The Problem is not Islam

There is a misperception in the west that Islam promotes terror, women repression and backward thinking. I don’t blame westerners for viewing Islam the way Muslims portrayed it; I blame Muslims for misbehaving in the name of Islam. There has never been a greater enemy to Islam than Muslims themselves; Muslims misrepresented Islam and made it look like that.

I believe that one of the lessons that a lot of people missed, is that religion evolves. Two examples to point out; first, Muslims believe in all prophets from Abraham to Mohammed - including Moses and Jesus - and the revelations given to them by the one God (Allah). We know that it’s all about good and evil, and we also know that the rules and guidelines changed – or to be more specific, increased - from one prophet to the next depending on the circumstances, but why? Since God knows everything, the rules and guidelines could have been given more or less the same to all of them! But the rules change with time and depending on the circumstances; i.e. they evolve.

Second example is alcohol. God banned alcohol in stages; first, Muslims were not allowed to pray while drunk; but then after that rule was broken, God forbidden alcohol. It could have been easily banned in the first revelation; but it had to evolve. These are clear indications that Islam - or any religion for that matter – should evolve, as long as it doesn’t offend God (Allah).

It’s all about interpretation! The rules and guidelines can be interpreted differently, as we have different sectors within Islam that have different interpretations, depending on the way it’s been look at and who looked at it. Therefore, these rules and guidelines should also be interpreted differently depending on the time and place.

There are three factors that contributed to Islam’s bad image:

1. Tribal culture

The tribal culture is a serious problem; albeit, many Arabs have been urbanized, their culture is derived from the tribal culture, especially when it comes to women and honour. Women were repressed before Islam; but many were also repressed after Islam! The reason is not Islam, it is the tribal traditions!Islam advocated equality between human beings regardless of race and gender. But because the gender issue can be argumentative, I will say - for argument sake - that Islam differentiated between men and women; but even then, Islam undoubtedly gave women more rights than what women had anywhere else at that time - 1400 year ago - which should’ve been embraced and progressed not regressed; only tribal mentality didn’t give up all traditions that easily. Female infanticide was one of the tribal traditions that Islam prohibited!

Honour killing is not an Islamic practice, it’s a tribal tradition to preserve the honour of the tribe/family; yet many justify this act as an Islamic law! Islam does not distinguish between men and women when it comes to punishment, whether it’s for unlawful sex or any other reason. But to justify honour killing as an Islamic law, all you need to do is to look at the rules and guidelines with a tribal mentality.Therefore, it is important to differentiate between Islamic culture and the Middle East culture. For example, Islam prohibit sex before marriage for both men and women; whereas the ME culture only prohibit women! Non-Muslims in the ME are part of ME culture which is influenced by tribal culture; therefore, they consider honour - and other values - same way their Muslim neighbours consider it.

2. Fundamentalists

If you accept that Islam can be interpreted differently depending on how you look at it; then you will accept that fundamentalists can justify what they advocate! To be honest, I find it hard to understand how they justify killing innocents in the name of Islam!The problem of many fundamentalists is that they are retrogressive; now that makes all the blinded followers retrogressive too. They either look back at the Caliphate's era or the Prophet’s era, and they dream of making today look like centuries ago! Therefore, their actions and interpretations are not of today, but of centuries ago. For example, Wahhabists want to make today’s world look like the Prophet’s era, they want to make it look like 1400 years ago and they don’t want to move on!

There is no need for me to talk about the roots and reasons for terrorism as it is irrelevant to this subject; however, what is relevant is the damage caused by terrorism. Terrorism damaged Islam and Muslims more than anything else; the impact of 9/11 on the Muslim community around the world was gigantic; Muslims became target of racism and hatred; Westerners looked at them differently after that day; Islam became a feared religion, a religion that export terrorism and oppress women! And I don’t blame westerners because they love their freedom and democracy and want to protect it, I blame the fundamentalists and their followers who don’t want to evolve!

3. Leaders of Muslim countries

Most of the leaders don’t care about Islam more than they care about their own people! However, what they care about is the chair and for that they need to justify their existence, the emergency laws, the oppression, etc; and what can do the job better than pro-Arabism, anti-Imperialism and anti-Zionism!Pro-Arabism, anti-Imperialism and anti-Zionism, that sounds like the Islamic fundamentalists agenda! Exactly! They have the same agenda and for their survival, they have to encourage the retrogressive fundamentalists! Could that backfire?Furthermore, they persecute, oppress, torture and unjustly kill their own people; women - and human - rights are appalling; justice is merely a tool used to protect themselves and Islam is the excuse!

I think history repeats itself; I always compare the Arab Muslim world today with the European Christian world few centuries back, i.e. in the Middle Ages. The Church was powerful then, and later were in a power struggle with the state; but what happened when the church was powerful? Were there any human - and women - rights? How about anti-Semitism? What about justice? Sort of similar to what we have now in the Muslim world! We are just few centuries behind! But it looks like we are catching up.

Islam is being abused by Muslims and that’s why it has a bad image. Justice for Muslims and Islam would be served best if we get rid off tyranny, fundamentalism and tribal mentality and replace them with secularism, freedom and democracy.

Ahmad Wednesday, March 30, 2005
http://iraqiexpat.blogspot.com/

Understanding Madhhabs: A Beginner's Guide and FAQ

By Umm Nabeel
(article from: modernmuslima.com)

The issue of the schools of Islamic law, called madhhabs or mathhabs, is often a subject of great confusion for new Muslims when it doesn't have to be. Some contemporary Islamic movements have tried to make the issue into a confusing one causing division between Muslims. However, it is actually a very simple issue. Islam has four such juristic schools, each one named for its founder: Hanafi (pronounced hana-fee) named for Imam Abu Hanifa, Shafi'i, (pronounced shaa-f'ee) named for Imam Shafi'i, Maliki (pronounced maa-likee), named for Imam Malik, and Hanbali (pronounced han-balee), named for Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal.

What is a Madhhab?

A madhhab is, first and foremost, a precise methodology which scholars use to derive Islamic rulings. Each madhhab differs slightly in its methodology, and this causes them to have slightly different rulings in some cases, however the differences are usually on minor and secondary points. All four agree on the basic belief system of Islam, and on the majority of their rulings, and they do not constitute separate sects, denominations, or groups within Islam. They also agree on the basic beginnings of their methodology: that the primary sources of Islamic rulings are the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet, peace be upon him. Their differences come over more minute and difficult issues, many of which are not possible to resolve. For example: how to reconcile apparent contradictions between two texts, when there is more than one acceptable interpretation of an Arabic word, or when there is an issue (especially contemporary issues) which no text in the Qur'an and Sunnah explicitly addresses. In some cases, scholars within a particular madhhab can have different opinions as well.

Many people, however, conceptualize madhhabs as just collections of rulings, mainly because people in search of an answer to a particular question of Islamic law such as whether something is halal (permissible) or haram (forbidden) will consult the rulings of the particular madhhab they follow. Some incorrectly believe they are a merely collection of the "opinions" of the Imam for whom it was named. On the contrary, a madhhab is a collection of rulings based on the Qur'an and Sunnah, using the sophisticated methodologies for deducing these rulings that were developed by the Four Imams. So when a person looks for a ruling "of a particular madhhab," he is actually looking for the rulings that have been deduced by scholars who are applying the methodology of that madhhab.

These rulings were not just compiled over a short period of time. The methodologies and the rulings have been reviewed and refined by the scholars over hundreds of years, up to and including the present day.

Do I have to follow a madhhab?

Unfortunately for many new Muslims, finding information about the different madhhabs can be extremely difficult. This is due primarily to the fact that in many Muslim communities people follow a wide variety of different schools or none at all, as well as to the fact that literature on Islamic law and rulings in English is almost non-existent. If you are unable to find information that can help you choose and follow a madhhab, don't worry-whether or not you follow a madhhab is not an issue that determines whether or not you are a Muslim or even if you are a good Muslim. In fact, the vast majority of American Muslims find this difficult and many times practice Islam based on what they can learn from the hodgepodge of sources they have available to them: books, lectures, the Imam of the local mosque, and Muslim friends.

There are various opinions on this issue but the vast majority of our respected scholars do say that it is preferable or even required to pick one madhhab and follow it for one simple reason: personal consistency. It is better and more consistent (and common sense) for a person to stick to rulings that are all based on the same methodology. This also prevents you from following your hawaa' (desires) and allowing yourself to "shop around" for the opinion that most suits you rather than just taking an opinion based on sound scholarship.

However, if you have a genuine need, and something of your chosen madhhab is going to cause you hardship, then you are permitted to take a dispensation from another madhab. It is also true that there are sometimes different opinions on things within the same madhhab and going outside of your chosen school isn't necessary. Keep in mind, however, that going outside one's madhhab technically requires consultation with a shaykh who will verify your need to do so and instruct you in the best and most careful way to take a different opinion, again to help you stay consistent. However, because most Muslims in the West do not have access to a Shaykh who can help them, it is best to stay with one madhhab if at all possible and to seek outside opinions with great caution in extraneous situations.

How do I choose?

Choosing one madhhab over another does not mean that you believe that one is more correct and the others less correct. In fact, the consensus (ijma'ah) of all of the scholars of the Ummah is that all four are equally correct and valid. There is no one madhhab or one opinion that is "closer to the Sunnah". Choosing which madhhab to follow is not a life-or-death decision and you can always change. If you have access to advanced information, you can study in detail and pick the one that is most appealing to you in terms of its methodology, but it is easier to choose the one that has rulings that are easiest or most appropriate for you and your situation. For example, some people believe that scholars of the Hanafi madhhab have spent more time constructing rulings appropriate for people who live in non-Muslim countries. Others believe the Shafi'i madhhab to be somewhat more strict in some issues, and therefore more "careful".

You can also pick based on yours or your spouse's family/country situation. It is much easier to have your whole family following the same madhhab because this means your family will all do things exactly the same way, and if there is a religious disagreement between you, you will agree on which sources to consult for your answer. Likewise, it is easier to be the same madhhab as the majority of people in your or your spouse's home country. It is also worth considering if you ever plan to study or live in a particular Muslim country to find out which madhhabs are most prevalent there.

What About People Who Follow Other Madhhabs?

There was a time in Islamic history when people treated different madhhabs as different sects of Islam, making prayer behind a person of another madhhab or marriage to a person of another madhhab unlawful. This was due to ignorance of the correct way to follow a madhhab and the correct way to regard people who follow a madhhab other than one's own. Even today in many places, you may encounter a person in a mosque who will try to tell you that the way you are praying is wrong. As mentioned before, there is consensus of the scholars of Sunni Islam for hundreds of years that all four madhhabs are equally correct and valid. This means that as long as you are following a valid opinion, you need not worry that what you are doing or what somebody else is doing is wrong.

This also means that in many cases, there is more than one right way to do something, such as how to put your hands while your pray, and that it is okay to pray behind an imam who makes his wudu in a slightly different way. Such differences usually arise because the Prophet himself (peace be upon him) usually did things in several different ways and these minor differences do not affect the validity of a person's wudu or prayer.

One classic example: In the Maliki madhhab, people move their finger constantly when they recite tashahhud. But in the Shafi'i madhhab they do not move their finger, and in addition, more than two movements is considered to invalidate the prayer. This does NOT mean that the prayer of a person who follows the Maliki madhhab and who moves his finger during his prayer is invalid in the eyes of a person who follows the Shafi'I madhhab. One does not apply his or her own madhhab to other people. Instead, each person's prayer is valid according to the methodology they themselves follow, as long as each person is following a methodology that is recognized as valid by the scholars of our Ummah.

Some Muslims Told Me I Shouldn't Follow a Madhhab Because it's "Blind Following". What Does This Mean?

Recently, some Muslims have taken the opinion that following a madhhab is "blind following" because one follows the rulings of the madhhab without knowing what the reasons for the rulings are in the Qur'an and Sunnah. However, the vast majority of Muslims don't possess the level of technical knowledge required to make rulings. Many of us may not even have the ability to access or understand the often complex reasons behind the rulings. Thus, this taqleed or "following" is necessary, in fact required, for the vast majority of Muslims because we simply can't all be scholars. Some groups call this "blind following" and make it sound like a bad thing, but the fact is that all Muslims of any madhhab or self-professed manhaj who are not themselves scholars are "blind following" or rather, making taqleed of someone. Non-scholars need to take knowledge and rulings, mostly without understanding the reasons behind the rulings, from scholars for reasons that will now be discussed.

What do I do if I Read a Hadeeth That Seems to Contradict A Ruling of My Madhhab?

Keep doing what you are doing-following your madhhab. When you read a Hadeeth, you are reading it in isolation, without knowledge of the other texts that relate to it, what other scholars have said about it, alternate or similar versions of the Hadeeth. If you're a new Muslim, you probably don't even know what the original Arabic text of the Hadeeth itself was and what the various meanings of the key words are in Classical Arabic. Realize that making rulings on issues is a complex process that entails consideration of numerous factors. Although we are all encouraged to read the Qur'an and read sayings of the Prophet (peace be upon him) for inspiration and information, we are not entitled to make rulings for ourselves based on what we read in our limited knowledge, not to mention in translation.

Why Can't I Just Read the Qur'an and Hadeeth and Find Out the Rulings For Myself?

Our scholars set high standards for themselves and for other scholars. A vast amount of knowledge was required of somebody before he or she reached the level of being able to make ijtihaad -- to deduce rulings directly from the Qur'an and Sunnah. This is because making rulings is a complex process not to be attempted by just anyone. Such a vast level of knowledge is almost incomprehensible to many of us today, and there is debate over exactly how many people are still alive who are at such a level. By most accounts the number can be counted on one hand. Qualifications for making rulings directly from the Qur'an and Sunnah are high because of the huge number of variables that have to be known and taken into account by the scholar, some of which were mentioned above.

Some beginning qualifications for a scholar are:

· Start with a detailed, intimate knowledge of the "Classical" Arabic language-fusHaa, NOT Modern Standard Arabic or any of the regional dialects. As all of the texts of the Qur'an and Sunnah are in this language, one must be a scholar of language itself before he or she can become a scholar of Islam. Not only does one need to be able to speak, read, and write the language fluently, one must have a detailed knowledge of the linguistic sciences of the Arabic language. This includes grammar encompassing phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics. One must also have memorized the treatises on these topics written by the great scholars of the language. In addition, one must be intimately familiar with pre-Islamic Arabic poetry, which is a source of word meanings, as is knowledge of the dialects that existed among people at the time of the revelation of the Qur'an. There is also a huge corpus of Arabic dictionaries, many of them highly specialized, compiled by our Islamic scholars.

Most people in the world today do not even meet this primary criterion, let alone the more advanced ones:

· to have memorized the whole Qur'an (all seven readings included)

· to have memorized thousands of ahadeeth with their chains of narration and the books

dedicated to the biographical information of the people in those chains memorization of (not just reading or possessing) hundreds of classical texts of ahadeeth

· history of the life of the Prophet, peace be upon him (called seerah)

· sayings of the Companions of the Prophet

· authentic tafaseer (explanations) of the Qur'an

· the detailed methodological principles of the madhhabs

· Scholars even considered knowledge of the spiritual disciplines to be essential even for a scholar who specialized in technical issues, because the knowledge also has a spiritual dimension.

All of this knowledge is required for a scholar to make a fully informed decision on an issue before he or she can come to a solid conclusion which is as close to the Sunnah of the Prophet, peace be upon him as humanly possible. Although this does not guarantee that mistakes will not be made, the Prophet himself (peace be upon him) mentions in a famous Hadeeth that scholars who make an honest effort and come up with a wrong answer will still be rewarded for their honest effort. Also, the peer-review process of other scholars considering the rulings of their colleagues and catching mistakes is what has refined the madhhabs into the fine-tuned systems they are today.

For all these reasons, it is wrong for a non-scholar to attempt to make rulings for themselves, and such an attempt will inevitably result in a ruling that is further, not closer, to the Sunnah. In that light, we may now understand following a madhhab to be, as Abdul Hakim Murad says, a "sophisticated technique for avoiding innovation (bid'ah)".