On 3rd March 1924 (corresponding to 28th Rajab 1342), the Islamic Khilafah in Istanbul was abolished, the Khaleefah was banished into exile, and so ended the physical authority of Allah (Subhanahu wa ta’aala) on the earth, which began when our Beloved Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) established the Islamic state in Medinah.
The great Egyptian Poet, Shawki, wrote regarding this;
You were escorted to your burial in horror, with the tears of a laughing (person),
Minarets and minbars shouted for you,
Kingdoms and provinces cried on you,
India is bewildered and Egypt is sad,
And she cries on you with flowing tears.
Ash-Sham, Iraq and Persia ask,
Is there anyone who wiped the Khilafah from our lands?
All the great and the good attended your funeral,
They sat there in the seats of mourning,
O men! Watch a murdered noble-born (lady),
She was killed without sin or guilt.
I thought I’d say a few words on marriage since it’s everyone’s favorite topic and now that I am finally getting married. Nowadays, for Muslims, marriage is not all about Nikah and Walima rather an exhaustive affair which involves £££, lots of organising and not to mention headaches and stress.. stress over minor things like clothes shervani or suit, shoes or khusay, turban or topi and this being the tetchiest part of it.
My first issue with marriage is the non-segregated weddings which are now becoming a common practice amongst Muslims here. Traditionally and throughout Islamic history weddings celebrations have always been segregated (separate receptions for Men and women) and this mixing and sitting with families is definitely a new phenomenon. It is often argued that segregation is not practical anymore and there is nothing different with sitting in a wedding hall/hotel table and a restaurant downtown except you may know the families around you and there is a stage with bride and groom sat like bunch of show pieces. The proponents of segregation argue that weddings involve celebration which is not appropriate between ghayr mehram men and women. However their conception of celebration may well be influenced by certain weddingly events involving Arab/sub-continent customs which make it a celebration such as men/women dancing which would be highly inappropriate in mixed environment and so on.
There are two types of non-segregated weddings, one which is not controlled at all, loud music, dj, familiess at very close, people getting off their seats bumping into each other and some of these may also involve live dance/music. On the other hand, you have a controlled non-segregated wedding, no music, tables spaced out with families at front and middle leaving single men and women shoved far apart on each end of the hall. Guests turn up, have their food, stop off for a photo with bride and groom, drop the pink envelope and off they go. The controlled non-segregated wedding involves no such element of type of celebration prohibited amongst mixed gathering.
The response of scholars regarding the segregation issue has been divided and non-decisive like their fatwas on almost every new phenomenon. Some salafis have condemned non-segregated weddings others have laid down conditions, similarly with Madhabis, sunnipath.com has various fatwas on this issue as well as askimam.com.
I have only attended segregated weddings for far too long and have no issues though my wiser other half complained:
This is my major problem with segregated weddings – how can you not want your father, brother and uncles to be there? They are as much as part of your family as your mother, sister and aunts. Especially not having your father, who raised you, provided for you and gave you everything be at the wedding? And how can your spouse not be there with you either? Its a marriage which involves two people, so they should jointly be involved in the days celebrations side by side. For me tbh I prefer my father’s company above anyone elses and it just upsets me thinking about not being able to see him sitting with my mum the rest of the family and us not being able to spend time in their and your immediate families company as a couple, together in one place.
I would still like to go for a segregated wedding.
The Political Rules in Assessing the Ruler and the Ruled by
Title: al-Siyasah al-Shar’iyah fi Islah ar-Ra’i war-Ra’iyah Author: Shaykhul Islam Ibn Taymiyah Publisher: Dar-al-Islam Review: **** / *****
as-Siyasah ash-Shari’ah fi Islah ar-Ra’i war-Ra’iyah (The Political Rules in Assessing the Ruler and the Ruled by) is the second most important and exclusive work on political thoughts after his compilaton ‘Minhaj al-Sunnah al-Nabawiya’. It primarily covers Islamic rules of administration as well as very important ideas on political theory.
Althought read a while ago, one of the most profound concept I remember from this work is the detailed explaintion and deep political significance of the word Amanah as used in the Qur’an. In his view, amanah is a trust placed in the ruler through the act of swearing allegiance (bayaah) by the subject to him. And trust means doing justice and procuring to the citizens their proper rights. Obedience to the ruler is only valid when the ruler acts in a way which promotes the most effeicent elevation of the community spritually and politically. He describes Amanah as the total effort of the effect that the whole of religion becomes for Allah ta’ala alone. And he makes a link between Amanah and ordering the good and forbidding the evil, which i found to be the crux of his scholarly insight.
Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, states in the first sentence of the last chapter of the book entitled “The Obligation of the Adherence to the Leadership (of the Ummah)”: “It is known that the Office of Wilayatul Amri An-Naas (one in charge of the entire Muslim Ummah, i.e. the Khalifah) is of the greatest of obligations of the Deen (Islam). Albeit, there is no establishment of the Deen, except by it.” He continues, saying: “This is the opinion of the scholars, such as Al Fadl ibn ‘Iyad, Ahmad ibn Hanbal, and others.”
So even though the Muslim Ummah had suffered a great defeat to the Tartars, Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, realised the importance of living in a society where all the rules which Muhammad (saw) brought were implemented. Imam Ibn Taymiyyah worked for the re-establishment of the Islamic State under the authority of the Khalifah. In the words of Imam Ibn Taymiyyah himself, “The Deen cannot be established except by it”.
Imam Ibn Taymiyyah never treated the Aqeedah as if it was a set of philosophical ideas, and ever thought that the five pillars were of utmost priority at the expense of the rest of the Islamic rules. Rather, he understood that the Aqeedah was the engine that runs the Islamic State, and he realised that all of the rules that Prophet Muhammad (saw) brought had to be implemented simultaneously without discrimination, and he realised that the way of establishing the Deen was by the office of the Sultan. Nowadays, it is quite unfortunate to find people who claim to follow the example of great Scholars like Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, and Ahmad ibn Hanbal, claiming that it is allowed to accept the rule of Kufr, and that first priority should be given to purifying the Aqeedah, and learning the five pillars, and that the Islamic State and the Shariyah will be a natural by-product. When we look at the true followers of the Salaf, like Imam Ibn Taymiyyah, we find them working for the establishment of Islamic State where the Islamic Aqeedah serves as its basis, in which all the rules of Islam will be implemented, and where the Muslim Ummah, and all of mankind, will be able to live in a harmonious, societal balance.
It is an essential read for english readers who wish to gain in-depth understanding of the relationship between a ruler and ruled by in an ideal Islamic polity and furthermore correct reformation of society.
Riz asks Sheikh Hamza Yusuf about his growing role as bridge-builder between Islam and the west and the controversy that comes with it.
I think Sheikh Hamza Yusuf is quiet a misunderstood character amongst Muslims who know him. Aside from our Salafee brothers who have issues with everyone, there seem to be those who revere him to those who consider him a sell-out particularly since 9/11.
I agree with most of what he has said in this interview, but there are a few things which I don’t agree with, such as him quoting the hadith “rulers are as you are..” in response to the question about Muslim rulers and the ayah “Allah does not change situation of a people until they change what is within themselves..” were both used irresponsibly and out of context. Furthermore, towards the end he said there needs to be stillness in the ummah and co-operation between all people rather than revolution.
Firstly, the hadith: ‘As you are, rulers will be appointed over you’ is considered Da’eef according to Imam as-Sayooti. Imaam al-Manawi said in the Fayd al-Qadeer the Sharh of al-Jami al-Kabeer volume 5: he mentioned what Imaam as-Sakhaawi had said about the weakness of the hadith then he commented on the hadith that its meaning is:
‘If you had Taqwah of Allah and feared His punishment then rulers will be appointed over you who will fear Him and vice versa.’
So can we have Taqwa of Allah and fear His punishment if we do not enjoin the good and forbid the evil? Can there be a better enjoining of the good and forbidding of the evil then ordering the ruler to do good and forbidding him from the evil and changing him if he suspends the law of Allah? How can someone cite this hadith as an evidence despite knowing that the work to resume the Islamic way of life, enjoining the good and forbidding the evil, restraining the hand of the tyrants, rejecting them and changing them because they have suspended the Sharee’ah of Allah; all of these have many detailed evidences. And they are the incontrovertible proof against such people.
As for Allah azz wa Jal’s saying: “Verily never will Allah change the condition of a people until they change it themselves (with their own souls).” Imaam al-Qurtubi, in his Tafseer entitled ‘Jami’u li Akhmaa il-Qur’an’ is careful, as if knew that a twisted meaning would be placed upon this Ayah:
“Allah informed in this Ayah that he does not change what is in a Qawm until change takes place from them, whether it be from them, or from their supervisor (of their affairs – leaders), or from he who is (appointed) from them… So the meaning of this Ayah is not that it was only revealed for individual punishment and to address nothing but progress from a sin. Instead, it has been revealed for the correction of others sins too. As he said (in the Hadeeth), “…It was asked, ‘will we be destroyed whilst the righteous are amongst us?’ He (saw) said, ‘Yes, if the corruption increases (beyond bounds) [Saheeh al-Bukhari and Muslim, on the authority of Zaynab bint Jahsh about the Ya’jooj]”
Without under-emphasising the importance of purification of the soul (Tazkiyyat un-nafs) it is important to understand that Islam obliges us to forbid the Munkar. We need to change ourselves and continuously work to improve and strengthen our nafs but this does not mean we neglect what Allah azz wa jal has ordained upon us, such as enjoin good and forbidding evil and working to create a change… to remove oppression replacing it with the pure laws of Allah ta’ala. These are not times for stillness, these are times to engage in the political struggle for the dominance of Islam according to the method of Prophet (saw).
A salafi friend once pointed out I was a Mu’tazila, I paid no attention and thought he was just being his salafi self, although I eventually realised I actually did fall into Mu’tazila belief for a total period of two weeks. It’s uncool being Mu’tazila, let alone Salafis even Sufis who are all about unity of religions do not approve of Mu’tazila doctrine. Since then, what I call intellectual redress I am undecided if I should go for the Ash’ari or the Maturidi doctrine as for almost two years I’ve not had an adopted Aqeedah!
Although I think I should subscribe to a school of aqeedah preferably one which corresponds with a mainstream view just to be normal, however its been so long without one I don’t see the need anymore. There are many advantages of not adopting a particular school of Aqeedah, for one you don’t see the need to condemn others and secondly you can just be a Muslim. To me being a Muslim means we must have decisive belief in the existence of God who is the creator of all that exist, His books, His Messengers, His angels, the day of judgement, Divine fate and destiny and the Prophet of Islam Mohammed (saw) being the last and final of the Messengers.
Technically following a school of aqeedah means following someone else’s viewpoint or understanding of Islam, which is perfectly acceptable in matters of fiqh since not everyone will specialise in fiqh so there will be a level of dependency on learned people. But why do we need a set of bullet points telling us what our belief in God should entail? It eventually generates weakness in belief as people have not gone through a rational process of deducting certain truths which is replaced with an artificial conviction of following the saved sect, ie ahlasunnah wal jammah. Maybe if everyone followed the conviction of their heart and build upon it without having to memories chunks of text we may see some difference. I think I am happier now than two years ago and I don’t have to engage anymore in endless debates on attributes of God!
There are many events and cricles organised these days addressing adab al-ikhtilaf as some fanciful complex code of conduct neglect of which is heading towards fanaticism and rigidness. It is being used as a show of tolerance, open mindedness, and to further the call towards creating a moderate Muslim – a Muslim who is not only tolerant and open minded but accepting of all views relating to Islam despite their flimsy origins and even non-Islam. Most Muslims are over-whelmed by these lectures organised by well-funded organisations and delivered by renowned scholars imported from Muslim world with extensive chains of Ijazas, robes and turbans using rich classical texts as a source. There is something unique and common about these so called Scholars that they all subscribe to a common theological viewpoint, mainly Sufism. Ironically they are not open to criticism of their own theological viewpoint or willing to accept difference of opinion over it, which in reality makes their message a call to their way and a mere lip service to the concept of respecting difference of opinion. They would never for once consider Ibn Taymiyah’s opinion (who is known as Shaykhul Islam) on innovated Sufi practices or other classical scholars who were strictly opposed to dancing darveshes (Hadrah) calling them ‘Mad Men’ such as Imam Malik and Imam Qurtubi to name but a couple.
What we have in front of us is an attempt to blur the lines between truth and falsehood to create a middle way, a way which suggests there can be many truths as long as the one putting forward is a traditionalist scholar from one of the mainstream Sufi sects and falsehood is not as black and white as some ‘extremists’ may have you believe. First a tolerant mind is created and then injected with a new definition of Truth and falsehood. This leaves a Muslim youth already over-whelmed and mesmerised by false sense of spirituality radiating from these big personalities intellectually dependent with feeling of having gained some higher type of deep knowledge when they have actually learnt nothing Islamically productive.
The message of these individuals and organisations centres on certain buzz words which include tolerance, co-existence, middle-way and so on. Buzz words are great tools which have worked for them but someone needs to highlight the contradictions. Tolerance extends to all other religions and ways of life except fellow Muslims who the Western governments refuse to co-operate or work with, the same for co-existence and the so called middle way is clearly leading to a way other than Islam.
Adab al-ikhtilaaf (ethics of disagreement) is an important Islamic concept which Muslims must understand and observe that level of tolerance required, however only where the difference of opinion actually exists based on a legal Shari’I argument not philosophical European Islam garbage put together by bored civil servant and enforced through British home office fundings and sell-out Sufis.
This has been on my mind for a while so my first entry goes to expose how this particular Islamic concept is being abused to call towards the corrupt sufi doctrine.
My first entry in this blog is dedicated to my current state of mind and body which has almost survived a day without a cigarette craving for it as I type. I have no serious motivation to quit except all that hype of fatal diseases linked to smoking and it being haraam. I think I would find it easier to quit if it is proven to be haraam through a detailed exposition of evidences concerning its prohibition which I have not seen so far.
I think prohibition of smoking is a recent thing, I don’t know why they have done this because smoking has been part of Muslim daily lives for way too long. People smoke a lot in Muslim countries, they even smoke in mosque courtyards and graveyards. I am sure if it was really haraam it would be treated like all other haraam foodstuff but its not. The fatwaas declaring it haraaam are centred around the argument that it’s harmful to ones health but than again so are many other things which the same people eat/drink more than occasionally in one day! To me, that’s not a very good argument because it completely rests on scientific theories concerning its harm.
So is it really haraam or some fatwas have been passed almost in reaction to the whole western anti-smoking campaigns/laws/rules?
“But he cried through the darkness (saying): La ilaha illa Anta [none has the right to be worshipped but You (O, Allah), Glorified (and Exalted) be You above all that (evil) they associate with You]. Truly, I have been of the wrongdoers.” So We answered his call, and delivered him from the distress. And thus We do deliver the believers.” (Al-Anbiyya 21:87-88)
Messenger (salAllahu alaihi wasallam) established the Islamic state in Medinah.
