Muslims Must Grow Up

 

 

MUSLIMS MUST GROW UP

 

Why Muslims can never get along, why they lost their all-conquering soul and all-benevolent and all-beneficent habits and conducts once so brilliantly displayed by their Messenger from Allah sws and his best disciples? Where are those saints without names and titles who blessed the ranks of Muslims and won the hearts of non-Muslims, looking like a Jesus to Christians and a Moses to Jews and a Krishna to Hindus and won very many from among them to Islam? What was their secret? Can we capture it?
We will try to answer these questions but that is only possible with Allah's help and permission.

 

To begin with, we must see what Islam is not.

 

Islam is not a dry intellectual consent to a claim about the existence of a Creator and that this Creator created men whom He called His prophets and instructed us through them about what we could and could not do. This is like a business communication from a company advertised for its potential customers or a law promulgated by a government who then publishes it to its subjects  to obey or face punishment. True, there is a fundamental element to Islam which informs and warns and demands but this is a vehicle or container for something far deeper and greater. It is an aim above which there can be no nobler and more worthy and worthwhile aim, no greatest human achievement.

 

The dry intellectual consent granted by a man does make him officially a Muslim but it does not make him a true Mu'min- a real believer. Islam is the legal name of this transaction but Iman is its reality. Iman is not intellectual, IT IS EMOTIONAL.  It is based on an ideal mixture of greatest possible love for and greatest possible reverent fear of the Creator. The love has no selfish motives while the reverent fear contains no resentment. Otherwise there is no iman but a common anxiety neurosis one can do better without.

 

Now please listen to this: It is this very wrong anxiety neurosis that grips and twists and corrupts all those religious believers who are nowadays are called 'fundamentalist'.  The mark of these neurotics is hating all whom they cannot infect and impress with their virus of neurosis; They try to obey God's commandments only out of RESENTFUL fear and therefore deep down they are angry.  They would really like to enjoy themselves but they are afraid of a tyrant so-to-speak, you see? Deep down again they are ENVIOUS of apparently joyful non-believers who carefreely indulge their senses and fill the air with their merry laughters. It is as if such SICK believers are saying to themselves "How much more I would like if there was no God to be threatened by and afraid of so that I could also do what others are so deliciously doing. Alas, I am afraid that is not the case".

 

Because their neurosis does not go away they bitterly plod on-   but plod on at  what price!
They want to KILL all those who are free from their illness. It is like those AIDS sufferers who go about in search of as many sexual partners as possible so that they can infect them with the terrible illness they are suffering from without hope.

 

That is why they organise themselves into secretive if bombastic organisations which then both preach and punish, exhort and destroy.

 

Another trademark of these sanctimonious malcontents is their strict arid combination of literalism and formalism. Literalism means taking the grossest meanings of the Word of God as literal truths as they would look to children at nursery age. A jealous and zealous literalist can kill if his level of understanding is challenged. For example if God says in Hell there are fire and chains they must be physical fire and physical chains. If the Prophet sws said in the Hereafter he has a pool called 'Kauthar" from which he will water all who followed him this pool must be physical. Of course if that is what a person can only see and understand from such METAPHORS that is good and well. What is bad is then going on and hating those like hell who say that deeper or higher meanings are also possible. The literalist thinks that any deeper or higher meanings are worthless; sure, a magnificent lesson in mathematics or art is nothing to a baby who is attending an academic conference with its parents where its interest extends only as far as the buffet stuffed with delicious snacks. Its mind is not yet ready to comprehend that there are far greater rewards from life than food and drink.

 

As such the literalist picks up his first fights with the advanced souls of his own religious community; He resents any metaphorical interpretations offered by philosophers or sufis even when these only mean well and prove their piety by their exemplary humanity and conduct. Such deeper thinkers either revert back to the nursery level or face the volcanic consequences.

 

By formalism we mean an uncritical observance of forms like dress, rituals or habits.  For the formalist, for example, the ethnic dress which he confuses with the Prophet's or the totally Arab-like pronunciation of the Qur'an is far more important than having compassion or being generous towards the needy. They push their dress for all to see, they pronounce the letter ‘qaf’ or ‘ra’ for all to hear-  and to emulate.

 

They also pick up a fight with science and technology. Some deny the efficacy of modern medicine and insist that antiquarian books on healing should be stuck to or even not at all; some Christian sects allow only healing by prayer and the laying of hands. Others refuse blood transfusion and prefer the death of their loved ones to their living thanks to a transfusion. All such delusions arise from a too literal reading of Biblical injunctions like "Thou shalt not eat blood".

 

But the most favourite trademark of the fundamentalists is fighting those who disagree with them and even those who just ignore them. They either make this world exclusively full of their kind or slaughter must continue.

 

In the case of Muslim fundamentalists Islam's flexibility and pluralism are non-issues. They don't want to consider how the Prophet sws both fought and made peace and even alliances with Mushriks as and when political realities demanded it. The Truce of Hudaibia is a monument to that real politik spirit of true Islam. The Prophet sws gave ground to the Mushriks while both he and the Mushriks had their allies from among the Musrik tribes.
Islam's ungrudging tolerance of Ahl al Kitab both as fellow if special citizens and as neighbours mean little to the fundamentalists-  they must agitate for trouble and pick up a fight.  They are particularly and very tragically blind to the pathetic weakness of the Muslim Umma and the incomparable superiority of the Western power. Rather than conquering the West by graceful preaching and gracious example-setting in which areas they should enjoy a great superiority they go for the area of armed combat at which they are at their weakest. Only fools opt for fighting on terms at which they are at their weakest instead of terms at which they are at their strongest. For times like ours Allah says:

 

"Call to the Path of your Lord with wisdom and graceful preaching and fight against them what is most beautiful" (S. Al Nahl- 125). 

 

In fact when we study the Qur’an minutely and carefully we see that many a time differing responses are given to apparently similar situations;  peace may be advised when fighting is a possible alternative;  punishment is insisted upon in some cases while in others indulgence or forgiveness is stressed….  All such variations of response make sense only when we carefully take into consideration the circumstances which similar events are judged.  At Badr Muslims fought, at Hudaibia they withdrew. The reason given was “lest you could roll over any men and women believers among the Musriks of Mecca) unknown to you and that cause you regret” (S. Al Fath: 25).  Taking verses in isolation and calling for action on them on that basis is the very trademark of the notorious Kharijites and not real Sunni Muslims.

 

To see such points of wisdom and goodwill one must GROW UP and be ready for adult understandings of Islam and civilised dialogues on its behalf.

 

Lastly but not the least we Sufis also have a lot of growing up to do. We also must advance beyond the stage where adulation and idolisation, obsession with marvels and miracles, occupation with occult and the literalism and formalism so characteristic of immature aspirants must give way to more adult and realistic relationships between master and disciple, more spiritual understanding of verbal representations of spiritual truths and less concern with dress and ceremony and theatricals and more concern with good character and gracious conduct.

 

In short all Muslims have a lot of growing up to do so that we do not look like human images frozen in Medieval times but like men and women able to take on the modern world at all levels and on all battle grounds if possible on more than equal times and especially to always occupy not only the higher moral ground but also project the more endearing and
winning image.

 

What is more, all these in all sincerity and with all the goodwill on earth. Amen.

 

 

OH NO. OH NO!

 

Or I better begin with YES, I have every respect and understanding towards brothers or sisters undersdanding many things about Islam differently from my humble self.  So, please read what follows in that light.  No hard feelings but love and indulgence!
We had recently touched upon the VITAL and INSISPENSABLE SUNNA of Rasullullah sws which Sunna was the main reason he sws was sent for: Perfecting in man noblest morality and most graceful manners. And we had complained that most practicing muslims are following every Sunna but that.

Is what Rasullullah (sws) personally did as part of his natural habits,like his mode of grooming or dressing and sitting at meal part of his BINDING Sunna? Well, in the light of the few examples we will be inshallah giving you decide. Of course we must also consider our own sheikh's makings of it.

 

Rasulullah sws wore a turban. Did all sahaba wear them? Well, we have no list of who did and who did not, perhaps most did- after all in the intense sunlight of Arabia a turban is the simplest and cheapest air-conditioning device for the head. But we know that one of the ten greatest sahaba, namely Abdurrahman b. Awf  RA went about with an uncovered head summer or winter. Rasulullah sws said nothing to him and in fact he was one of the most loved companions among the companions. Doubtlessly one of the very few sahaba Rasulullah couldn't do without, namely our master Umar RA rode to Jerusalem after its conquest and all who gathered to welcome the caliph noticed his completely uncovered BALD head shining under the sun.  Now, all scholars classify as Sunna the henna-dyeing and braiding of male hair (Rasulullah sws sometimes did braid) BUT OUR SHEIKH NEVER DID THEM!

 

When Abu Bakr RA was seen coming to Medina to visit the Prophet sws who had just died people recognised him from his four hennaed tresses which was regarded his trademark so-to-speak. As the TOP sahaba Abu Bakr was not necessarily following all the habits of the Prophet sws who rarely wore tresses and had never hennead his beard or hair. May I ask which modern champion of sunna enforcers are wearing long braids, up to four of them? The Prophet sws was said never to allow his beard to exceed what his palm could cup in. Our own sheikhs sometimes wear beards reaching their abdomens. The Prophet's sws and in fact all sahabas' main dress was a pair of unsewn shawls called rida and izar. They covered with one their loins down to their mid calves and with the other their shoulders JUST LIKE WE SEE NOW IN CLASSICAL GREEK AND ROMAN STATUES.

 

This simple suit was the universal dress of the whole Mediterranean basin. Almost nobody, including Arabs wore long, sewn gowns; trousers were especially rare as were shoes, though less rare. Why any muslims especially the beard lobbyists are not dressing like the Prophet sws at all times (how dare they to neglect such 'clear' sunnas?) but are proudly going for flowing long shirts, often with rows of buttons and even graceful trims and frills and ample baggy pants (shalwar) or even full western suits except a typical Asian cap on top which the Prophet sws never saw or used? Lastly, the first Ottoman Caliph or Rasullullah sws, namely Sultan Selim I who conquered Egypt, MECCA AND MEDINA, at one point while crossing the Sinai desert was blessed by the vision of Rasullullah sws who instructed him to find and arrest two kafirs about to desecrate his tomb in Medina which order he carried out. Allah rewarded him with the caliphate of all Islam when the last caliph kept in custody by the Mameluke sultans of Egypt OFFICIALLY TRANSFERRED HIS OFFICE TO SELIM, delivering him all the sacred relics of the Prophet sws, including items like the holy turban, the holy shoulder cloth, the holy sword, the holy drinking cup, the holy flag, the holy molar tooth....etc. which are to this day displayed at the Topkapi palace in Istanbul, the last capital of the Holy Caliphate.... this same Selim was always clean shaven but wore a moustache. He was a great Islamic scholar himself as all Ottoman princes were having been instructed by the greatest Islamic sheikhs available and also a trained sufi which all princes again were. His illustrious teachers or sufi mentors did not criticise him for not wearing a beard (as the VERY Prophet sws had not criticised Abdurrahman b. Awf and also sahaba had not criticized Umar for going about with an uncovered head.

 

You see both the Prophet sws and his companions RA had less formalistic minds with less ritualistic, 'fashionistic', 'designer-clothistic' and 'hair-stylistic' cultisms; instead they were gloriously obsessed with Allah's Pleasure as obtainable by devout contemplation and pious action and motivated by a constant, unrelaxing loving desire of winning Allah's approval by acts directded to saving more and more servants of Allah from the prospect of Hell. Only some later ulema with formalistic and ritualistic concerns as their top obsessions preferred to reconstruct the Prophet sws from his reported external aspects (and all scholars know how dubious most of the hadiths on smaller matters and details can be!) for our emulation INSTEAD OF CAREFULLY AND LOVINGLY RECONSTRUCT HIM IN TERMS OF HIS NOBLEST MORALITY AND GREACEFULLEST SOCIAL MANNERS for us to emulate and as a result find ourselves instantly in paradise while still on this earth!!!!  I am proposing us to imagine to experiments:

 

We take two groups of young muslims of equal ability as far as we can assess. One group we isolate and train in the observation of the external modes and habits of Rasulullah sws as we find in a hundred books under a thousand rubrics. The other group we do not bother with external habits and fashions but exclusively instruct, train and motivate in Rasullullah's character traits and behaviour patterns. like his truthfullness, piety, pious courage, merciful disposition, rigid righteousness and square honesty, considerate regard and tactful handling of persons and free-flowing charity and generosity...  Otherwise both groups are taught Islam similarly. Can there be any doubt that the second group will eventually compare to the first as heaven would compare to earth?  Is is an act of genius to see that the pathetic state and status of EVEN strictly practicing Muslims of today is caused by their near total forgetting the REAL AND VITAL Sunnas of the Messenger of Allah sws and instead drowning themselves in a thousand details of his reported or alleged modes and habits which were basically Hejazi Arab modes and habits often shared both by both the believers and unbelievers? No doubt had we concentrated our intelligent piety on emulating the Prophet's time and space independent noble and gracious traits we could have conquered and happily Islamised the whole world by now for centuries, for true men of God are irressistible.  Amen.
 

For the more scholarly: PRIMARY, SECONDARY, TERTIARY AND QUARTERNARY SOURCES OF ISLAMIC RULINGS AND CLAIMS.

 

As we descend lower and lower from the times of the Messenger of Allah the sources of knowledge and opinion in Islam proliferate as well as becoming more enterprising if not reckless.

 

First it was only the continuing revelation of the Qur'an and the explanation and implementation of it by the Messenger of Allah sws. With his death this phase ended.
Then came the epoch of the ashab or sahaba RA (companions) when, although the ashab RA were a diminishing asset enough of them remained among Muslims to look after their spiritual interests and answer their legal questions. This also ended within two generations.

 

The firmest scholarly judgments in Islam can be traced to this period via the third, the generation of the tabe'een (followers of ashab) and taba'a l-tabe'een (their followers). The earliest of the four great jurists Abu Hanifa RA is the most prominent benefiter of this third phase. His school of fiqh is the most lenient and flexible and accommodating of all. No wonder it commands the allegiance of the great majority of Sunni muslims. It is characterised by the free employment of sound and benevolent reasoning when the Qur'an and the then budding science of Hadith did not seem to give clear and specific guidance on an issue. So, when Hanafis were faced with problems they could not specifically solve by reference to the Qur'an or any hadith they could trust they resorted to two additional sources, namely, 'urf' or local custom and 'istihsan' or well-meaning facilitation.

 

Passing from a bedouin culture to the advanced urban culture of Rome on the conquest of formerly Roman territories like Egypt, Syria and Iraq (part Persian) Arab and Arabised Muslims found a well developed and sophisticated system of land tenure and ownership and many other issues already solved by the Roman law. To this we must add local customs whose origins were lost in the mists of ancient history. Abu Hanifa and his pupils did not hesitate to adopt and adapt tbese laws and customs to the Islamic body of laws so long they did not clash with anything in the Qur'an and the more reliable Hadith. Lastly, when this source was also exhausted and even when some fatwas of some sahaba looked a bit unfair to them they did what they called 'istihsan': They ruled in favour of what they thought was the more realistic and helpful solution.

 

A very amusing example of this istihsan is the following story-   I think I had read it in a book about Abu Hanifa by prof Abu Zahra of Azhar University:

 

Two brothers marry two sisters but at the time of consummating of the marriages the brides were sent to wrong bridegrooms and the mistake became known when it was the next morning. Jurist were called to sort out the mess. Searching for precedents they came up with an identical case during the caliphate of Ali RA. He had ruled that since the nikahs were made in the names of the couples those nikahs should stand as contracted, the brides be exchanged and the mistakes forgiven. Abu Hanifa objected. He explained that this fatwa was fraught with very serious drawbacks despite its impeccable looking legalistic basis. He said that the actual consummaters of the two marriages could never forget the experience both positively and negatively, that is to say each person could actually continue loving the person of the opposite sex he or she had tasted union with and negatively, each could suffer from great regret and jealousy on account of losing his or her beloved to the other man or woman. Abu Hanifa ruled that the actual consummations should stand as the valid base of the marriages so that all parties from then on could be happier and less regretful. His brilliant judgment was endorsed unanimously and the episode added to his growing reputation as a great jurist.  This was an example to ISTIHSAN.

 

This of course does not mean that the other three great mazhabs founded by the other three great jurists are inferior. Each has its superior sides as well as less so, depending how you look at the matters involved. But this fact shows one thing more than anything else: In Sharia there are no absolutes EXCEPT what the Qur'an explicitly rules and what is most reliably reported from the Messenger of Allah sws which supplements the Qur'an by way of expansion and interpretation. So, we must never fight over the alternative or opposing judgments passed by our great jurists but make our personal choices to our own credit or at our own expense. I call the rulings of our earliest great imams as the tertiary sources.

 

As for the fourth (Quarternary) they are the claims of some too ambitious mystics and the opinions of later and lesser imams eager to add something to their credit seeing that the third phase imams had stolen the show already.  This was an age when Sufism had been incorporated into the Islamic body of sciences thanks to the pioneering work of al Ghazali. Once popular and prestigious the area was flooded by more quacks than genuine masters and soon the former were busy to claim discoveries and miracles, assume ranks and titles and plagiarise from true masters and pass them as their own. In other works they were the ‘Musailimas’ of Sufism. The recent Warid article quoted from Rumi about ‘false sufis’ show how weary true masters like Rumi were of their false colleagues. Another form of falsification was composing works and selling them as belonging to great true masters; the falsifiers could not be expected to put their names to such false works but to ascribe them to a true master so that they could sell it to rich patrons for fabulous sums.  In this way many masters were foisted upon blasphemous-looking if pompous statements as well as many ‘miracles’ and anectodes with rather cheap lessons.  Just like in Yogic or Buddhist popular lore about ‘masters’ the masters compete in made-to-order miracles; for example one walks on water while the other betters him by passing through a wall. Often masters living in different ages appear in the same competition of wits and skills.    

 

As for the too ambitious and pompous mystics, they based their claims on their real or alleged visions and as such their claims remain unproven as well as unprovable as a matter of principle. Of course any extant works ascribed to some great masters may be tamperings of some original works of theirs now lost or they may be even total forgeries. After all people have been busy since oldest time corrupting Divine Scriptures as well as the images of Allah’s messengers, for example deifying Jesus AS.

 

The claims ascribed to masters by falsifiers may begin and end in the following order: They saw an earlier mystic in their dream or as a day time apparition and they were given the knowledge. They saw the Prophet sws. They saw or at least talked with Allah. Being totally unmentioned both in the Qur'an and the Hadith this kind of access to hidden knowledge remains outside original teachings of Allah and His Messenger sws. Saints mentioned in the Qur’an like the mother of Moses AS or Mary mother of Jesus AS saw only angels who then told them what was to happen.  As such a lot of caution is necessary before crediting claims of receiving revelations from apparitions or dreams on matters only prophets are entitled to be revealed must be viewed with caution, to say the least. After all many Christian mystic claim to have seen Jesus or Mary who then confirmed them their divine status as the Son or Mother of God!

 

What is worse, many such claims allegedly made by some Sufi masters are found to clash with the primary sources only too badly and painfully. To quote just one case a mystic (or a falsifier using his name) claims that his massive and detailed ‘knowledge’ of the hidden (al ghaib) was given him by the Prophet sws who had visited him in a dream and the Prophet sws had ordered him to reveal the knowledge to all people (an-Nas).  What is made public as a result contains  so much which contradict the primary sources of Islam that it can be said they leave no bone unbroken in the body of canonical Islamic belief mostly stated by the Qur’an itself in no ambiguous terms.  According to one of these ‘revelations’ the son whom Ibrahim AS was going to sacrifice to Allah was not Ismail AS (Abraham’s first-born) as the Qur'an near perfectly suggests and Hadith confirms but Ishaq as the Jews boastfully claim.  Rasulullah said "I am the son of two sacrifices" meaning his great grandfather Ismail AS and his immediate father Abdullah b. Abdul Muttalib.  Whom shall we believe, Allah and His Messenger sws or this mystic (or his hijacking falsifier)? 

 

Another explains how Mary conceived Jesus AS as if he has been to her womb and saw all the processes like a modern scan machine would. He talks of breaths, moistures and condensations penetrating and impregnating Mary as if it was his business to roam about that holy lady's private organs. From what we know of science the claim can only be naive and wishful thinking. Some mystics (or rather impostors using the names of true mystics) simply don't know or cannot bring themselves to say "I don't know" but must insist that they know everything there is to know because, as they 'explain' they are 'perfect men'.  They don’t understand that the words ‘perfect’ and ‘man’ are mutually exclusive;  only Allah is Perfect while man can only be a beggar at the Door of the Perfect Allah. Allah says “Ya ayyuhannasu antum ul fuqara il- Allah; w’Allahu huwa’ l-Ghaniyy ul- Hamid”, i.e., “O people, you are the needy destitutes in your relation to Allah. It is Allah Who is the One Free from All Want and Worthy of All Praise”.  He Almighty puts both Jesus AS and Mary AS to their place as imperfects when He Says “Kana ya’kulani-t-ta’am”, i.e., The two were eating food’.     

 

The claims most probably ascribed to some masters do not stop there.  Their ‘ilm is so high that they even can analyse Allah and see into the very essence of the Divine Essence and MORE! For example they announce that Allah is not the ultimate reality. What is called Allah is a level of Divine existence they call ‘Wahdaniya’, i.e, Oneness of Allah. But there is a higher level they name as ‘Ahadiya’  which even Allah as the Wahid is not aware of (while they themselves are), forgetting that Allah has already outwitted them; He Almighty explicitly calls Himself “AHAD” when He says "Qul Huwallahu AHAD"!!!  Compare this pompous know-all attitude with what great Ali RA said: "Two thirds of ilm is the word 'I don't know".  Pompous know-alls can and has never uttered this phrase in any of their statements.

 

In the process of their palpably vain if sophisticated sophistries and consequent bursts of boastings such daring imaginary raiders of the Unseen (al Ghaib) leak out unawares more and more pathetic and atrocious contradictions of the primary sources which should be infallible.

 

After all forgery entered into Islam from the Prophet's times: At least three false prophets emerged during the last years of the Messenger of Allah, Musailima the liar being he most prominent and dangerous. Apparently Ghulam Ahmad has been the last. Forging hadiths was such a big and lucrtaive industry that our imams could catalogue them in massive volumes.  

 

Not to be outdone by the most probably forged mystic decibells , some later scholars also went into overdrive to 'prove' points on the basis of 'hadiths' which no early muhaddith mentioned or endorsed. They accused any dissenting Muslims of kufr and theatened them with hell if they dared to challenge their scholarly claims. Their claims included seeing Allah in the form of a young boy with curly hair and gold sandals a la Greek mythology or tellling the day and date and names involved of a future event by numerological or even astrological computations. No need to point out that in each and every case all such predictions failed to materialise. This fourth grade of Islamic 'information' is therefore the least reliable and most dangerous.  Most intellectual bloodshed is spilt in the course of debating the claims and opinions churned out in the quarternary sources which can only indicate the hairy finger of the Satan in them; the primary sources cause no such fumings and blazings while the debates in the third (mahab imams) sources proceed at the cautious and respecful tones of legal savants with no accusations of kufr or threats of hell fire for the opponent.

 

In conclusion I would humbly suggest that all who feel like contributing to Islamic debates resort to the primary sources most, to the secondary and tertairy a lot and if possible nil to the quarternary. It is where the Devil enters to stays and never to leaves. It is like the fate of Christianity here; Christianity had its first and fatal misfotune when St Paul created a totally spurious version of it by abandoning real historical Jewish prophet Jesus as well as the church (jama'at) formed by his disciples (ashab Isa AS) thus in one stroke landing at the fourth phase in which suddenly Jesus became god and a pagan one at that and a string of unsubtantiated theological and magical claims flooded the religion. Islam also had a few isolated experimenters in deification and magical claims; a group called 'Muhammadiyyun" claimed that Muhammad sws was god. But Islam had retained its first and second sources and such treason could not succeed. 

Where Sufism comes in in all this? To answer this question we must never lose sight of the fact that true Sufism begins where the celebral intellect stops and secrets unputable into words (ineffable) come in. The twine never meet and this Divine arrangement ensures that the Satan resident in the cerebral (superficial if sophisticated) intellect so characteristic of philosophers will never be able to suspect let alone access the secrets of the Heavens. We can see this fact from the verses of the Qur'an which tell us how satans always attempt to access the Heavens but are driven away by fiery missiles thrown at them by the angels.
May Alah forgive and guide us.

 

 

THEOLOGY OR POLITCS?

 

Since a while Wahhabism and Ahl al Sunna debate has been raging on this site. The high
point was I think when Ibn Taymiyya was analysed at length by our erudite brother GF Haddad. Reading between the lines of his article and as a psychotherapist of sorts and in view of my humble Sufi understanding, what transpires I think is a case of unbalanced growth of a man. No doubt, ibn Taymiyya was a giant scholar as far as his academic knowledge was concerned; he indeed had a very high academic IQ (as we designate intelligence today) but only a poor level of what has recently been called Emotional Intelligence (EI). Mind you, Emotional Intelligence means a man's ability to read the moods of people and correctly assess the requirements of social situations and thereby formulate adequate responses so as to relate to people in various moods or social situations constructively and profitably. For example, suppose a man is dripping with sadness and another talks to him about his recent joys or begons to make silly jokes. This surely upsets the first person and others around him glare at the emotionally blind fellow with incredulous disgust. The silly man must be reminded that he is being very insensitive and disrespectful towards the mourning man. People with low EI may have very high IQ but are unsucessful in their social relations and are doomed to loneliness. 

 

I am afraid Ibn Taymiyya was one of these in a way. In fact persons with low EI are unable to appreciate mataphoric statements, feel embarassed and puzzled by them and may become angry with them.  Hence perhaps the gesture of ibn Taymiyya of descending one step on the pulpit and saying "Yes, so did Allah descend". Or poor low EI brothers ave no option but think, feel and talk from that underdeveped level.  Such people fail to mature emotionally and cannot see the spiritual essence of faith and the metaphorical nature of dogma. Because as a child an ibn Tayamiyya learns to love, fear and admire Allah as a cosmic humanoid giant of sorts, he is unable to drop this too lovely image made of material elements and parts and instead adopt the mature idea of God as beyond all categories of common existence. It is too abstract and cold and idea for him and he needs the company the both terrible and tangible God of his childhood all his life, like a child unable to sleep without his teddy bear in his arms. Seeing others deny his god and leave that god of childhood behind and settle with a God idea beyond all categories an ibn Taymiyya cannot help defending his emotional lower ground with all his oratorial skills availabe to a very high IQ man. In other words ibn Taymiyya wanted to see Allah in his mind's eye sitting down, getting up, using his hands or descend... as he was imagining Allah in his childhood. Still, I don't think that he was a kafir or that those whom he accused were kafirs either. Similarly, his opponents criticism of him was equally faulty and unenlightened. They should understand his psychological inadequacy and treat him kindly and condescendingly. As a very pious man I think he could only be grateful for the tolerance and perhaps even begin to grow up.

 

What was the greatest trouble discapacitating almost all scholars of Medieval Islam? It was this:  You see, as from 9th century we muslims could not resist the attractions of the Greek philopsophy which was at best a mixed blessing. Our scholars increasingly Hellenized their discourse and did as much damage as they did good to Islam as a result.  Theology was basically a 'science' founded by Plato, worked upon more by first Philo and then Plotinus (both of Alexandrian mystic school) and then the Christian scholars, especially and again those of Alexandria in Egypt. Among as the Mutakallimin (ilm al Kalam specialists) Islamized it, the Mutazilides  degenerated it and some mystics obscured and distorted it. In short, almost all the cultural malaise which gripped the Christian church was contracted by us muslims as well. What is theology if not a philosophy of Godhead as silly and fallible as all grandiose philosophy. For its sake even brilliant mystics like Suhrawardi lost their lives unnecessarily and a lot of bad blood kept flowing among muslims for centuries. Even to this day there remains a mystic school among us which elaborates over and peddles neo-Platonic philosophy whiach thye claim to be summmit of wisdom and gnosis.

 

]Even the Inquisition was copied by muslims. Abbasid caliph al Ma'mun, deceived and spurred on by his Mutazilide mentors killed persecuted and even killed many great savants of Islam including Imam ibn Hanbal. Fatimid caliphs, not to be outdone, had their bloody inquisition. All for what? For silly and false questions like "Are Allah's attributes the same as His Essence or separate from it?" or "Was there a time when there were no creatures or Allah always had creatures from past eternity?".  Perhaps the classical and Medieval thinkers may be excused for dabbling in such non-sense but for us in the age of the Theory of Relativity and Quantum Physics they are simply non-issues. Modern science merged time and space, mass and energy and is inexorably driving towards a Theory of Everything. What this of course is going to result in as far as religious faith is concerned is a moot point; but what is clear is this: classical philosophy which assumed a separate space and time, matter and energy, cause and effect..., are no more tenable. Modern science's drive is towards Unity of the existence and what make of it in spiritual terms is up to us. In modern cosmology there are no absolute befores and afters, no absolute standers and movers, no stronger or weaker things except in relative and even arbitrary terms. Good Sufis have been right all along that Allah can only be found in the believer's heart and relates to man not in human transactional terms but in infinitely subtler and holistic ways. Allah is not for discovering and understanding but for believing in, loving and fearing, all three emotions rolled into one single gnosis of the heart incapable of philosophical formulation or scientific analysis. 

 

A Sufi's idea of Allah is almost totally emotional with not a single worry or curiosity about time, space, structure or analysis....  it is the intensest of love affairs in which the lover is entirely sacrificed to the beloved and as a result blessed an rewarded by such intangibles that all the tangibles of the universe pale to insignificance in the eyes of the Sufi. As soon as philosophy comes in love evaporates, the ineffable secret disappears and all the boring and degrading elements of intellectual meanderings and pontifications claim the scene. Those Sufis who fail to understand this and go back to philosophical speculation a la Hellas (al Yunan) equally upset others as ibn Taymiyya did, cannot watch their words and blurt out offensive statements as a result of which they may be similarly persecuted by the establishment as well as more reasonable and reserved scholars. We Naqshibandis are the least philosophical and talkative of Sufis, we almost exclusively mind our devotions and good character  development and prove our pie's existence in its eating, as the saying goes.

 

For their part Wahhabism is a political movement, which, appropriate to the age and environment of its time of birth (18. C. Arabian desert at Najd where civilsation was the same as in the 7th century and that at the margins o it) and only suceeded because of the general malaise of the then ruling Ottoman Empire and went on the rampage after oil was found and exploited. The best defence against this low emotional intelligence high political ambition sect is the proper Islamic education of our youth on best Sufi and Sunni scholarly lines and not so much through debates at the intensity and bloddiness of bull fighs or Karate matches.  That is what I think and surely Allah knows best.

 

To give just one example how unsincere and non-understanding the Wahhabi mind can be let us take their claim that good muslims' graves should not be turned into shrines let alone mosques built on them. They say this is bid'ah. The truth is that it is Sunna, actually initially apllied to the Messenger of Allah (sws) by his ashab. When the Prophet sws died there was a brief debate as to where to bury him and as Siddiq RA reported from the Prophet that a prophet should be buried at the spot he died. The spot was Aisha's RA room, so he was buried exactly where his deathbed stood. When the Mosque (Masjid an Nabi) was expanded all rooms belonging to our mothers RA were demolished and included into Mosque grounds; Suddenly we found the grave of the Prophet INSIDE THE MASJID and since then all muslims are visiting him there and saluting him and addressing him as ashab al kiram RA did!!! Are Wahhabis accusing the ashab of bid'ah, of kufr? Let them dare!  That it is desirable and meritious to enclose awliya's graves in mosques (let alone only small shrines) is acknowledged by ALLAH in the Surat al Kahf.  There the Ashab al Kahf (the long sleepers in a cave) were treated the same way; Allah describes those who built a mosque upon their burial ground. "They (people who discovered the sleepers) said "RAISE A BUILDING (shrine) OVER THEM". THOSE WHO WERE THE MASTER OF THEIR AFFAIRS (ghalabu ala amrihim) SAID "WE WILL ADOPT A MOSQUE OVER THEM" (S. Kahf, v. 21). 

 

 

It is important here to note that "to be the master of one's affair' is most applicable to Allah Who said "Wallahu ghalibun ala amrihi wa lakinna aktharannasi la ya'lamun" (S. Yusuf, v. 21-  note the identical numbers of verse in both surahs about 'mastery over one's affair, both 21! Allahu Akbar!). Obviously those who chose building a masjid on the graves of the awliya that Ashab al Kahf were, were themseves men of Allah- ahl Allah). So, were these 'masters' in Surat al Kahf and our masters the ashab doing bid'ah and kufr for entombing Allah's good servants, the Ashab al Kahf and the Messenger of Allah sws?
Allah designates the hillocks Safa and Marwa as 'Memorials to Allah' (Sha'air Allah). If mere hills are worthy of reminding us Allah how come the grave of the Prophet sws be less than that? Why sahaba like Bilal RA travelled all the way from Sham and visited and wept at the grave of the Prophet sws and addresed him longingly?  Could Wahhabis be more heartless and lightless?  Shirk is when somebody believes that the Prophet sws or other good muslims, dead or alive have powers INDEPENDENT from Allah. No sufi who is real and sane has ever said that. Only their shafaat (intercession) may be hoped and Allah promised accepting the shafaat done by His any good servants whom He describes "Illa man radiya lahu qawla", i.e., “except those whose word Allah is pleased with (S. Ta Ha, v. 109). With whose word Allah can be more pleased than Rasulullah sws or the sahaba or those faithfully following them? 

 

My humble last word is: Let us learn more and more and more about Islam and go deeper and deeper and deeper in Tasawwuf and respond to challenges to Ahl al Sunna beliefs and traditions with NOT ONLY WITH SUPERIOR KNOWLEDEGE BUT ALSO WITH SUPERIOR..... (and winning) MANNERS! Amen

 

 

THOSE WHO KILL ALLAH'S FRIENDS

 

Says Allah the Most Sublime and Exalted:

 

"Those who deny the Signs and Verses of Allah and unjustly kill the prophets as well as those who enjoin righteousness-   let them know about the painful punishment awaiting them!.  They are those whose efforts goes to waste in this world and the next. They shall find no helpers (against Allah) (S. Ali Imran,21-22)

 

Who are those who kill the prophets of Allah and any who emulate the prophets in spreading Allah's TRUE message.  Before I answer this question by the permission and help of Allah my Lord and the Lord of all existence let me draw your attention to the fact that I printed the word TRUE in capital letters. By this I mean there is a real True as well as a fake true in many religions in many subjects.

 

We know that many prophets were physically killed by their enemies because these killers were the enemies of Allah. But is this the only form of killing Allah's prophets? I think not. What follows. I think,  is an unpredecedented exegesis inspired, I think, in honour of the birthday of the most beloved of Allah, namely our prophet and master Muhammad alaihi afdal as salat wa atammul taslim. Allah knows best.

 

It seems to my humble self that the worst example of the slaughter of a prophet was that of Jesus Christ (Isa Masih ibn Maryam AS).  You may wonder "How come? Jesus was not killed either on the cross or otherwise. The Jews could not kill him; he was saved and lifted to heaven by Allah. This is in the Qur'an. YES. You are right!   BUTTT!


HE WAS KILLED BY THOSE WHO CAME TO BE KNOWN AS CHRISTIANS. These have neither been the followers of the disciples of Jesus (al hawariyyun) nor even believers in the Bible sent before Jesus (like the Torah). The true followers of Jesus who believed him to be a messenger of Allah died out and their place has been appropriated (taken posession of) by ne-pagans who named themselves as 'Christians' instead of Muslims as Jesus would have it.  Now it was these Christians who killed Jesus in a REAL sense, in fact more real than physical killing. That is because spiritual murder is more effective than the physical. Mind you, other spiritual masters were also similarly murdered by thieves stealing their names and doing away with their real followers. One example is Gautama Buddha. What survives from the Buddha indicates that he was a unitarian and a wise enjoiner of great moral precepts and most practical ethics. As his fame and influence spread and the people-attracting power of his teachings became obvious his Pagan Hindu rivals were alarmed. Soon after his physical death the alarmed and discomfited Brahmins (Hindu priests) hijacked the Buddha, installed him as another of their hundreds of gods in all Hindu temples and added his worship by the masses to their lucrative business empire which the Hindu tempe establishment was. All his unitarian and ethical teachings were smothered (HIS SPIRITUAL HERITAGE KILLED) and eventually true Buddhism was flushed out of India and had to take root, in diluted and corrupted forms inTibet,  Indo-China, China and Japan!

 

Similar treachery was conducted against Jesus. What the Roman-Jewish power could not do to Jesus physically was done to him by neo-pagans spiritually within a century after his departure.  What I am about to explain now will (I pray and hope) interpret what it  means Allah saving and taking up Jesus up to heaven to stay with Him and in what way Christians killing him.

 

Allah saved him-  He removed him from the chaotic and incorrigible scene and postponed to another day the effective delivery of his true message and example. In other words in Jesus who was the Word of Allah, Allah removed His Word (His revelation of His Law and His exemplar of the Law, namely Jesus) and left the drunks and the thugs have their way until the time another Word of Allah (the Qur'an) and another exemplar (Muhammad sws) was to be sent. In the Gospel of John we read: (Jesus adressing his disciples just before his departure) Men will expel you from the synagogue ('mosque'/congregation in Greek which many Jews spoke at the time). In fact, the hour is coming when everyone that kills you (the true followers of Law-observing, true prophet Jesus) will imagine he has rendered a sacred service to God. But they will do these things because they have not come to know either the Father (Rabb) or the son (servant prophet who is me-  Jewish idioms-  which means the killers of true followers of Jesus will be mainly gentiles/non-jews who knew and cared little about the Biblically defined God and Biblically defined prophethood- in fact they were mostly GREEKS)... These things, however, I did not tell you before, because I was with you (could protect you).

 

But now I am going to Him who sent me (arsalani/made me His rasul)... because I have spoken these things to you grief has filled your hearts. Nevertheless, I am telling you the truth, it is for your benefit that I am going away, for if I do not go away the HELPER will by no means come to you. But if I do go my way I will send HIM to you. And when THAT ONE arrives he will give the world convincing evidence concerning sin and righteousness (which shall be in the Qur'an and the Sunna and not the spurious claims made and rulings issues by semi-neo-pagan church synods) and concerning judgment...  I have many things yet to say to you, but you are not able to bear them at present (how can you, as jews, bear the fact that the last and greatest messenger of Allah shall be an Arab whom your race have grown to despise and hate, despite Arabs being your very fisrt cousins?). However when THAT ONE arrives, the Spirit of the Truth, HE WILL GUIDE YOU INTO ALL THE TRUTH (which the Qur'an shall be filled with), for he will not speak of his own impulse, but what things he hears (from God) he will speak ("Wa ma yantiqu anil hawa, in huwa illa wahyun yuha"-  He Muhammad sws does not speak on impulse, it (what he utters) is but a Revelation revealed- Surat al Najm, 3- 4).

 

Why do you think the ultimate symbol of Christianity is a denuded man dead on a cross?  It is an unconscious admission that their god is made by killing (removing the spirit) of a great man and making his soulless corpse their god, who unable to speak for himself, the pagan priests that stole his name could speak supposedly on his behalf- JUST LIKE WHAT WAS DONE TO THE BUDDHA! 

 

The cause was simple: As there was a huge, subcontinent-wide pagan temple establishment (like todays global McDonalds or Coca-Cola establishments) so there was a plethora of pagan gnostic sects infesting the Roman empire from Spain in the West to Mesopotamia and Egypt in the east, drawing on and exploiting gods, goddesses, died and resurrected son-of-gods and trinities and to their honour conducting masses (congregational ceremonies of eating god's flesh and drinking his blood in order ti partake of his spirit)-  exactly like todays Christian mass!!!

 

Given the charisma and the power of the words of Jesus and his victimisation he was the next ideal pagan god to be doctored, invented and established. And that was what happened. Knowing these in advance Jesus explained the situation to his true followers and gave them the sad news that they would be persecuted and killed by those who did not know either the real Jesus or the real God. The true followers, so much as they could survive had to wait for another promised messenger whose identity and message they could not bear to hear as yet.

 

Such examples of hijicking a messenger of God and converting him into a pagan idol, heaping on him pseudo-divine praises while underneath working profanity corruption are legion- very very many throughout history.  Did Muslims do similar abuses?

 

YES, very sadly yes!  The greatest and most institutionalised and entrenched abuse has been the Shiaism. They hijacked Rasulullah sws and his descendants through Ali RA and Faitma RA and converted them into a dynasty of Infallibles; not only that but a PRIESTHOOD as censuring and taxing as the Christian Church or the Brahmin establishment came into being. True to pagan precedents official ranks like ayatullah, hujjat al Islam etc. (pope, cardinal, bishop etc...) were invented and conferred, all with official costumes and signs and perks of office and authority. To Islam's rituals were added pagan rituals of mass demostrations, bloody passion plays and unending millenianistic and eschatological dramaitics- all designed to boil bloods and provoke more gifts to the clerics.  Obscene pure-gold domed mosques and gold- eating shrines vied for exclelence with Vatican, the Buddhist temples and Sikh gurdwaras, pretending to represent Islam whose law HATES luxury in every form in every place and even allows a grave to be dug up to remove a gold tooth cover from a dead body in order to give it to the use of the living. Why, why, why these treacheries and abuses? Because some clever and unscrupulous people cannot stop commercialising religion and setting up an as vast business empire on it as they can.  We see tiny examples of such mercenarism even on Islamic websites- while some contribute ideas a lot drop in to advertise books, perfumes, false medicines and even magical artefacts. It is as if talk Islam and there and then market stalls mashroom to convert piety into cash.

 

Lastly and a bit less sadly even we Sunnis have had our share of slight paganisation and commercialising. While the actual and entire meaning of the Messenger of Allah sws IS MORAL AND SPIRITUAL EMULATION which makes his suparnaturalisation a counter-productive attempt, such attempts have never been too far away.  Rather than talking about and expounding on the Prophet's most excellent HUMAN qualities which we need and CAN make our own to any extent Allah may grant we slightly paganise our discourse and talk about things which may or may not be real, things which puts Allah's chosen exemplar for us outside our reach, things which Allah, like with Jesus, DID NOT HEAP ON HIM (because they are based on a misguided sense of glory, a WRONG kind of greatness) remaining deaf to the Prophet's command who said "Do not exaggerate me like the Christians exaggerated Jesus. When asked about me say "He was Allah's servant and messenger".

 

We fail to undertand that simply being Allah's messenger a man EXHAUSTS ALL THE GREATNESS attainable by man. Because we cannot appreciate the glory of messengership pure and simple we, like nice sea shells collecting children try to discover many infantile as well as at times grossly dubious or spurious pseudo-glories on the Prophet sws like existing before all time or being the substance from which all creation is made of. To a mature mind nothing can be more insulting and tormenting than such bombastic and totally misguided afterthoughts which, while supposedly trying to elevate the Prophet sws degrades Allah to a helpless lover of him, among other things. A lover is always at the mercy of his beloved; Alalh's love for a servant of His simply translates to the love of His servant for Allah which is enough gift. Allah has no weakness towards anybody. He is the Only Praiseworthy (Hamid) and the Only Rich (Ghani). Some of such praises He can kindly confer on some of His  servants without obligation or guaranetees. AND THE PROPHET SWS IS VERY VERY HAPPY for BEING LIMITED LIKE THIS and very angry for being inflated with ignorant zeal.  Allah cannot be so desperate to rule out creating anything except to satisfy a human being or to forgive His servants only on the condition that that human being consents. YES, intercession does exist, but it it not at the disposal of anybody but Allah's, it is on Allah's terms and not on he terms of a servant permitted for it.

 

I am afraid all such misguided zeal to re-write the Qur'an or pick and choose from any alleged hadiths in order to dehumanise and pseudo-spiritualise and pseudo-glamourise the Prophet sws is another example of falling into the same trap or quagmire as Buddhists or Christians did. The old bad habit raises its head from every loophole using every opportunity and in scope from such relatively mild abuses among we Sunnis raise to far more serious abuses among the mainstream Shia. more among the coarse (ghalat) like the Ismailis and the Druze and shoots entirely outside Islam with the likes of Ahmadis and the Bahais. May Allah enlighten and moderate us so that we know what is really great in our beloved master Muhammad Rasulullah sws and sensibly learn from him and emulate him in ways which bring us PRACTICALLY as well as real spiritually to him and through him to Allah. Amen

 

 

Web design by Surge Solutions