new to Islam

[newsX]

Shalom,

May I clarify the terminologies that you and your school seem to labor under, DocW?

1. By School of Thought, do you refer to the four canonical Schools of Fiqh?

2. Is it the position of you and your school of thought that the four Schools of Fiqh are Sects?

Past experience informs me that you have an endearing habit of answering in a round-a-bout way; I would appreciate a clearer clarification for this.

[lumumba_s]

The mistake that people commonly make regarding schools is the belief that they revolve around a single individual. During the times of the Companions, in the immediate generations after the Prophet's death (Allah bless him and give him peace), certain Companions made a systematic effort to teaching and disseminate knowledge. This knowledge was in turn passed on to others and the personalities of the students and teachers became reflected in the methodology, but it remained transmitted knowledge. These methodologies in turn became associated with regions and the personalities that the schools are known for are just the most famous or greatest exponents of that particular methodology.

So a school of thought does not entail a mere slavish adherence to one particular person's opinion, but acknowledging expert opinion in a collective effort of scholarly criticism, refinement and development. Whether you want to call the madhhab Maliki, Ash'ari, Deobandi, Naqsbandi or Contemporary really doesn't matter. A madhhab is a madhhab.

And we are talking about an objective standard, which pre-supposes mastery of certain fields. The conclusions reached are open to the criticism of those who can criticize, but the method itself, you either agree with or you don't. Sectarianism nor close-mindedness are not relevant subjects. Not everyone has the tools, intellect or information to make them able to criticize. Matters are religion are not taken lightly and the journeyman's attitude that is reflected amongst those who seek to do without scholarship is tantamount to someone preferring a medical manual and Wikipedia to expert surgical opinion. If someone wants to perform surgery on themselves, you have every right to do so, but don't accuse someone else of being closed minded because they have greater confidence in something you don't. I've seen a level of proficiency and intelligence in my teachers that doesn't always come across in a two paragraph online fatwa. And in them a mastery of disciplines that people who claim to be "ahl whoever" have failed to impress upon me.

It is not a matter of people being human beings and thus fallible, no one denies that. But it is a matter of recognizing one's limitations and the brilliance of others. That takes humility...

[newsX]

So a school of thought does not entail a mere slavish adherence to one particular person's opinion, but acknowledging expert opinion in a collective effort of scholarly criticism, refinement and development. Whether you want to call the madhhab Maliki, Ash'ari, Deobandi, Naqsbandi or Contemporary really doesn't matter. A madhhab is a madhhab.

Shalom bro Lumumba,

I think it is more accurate to call Madhhabs "schools of jurisprudence", which the overwhelming bulk of scholarship consider to be canonical and united under the umbrella of Ahle Sunna Waal Jamaa.

The Naqshabandis and Shadhilis are Tariqas, or spiritual lodges (paths) with their own distinctive methods of zikir and training to attain what Imam al-Ghazali identifies as spirit-purifying states.

The Deobandis are hanafi in jurisprudence, but have a distinct enough system of tenets to call itself a School of Thought. Therefore, I might put the Contemporary School or Tabligh Jemaat into this category; with the qualification that they do not engage in claims that their methodology is the only one possible.

Although the definition of a sect is much more involved than what I can offer here; sectarian differences are typically predicated on creedal matters. The Sunni belief in the righteous guidance of the Calipha Rashidun, for example, stands in direct opposition to the Shi'i belief in the infallibility of a genealogical lineage of Imams. The extremist-Salafist liberal use of the "Saved Sect" hadith to exocommunicate fellow Muslims is another example of overt sectarianism. Basically, I tend to agree with you that "Sects on the other hand are groups who claim sole right to Paradise...".

Sects are absolutist, and I find this attitude in statements like "we look at the Qur'an, religion and life of Prophet Pbuh in true light"; the operative word being true, of course. In this, I have to quote the words of an intelligent (albeit populist) writer, Farid Esack (The Quran), who said:

A commonly supposed presuppositionless or innocent approach to understanding the Quran has no basis in the history of Tafsir or 'ulum al-Quran for all non-Prophetic human experience is essentially interpretative and mediated by culture and personality- factors which cannot be transcended...

And also the words of celebrated Orientalist, Ignaz Goldziher (Introduction to Islamic Theology), who asserted that the only people who can claim to be non-theologians are prophets themselves. The point being that all methods to the Quran and Sunna are as much of an exercise-in-interpretation as the next method. Truth is hence a subjective word that might be made objective by the quality of scholarship and transmitted sources backing a particular method.

If you can refine these definitions, please enlighten.

[newsX]

Shalom,

Another observation. I find that most sectarians don't often begin defining themselves from what they believe in, but what they think others believe in. Hence, we might create a packet of stereotypes which might go along the lines of:

"the others are blind followers"

"the others are sectarian"

"the others can't think outside the traditional (and hence obsolete) paradigm"

"the others don't follow the Quran and Sunna, but the views of men"

The opposite of each of these statements (crass generalizations, though they might be) seem to be the launchpads of their self-identification.

I noticed this in some of the postings here, though I might be, as I often am, mistaken.

[alan]

Salaam,
Iam surprised you called Naqshbandi thought,a Madhhab?

Iam feel constantly bombarded by muslims telling me,Quran and sunna,Quran and sunna and I have no brain worthy to decifer my thoughts on "true" Islam,in a way i have not found in other religions.My feeling is that if I dont agree,then iam Kufr.....

[lumumba_s]

As salamu `alaykum,

Madhhab means "a way to something" and as I said, I was using the term in the widest possible sense. Kufr/disbelief is when you believe decry Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) or reject something "necessarily known to be of the religion", like the obligation of prayer or the fast of Ramadan. It isn't necessarily kufr if you don't believe the same as others and for anyone to vex a new convert such as yourself with such thoughts is a crime itself.

[alan]

As salamu `alaykum,

Madhhab means "a way to something" and as I said, I was using the term in the widest possible sense. Kufr/disbelief is when you believe decry Allah or His messenger (Allah bless him and give him peace) or reject something "necessarily known to be of the religion", like the obligation of prayer or the fast of Ramadan. It isn't necessarily kufr if you don't believe the same as others and for anyone to vex a new convert such as yourself with such thoughts is a crime itself.

Salaam,
your thoughts and sentiments are much appreciated.

[DocW]

Shalom,

May I clarify the terminologies that you and your school seem to labor under, DocW?

1. By School of Thought, do you refer to the four canonical Schools of Fiqh?

2. Is it the position of you and your school of thought that the four Schools of Fiqh are Sects?

Past experience informs me that you have an endearing habit of answering in a round-a-bout way; I would appreciate a clearer clarification for this.

Shalom News X

In the sociology of religion a sect is generally a small religious or political group that has broken off from a larger group, for example from a large, well-established religious group, like a denomination, usually due to a dispute about doctrinal matters.The word sect comes from the Latin sects (from sequire to follow), meaning (1) a course of action or way of life, (2) a behavioural code or founding principles, (3) a specific philosophical school or doctrine.

The 4 schoold of fiqh indeed represent 4 schools of thought but do not represent the entire Muslim Ummah as all 4 are Sunni in origin. I personaly do not think that these four schools of thought represent 4 sects as my understanding is that it is entirely permissible to agree with one school of thought on one issue and on a different school of thought on a different issue, and this will be against the definition of a sect.

The four schools of fiqh represent Muslim Madhabs [juristic schools]. These Muslim Madhabs are actually the compilations of the understanding of a particular Muslim scholar, and his followers, of the Shari`ah, i.e. the teachings of the Qur'an and the Sunnah and of derivations of that scholar, and his followers, based on that particular understanding of the Shari`ah. there is nothing sacrosanct about these Madhabs. They are actually a compilation of the understanding of humans, like ourselves, of the Qur'an and the Sunnah - humans who were not infallible and who never claimed to be so, humans whose opinions could contain both 'right' as well as 'wrong'.

In response to your comments

Firstly I do not profess to be a scholar and have limited knowledge.

Secondly, I believe in following Islam as a Muslim in light of Qur'an and sunnah and not with a label of sect or school of fiqh.

thirdly, I am answering this question as "me". not as representative of a school of thought.

Lastly, there are some question which as phrased, cannot be answered yes and no. Sometimes you have to quote the grey areas.

[DocW]

With my limited knowledge and understanding, I believe that every human being is in this life which is a test for him/her. We will be judged for our knowledge and application of knowledge. When exposed to truth, did we accept it or deny it and did we fulfil the obligations of that truth.

I have not voiced any disrespect for followers of any school of thought, and I feel whoever feels they are seraching for the truth and believes a particular way is right and then follow it must be appreciated.

On the forum people exchange views and have different abilities according to their knowledge. People respond according to their abilities and knowledge, as human beings not as representatives of Islam. I remember my teacher encouraging us to commit ourselves to an answer, right or wrong, then try to justify it and soon you discovered the depth of your knowledge and reasoning and in most cases the right answer. We learn from our mistakes and exchange of views with people who know more.

What I find difficult to understand is that in referance to the four schools of fiqh, none of them were present in the life of prophet pbuh. They have all studied the same Qur'an and sunnah and Hadith. but have different interpretations about time of prayers, action in prayers and issues regarding ablution etc. Why?

Further more, Does Qur'an state that we must follow one of these four schools of thougths?

and lastly, the world we live in today is radically different from the one in which our respected classical jurists and scholars of Islam lived. Countless new problems have cropped up and we are faced with the challenge of finding satisfactory answers to them, in the light of the guidance provided by our Lord. These problems are peculiar to our times and our cultural and demographical environments. It stands to reason that we strive to find answers to them under the guidance of scholars of today along with the use of our own faculties of reason and intellect.

[newsX]

The 4 schoold of fiqh indeed represent 4 schools of thought but do not represent the entire Muslim Ummah as all 4 are Sunni in origin. I personaly do not think that these four schools of thought represent 4 sects

Shalom,

That is all I wanted to check. Thanks.

The four schools of fiqh represent Muslim Madhabs [juristic schools]. These Muslim Madhabs are actually the com/pilations of the understanding of a particular Muslim scholar, and his followers, of the Shari`ah, i.e. the teachings of the Qur'an and the Sunnah and of derivations of that scholar, and his followers, based on that particular understanding of the Shari`ah. there is nothing sacrosanct about these Madhabs. They are actually a compilation of the understanding of humans, like ourselves, of the Qur'an and the Sunnah - humans who were not infallible and who never claimed to be so, humans whose opinions could contain both 'right' as well as 'wrong'.

With all due respect, I do detect a certain gap in your knowledge of madhhabs. The topic is one that might descend into a flaming war, so I am not exactly keen on opening up another thread about a tired subject.

But I am genuinely curious; have you studied the matter of Madhhabs in any detail? If you have, what were your sources?

What I find difficult to understand is that in referance to the four schools of fiqh, none of them were present in the life of prophet pbuh. They have all studied the same Qur'an and sunnah and Hadith. but have different interpretations about time of prayers, action in prayers and issues regarding ablution etc. Why?

Again with humility, I take this question as an indication that you have not delved in any detail into such sciences as usul-al-fiqh (principles of jurisprudence). Am I right?

The forum is a cold place for proper communication, so I hope you do not take this as any attempt on my part to devalue your maturity or knowledge. I am not. I am truly curious to know if you speak on the basis of heresay or an objective research into the matter.

For the record, I am not going to go any further than this survey.

[DocW]

Shalom News X

I remain interested to learn about any gaps that you mention in my knowledge. As stated before I profess that my knowledge is limted as is my u8nderstanding.

[newsX]

Shalom News X

I remain interested to learn about any gaps that you mention in my knowledge. As stated before I profess that my knowledge is limted as is my u8nderstanding.

Shalom,

If you have not already studied them, may I recommend a syllabus?

1. The Four Imams: Their lives, works and their Schools of Thought, by Shaykh Muhammad Abu Zahra.

This remains one of the most eloquent and complete books on the private lives, family, education, political opinions and most importantly, methodologies of all the four Mujtahid Imams. The author took care to keep the book's content interesting and accessible by avoiding excessive usage of technical terms, and in places where he does, translates them concisely. All in all, a very good primer which I think Bro Vinod has had occasion to peruse. This book will prep you for the books further down the list.

2. The Differences of the Imams, by Shaykh al-Hadith Muhammad Zakariya Kandhlawi.

The book is notable for the keen insight into the veracity of hadiths and their general usage in jurisprudence. The contents are unimposing and well structured. Since the book's purpose is clearly to explain why differences occur, each chapter delves into a different reason, examining it from different and interesting angles. This book will make you go "hmmmn, I didn't know that..." many times over. Better still, the esteemed Shaykh does not beat around the bush and lays out a profound case in an amazingly unpretentious manner.

3. A Textbook of Hadith Studies: Authenticity, Compilation, Classification and Criticism of Hadith, by Prof Mohammad Hashim Kamali.

Because we just left off brief study of hadiths found in book number 2, it would be good to deepen one's understanding in the rigorous and unprecedented science that have left an enduring window into the minutest detail of the prophet Muhammad's life. Prof Hisham Kamali's outstanding contribution is less that of originality, but one of readability. The Afghan scholar brilliantly manages to break down the science of hadith into easily-digestible pieces, and analyze them with non-technical language. He examines in detail the history of hadith, its development, the specialists who collected them, the various instruments that they use to verify them etc. The book appears simple, but the completion of it will leave the reader with a relatively thorough grasp on the essentials of hadiths.

4. Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence, by Prof Mohammad Hashim Kamali.

I return again to Prof Mohammad Hashim Kamali because of his amazing fluency and rare ability to guide without actually being in front of you. However, the price paid is that his work is quite often wordy.

In here, all the pieces of the primary sources of the Quran, Sunna, culture and hadiths are picked up, studied and classified. The prof spares no detail in analyzing the methodologies of the madhhabs, comparing, criticizing and contextualizing them. He traces the development of the schools and the notable scholars who adhered to and expanded them. There is even a chapter devoted to the modern perception of madhhabs in general, and I found this particularly relevant in my own study of modern and modernist movements.

====

All the brief reviews are mine, so if there is any mistake, it is my mistake.

I hope this is useful for you as it has been for me. If you need any help in finding the books, do let me know.

[lumumba_s]

There is also the ITS revised publication of Hadith Literature: Its Origin, Development & Special Features by Muhammad Siddiqi. It is actually the recommended text of a hadith class I am presently taking, a review of which (by our teacher) can be found here. So at the moment, I cannot comment much on its contents. And thank you for the references, I had forgotten about Shaykh Muhammad Kamali's work, which should prove to be an interesting follow-up read. But I believe that the work by Shaykh Muhamamd Siddiqi was written specifically to answer the objections of the Orientalists, which may perhaps make the work more relevant than others in the field.

There is also the interesting, but not entirely relevant work Al-Muhaddithat: The Women Scholars in Islam by Shaykh Mohammad Nadwi, an English-speaking hadith scholar himself, which has not gotten the publicity that it deserves. You would think that in our age of propaganda, than an Indian scholar documenting in English for the first time, an encyclopedic biographical compilation of the female contribution to one of the most fundamental of all "fundamentalists" sciences in Islam that is the cumulation of years of research, it would have gotten at least a little mainstream publicity. But alas!

[DocW]

Shalom News X

If it is not too personal a question

What made you study Islam in that depth? What failed you in that faith?

[newsX]

Shalom News X

If it is not too personal a question

What made you study Islam in that depth? What failed you in that faith?

Shalom,

The desire to go beyond the mindless sound-bites that one constantly receives from the media...and unfortunately, Muslims themselves.

but I don't understand the second part of the question...what failure of faith are you talking about?