Does Islam allow Muttaween style policing?

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum sister

No, that isn't true at all. It is very common for conflicting opinions to exist in Islam while both of them have strong evidence for their claims. Does that mean they are both right? No. Therefore thinking good of them and assuming they have evidence is not the same as thinking their understanding or application of the evidence is ultimately correct.

So then you admit that I shouldn't accept it afterall "just to think nice of them"? Aren't you contradicting yourself here?

For someone who isn't accusing me, or anyone else here, of being a salafi, I don't see the relevance of mentioning salafis in this discussion at all.

Doesn't this police force enforce what salafi scholars tell them to? Isn't this therefor relevant?

Simply assuming that a shaykh passed a ruling based on some knowledge that he has doesn't even come close to blind following at all! You don't have to follow an opinion to be able to admit that the shaykh has evidence for his claim.

I disagree. Either the ruling is certain and has solid evidence, or the ruling has no evidence and is itjihad. Which is only based on indications. so an opinion never has evidence in the first place. If it would have evidence, then the evidence would "force" a Muslim to accept the ruling (since it's undeniable). So yes, you do have to follow a ruling if you accept that it has evidence.

 

[Malaikah]

So then you admit that I shouldn't accept it afterall "just to think nice of them"? Aren't you contradicting yourself here?

No, I'm not. Read it again if you still don't get it.

Doesn't this police force enforce what salafi scholars tell them to? Isn't this therefor relevant?

No! It is totally irrelevant whether these scholars are salafi or not!

I disagree. Either the ruling is certain and has solid evidence, or the ruling has no evidence and is itjihad. Which is only based on indications. so an opinion never has evidence in the first place. If it would have evidence, then the evidence would "force" a Muslim to accept the ruling (since it's undeniable). So yes, you do have to follow a ruling if you accept that it has evidence.

That's is false - evidence is not always solid. Evidence varies in strength or may be open to many interpretations. If it was as simplistic as you are proposing then there would essentially be no room for differences of opinion in Islam.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

No, I'm not. Read it again if you still don't get it.

Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best ^_^

No! It is totally irrelevant whether these scholars are salafi or not!

As far as I know, the salafi take proof very serious and agree that you shouldn't accept rulings by authority of scholars, but only by proofs.
Hence the relevance.

That's is false - evidence is not always solid.

Evidence that isn't solid isn't really evidence. You're playing with words. either a ruling has scriptural proof or it doesn't, there's no in between.

Evidence varies in strength or may be open to many interpretations.

If it's weak, it's not evidence. If it relies on interpretations it's not evidence.

If it was as simplistic as you are proposing then there would essentially be no room for differences of opinion in Islam.

Exactly! thats' what I said several posts ago, there is no room for personal opinions in Islam.

 

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

:salamext:

Abdul Fattah. I'm interested in how much you know about usool al-fiqh?

Exactly! thats' what I said several posts ago, there is no room for personal opinions in Islam.

I think you need to distinguish between personal opinions, and opinions based upon evidence. There could be a single verse, or hadeeth - and scholars could interpret that verse or hadeeth in several different ways. Does this make the evidence weak? No. But both opinions could be using strong evidence, by looking in to the linguistics, and other verses/hadeeths to provide explanations. I'm afraid it really isn't as simple as you propose it is.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum

:salamext:Abdul Fattah. I'm interested in how much you know about usool al-fiqh?

Not even going to answer that; let's just say Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best ^_^

I think you need to distinguish between personal opinions, and opinions based upon evidence. There could be a single verse, or hadeeth - and scholars could interpret that verse or hadeeth in several different ways. Does this make the evidence weak? No.

I disagree, an argument is as weak as it weakest spot. If it relies on interpretation, then that interpretation of this verse is the only "proof" not the verse itself! there's actually rules on how to make tafsir, so there is a lot less room for interpreting verses then you suggest.

But both opinions could be using strong evidence, by looking in to the linguistics, and other verses/hadeeths to provide explanations. I'm afraid it really isn't as simple as you propose it is.

No, interpretations is either done by the rules of tefsir in which case it is strong but then there is agreement on it (since there is strong undeniable evidence for it). Or it is not done according to rules of tefsir and it is weak.
In the end there is only 1 Islam!!!!

Can people get back on topic please, or could mods close the thread otherwise?

 

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

Selam aleykum

Not even going to answer that; let's just say Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best ^_^

Ok. Don't answer. But I will remind you of the words of Imaam Bukhaaree in his Saheeh:

العِلْمُ قَبْلَ القَوْلِ وَالْعَمَلِ

Knowledge precedes speech and action. This is not an attack, but a naseehah (advice). So please do not perceive it as otherwise.

I disagree, an argument is as weak as it weakest spot. If it relies on interpretation, then that interpretation of this verse is the only "proof" not the verse itself! there's actually rules on how to make tafsir, so there is a lot less room for interpreting verses then you suggest.

Ok... I don't think I quite understand. So now Scholars can't interpret texts? Why else are they forgiven, if they make ijtihaad and err? Everything has an understanding, akhee. Even the companions of Allaah's Messenger salAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam disagreed on some matters, due to their different understanding of texts. What would you to them - there is no room for opinions in Islaam? Of course there are rules on making tafseer or commentary of texts, and I can assure you the Scholars are more aware of this than you are.

No, interpretations is either done by the rules of tefsir in which case it is strong but then there is agreement on it (since there is strong undeniable evidence for it). Or it is not done according to rules of tefsir and it is weak.
In the end there is only 1 Islam!!!!

Akhee, if 'Ulamaa disagree on subsidary issues, such as issues of fiqh where there is no ijmaa', this does not mean they are making a new Islaam! Ofcourse there is only one correct opinion. But in matters where there is strong evidence for either ruling, we apply balance and harmony and ease, because the other person isn't following their desires! They're following an opinion of a Scholar, which is based upon evidence which they believe to be correct. Ofcourse you will have your own opinion as to which of the two rulings is correct, but that is simply your opinion.

Disagreement on the fundamental issues is another matter, though. Diverting from the fundamental matters of Islaam which are agreed upon by the companions, is splitting away from the Jamaa'ah.

Can people get back on topic please, or could mods close the thread otherwise?

I think this is on topic. But if you wish to end the discussion, then very well.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum

Ok... I don't think I quite understand. So now Scholars can't interpret texts? Why else are they forgiven, if they make ijtihaad and err? Everything has an understanding, akhee. Even the companions of Allaah's Messenger salAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam disagreed on some matters, due to their different understanding of texts. What would you to them - there is no room for opinions in Islaam? Of course there are rules on making tafseer or commentary of texts, and I can assure you the Scholars are more aware of this than you are.

See the thing is, there's a difference between making tafsir and making fiqh. When making tafsir, one cannot use his own interpretation. It is forbidden! When making fiqh, there is itjihad which allows ruling based on weak indications. Weak indications is not the same as interpretation of Qur'an. In fiqh you can rely on tafsir, but only on tafsir that is done according to the rules of tafsir. So it's not because you're suddenly dealing with itjihaad that interpretation of the Qur'an is suddenly allowed. That are two completely different things. Also note that itjihad is weak and as soon as contradicting evidence comes the itjihad should be disregarded.

Akhee, if 'Ulamaa disagree on subsidary issues, such as issues of fiqh where there is no ijmaa', this does not mean they are making a new Islaam! Ofcourse there is only one correct opinion. But in matters where there is strong evidence for either ruling, we apply balance and harmony and ease, because the other person isn't following their desires! They're following an opinion of a Scholar, which is based upon evidence which they believe to be correct. Ofcourse you will have your own opinion as to which of the two rulings is correct, but that is simply your opinion.

Well the thing is, in such a case of weak rulings where there is no consensus on, you have insufficient grounds for action. It's one thing to make itjihad because there's demand for a ruling, but it's another thing to enforce an itjihad fatwa onto the population!

I think this is on topic. But if you wish to end the discussion, then very well.

Thank you, and Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best, may he forgive us both if we made any mistakes.

 

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

:wasalamex

Akhee, I think you've misunderstood me. Let me make myself clear:

When the Messenger of Allaah salAllaahu 'alayhi wa Sallam returned from the battle of al-Ahzaab and took off his armour, Jibraa'eel came to him and said: "We (i.e. the angels) have not yet put down our weapons, so set out for Banee Quraydhah." The Messenger of Allaah ordered his Companion to leave for battle and said: "None of you should pray 'Asr except at Banee Quraydhah." [Saheeh al-Bukhaaree, Eng. Transl. (2/34)]

The Companions understood this command differently. Some thought that the command implied that they should hasten towards Banee Quraydhah, so that they would arrive there by 'Asr. Other companions understood this to mean that they should not pray 'Asr until they reach Banee Quraydhah. Hence, when the time for prayer came, the first group prayed 'Asr in its time, whilst the latter delayed it until they reached Banee Quraydhah, hence praying it out of its time.

Is there only correct opinion here? Well, whilst commenting on this opinion, shaykh 'Uthaymeen states that the verses regarding the fixed time for prayers are abundant and clear, whilst this hadeeth is vague - so therefore the unambiguous texts should be referred back to the clear texts. Therefore he states that the correct position was with those who prayed 'Asr in its time.

Is there any rebuke upon the companions who delayed their Salah? Absolutely not. The following hadeeth holds true for this incident: "If a judge gives a ruling upon Ijtihaad and is correct, he will attain two rewards. And if he performs ijtihaad and errs in his ruling then he secures one reward," [Agreed upon]

There are certain requirements of Ijtihaad, but this is not the place to state them.

However, you make it seem as if there is only one interpretation of a verse - and that there are never any disagreements? Correct me if I am wrong. I will state one example where Scholars have disagreed on the meaning of an ayah:

"... and if you are ill or on a journey, or come after answering the call of nature, or you have been in contact (laamastumu) with women and find no water; then perform tayammum with clean earth..." [5:6]

The scholars differed on the meaning of 'laamastumu' - contact. Some understood it to mean touching in the unrestricted sense, whilst Ibn 'Abbaas understood this to mean intercourse, and there are also other interpretations of this ayah. IMO, the correct opinion is that of Ibn 'Abbaas radhiyAllaahu 'anhu, due to other supporting evidence.

So, a Scholar can apply the rules of tafseer, and still make a mistake. Is a Scholar who utilises this tafseer in order to apply a ruling, believing it to be correct, then making a new religion?

Thank you, and Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best, may he forgive us both if we made any mistakes.

Ameen.

:wasalamex

 

[Nerd]

Back to the topic people: Is there any Quranic verse or a Hadeeth recommending or commanding us to spy and ensure that the followers undertake Religious rituals??? Force them to do so, and if not threaten them with harsh punishments?

For me, its undermining the faith of its followers, I have a hard time justifying logically the need of a religious police such as the one the exist in Saudi Arabia

 

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

Back to the topic people: Is there any Quranic verse or a Hadeeth recommending or commanding us to spy and ensure that the followers undertake Religious rituals??? Force them to do so, and if not threaten them with harsh punishments?

For me, its undermining the faith of its followers, and have a hard time justifying logically the need to a religious police such as the one the exist in Saudi Arabia

If you want the evidence for this, it's really best to ask someone who's qualified to give you an answer. You're only going to get 'I think...' and 'I feel...' answers otherwise. Allaahu A'lam.

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum

When the Messenger of Allaah salAllaahu 'alayhi wa Sallam returned from the battle of al-Ahzaab and took off his armour, Jibraa'eel came to him and said: "We (i.e. the angels) have not yet put down our weapons, so set out for Banee Quraydhah." The Messenger of Allaah ordered his Companion to leave for battle and said: "None of you should pray 'Asr except at Banee Quraydhah." [Saheeh al-Bukhaaree, Eng. Transl. (2/34)]

The Companions understood this command differently. Some thought that the command implied that they should hasten towards Banee Quraydhah, so that they would arrive there by 'Asr. Other companions understood this to mean that they should not pray 'Asr until they reach Banee Quraydhah. Hence, when the time for prayer came, the first group prayed 'Asr in its time, whilst the latter delayed it until they reached Banee Quraydhah, hence praying it out of its time.

Is there only correct opinion here? Well, whilst commenting on this opinion, shaykh 'Uthaymeen states that the verses regarding the fixed time for prayers are abundant and clear, whilst this hadeeth is vague - so therefore the unambiguous texts should be referred back to the clear texts. Therefore he states that the correct position was with those who prayed 'Asr in its time.

Yes, I know all of this already, could you show me how any of this defeats my arguments? Or are you just sharing this because you thought I didn't know this? Really I don't understand your motive here, help me out. You said that you wanted to make yourself clear by posting this, but if you ask me, all you're doing here is going off topic again. Honestly, how does this relate to anything you and me discussed.

Is there any rebuke upon the companions who delayed their Salah? Absolutely not. The following hadeeth holds true for this incident: "If a judge gives a ruling upon Ijtihaad and is correct, he will attain two rewards. And if he performs ijtihaad and errs in his ruling then he secures one reward," [Agreed upon]

Yes, again, I know all of this already; and I never claimed otherwise, is there a point you're trying to make here? Or again just trying to educate me?

There are certain requirements of Ijtihaad, but this is not the place to state them.

As you wish..

However, you make it seem as if there is only one interpretation of a verse - and that there are never any disagreements? Correct me if I am wrong. I will state one example where Scholars have disagreed on the meaning of an ayah:

Of course scholars can disagree, but that doesn't mean both scholars are right. Again, how does any of this relate to the topic at hand?

So, a Scholar can apply the rules of tafseer, and still make a mistake. Is a Scholar who utilises this tafseer in order to apply a ruling, believing it to be correct, then making a new religion?

Now you're just fighting strawmen arguments. Did I say anywhere in my post that scholars are "making a new religion". Or is there another hidden point here I fail to see?

Seriously sister, this has turned more into a fight where you're trying to discredit anything I say rather then a debate. Again I'd seriously advice you to stop it.

 

[Nerd]

Since it is done in Saudi Arabia, we are led to believe it without contemplating its validity or logic or anything for that matter. Blind faith prevails everywhere.

 

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

Seriously sister, this has turned more into a fight where you're trying to discredit anything I say rather then a debate. Again I'd seriously advice you to stop it.

You have taken my posts rather personally, and although I don't completely understand why (as this wasn't my intent)- I do apologise. 'Afwan.

I'm out of this discussion.

:wasalamex

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Since it is done in Saudi Arabia, we are led to believe it without contemplating its validity or logic or anything for that matter. Blind faith prevails everywhere.

Yeah I know, that was one of the reasons why I responded so strongly and took the topic off topic. There isn't supposed to be blind faith like this, the scholars in Arabia even claim so themselves. But sadly people are inclined to do that eitherway.

 

[Malaikah]

For me, its undermining the faith of its followers, I have a hard time justifying logically the need of a religious police such as the one the exist in Saudi Arabia

By the same logic doesn't having normal police undermine the faith of believers too? And in a much more serious way? I don't see anyone complaining of the audacity of police to assume that we are going to commit major crimes...

 

[Nerd]

By the same logic doesn't having normal police undermine the faith of believers too? And in a much more serious way? I don't see anyone complaining of the audacity of police to assume that we are going to commit major crimes...

Nobody complained, after all it is the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. It's just a simple inquiry into the validity of such a POLICE FORCE within the ISLAMIC SHARIA. That
suppress religious practices of other religions. And also ban the sale of pets such as cats,

We do need a religious Police force, to spy on us, beat us up to make sure we carry-on our religious rituals. How else can you ensure a population full of hypocrites obeying the Islamic teachings? :?

 

[arabianprincess]

i guess. but its not in all suadia .. but in certian places ... my cousin .. went there n she was at another city.. n she didnt see no police she even went out .. with out the face coverin thing... but probably in the main city like el rayid... anyways... i do understand ur point .. but as it was said if u see somethin wrong then change it .. if u cant by ur hand if not talk to them if not.. with ur heart as in .. el du3a.. n thats the weakest... so it is a good thing after all...

 

[------]

:salamext:

This thread is going around in circles. Someone close it.

 

[------]

:salamext:

How else can you ensure a population full of hypocrites obeying the Islamic teachings?

I BEG YOUR PARDON?!

 

[Nerd]

:salamext:



I BEG YOUR PARDON?!

Isn't that why we have a Religious Police?? Is it not the logic behind creation of such a Police?