Best wishes
Tanvir

( Prof Tanvir Ahmad Rana
Honorary Associate Clinical Professor, Warwick University
Visiting Professor of Mental Health, Staffordshire University)

Regarding the post # 21. I have already reviewed my stance when you quoted the verse from Quran. What you explain here is already done by myself in post # 13 on your blog article ‘Is Belifef in God really imperative’. I already gave a critical note of my own misunderstanding at first. What you say is said by me soon after i realized my mistake in post # 13.

Before Quran, we all need to surrender. There is no other way possible. One can develop an alternate understanding based on reasoning alone of Quranic text, but when mistake gets clear, one has to submit before Quran. I already did that.

I must praise Javed Ahmed Ghamidi whom I have seen adopting this principle in practice, not just in words. As Javed Ghamid Sahab himself described it the ‘best virtue one can develop is to review one’s stance and views’.

But Jazak Allah for further clarification.

You have every right to comment on our ideas and to point out our weaknesses. Even if you think strongly against us, I hope, we share the same concerns: to know what the true message of Islam is and to attampt to follow it properly. because we are humans, our attempts can lead us to diverse results.

You believe that in order to know the right teachings of Islam we must follow what our traditional scholars have understood. You think that because we don’t agree with your conclusion we are following an approach which is dangerously misleading. Apart from the fact that I would like to request you as a Muslim brother that it is a sin to doubt the intentions of another human, I am submitting three facts for your consideration.

We don’t disrespect traditional scholars. In fact we keep them in very high esteem. We believe that they have made trememdous contributions in their respective times to clarify the true message of Islam to the humanity. However, despite their intelligence, sincerity, and sacrifices, they were humans. It is not they who enjoy the ultimate authority to decide what is right and what is wrong in Islam. It is the message brought by prophet Muhammad, alaihissalaam, in the Qur’an and sunnah which enjoys that authority. We agree with more than ninety percent of the understanding and explanation of Islam offered by the traditional scholars.

The traditional approach is not necessarily the original one. It is just that it is an old approach and people like what is old in religion, even if it is not original. Imam Abu Hanifa’s views were criticized by Imam Shafi’i even though, it is said that, the latter was born the same day when the former died. Why is not Imam Shafi’i condemnable? Imam Ibn Taimiyyah was born centuries after the four famous Sunni Imams died. The former disagreed on a large number of issues on which all four had agreed. Should we then declare Imam Taimiyyah, who enjoys very high reputation amongst the Arab Muslims, a misled Muslim?

The fact that Ijma’, the consensus of opinion amongst the Muslim scholars on an issue, cannot be religiously challeneged is an understanding which has been ridiculed and condemned by some of the very famous Muslim scholars. Those who have criticized the conventional idea of ijma’ include such famous names as Imam Shafi’i, Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Imam Ibn Hazm, and Imam Razi. I plan to mention their quotes on ijma’ in one of my subsequent blogs, insha’Allah.

Now a final request: Our prophet, alaihissalaam, was polite even with his enemies. Why are you so harsh with your brothers? Clearly you don’t see what lies hidden in our hearts. Just criticize our ideas sincerely and let God decide about intentions.

khalid Zaheer

Consider it my lack of intelligence, but I haven’t been able to understand your stance that while we can’t logically justify this life as a trial, we can explain it through the argument of justice. Are the two explanations any different? ?I mean is it not enough to say that because this life is not fair, we can see clearly that the Wise and Fair creator cannot let that continue for ever and therefore there will be another life. This life is a trial and the next one shall be the result of it.

I think when you say that logic alone cannot prove that this life is a trial you are probably trying to mean that the explanation of this trial which humans can comprehend and be satisfied with in all the details is not available. Of course, it is not available. That is what makes it a trial. We have been given to live in a world of limitation: limited knowledge, limited resources, limited time etc. We have been asked to operate in these limitations. The one who is prepared to know the truth — which includes an attitude of humble pursuit for the right answers — God gradually makes the reality known to him. What such an individual gets is not just a logical answer: It is much more than that. Had the comprehension of the idea of the trial of this life been based on mere logic, it wouldn’t have been a fair trial. The intelligent would have succeeded and the less intelligent would have flunked. In its present form it is a trial in which the sincere — even if not exceedingly intelligent — succeed and the insincere — even if they are hugely intelligent — fail.

Khalid Zaheer

Thanks for your enlightening input on my presentation. Indeed it is through open-minded critical examination of realities that we are able to reach from one station of truth to another, higher one.

I can assure you that the punishment of blasphemers and apostates you referred to in your message without providing evidence of it is not mentioned in the Qur’an. You have heard about them from sources outside the Qur’an. The Qur’an is silent about punishments for either of them.

The fact that it took a very long time for the humans to evolve and that we are very small in size compared to the universe doesn’t prove anything. Even if we are a mere stamp on top of a tall building, it is a statement that only compares our physical size with the rest of the universe. What makes humans hugely superior to all other creations, whether stars, mountains, trees, or beasts, is not their size or the time they reached the planet, but their intellect and the ability of sifting right from wrong. By mentioning the example of stamp on the Empire State Building, therefore, you are proving nothing except that you are slightly weak in the domain of giving examples. If hippopotamus or giraffe cannot be superior to man simply because of their superior sizes, why would a tall building be superior to a stamp simply because the latter was only very tiny compared to the building? If the man who lived in this world ten thousand years ago wasn’t superior to the modern man simply because he was ancient, why would the fact that man’s entry into this world was very recent compared to many others make him any inferior?

It is the authors of the theory (or, as you say, fact) of natural selection who claim that by natural selection they only mean the evolution of our world through a God-less process. Why should this claim be accepted simply because it was made by people who used the expression natural selection in a way that they didn’t have God’s intervention in mind? A claim is accepted or rejected not because of the conviction of the one who is claiming it. In that case, there could be no possibility of rejecting any claim. We reject the claim of those who say that this world came about without anyone’s intervention because it is the most absurd claim anyone can ever make. What that claim means is that man — with all his physical and intellectual excellence, and the material resources which serve to sustain man’s existence — all came about through a process which was not just a one-off fluke. It means that the fluke continues to happen in the most amazing way on a regular basis! If there was to be picked any one claim made by man which was the most strange and weird, it had to be this one. You call it one of the wonders of human intelligence that man has been able to come up with the idea of natural selection without God’s intervention. Honestly, if man had been intelligent only to the extent that he would suggest creation of universe without God, I might have considered that theory a little seriously. But man has proved to be much more intelligent than that in achieving so many feats that one cannot possibly imagine that he and his intelligence happened through fluke happened, without any intelligent planning.

Khalid Zaheer

I have realised one thing out of all this communications that I received (from your articles and talks that read or watched) that your main objective is to damage the core foundations of our faith and you know how to play with words. Because, for any person with common sense will realise that all the muslims in the past and in the present follow a consistent approach, which some handful people (self made scholars) tag them as “traditionalist” and consider them as following the wrong path.

So, now lets see the overview of these things. There is one small group which considers all the muslims as following the wrong path and according to them muslims in the past and present couldn’t understand the Islam properly. And after a 14 hundred years these self made great scholars have appeared to save the humanity form the “tradionalist” approach. Moreover, these people consider that for last 14 hundred years all the muslims could not understand the Quran and sunnah. However, these people with no proven skills in arabic have understood the Quran and sunnah better that Imam Abu Hanifa, Imam Malik, Imam Shafi and Imam Ahmed and many thousands of great scholars. The biggest irony is that all these people are from Indian subcontinent. So, the Arabs still haven’t understood the Quran and its Arabic.

The irony is that these people consider themselves as “originalists” and they have no connection with the origin of Islam. And they have founded this so called “originalistic” approach in the late 14th century. What a great way to deceive people. And by action and background this “originalistic” approach is actually a “mordernistic” approach. But cleaverly they have named themselves “originalists”.

What is the difference between your views and mine if you believe that Chinese people will also go to the paradise despite them not receiving the prophets’ messages? What will happen to the hard work and sacrifices of prophets you have mentioned in your comments if the Chinese would succeed in the hereafter despite not formally believing in any of the messages that didn’t come to them properly? The only reason it would happen is because if they would do as best as they could, they will reach the paradise. That is exactly what I am saying. And who is being inconsistent in views? There is an individual who is mentioning that the prophets’ sacrifices would go waste if people would go to paradise without believing in them on the one hand and yet is saying in the same breath that Chinese would enter the paradise without believing in them. Is he not being inconsistent?

The prophets made those sacrifices because God wanted them to do so. They did it because that was the best thing for them to do. They were all interested in taking the entire humanity to the paradise. Why are we interested in consigning many people to the hell-fire simply because those great people made supreme sacrifices? I don’t understand the link between the two? The prophets couldn’t have sat back because their God wanted to go ahead and deliver His message no matter whatever be the situation.

It is some naiive Muslims (traditionalists, by the way) who are creating this false impression about Islam by saying that if we don’t go for tabligh, the entire Chinese population would go to the hell for ever because they will not have recited the kalimah. It is that notion that I would want to dispel loudly and clearly. Our God is not going to allow anyone to go to the hell without justification.

The originalist approach is not in danger of being inconsistent, because it is only tied to the text. It can make mistakes; and it does make them. But its adherents have made a commitment to correct their views as and when mistakes are pointed out in the light of the original text. Of course, as humans, the followers of this approach can still make errors, even blunders, deliberately or otherwise. The trouble with the traditionalists (and modernists) is that for them the text is secondary. For the traditionalists, it is the opinion of the earlier scholars which is the ultimate authority. Even if a mistake is realized, it cannot be corrected. Such is their commitment to the views of their elders.

Sadly your article and argument is poorly represented as it has fundamental errors. The concept of natural selection is not a theory as such as it is a common held Fact of science. I would consider it one of the triumphs of human intellect. Although there are mnay that claim that this is God’s work. Why would God devise a plan that totally deceives the purpose of his own existence?
Also you claim that the Quran does not look down upon blasphemy, I and many others would disagree as Quran has specific examples of what to do with blasphemers and apostates which I do not want to get into. I do believe, being a doctor you should read up on natural selection and see how it works. One example would be if that the lifespan of planet earth was represented by the empire state building, our existence would only be a postage stamp on the top. Our species is fairly modern in that sense and has taken millions of years of natural selection. Nature in its characteristics has been free from divine intervention during this process. If you claim to believe that God made this process you would believe then that Divine intervention is ruled out in natural selection.

Jazakallah o khairan for your reply. I thinks its much better to talk straight and to the point. I am not saying that what you are saying is wrong and what I am saying is wright instead I am saying that you are not being consistent with your own views and this shows the deficiencies in the foundations of your theory (”Originalistic Approach”). Because firstly you say that the people who are unable to reach the straight path will be pardoned and then you contradict this by saying that everyone has the potential to get to the truth. Therefore, in a plain language both cant be true. Teachings of Islam are straightforward and there isn’t scope for philosephy of playing with words.

As I have previously written that I judge any article with what it offers for take away. In this sense if we analyse the intensity of your massage then its very difficult to justify the sacrifice made by Prophets (may peace be upon all of them) and salafs to save the mankind from hell-fire, because if they had agreed to your view then there was no need to all this. They could have given the message to few and relaxed.

So what I am trying to say that by writing this article you are just undermining the importance of dawah and Iman. As each Muslim has the responsibility to spread the message in the best possible manner. We are not here to judge who is going to hell-fire (this is on Allah SWT to decide). However, we need to take on the pain that prophets had to save humans form fire of hell and work for others.

Finally, even the message of Islam might not reach the every human (including Chinese) but Allah SWT has given them the faculty to recognise Him and this is the must criterion for paradise, which can be proven by numerous ayahs in Quran.

Wassalam,