement started in the eighteenth century is a glaring example of the dominance of regressive thought in
the Muslim world. These people used force to get acceptance of their ideas by the silent majority, an example followed by the Taliban in Afghanistan. The pity is that many have been brainwashed into accepting their ideology as true Islam, which is far from the historical facts.

Asha’aris believed that eeman was in the heart and separate from the actions, Hanabilites and the salafins believe that eeman without action means nothing. I don’t deny that your actions must reflect what is in your heart, but IMO too much emphasis on rituals has a side effect of making one extremely bigoted and not willing to accept new ideas. This makes one incapable of competing in the modern world. Sincerely hope we can find the leader which in Iqbal words,

Khudi ko kar buland itna key har taqdeer se pehley

Khuda bandey say khud poochey bata teri reza kiya hai?

There is an urgent need of the scholars who are bold enough to carry the light of Ijtehad and allow Muslims to carry on with their intellectual pursuits without their beliefs being adulterated. We have seen that in absence of such a visionary, Muslims have been going downhill for the last 500 years. While other nations progress and overtake us, we are still basking in the glory of earlier days and blame others for our ills. The fault actually lies within us and people who preach return to dark ages.

 

[DarkStar]

It's quite an old mantra now. The "wahabis" are the root of all that is evil and wrong with the muslims. How does that fit into a conversation on Ijtihad?

Remembe, the "gates" of ijtihad were closed by the Mullahs of the four madhabs. And people like Ibn Taymiya were the ones who actually opened those gates. I hope you have had the opportunity to actually raed Ibn Taymiya, then you would see the genious of his ideas and dedcutions.

He is also one of the few scholars in the history of Islam to lead a battle against agressors from the fore front. He was part of the muslim army defending against the tatars, and spent his time exhorting others and fighting himself. I'd say he has single handedly done more for jihad and ijtihad than perhaps any other scholar in history.

As for Ibn Taymiya earning the ire of the rulers of the day and the scholars on their payroll, being sentenced to prison, that has always happened with notable intellectuals throughout the course of human history. There are many examples of such actions against illustrious people, as you yourself would know.

One of the many themes that Ibn Taymiyah discusses in his book, is the concept of Sufism as was prevalent in his day. He wrote books on majazib (majzoobs), those sufis who dont pray, pay zakat, fast, but were considered Awliya Allah, condemning them as unislamic. How can anyone defend such people, even if htey claim to be sufis?

He also critised Ibn Arabi (hardly the first person to do that), because of his understanding of wahdutulwujud. Ibn Arabi was the man that claimed, that God is in everything, in the human being and even in the animal. Such statemetns of his have continued to earn the ire of scholars down the ages and earned him accusations of promoting pantheism. The execution of the famous sufi, Mansur al Hallaj, who claimed Ana Al Haqq comes under the same category.

Ibn Taymiya, nor Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal can be blamed for the excesses of the house of Saud.

There is a lot of hatred for Muhammad bin AbdulWahab because he instigated the banning of superstitious practices in Mecca and Medina, and stopped people from supplicating at the graves of those whom we all hold dear. Another "crime" that he committed, was banning the ritual of having four "imams" leading the prayers, from the four sides of the kaba, for the followers of the four madhabs of sunnis, while the shias prayed undera seperate imam. There were even different azaans, said according to the timings of the different madhabs. He abolished this abhorrent innovation, and forced them to unite under one Imam. Therefore, if you go to saudia arabia today, and visit Makkah, you will all have to pray behind one Imam, and listen to one Azaan. That did more for muslim unity than maybe you can imagine.

It is not without doubt, that the Sauds were not perfect and sometimes harsh in the implementation of what they believed.

But one cannot compare them to the Taliban. You talk about the difference between ASharis and followers of IMam ahmad bin hanbal, have you forgotten that the Taliban are Ash'ari too? please don't make generalised statements without thinking things through.

 

[DarkStar]

Making a mockery of jihad

Asghar Ali Engineer is an acknowledged authority on Islam and director of the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism in Mumbai.

Thanks for finding articles from such obscure people. Acknowledged authoroty on islam? acknowledged by whom?

Why don't you also mention, he is the leader of a minor religious sect, the Progressive Dawoodi Bohra movement.

If you are peddling such voices on this forum, you should be honest enough to give the contextual background of the writer.

 

[niaz]

Hon darkStar,

You criticism is welcome. Let me clarify the reasons why I singled out Imam Hanbal and Ibne Timiyia for the ills of the ummah. I did not include Imam Ghazali in my earlier post because I admire his intellect.

In my opinion, most progressive people in the early Islamic word were the Mu’tazilites and the proponents of ‘kalaam’. Both of these movements died out due the traditionalists or Asha’erites and the Hanbalites.

I have been searching for the reasons as to why all of a sudden, we find that Muslims lagging behind Europe. I came to the conclusion that main reason was the end of Ijtehad. What I understand by Ijtehad is use of ‘Qiyas’ or intellectual exercise to arrive at the most appropriate solution of a problem, in other words thinking outside the box.

The stress on literal interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah as preached by Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal and Ibne Timiyia basically means that any rationalization of the Quranic verses is incorrect. There were others such as Imam Ghazali (an Asha’ary in essence) who were equally responsible for this retrograde movement. Any attempt to interpret in a way other than the traditional was treated as ‘kufr’. The relationship with Ijthad, Hanablites and decline in scientific achievement has therefore cause and effect relationship.

To presume that all the jurists who sentenced Imam Ibne Timiyia were corrupt is however incorrect. Only difference is that those were of Shafi’i school. The fact that Imam fought against the Tatars doesn’t make him a better scholar. I never criticized Ibne Timiyia's beliefs. I only stated a fact.

Incidentally, I admit to having read about Ibne Timiyia thru secondary sources only but I have read Imam Ghazali. I found that he had a brilliant mind even though I disagree with his logic that cause and effect were determined by God.

Intentions of all the notable personalities mentioned above were not doubt very good, which is to keep Islamic beliefs pure. However, the Greek philosophy and knowledge rejected by them was taken up by the West and resulted in the ‘Renaissance’ which changed the balance of knowledge and power between East and West.

I don’t claim that my reasoning is without faults. You are obviously a very well read man, if you can come up with any other explanation as to why all of a sudden intellectual and scientific development in the Muslim world died out; I shall be more than happy to read it

 

[muse]

Thank you Niaz - we will have an opportunity to explore the beloved Imam Ghazzali role in the anti-rational movement that has afflicted Islam for many centuries - though he sought to keep Islam safe from those whom he thought were leading it to stray, his attack on reason, did much to put the world of Islam in the coma from which it even today has not awoken.
"Deliverance from Error", indeed.

Darkstar

So, I now peddle Dawoudi Bohra Muslim ideas and I peddle Ahmadi Muslim ideas and some say I am a Hindu, and others that I am actually a Jew - these will soon be followed by kafir, murtad and mushrik --- so, well, what can I tell you, lets counter ideas with ideas and ordinary Muslims will reason for themselves to understand the implications of ideas. What, I wonder will you make of the ideas set out below? :

King Abdullah and the skeptics
By Tony Blair

Wednesday, November 12, 2008
The decision by King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia to hold an interfaith conference under the auspices of the United Nations is bold, courageous and potentially far-reaching.

To many people, especially in the West, his initiative may seem unremarkable. In fact, it is a major step forward in the long march to a relationship between Islam and other faiths that is not one of confrontation or distrust but of peaceful co-existence.

King Abdullah is not only the ruler of Saudi Arabia. He is the keeper of the two Holy Mosques, the religious sites at Mecca and Medina which, together with Al-Aqsa in Jerusalem, constitute three of the leading holy places of Islam. He is also the leader of a nation that critics say has been slow to modernize, with fraught consequences for the rest of the world. But King Abdullah's decision to offer the hand of friendship and mutual respect to other religions by initiating the conference, which began Wednesday, has big implications - as the criticism of his initiative from some corners of the Islamic world indicates.

Within Islam today, there are two competing narratives. There is not a series of different trouble spots or issues that require disconnected focus and action. There is essentially one struggle, with two sides.

On the one hand, there are those who loudly declare that Islam has gone wrong precisely because its leadership has been prepared to work with the West, or because the West has sought to impose its values on Muslim societies. According to this narrative, Islam is engaged in a fundamental conflict with nonbelievers. There can be no reconciliation. Those who seek it betray Islam. Confrontation, or at least segregation, is inevitable. Instead of pursuing co-existence, instead of "diluting" the purity of Islam by trying to learn about and respect others of a different faith, Muslims should re-establish a mythical caliphate, an Islamic state in which governance is regulated by a rigid adherence to Islamic law and practice of centuries ago, as interpreted by today's hard-line clerics.

Though the number of believers who use this narrative as a route into extremism or violence is small, there are many more who buy its essential premise that we are two distinct cultures and civilizations in opposition to each other. They are encouraged in this belief because such a narrative plays to the more widespread feeling that Islam is treated disrespectfully by the West, that double standards apply in the handling of the Palestinian issue, and that the military interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq were religiously motivated. Their appeal is sometimes falsely enhanced by a sense that the West has lost touch with basic moral values.

The second group does not desire to replicate Western society. Its proponents share concerns of a moral nature. But they also want to assemble a modern narrative about Islam and have started to do so. They know that the modern world cannot function unless people of different faiths learn to understand and respect one another. This narrative is absolutely founded in Islam, but it is engaged in trying to root out the exclusivist view of religion - not unique in Islam - as a means of shutting the door on those who follow a different faith.

It is the proponents of this modern narrative who want to use the Middle East's wealth to support a politics and culture in tune with the 21st century. They seek to draw on Islam's core belief in education as a means of ensuring that their people are enabled to become a distinctive part of the 21st century world but not distinct from it. And they point to a millennium of Islamic history, from Spain to China, which illustrates Muslim co-existence and acceptance of other faith communities.

Saudi Arabia is seen by many as home to those who espouse the first narrative. King Abdullah is showing how his country can and should be part of the second, that of peaceful co-existence.

This has important policy lessons for the West, especially with the advent of a new U.S. president. Those championing the outward-looking and peaceful view of Islam need our support.

We cannot neglect the importance of security and military measures - on the contrary, they are critical. But, ultimately, this is not a struggle that can be won by military or security means alone. The struggle is one of ideas, of hearts and minds as well as of weapons. We have to persuade. And we have to realize that the roots of the alternative narrative, which sees Islam pitted against the West, go deep.

Today, 30 million Muslims live in Western countries. They are Muslims and they are Westerners. And a new generation among them is beginning to illustrate that there is no inherent conflict between the two.

Resolving the Middle East peace process and bringing about an independent, viable state of Palestine alongside a secure state of Israel is one vital element - indeed I think a sine qua non. It can be done. There is in fact, for the first time, an agreed strategy among the key players in the international community as to how it can be done, as was made clear once more at the meeting of the quartet of negotiating parties - the U.S., the EU, the UN and Russia - in Sharm el Sheikh, Egypt, last weekend.

But that on its own is insufficient. We also need to engage with the issue of education - what we teach, what is learned, what is communicated about one another. Some of this happens within schools and universities. But much of it happens within the faith communities themselves.

For this reason, King Abdullah's initiative needs to be seen alongside the programs of educational and social reform that are being introduced by governments all over the Arab world. Many of those programs may seem long overdue; sometimes their introduction is hesitant; but the opposition they often provoke within elements of the Muslim world is itself instructive about their importance.

The Tony Blair Faith Foundation, in partnership with Yale University, is exploring how we can help to show that religious faith can be a constructive force for progress rather than a reactionary and destructive one. Students in the foundation's "Faith and Globalization" course come from many religious traditions. The questions we are asking do not seek to obliterate differences between these faiths, but rather investigate how those of different beliefs can live harmoniously with one another. The idea is to develop a course that can lead to new research, publications and programs that deepen our understanding of how faith retakes its proper role as a source of moral suasion, justice and a proper way of living and rescues it from those who would use religion to create conflict, division and extremism.

Saudi Arabia will continue, for now, to seem far removed from Western society. Many are skeptical of the value of this initiative emanating from the kingdom. But the fact that the country's ruler, with his unique position within the Muslim world, is holding this conference extends an opportunity for the future that we should embrace.

Tony Blair, the former British prime minister, is founder of the Tony Blair Faith Foundation

 

[DarkStar]

Darkstar

So, I now peddle Dawoudi Bohra Muslim ideas and I peddle Ahmadi Muslim ideas and some say I am a Hindu, and others that I am actually a Jew - these will soon be followed by kafir, murtad and mushrik --- so, well, what can I tell you, lets counter ideas with ideas and ordinary Muslims will reason for themselves to understand the implications of ideas. What, I wonder will you make of the ideas set out below? :

My point about "peddling", was that I thought it was a bit disingenuous to post an article about someone who is claimed to be an authority and the "director of the Centre for Study of Society and Secularism in Mumbai.", while not identifying the fact that he is the Leader of a particularly active religious sect.

Of course I would not have expected you to mention that he was literally 'kicked' out of the Dawoodi Bohra establishment in India, before becoming the leader of the new sect.

I did not accuse you of being anything. I do not know, and I do not care. You will certainly not find me accusing anyone of being kafir, murtad, mushrik , least of all you.

As for countering with ideas, I have been giving my own opinions and views regarding some of the issues raised, and have spent quite some time doing it, rather than just paste other people's opinions.

 

[muse]

I have been giving my own opinions and views regarding some of the issues raised, and have spent quite some time doing it, rather than just paste other people's opinions.

And indeed your opinion and point of view have somehow developed without the input of others and their points of view and research - disingenuous you say? But I am coming to conclusion that salafi central will not allow anything else.

 

[Flintlock]

Thank you Muse and Niaz! I dare not comment for fear of ruining the quality of discussion.

 

[DarkStar]

And indeed your opinion and point of view have somehow developed without the input of others and their points of view and research - disingenuous you say? But I am coming to conclusion that salafi central will not allow anything else.

lol...This salafi taunt coming from someone who got touchy about even the thought of being accused of being an ahmadi, bohri and jew.

I expected more from you than this.