Posts Tagged ‘Experiences’

Riba (usury), prohibition vs dubious easements! 

March 13, 2020

“Those who devour riba will stand, on judgment day, like those driven to madness by a touch of the evil. That is because they say “trade is just like usury”. But Allah has permitted trade and forbidden usury. Whosoever, after receiving a warning from their lord, refrains may keep their previous gains, and their case is left to Allah. As for those who persist [in devouring riba], their abode will be hellfire. They will remain there forever. (Q, 2:275)

 

PREFACE.

In my view, in the above verse and other verses on the topic, there is no ambiguity; which may lead one to any confusion, that business transactions within the parameters delineated by the Prophet, are unequivocally permissible (except recent innovative/circumventive dubious transactions). Riba/usury, however, in whatever type or form (discussed in detail in the proceeding paras) is unequivocally forbidden. I strongly disagree with the currently in vogue innovative-easements; justifying the riba/interest drenched transactions, under the guise of “lease-purchase and loaning/financing in the name of murabaha”. 

I also disagree with the blatantly adduced assumption that “taking interest is forbidden but not giving” It contravenes an implied Qura’anic injunction; of not giving an increased amount on loaned money (Q, 30:39). This assumption is not only illogical but also negates the “duality of creation” (rule), affirmed in the Holy Qura’an.

DUALITY OCREATION

[and from all of the fruits He made therein two mates; He causes the night to cover the day. Indeed, in that are signs for a people who give thought. Q,13: 3]

[…and from all of the fruits He made therein two mates; He causes the night to cover the day. Indeed, in that are signs for a people who give thought. Q,13: 3]

[And a sign for them is the night. We remove from it [the light of] day, so they are [left] in darkness. Q,36:37] 

 

These innovatively crafted-distortions do not fit the doctrine of Maslahah” as well. Terms of the loans under Islamic financing OUGHT TO BE DICTATED by the “creditor”, not the “debtor” [Q, 2:282]

“And of everything We have created pairs: That ye may receive instruction” (Q, 51:49) {Pair may be ln a tangible form, in an intangible or conceptual form; such as—man/woman, day/night, taking/giving or good/bad, etc.}

“He to whom belongs the dominion of the heavens and the earth: no son has He begotten, nor has a partner in His Kingdom. He created everything and ordered them in due proportions” (Q, 25:2)

{Singularity (Monotheism) is exclusively Allah’s attribute; nothing else, could/would exist in singularity} Nauzubillah! 

 

Notes: appearing at the end of certain points, in the proceeding paragraphs, is the point of view of the author.

 

Riba was prohibited gradually in four stages via                                                                Q, 30:39, 4:161, 130:132 & 2:282.

Kinds of riba

Islamic discourse identifies three different types of riba: 1) riba al-Fadl (primarily related to sales transactions), 2) riba al-Nasiya (sales or debt involving deferment) and a variation of the previous two, 3) riba al-Jahliyyah.

Riba Al-Fadl is the excess over and above the loan paid in kind.  It lies in the payment of an addition by the debtor to the creditor in exchange for commodities of the same kind. The Shari’ah wishes to eliminate not merely the exploitation that is intrinsic in the institution of interest, but also that which is inherent in all forms of unjust exchange in business transactions.

Riba Al-Nasi’ah refers to the interest on loans; its prohibition essentially implies that the fixing in advance of a positive return on a loan as a reward for waiting is not permitted in Islam.

Riba Al-Jahiliyyah when a buyer/borrower did not pay his due after the stipulated time, the seller/lender would increase the price, and thus a higher principal amount, sometimes doubled (or more), would be imposed.

According to Ibn Abbas, one of the major companions of the Prophet and earliest of the Islamic jurists, and few other companions (Usama ibn Zayd, ‘Abdullah ibn Mas’udUrwa ibn Zubayr, Zayd ibn Arqam) “considered that the only unlawful riba is riba al-jahiliyyah.” (No textual/hadithic authority/basis cited)

 

Muhammad Nezatullah Siddiqi. In his book Riba, Bank Interest, and The Rationale of Its Prohibition [p. 41], offers a thorough work explicating the rationales of the prohibition of bank interests, and lists the following reasons justifying its prohibition: 1. Riba corrupts society. 2. Riba implies the improper appropriation of other people’s property. 3. Riba’s ultimate effect is negative growth. 4. Riba demeans and diminishes human personality. 5. Riba is unjust.

{These arguments are objectively scrutinized hereunder}.

 1) Riba corrupts society! 

Corruption studies or corruption-related literature does not identify interest anywhere as one of the determinants of corruption. Indeed, most of the Muslim-majority countries rank high in the Corruption Perception Index (CPI).11 

Siddiqi’s flawed logic can be identified by simply examining his first point – that riba corrupts society. While riba-based transactions are unjust and thus may have corrupting influence on society, but the corruption studies or corruption-related literature does not identify interest anywhere as one of the determinants of corruption. Indeed, most of the Muslim-majority countries rank high in the Corruption Perception Index (CPI).11 But corruption-related studies relating to these countries done by either non-Muslims or Muslims have never identified interest as one such determinant of corruption.

As we will see, Siddiqi’s enumeration is generally not much different from the earlier ones by Abul Ala’ Mawdudi and Dr. Yousuf Ali-Qaradawi (using Al-Razi’s arguments ad verbatim) and is as polemical as well as empirically unsubstantiated and untestable as ever. Only one rationale is identifiable from the Qur’an: exploitation/injustice (zulm): “If you do it not, Take notice of war from Allah and His Messenger: But if you turn back, you shall have your capital sums: Deal not unjustly, and you shall not be dealt with unjustly.” [la tazlimoona wa la tuzlamoon; [Q, 2:279] Hadith: – (Prophetic narrations) also does not provide in this context any specific rationale other than what is identified in the Qur’an.

Note: – 1) It does not, by any mean, means that CPI index or corruption-related studies absolve “riba” of its implications or represents an Islamic perspective in any contextual sense. Riba simply was not taken into account as a consideration. 

2) Injunctive (hukmi) verses, at times, may not necessitate any explanations, for these are/maybe above and beyond the scope of human reasoning and logic.

 

[In terms of the use of riba, Sudan is the strictest and Malaysia the most liberal state]

 

2) Improper appropriation of other people’s property.

Charging/taking an interest, here, implies appropriating another person’s property without giving him anything in exchange because one who lends one dollar for two dollars gets the extra dollar for nothing. Now, a man’s property is for (the purpose of) fulfilling his needs and it has great sanctity. According to the hadith, ‘A man’s property is as sacred as his blood.’ This means that taking it from him without giving him something in exchange is haram. [p. 265]

One can argue that, in trade, taking something from someone without giving something in exchange is haram (prohibited). However, the argument is misleading and erroneous. When a non-charitable transaction is involved, both the parties know what the lending and borrowing entail. The borrower is borrowing for some commercial or personal benefit and the lender is lending for-profit motive. In such a non-charitable context, the lender is giving up or foregoing the purchasing power for a specific period. In other words, the lender is “renting out” the purchasing power of his/her capital for a specific period at a cost; interest here constitutes “rent” that is paid by the borrower. The lender is getting paid (interest) for foregoing something; it is not something for nothing but quid pro quo!

Note: {Islam, in the first place, does not espouse the concept of non-charitable-loaning but charitable one—Qarzhasanathat may be administered by the state from the “Sadaqat” collected. Allah will destroy Riba (usury) and will grant increase, for Sadaqat..}     (Q, 2:276)

 

Time-value of money in Islam!

Islamic economics/finance literature generally denies that Islam recognizes the time value of money. [El-Gamal 2000, quoting Mawdudi and Al-Sadr]. “[I] in Shari’ah, there is no concept of the time value of money.” [Usmani, p. xvi] Some authors think that the time value of money as relating to sales (deferred sales, to be specific) is allowed in Islam, but that it is not the same kind of time value of money as in case of loans. [Saadallah; M. Akram Khan cited in Vogel and Hayes, p. 202] Others even suggest that there should not be any profit-motive on the part of Muslims, seeking service from Islamic Banks. Although, its equivalent is found in Murabaha, cost-plus financing in purchase and resale. It has been conveniently ignored that accepting the time value of money logically leads to the acceptance of interest. [Saeed, p. 95]

Note; 1) -It may be due to the reason that; the time is created and determined (finite); relevant only to the temporal realm, whereas the recompense for use/misuse of money is indeterminable (at, this stage; i.e. temporal level) and relevant to the non-local domain only.  The time-value of money, in the charitable transactions, therefore, would render utterly irrelevant!

2) – The question of the distinction between the nominal-value and the real value of money, due to inflation, has also not been addressed in Islamic economic literature. At present, there is no economy “without-inflation” {Inflation, in my view, is a derivative of the flawed global economic system; whereby mostly the investors and/or the manufacturers benefit; reflected in different countries at different levels, representing overall state of economy} 

 

3 & 4) Riba’s ultimate effect is negative growth. & Riba demeans human personality.

Supporting arguments.

Dependence on interest prevents people from working to earn money, since the person with dollars can earn extra dollars through interest, either in advance or at a later date, without working for it. The value of work will consequently be reduced in his estimation, and he will not bother to take the trouble of running a business or risking his money in trade or industry. This will lead to depriving people of benefits, and the business of the world cannot go on without industries, trade and commerce, building and construction, all of which need capital at risk. (This, from an economic point of view, is unquestionably a weighty argument.) [p. 265]

Counter arguments.

In modern times, commercial lending and borrowing usually do not take place involving an individual lender at a personal level. Rather, there are lending institutions that mobilize savings from individual and institutional savers/depositors and channel such savings to the borrowers. The lending institutions have to work hard to solicit and pool the savings. They also employ people for the purpose.

The primary source of banks’ lending is savings and demand deposits of the depositors. Demand deposits come from people of all sorts, irrespective of their financial status. A good part of the savers; who use a bank as a source of quick and safe-return instead of risky and arduous stocks and bonds markets are usually risk-averse, older and/or retired people. They want quick access to their savings with a guaranteed return on it. This class of savers consists of people of all ages and financial backgrounds – wealthy and not-so-wealthy, young and older/retired. Indeed, these people can’t be expected/forced to engage in risky investments or laborious-works to seek “earned” income!

 

5) Riba is Unjust.

Supporting Arguments: –

Permitting the taking of interest discourages people from doing good to one another, as is required by Islam. If interest is prohibited in a society, people will lend to each other with goodwill, expecting back no more than what they have loaned, while if interest is made permissible the needy person will be required to pay back more on loans (than he has borrowed), weakening his feelings of goodwill and friendliness toward the lender. (This is the moral aspect of the prohibition of interest.). [p. 266] 

Counter-arguments: –

This whole argument is contrary to the profit-motive, recognized in Islam. Unless we are talking about charities, these arguments would be misplaced and erroneous. This would also imply that people in interest-based societies have lesser goodwill toward others and may not be engaged in enough charitable acts. Is there any empirical corroboration behind such comparative observation?

Note; – [ In my view both, the pro and against, arguments are flimsy at the best. Profit motive sanctioned in Islam is through business dealings not through money-lending for a pre-determined period and profit. Islam, as mentioned earlier, does not espouse non-charitable lending]

 

Some [al-maslaha-al-mursala based] opinions/fatawa; issued by earlier religious figures are being vehemently propagated by some present religious figures with unabashed assertiveness. 

 

The point, a bone of contention; that has divided Muslim scholars is, whether riba (usury) and bank interest are to be considered the same/equivalent or distinct?

 

Equivalence Proponents.

One body of scholarly opinion defines riba to include not only interest but also transactions involving speculation, capital gains, monopoly, hoarding, and absentee rents, in other words, any appropriation of value for which an acceptable counter value is not forthcoming. The reader can easily read through and conceptualize the implications of using more and more restrictive definitions, in the limit (to borrow a mathematic term) equating riba simply with interest.

 

“All the schools of thoughts of Muslim jurisprudence hold the unanimous view that riba, usury and interest are strictly prohibited.” [Siddiqui, p. 15] Also see, Mabid Ali Al-Jarhi and Munawar Iqbal. “Islamic Banking: Answers to Some Frequently Asked Questions,” Islamic Development Bank, Occasional Paper No. 4, 2001. http://irtipms.iskandertech.com/OpenSave.asp?pub=92.pdf; Tariq Talib al-Anjari. “Islamic Economics and Banking,” http://islamic-world.net/economics/economic_banking_01.htm;

“The renowned Islamic scholar Dr. Yusuf Ali Qaradawi holds that the question of prohibition of interest is a settled issue and that ‘there is no provision left in it for any reformist to re-interpret and provide an excuse for stating anything otherwise’. He states that it is ‘an issue which has withstood the test of consensus (Ijmah) of ummah of the present day as well as of the past’.” [ Syed Thanvir Ahmed. “Attempt to Justify Interest an Exercise in futility,” http://www.islamicvoice.com/april.99/economy.htm.]

Abul Ala’ Mauwdudi defines riba as the amount that a lender receives from the borrower at a fixed rate of interest. {for a fixed time and transaction contingent on the excess on the principal}. The transaction would be usurious whether it is for productive-investment or private needs.[Mawdudi, 1997;164] The most explicit report of the Council of Islamic ideology (CII) says: “There is complete unanimity in all schools of thoughts in Islam that the term “riba” stands for interest in all its types and forms”

 

Non-Equivalence Proponents

Those who have argued against this equation, the Non-Equivalence School [Ahmed, p. 28], have not made their arguments in clear and convincing terms so that the common Muslims can decide for themselves. Thus, this discourse needs to continue more vigorously and engagingly.

Note: In my view, as also enunciated in the preface, verse 30:39 categorically settles the issue of non-equivalence of usury, riba or interest by stating “whatever you give in addition to loan amount”, is riba. Supported by a hadith narrated by Jabir, mentioned in Muslim and Tirmazi“Prophet cursed the receiver and payer of the riba, recorder and witnesses to the transaction. And said they are all alike” (in sinfulness)

 

Interest-free economies

Since there has not been any true interest-free, modern Islamic economy and a few places where it is being attempted, the Islamic financial institutions (IFI hereafter), are moving rather closer to the conventional banking practices.

Note: – Use of Interest regime (to control the demand and supply of the funds/liquidity levels; which in turn determines the cost of borrowing; seldom yields the desired results, due to several other factors at play) is the chief catalyst in the volatility of the world’s, almost all, interest-based economies! [Although the man-made  economic management system has gained a high level of sophistication, yet lacks the precision]

 

The primary source of an Islamic Economic system is the Holy Qura’an and Sunnah. Secondary sources include the followings: –

Ijtihad: – True Ijtihad is both the source and the legal instrument that allows a dynamism to be set in motion at the heart of Islamic law and jurisprudence—closely linked with Qura’an and Sunnah.

Ijmaa (Consensus): In its technical dimension, Ijmaa means the agreement of all competent jurists in any particular generation, acting as representatives of the community on a point of law. In practice, the Ijmaa acts as proof if there is no element of the Qur’an or the Sunna that makes it possible to decide on a case, and could in principle elevate a ruling based on probable evidence to absolute certainty.

Qiyas (Analogical reasoning): this technique consists of assigning, based on a common underlying characteristic, the legal ruling of an existing case found in the texts of the Qur’an, Sunnah and/or Ijmaa, to a new case whose legal ruling could not be deduced directly from the scripture and/or Sunnah. This ruling nevertheless ought to remain within the confines and spirit of the primary sources of Islamic law.

 

Misuse of the concept “IJMA’A”

It has been a common practice among Muslim scholars and jurisprudents to claim consensus (ijma) about almost anything they have given their juristic opinion on. The very use of the word ijma inspires awe among faithful Muslims. However, the existence of multiple schools of jurisprudence (fiqh) is not evidence of consensus, but the lack of it.

The reality is that there is not even a consensus on the definition of ijma.  Indeed, it is reported that Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, founder of one of the four orthodox schools (madhab) made a general assertion: “Whoever claims consensus is a liar.

Note; – The concepts, of hire-purchase and lending under Murabaha, seem to fall in the same category; for there are many scholars and Islamic Financial institutions, voicing against these financing modes.

 

Foundational work; a springboard for the current deviant practices, under the guise of Islamic Financing!

 

In the 1930s, Syrian scholar Marouf al-Daoualibi suggested that the Qur’an bans interest only on consumption loans, not investment loans, and in the 1940s Egyptian jurist, Al-Sanhuri argued that the Qur’an sought chiefly to ban interest on interest. A more extreme and recent example is the opinion of the mufti of Egypt, Shaykh Muhammad Sayyid Tantawi, who in 1989 declared that interest on certain interest-based government investments was not forbidden riba (because the gain is little different from the sharing of the government’s profits from use of the funds or because the bank deposit contract is novel), thus joining the thin ranks of prominent religious figures who have issued fatawa declaring clear interest practices permissible. This fatwa aroused a storm of controversy, with opposition from nearly all traditional religious scholars and warm praise from secular modernizers. Later he went even further, saying that interest-bearing bank deposits are perfectly Islamic, and more so than ‘Islamic’ accounts that impose disadvantageous terms on the customer. Laws should change the legal terminology used for bank interest and bank accounts to clarify their freedom from the stigma of riba. [Vogel and Hayes, p. 46]

 

Fatwa for sale

Owen Matthews, “How the West Came to Run Islamic Banks”, Newsweek [October 31, 2005] While the evolved orthodox position about riba was not necessarily tainted by worldly considerations, the contemporary IBF discourse does note “the debate on ‘fatwas for sale” … fatwa wars”, etc. [Warde, p. 227] It is important to note that the classical orthodox position revolved around riba and the modern, contemporary discourse revolves around not merely riba, but a riba-interest equation. The contemporary Shari’ah experts serving the IBF industry hardly have anything to say about the political tyranny, or concentration of wealth, involving the patrons of the IBF movement. [IBF—Islamic Banking and Finance].

 

Islamic Financial Instruments include: MusharkahMudarabahMurabahaMusawamah, Salam,Istisna’aTawarruqIjarah and Qard Hasana.    [Only the relevant financial instruments are discussed in detail]

 

Arguments against lease-purchase/lending.

According to Yousef, “the predominance of the murabaha represents a challenge to the very notion that Islamic finance would provide an alternative to interest-based conventional financial systems.” [p. 64] Siddiqi went much further to warn the Islamic finance industry: … we cannot claim, for an interest-free alternative not based on sharing, the superiority which could be claimed based on profit-sharing. What is worse, if the alternative in practice is built around predetermined rates of return to investible funds, it would be exposed to the same criticism which was directed at interest as a fixed charge on capital. 

 

It so happens that the returns on finance provided in the modes of finance based on murabaha, bay’ salamleasing and lending with a service charge, are all predetermined as in the case of interest. Some of these modes of finance are said to contain some elements of risk, but all these risks are insurable and are insured against. The uncertainty or risk to which the business being so financed is exposed is fully passed over to the other party. A financial system built solely around these modes of financing can hardly claim superiority over an interest-based system on grounds of equity, efficiency, stability and growth. [Siddiqi, 1983, p. 52]

 

It is noteworthy that, contrary to the popular perception of the believing Muslims, Murabaha, (leasing and lending), may not be, as generally claimed, quite Shari’ah-compliant. It is heavily criticized or repudiated by many Islamic scholars and by some Islamic financial institutions.

 

Why Western Institutions are swarming Islamic Banking?

Western interest in “interest-free” banking, is not because the West is convinced about the claimed superiority of Islamic finance/banking in general, and Islamic financial products in particular; but because they don’t find any substantive difference between conventional banking and the current practices of Islamic banking, which have shifted away from profit-loss sharing (PLS)/Risk-sharing-based transactions to Murabaha. It is a vast untapped lucrative market for them, with a clear edge in terms of credibility, experience and capitalization. These banks have found Mudaraba and Musharaka to be inoperable in the modern context. [Saeed, chapter “Murabaha Financing Mechanism,” pp. 76-95; Aggarwal and Yousef, p. 106; Vogel and Hayes, p. 7] Thus, they quietly disengaged themselves from risk-sharing, Musharaka and Mudaraba modes and engaged in Murabaha, instead.

 

Application of the Doctrine of Maslaha.

Maslaha is a very specific concept—in its definition, its levels, its types, and its conditions require that the ulama (religious scholars) constantly refer back to the revealed sources to be able to formulate judgments in conformity with the Qura’an and Sunnah, even when there is no specifically relevant text available. They must try—by carrying out a thorough and detailed study–to provide Muslims with (common good) new banking and financial instruments, guided by Islamic principles and in conformity with Sharia’a.

Presently, this concept is being used and also abused to justify all sorts of new fatawaeven some manifestly in contradiction with obvious proofs from the Qura’an and the Sunna, as in the case of rules concerning interest (riba), inheritance and lending under Murabaha.

Note: [A glaring example of “Tufian” approach, appearing below]

Imam Malik referred to the notion of istislah, which meant “to seek the good.” In his legal research, he, therefore, used the example of the companions—who formulated numerous legal decisions in the light of the common good while respecting the corpus of the sources—to justify the fact that “to seek the good” (istislah) is one of the fundamentals of the Sharia and so is part of it.

It is, however, Abu Hamid al-Ghazali who, with his strict codification, provided the clearest framework for tackling this question from his time to the present. In his Al-mustasfa min ilm al-usul, he states very precisely: “In its essential meaning, al-maslaha is a term which means to seek something beneficial [manfaa] or avoid something harmful [madarra].

What we mean by maslaha is the preservation of the objective [maqasid] of the Law [shar], which consists of five things: the protection of religion, life, intellect, lineage, and property. Whatever ensures the protection of these five principles [usul] is maslahawhatever goes against their protection is mafsada, and to avoid it is maslaha”.

Al-Ghazali, still referring to the broad meaning of maslaha, mentions three different types: al-daruriyyat (the imperative), a category which has to do with the five elements of maqasid al-sharia (here in the sense of the objectives of the Law) listed earlier; al-hajiyyat (the necessary, the complimentary), which has to do with the prevention of anything that could be a source of difficulty in the life of the community, without leading to death or destruction; and finally al-tahsiniyyat and al-kamaliyyat (the enhancing and the perfecting)*1, which concern anything that may bring about an improvement in religious practice. These three levels cover all that can be considered as the masali (common good) of the human being considered as a person and as a worshipper of God, and this categorization was hardly ever questioned in debate and polemic.

*1 {The only point which could be cited, while ignoring all other parameters, vaguely favoring financing under murabaha}

Ulama established a typology based on the degree of proximity of al-maslaha to the sources. If al-maslaha is based on textual evidence (i.e., a quotation from the Qur’an or the Sunna), it is called maslaha mutabara (accredited), and it must necessarily be taken into account. If, on the other hand, the maslaha invoked is contradictory to an undisputed text (nass qati), it is called mulgha (discredited) and cannot be taken into account. The third type occurs when there is no text: the Qura’an and the Sunna do neither confirm nor reject a maslaha that became apparent after the age of Revelation. A maslaha of this type is call mursala (undetermined), for it allows the “Ulama” to use their judgment and personal reasoning to formulate a legal decision in the light of the historical and geographical context; using their best efforts to remain faithful to the commandments and to the “ letter and spirit” of the law.

 

It is this last type that has given rise to much debate and polemic (the analysis is beyond the scope of this study). Suffice it to say here that the main cause of disagreement was the fear, on the part of those opposed to the very concept of al-maslaha al-mursala, that such a notion, with such broad scope, might then allow the ulama to formulate regulations without reference to the Qur’an and the Sunna based on exclusively rational and completely free reasoning, all in the name of a remote hardship or “an anticipated difficulty  Most ZahiriteShafaiite and Malikite ulema did not recognize al-maslaha-al-mursala, for it does not refer back to the sources—as a legal proof; they saw it as a specious (Wahmiyya) proof.

 

This was the very same instinctive fear in an approach that is although purely rational but disconnected with the Law; that pushed Al-Ghazali to restrict work on al-maslaha to the area of the application of qiyas (analogy), which, of its nature, requires a close link with the text for the deduction of the cause (illa) on which analogical reasoning rests.

Note: – Hire-purchase and lending under Murabaha, therefore, contravenes the second rule of maslaha as well as the third rule, by not fulfilling the “referring back to the source” requisite. Hence being spurious (whamiyya) in nature, becomes clearly impermissible!

 

Famous fourteenth-century Hanbali jurist–Najm al-Din al-Tufi– ended up giving al-maslaha priority over texts from the Qur’an and the Sunna; which, according to him, should be applied, according to Mahmasani, only–“to the extent that the common good does not require anything else” 

 

Currently, we see very strange “modern Islamic legal decisions” based on “modern maslaha-al-mursala” that are manifestly contradictory to the sources. The misuse of al-maslaha al-mursala thus sometimes seems to justify the strangest behavior, as well as the most obscure commercial dealings, financial commitments, and banking investments, under the pretext that they protect, or could or should protect, “the common good.”

 

Common good 

Famous 14th Century renowned scholar of Grenada, Al-Shitabi, first of the proponents of the doctrine of al-maslaha-al-mursal who stipulated the precise conditions for “common good” –to be considered as a reliable judicial source, restricting its application `preventing ulema from resorting to maslaha without justification. There is a general agreement of the scholars (both, for and against al-maslaha-al-mursala) on the precise definitions stipulated by Al-Shitabi for “common good”

Without going into too much detail, we may summarize the three generally recognized main conditions for situations when it is sure that no text has been enunciated:

  • The analysis and identification must be made with serious attention so that we may be sure that we have before us an authentic (haqiqiyya) and not an apparent or spurious (wahmiyya) The scholar must reach a high degree of certainty that the formulation of an injunction will avoid difficulty and not do the opposite and increase problems in the context of the Islamic legal structure.
  • The maslaha must be general (kulliyya) and be beneficial to the population and society as a whole, and not only to one group or class or individual.
  • The maslaha must not be in contradiction to or conflict with an authentic text from the Qur’an or the Sunna. If it were, it would no longer be a maslaha mursala but would be a maslaha mulgha.

 

What is clear from the above three conditions that it is the supremacy of the Qur’an and the Sunna over all other references and legal instruments. 

 

Dr. Yusuf Ali Qaradawi rightly recalls, taking up the ideas of al-GhazaliIbn al-Qayyim, and al-Shitabi, that everything found in the Qur’an and the Sunna is, in itself, in harmony with “the good of humankind” in general, for the Creator knows and wants what is best for human beings, and He shows them what they must do to achieve it. We find in the Qur’an, referring to the revealed message: “[the Prophet] who will enjoin upon them the doing of what is right and forbid them the doing of what is wrong, and make lawful for them the good things and forbid the bad things of life, and lift from them their burdens and the shackles that were upon them [aforetime]”

“They ask you about wine and gambling. Say, “In them is great sin and [yet, some] benefit for people. But their sin is greater than their benefit.” And they ask you what they should spend. Say, “The excess [beyond needs].” Thus, Allah makes clear to you the verses [of revelation] that you might give thought”. [Q, 2:219]

 

If the conditions stipulated for common good are, manifestly proclaimed (qati al-thubut wa-qati al-dalala) in the Qur’an and/or the Sunna, they must be respected and applied in the light of an understanding of the whole body of the objectives of Islamic teaching, maqasid al-Sharia.

 

“And We did not send before you any messenger or prophet except that when he spoke [or recited], Satan threw into it [some misunderstanding]. But Allah abolishes that which Satan throws in; then Allah makes precise His verses. And Allah is Knowing and Wise”. [Q, 22:52]

 

 

The author earnestly hopes and prays, that this piece will provide clarity to the people, on the issue of “RIBA” {as promised by Allah}, and help them choose the right path. InshaAllah.

Comment/feed-back/like/share/follow

shakir2.wordpress.com

Are Ahmadis [Qadyanis], Ismailis Muslim?

January 3, 2020

Image result for pic of Rabwa ?

(Ahamdya town Rabwah—Chenab Nagar–Pakistan)

Originally answered on Quora.com on June 16th, 2017.

On principle, No. Because they openly reject that Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) was the last Prophet and declared Mirza Ghulam Ahmad as their Prophet—-who died in the toilet. They, therefore are guilty of triple rejection. 1) Qura’anic verses, 2) Prophet Muhammad being the last of the prophets and 3) Declaring and accepting—Mirza Ghulam Ahmad—- as their Prophet.  (no one can be a prophet after Prophet Mohammad [PBUH] in Islam). [A final judgment, nevertheless, rests with Allah S.W.T]

I happened to be a Sunni Muslim speaker, many years ago, at one of their conventions in Atlant Georgia and noticed first hand their deceitful behavior with respect to the finality of the Prophethood of Mohammad (PBUH).

So should Not be Ismailis, who,

1) Curtailed the number of Mandatory Prayers from 5 to 3 as a routine

2) Changed the mode of prayer performance.  (Praying without bowing-down or prostrating, sitting on a chair like in a Church).

3) They consider that Prince Agha Khan is endowed with an authority to alter/reject the Divine Injunctions. Some even call him a Prophet and the “Noor” of Allah (SWT)—(NAUZB) out of sheer blind reverence and ignorance.

4) They do not attend the regular mosque but their own social-club type–Jama’t Khana.

5) They do not introduce themselves as Muslim but “Momin” to distinguish from mainstream Muslims.

6) The concept of Haram and Halal is non-existent among them.

Note: I loathe to call someone a Non-Muslim or Kafir, {as no Muslim is entitled or authorized to declare someone, who claims otherwise, an Infidel or Kafir} however, it is important for Muslims and common people to know the differences for a better understanding of religious sensibilities while dealing with each group.

427 views · 12 Upvotes

Comment/feedback/like/share/follow.

shakir2.wordpress.com

 

 

Why the West craves materialism & the East sticking to religion?

March 25, 2019
Image result for Imran khan's pic in tail coat in uk?

Imran Khan  world class Cricketer- won the world cup for Pakistan 

By Imran Khan (Now, The Prime Minister of Pakistan—2018-2023)  

Publication Date:  Mon, 2002-01-14 03:00, Arab-News.

My generation grew up at a time when colonial hang up was at its peak. Our older generation had been slaves and had a huge inferiority complex of the British. The school I went to was similar to all elite schools in Pakistan. Despite gaining independent, they were, and still are, producing replicas of public schoolboys rather than Pakistanis.

I read Shakespeare, which was fine, but no Allama Iqbal — the national poet of Pakistan. The class on Islamic studies was not taken seriously, and when I left school I was considered among the elite of the country because I could speak English and wore Western clothes.

Despite periodically shouting ‘Pakistan Zindabad’ in school functions, I considered my own culture backward and religion outdated. Among our group if anyone talked about religion, prayed or kept a beard he was immediately branded a Mullah.

Because of the power of the Western media, our heroes were Western movie stars or pop stars. When I went to Oxford already burdened with this hang-up, things didn’t get any easier. At Oxford, not just Islam, but all religions were considered anachronism.

Science had replaced religion and if something couldn’t be logically proved it did not exist. All supernatural stuff was confined to the movies. Philosophers like Darwin, who with his half-baked theory of evolution had supposedly disproved the creation of men and hence religion, were read and revered.

Moreover, European history reflected its awful experience with religion. The horrors committed by the Christian clergy during the Inquisition era had left a powerful impact on the Western mind.

To understand why the West is so keen on secularism, one should go to places like Cordoba in Spain and see the torture apparatus used during the Spanish Inquisition. Also, the persecution of scientists as heretics by the clergy had convinced the Europeans that all religions are regressive.

However, the biggest factor that drove people like me away from religion was the selective Islam practiced by most of its preachers. In short, there was a huge difference between what they practiced and what they preached. Also, rather than explaining the philosophy behind the religion, there was an overemphasis on rituals. {the reason had been and is the lack of, religious as well as secular, education and knowledge — by Shakir Mumtaz}

I feel that humans are different from animals. While the latter can be drilled, humans need to be intellectually convinced. That is why the Qur’an constantly appeals to reason. The worst, of course, was the exploitation of Islam for political gains by various individuals or groups.

Hence, it was a miracle I did not become an atheist. The only reason why I did not was the powerful religious influence my mother wielded on me since my childhood. It was not so much out of conviction but love for her that I stayed a Muslim.

However, my Islam was selective. I accepted only parts of the religion that suited me. Prayers were restricted to Eid days and occasionally on Fridays when my father insisted on taking me to the mosque with him.

All in all, I was smoothly moving to become a Pukka Brown Sahib. After all, I had the right credentials in terms of school, university and, above all, acceptability in the English aristocracy, something that our brown sahibs would give their lives for. So, what led me to do a ‘lota’ on the Brown Sahib culture and instead become a ‘desi’?

Well, it did not just happen overnight.

Firstly, the inferiority complex that my generation had inherited gradually went as I developed into a world-class athlete. Secondly, I was in the unique position of living between two cultures. I began to see the advantages and disadvantages of both societies.

In Western societies, institutions were strong while they were collapsing in our country. However, there was an area where we were and still are superior, and that is our family life. I began to realize that this was Western society’s biggest loss. In trying to free itself from the oppression of the clergy, they had removed both God and religion from their lives.

While science, no matter how much it progresses, can answer a lot of questions — two questions it will never be able to answer: One, what is the purpose of our existence and two, what happens to us when we die?

It is this vacuum that I felt created the materialistic and the hedonistic culture. If this is the only life then one must make hay while the sun shines — and in order to do so, one needs money. Such a culture is bound to cause psychological problems in a human being, as there was going to be an imbalance between the body and the soul.

Consequently, in the US, which has shown the greatest materialistic progress while giving its citizens numerous rights, almost 60 percent of the population consult psychiatrists. Yet, amazingly in modern psychology, there is no study of the human soul. Sweden and Switzerland, who provide the most welfare to their citizens, also have the highest suicide rates. Hence, man is not necessarily content with material well-being and needs something more.

Since all morality has its roots in religion, once religion was removed, immorality has progressively grown since the 70s. Its direct impact has been on family life. In the UK, the divorce rate is 60 percent, while it is estimated that, out of that there are, over 35 percent single mothers. The crime rate is rising in almost all Western societies, but the most disturbing fact is the alarming increase in racism. While science always tries to prove the inequality of man (recent survey showing the American Black to be genetically less intelligent than whites) it is the only religion that preaches the equality of man.

Between 1991 and 1997, it was estimated that total immigration into Europe was around 520,000, and there were racially motivated attacks all over, especially in Britain, France, and Germany. In Pakistan during the Afghan war, we had over four million refugees, and despite the people being so much poorer, there was no racial tension.

There was a sequence of events in the 80s that moved me toward God as the Qur’an says: “There are signs for people of understanding.” One of them was cricket. As I was a student of the game, the more I understood the game, the more I began to realize that what I considered to be chance was, in fact, the will of Allah. A pattern which became clearer with time. But it was not until Salman Rushdie’s “Satanic Verses” that my understanding of Islam began to develop.

People like me who were living in the Western world bore the brunt of anti-Islam prejudice that followed the Muslim reaction to the book. We were left with two choices: fight or flight. Since I felt strongly that the attacks on Islam were unfair, I decided to fight. It was then I realized that I was not equipped to do so as my knowledge of Islam was inadequate. Hence, I started my research and for me a period of my greatest enlightenment. I read scholars like Ali Shariati, Muhammad Asad, Iqbal, Gai Eaton, plus of course, a study of Qur’an.

I will try to explain as concisely as is possible, what “discovering the truth” meant for me. When the believers are addressed in the Qur’an, it always says, “Those who believe and do good deeds.” In other words, a Muslim has a dual function, one toward God and the other toward fellow human beings.

The greatest impact of believing in God for me meant that I lost all fear of human beings. The Qur’an liberates man from man when it says that life and death and respect and humiliation are God’s jurisdiction, so we do not have to bow before other human beings.

Moreover, since this is a transitory world where we prepare for the eternal one, I broke out of the self-imposed prisons, such as growing old (such a curse in the Western world, as a result of which, plastic surgeons are having a field day), materialism, ego, what people say and so on. It is important to note that one does not eliminate earthly desires. But instead of being controlled by them, one controls them.

By following the second part of believing in Islam, I have become a better human being. Rather than being self-centered and living for the self, I feel that because the Almighty gave so much to me, in turn, I must use that blessing to help the less privileged. This I did by following the fundamentals of Islam rather than becoming a Kalashnikov-wielding fanatic.

I have become a tolerant and a giving human being who feels compassion for the underprivileged. Instead of attributing success to myself, I know it is because of God’s will, hence I learned humility instead of arrogance.

Also, instead of the snobbish Brown Sahib attitude toward our masses, I believe in egalitarianism and strongly feel against the injustice done to the weak in our society. According to the Qur’an, “Oppression is worse than killing.” In fact, only now do I understand the true meaning of Islam, if you submit to the will of Allah, you have inner peace.

Through my faith, I have discovered the strength within me that I never knew existed and that has released my potential in life. I feel that in Pakistan we have selective Islam. Just believing in God and going through the rituals is not enough. One also has to be a good human being. I feel there are certain Western countries with far more Islamic traits than us in Pakistan, especially in the way they protect the rights of their citizens, or for that matter their justice system. In fact, some of the finest individuals I know live there.

What I dislike about them is their double standards in the way they protect the rights of their citizens but consider citizens of other countries as being somehow inferior to them as human being, e.g. dumping toxic waste in the Third World, advertising cigarettes that are not allowed in the West and selling drugs that are banned in the West.

One of the problems facing Pakistan is the polarization of two reactionary groups. On the one side is the Westernized group that looks upon Islam through Western eyes and has inadequate knowledge about the subject. It reacts strongly to anyone trying to impose Islam in society and wants only a selective part of the religion. On the other extreme is the group that reacts to this Westernized elite and in trying to become a defender of the faith, takes up such intolerant and self-righteous attitudes that are repugnant to the spirit of Islam.

What needs to be done is to somehow start a dialogue between the two extremes. In order for this to happen, the group on whom the greatest proportion of our educational resources are spent in this country must study Islam properly.

Whether they become practicing Muslims or believe in God is entirely a personal choice. As the Qur’an tells us there is “no compulsion in religion.” However, they must arm themselves with knowledge as a weapon to fight extremism. Just by turning up their noses at extremism the problem is not going to be solved.

The Qur’an calls Muslims “the middle nation”, not of extremes. The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) was told to simply give the message and not worry whether people converted or not, therefore, there is no question in Islam of forcing your opinions on anyone else.

Moreover, we are told to respect other religions, their places of worship and their prophets. It should be noted that no Muslim missionaries or armies ever went to Malaysia or Indonesia. The people converted to Islam due to the high principles and impeccable character of the Muslim traders. At the moment, the worst advertisements for Islam are the countries with their selective Islam, especially where religion is used to deprive people of their rights. In fact, a society that obeys the fundamentals of Islam has to be a liberal one.

If Pakistan’s Westernized class starts to study Islam, not only will it be able to help society fight sectarianism and extremism, but it will also make them realize what a progressive religion Islam is. They will also be able to help the Western world by articulating Islamic concepts. Recently, Prince Charles accepted that the Western world can learn from Islam. But how can this happen if the group that is in the best position to project Islam gets its attitudes from the West and considers Islam backward? Islam is a universal religion and that is why our Prophet (peace be upon him) was called a Mercy for all mankind.

shakir2.wordpress.com

 

Allahu-Akbar

February 5, 2019

Every Muslim invariably uses this phrase one way or the other. It is also used as a battle-cry.  

 In the west, however, this phrase has, by design, been associated with terrorist-attack. 

 In general, everyone including Non-Muslim, know its, obvious exoteric meaning: “God is great”. Most of the people, however, do not know its esoteric grandeursplendor and majesty 

 An attempt, therefore, is made to explain/present the grandeur and splendor of this phrase. I, earnestly, seek the help of Almighty Allah (SWT) to make me able to explain it properly. 

 The earth we live on (specifically fashioned to suit the human habitation) was created before the creation of the Universe. It is worth noticing that although Qura’an mentions “seven” earths but none of the rest of the six has so far been discovered; as the exact replica of our earth, including the recently discovered (Exoplanet 452b) earth-II.  

 Our earth appears merely a tiny dot in the faintly luminous band, stretching across the heavens, of our Galaxy, Milky Way. The closest galaxy is the recently discovered dwarf galaxy, VY Canis Majoris, which is 25,000 light-years away. One light year is equal to 9.461 trillion kilometers. 

 Approximately 60,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 men would equal the size of our earth 

 The diameter of our sun is: 1.392 million km whereas the Diameter of our earth is only: 12,740 km, the sun can hold 1,300,000 Earths inside of it. 

 Eta Carinae more than 5 million times bigger and brighter than the sun. 

Betel Geuse 30 million times bigger than our sun. 

 VY Canis Majoris is about 1b times bigger than our sun. 

 Milky Way contains between 300 to 400b suns/stars. If one can travel (almost) at the speed of light or 300,000 km per second it would require 101,000+ years to cover it. 

 Andromeda—our neighbor galaxy is twice as big. 

 Galaxy M18—is 60 times bigger than ours. 

 Galaxy IC-1011—is 600 times bigger than ours. 

 Virgo Supercluster, housing our galaxy, consists of 47000 galaxies. 

 Local Goup—Supercluster—consists of around 100 clusters. 

 There exist around 100, 0000 Superclusters in the universe. 

 That is not it, but also that, there is nothing in the entire created realm which does not bow down to its Creator—Allah (SWT)–willingly or unwillingly.  

 “Whatever beings are there in the Heaven and the Earth do prostrate themselves before Allah (SWT) alone, willingly or unwillingly, as do their shadows morning and evening” (Q, 13:15) 

 (Human beings, Angels, spirits and other things of objective existence; contrasted with their shadows and simulacra, phantasms etc. Satan and Evil, though would like to get away from the awe of Allah (SWT) but not being able, would acknowledge the supremacy and Lordship of Allah (SWT). 

Those who submit willingly are the believers, angels and inanimate beings. Non-believers are the ones who submit, without being conscious, unwillingly.  

 Sum total 

They (rational beings) have not appraised Allah (SWT) with the true appraisal, while the Earth, on the Day of Resurrection, will be entirely within His grip, and the Heavens will be folded in His right hand. Exalted is He and high above what they associate with Him. (Q, 39:67) Allah-o-Akbar! 

 

shakir2.wordpress.com

Reposing Hindu Identity in Requiem mass. 

December 3, 2018

Image result for Pic of Hindu extremism

In British India, Hindu Identity was a thing to hide. For India’s oldest living people, being Hindu was once a hidden affair. As colonial subjects, Hindus learned to accept—or at least to not publicly contest—the basic premise of the British civilizing mission, which saw Indian culture and Hindu religion as vastly inferior to its European counterpart. For much of the colonial era, Hindus held their religion back from the public eye, submerging it in private rituals.  Hinduism, after all, is a myth. 

In the early 20th century, Gandhi was the first one, who tried to bring it to public life, posing it at par with Islam, in the context of botched Hindu-Muslim unity. The attempt, however, was quashed due to the staunch secularist (Nehruvian) doctrine of the First Indian P.M. Jawahar Lal Nehru.  

For the next several decades, Nehruvian secularism dominated India’s intellectual life. Despite the vibrant practice of Hinduism in temples, daily life, and festivals, there was no appetite or courage shown by Hindus in public understanding of it. 

Nehruvian “Idea of India” “An Imagined secular, pluralist polity that belongs to all Indians and not to any one group” (i.e. Hindu majority). India was created as pluralist opposed to Hindu majoritarian (particularistic) nationalism. 

Indian secularism has gone down the drain due to the growing incidence of communal conflicts in various parts of India involving Hindu extremists; and particularly the occurrences of Godhra train burning and burning of thousands of Muslims alive in Gujrat; under the auspices of current P.M Modi, Hindu extremism has changed the Character of India forever to that of a Hinduterroriststate.  

Particularism of “Hindutva” transformed by RSS into violent extremism. 

BJP a subsidiary of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) for long has been calling on the Indian governments to recognize the special rights of the Hindu majority in a Hindu majority country. 

Now with the advent of BJP’s rise to become India’s governing party, the idea of India is being redefined to mean a Hindu polity. Through acts of violence as well as words and laws, Hindu Extremists are pressing not whether the country’s political system should recognize Hindu identity, but the precise way in which it should be recognized.   

This concept of Hindu majoritarianism or the pre-eminence of Hinduism has been in progress right from the time of Indira Gandhi down to Rajive, Vajpayee, Modi and is bound to perpetuate in more violence after the 2019 parliamentary elections, regardless of who wins or who loses. Muslims would, therefore, be naïve not to re-evaluate their position and prepare accordingly.    

https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2018/04/02/indian-muslims-and-conquest-of-mecca/ 

A Burst of Hindu extremism; the rise of a Hindu Government espousing extremism; is a reactionary/retaliatory expression against centuries-old repression, caused by sustained, enduring and taxing dynastic subjugation by the kings, dukes, Rajas. It permeated through and through in Hindu psyche as an inferiority complex. They are now revolting against it by way of extremism.  

This is best expressed by Hyderabadis; where everyone claims to be the descendant of a Nizam; as if all the courtiers and the ordinary subjects just vanished into thin air, at the end of Asaf Jahi Dynasty! 

In an Indian concocted zeitgeist, a diverse collection of Indians, are now looking for an identity to arm themselves like that of an Anglicized elite. It simply expresses an ingrained psychological, cultural and religious inferiority, making them fit the famous proverbial expression: A Crow pretended to walk like a stark but forgot even his own.  

At one hand, an Indian woman would take pride in having an affair with a white man, acting like a white woman and awkwardly using western slangs to fit in. On the other hand, a Gujrati man would be, walking in the winter, wearing sleeveless sweater, socks and muffler but flip-flop underneath OR donned with a three-piece suit in a party but jogging shoes underneath. Come on, Give me a break! 

India to an extent, nevertheless, is the beneficiary of this psychologically inert state. Indian Muslims have been force-fed the goodness of botched “secular-India”, due to which; despite once having been considered to be the best Muslim, they vitiated their religion and took pride in being called Indian instead. Result; despite facing sustained and designed discrimination and humiliation; never mustered the courage to embark on a resistance or separatist movement, like many others in 22 of the Indian states.  

As stated earlier, firstly, Hindu’s psychological holdbacks would never allow them, despite, supposedly, having attained the Hindu majoritarian Identity, to equate with their counterparts in the global setting. Secondly, it is highly unlikely, given the internal and external dynamics, that India would ever become an economic power as wishfully hyped. Thirdly, Muslim-India sure had glorious past but it was neither Hindu-India nor Hinduism. Fourthly, Hindu majoritarian identity, admittedly, would prove to be elusive and imaginary for the winners and communal for the losers; at best, unless the balkanization of coerced-Indian-Union takes place. 

Equating Diwali with Christmas and Ramayana with Bible is albeit euphoric but delusional. 

Recognition of pre-eminence of Hindu majoritarian Identity, given the Punjab and Kashmir almost slipped out of Indian control, would simply spur the process of India’s balkanization. Many-other-among-the-equals would not allow the usurpation of their ancestral and birthrights to their land/country and assignment of it to Hindu-majority. They are already up in arms against the covert privileged Hinduism; the status being sought by Hindu extremist through the “citizenship amendment bill”, currently under consideration in the parliament. Passing it would justify forced conversion of non-Hindusespecially the Muslims to Hinduism. Hindu extremists’ rhetoric (foisted by RSS, BJP, Vishwa Hindu Parishad and Hindutva) has transformed into violent-activism. Godhra train burning and Burning-Muslims alive in Gujrat; under the auspices of Narendra Modi (P.M); and many subsequent lynching of Muslims and other minorities, all over India are barbaric examples of it. 

The proponents of the Hindu majoritarianism ought to bear in mind that Hinduism does not brace a prospering future. Because, after all, it is a mythology carved out of monotheistic persuasion. Vouchsafed in Puranas and Vedas. Hence “Ghar Wapsi (back to home) should be taken seriously by the Hindu majority, not by the Muslim and other minorities. Younger, educated generation, all across the world, is drifting away from the mythologies, philosophies and even interpolated (and abrogated) divine religions due to their human-adduced illogical and un-appealing contents. 

https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2017/09/25/balkanization-of-india/ 

https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2015/10/09/indian-hindu-mob-lynches-a-muslim-on-just-a-rumor-about-beaf/

SAVE—-ROHINGYA, UGHER, PALESTINIAN AND KASHMIRI MUSLIM FROM STATE-SPONSORED GENOCIDE. RECLAIM—AFRICA— A MUSLIM CONTINENT. (Use and share this slogan as often as possible) 

 

 

Existential Amiss

September 30, 2018

Common sense, Reason, Logic, Causality, Imagination, Morality & Ethics!

 Image result for Pic of Existential amiss

I intended to write this piece in a secular fashion but the overwhelming relevance of the Divine wisdom kept piercing through my thought canvas, hence surrendered making it part of the discourse. Human discourse or argumentation, anyway, barely scratches the obvious externalities of the issues while the Divine wisdom put forth the internally woven realities in a succinct yet aptly simple manner. One may notice the examples of such Subtleties in the course of reading this treatise.

Had Common sense, reason and logic been potent enough to reach the absolute certainty of the conclusions drawn, there would have been no need for the Divine religions to barge in. All of these tools are perceptual or experiential outcomes of human endeavors which; given the deficient nature of human faculties; are incapable of coming even remotely close to the level of Divine Wisdom; Revelation, the only fait accompli. (A subtle hint/deduced from Q, 17; 37) Hence some of the precepts of the religion are above and beyond the realm of human commonsense, causality, reason and logic, exuding perfect certitude and submission. (A state of affairs enormously repugnant and conceptually unacceptable to the secularists, anti-religionists and non-believers)

Note:- similar debate has been going on for long. a brief excerpt is quoted here.

[The innovative Jahmiyyah and Their Relatives from Ahl al-Kalaam Asharis and Maturidis fought the greatest battle and contention between the followers of the revealed Books and the sent Messengers and between the followers of the Hellenized Jews, Christians and Sabeans. Those who contradict the revealed texts with their reason (aql), and think the reason is definitive over the revealed texts].

Common sense is really not as common as perceived. Variegated sense perceptions render it somewhat-common, partially-common, quasi-common or purely individualistic rather than really-common in the true sense of the word.

  Reason and Logic are even more disparate; propitious-reason and logic; sometimes referred to as rationality; are used to justify a conclusion, one is at home with. (Rational bias) A slightest dissension or differentiation would entail disapproval or divergence. Therefore, all these tools may create some sort of near or quasi-convergence but not an absolute or conclusive one. Logic is derived from the Greek word “logos”. In Muslim Philosophy another Grecian alternative “monads”*1 is used instead, to justify a position/stance by distinguishing a good reason from the bad one. It is only the Divine revelation (wisdom, word) which is flawless, absolute and ultimate-truth; authoritative in its perception, understanding and validity…worthy of even blind-Faith.

Kurt Gödel puts it succinctly as follow:- 

The logical axioms that underlie everyday things like arithmetic depend on us accepting as reasonable the notion that infinity comes in several different sizes.

In Islamic parlance, however “pristine-reason” (Haq al Yaqeen); in the absence of a human messenger; is considered to be potent enough for a rational being to come; at least, to the cognition of the existence and oneness of God, hence obviating disbelief. “Pristine-reason” here, is “elevated to the status of a “non-human-messenger” of God, for reason gains an edge when the logic fails rational being. (Deduced from Q, 17: 15)

Contemplative tools; human faculties, given the amiss, may help us reach the level of most probable/likely certainty (in the temporal, ancillary and ritualistic matters) but not that of an absolute certitude (in the core matters of belief/faith); which is only possible by Divine consent/intervention through the heart (Q, 10:100), as in the above case of cognition of God’s Oneness. Here the externality of this intervention cloaked in the garb of; “pristine-human-reason”, is upgraded to the status of “non-human-messenger”

Non-believer’s obstinate rejection of the Divine, religious injunctions and that of hereafter; though based on (tenuous and vitiated) reason, logic and common sense, amply explains their state of affairs.           (Q, 10:100)

*1 Universal Spirit, the first cause, singularity, Divine, Intermediary agent etc.

Imam Ghazali;- “With regard to sense-perception says; it made him very hesitant to accept the infallibility of reason. He believed in the testimony of sense till it was contradicted by the verdict of reason. Well, perhaps there is above reason another judge who; if appeared, would convict reason of falsity and if such a third arbiter is not yet apparent it does not follow that he does not exist.”

When Imam Ghazali could not reconcile the philosophical dispensations with the Divine wisdom, (Obviously there is no comparison between the two; one represents the mundaneness, while the other, word of the Divine) he turned to Sufism.

In quantum physics (Double-Slit) experiment, our act of observing something seems to change what’s observed – we are ourselves part of the experiment. Is this the ultimate problem of self-reference, one that suggests a limit to how much we can ever reason about—our surroundings—the universe?

 Role of the religion, therefore, becomes inevitable; for it presents us with flawless and absolute truth; which is perceptually-authoritative and practically valid, engendering “Taqwa”. [Innate reverential-fear (Awe) of Allah (SWT). Distinct from the usual fear of other (agencies)]

An incisive consideration and pondering, on just two of the aspects of the divine religion: 1) Belief in the hereafter. 2) The contentment would vouch for and warrant religion’s inevitability.

Belief in the hereafter is often considered a conceptual absurdity and theological fallacy hence rejected by the non-believers. Belief in the hereafter, however, is the source of immitigable hope and equity, which no atheistic belief/doctrine/philosophy may even, conceives to offer. Unbelief in the hereafter renders one scuttled of many realities. Such as; ultimate-reality; ultimate-hope; ultimate-triumph, and ultimate-Justice. One, without the belief in the hereafter, is like, latching onto the event-horizon of a black hole of hopelessness and despair. The statistics, available on depression/hopelessness resulting in suicide and homicide, is a vindication of this fact. Conversely, in the overwhelmingly religious affluent Middle East, there are hardly any such issues, hence NO mental hospitals needed.

https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2015/08/22/scuttling-the-mental-capacity/

Contentment is a huge blessing for a rational being. When someone (even a non-believer) is suffering; no relief in sight; distressed/desperate, resorts back to God, is blessed with His mercy. (Q, 27:62) Overwhelmed with gratitude, he takes a sigh of relief and the most joyous sense of contentment sets in. (One’s resorting back to God while distressed, means un-recalcitrant-submission; invigorating the innate impulses; meeting the pre-requisites; of belief in Him, His injunctions, including the belief in the hereafter).

Is He [not best] who responds to the distressed/desperate one when he calls upon Him and removes evil and makes you inheritors of the earth?” (Q, 27:62)

“Deprived is the one who has been deprived of the reward of enduring distress”  (Khidr–a.s)                                                                                                                                          Fasting in the month of Ramadan from dawn to dusk is a fine practical example of it; whereby one is patiently content (nafs-al-mutmai’nna) all day long, hoping the accrual of the temporal and divinely rewards at the end of the day.

Faculties of thinking and the exercise of Free-will (choice) are also signs of deficiency on the part of the creation. Allah does not think but intends; for He is omnipotent; causer of both, the cause and the effect. Nothing wrong/bad may emanate from His essence (Q, 48:23); but from His schematic creational activities, such as the creation of rational beings inseminated with good and bad. Indeed, Our word to a thing when We intend it is but that We say to it, “Be,” and it is” (Q, 16:40)   On the other hand; when rational beings would exercise the option of intention; in the similar fashion; (without thinking and deliberations) it is bound to be fraught with pitfalls, for rational beings are created with an existential amiss.

Imagination is of non-local (metaphysical/spiritual) origin; for it traverses both, the local and non-local domain. Therefore, those who accuse believers of worshipping an “imaginary God” are, unwittingly, admitting this reality. God inculcated, in the constitution of the rational beings, two-pronged sense of imagination (topical and non-topical); a schematic molding, hence the relevance and necessity of Divine and Divine religion becomes inevitable. God does not think but “Wills” whereas man’s will (choice) subsists in God’s will whereby He equilibrates it with the elements of hope and fear, (existential amiss) rendering it rationally operative. (Q, 17:57)

People need religion because it is the blueprint for the functioning of the “Soul” in the temporal realm. Voltaire, an archpriest of rationalism, alludes to this inevitability in a mundanely best possible way: “Man would have to invent God, even if He does not exist”

https://shakir2.wordpress.com/?s=inevitable+God

Religious Truth is multifaceted. It is comprised of science, logic, philosophy, history, ethics, and experience all mixed together. It is, in a sense, a different kind of knowing, not ignorant of the other kinds of truths (known and yet to be known), asserting the inevitability of the religion.

https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2018/02/03/scientific-elaboration-of-surah-at-tin-fig-95-verse-4/

 (Hadith) Every child is born on Nature— (his natural disposition/course. Resorting back to/linking with the Creator)

“It is asserted here that fitrah is the essential condition and state of existence in which God fashioned mankind; with innate impulses/urges including the sense of good and bad; fear and safety; pain and relief; cognition of God; submission, transgression and arrogance etc. (existential amiss–Imperfection, tendency/choice to swerve). It is present in the very essence of the creation and is inextricably kneaded into the very substance of the “rational beings” (Q) which is acutely elicited in the following verse.

 

إِنَّا عَرَضْنَا الاٌّمَانَةَ عَلَى السَّمَـوَتِ وَالاٌّرْضِ وَالْجِبَالِ فَأبَيْنَ أَن يَحْمِلْنَهَا وَأَشْفَقْنَ مِنْهَا وَحَمَلَهَا الإِنْسَـنُ إِنَّهُ كَانَ
نَظَلُوماً جَهُولاً –

 “We did indeed offer the Trust to the Heavens and the Earth and the Mountains; but they refused to undertake it, being afraid thereof: but man undertook it;- He was indeed ignorant  and foolish” (Q, 33:72)

 

Ordinary beings, given their basic knowledge of the religious fundamentals, are tested for their weaknesses (existential amiss). The window of forgiveness is wide open for them; even if they have a mountain of mistakes/sins on their back; as long as they keep seeking forgiveness with utmost sincerity and a commitment not to repeat the same. (There is no numerical or time limitation)  This is an esoteric expression of the unbounded mercy of the Creator; for the people of knowledge and intellect who understand.

Men of knowledge (Aalim/Scholar), given the higher degree of knowledge, are tested for the equitable dissemination of the knowledge while acting upon it themselves as is due. Their test becomes harder and their failure attracts equally harsher punishment, for they are given the knowledge as the inheritors of the Prophet (PBUH).

Prophets; given the highest degree of knowledge and the duty of disseminating the message entrusted to them, often face the hardest of the tests for their perseverance, firmness, devotion and endurance instead. They are immunized of the mundanity (existential amiss) to a large extent due to their highest station/status. (Protected from major sins—Asmah/Masoom); which keeps them even from minor sins but some rare slips. (Q, 4:31)

“If you avoid the major sins which you are forbidden, We will remove from you your lesser sins and admit you to a noble entrance [into Paradise]” [Q, 4:31]

Hadith: when a companion asked the Prophet, despite being a Prophet of Allah why do you always keep asking for His forgiveness? He replied; “for any moment passed without His remembrance” This emphasizes the point that one, regardless of his station, should never be oblivious of the innate existential amiss and always keep asking for His forgiveness.

“Cause and effect” is a phenomenon of the sequential morphing of things/ideas in the space-time spectrum. It, however, can’t continue ad-infinitum. It also cannot fully transcend back into the metaphysical/spiritual realm. Therefore, becomes unhitched, regressive, and even ineffective. ‘Ex Nahilo’ is an outright negation of temporal phenomenon of “causality”. God (SWT); the very first (primal) cause, therefore, is the sole cause/causer of the Universe. (Creational activity in the space-time realm is known as “Khulq/Takhleeq” )

“When He decrees a matter, He only says to it, “Be,” and it is” (Q, 2:117)

In the absence of space-time spectrum, there is but an intention/will (ordinance {Amar}), of the primal cause, for the matter/idea to come into being. In the metaphysical/spiritual realm, contrary to the physical realm, no material/tangible cause has to exist to produce a material/tangible effect. Divine causality, therefore, is inimitable by the rational beings in the space-time spectrum. (Creational activity in the absence of space-time spectrum is known as “Takween”)

Takween is derived from the word “KUN” fayakun. It is beyond and above the physical laws of the universe and does not need the matter, time or space for a thing to come into existence. (Ex Nihilo=Out of Nothing). Bypassing the temporal physical laws or the temporal causality is also called Takween. {creation of Adam and Jesus Christ—PBUT}

 Temporal causality vs. Divine causality

Here are vivid differences.

In temporal causality, a causer may activate the cause but may not have the capability to determine the effect. He would also not have the capability to alter the effect (outcome) of a cause. A rational being may be dealing with a clear cause or INUS (insufficient but non-redundant parts of conditions; which in itself unnecessary, but sufficient for the occurrence of the effects). This distinction would not exist in the Divine causality.

In Divine causality, The Causer of the cause and effect is the same. The Causer is omnipotent to alter/determine the effect(s) as He wills. The Causer is also competent to produce an effect without cause (Ex-Nahilo). The Causer may pre-determine effects or causes in multiple, and then afford the medium (sentient beings) the application of Free-will (Choice) to commensurate effect(s).

“And when We would intend to destroy a township We had sent a commandment (warning) to its people of authority leading easy lives; who yet disobeyed and transgressed; so as a result of our Judgment passed, We annihilated it with complete annihilation” (Q, 17:16)

Note:- (Ghazali’s views on causality, read: http://www.ghazali.org/articles/gz-aylon2.pdf)

Morality, mortified by the psychology of innate fear, sprouts from the Divine religious injunctions. Although it lays the ground-rules for this word, the effects also transcend to the next.

Morality, based on reward and punishment, (retribution) works wonderfully due to the psychology of “innate-fear” of being monitored unimpeded and continuously by the “Invisible”. Religion (Islam) “submission” was enacted simultaneous to the Creation (forbidding Adam and Eve from eating the fruit) and the punishment for its violation was established by the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the Heavens. Satan (Lucifer) was also expelled for his disobedience due to his avarice and pride. They were not simply expelled but with specifically (and schematically) mandated rights, roles, and responsibilities; which, in specifically Islamic parlance could be called “Sharia’a” and in everyday parlance “Morality”.

Ethicality is developed by the rational beings, in the light of their past collective experiences. It regulates the immediate, contemporary cultural, societal or communal behavior. It is limited to temporality in scope, optional in its practicality; often floutingly by-passed without compunction. Needless to say that, the resourcefulness of Morality is unsurpassable by the man-made ethicality.

Ethics (Laws) are devised by the people for a community, society or culture; monitoring whereof is also done by people (an agency) employed for the purpose. The compliance would simply depend on either one’s call of the conscience or the fear of being caught by the monitoring agent. The physical absence of the monitoring agency would offer all kind of inducements to flout, as it cannot be established and no penalty would ensue.  This is the weakest aspect of the man-made ethicality.

A distinct difference between Divine law and the man-made law is that Divine Law compassionately seeks avenues to forgive while the man-made law is hell-bent on seeking evidence to punish.

Those who envisage morality, without religion, in fact, misconstrue ethics as morality.

After all, man is created with an existential amiss.

 Innate Fear, Psychology of fear is employed by the Divine to elicit the compliance of the religious injunctions without the presence of a physical watchdog.

  • An infant, when made to hold a bar, would continue clinging to it due to the innate fear of fall and hurt until made to feel safe to let it go.
  • In a situation of distress, “heightened state of fear/anxiety” (even in the case of a non-believer) all boundaries and impediments are dismantled; a connection between the Lord and the distressed-servant is immediately activated, and the call of the distressed is heard by the Almighty. (Q, 27:62)

Innate-fear, therefore, is not just a predicate of punishment, as often complained, but also that of an “SOS” signal, in the situation of distress.   

shakir2.wordpress.com

Topics covered:- Logic, reason, pristine reason, common sense, causality, Temporal/Divine causality, revelation, Divine wisdom, Inevitability of religion, Non Human Messenger, Gazali’s falsity of reason, imagination, Imaginary God, belief in the hereafter, Contentment, Voltaire’s rationalism, Fitrah, khulq/takween, Ordinary,/ scholar/ prophet, Psychology of Innate fear, Morality, Ethics and  The-Distressed.

Reminiscing the Past, Aspiring the Future, Neglecting the Present.

June 12, 2018

 

 

oic

Reminiscing and relishing the past has always been at the heart of all the present generations. This seems to be an intuitive, ongoing thought-process; overcasting the present, morphing into platitudinous future. It is, but, the way of the vulgar; who overlook the present thence, ruin the future. Past, despite its lingering reminiscence, is nothing but inaccessible permafrost of memories/history. Selects ones live in the present only, their acute attention to the demands of the present endows them with a blissful future. God Almighty, always in the present, is watching the traversing Creation from the present to the illusory future while by-producing an inaccessible past. It ought to infuse a contemplative mind to ponder on the imperfection and insignificance of the “Best of the Creations” who is but a quarreling-arrogant. A Man, in reality, has access only to the present. “Man is but ungrateful”(Q,100:6) Vulgar whine when inflicted with hardship, ignoring the bestowal of good. Select, on the other hand, knowing fear and hope; relish the present oblivious of its ostensibility, earn deliverance. Vulgar ought to remain ungrateful regardless.

Blogshakir.shalimarinsurance.com
https://www.facebook.com/shakir.mumtaz
https://plus.google.com/100769830879257255101/posts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Shakirmwp
https://shakir2.wordpress.com/20…/…/10/disjunctive-sequel-2/

Demonizing, Repressing a Religious Minority!

December 19, 2017

 

 

 

DEMONIZING AND REPRESSING A RELIGIOUS MINORITY BECAUSE IT HAS DIFFERENT MORAL VALUES THAN THE MAJORITY CAN HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.
A classically American approach that protects the many religious streams running together to form the American cultural heritage rather than damming one in favor of another. As historian Denise Spellberg observes of Thomas Jefferson’s view of Islam, “In the formation of the American ideal and principles of what we consider to be exceptional American values, Muslims were, at the beginning, the litmus test for whether the reach of American constitutional principles would include every believer, every kind, or not.” Jefferson didn’t care for Islam (or any organized religion, for that matter). But he understood that America would be stronger if citizens favoring one stream of its heritage vigorously argued its merits without seeking to place legal limits on those arguing for the merits of a different stream.
Shakir2.wordpress.com

Denise A. Spellberg (born c. 1958) is an American scholar of Islamic history. She is an associate professor of history and Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Texas at Austin. Spellberg holds a BA from Smith College (1980) and a Ph.D. (1989) from Columbia University.

Books

Politics, Gender, and the Islamic Past: The Legacy of ‘A’isha Bint Abi Bakr. New York: Columbia University Press, 1994.

Thomas Jefferson’s Qur’an: Islam and the Founders, New York: Knopf, October 1, 2013; ISBN 978-0307268228

Interpersonal relationship between Muslim and Non-Muslim

August 31, 2017

“Let not the believers take those who deny the truth for their allies in preference to the believers since he who does this cuts himself off from God in everything – unless it is to protect one against them in this way. But God warns you to beware of Him: for with God is all journeys’ end.” (Q, 3:28) 

 

Muslim seem oblivious to or Ignorant of this important aspect of Islamic teachings. Befriending Non-Muslim has become cursorial; Muslim are dealing and even living with them (in a relationship) like with their fellow Muslim. {Muslim women marrying Non-Muslim men is strictly forbidden and Haram) Read: – https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/muslim-women-marrying-non-muslim-men/

 

Although, it can be easily understood from the Qura’anic text that dealing with the Non-Muslims, despite the requisite cordiality, compassion and empathy, ought to be within defined limitations. Non-Muslim should be helped and dealt with on purely humanitarian/empathetic grounds, but without, any emotional attachment. Such attachment is permissible only with fellow Muslim. The obviating reason is that they do not subscribe to Islamic faith/religion and are rather against it. Disbelievers (in Islam) are described in Qura’an as the enemies of Allah (SWT)(Q, 8: 59,60) {Despite the fact that, they may express nothing of the sort, or may even offer a favorable opinion—which would tantamount to a lip service in the face of their disbelief}.

Note:- From the Psychological point of view, such contents of words may be fallacious, due to their (Non-Muslim) long ingrained and sustained experiences otherwise, for their body language would be sending a (true but) contrary messages.  

A formal friendship at the level of mutual dealing is, no doubt, permissible; but, that too is not favored if Unnecessary.

In Qura’an it has been declared repeatedly that– they would like to see you adopting their faith and way of life. (Psychological truth)  From everyday experiences; it is clearly evident that most often; Muslims who befriend with Non-Muslims; imitate and emulate them, compromising their distinct identity and religion. So called liberal/secularist/modernist Muslim even talk in their language, temerariously criticizing Islam, Qura’an and the Prophet (PBUH). It has therefore been sternly warned that such people cut off any bond with Allah (SWT), for they become one of them (disbelievers)          (Q, 3:28).

Allah (SWT) in Qura’an, used the word “Zalimun” instead of “Kafiroon”; Likely widening the scope, to include such people.  Allah therefore clearly forbids a true Muslim from keeping the company of not only the Non-Muslims but also of those, acting like them. It has been said in (Q, 6:70) that “unbelievers; are the people, who have been detained in the punishment of their evil deeds”. Which is further articulated in verse (Q, 47:15) by declaring that “their entrails will be shattered apart” (due to drinking boiling water as the punishment for their denial and disbelief). This verse also informs that their disbelief is harmful to those who like to sit in their company hence would be caught up in the same punishment as the disbelievers. (Ma’araful Qura’an Pg. 393, vol 3). As the wrong environment affects its surrounding so does the bad company by pushing human beings into the abyss of sinfulness. “This is how Allah (SWT) brings disgrace, damnation upon those who do not believe, for their hearts are not open for the truth but dash for the evil”. (Q, 6:125).

 

 

Several verses, with varying shades of meanings, against the FRIENDSHIP WITH NON-MUSLIMS are presented in the Holy Qura’an. Some of which are:-

IMPORTANT NOTICE

 One should not pick and choose a verse to present his/her own (skewed) point of view instead a collective outcome, of all the verses on the topic, should be the one guiding and binding. (Q, 2: 85 & 4: 150)

 

Allah’s enemy is your enemy.

“O those who believe do not take my enemy and your enemy as friends having love for them and whosoever from among you do that have gone astray” (Q, 60:1)

 A friend with them is one of them.

“O those who believe do not take Jews or Christian as friends, for they are friends among themselves. And whosoever has friendship with them is one of them” (Q, 5:51)

 Believers shouldn’t befriend with unbelievers, even if kinfolk.

“You shall not find those who believe in Allah and in the hereafter having friendship with those who have enmity with Allah and His Messenger, even though they may be their fathers or sons or brothers or members of their tribes” (Q, 58:22)

 

Feeling honored/proud by having Non-believers as friend

Those, who take disbelievers as their allies instead of the believers, Do they seek with them honor {through power}? But indeed, honor belongs to Allah (SWT) entirely. (Q, 4:139)

 

Sitting in the company of Non-believers

And it has already come down to you in the Book that when you hear the verses of Allah (SWT) (recited), they are denied (by them) and ridiculed; so do not sit with them until they enter into another conversation. Indeed you would then be like them. Indeed Allah (SWT) will gather the hypocrites and disbelievers in Hell all together, (Q, 4:140)

 

The only friends

Your friends can only be Allah (SWT), His Prophet (PBUH) and those who believe” (Q, 5:55)

 

Social interaction with Non-Muslims, for clear understanding and exercising due restraint, has been described, under four (4) categories.

Mawalat. (Affairs of the Heart) –For Allah knows what is in your hearts–(3:29) (Relations involving Love or Emotional attachment).

This is specifically What all these verses vehemently prevent a Muslim from.

 

Psychological reasoning

 Need to belong

According to the hierarchy of needs, humans need to feel love (sexual/non-sexual) and acceptance from others. In fact, the need to belong is so innately ingrained that it may be strong enough to overcome physiological, safety needs, as well as religious restraints, such as children’s attachment to abusive parents or staying in abusive romantic relationships or a Muslim woman marrying a Non-Muslim man. Such examples illustrate the extent to which the psychobiological drive to belong is entrenched hence harmful (one may, therefore, appreciate the rationale and vehemence with which Islam prohibits such a bond between the two with clashing/contradicting religious beliefs.

 

 Attachment Theory

Social acts that reinforce feelings of attachment also stimulate the release of neurotransmitters such as oxytocin and endorphin, which alleviate stress and create feelings of contentment. Such contentment, however, may prove to be fleeting due to ingrained religious disparity and even if it is fictitiously presumed to be there, in the beginning, may evade soon.

 

Prophetic injunctions

Apart from the above cited psychological reasons, there is a logically reasoned Injunction issued by the Prophet (PBUH) which lays the ground rules for an association (particularly the marriage as any other type of association is out of the question in Islam).

 

In Islam, there is a concept of “Kuf” which means —equal, alike or matching. Under this Principal, there are two sub clauses which need to be considered when accepting/rejecting the marriage proposals. (or contemplating an association for that matter).

 

These are “Lineal Homogeneity” & “Familial Homogeneity” Prophet has instructed that girls should be married in their”Kuf” which means—equality(compatibility)—rather than equalness. The likeness of spouses in their religion is incumbent and necessary for the validity of the marriage. The marriage of a Muslim girl with a disbeliever is not valid; even if the girl agrees to it. (So is not the interpersonal relationship). (religio-legal verdict—hukme-tashriee).

 The rationale here is that it is not simply the matter of “right of woman”; which may be dropped at her pleasure, Instead, it is the “right of God” –a Divine- injunction, under the clause of Familial Homogeneity. 

 A question or doubt may be raised about the whole religio-legal-verdict stated above. The validity of it has very eloquently and in unequivocal terms been stated in Qur’an as– “Prophet has more right to men and women of his (Ummah) community than their own selves” and also that “And it becomes not a believing man or woman, when Allah and His prophet have decided an affair (for them) that they should claim any “say” in that matter”      Surah Al Ahzab 33, V 6 & 36

 Finally, Allah forbade such relationship in categorical terms in Surah “Mumtahinah”–(She who is examined) #60, V – 10–in the following words “Neither these (Muslim women) are lawful for them, Nor are those (unbelievers) lawful for these (believing) women” All such relationships which existed at the time of revelation of this verse were ipso-facto severed.

 Muwasat. (Concern)

Non-Muslims ought to be dealt with favor, generosity, compassion, sympathy, and concern. It also includes charitable help and support, condolence, consolation or any other well-intentioned attitude of wishing them well.  Confirmed in the following verse:

“Allah does not forbid you from treating those, who have not fought with you because of your faith, nor have they driven you out of your homes, with benevolence and equity” (Q, 60:8)

 Mudarat. (Cordiality)

This category of dealings involves customary cordiality, adequacy in courtesy, pleasant and mannerly politeness.

Muamalat. (Dealings)

This category involves things such as employment, wages, industry, technology, business dealings, benevolence, and human-interests.  

Note: Most of the permissible interactions, however, would become impermissible if it becomes harmful to the interest of the general body of Muslims such as arms sales to a group fighting against Muslims.(war situation exemptions to older folks, Non belligerent folks, children, religious folks(priests/monks etc), places of worship, livestock and crops/orchards etc nevertheless, would apply).

Exception

An exception; under the category of MAWALAT; where there is a severe threat to one’ life or overarching-interest, is allowed. “Unless you guard yourselves against an apprehension from them” in such a case an (outwardly) expression of affection and love is permissible (Q, 3:28). This position is also supported by the Hadith, “Allah (SWT) has forgiven my people from, mistakes, forgetfulness, and acts done under compulsion/duress” (*1)

 Concealment of feelings of affection and love for Non-believers                           (Do not incline towards unjust, lest Hell fire catches you) (Q, 11:113)

At times it happens that people emotionally attached to Non-Muslims verbally deny it in the presence of fellow Muslims. Such people have been warned by Allah in the following words, “whether you conceal what is in your heart or disclose it, Allah knows it” (Q, 3:29)

 A superficial look at the inhibitive verses might generate an intolerant view of Islam which is dispelled in various verses of the Holy Qura’an, Ahadith, Sunnah and the dealings of the revered Companions.

 How Prophet (PBUH), Sahabah & Khulafa’a dealt with Non-Muslims?

Examples

Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), at the time of famine in Mecca, personally went out to help his enemies who drove him out of Mecca earlier.

Then after the conquest of Mecca, he gave general amnesty to all those who fought against him.

Caliph Umer Farooq allowed stipends and allowance to needy Non-Muslims living under his rule.

 An Obvious question, however, may arise here, why Allah (SWT) has warned against the friendship with Non-Muslims so sternly?

The answer is given through a Qura’anic verse and a Hadith (Bukhari and Muslim).  “My Prayer, my sacrifice, my life, my death all are for Allah, the Lord of the worlds” (Q. 6:162) Prophet (PBUH) has been reported to have said “Whoever loves for the sake of Allah (SWT) and whoever hates for the sake of Allah (SWT), has perfected his faith”(*2) It means that Iman/Faith remains incomplete unless a Muslim’s love, friendship, hate and enmity all are subordinated to Allah Almighty. That is why at the end of verse 3:28, for the ones who defy this injunction, it is said that “you are one of them”.

The premise on which the edifice of—“No-intimate relationship with Non-Believers”— is based is the primal purport of the temporal life of a Muslim.

The primal-purport of a Muslim’s life is to remember and serve Allah (SWT). Everything else including all affairs of life, politics, business, Government and social relationships ought to be subservient to this primal purport.

Conclusion

(Allah (SWT) therefore has strongly forbidden an intimate friendship/relationship with any Nonbelievers under any circumstances).

*1–An-Nawawi’s Hadith No.39 (On the authority of Ibn Abbas). A  Hasan (fair)  Hadith related by Ibn Majah, Al-Baihaqi and others.

*2–Sunan Abu Dawud 4681, Grade: Sahih (authentic) according to Al-Albani.

 

AUTHOR’S PRAYER.

It is hoped that this treatise would help men and women of understanding in tackling the endemic of the entrenched interpersonal relationship between Muslims and Non-Muslims with Divine guidance; provided through Qura’an and Hadith, while applying human logic and reasoning as well rather than succumbing to the reflexes of sentimentality.

Note:        An abridged form of this topic.

https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2017/05/07/can-muslims-be-friends-with-non-muslims-especially-jews-and-christians/

For further reading: https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2015/06/22/muslim-women-marrying-non-muslim-men/

Comment/feedback/share/like/follow

shakir2.wordpress.com

 

Islamophobia—Through YouGove Poll & Pew Research Center Study.

December 30, 2015

men-praying-800x430

Hostility toward Muslims in America exists due to a lack of familiarity with Muslims (and ISLAM).

55% of surveyed Americans had an “unfavorable” opinion of Islam.

Islamophobic sentiments are more common among Americans who are 45 and older, those who are Republican and those who are white.

2015 data shows that 3% of Americans identify as atheist (as well as 4% who say they’re agnostic and 16% who say they’re nothing in particular). By contrast, less than 1% of Americans identify themselves as Muslim.

 29% of Americans (and 43% of Republicans) still believe that Obama is a Muslim, according to a poll by CNN and the Opinion Research Corporation. (Often white, often Republican)

AMERICAN EXPERIENCES  You Gove Poll asked.

(1) Do you personally happen to work with a Muslim? –– 74% said no.

(2) The survey also asked whether respondents “happen to have any friends who are Muslim” – 68% said no.

(3) Another 87% said they had never been inside a mosque.

Indeed, a YouGov survey conducted in the days after Trump’s comments found that 40% of Americans supported a national registry of Muslims. Yet again, those views were more commonly held mostly by— older respondents and those who were Republican.

MUSLIM EXPERIENCES

Pew conducted a survey that sought out only Muslim respondents, in 2011, they found that negative experiences were commonplace: 28% said that in the past year, people had acted suspiciously of them, 22% said they had been called offensive names and 21% said they had been singled out by airport security.

 

Being an American reflect honestly! Does this unjust Islamophobia, based on sheer ignorance and prejudice, represents true AMERICA?

Read the related piece:-                                https://shakir2.wordpress.com/2018/08/28/west-a-trembling-hive-of-hypocrisy/


%d bloggers like this: