Sitting with some friends the other night, the discussion of the Mawlid (celebrating the Prophet's birthday) came up and seeing that the brothers were salafis, their aversion to the practice came as no surprise to me. I normally tend to avoid such discussions (as experience has taught me no good comes when ignoramuses discuss such nuanced subjects), but since all of us are close friends with a positive feel for each other, we indulged each other.
While they were convinced in the error of my ways, I was simply looking for them to accept the possibility of a difference of opinion on the matter. But the strength of their convictions would allow no such thing.
It never ceases to bother me to what extremes we are willing to take our convictions. The brothers, with the utmost respect and dignity, expressed how I was so blatantly rejecting the 'truth', that I was so clearly in the wrong, that I was so obviously misguided (on this matter).
And this attitude is obviously not confined to one group.
In fact, the next night I was sitting with a brother (affiliated with the Tablighi Jamaat) who found it necessary to share his strong feelings against the 'deviant' scholars who allow eating meat/chicken in the West. He was stubbornly adamant that they were without a doubt mistaken and wasn't willing to accept any other possibility.
[Quick digression: Why is that Pakistanis are so insistent on this issue of NOT eating the meat/poultry in the West? When we were younger, we would make fun of this stick-up by saying the shahada of every Pakistani has the added portion "and McDonald's is haram". Pakistani dude may drink beer, womanize, cheat on his taxes, but will NEVER, EVER eat non-zabiha meat!]
This bothers me. The convictions expressed by these brothers allow no room for any other possible opinion. They have established an area of 'unquestionable convictions' which doesn't allow for any divergent views. For me to voice a conflicting opinion is tantamount to 'rejecting the truth', their truth. (In their defense, they all acknowledged that there are many issues on which permissible differences can occur – just that the issue at hand wasn't one of them…..hmmmm, who is to decide that?)
This is why I so much like the term 'Arrogance of Certainty' (h/t Muse).
But in reality, am I any better? I too have my personal realm of 'unquestionable convictions', such as Tauheed (belief in Allah), Prophethood of Muhammad (saw), belief in the after-life, and so on. If anyone were to question those convictions with countering opinions, I would be forced to judge them as being misguided and mistaken. Otherwise, what do I stand for?
So am I not equally arrogant in my certainty?
To what extent can we make claims of certainty to our convictions?
WAW
5 days ago
24 comments:
the burden of proof is on those who say celebrating the prophet's (saw) birthday is halal, since it would be counted as a form of worship. We should find ample evidence of this practice by the prophet himself (saw) and/or his companions. If we don't then what? One should then look up the meaning of birthday celebrations and from what culture they come from.
Assalamu Alaikum, brother Naeem.
I love your blog, al-hamdulillah. First time I'm commenting though.
From Bukhari, book 8, number 386 :
Narrated Anas bin Malik : Allah's Apostle said, "Whoever prays like us and faces our Qibla and eats our slaughtered animals (wa akala dhabihatana) is a Muslim and is under Allah's and His Apostle's protection. So do not betray Allah by betraying those who are in His protection."
So eating halal in this hadith is shown to be so important, as to be part of one's identity as a Muslim.
Of course, arrogance is never good. Those who eat halal should never look down upon those who don't, and this is quite a struggle, but necessary. But it is quite possible to be humble, and yet hold steadfast on one's own convictions (such as tawheed you mentioned, etc), and yet completely disagree that the "other side" (eg Christians) even have a case (for the Trinity, etc). I don't see the two as mutually exclusive.
You also mentioned differences of opinions on these fiqh issues, and I think it seems safest to rely on the rulings of scholars about 150 years ago, and before. If something was agreed upon by the scholars of the past, it seems best to rely on that ruling, rather than scholars that arose after the post-colonial trauma (and reform) of the Muslim world. But on issues where even one major Alim of the past disagreed, we should use that as an excuse and rukhsa to eagerly give our brothers the benefit of the doubt. A surprising number of issues fall into this category, such as the Mawlid I guess. But on an issue like wearing hijab, where is this complete consensus on the matter, there isn't really any legitimate difference of opinion.
anonymous : I've heard that on the contrary, the burden of proof for judging something impermissible is on those who say it isn't (ie the default for the jurist, is that matters are permissible; the default for the laity is that we should refrain and find out, before indulging in it). The Prophet's (peace be upon him) leaving something, isn't a proof that it is haram. Many (perhaps even a majority of) major scholars have said the Mawlid is fine (eg Ibn Kathir, Suyuti, Nawawi, Ibn Hajar etc). This seems to be a fiqh question, and many of us are not qualified to answer it, but we can at least agree that many "heavy weights" of the past permitted it, so perhaps we can agree to disagree.
Saif.
Bismillah.
As-salamu alaykum all!
I would appreciate if our "anonymous" #1 here could read the following two articles with honesty, carefulness, and sincerity and then see if he can still say what he has said here after that:
1.) http://www.lamppostproductions.org/files/articles/Sunna&Bida.pdf
2.) http://masud.co.uk/ISLAM/nuh/bida.htm
That first article's link is cut off for some reason?!
Here it is again:
http://www.lamppostproductions.org/files/articles/Sunna&Bida.pdf
Or just look for "The Absolute Truth About Sunna & Bid'a" at the bottom of this page:
http://www.lamppostproductions.org/node/3
The link to the Sunnah & Bida pdf posted above is here, in case the link above is not visible.
I haven't read it yet, just getting the link straight...Blogspot's commenting is the sucks! :-(
AA-
Not trying to start a discussion on Sunnah and Bida - that wasn't my intention, so let's please not go there....too many forums, sites, and blogs have all the points presented, so why even go there, eh?
AA- Saif,
Thank you for you comments...much appreciated.
"But it is quite possible to be humble, and yet hold steadfast on one's own convictions"
Where is the humility in telling another person that their convictions are wrong and misguided, especially when there is an established space for legitimate differences?
But that leads to my quandary - where is that space for differences? who determines that space?
"so perhaps we can agree to disagree."
I guess that is the least objectionable stance to adopt. :-)
"[Quick digression: Why is that Pakistanis are so insistent on this issue of NOT eating the meat/poultry in the West? When we were younger, we would make fun of this stick-up by saying the shahada of every Pakistani has the added portion "and McDonald's is haram". Pakistani dude may drink beer, womanize, cheat on his taxes, but will NEVER, EVER eat non-zabiha meat!]"
totally.. and on tht note another thing: when it comes to viewing of the hardopy pix the old way.. men are like never allowed to look at the photos of women but there are no problem when women look at the men's pix..
its just is.. :@
\
brnaeem u may suggest using http://is.gd/ to shorten the links..
if i read the post correctly and i hope i did because i skimmed through it,your stance basically is the possibility of incongruities being present in various issues which would further necessitate this notion onto other issues eg.aqeeda issues,when to start fast(according to some jurists like al-amash, opined one should cease to eat by dawn)3 talaqs are 1 etc. khalifa umer said "refrain from the rarities that jurists adopt".many jurists said things or adopted opinions that were contrary to mainstream beliefs and posed a problem to the scholars of that time.take for instance ibn hazm,a very great scholar but held opinions that were very rare and went against the malikis living there.he allowed music&singing and had a slave girl that did exactly that to rub it in.i mean take a look at ibn taymiyya and his student, both were great jurists in the science of fiqh and hadith, were absolutely brilliant in all branches of knowledge whatever it may have been, but once again they said things or adopted certain opinions that went away from the mainstream.this discussion is quite a long one,for further elaboration one can read sheikh awwama's book "atharul hadith fi ikhtilafil ulema".he is a scholar of syrian descent residing in madina and after reading the book many things will be clarified hopefully to those that are seeking clarification.
to the second anonymous...
in matters of religion, the burden of proof is on the one who introduces the matter.
in matters of dunya, the burden of proof is on the one who says such and such is prohibted, because by defualt, in matters of dunya everything is allowed till proven otherwise. But in worship, it is exactly the opposite.
I cannot come and say to all my freinds that listen after an hour after isha, every thursday night we're going to gather and pray 4 rakah sunnah together. Because if I'm introducing something consistent like this, I need to have proof for it.
See what happens is that people will institute these new things and then there is a division about them. Like for instance, quran khani. Let's say I personally feel uncomfortable with attending quran khanis. But the problem is that the people who attend are all going to think 'oh she's so bad. look she didn't attend'. but guess what, it wasn't make obligatory by Allah! So basicaly, now im being judged for NOT doing something that Allah nor His messenger instituted.
funny eh.
that's sort of how the mawlid is too. What if I didn't do it? People get all ho-hum about it. But is it something instituted by the quran/sunnah. Am I sinful for not taking part in it? NOPE. and that's one of the problems w/ these new things
Salaam Naeem,
Brother, I really like this post. I was wary of saying what I think about the topic because I am beginning to get very tired of “arrogantly certain” people attacking each other’s religiosity and in the past month I have seen three friends/bloggers turn away from Islam because they were constantly told to behave in a certain manner. However, I would still like to add something here:
Belief has very little to do with intellect although Muslims have often been asked to use their faculties to notice the existence of God. Yet, there are some otherwise great minds who either disbelief in God or believe in the multiplicity of gods. I think it is most unwise to think that anyone who does not believe in what we believe is utterly stupid and misguided. While there are the chances that someone may not know much about our belief or may not know the truth about our religion, let us remember that what we believe in is after all – belief. And in today’s globalised world the chances that someone does not know about Islam are very slim. If they continue to ‘believe’ in another religion then their choices may well be conscious and educated.
Having said that obviously I believe in God too abut I can be certain about His existence without being arrogant. How do I do that? By ensuring that I also believe that there is no compulsion in religion and my truth is not necessarily going to be someone else’s truth.
I should write a post on this. Sorry about hogging your comment space.
Salam.
If there is a legitimate difference of opinion on the issue, we should absolutely mind our own business and leave them be. As I said, we should eagerly look for a rukhsa for our brother ("70 excuses").
Who decides? Maybe scholars from the past, or whoever you find trustworthy. Since commanding the right, and forbidding the wrong is so important (unless doing it worsens the situation, in which case it is no longer an obligation), we should just do our best to explain our understanding to the person (politely, and in private!) just once, and then leave it at that. Tempting as it may be to argue, arguing will just harden our hearts.
The humility is in our intention; are we merely lording it over them, or are we sincerely advising them?
Saif.
Absolutely there is no compulsion in religion. But part of our belief is to DISBELIEVE in other 'Gods'. So if you meet someone who is a Non-Muslim, sure he or she has a right to their belief, but we also have to belief that their belief is incorrect. Otherwise, we'd be illogical in our own shahadah.
However, I think the thing is that we're confusing thinking that one is right w/ perhaps ACTING in a certain way. No one is obligated to push truth down someone's truth.
Our job is to advise and give the message. If someone is not interested, we don't need to be pushy, rude or self righteous or come off as arrogant. At that point, you just stop because that's all God asked of you.
And I think that's a pretty humbling thing. To know that you cannot control what other people belief, that ultimately it is in Allah's hands, and really we have no place in making someone believes something we believe to be absolute truth.
Anon (the one who skimmed my post),
Thank you for the comment and the book reference by Sh. Awwama – I will definitely be looking for that one.
"but once again they said things or adopted certain opinions that went away from the mainstream."
I don't like the 'stick to the mainstream' argument. Who defines the mainstream?
AA- Suroor,
"I can be certain about His existence without being arrogant. How do I do that? By ensuring that I also believe that there is no compulsion in religion and my truth is not necessarily going to be someone else’s truth."
So I can behold to my convictions while at the same time believe that you are wrong in yours? And how exactly is that being respectful?
Forget about forcing my truth on to you – I'm simply talking about the condescending attitude, that smugness that inevitably comes with believing that another person's core beliefs are faulty.
Although I wasn't offended by my friends' negative stance towards my convictions, I must admit that I found it a tad bit demeaning. I wouldn't care for a stranger to think that way towards me, but when close associates believe deep down that you have misguided beliefs, how does one reconcile that (besides simply not associating with them)?
This eventually leads to the question about our attitude towards close non-Muslim friends. How can I maintain a close, intimate relationship with them while believing that they are misguided and headed towards eternal damnation? Isn't that (their damnation) the ultimate result of 'arrogance of certainty'? Yet, for me to think otherwise, is to question *my* convictions…
I guess I'm getting hung up on the humanity of holding 'unquestionable convictions' and how interpersonal dynamics and relations are (more often negatively) affected by these convictions.
I definitely reject relativism or perennialism or any other ism that suggests plurality in truth – I am convinced that my foundational beliefs are the absolute truth. But it just bothers me to no end that 'unquestionable convictions' are the root for so much tension and confrontation.
[one long comment deserves another :-) ]
AA Saif,
"The humility is in our intention; are we merely lording it over them, or are we sincerely advising them?"
The mere act of 'advising' them implies that you are correct and they are not. Is that not condescending?
Anon,
"So if you meet someone who is a Non-Muslim, sure he or she has a right to their belief, but we also have to belief that their belief is incorrect."
What if we meet a Muslim who doesn't share our beliefs? Must we believe that their beliefs are incorrect?
You may counter "Our job is to advise and give the message. If someone is not interested, we don't need to be pushy, rude or self righteous or come off as arrogant."
But haven't you alienated them when you positioned yourself as the holder of the correct beliefs and questioned the validity/authenticity of theirs?
Are we obliged to educate/correct others who have varying convictions (Muslim or otherwise)?
Is it wrong for me NOT to educate/correct those with the convictions that dissent from mine?
Am I being insincere to my convictions by not struggling to convince others of the correctness of mine?
I guess what I'm getting at is 'live and let live' – is that really the best stance to live by?
"The mere act of 'advising' them implies that you are correct and they are not. Is that not condescending?"
It may be. Condescension is a human imperfection, and our Prophet (peace be upon him) was perfect, therefore, we can conclude he did not possess this attribute. And yet, he corrected numerous people, so there must be a way to advise people (ad-deenu naseeha) without sinning (being condescending).
I don't want to sound condescending, so I'll stop. :)
Saif.
the mainstream is defined by the jurists within the mazhab or more precisely the mutaakireen.now in matters of aqeeda it is clearly known that ibn taymiyya and ibn qayyim were both proponents of a certain creedal matter which will go unnamed (i dont want to get into it)while other jurists denounced that opinion of theirs most vehemently.we know ibn taymiyya and ibn qayyim both were of the opinion 3 talaqs is 1 but yet the latter day hanbali scholars went against it.(for references check ibn qudamas mughni)there are numerous masail like these even in the hanafi,shafi and maliki school and all of them have a mufta bihi system(preferred opinion to follow)the ahnaf in india,pakistan,syria all look to ibn abideen when it came to giving religeous edicts. i mean some hanafi scholars adopted the opinion that if the time for isha did not come isha salat will not be offered,the opinion is not taken, and the majority say isha will be prayed.the malikis have a mufta bihi system as well, they have hashiya dasuki and dardeer.the shafis have the same thing, nawawi's rawda and majmoo.this is why if we start adopting rare opinions even within the mazhab, then where does it end?ultimately we'll start to follow whatever suits us and strikes our fancies.i say this because i fall into this category of picking and choosing hopefully by writing this i hope to purge myself from this bad habit.ameen.
Salaam
I just wanted to give the example of when the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) sent some of his Companions to the tribe of Banu Quraydhah, and he told them not to pray 'Asr until they reached the place. But the time for 'Asr was almost over and they hadn't made it yet, so some of the Companions decided to pray before they got there, so they wouldn't miss the time. And some other Companions took the opposite opinion, and prayed after they got there.
The first group took the opinion that the Prophet (SAW) only meant to rush. The second group thought he literally meant to not pray until they reached Banu Quraydhah, because that's what he said.
But when they asked the Prophet (SAW) which was right, he didn't correct either opinion.
So a lot of time scholars will disagree, but we should remember that it doesn't necessarily make them wrong. (In the bounds of Islam of course.)
:-)
Sidi Naeem,
I'd suggest you read "On the Boundaries of Theological Tolerance" by Imam Ghazzali with the commentary by Dr. Sherman Jackson. It addresses this issue from an aqeedah perspective, but also sheds light on some of the issues mentioned in your post.
Assalamu Alaikum
Funny/Sad thing is, that I've found this amongst some of the people I thought least likely to have it. Sometimes also over the most mundane/silly/dunya things.
I recall on shaykh once saying that the thing he found most difficult for certain people let go of, was their own ideas. If you really think about it, "our own ideas" is probably the most important thing we need to detach from. Then perhaps we can percieve things "as they are"...as Allah makes them...
wa-Allahu a'lam
wassalam
the thing is you are misrepresenting the truth by saying "who found it necessary to share his strong feelings" this is completely against the principles of TJ effort (and mine too) you never point fingures nor start issues about masaail, if i am questioned about my practice i will tell you my belief and if somone wants to question or argue it i will to the best extent but i wont come to you and tell u what you are eating or doing is haraam, now that is DISPREPECT,,, you cant twist situations around to justify your offence to something just cause u cant agree on others prespective...
Post a Comment