Ijtihad, Rethinking Islam22 Jan 2009, NewAgeIslam.Com
Demolish Kafir/ Mushrik/ Munafiq-manufacturing factories, says Sultan Shahin, defending New Age Islam against Talibani onslaught
As a community we are more reactionary and obscurantist that positive and progressive. We live in fear and denial. There is noting wrong with us; it’s all Jewish conspiracy, Hindu conspiracy, Western imperialist conspiracy, etc. etc. We love living in the past, in the land of pointlessness. So our discussions too are not so much about issues of today as about the bygone past. We revel in discussing ad infinitum the dirty politics of seventh century Arabia and taking sides with one or the other party. We have no present and no plans for the future. As a community, that is. Some individuals, of course, do have plans for themselves as well as for the community and a vision of regeneration for Islam and the Muslim community. But they are reviled for thinking of this word rather than the other world where 72 houris are waiting for them impatiently in a land of milk and honey and of course, plenty of liquor. (In the case of poor women, of course, only their husbands, if any, would be waiting there, and yet some of them become suicide bombers, for some reason.)
Sultan Shahin, editor, New Age Islam
-----------------------------
Demolish Kafir/ Mushrik/ Munafiq-manufacturing factories, says Sultan Shahin, defending New Age Islam against Talibani onslaught
Dear Mr. Yousaf,
This site is not about me and I am not the only writer, though I would like to write more. Unfortunately running a site is a rather demanding job, more demanding than I had thought when I started it. This is a platform for all Muslims to participate in discussions on any subject relevant to the state of Islam or Muslims. I do indeed consider myself a forward-looking person and find it fruitless to live in the past and engage in mostly pointless discussions about the dirty Arab politics of the past. For me, the definition of a Muslim is simply any one who says, just says, - for we have no right to speculate about his or her motives and there is no way we can divine his or her intentions – that God is one and Mohammad (PBUH) is His prophet. So, as you can see, I do have a rather individualistic view of things, but as an editor, I never try to impose these views. Yes, these views maybe affecting my choice of the articles I print and the subjects I raise for debate. But the reader is absolutely free to comment within the bounds of decency. Some readers cross this boundary and sometimes I find it difficult to delete offensive expressions like “Lanati” and “Yazid ke aulad”, etc. as they are interspersed in the thoughts of those readers. I truly suffer from a horror of censorship, though, that may become necessary in some cases, but only to remove offensive, unseemly language.
By the way, I learned these offending expressions only on the site. It shows the depth of hatred we carry in our hearts against one another. If the believers in Allah and followers of Prophet Mohammad are not safe from us and our sectarian mean-spiritedness, what can followers of previous prophets like Hindus, Biddhists, Jains, Christians, Jews, etc. expect from us? With what face do we indeed go to them and claim to be followers of a religion of peace and forgiveness, amity and total surrender to the Almighty.
Coming back, if you have an issue with any views expressed by any writers, you are free to take them up and if your views are censored you my have legitimate cause for complaint. God has not appointed you a commissar, however, as far as I know, and you should be a bit careful in calling people kafir or munafiq, etc. This merely shows that you have no arguments. You might be displeasing Allah too by doing so. For He alone is the Judge. Even the Prophet never called the munafiqeen abusive names, never restricted them from prayers and even participated in the funeral prayers for the salvation of the soul of the chief munafiq. All this when Allah had warned him about them and the Prophet knew they were harming the religion at a very crucial point in its history, actually in its infancy, when even its survival may have appeared difficult to some.
As far as the Muslims of today are concerned, we may have our own ideas about who is a kafir or a munafiq or whatever but we shouldn’t be expressing them as this only makes us a kafir or a munafiq. It is for God to judge. Not you. Don’t assume divine powers, please, even if you think, you are gifted with a third eye and can divine people’s intentions and motivations just by going through their editorial work.
I do even publish the views of people I disagree with, not too often, of course, but occasionally I do give representation to people whom I consider having obscurantist and fundamentalist views as well. Only recently I went to the extent of getting translated from Urdu an article I thought defended fundamentalism and obscurantism rather well, just so people like you do not feel left out on the site. Please see:
In defence of Islamic fundamentalism - Maulana Nadeem-ul-Wajedi
http://newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1099
You are welcome to suggest any well-written, well-argued articles that go against the basic thrust of the site and I will carry that. In fact in the comments section of most articles you must have found more retrogressive views than progressive. The reason is not difficult to see. As a community we are more reactionary and obscurantist that positive and progressive. We live in fear and denial. There is noting wrong with us; it’s all Jewish conspiracy, Hindu conspiracy, Western imperialist conspiracy, etc. etc. We love living in the past, in the land of pointlessness. So our discussions too are not so much about issues of today as about the bygone past. We revel in discussing ad infinitum the dirty politics of seventh century Arabia and taking sides with one or the other party. We have no present and no plans for the future. As a community, that is. Some individuals, of course, do have plans for themselves as well as for the community and a vision of regeneration for Islam and the Muslim community. But they are reviled for thinking of this word rather than the other world where 72 houris are waiting for them in a land of milk and honey and of course, plenty of liquor. (In the case of poor women, of course, only their husbands, if any, would be waiting there, and yet some of them become suicide bombers, for some reason.)
So, Mr. Yousaf, pick up a pen, well, more likely a keyboard and enlighten us with your views on the issues covered on the site. You can even write in defence of Talibani/Jihadi brutality or against Muslim girl’s education, in defence of beard as most vital Islamic institution, whatever, and the site will not deny you space. You will find a lot of applause too. New Age Islam has many readers who express their retrogressive, reactionary views regularly. As I told you before I learned several terms of Islamic abuse on the site. We welcome both those who call Dr Zakir Nayak a kafir and those who warn against the kafir-manufacturing factories rampant in Muslim lands. You will find here people who call Yazid Lanati (accursed) and also those who call him Rahmatullah Alaih, both arguing and contesting each others’ points of view fiercely. Personally I would like to demolish all kafir/Mushrik/Munafiq-manufacturing factories. I consider them highly offensive and completely against the Islamic ethos. But as they constitute a significant and influential section of the community, I do not even deny them space. So welcome, Mr. Yousaf. Just remember, New Age Islam is not about me; it is about you. I am merely a moderator in the discussions. I do give you subjects to discuss, but you as free to add your own subjects, as many readers do. As for my Imaan, let Allah judge that; think a little about yourself.
Sultan Shahin, editor, New Age Islam
http://newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1143
--------------------------------------------
yousaf
20/2009 8:32:05 PM
Mr. Sultan Shahin
Suddenly I came across your website. since then in last three four days I have gone through it and these are my comments
You write a Muslim name and pretend to be as such as your website name suggest, but let me tell you that in the time of holy prophet there were certain people who by face pretended to be Muslims where as actually they were not. These were the people who had extreme hatred for the religion but they were cowards, greedy, mischief-mongers, followers of Satan. They were called munafiqs or munafiqeen. They had no moral guts to show their true faces. About them ALMIGHTY ALLAH says in holy book that they will be in the worst and deepest part of hell. So I have no doubt about you. you are like a hungry and lusty Dog to acquire the world by your this deceit nature. I do not have a doubt that you are not a Muslim but at the same time I don’t know who are you and what is your mission. as it seems that like a Hindu about whom it is said that ' munh mein Ram Ram aur baghal mein churi" means "Say Ram Ram from the mouth while hiding knife under his arm to stab you when get an opportunity. I can assure you people with deceit nature have no respect in any religion or any society.
http://newageislam.com/NewAgeIslamArticleDetail.aspx?ArticleID=1143
Friday, January 30, 2009
Demolish Kafir/ Mushrik/ Munafiq-manufacturing factories, says Sultan Shahin, defending New Age Islam against Talibani onslaught
4:23 AM
Sultan Shahin
1 comments:
Schacht asserts that hadiths, particularly from Muhammad, did not form, together with the Qur’an, the original bases of Islamic law and jurisprudence as is traditionally assumed. Rather, hadiths were an innovation begun after some of the legal foundation had already been built. “The ancient schools of law shared the old concept of sunna or ‘living tradition’ as the ideal practice of the community, expressed in the accepted doctrine of the school.” And this ideal practice was embodied in various forms, but certainly not exclusively in the hadiths from the Prophet. Schacht argues that it was not until al-Shafi`i that ‘sunna’ was exclusively identified with the contents of hadiths from the Prophet to which he gave, not for the first time, but for the first time consistently, overriding authority. Al-Shafi`i argued that even a single, isolated hadith going back to Muhammad, assuming its isnad is not suspect, takes precedence over the opinions and arguments of any and all Companions, Successors, and later authorities. Schacht notes that:
Two generations before Shafi`i reference to traditions from Companions and Successors was the rule, to traditions from the Prophet himself the exception, and it was left to Shafi`i to make the exception the principle. We shall have to conclude that, generally and broadly speaking, traditions from Companions and Successors are earlier than those from the Prophet.
Based on these conclusions, Schacht offers the following schema of the growth of legal hadiths. The ancient schools of law had a ‘living tradition’ (sunna) which was largely based on individual reasoning (ra’y). Later this sunna came to be associated with and attributed to the earlier generations of the Successors and Companions. Later still, hadiths with isnads extending back to Muhammad came into circulation by traditionists towards the middle of the second century. Finally, the efforts of al-Shafi`i and other traditionists secured for these hadiths from the Prophet supreme authority.
Goldziher maintains that, while reliance on the sunna to regulate the empire was favoured, there was still in these early years of Islam insufficient material going back to Muhammad himself. Scholars sought to fill the gaps left by the Qur’an and the sunna with material from other sources. Some borrowed from Roman law. Others attempted to fill these lacunae with their own opinions (ra’y). This latter option came under a concerted attack by those who believed that all legal and ethical questions (not addressed by the Qur’an) must be referred back to the Prophet himself, that is, must be rooted in hadiths.These supporters of hadiths (ahl al-hadith) were extremely successful in establishing hadiths as a primary source of law and in discrediting ra’y. But in many ways it was a Pyrrhic victory. The various legal madhhabs were loath to sacrifice their doctrines and so they found it more expedient to fabricate hadiths or adapt existing hadiths in their support. Even the advocates of ra’y were eventually persuaded or cajoled into accepting the authority of hadiths and so they too “found” hadiths which substantiated their doctrines that had hitherto been based upon the opinions of their schools’ founders and teachers. The insistence of the advocates of hadiths that the only opinions of any value were those which could appeal to the authority of the Prophet resulted in the situation that “where no traditional matter was to be had, men speedily began to fabricate it. The greater the demand, the busier was invention with the manufacture of apocryphal traditions in support of the respective theses.”
In summary, Goldziher sees in hadiths “a battlefield of the political and dynastic conflicts of the first few centuries of Islam; it is a mirror of the aspirations of various parties, each of which wants to make the Prophet himself their witness and authority.” Likewise,
Every stream and counter-stream of thought in Islam has found its expression in the form of a hadith, and there is no difference in this respect between the various contrasting opinions in whatever field. What we learnt about political parties holds true too for differences regarding religious law, dogmatic points of difference etc. Every ra’y or hawa, every sunna and bid`a has sought and found expression in the form of hadith.
And even though Muslim traditionalists developed elaborate means to scrutinize the mass of traditions that were then extant in the Muslim lands, they were “able to exclude only part of the most obvious falsifications from the hadith material.” Goldziher, for all his scepticism, accepted that the practice of preserving hadiths was authentic and that some hadiths were likely to be authentic. However, having said that, Goldziher is adamant in maintaining that:
In the absence of authentic evidence it would indeed be rash to attempt to express the most tentative opinions as to which parts of the hadith are the oldest material, or even as to which of them date back to the generation immediately following the Prophet’s death. Closer acquaintance with the vast stock of hadiths induces sceptical caution rather than optimistic trust regarding the material brought together in the carefully compiled collections.
Post a Comment