/* */

PDA

View Full Version : The progressives (those who seek to modernise Islam)



Salahudeen
07-17-2010, 01:37 AM
The progressives are those Muslims who claim that they are Muslim, they ascribe to Islam but they consider that Islam has to change from time to place, so Islam has to progress, that there are certain fundamentals and principles which will never change, and there are others which are subject to change.

Now the premise or the concept might be valid but the problem is the progressives take it to an extreme, and for those of you who are for example familiar with the Friday prayers that were led by a woman this was something sponsored by the progressive Muslims', they want to bring about a radical reinterpretation of Islam, I mean no holds barn literally, so the point being this movement is now gaining more and more force especially in America and Canada, therefore it is imperative we understand where they are coming from because there is a certain point of validity to them and others which are obviously totally incorrect and false so its important we understand where they're coming from and try to dialogue and negotiate with them and try to correct their interpretations of Islam.

I'd like to start off this lengthy post by giving you an allegorical story, and InshAllah through this story most of the points and content that I want to bring up will be illustrated.

Imagine if you will, a land far far away, an imaginoary land, lets call it the United Lands of Veganopolis, the people of this land were Vegans, meaning that they did not eat any meat or any meat derived products These people felt that eating meat was something cruel and barbaric, that it was indicative and primitive uncivilised people who eat meat.

And they prided themselves in the fact that, they did not eat meat, that they were above the rest of society, the rest of civilisation and other countries. This pride reached such heights, they considered themselves so advanced, the pinnacle of civilization that they even divided the entire world based upon, the convictions that the people had, to eating meat.

They would judge other nations, other countries and other civilizations depending on, whether they eat meat or not, so the countries that agreed with their concept of not eating meet were called the primary world, "these are the people of the primary world" those that totally rejected their premise and eat meat indiscriminately were labelled the tertiary world, and those that agreed on some points and didn't on others were called the secondary world.

So they divided the entire Earth into arena's into civilizations, into category's, because they were so sure that eating meat was a barbaric uncivilised evil act, that anyone who eat meat still, basically had to be backwards and uncivilised.

Now imagine if you will in this United Lands of Veganopolis three brothers, lets call them "Salman" "Khalid" and "Ali". Their parents had come from one of these tertiary world countries but they were raised in Veganopolis and they grew up absorbing the culture and the environment that they found themselves in.

Their parents were Muslims but they didn't do a thorough job, of explaining the fundamentals of Islam to their 3 children. So the 3 children grew up occasionally praticing Islam, calling themselves Muslims, but not really and truly understanding the fundamentals of their religion.

Now it so happens that when these 3 children "Salman, Khalid and Ali" grew up and became adults their parents passed away in a short period of time one after the other, and for the first time in their lives, they had to think about very deep and crucial issues, they went through a spiritual crisis. So they sat down one day and said

"You know we've never studied this religion of our parents, this country that they came from in the tertiary world, they were all Muslims in that country, when they came here they took their Islam and they brought us into this religion as well but we never studied it, so let us study this religion, let us give ourselves a few months and then come back and discuss our findings, "what do we think of our religion of Islam".
And so the 3 brothers went and parted their different ways and studiously investeigated the Qur'an, the books of hadith, the books of theology, the books of fiqh and after 6 months they met once again to present their conclusion. Salman was the oldest of the three, he said

"You know guys, our parents were great people, they really and truly loved us, and they were honest people, but with all due respect to them and their believes after studying Islam I've come to the conclusion that it's a false religion, I can not be a Muslim anymore"
both of his brothers were totally shocked but he said

"listen to me, let me explain my position, don't be hasty in judging me, I knew that our parents used to eat meat, and yes ocassionaly we would eat it too growing up, even though we would be embarressed and not wanna tell our friends what we were doing, but we eat meat sometimes, and this was something we thought they imported from their tertiary world countries, but for the first time in my life I read the Qur'an, I went back to the books of Hadith, I studied the books of Fiqh and it is very clear to me having studied these texts that the religion of Islam openly and unabashingly allows the eating of meat, infact it tells us that eating meat is one of the blessings of God, the Qur'an tells us that eating meat is a blessing and to eat the meat over which God's name has been mentioned"
So Salman said

"Look at these verses, as for the hadith and sunnah, it is confirmed that in this book they call Bukhari, which is considered to be the most authentic book by Muslims' it is confirmed in this book that one of the most beloved dishes to the prophet (Sallallahu 'alayhi wa salam) was a juicy sheeps leg, he loved it, and it is also confirmed that he would all ways eat meat when it was presented to him, from the books of sunnah we know that he commanded his companions to actually slaughter and kill animals on religious holidays and festivals, for example when children were born and on Eid al Adha and so on.

And when I looked at the books of Fiqh, even more amazment, forget cows and sheep and other animals that even most of the other non Muslims of the tertiary world countries eat, I mean some of these Madhabs such as, there's this madhab called the Hanabli's and another called the Shafi's, they even allowed the eating of Foxes and Coyoties, most of the scholars of hadith deemed it permissable to eat desert lizards.

And then there's this guy, they call him Malik, he has a Maliki madhab, this guy IS JUST TOTALLY AMAZING! this madhab claims that it's not EVEN sinful to eat Cats, Dogs, Scorpians and Snakes. And I even found some scholars who allowed the eating of vermin and other insects.

So in all honesty, I must state that I can not believe in a book that claims to be divine and yet allows such barbaric uncivilised backward pratices, basically I can not be a Muslim anymore because this book really and truly is a backwards book, it tells us that eating meat is permissible and a blessing from God.

So I now believe it is my duty to convince my fellow Muslims that their religion is not a correct religion, that they have to live up with the times, they have to understand that, THAT was something of the past, now we know and we're sure that eating meat is an uncivilised and barbaric practice".
So Salman gave his speech and the other two brothers listend quitely to what he had to say, then the middle brother spoke who's name was Khalid. Khalid said

"My brothers, I too have studied the text extensively, and I too have read the Qur'an and have read the books of the scholars of the past, and all of this has led me to re affirm my comittment to the religion of Islam. I am totally sure of this beautifull religion. I am a Muslim, and I am proud of it.

Now I must confess my dear brother Salman that alot of what you said might be true from a historical point of view, but I think your analysis is very superficial, that you haven't really under taken a critical methodlogical study of the texts of Islam.

You are taking things out of context without historical analysis, without really thinking about, where these things came from. Firstly you have to realise the Qur'an no doubt is a book from God but it was revealed at a specific time and place, you can not just take the understanding of a scholar 1000 thousand years ago and extrapolate it to our times, we need to think deeper about these verses, realise that the Qur'an came to a group of backwards people, People who were immersed in the eating of meat, they would drink blood and offer sacrafices to their idols so when Islam came, it couldn't eradicate the eating of meat, it would be to radical to do so, rather what it did was that it modified it, to make it acceptable, refined, sophisticated for the people of those times.

Now we have evolved to a higher level and we need to explicate these verses and give them a fresh look in order to make them suitable for the times we live in, as for these hadith you quoted, well realise first and foremost the prophet (saw) no doubt I respect and love him but he was a human being he wasn't divine. also these books of hadith I mean they were compiled 100s of years after the prophet (saw) we don't really know whether they can be authentic or not.

And if you look at it, there can be no doubt that the majority of times the prophet (saw) did not eat meat, I mean the same book you quoted Bukhari, it's mentioned that his wife Ayesha said " 3 months would go by and no fire would be lighted" so their not eating meat for 3 months, and there's also many narrations where certain types of meat were presented to the prophet (saw) and he said "I don't want to eat this meat"

like wise for most of his life he would eat a vegetarian diet, meat was not something that was common, and it is also narrated that the prophet (saw) rebuked a person for mis treating his animal. So is it possible that the same prophet , the prophet of mercy who got angry when a person didn't feed his animal properly would then command us to sacrafice an animal and eat it? I mean use your mind O Salman, THINK!! how is it possible that this prophet of mercy will instruct his companions to be blood thirsty on this day of Eid Al Adha, think deeper than that, don't just read these books of hadith and take it for granted, and as for these scholars of Fiqh, I mean COME ON THESE ARE HUMAN BEINGS, who lived and died, they are not a source of authority.

Yes your gonna find scholars who have strange and exotic opinions but you also find other opinions, for example there's this other madhab called the Hanafi madhab, and this madhab doesn't allow the eating of any meat from the sea except for a certain type of fish. So all types of shrimbs and lopsters the Hanafi madhab said "NO NO YOU CAN't EAT IT"

So you see we find certain parellels in the scholars of the past, when they had these progressive views, we have to look at the spirit of the law and not the letter of the law. So in my opinion if you understand the general rules of Islam and work with them, it is possible to incorporate many of the modern ethics that we have with regards to our diet and culinary opinions and we realise that Islam came with the intent of eradicating the evil pratice of eating meat even though it didn't do so from day one.

Therefore I am a Muslim and I am proud of it, and I say Islam does not allow the eating of meat".

This was the response of Khalid, it was now Ali's turn, the youngest of the 3 and also the most contemplative and intelligent of them. Ali nodded his head and began his articulation, he said

"My dear older brothers Khalid and Salman, all though the out come of both of your searches has ended in diametrically opposed opinions, that one of you claims he is a kafar the other claims he is a Muslim, in reality both of you are operating from the same paradime, both of you are coming from the same usool, from the same frame work, from the same frame of mind, from the same principles AND THIS has led both of you to go into errors even though the errors are opposite of one another.

So both of you are coming from the same world if you like, even though your conclusions are diametrically opposed to one another. The premise from which you commennced your investiation was to exceed the validity of what your culture has taken for granted which is, " that eating animals is morally and ethically reprihensible and barbaric", it was this same basic premise which was accepted as beyond question by both of you that caused you O Salman to reject our religion when it clearly allows for the eating of meat, and it caused you O Khalid to improvize our religion and change it in an unprecidated manner.

But both of you never questioned the validity of this belief, you never once asked yourself "Is it possible that what my culture and civilization has believed in this matter is simply not correct! is eating meat an ethical abomination? And if a civilization becomes Vegan does this mean that they are the pinnacle of civilization, that they are the first world and the primary world?

And everybody else is living in barbaric and backwards lands, you see my dear brothers this is were you fell into an error. The correctness and validity of a religion should not be decided on subsidiary issues such as its position on eating meat.

You don't decide whether a religion is valid or not by looking at whether it eats meat or not, rather a religions primary claim of legitamacy stems from its theological positions, questions of doctrine such as God, who is God? the nature of God? The purpose of Life? The concept of an after life? this is where we think about religion.

This is what we use to judge between the various religions, this is what we place our verdict on, we look at the theologey of a faith, we look at the concept of God and the worship of God and then we decide whether that religion is valid or not. And once we have decided that a particular religion is valid then we must take it as an entire and total package because if we were to start examining every subsidiary legal ruling, trying to out guess the religion, then in reality we are not submitting to the religion but rather causing the religion to submit to us.

Now if we apply this criterion to Islam we find that no other religion is as persuasive, as cogent in its appeal to legitamcy as the religion of Islam. No other religion has such a simple perfect rational theology.

And this is something I can clearly proove to you, the concept of Allah and his names and attributes, and that only he has the right to be worshipped, and he sends perfect human beings called messengers so on and so forth.

No other religion even comes close! there's no competition, Islam beats all religions hands down! so when I came to this conclusion, when I realised that this is true, I then realised that I have to submit to the commandments that also came with the theology, it is not my right to seperate the commandments from the theology,

and when I looked at the Qur'an and sunnah then I had to agree with my brother Salman, that yes the Qur'an and sunnah clearly calls for the eating of meat, the permisablity and the fact it is a blessing from God that we have been allowed to eat meat.

This realisation caused me for the first time to challenge the premise upon which our society lays its claim for fame, which is that eating meat is a backwards thing, our society claims it is the pinnacle of civilization because they are a society of vegans, they consider themselves the most civilized the most mighty, the most powerful simply because of this issue.

But for the first time in my life I had to look at this premise and think about it in a very deep manner, never before had I questioned it. But now because the Qur'an and sunnah was clearly calling to it I had to think about it, and I thought of a number of things.

Firstly, how do we judge whether something is immoral or ethical, how do we judge? I mean no doubt certain things such as taking a persons property or even his life we know from our fitrah that these are unjust and evil, but not everything can be based upon the fitrah.

What might be appealing to you might be distasteful to me, and what I might like, you might hate, so I can't use my opinion to say that eating meat is unethical. So how do we proove this point?

In other words it is impossible to uncategorically claim that eating meat is ethical or unethical, it is impossible to say so, what proof do I have.

Secondly, I noticed that the majority of mankind, not only in our times but also through out the centuries eat meat, and it doesn't appear that they lived any less happily then we do, in fact we've all been back home to our tertiary world countries and in all honesty, even though they're eating meat they seem to be happier because of it.

They're living happier lives then we are in this primary world country, they're joyful, they love their society and culture, they love each other.

Thirdly, we claim to have reached the pinnacle of civilization but lets be honest here, we look down on other civilizations just because of this issue, yet we truly ignore a million other factors!

How can we ignore that our society is the most violent of all socities, the most promiscuous, the most infested with crime and drugs, THE HIGHEST IN THE WORLD IN TERM OF ITS INHABITANTS IN JAIL.

How can we forget these statistics and throw them under the table and say "Just because we are a vegan society, just because we call to not eating meat we are the best of mankind" how can we claim moral and spiritual superiorty when statistics show that our lives are worse and inferior to other men in tertiory world countries.

And it's not just the quantity of crimes that our civilization commits, it's the heinoius and the monstrosity, last week it was reported that a woman threw her baby in the microwave and cooked her untill the baby died.

Also about the parents killing their children and the children killing their parents you don't hear about these crimes in other countries, it's not just the quantity it's the monstrosity and the way its blatantly advertised in the news and not a person blinks his or hers eyes when they read it.

How can you ignore all of this and say "Just because we don't eat meat we have reached the pinnacle of civilization" so you see in my opinion I have come to the conclusion, that I was wrong in this issue, that the moral and ethical views of the United Lands of Veganopolos are simply not the moral and ethical views that are divine in and of themselves. They could be right and they could be wrong.

And it was this basic premise that both of you fell into and which caused both of you to fall into serious mistakes, even though both of you are on opposite sides of the fence in reality you're not that far apart.

And a very strange fact must be said here, Salman you have rejected Islam, you have said you're not a Muslim anymore and while it's true that the average Muslim will be appauled and disgusted by your blatant Kufr, in reality you make more logical sense and your opinions are more easily defendable both historically and textually than the opinions of Khalid.

Because you Salman come out and say "I don't believe in this religion" what can a person argue now with you, but you O Khalid claim you are a believer and yet you come forth with opinions which go against the book, and you come forth with opinions that have no precedence in history, no precendence in Usool, no precedene in Hadith, how can you claim to be a believer and yet reject every second statement in the book and the sunnah.

Your opinions O Khalid, you who have claimed to be a Muslim are illogical and more difficulty to defend than the opinion of Salman who has rejected Islam out right.

So to conclude, I am a Muslim and I'm proud of it, but if I am a Muslim then by definition (what does it mean to be a Muslim) I must submit to the laws of Islam, I must do Islam to the laws of Islam and not take the laws of Islam and make them Muslim to me, make them submit to me.

As for both of you, I pray that Allah guides you to understand that your concept of intellect and ethics is not an ultimate judge over Allah, you are not more wiser or more knowledgeable then Allah. Use your intellect and knowledge where you should and refrain from using it when it is not part of the realm of intellect and logic
This is the end of the parable inshAllah I think the message I'm trying to bring through it is quite understandable, in our times its not the issue of meat that is problematic but rather issues of freedom of choice, of punishments, of women's roles, of morality.

Salman in this allegory symbolizes the few pseudo intelecctuals who feel Islam can not be a divine religion because it tells women to cover themselves up or that it allows polygamy or that it instructs its followers to cut off the hands of the theif. Salman and people like him openly say "This is a backwards ridiculous religion any body who believes in it is an utter fool" but they have judged the religion on based upon subsidiary issues.

Khalid on the other hand symbolizes the progressors with in Islam, those who basically wish to take the para dime that the United Lands of Veganopolos has deemed to be the best for mankind, and then claim that this para dime is reality of Islam.

"This is Islam, Islam came with vegan ethics don't eat meat, but that was a backward time and place and so Allah could only do so much"

Now that I have come Khalid basically says I can change everything and I can bring Islam upto bar with the United Lands of Veganopolos. For 14 centaraies Khalid would argue "Every one had it wrong, they simply did not understand Islam untill I came about"

And that's in reality the conclusion that these type of people are forced to make because they are coming forth with unprecedented opinion, not based upon the Qur'an or the sunnah or the opinion of any 'Alim.
In total contrary distinction to every single ayah and hadith that there is.

And Ali of course represents that rare breed in our times who combines an understanding of historical reality and the ethical dimension of the United Lands of Veganopolos. Along with a deep and profound understanding of Islam.

These are the 3 trends that we are now facing in our time, we have a few who are open murtads, the Salman's if you like, of course no direct reference to any particular person we're thinking of ;D

The Salman's openly ridicule the religion because of the meat issue and the Khalids try to say that Islam was like this from day one. But both of them are wrong and both of them even though they come to different conclusions in reality they're standing on the same pedestal, they're standing on the same foundation and back ground.

And I wanna quote you two examples from the time of the Prophet (saw) which really and truly proove this point, two example and I want you to think about these examples and understand them. We're gonna have to gloss over them.

The first of them, is the issue of women's inheritance, Ibn Abbas narrates as At Tabari reports in his tafseer that
"When the verses of inheritance were revealed and the shares were assigned to women and to children, and to old people and parents, some of the people disliked it, and they said ""we give a woman a forth and a eighth and we give a daughter a halve and we give a baby boy an inheritance but none of these people is amongst those who fight enemies or take war booty""
Why did they not like this ruling? it went against their sensitivities, they were offended some of the people, they were offended and said
"it's so backward to give inheritance to people who don't fight in war, we give inheritance in our times based upon a man's power, how much benefit he is to our tribe, the stronger he is and the better warrior he is, he gets inheritance, as for women who stay at home and do nothing why should we give them inheritance what's the point? babies? makes no sense, so the sahabba said "let us remain silent about these rulings perhaps the prophet (saw) will forget about them or we can talk to him and he will change these rulings"
notice this is not an issue of theolgy, it's an issue of sensitivities, of moralities, of ethics, women's rights of inheritance, they're offended, how can it be that a woman inherits? it makes no sense. So they said

"let us ignore this ruling or maybe some of us can go and try to talk to the prophet (SAW) and see if he can change his mind, so some of them went to the prophet (saw) and they said "Ya rasoolullah, oh messenger of Allah, shall we give a little girl halve of what her father leaves behind while she can not even ride a horse or fight against the enemy? and we have babies taking inheritance despite the fact that they are of no benefit to us, rather they are a burden upon us we have to feed them! they don't have to feed us! how can we give a baby inheritance?"
So they're complaining to the prophet (saw) so Allah (swt) revealed in the Qur'an many verses, of them the beginning verses of surah Nisa, " Allah legislates for you regarding your children, men shall get twice the share of women"

and then he goes on and on there is like 5 verses in the Qur'an all about the details of inheritance and at the end of the verse Allah (swt) says a very beautifull point
" Your fathers and your children, you do not know which of the two of them will be of more benefit to you, your fathers or your children you do not know, verily Allah is Aleem and Hakeem, Allah is the one who is All Knowledgeable and All Wise.
Can you imagine if we had to decide inheritance, and you have your father who is still alive and your son. How would you possibly divide between your father who has spent a life time defending and raising you and now he has no 1 to take care of him except you and your wealth versus your son who is depending on you for your income, how would you divide it? Think of the moral dilemma, Allah says
"you don't know, I know leave it to me"
And then Allah (swt) says about women, if a wife dies and leaves a husband, the husband gets a halve or a forth, if the husband dies and leaves a wife she gets a forth or an eighth and then at the end of the verse Allah concludes

Allah is the one who is all knowledgeable and the one who is Haleem
Haleem as the connontation of mercy and protection, and in the third verse right after this one Allah (swt) mentions the case of sombody who dies without children and spouses he has distant relatives only and then Allah concludes
"These are the commandments and laws of Allah"
these are the boundries whoever obeys Allah and his messenger, Allah will cause him to enter jannah and be forgiven, and whoever disobeys Allah and his messenger, Allah will cause him to enter the fire of hell and he will be punished severely.

This is not an issue of theology it is an issue of morality, of ethics, and Allah (swt) convinced the sahabba through these verses
"you don't know I know, leave it to me, I am the all wise"
Ponder over this issue that the jahliya arabs and the early Muslims thought to themselves how is it possible it makes no sense that women inherit and Allah (swt) said
"I know and you don't"
The second example that I wanted to quote is the issue of class and nobility, if the issue of women's inheritence brought confusion to some of the sahabba, there was an issue that even the beloved prophet (saw) was somewhat swayed by, an issue where even he, was all most about to agree to the cultural customs of the time he lived in because he thought that were would be a benefit in agreeing with society and it was an issue that was undoubtely the single greatest social change that the religion of Islam brought with it, and it is a change that challenged the foundations of Arabian society, as we all know, Jahiliya was based upon tribe, it was based upon "my father and your father, everything in my life was dependant upon who my father was, my status, my protection, even my marriage would be dependant upon who my father was", depending upon what your father did and the status of your tribe everything was decided upon that.

Of course Islam came and destroyed all of that from its basis,
"the one who is the most noble amongst you is the one who has the most taqwa"
we all know this change and we love it, but the jahiliya arabs did not love it, and it's narrated that once the Prophet (saw) was sitting with a number of the sahabba such as Ibn masood, Bilal, Amar ibn Yasir, Sufwan ibn Umaya, all of these are low class no bodies according to the jahaliya arabs, so he was with these low class people and a group of the leaders of Quraish came by and they said to the prophet (saw) get rid of these people, let them not sit with you or engage with you then perhaps we might be sympathetic to your religion.

So they issued some ultimatum, some hope saying
"get rid of them, if you do so and you take us to be your elite because of our nobility then perhaps"
So Allah (swt) revealed in the Qur'an many verses, of them
do not expel, do not get rid of those people who call upon their lord day and night, desiring his face, Allah then said "if you get rid of them you will be amongst wrong doers"
Allah addressed the prophet (saw) defending those companions,
"how can you get rid of these people because you want the nobility of Quraish"
Ibn Abbas narrated " The prophet (saw) was about to be swayed" but Allah revealed if you dare do this you will be among the wrong doers, so Allah told the prophet (saw) to even compromise in the ethics, the morality, the social structure of the time was a major sin, nothing to do with theology it was a social issue and Allah says "no we have our religion and they have theres"

These two instances and there are others from the seerah clearly proove that the sensiblities of different societies will be challenged by certain issues, secondary issues but the true Muslim must have trust in Allah and realise that Allah (swt) knows what is best.

Certain issues will be viewed as problematic by certain socities and times and places, but it is not our job to defend those secondary and tertiary issues, we don't argue our religion based upon women's rights and the issues of hijaab and who leads the prayer. We're never gonna gain a revert to Islam if we proove that only men can lead mixed gender congregations. This is not the way we give dawah, the way we give dawah is through our theology, threw our tawheed through la ila ha il Allah. We don't based our religion based upon these secondary and tertiary issues.

Source: "Making progress with the progressives" lecture by Sheikh Yasir Qadhi. If you want the full lecture let me know :p
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
~Raindrop~
07-17-2010, 01:50 AM
:sl:

Lengthy, but worth reading. Some excellent points made.
Jazakallah for posting

:wa:
Reply

Salahudeen
07-17-2010, 05:00 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Aisha
:sl:

Lengthy, but worth reading. Some excellent points made.
Jazakallah for posting

:wa:
Wa iyakum, it's actually the transcript from a lecture.
Reply

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!