Well i read your comment. You have expressed your views in a comprehensive manner.
There is no doubt that Prophet Muhammad PBUH has fully communicated the noble message of Allah to the mankind. The salvation of the entire humanity depends on people’s approach towards accepting the message of Deen Al Islam. The two basic sources of religion have reached us with Twatur whereby generations after generations have forwarded this Deen in shape of Qur’an and Sunnah. It is so pure and transparent that even today a sincere student of Deen may differenciate matters related to deen from matters that were made a part of Deen due to misconception. In my openion there are some basic questions at the background of Dr khalid’s approach and your questions regarding his approach;

1) What is the difference between Sunnah and Hadith? If like Qur’an Sunnah is also transferred through Tawatur then can Suunah be similer to Hadith the reporting of which was left on a person’s choice??

2) Can Hadith add something to the original message of Deen or it only explains the matters discussed in Qur’an and Sunnah?

3) what is the difference between Fiqah and Shariah?

4) If Fiqah is an interpretation of Islamic Shariah, then is it possible that our respectable Fuqaha would have done some humenly mistakes while interprating shariah?

5) If we believe in the possibility that those respectable Fuqaha would possibly have made humenly errors while explaing shariah, does Qura’n and Sunnah (being the original sources) provide us with the knowledge to rectify those mistakes?

6)What if a pure matter of interpretation by Fuqaha sometimes (unintentionally) exceeds the boundary of mere interpretation and introduces some additions in the original Deen while the conclusion of that matter does not have its basis in Qura’n and Sunnah?

These are very important questions the answer to which will reveal the need of reviewing the whole acadamic history of Muslims in the light of Qur’an (the centre of Deen’s knowledge) .

Coming back to your question; In my openion, surely no body has the right to claim an authority/authenticity concerning to any academic decipline without having proper certification. But still you belive that there can be exceptions to this standard like you quoated Maulana Maududi R.A. We have to keep in mind that the traditional Ulama even did’nt accept Maulana’s status just because he had no Madrasah degree. The decision then was left on the choice of the audienece; whether they find his openion in accordance with what Quran and Sunnah direct.

Infact, with in the limits of Eemaniyat prescribed by Quran, every scholler gives an argument and presents it before its followers on the basis of its strenght. No where does any one of them say that because i enjoy a respectable status as a religious scholler so on the basis of it you should accept my openion as a matter of fact. To relate his openion with Qur’an and Sunnah, every scholler has done reasoninq to be evaluated by the generations to come.
Yes institutional certification is an important criteria to accept an openion as an authentic one but is it the only criteria? had it been the only criteria in muslim history? or even did it exist before the 17th centuary?? Did not the Aima e araba disagree with each other on the basis of their arguments?. Did such a disagreement exist because they were all humen beings and none of them had the final say? With all the respect for the valuable work done by our religious schollers, i think that the endevour of muslims to understand quran and (demand answers from it ) will always create needs for exceptions like Maulana Maududi.

Finally, if we agree that the certification and strength of the argument are two basic criterias for a scholler’s openion to be accepted, then both of these should be equally apprieciated.

Jazakallah

Khalid Sb, let me ask you a question first, not because I differ with your urge to represent Islam in its proper perspective, but because I feel very strongly that the tendency to step in a specialised field (here of interpreting the religious injunctions) without having credible credentials is questionable everywhere. Please also do not consider my question with relation to the specific issue at PPU or with reference to TT, as I have no intention to indulge in individual difference whatsoever. My point is also not in the background of the specific issue at PPU, but it is concerning the discussion which emerges in its background and has a legal, ethical and religious connotation. My Question is that why is it only religious scholarship, acquired through a process in an institution called Madrasa (religious school) challenged? Why is the same rule not applied to other disciplines in the society? One can differ with the credentials of a certain institution on the basis of merit and standard, but the whole school of thought cannot be rejected without strong evidence and arguments. Will you allow a person who has not acquired an MBBS degree from a recognised institution to be a doctor, or does law permit him to practice in a hospital or private clinic? Of course not. Recently such a case was detected in a civil hospital in Rawalpindi and the Medical Superintendent was suspended.

Personally, I may not agree with our religious leaders/scholars on few issues, but in what capacity I stand to challenge their academic understanding of the religious issues acquired through a process of learning in a Madrasa over period of time in a historical background. Understanding of the issue at personal level is one thing and interpretation and giving opinion on the matters related to common masses is another.

If a quack cannot replace a doctor, how can a self-claimed scholar be given the right to interpret issues of sensitive nature. If that is not the case then why Caliphs during Muslim History required Imams to give injunctions on religious issues. Why they did not do it them self or get it from any self proclaimed scholar in those times. They knew where the authenticity lied, that’s why they were forced to refer these matters to such personalities who had an acceptance in masses, by virtue of their knowledge and stature. Please do not misunderstand me for pleading ’popism’ in Islam, that’s why I refrained from using the term religious authority for religious scholars but rather referred it as Religious Authenticity.

If the principal of interpreting religious injunctions is left to every individual then imagine the chaos. In such a case Governor Punjab needs no advice to what is right or wrong from religious point of view; he can claim his own understanding of religion, may get away with it. Are you ready to give him such leverage? But having said that, I cannot deny exceptions, like Syed Abul Ala Maududi Rehmatullahalaii. But again his authenticity was accepted in wide circles of Muslim world through his priceless work in all the Islamic fields. If someone can rise to that echelon, the acceptance will generally be there, but undermining the institution as a whole will be disastrous for the Umma. Please do not think that I am approving, in any way, the maligning of non-madrasa scholars by the madrasa certified ulema, as no one can snatch the right to enlighten oneself with religious or non-religious knowledge, but being informed of medicines does not qualify someone to start writing prescriptions for people in the streets.

In the end, I would like to clarify that all that I have appended above is my humble understanding as a student and I do not claim any hard lines. I would like to read what you have to say to change my perspective.

The simple response to your query is that TM tried to reach to the students through emails because otherwise TT had convinced them not to listen to TM. When he used his right to approach the students through emails, the VC of PPU — the Premier Pakistani University — stopped him from doing it and asked him to apologize to the students.

I agree with you that an evolutionary trend has started that promises to replace the trend of emotionally acquired religious understanding with one that requires a religious view to be logically appreciated before it is accepted. PPU was expected to take lead in initiating and strengthening the process. Alas, it turned out to be the otherwise, because a faculty member and the VC of it had religious approaches, which though conflicting in their results, were similar in their methodology. The similarity in their methodology was based on the idea that what the elders have already said cannot be questioned and challenged; that challenging religious views of the espoused scholars of Muslims is a sin.

Islam does not require an entirely different approach of ascertaining religious knowledge. It demands the very same methodology of understanding that we use in other acadamic desciplines also. In Qura’an it is humen intellect that is addressed and these are five senses that are required to extract the truth within and around;” DO not the see”", ” Do not they ponder”, ” Do not they think with care”.
If TT had any intellectual disagreements with the TM regarding interpretation of any religious matter, why did’nt he bring them infront of his audience in an open and healthy environment. Why did’nt TT let his students to go scientifically about his version of a matter and convinced them on merit by listening to both of the parties. Just like in any other subject students are allowed to accept an argument on the basis of its strength not dominance or prevalance.

I think the story indicates an evolutionary trend within our society where some people have started taking there religion logically and have stopped believeing any thing without establishing its real link with Quran and Sunnah. Except these two sources no personality has the right to go unchecked or unquestioned and become a part of our belief. I think it is only about time that the struggle initiated by TM will bring fruits to the muslim youth and will stick them closely to the fold of the right religion. This time with all conviction. Insh’Allah

There were several teachers who left PPU en masse because they felt the institution was too liberal. TM was of the opinion that all those faculty members knew before joining it that PPU was liberal. To him the right strategy should have been to attempt a gradual reform intelligently, instead of demanding radical changes. However, there can always be a difference of opinion on such issues.

TM didn’t enjoy very warm relations with the members of that group; there weren’t any serious problems either. It’s just that the kind of cordial relations one would expect amongst Masjid-going Muslims were simply not there. But most certainly TM was to be blamed equally for it.

If one of the members of the that group openly criticized TM, it was his right. It isn’t quite as much the act criticism that is wrong as the attitude of the critic and the one criticized as well as the contents and the arguments in support of the criticism.

The VC should have simply told the students that TM was exercising his right of mentioning his views to them; if they didn’t find them convincing they should ignore those views; in case some of the views were convincing, they should accept them. VC should have told the students (some of the signatories were simply unaware of what they were doing; they were forced to sign by the peer pressure) that he had no right to stop a teacher from expressing his views to the students. A university is a place of learning in an environment of diversity; those who were not prepared to celebrate that diversity should find some other place to study.

However, if the VC wasn’t quite sure about the significance of freedom of expression in a university, he should have called a faculty meeting to discuss the issue. The fact that he required TM to tender an apology to the students was not a very wise decision. If you reprimand a teacher on telling students that blindly following others is wrong, you are paving the way for religious extremism in your institution. If PPU was invaded by religious bigotry, self-righteousness, and extremism after the departure of TM, it shouldn’t come as a surprise. TM is not basking in revengeful pleasure on learning about it; he is simply wondering if that lesson has been learnt by the authorities of PPU.

TM must confess however that he never bothered to inform the very high-ups of PPU about what had happened despite the fact that he knew one of them at least very well. Probably they don’t even know even now about it, even though ‘the story goes on’.

If you were in place of the VC of PPU – how would you have resolved the issue?

Administratively, Is it OK to make decision in favor of Majority’s opinion, (I am assuming from the story above that TT and followers were in majority), at the expense of Minority (Again assuming that in numbers TM and supporters were a silent minority)? What minimum rights should have been granted to Minority?

Regards,
Salman

I heard they all left PPU in protest after one of their members was kicked out because he demanded that girls and boys sit seperately and because he missed one class because he was sad the day sheikh Yaseen was killed.

True to their well-known religious orientation, Tablighi brothers maintained an apparently neutral stance on the issue. Their inner affiliations were more towards TT than towards TM. Even though they may not state it, Tablighi brothers have a strong emotional attachment to the traditional madrassah system, Deobandi point of view, and tasawwuf. TM was hopelessly lacking in all these areas of qualification. The fact that he received love and good company from them during his eight-years stay at PPU is an indication that the Tablighis know how to stick to their basics despite their biases.

The only problem TM has with his Tablighi brothers is that their view on religion allows no debate except the one in which they are delivering and the other person is receiving. Islam is reduced to an ideology only for the gullible; an otherwise highly intelligent PhD from Stanford, Princeton, or MIT can be seen completely shutting up his mind and accepting the most ludicrous information in the name of religion. That indeed is a great tragedy.

The presence of TT on the one hand and the Tablighi brothers on the other in PPU makes the institution a very interesting place for the social scientists to investigate as to how intelligent young minds get influenced by their ideologies.

The following are the etiquette of disagreement that I believe we should follow as Muslims:

i) If one disagrees with another person, one should talk or write to him directly.
ii) If the other person presents an explanation, one should consider it sympathetically, even if one disagrees with it.
iii) One should not doubt the intentions of the other person even when one disagrees with him.
iv) One shouldn’t use foul language, demonstrate stern behavior, or misuse people in one’s influence to cause harm to the other party in disagreement.
v) One should be prepared to constantly review one’s opinion in the wake of information one receives from the other side.
vi) One should try to be fair in forming opinions and making comments and criticisms about the others.

One should try to remain calm, patient, and graceful in the wake of humiliation. One should resort to whatever legal recourse is available. But one should never stoop low by retaliating in a tit-for-tat manner.

TM admits that his behavior during those testing times was less than ideal. He regrets the wrongs he committed during the difficult period. He wants to assure his well-wishers that their criticism does affect him. It isn’t that he has narrated the story with great pride. It is a sad account of a story he still believes should be told. As and when he would realize that it should disappear, you wouldn’t find it on his website.