25 July 2007

The imminent departure of scholars from this world

A Closer Look at Sufism

Perhaps the biggest challenge in learning Islam correctly today is the scarcity of traditional 'ulema. In this meaning, Bukhari relates the sahih or "rigorously authenticated" hadith that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said,

"Truly, Allah does not remove Sacred Knowledge by taking it out of servants, but rather by taking back the souls of Islamic scholars [in death], until, when He has not left a single scholar, the people take the ignorant as leaders, who are asked for and who give Islamic legal opinion without knowledge, misguided and misguiding" (Bukhari, 1.36: 100. S).
The process described by the hadith is not yet completed, but has certainly begun, and in our times, the lack of traditional scholars—whether in Islamic law, in hadith, in tafsir or "Qur’anic exegesis”—has given rise to an understanding of the religion that is far from scholarly, and sometimes far from the truth.

20 July 2007

A special prayer for the Jews

Religious Bureaucrats Are To Religion As Military Music Is To Music

Last week, Pope Benedict managed to aggravate both Jews and Protestants--the former by encouraging a form of the mass that, on Good Friday, includes a prayer for the conversion of the Jews, and the latter by reaffirming the Roman Catholic Church's traditional stance that it is the One True Church and all other are sub-churches. Quite a week's work!

18 July 2007

Peter, a Rock He Was Not

Peter, a Rock He Was Not

Roman Catholics believe that one bishop, the pope, has authority over all others because he is the linear spiritual successor to Peter, the first bishop of Rome. The scriptural basis for this, according to the Catholic Church, is Matthew 16, where Jesus declares to Peter that he is "the Rock" and upon that rock Jesus would build his church.

I certainly mean no offense to the Roman Catholic Church or to our Catholic sisters and brothers. But I respectfully disagree with this interpretation.

11 July 2007

Mystical Dimensions of Islam- Annemarie Schimmel

Some call Annemarie Schimmel's book, Mystical Dimensions of Islam, obsolete, but I disagree. To date, I have not come across another book on Sufism that is more complete and moving than this. Spanning a hefty 500-odd pages, Schimmel's work is conspicuously free from the the kinds of defects that afflict other Orientalist writings.

She begins by establishing the fact that western interest in Sufism only properly began in the nineteenth century. Historical sources and important Sufi manuals were made widely available in print both in the Middle East and Europe. However, Schimmel rightly notes that most of the sources available to European scholars at that time were of rather late origin and seldom painted an accurate picture about the earliest stages of mystical trends in Islam.

Moreover, the works of these European scholars were often colored by the view that Islam was a backward religion, or a kind of bastardized version of Christianity. How could a desert religion that had been 'founded' by an illiterate man aspire to fine and high spiritual thoughts? Was the question many Orientalists asked themselves.

Their interpretations would produce a generation of prejudice not only in Europe but also in Arab heartlands, which at that time were going through a painful period of assimilation with their colonial masters.

An entire generation of Muslim modernists and progressives adopted the European deconstruction of Sufism. Their own writings and speeches echoed much of the condescension that was arrayed against Sufism in orientalist writings.

Such cultural borrowings are not entirely inconceivable. For centuries, it was Christians who developed the abiding tropes of anti-Semitism, such as greediness and ambitions to world domination. According to Daniel Pipes,

...historically Christians killed most Jews. Therefore, Jews regularly fled Christendom for Islamdom. In 1945, this pattern abruptly changed. Christians came to terms with Jews, while Muslims adopted both the old Christian themes and murderousness. Today institutional anti-Semitism is overwhelmingly a Muslim affair. One result has been a steady reverse exodus, with Jews now fleeing Islamdom for Christendom.
The prevalence of Muslim anti-Semitism was a topic that the esteemed Shaykh Hamza Yusuf recently touched on in a courageous article entitled, Holocaust Denial Undermines Islam.

It is thus no coincidence that the rise of post-colonial Salafism paralleled the growing rejection of Sufism, based, significantly enough, on reasons that European commentators on Sufism had outlined in their works. In a sense, the character of the revolution led by early Salafists was largely shaped by the European perception of their heritage.

Schimmel very ably supplants all these stereotypes by reverting to the classical interpretation of Sufism that had been expounded by Muslim luminaries like Imam an-Nawawi, Imam Junayd, Imam al-Ghazali and Mawlana Rumi. A position that was remarkably distilled in 1821 by a German Professor of Divinity,
..the Sufi doctrine was both generated and must be illustrated out of Muhammad's own mysticism [1].
In fact, it is a widely-held belief that the seed of man's innate knowledge was planted long before he was even born. The Quran, in Sura 7:171, speaks of a primordial covenant:
Before creation, God called the future humanity out of the loins of the not-yet created Adam and addressed them with the words: "Am I not your Lord?", and they answered: "Yes, we witness it."
Thus, a man or woman's transgression is never attributed to a Christian-like Original Sin, but to a state of forgetfulness. The object of this amnesia, of course, is the covenant.

Through extensive use of classical works like Imam Ghazali's Revival of the Religious Sciences and Mawlana Rumi's Mathnawi'i Manawi, Schimmel explains the key concepts of Sufism in an easy and arresting way.

All Sufis, for example, ascend a path whose beginning is inflected by a process of purification of the heart, and whose end are the twin phenomenon known as mahabba and marifa, love and gnosis. Imam al-Ghazali holds that,
Love without gnosis is impossible- one can only love what one knows [2].
But it was Imam Junayd who best summed it up:
Love between two is not right until the one addresses the other, 'O Thou I' [3].
Schimmel admits that the Sufi fondness for discursive reasoning has not always worked in their favor. Sufi manuals and poetry are not only difficult to penetrate without proper coaching from a master, they are also notoriously hard to translate. Although mistranslations have sometimes formed part of the arsenal of those who oppose Sufi theories, Schimmel argues that mystical poetry, such as those favored by Mawlana Rumi or even the more contemporary Muhammad Iqbal, should never be equated with theoretical discussions about theological problems. From my own readings of Imam al-Ghazali, I believe that Sufism views such discourse, even those rooted in established sciences like kalam, as veils that lie between them and God. According to him,
Those who are so learned about rare forms of divorce can tell you nothing about the simpler things of the spiritual life, such as the meaning of sincerity towards God or trust in Him [4].
However, it is a mistake to think that Sufis are not orthodox. Sufis did not reject the religious law but rather added to it- often making more punishing demands on their personal lives. Imam al-Ghazali gave up a life of comfort and reputation in Baghdad for that of a wandering Sufi. The latter imposed as an iron rule of conduct, a sharp renouncement of the world and of everything which would separate man from God.

Schimmel arranges the chapters of her books according to the ages of Sufism. The earliest and perhaps the most famous (or infamous) mystic, al-Hallaj, is given considerable attention. The later part of the book charts the eventual systemization of Sufism under the able hands of Sufi masters like Imam al-Ghazali. She makes a brief but compelling stop at the turbulent years when Kemal Ataturk seized power in Turkey and abolished the Sufi institutions. For many, it was regarded as the most treacherous and fatal blow on Islam-dom. But Schimmel concludes,
In the course of time...the institutions found themselves unable to respond to the need for modernization and changed outlook. Instead of fulfilling their centuries-old function as center of spiritual education, they became headquarters of obscurantism and backwardness. That is why Ataturk abolished the orders in 1925- a step that some of the leading personalities in the mystical hierarchy even approved of. They felt that the spiritual values of Sufism as taught by the poets of Anatolia would survive without the ruined framework of the orders- perhaps even in a more genuine way. And these values are indeed still alive.
Schimmel's book is replete with references and information that are not readily-available anywhere else. For example, she mentions the war between members of the Naqshabandi Sufi order in a far-flung Chinese province, Xinjiang, over the issue of true dzikir. Some advocated the dzikir to be hidden, while others thought it should be spoken aloud. Or the fact that the Shadhiliyya Sufis had invented coffee to increase wakefulness during their long litanies and night-vigils. She leaves almost no stone unturned in her loving tribute to the science of Tassawwuf, not sparing criticism when she speaks of degenerate Sufis who go against their heritage by being extreme and worse, making light of the Shariah. Written in 1975, this remarkable book is still immensely relevant to our times.
Notes:
[1] Friedrich August Deofidus Tholuck, Ssufismus suve theosophia persarum pantheistica, Berlin 1821.
[2] Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, Ihya ulum ad-din, 4:254
[3] Fariduddin Attar, Tadhkirat al-auliya, edited by Reynold A Nicholson, 1905-07, London and Leiden
[4] Watt, Muslim Intellectual

10 July 2007

Veterans bear scar of sheer brutality in Iraq

The Other War: Iraq Vets Bear Witness

Over the past several months The Nation has interviewed fifty combat veterans of the Iraq War from around the United States in an effort to investigate the effects of the four-year-old occupation on average Iraqi civilians. These combat veterans, some of whom bear deep emotional and physical scars, and many of whom have come to oppose the occupation, gave vivid, on-the-record accounts. They described a brutal side of the war rarely seen on television screens or chronicled in newspaper accounts.

08 July 2007

Only traditional Islam can do it...or can it?

A refreshing article written by Phillip Blond and Adrian Pabst caught my attention today. It is provocatively titled, Only traditional Islam can do it. Here is the lead-in to the story:

The attempted bombings in London and the attack on Glasgow Airport last week underscore the continued and long-term Islamic terror threat that Britain and the world is facing. To date, all of those detained are highly educated foreign-born medical staff.

Far from being affronted by this incursion, young British Muslims are increasingly likely to support domestic jihad. The radicalization of British Muslim youth proceeds apace. According to a recent poll by Populus, growing numbers of Muslims aged 16-30 subscribe to extreme versions of Islam, and almost 40 percent want to live under Shariah law. Britain faces the prospect of a whole new generation of young people embracing extremism and religious fanaticism...

Crucially, current policies are not working because they fail to address the real cause of radicalization and fanaticism. Contemporary Islamic violence is religious in nature. Its origin lies in Islamic scripture and the destruction of the traditional medieval schools that dictated its interpretation.
It is gratifying to note that western commentators are getting closer and closer to the truth of the causes of Muslim extremism. Books like Joespeh Lumbard's Islam, Fundamentalism, and the Betrayal of Tradition, Khaled Aboud Fadl's The Great Theft and Aftab Malk's With God on Our Side have certainly made an impact, inasmuch as they have clearly drawn a line between extremist Islam and mainstream Islam.

However, Phillp Blond's article is not without problems. For example, he says:
And since there were four traditional schools of religious interpretation, which themselves varied according to time and location, what constituted a proper Islamic practice varied according to local norms and customs. As such traditional Islam prohibits the very totalitarian state Al Qaeda seeks to impose.

For example, if Islam recovers the traditional practice of ijtihad, a process of textual reinterpretation that replaces the scriptural literalism of the fundamentalists with a more medieval allegorical reading of the Koran, this would enable the Muslim faithful to distinguish between immutable God-given laws and mutable human interpretations.
Blond not only furnishes a wrong definition of ijtihad, but also makes the rather mistaken assumption that literalism is bad, allegory is good. Ijtihad is the action that a qualified scholar (called a mujtahid) takes in determining Islamic laws. His sources are primarily the Quran and Sunna. Because mujtahids employ different methods in interpreting the sacred texts, there are differences between the four canonical schools of jurisprudence. Within individual methods, the degrees of literalism or allegorism varies. Imam Ahmad Hanbal, for example, was known to have interpreted certain Quranic verses literally, but that does not mean he had not also used reason in interpreting other verses.

No doubt, modern-day extremists do employ a literalist approach to the text, but their literalism is of an entirely different flavor. In an earlier article, I had commented:
Muslim extremists...have a quaint habit of seeing the Quran as totally self-explanatory. "It's not rocket science," they would declare. However, to live up to that claim, any interpretation of the holy scriptures done by them inevitably gravitates toward literalism. What's worse, most Muslims aren't even familiar with the Arabic language and the particular grammar that infuses the Quranic text, so what they end up being literal about are the translations of the Quran, be they English, Malay or Mandarin.
Moreover, I find that the greatest impact literalism has on Islam is where statements are made concerning theology (see my previous article, The Amman Message in light of Imam al-Ghazali's Clear Criterion), rather than on matters like huddud or state institutions (criminal punishments).

Thus, literalism per se is not evil, while excessive allegory, which found its strongest expression in an ancient group of Muslim ultra-rationalists called the Mutazilla (see my previous discussion on this at Mu'tazilla is not Godzilla), is unanimously rejected by all four schools of jurisprudence.

Blond goes on to say:
...the mere rebirth of classical Islam is not enough.
I find the word "rebirth" extremely incompatible with Islam, because it mirrors the idiolect of Muslim ideologues who like to use words like "reformation" for their interpretation of Islam. Reformation implies that the cumulative tradition which is the hallmark of traditional Islam is flawed. In the same vein, rebirth implies that traditional Islam has been lost for a time and needs to be brought back into the lives of Muslims again. Blond's mistake is in assuming that traditional Islam has given up significant ground to extremist Islam, when this is not the case, especially in Muslim populations outside the Middle East.

Nonetheless, there are a lot of positive signs in Britain. For one, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has banned ministers from using the word "Muslim" in ­connection with the ­terrorism crisis.

While I support Brown's noble intentions, I have some reservations. By glossing over the label that most terrorists rigorously apply to themselves, Brown might be in danger of underestimating how much of a role Islam, or the extremist interpretation of it at least, plays in their ideology and lives. Making the subject taboo might ironically fuel bigotry against the whole Muslim community, since the dichotomy between what the terrorists claim themselves to be on television (i.e. true Muslims) and what the government is trying to push out (i.e. not Muslims) is simply too wide to ignore.

06 July 2007

Have you heard the latest joke about doctors?

Again and again, some silly nut drives an explosives-laden car into a building and reminds us that the scourge of terrorism is far from over. Has the war on terrorism accomplished anything at all? The answer would be a resounding yes. To which I would add: more terrorism!

Isabel Hilton also snidely remarked:

The war against terrorism has proved a blessing to governments embroiled in long-running conflicts especially though not exclusively, where the rebels are Muslim. [1]
Meanwhile, the extremist form of Islam has been left relatively unmolested, despite the fact that all the writing on the wall point to very specific groups within the community itself. Although there are very few outward differences between mainstream Muslims and extremist Muslims, there is one key difference that might form a litmus test. The distinction lies between how both factions view the phenomenon known as the Saved Group within Islam [read my previous post, Salvation is just a family affair]. Without going into too much detail, very few mainstream Muslims believe that the Saved Group actually refers to a teeny-weeny minority that is presumably on the path of right belief while the others languish in near-polytheistic or innovated doctrines.

I am not saying that all those who believe in that particular interpretation are necessarily extremist, but it is certainly a useful starting point for rejecting Islam's cumulative tradition of mercy and tolerance. Extremist leaders use this device all the time. Reject tradition. Go back to the Quran and Sunna. The trouble is, the same groups agitating for just such 'returns' have very different ideas on how to go about it. If blood has not been shed on account of this, the whole situation would probably make up a chapter on Ripley's Believe It Or Not.

So the recent bunch of uncovered terrorists are medical doctors. The British government and press can't seem to get over that fact.
Omigod! Now they are doctors! Wake the prime minister, round up the Arabs and order armoured helicopters. Stop the presses and clear the schedules. The fiends from outer Asia are cunning. They could be poisoning hospital drips. They could be lacing paracetamol and putting anthrax in Elastoplast. Declare another bomb "imminent". Surround Heathrow with tanks, fortify Wimbledon, put blast blocks round Waterloo and ack-ack guns on Parliament Hill. Raise the threat level from critical to panic. On second thoughts make that totally hysterical. [Simon Jenkins, The Guardian]
Do you seriously think that only stupid people join terrorist ranks? Was 9-11 a stupid, bumbling plot? Why is there any surprise?

Mohammed Atta, one of the pilots who flew a plane into the World Trade Center, was a trained architect; Usama bin Laden is a civil engineer. Al-Qaida's second-in-command, Ayman al-Zawahiri is a surgeon. The latter must be an especially good one, considering how long Usama bin Laden has survived despite various ailments. Word has it that Dr Ayman also has a macabre sense of humor. In a swipe at Egyptian authorities for their alleged use of torture, he referred to an Egyptian newspaper article he read which mentioned a fax sent by a jailed dissident from his prison cell. He ruminated,
"Do prison cells in Egypt have fax machines? And I wonder, are they connected to the same line as the electric shock machine or do they have a separate line?"
No doubt, Islam's most vociferous, evangelical and activist spokespeople are now individuals highly trained in technical sciences. So part of the problem is caused by the way these engineers treat religious texts as operational manuals. Unfortunately, they are also living proof that extremist cells suffer no fools. In fact, the initiation into Islamic extremism must be a sophisticated and intellectually-appealing experience.

The indoctrination typically introduces another factor:
A powerful sense of kafir helps the believer to live in western exile in the necessary state of chronic persecution, from which his theology is born...It also confers a heroic glamour on the everyday alienation felt by the immigrants- especially in the male immigrant- who struggles to keep his head up in a foreign culture...Your corrosive solitude is the measure of your superiority to the kuffar, in their hellbound ignorance and corruption. [2]
What later distinguishes them from other Muslims is radicalization rather than piety. In the extremist worldview, however, they are the faithful ones while the rest of the world, including the majority of Muslims, are immersed in sin and laxity.

When is anybody going to read the writing on the wall?

Notes:
[1] The Guardian, 15 December 2001
[2] Malise Ruthven, A Fury for God

05 July 2007

Taleemul Haq- Teachings of Islam

Sunnipath has posted a free ebook which I found immensely useful for any student beginning on the path to religious education.

SunniPath Online Library - Taleemul Haq - A Manual of Islamic Worship According to the Hanafi School

In the midst of growing influence of anti-Islamic, anti-natural and naked western culture and ethos, the need of Islamic way of life is enormous for this material life here in this world. However, the codes and rulings of shariat, a complete code of life, is based on the success and development for both the life here and hereafter.

04 July 2007

Ibn Humayd on Ibn Abdul Wahhab

Ibn Humayd on Ibn Abdul Wahhab

Some of the people whom I met have related from some of the people of knowledge narrations from the contemporaries of Shaykh 'Abdul Wahhab that describe his anger with his son Muhammad. This is because he had not agreed to study the religious knowledge of his ancestors and the people of his area.