Given the quality of some of the messages written in response to my blogs, I have decided not to allow this facility to be available in my future blogs any more. Call it my failure or lack of tolerance, but I never intended the space of my website to be available for unleashing hatred against people in indecent ways. The fact that religious attitudes have stooped low was well known to me; that they have gone this far is a sad revelation.

Unfortunately, therefore, my blogs would follow a one-way communication process, unless someone sends me an email and I respond to it in the Q/A facility.

Khalid Zaheer

MEQ: Have no attempts been made to reform the madrasas?

Hoodbhoy: Following the 9/11 attacks, General Pervez Musharraf was prodded by the Americans to initiate a madrasa reform project aimed at broadening the madrasa curriculum to include the teaching of English, science, mathematics, and computers. Huge sums were spent but to no avail. These misogynist bastions of anti-modernism and militancy cannot be reformed. The Pakistani state literally cowers before them. They have the power to bring every Pakistani city to a halt. On the other hand, in East Africa, India, or Bangladesh, one sees that madrasas can be quite different. While conservative, they do permit teaching of secular subjects. Some even have small minorities of non-Muslims, which would be unheard of in a Pakistani madrasa.

Full interview maybe seen at:

http://www.meforum.org/2593/pervez-amirali-hoodbhoy-islam-science.

Unfortunately it is personal opinion being presented as holy gospel by the media such as this magazine. The traditional concept of “Ahl-ar-Rai” has completely been overshadowed by the “democratic” crowd for development of public policy. This means that successful policy making, has de-facto become the capability of being able to sell it through the media. The inherent truth (or falsehood)of the concepts and facts deployed count for nothing. Using phrases and words like misogynist bastions, mixed with Massachusetts Institute of Technology can easily sway the minds of a public that is no better than a herd of cattle (to use a Quranic metaphor). No one would of course know the simple fact that he probably went into Physics because he could not score enough marks in F.Sc to get into a public sector engineering university.

Aurangzeb

My article is making a reference to a group which is clear in my mind. If you believe that there is no such group in existence, you have every right to ignore it. But it is not necessary that if a writer is not making a direct mention of an individual or a group, he is necessarily shadow-boxing.

I heard lectures of an important, influential intellectual making the remarks I have commented upon. It is not necessary that one should always quote sources. Those who believe that there is only one way of presenting ideas are welcome to live in their own world of understanding. I will find it difficult to make comments about you as you have done about me. I am sure you are a better person than me, both intellectually and morally.

When you make a general mention of ideas, it helps people to read them without being affected by their emotional attachments to names. I can see that there are some disadvantages of it too. Thank you for pointing them out.

Khalid Zaheer

Let me get back to my point, which is that the Qur’an (and, for that matter, earlier scriptures) was(were) revealed to prophets to guide their followers. The prophets and their followers are (were) all human beings. The one thing that differentiates human beings from the rest of Allah’s creation is intellect; that is, human beings are given a choice, while the rest of Allah’s creation acts involuntarily. It is a natural law that if one does not use a faculty, it becomes frail, ultimately becoming useless. It appears that since Muslims have not been using the faculty of the intellect, that it has become really weak, to the point that we do not even attempt to understand ourselves what the Qur’an is saying; rather, we look to others’ works. The one thing that the Qur’an stresses the most is knowledge – “ilm” – and knowledge can only be “understood” by the use of the intellect. Surah Rahmaan, verse 2 says: “Allamal Qur’an”, followed by saying in verse 3 that He created humans, and in the 4th verse: “Allama hul bayaan” (rough translation: taught him speech). Therefore, Allah who has created humans, has given humans the faculty of speaking with knowledge. It is only with intellect and intelligence that one can understand what the other is saying.

Once again, I commend you on trying to make people understand to make use of their intellect, their thinking power given by Allah, to read, understand and apply the Qur’an in their daily lives. This alone can take Muslims out of their miserable situation that they are in these days.

Wassalaam.

Thank you for a very nice article.

In the seventh paragraph, you have provided a refutation of the premise “What is in religious tradition is what religion has to offer” – my question is: isnt this refutation equally applicable, if not more, for the suggestion of using intellect as a critical evaluator of religious tradition?

Let me elaborate my question as well, what if there are differing suggestions of intellect? which one would be used? Will we use the least common denominator? What if intellect differed between different cultures?

Regards,
Salman Tahir

Another thing that I must point out is that his essay is in no way a defense of traditionalism. Reading it, one discovers that it is absolutely its opposite. It should have been titled ‘An Essay on the Refutation of Current trends in Islamic Traditionalism’ or something similar. The only reason I can divine for such a ruse, is to trick the likes of me, to read the piece. If this is not the case, let the accused rise to his defense.

Let me first start by respectfully refuting his concept of what the philosophical foundation of traditionalism are. I believe that these are NOT what he has pointed out to be, in his post. This, I believe, is a general mis-understanding shared by most of our ‘religious specialists’, and comes from just latching onto the standard way of looking at things, without questioning – in other words taqlid :-) . Such questioning was a part of Islamic scholarship of yesteryears. Nowadays it is a sad reality that in ‘Islamic’ societies, scholarship is an institution that is long dead. It has been replaced by what I have called ‘religious specialists’, which is more in line with the modern way of doing things. He/She is usually a PhD and appears on TV shows and writes on the Internet. The breadth of vision that was the hallmark of ‘Islamic Scholars’ is a thing of the past. The problem of the specialist is that he that has a hammer in his/her hand. Since a hammer can only solve a ‘nail’, therefore there is a tendency to convert every problem into one. This trend is evident here when Dr. sahib claims that traditionalism is premised on the fact that humans are gifted with an intellect which is only capable of raising the right kind of religion-related, philosophical questions, but cannot answer them. He tells us that Socrates is considered to be one of the earliest proponents of the above point of view. Nothing is far from the truth. Let me return to this in a minute.
First I must point out something which is unfortunately not only factually incorrect but seriously mis-leading. Any one who has even a basic knowledge of western philosophy knows that there are no writings attributable to Socrates that we know of. All these things supposedly uttered by Socrates are in fact writings of Plato and other Greek philosophers who were Socrates’s disciples. They put words in Socrates’s mouth in their writings. Reading this, some may say that I am pointing out something trivial. Not so – not only am I trying to place before everyone the correct facts, but also in the same breath, providing evidence of my claim regarding breadth of knowledge of our religious specialists.

To return now to the point, that is more relevant, is that the Socratic point of view that Dr. sahib is alluding to, HAS BEEN PRESENTED (BY PLATO) IN THE CONTEXT OF EPISTEMOLOGY. The dialogues discuss, what modern psychology terms as archetypes, such as Beauty, Justice etc. and are essentially metaphysical in nature and thus difficult to pin down intellectually. We Muslims know them by the 99 Names. To attribute this as a philosophical argument underpinning traditionalism, and attribute them to Socrates in the same breath, will surely have him turning in his grave (probably Plato also).

I must end here. Another point, that I feel must also be highlighted, is given below. The debate started in a concrete context; about the madrassahs. Dr. sahib has done injustice by effectively de-linking it and pointing it towards something more abstract and philosophical (can you see the hammer being applied here). This in my opinion is unfair. Rather than respond to some of the issues that I raised, we are now discussing something much more abstract which require our heads to be up in the clouds. The madrassah issue is something that requires our feet to be on the ground because it has to deal with concrete realities. To avoid these is to be like the proverbial ostrich, who (in this case) sticks his head into the cloud rather than putting it into the ground.

If you asked these questions from me, I will be able to answer following questions.

1. ‘FIQH’, refers to jurisdic schools in Muslim thought. It is not the same as other sources Islam like Quran, way of prophet. It is also not the same equivalent of Hadith. For practical reasons and for legal formulation in a muslim society, any school of thought (4 are major) can be adopted. Traditionalists say choice has to be mutually exclusive i.e. either one chosen in complete respect and as per them, one has to choose one among the major schools of jurisprudence. As per Al-Mawrid school of thought (as I understand it), no school of jurisprudence needs to be necessarily selected and the compliant opinions of either can be taken pluralistically and even that would not constitute deen, but just a agreed upon allowable thing. One can review it, one can modify it, one can improve it and one can argue against it. Basis in all religious matter constituting deen remains Quran and Way of Prophet (this is also not dependent upon Hadith, but religious acts of Prophet transmitted through generations without any disconnect).

4. In religious matters, there is hardly any division. The division as per Al-Mawrid school of thought (as I understand it) is in matters not constituting religion.

5. Allah said this in a particular context. Unnecessary questions for example, predicting the nature and form of God and its will are discouraged. But, genuine questions for clearer understanding are even encouraged both for Muslims and non-Muslims.

6. There is some validity in saying that one needs to follow the scholars if one does not have sufficient knowledge. Scholars know better than the laymen. What Khalid Sahab is trying to highlight is the fact that when one gets to know and understand a different and correct viewpoint, then, one must revisit as it is an act of virtue to accept mistakes and revisit them. If one does not do that, then it gets problematic, else following scholars is not at all problematic if one does it after research that his circumstances permit and remains open to revisit his stance if found erroneous.

7. There is no problem in difference of opinion as long as one remains open, respectful, honest and non-violent. When one feels oneself superior and solely on the right path, then, this is problematic.

Mufti Sahab of SCB gave his opinion about Ghamidi sahab. It was just mentioned by me to say that its not like they all feel Ghamidi sahab to be a deviant from Islam. Many contemporary respected traditional scholars are revisiting their stance. The goal of Al-Mawrid is not at all to make one conform to Ghamidi sahab. It is an effort to seek truth based on some unique research which merits serious reading. If one remains convinced that the traditional scholars are right in a given matter, then, there is no problem. Honesty is requested in the search for truth and that will be the only thing that will matter in life hereafter.

I hope I answered some of your questions.

Salman

1. The word ‘FIQH’, from where this word came from? from Quran, Sunah or any Hadith?
2. Till Couple of centuries ago, muslims were agreed or forced to pray (salah) in Haram in 4 different ways (Hanafi,Shafi,Maliki,Hanbli)… who prompted and initiated these practices?
3. A reasonable portion in muslim community believe that Sufis/Aulia-karam are not to be considered as dead, they are still alive, they are mushkil-kusha, haajat-rawa.. visiting tombs and doing sajda on graves, who-else are the leaders of this muslim community?
4. When Almighty Allah clearly warned us in Quran that not to divide religion.. who divided our religion and divided ummah?
5. When Almighty Allah clearly advised us not to ask so many questions, because its very easy for Allah to give answer all questions but its nearly impossible for mankind in terms of implementation.. so who created so many questions, and after created so many questions unsuccessfully attempted to give answers?
6. Almighty Allah repeatedly Says in Quran, that this book (Quran) is a book of guidance for whole mankind till the day of judgement.. who is intriguing that only few in this mankind can get guidance and others has to blindly follow them?
7. Prophets including Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) were all Muslims, and Almighty Allah also Called them as Muslim..who prompted this ummah to call themselves as Hanfi, shafi, maliki etc? and then further sub-divisions

If we accept that after dozen of centuries, these school of thoughts are now tolerating with each other, but what about the damages we already suffered? I totally agreed that sincere Ulema/Scholars are our assets they eventually saved Quran, compiled treasures of ahadiths, but at the same time blind adherence is the major cause of division in ummah and this division or Ikhtilaaf is certainly not the blessing.
May Allah bless Dr Zaheer, Mr Javed Ghamidi & others, who are sincerely trying their best to eliminate confusions & mis-understandings and spreading out true message of Islam.
Finally, is this the case that Mr Javed Ghamidi personally informed Mufti sahab (of SCB) or Mufti sahab received revelation that Ghamidi sahab is associated with deobandis?

Sorry for bothering anyone,

Allah Hafiz

Syed

Thanks for uploading the article. In principle, I agree with what you have said. But, some of the writings of Al-Mawrid especially of Rehan Sahab almost equate the traditional Muslim scholars with Polythiests of the prophetic times. The kind of a unipolar way we have started lokking at this is not always matched up in facts. The reality is that different schools of Fiqh exist without there being any acrimony for any. Religious tolerance has improved in last 20 years. Even among masses, those traditional scholars made their way into public and recognition in scholarly circle, who were in most cases unbiased, tolerent and pluralistic in at least not asserting their will onto others. THis change has to berecognized and appreciated.

Some of the traditional scholars like Ammar and Faisal Khurshid sahab and others have backgrounds with traditional roots, but they are now in pretty much agreement with Al-Mawrid school of thought. Now, this is not to be looked at as a win or victory, rather appreciated and welcomed.

One Mufti sahab, Shariah Advisor for SCB Islamic Banking division used to tell me that Javed sahab is also somehow from deoband, though he has different views from deoband. But, he thought, there is much in common to say that.

In principle, I agree with your opinion and let us pray that this wind of change will materalize substantially on a wide scale and bring more religious tolerence and openness in our society.

Sorry for bothering you, I know your busy schedule and even then you took time to write.

Allah Hafiz
Salman Ahmed