::jseblod::ui_reader_articles::/jseblod::
::article_category::84::/article_category::
::rdr_disclaimer::This is a Readers Article. The views, opinions and understanding expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect our own understanding on the issue. Any visitor, with a membership may write an article which would be posted on these pages.::/rdr_disclaimer::
::wysiwyg_article::

The recent visit of br. Abdurrahman Green to Perth , Western Australia,, a " traditional scholar" from UK, has been an eye-opener in many ways. He has once again reminded us all of the sad state that our "Islamic clergy" , ( a paradoxical concept in itself for anyone who knows anything about Islam ) as well as the like-minded Muslim masses are finding themselves in. He epitomizes and represents the result of 1200 years of Islamic intellectual paralyses, uncritical following of authority of traditional ulama (Taqlid), who themselves are dwelling in the utopistic, imaginary and distorted representations of our Islamic history formulated and set in concrete some 250-300 years AH in the form of Asha’rite theology and Ahadith jurisprudence domination.

In addition to that, the methodology of schooling that developed at all levels of  Islamic educational system, emphasizing rote learning (to the detriment of synthesizing and  evaluating)  and accepting uncritically non-Qur’anic sources of Islamic heritage as "cannonical" and quasi sacred (at times giving them much more importance than to the actual Word of the Almighty) ensured that the products of  its system lacked (and are still lacking) critical insight, intellectual potency and higher levels of cognitive functioning such as the ability to synthesize  and evaluate, as well as general lack of  a healthy dose of self-criticism  (for more details see Dr. F. Rahman’s "Islam and Modernity" as well as  " Islamic Methodology in History".    Abdul-Syed Wadud in his book "Conspiracies against the Qur’an" justly labels such a belief system as worship of the past, tradition (largely Ahadith) and religious authorities, therefore humans. Is that really so? Does br. Green and like-minded "Ulama" base their beliefs on the Qur’an or non-Qur’anic sources? Let’s see:

The first thing I noticed in br. Green’s speech is his total, uncritical reliance on Ahadith as "actual " words of Prophet (a.s) stripped off their wider contextual and socio-historical background. Such an approach to our Islamic heritage clearly shows either his lack of knowledge and deeper insight into the development of the (Sunni and Shi’a) dogma or deliberate misleading of the blindingly obedient Muslim masses. So far every systematic, analytical and honest investigation into the development of Ahadith literature done either by most acknowledged Muslim thinkers and academics (e.g. Fazrul Rahman, Muhammad Abduh, Muhammad Iqbal, Abdul S.Wadud, Fatima Mernissi) or non Muslim ones (e.g. I Goldziher, Lammens, Schacht, Noedelke.) have shown that the Ahadith collection portrays largely religious, political and social tensions in the second and the third century in the centers of Muslim learning such as the Hijaz, Syria and Iraq, each of them using the authority of firstly  the early Muslim’s community practice / sunna ( e.g. Hijazi sunna– for details see Malik’s “Muwatta”) and then, needing to substantiate their arguments with ever greater authority to ensure that their views and interests have highest credibility, then that of  the Messanger (a.s) himself. Apart from this function Ahadith collection can also be viewed, accoring to Dr. Rahman, as an interpretation of the early "living sunna" (i.e. the practice of the early Muslim community which is NOT synonymous, as many would like us to believe, with much later developed Ahadith literature) and a reaction to the theological and political wars between various Muslim factions at the time (e.g. Mu’tazilah, Khawarij, Shi’a ), threatening to destroy the young Muslim society in the second and the third century. Another purpose behind the Ahl-Sunna wa Jamaat (i.e. orthodox) movement, according to Dr. Rahman, was the desire to unite the disintegrating and ever growing ummah (both in terms of numbers and geographical dimensions) by formulating a rigid, detailed set of rules and regulations often at the price of their actual historical authenticity and genuine Islamic value and character. This dogma, since those days, has been cast into concrete and been stubbornly defended and guarded by the traditionalist ulama to these very days, as I have seen recently br. Green doing.

How much does an average, imam-obedient Muslim know about the circumstances which yielded the Bukharis and the Muslims or for that matter the Shi’a Hadith? Do they know that the Ahadith literature we’re reading today are actually the transcripts and commentaries on the original works (more detail see I Goldziher "Muhammadan studies Vol. II)? Do they know that they have been canonized (by the way by whom!!) late in the 7th century AH and written in the middle of the third century AH. Moreover, do we ask ourselves important questions such as who were these collectors and writers of traditions? How do their views fit into the larger socio-political and religious context of their time? Why was there such an opposition to the Ahl-Sunna movement by the early Schools of Thought (i.e. the Maliki, Hanafi…), also known as the Ahl-ra’y or Ahl -Fiqh? Additionally, how did the process of collecting and writing of this literature take place? Why did it develop at a particular time? How many phases of Ahadith literature development were there and why, and many more questions ( For more details see Schlacht’s : "Origins of Muhammedan Jurisprudence and "Introduction to Muslim Law"?  If br. Green and alike had genuinely attempted to ask himself these questions and use his reason and common sense (oh, I nearly forgot, br. Green claims that there is no place for reason and common sense in Islam!!) I’m sure they’d have a different opinion on many issues relating to Islam now.

Br. Green, additionally, does not have a comprehensive, cohesive and consistent hermeneutical model of the Qur’an which is essential if one is to understand (not memorize) its worldview and the fundamental principles it’s based upon. This is best shown with his description of what it means to be a Muslim, as people who "semi’naa wa aT’naa" (i.e. listen and obey), but totally ignores the multitude of Qur’anic verses (there are too many to quote, but even those who know the Qur’an superficially know this) exhorting humans to think, ponder understand (by using their reason by the way- called perceptual knowledge). This contemplation and use of intellect by the humans, according to the Qur’an, will be the means of them knowing their Creator better and of getting them closer to the Almighty. This again shows the one-sidedness, shallowness and over-simplicity of the traditional ulamas’ Qur’anic Weltanschauung.

 Br. Green’s notion of knowledge is based on something entirely different. The only way to acquire knowledge according to br. Green is to memorize everything a "good old, reliable" shaikh says unquestioningly. Not only is memorization the lowest level of cognitive functioning (see Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive functioning for details), but it closely resembles  the attitude of the people who will at the Day of Resurrection say "We follow what we found our parents ( in our case Imaams) doing. What if their parents lacked the understanding and guidance?" (2.170) or "Our Lord we obeyed our masters and elders, and they misguided us" "Had we hearkened or used our intelligence, we would have not deserved hell". (33:67 and 67:10).

Having failed to understand the fundamentals of the Qur’anic worldview and equip himself with a deeper understanding of the socio-historical and political forces shaping the development of orthodox dogma, br. Green comes up with a few astonishing fatwas, again on the authority of good old Imaams or his own. Let’s examine a few.

There is no democracy in Islam, according to br. Green. While democracy per se is not part of the Islamic creed, its underlying processes, under the umbrella of the Qur’anic worldview, are certainly Islamic. The Almighty has described this system of government as "governing by mutual consultation". Think about not only the notion of shu’ra (kind of a parliament of elected representatives), but also of the processes involved in the election of the people on the shu’ra (rule of majority). Surprise!! They are consistent with the democratic processes. Islam is essentially a "parliamentary democracy" with the Qur’an as its constitution.

He also blatantly proclaims that all music and all musical instruments are haraam. Only a partial, unsystematic, isolatory, uncontextual, literalistic and superficial interpretation of the hadith literature (and not Qur’an) would yield such a conclusion. Not only that, but taking into consideration the inherent limitations of the Hadith literature nothing can be labelled haraam soley based upon Hadith. Also just imagine the world without music?!! Think about all the world cultures which use music as a powerful means of self-expression! How much poorer would the world be without it.!!! Additionally, there is evidence supporting that in early Islam people have even done higher studies in music (for more details see Dr. F. Rahman’s Islamic and Modernity). So much for it being haraam. Musical content and context which is against the Qur’anic principles, is of course haraam.

Br. Green’s views on family planning and marriage are also worth mentioning. He maintains that any form of family planning is haraam and that whole purpose of a marriage is to have babies (which is of course again contrary to the Qur’an which considers marriage as means of attaining of tranquility, peace and love for both partners involved). No one can deny the fact that having offspring is one of the purposes of marriage, but others are, such as psychological stability, equally if not more important.  By overemphasizing the significance of having babies such a policy reduces the role of the woman in the society to that of a baby-producing machine, since it would be haraam for a married couple, according to br Green, to stop having babies unless for very good medical reasons!! Just think about the consequences of such a policy?  It will suffice if I quote dr. Rahman on this issue: "In the world, as it stands constituted today, is it not among our paramount duties to create the best moral and material conditions for the coming generations? If it is, can we honestly allow the reckless multiplication of population whom we can neither properly nourish nor educate? Does it make good Islamic sense? And if it is absolutely inalienable "right" of a Muslim to procreate in season and out of season, can we accept the alternate but desperate course of strict regimentation of labor. The first course is easier, but if not adopted today, tomorrow the choice will no longer be ours and the other alternative will just impose itself upon us. Again, if we adopt the first course, how much of raising of standard of living do we want before relaxing controls, is another question" (Islamic Methodology in History, p.190).

Undoubtedly, the path some of the rich European countries have chosen is un-Islamic and selfish. But to turn our back to the moral, economical and environmental (and therefore political and Islamic) problems which would result as an outcome of such a policy would be just as un-Islamic.

Br Green considers all types of insurance as haraam because it supposedly diminishes our conviction and reliance on Allah alone. Such an attitude again is based on an erroneous understanding on what it actually means to rely and believe in the Power of Almighty and reminds me of the attitude of the people who have been described in the Qur’an saying more or less: If Allah had willed for us to be believers /Muslims, we surely would have believed/ been Muslims.". This issue actually deals with something much more substantial. It deals with the issue of fate (Taqdir) and freedom of human will, an ideological battlefield between varying Muslim factions since the dawn of development of "Islamic" dogma. To do this issue justice many books could be written, but for the purposes of this article it suffices to say that the current orthodox dogma reaching back to its foundation in the third century AH is pre-deterministic in nature, thus reducing the human to the role a "puppet on a string" in the "hands" of God.  For why this is so, see Dr. Rahman’s book titled "Islam" -Chapter "Development of dogma" or I. Goldziher’s "Muhammedan Studies vol.II- both available at UWA Reid library.

However it must be said that such belief in Taqdir and pre-determinism is indeed anti-Qur’anic. The issue of believing in fate, which has become a part of the Sunni orthodox beliefs (Aqidah– term which is also not to be found in the Qur’an), is not even mentioned in the Qur’an, but has been introduced into the Muslim belief through the Ahadith literature. Ahadith literature, having been under the strong influence of Persian thought and religion accepted these erroneous beliefs, thus Taqdir found its way into the Muslim belief (for more details see Sayed A. Wadud’s book "Conspiracies against Quran"). It is worth mentioning at this point that all the six "canonical" Ahadith compedia (books) were "collected" by Persians.

What is the Qur’anic worldview on these issues? One of the basic concepts presented by the Qur’an is the cause-effect relationship of this world as a manifestation of the un-alterability and immutability of divine laws, which scientists call the laws of physics, for example, gravity. These set of laws, according to Abdul Sayed Wadud, are initiated in the Qur’anic terminology by "Alim amr" and are "carried out within specific parameters", so that the Newton’s apple will always, because of the immutable law of gravity (God’s law), fall towards the centre of the Earth’s mass. So, for example if I let sodium (Na ) react with Chloride (Cl) under certain conditions I will always get table salt (NaCl) because the internal chemical structure of these  elements, that is the specific parameters set by God during creation of the universe, is such that it follows its immutable and unalterable laws , in this case giving me table salt. That is Taqdir.

Qur’an also tells us that every individual is responsible for his/her own acts and that he/she has to bear the consequences of those. Thus, humans are free to do whatever they like within the parameters set by God as manifest in the laws governing creation of universe (and thus humans themselves). For example I can choose to take my own life, but cannot digest cellulose because I do not have specific parameters created by God, in this case an enzyme, to enable me to do so (by the way can I take my own life by eating a lot of grass, since it contains cellulose? – Just a joke.

Indeed if humans did not have the freedom of will, the actual Qur’anic beliefs in the Day of Judgment and heaven and hell would not make any sense.

So going back to br. Green’s claim that by having insurance I am somehow acting against the Almighty would mean that if I know that I’m likely to get sick at least once in my life (unalterable laws of God) for which I’ll have to bear the consequences (cause -effect relationship) of having to pay for the hospital treatment or not being able to support my family financially whilst in the hospital, why should not I have health insurance (especially if I’m living in USA which does not have a social welfare system), if I can afford one, as to ease off the burdens of the situation I and my family would be in. If anything, it makes sense to have medical or similar insurances if you can afford one. All I’m doing is understanding in which way, just like Newton found out when got hit by an apple whilst sitting under the tree, how God’s laws are functioning and what the likely consequences of those laws might be. Is not the entire technological advancement over the last 300 years or so been built on our better understanding of the God’s laws?

Br. Green considers nearly any form of mixing of sexes as haraam. If this would indeed be so, why would the Qur’an reveal a social etiquette (e.g. lowering of gaze and modesty in dress and behavior) concerning the interaction between opposing sexes? Again br. Green does not base his beliefs on the Qur’anic sources but on spurious and disjointed Hadith of questionable authenticity. This entire issue of intermingling of sexes has been taken out of context as Fatima Mernissi in her book "Women and Islam- a theological and historical inquiry" deeply analyses (a must read for everyone especially sisters, available at UWA Reid library) and clearly portrays. The male domination and the patriarchal nature of the "Muslim" societies that has resulted from seeing women as "a constant moral danger" to the society at large is the direct result of the lack of deeper understanding and aims of the Qur’anic worldview as well as in some cases a sinister and a subtle way of ensuring male dominion in Muslim countries (for details see another work from F. Mernissi- "The Veil and Male Domination" or Beyond the Veil: Male-female dynamics..) set off by Hadith which claim that a nation will never prosper if headed by a woman and similar  others.

The perfect example of br. Green’s policy on women issues (and many others) and its consequences is Afghanistan under the Taliban, although it must be admitted that there were other factors which influenced the actual position of the women in the Afghan society under the Taliban (such as non-existent economy) which have also contributed to the plight of its women.

Br. Green also claims that Muslim men should be practicing polygamy freely. Again this shows the shallowness and the lack of deeper understanding of Qur’anic injunctions regarding this issue. The issue of polygamy in the Qur’an is closely linked and has been offered as a solution to the pressing concerns of the growing number of orphans and widows in the Muslim society at the time of its revelation (After the battle of Uhud). It is not a norm, but an insurance policy and an act of social responsibility to be fulfilled by the pious and conscientious Muslims should such circumstances arise (See Al-Nisaa verse 1-2). Polygamy, according to scholars such as Moiz Amjad, can only be resorted to when there is a genuine socio-moral justification for it, a matter to be decided and sanctioned by the Islamic state not an individual concerned.  That monogamy is a preferred form of  male-female bonding can be deduced from the fact that  in Surah Al-Nisaa verse 3, straight after mentioning the sanctioning of polygamy under certain social conditions Allah says: "and if you are afraid that you might not be able to deal with them (i.e.  widows with orphans) justly than only marry one; ( 4:2).

Having analyzed some of the opinions and beliefs propagated by br. Green I have proven that they are often superficial, one-sided and lack deeper insight. Moreover, they are not based on Qur’anic principles, but on the contrary, based on spurious, literalistic, isolatory and man-produced literature, which, due to the nature of its development, are inherently limited in terms of their legislative as well as moral implementation.

Just like br. Green I’d like to finish off this article with a small quiz. For each yes give yourself one point. I know it’d be pretty hard to beat br. Green on it, but have a go.

How much of a medieval Muslim are you?

1. Do you think that "cannonical" Ahadith literature collection are the actual words of the God’s  Messenger Muhammad (a.s.) and therefore completely reliable?

2. Do you think that Ahadith have legislative power (in other words Islamic laws can be based solely on Ahadith)?

3. Do you think that the terms Sunna of the Prophet (a.s.) and Hadith are same and therefore interchangeable?

4. Do you think that there is no place for reason in deducing Islamic Sha’ria laws?

5. Do you think that music and musical instruments, per se, are haraam?

6. Do you think that any form of inter-gender interaction is haraam?

7. Do you think that family planning is haraam?

8. Do you think that every Muslim couple should have in excess of 5 children?

9. Do you think that insurance is haraam?

10. Do you think that Muslim men should practice polygamy without genuine socio-moral justification for it?

11. Do you think that a woman cannot be a head of the state?

12. Do you believe in the Dajjal, coming of Imam Mahdi and the Second Coming of Isa (a.s.)?

13. Do you believe in fate/pre-determinism?

::/wysiwyg_article::
::jseblodend::::/jseblodend::