This might just be the most controversial entry of mine so far, so I urge everyone who reads this, to be as open-minded and as accepting as possible. Of course, as always, differences in opinion are highly encouraged.
Wahabbism (a term those following this school of thought actually do not use to describe themselves, rather has been imposed on them by others; they prefer to call themselves salafis, therefore out of respect, I shall refer to them as salafis/salafism from here on). A school of thought, mostly prevalent in Saudi Arabia, in Islam that has been mocked and opposed widely by great sections of the "mainstream" Sunni world; Salafism is seen as the ideology that breeds terrorism due to its "rigidity" and "harshness". But is this the reality, or is it fiction conjured up by ignorant/deceiving people?
Salafis, in actual fact, are people who adhere to the teachings of the Quran and Hadith. Contrary to popular belief, they do not reject madzhabs; they only reject fanaticism towards a particular madzhab. Let's understand this first: madzhabs in the first place are a construct of the scholars of Islam; it's no where to be found in the Quran or hadith. Now don't get me wrong: I'm NOT saying madzhabs are wrong, I'm just trying to relate the historical background of the madzhabs, as we know them.
The Sunnis (maybe some sufis) say the Salafis are rigid; from what I've observed, the Sunnis are more rigid actually. They do not allow switching between madzhabs, and they are strong proponents of stciking to 1 madhzab in its entirety. A simple example: During tarawih prayers in our country, people from madzhab Hanafi will not pray together with those from madzhab Syafii- we're creating divisions in our own mosques! And we do so in the name of Imam Hanafi, in the name of Imam Syafii, when in actual fact, if those 2 imams were still alive, I'm supremely, and i say supremely, confident they will not allow such divisions in the mosque.
If you want to know about Manchester United, don't just ask an Arsenal fan coz he'll downplay their quality. But don't just ask a Man U fan either, coz he'll exaggerate! The best thing, ask both of them, then make your own judgments.
Similarly, you wanna know about Salafism, ask from both someone who studied in Madinah and someone from Yemen; then you'll get both sides of the story.
I just wanna express my utmost disppointment in our scholars today; from both sides. They are fast to criticise the other's practises and opinions, wanting to assert themselves. When in actual fact, it's not always that someone must be right and the other, wrong. Both can be right at the same time, despite differing opinions!
Also, we the Muslim generation of today, have inherited lots of divisive terms: Wahabbism, Sunnism, Salafism, Sufism (when we should just refer to each other as Muslims), so let us not create more divisive terms such as "moderate", "extremist", "orthodox", "mainstream", "conservative" etc. I don't understand why we need to label others as such, really, I just can't fathom why.
Now, people, don't get me wrong. 3 weeks in Amsterdam hasn't led to me denouncing madzhabs; I still practise madzhab Syafii, I still consider myself a Sunni, I'm just trying to put things into perspective here.
Now, I urge everyone, scholar or student, Sunni or Salafi, to ask yourselves: what do you intend to achieve by pointing fingers as to who's right or wrong? Did Rasulullaah come to us for us to point fingers at our fellow brothers and sisters? Was Rasulullah sent down to us for us to create divisions? Since both sides claim they are following the hadith and Quran, is this what the hadith and Quran taught us? Let us start respecting each other's opinions, as long as it's backed with knowledge, even if we may differ regarding it.
Let me end with a gentle reminder, firstly for myself, then for all those concerned: if you're really passionate regarding our religion, dissing others is not the way to show that passion. As both Allah and His Messenger s.a.w have said:
Allah says in the Quran: "And hold fast to the ropes of Allah, all of you TOGETHER, and be not DIVIDED among yourselves..."
The Messenger s.a.w said (though the authenticity of this hadith has been questioned, I think its message is highly relevant): "The difference in opinions among scholars is a blessing," - so let us, ignorant people, not turn it into a curse.
Wassalaam.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
35 comments:
Well, we have no one to blame except Muslims themselves! They define themselves as Sunni, Moderate Muslims, Extremists etc........And those so called pious people themselves acknowledge this segregation and even influence their students. Well, what can I say? Anyway, Rasul has said that Islam will be divided into 72 branches (if I rem correctly).....so not surprising. Sigh....quote from one of my colleagues 'thought you are modern! Didn't know you are a staunch Muslim' (Jst because I refuse to attend a party held in a pub in the day time)..so if I attend, am I a Moderate Muslim???? Wateve! At the end of the day (life), it's between you & HIM =) Salaamun.........
Seems like everyone is a little apprehensive to comment on this issue, was waiting for the first brave soul to do so. Haha. And it had to be you.=) I guess boldness runs in the blood huh? Haha. Erm, actually Rasulullaah s.a.w said 73.=) And oh,yes i totally agree, we only have ourselves to blame. That's why we, educated people, must change our ways a little, and not persist in divisive acts. My humble opinion. =)
alamak gemini gal dh respond dulu.. tu lah akibatnya lambat nk check blog kau.. sometimes it is not appropriate to start blaming ourselves for the divisions of the Muslim thoughts.. in retrospect, history was a key player.. that aside, perhaps one needs to be more than accepting towards the differing views that others adhere to.. kalau tanak zikir ramai2 tkpe, tapi jgn nk start slamming.. kalau nk zikir ramai2 pon boleh, tapi jgn tak terima kalau org tak suka..
sabda Nabi: sesungguhnya pada akhir zaman umat Islam tu ramai.. ibarat buih di lautan.. tapi tak berdaya, juga ibarat buih di lautan..
awqa maqal.. so let us not be contented with being sheer in quantity.. perhaps it's time for us to review our 'religious orientation' for the benefit of our religion.. may the spirit of intellectualism not die in us and let us be the fuel that adds to this inquisitve fire so to speak..
my humblest apologies if i offend anyone..
jazakallah
Hmm.....was expecting more responds today..but looks like not many...Yeah totally agreed! If you don't wana do it, then don't slam or hinder others from doing it....afterall as long as it is within the teachings of Islam - why not! Our so-called limited knowledge is not enough to understand the diversity in Islam itself. Just to touch on Mazhabs itself, we may not know all. Alhamdulillah, I had a preview of it in Islamic Banking! You'll be surprised some of the elements used there are not the norms & even that is subject to disagreement. So reps in MS, I hope you can enlighten both the Muslims & non-Muslims in NUS at least ;-)
N bro! Haha, working life makes me bolder.....Just did a presentation yest in front of all the directors! ;-) Alhamdulillah for first time I was not trembling. I just tell myself that if Allah has deem everything will be right, InsyaAllah it will be. ;-) N do not be afraid to speak the truth when the time comes ;-) (but must do it subtly & not hurt others =)
Ji, it is alwasy easy to blame other factors, such as histort. It's true, we have inherited such,, but the onus is on us to set things right.
of course it's easy to point fingers at history.. howeva something as deep rooted as fanaticism towards mazhab has been imbued over a long period of time.. furthermore, political differences pon menjadi sebab.. kalau nk pikir btol2, diff madzhab terbit pon psl diff political n social conditions.. tu psl ade perbezaan pendapat.. howeva nie bukan bererti aku menyalahkan history.. don get me wrong i say this is only one of the dominant views.. i am for the belief that it has to start somewhere.. n it has to begin in us..
...orang suruh pegi belajar kat amsterdam, kau pegi masuk wahhabbi...isshh
Let me first and foremost qualify that I am in no position to comment on this topic cause seriously my comments is based on the limited books that I read or the minimal religious classes that I attend.
Like it or not the gap had existed. I would rather call it Salafi (early Generations) vs Khalafis (later generation). The only way to shorten the gap is to understand the true meaning of these two groups and what they stand for.
What comes to many peoples minds these days when one says "Salafis" is bearded young men arguing about the religion. The basic hope of these youthful reformers seems to be that argument and conflict will eventually wear down any resistance or disagreement to their positions, which will thus result in purifying Islam. Here, I think education, on all sides, could do much to improve the situation.
My opinion is that the way towards solving the problems, disputes and divisions that have spread in our society can only be achieved by knowing the difference between
advising and condemning.
Many people turn towards backbiting as a result of their abandonment of implementing the
etiquette of advising. So when they advise, they in reality degrade, belittle and condemn.
And others leave off advising people in a direct manner, instead criticizing them from a distance,
without realizing the consequences that come as a result of that.
A sideline comment:-
I have always wanted to ask this question...Was Imam Abu Hanifah, Imam As Syafie, Imam Malik or Imam Ahmad Bin Hambal a salafi? If then by following them, are we then a salafi or are we Khalafis only the followers of the salafi teachings.
Bismillah.
Interesting opinions so far. Please allow me to share some of my humble ones as well.
Salaf are those who belong to a specific generation. Salafiyy (or salafi) are those who follow the methodology of salaf (manhaj salafiyy).
That said, of course no one now can ever say that they are the 'salaf' - unless they have completely, utterly lost their sense of time. There's no doubt that everyone of us now is in the khalaf generation. The point to be noted is, whether we subscribe to the methodology or not.
So, what then is the salafi methodology? I am not the best person to be explaining this, but simply put, I think it's just believing and practising what's in the Quran and Sunnah. Nothing much, nothing less.
But of course, no one methodology is free from controversies. But like what many of you, bros n sis, have said, we should never impose something on others. And we should never condemn or speak ill of the others too.
But sadly, from what I have observed, we sometimes complain of people who go around condemning others, while not realising that we are actually doing the exact same thing.
I believe that intellectual and professional discussions should not be halted. We are always in the constant pursuit of truth, and sometimes, what we might see as the truth today is not what we will see as the truth tomorrow. I think it's time Muslims all over the world should stop getting personal and emotional over these issues and instead, unite in seeking the truth.
And I think we should all be able to see that any methodology is not to be blamed for the ignorance of the people who claimed that they go by it. "Blame the people, not the technology".
Wallahu a'lam bissowab, wa ilaihil marji' wal maab.
-Umm Sofiyyah.
Now we have a discussion! Haha. Thanks Umm Soffiyah and AbiFurqan, for those wonderful comments. I think those comments were really of the higher-order, and requires some deep understanding.
Hmm... All points noted, and I totally agree with both of you, so there's nothing else to say on that. Now, I think change should start from within the mosques, i.e our ulama's themselves. From both sides. Start respecting and not condemning. Problem is, you cannot raise this issue to them without them asking which madzhab u belong to and without them thinking you are questioning their authority. So how do we go about doing it?
Interesting discussion! Can someone 'enlighten' me.........Are the Salafis those referred to as "(13. A multitude of those will be from the first ones"
in Surah Al-Waqi'ah?
Is Khilaf derived from the word Khalafi then?
Hmm... I cannot answer mustariqh nor abifurqan's questions, so i'll just give my own comments.
Erm, all of you have said the right things, but it's easier said than done. In our community, the freedom of discussion is not encouraged like the Wsst, I think Walid mentioned it it his earlier entry. So I think that's a huge hurdle.
anonymous, I have to agree that perhaps the spirit of 'open discussion' has yet to thrive within our community.. however the youths nowadays are more open to such discussion and welcome the differences in opinion.. I do believe that change is slowly creeping albeit very slowly.. so I wish to not see it as a huge hurdle.. well it should start somewhere at least..
umm sofiyyah, I agree with you that we do haf to unite and stop with getting emotional. but as my dear brother walid puts it, the 'older generation' (for the lack of a better word) ulamas are very much 'traditionalistic' in their views towards religion. so here's the prob.. youths wanting to seek more for the lack of knowledge starts to ask the ulamas differing views and opinions and getting shot down with 'jgn byk bertanya.. krn byk bertanya tu menunjukkan kelemahan iman' or somthing along those lines..
so wad can we do? do we (youths) seek to question in a different manner or they (certain ulama) needs to alter their perception. cos I feel it's not exactly breeding a healthy culture in Islamic knowledge when in secular schools you are encouraged to be vocal..
wallahualam
Bismillah.
Walid and haji, in my opinion - which I know I share it with many of those whom I know - an ustaz who brushes off all questions under the name of authority.. is abusing his authority.
It is definitely a mentality which we need to change. Asatizahs are those who guide the commnunity. It is understandable if they say we (kite2 yang cetek ilmu ni) shouldn't discuss among ourselves on delicate matters, but it is a problem when even they themselves refuse to enlighten us on these issues.
But then again, like anonymous said, it's easier said than done. In fact, this is one of those things that some tajdid movements (revolution) seek to change - this whole I'm an ustaz, i'm warathatul anbiyaa' and you should not question anything I say punye mentality. And it has faced objections everywhere by those holding on traditionalistically to this mentality. It's saddening and worrying.
My suggestion is, since we cannot do much in changing this mentality, then we should seek answers from the group of asatizah who would be more than wiling to shed some light on these issues. I believe there are several of them. Right here in Singapore =)
Anyway, with regards to Bro mustarikh's qtn, allow me to share my humble knowledge.
1) Thullatumminal awwaliin. The
awwaliin here refers to those who believed in Allah and His prophets soon after the wahyus were revealed. And this awwalin does not only refer to the awwalin from Prophet Muhammad's period, but from the first Prophet a.s. To answer your question on whether salaf are those mentioned as awwalin, yes they are AMONG those mentioned because the ashaab are those who mula2 embraced Islam. But this verse is not referring to them specifically.
2) khilaf and khalaf cme from the same root word, if you're talking about خلف. But they clearly have different meanings.
Syukran. I've answered to the best of my knowledge and I apologise if there are any misinformation. Wallahua'lam bissowab.
-umm sofiyyah.
Thanks HAji and Umm Soffiyah. By the way Umm Soffiyah, allow me to differ in opinion with you, just slightly. I don't think those ustads are abusing their authority, I prefer to be nicer and think it's just the manner in which they were taught in schools last time and the way they were brought up. Just like some of the old-schooled parents, whatever they say, that's final, no discussion. It's just a metter of upbringing.
But times have changed, so should mindsets. And I dunno if it's just me, but I expect more from a scholar,especially a scholar of Islam, much more in fact.
Matter of upbringing?
Probably. I agree =)
-umm sofiyyah
Masya Allah!...this article of yours is really interesting.
Finally, Rizhan is here! Haha. Been waiting for you. An, I think amongst us all you're the most qualified to give a take on this issue. So could I request for your opinions please?
Interesting comments.
I would like to add the Islam is not an exclusive religion, it is an inclusive (of course this debatable). In tryiing to find the right path or like what some would call it the tajdid movement, we should not alienate ourselves from the society or the asatizah which some mentioned as rigid and not open minded.Seeking answers from the right ustaz is fine but we should not hold on to the answers exclusively to those who just litsten to us. Preaching to the unlearned and those who are learned but practising Islam inaccurately is a form of da'wah and a noble cause even if it falls onto deaf ears. In expecting change we said the ustaz should change, mosque should change everyone else should change except us. Gandhi once said we should be the change that we expect to see in others. the change should start from ourselves, our families then to society. ( read the history of Kaum Muda and Kaum Tua in Singapore)
And of course there are those people who wants uses the salafiyy movement just to be different from society without understanding the true meaning or rationale behind following the teachings of the movement.
I would like to add that the tajdid is not something new. It will be ridiculous to say that Sahikhul Islamiyah Ibni Taimiyah or Imam Abdul Wahab was the one who started this movement. And I would rather interperate the tajdid term to refinement and not as a revolution.
And also interestingly, umm soffiyah used the term manhaj for in describing salafiyy though some ulama had debated on whether the salafiyy movement is a mazhab by itself even without realising it.
And the debate continues
This is getting hotter ;-) Interesting views so far.......Well, personally I feel all the comments made here are rather constructive! To begin with, we could start with our own family...If each Muslim family has open mindset, InsyaAllah they will be more receptive to these different opinions & views. Thanks anonymous =) Jazallahu khair =)
Salam...
interesting viewpoints but i can't help myself from refraining to correct some blatant misunderstadings.
unfortunately... the comparison of madhabis (generally people who subscribe to permissibility of following madhabs) against the Wahabis/salafis have started off on the wrong footing altogether.
one is a firqah of Aqeedah whilst the other is about Fiqh... something everyone should be aware is what falls into which category before even attempting to start a discussion
it's okie to discuss
1) Madhabis versus La Madhabis
2) Sunnis versus Shia
3) Sunnis versus Wahabis/Salafis
etc
Wahabis/Salafis is not a Fiqh (Jurispudence) sect but an evolved ideology (Aqeedah)
closer observation reveals that the personalities the Wahabi/Salafi ideology (eg Imam Ibn Taimiyyah was practicing Sufi, Imam Muhammad ibn Wahab was a Hambali) ....
meaning to say that ideologies (Aqeedah) do not equate to Fiqh differences or Tasawwuf... the platform of comparison does not exist in actual terms
U got Iman Islam Ihsan
Iman - Aqeedah eg Wahabi/Salafi, Ashari, Maturidi, Shia, Khawarij, etc
Islam - Fiqh eg Syafii, Hanafi, Ja'afari, Zahiri, School of Ibn Abbas, School of Abu Thauri, etc
Ihsan - tasawwuf, adab, akhlaq etc
THUS... combinations exists as illustrated by Imam Ibn Taimiyyah and Imam Muhammad ibn Wahab
Thus... juz as u have a Hambali who subscribes to Wahabi/Salafi ideology, u can have a Shafii who is a Wahabi/Salafi
I feel that it is important to EXPLAIN to the unlearned masses who do not understand this aspect
hmmmm...
i wish i had more time to keep visiting this blog and follow-up... apologies b4hand if i do disappear after this
In the Name of Alah , The Most Gracious and the Most Merciful
All praise to Allah Subhanahu wa Taala
Sholawat and Salam to our Beloved Prophet Saiyidina Muhammad
Amma ba’d:
Each time when I meet our Singaporean brothers n sisters who came for haj or umrah here , one common question will definitely arise : What is actually Wahabbism?
After analyzing this controversial issue for a very long period of time(since my secondary school days) , and after reading some books from different authors and also in different languages(mainly malay,English and Arabic), and after living with the Madinah Scholars and learning from them personally for quite some time, let me present my humble opinion on this issue.
When we talked about Wahhabism , we definitely need to talk about Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab.
I see that the Scholars are divided into mainly 3 categories.
1st : Those who badly criticized Muhammad Bin Abdul Wahhab . Some even go to the extend saying that he’s a Kafir.
2nd : Those who are really fanatic towards Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab. This group will reject totally the opinions of other scholars that contradict with the the opinions of Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab.
3rd : Those who takes the moderate path. This group respect Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab as a scholar of Islam even though they do not agree with some of his opinions in certain matters.
Personally , I would like to say that I’m more inclined towards the 3rd category.
Let me present the opinions of some of our prominent muslim scholars about Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab.
Al-Habib As-Sayyid Muhammad bin Alwi Al-Maliki Al-Hasani rahimahullah defended Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab in his book Mafahim Yajibu An Tushahhaha ( Pemahaman yang harus diluruskan)
: Sungguh Syaikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab rahimahullah mengambil sikap yang mulia dalam masalah ini , kadang-kadang kebanyakan orang yang mengaku termasuk pengikutnya malah mengingkarinya, sehingga mereka dengan mudah mengafirkan setiap orang yang tidak sesuai dengan jalannya dan tidak menganut pemikirannya . Dialah Syaikh Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab yang mengingkari setiap kebodohan dan kebohongan yang dinisbatkan kepadanya,lalu beliau mengatakan sebagai bagian dari akidahnya dalam risalahnya yang ditujukan kepada penduduk Al-Qasim seraya berkata, “Telah sampai kepadaku bahwa risalah Sulaiman bin Suhaim telah sampai kepada kalian dan sebagian kalian telah menerima dan membenarkannya. Allah mengetahui bahwasanya orang itu(Sulaiman bin Suhaim) telah berbohong kepadaku dengan menyampaikan beberapa hal yang tidak pernah aku katakanadan kebanyakan hal tersebut tidak pernah terbetik dalam sanubariku.
(Pemahaman yang harus diluruskan, muka surat 31, PUSTAKA AZZAM)
Prof Dr Yusuf Abdullah Al-Qaradhawi said in his book , Fiqh Awlawwiyat
: Bagi al-Imam Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab di Jazirah Arab perkara akidah adalah menjadi keutamaannya untuk memelihara benteng tauhid dari syirik yang telah mencemari pancaran tauhid dan dikotori kesuciannya. Beliau telah menulis buku-buku dan risalah-risalah dalam perkara tersebut. Beliau bangkit menanggung bebanan secara dakwah dan praktikal dalam memusnahkan gambaran-gambaran syirik.
(m.s. 263, ctk. Maktabah Wahbah, Mesir).
Prof Dr Wahbah Az-Zuhaily ,a prominent Syrian Scholar , said :
Sesuatu yang tiada syak padanya, menyedari hakikat yang sebenar, bukan untuk meredhakan sesiapa, berpegang kepada ayat al-Quran yang agung (maksudnya) “Jangan kamu kurangkan manusia apa yang menjadi hak-haknya (Surah Hud: 85), bahawa suara kebenaran yang paling berani, pendakwah terbesar untuk islah (pembaikian), membina umat, jihad dan mengembalikan individu muslim kepada berpegang dengan jalan al-salaf al-salih yang terbesar ialah dakwah Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab pada kurun yang kedua belas hijrah. Tujuannya untuk mentajdidkan kehidupan muslim, setelah secara umum dicemari dengan berbagai khilaf, kekeliruan, bid'ah dan penyelewengan. Maka Muhammad bin ‘Abd al-Wahhab ialah pemimpin kebangkitan agama dan pembaikian (islah) yang dinantikan, yang menzahir timbangan akidah yang bersih..”
(Rujukan: Dr Wahbah al-Zuhaili, Risalah Mujaddid al-Din fi Qarn al-Thani ‘Asyar, m.s 57-58).
Dear brothers n sisters,
There’s nothing wrong to be a sufi or salafi .
If we want to be a sufi , be a sufi that really follows the sunnah of our beloved prophet Saiydina Muhammad sollahu alaihi wasallam.
If we want to be a salafi , be a salafi that really follows the sunnah of our beloved prophet Saiyidina Muhammad sollahu alaihi wasallam.
And one of the sunnah of our Beloved Prophet that many people tend to forget is to maintain unity among muslims.
Narrated from Abi Hamzah Anas bin Malik radhiyallahu anhu from our beloved prophet Saiydina Muhammad sollallahu alaihi wasallam :
“Tidak beriman(tidak sempurna iman) salah seorang daripada kamu sehinggakan dia mencintai diri saudaranya sebagaimana dia mencintai dirinya sendirinya”
( Narrated by Bukhari and Muslim)
As a conclusion, I would like to say that I love Muhammad bin Abdul Wahhab and Ibn Taimiyyah rahimahumallah even though I see some of their opinions were a bit harsh. Perhaps their harsh views were influenced by the conditions and context of life during their time.
Let me end this by quoting the sayings of a famous tabi’in scholar , Imam Sufyan As-Sauri rahimahullah :
“ If you were to see a person performing an act, in which scholars have different views about that act, and you have a different opinion from that person, please do not stop that person from performing that act”
Sholawat and Salam to our beloved prophet Saiydina Muhammad
Wassalam
Rizhan
Al-Madinah Al-Munawwarah
Thanks anonynous, for your comments, though I would have preferred it if you have identified yourself after making such somments. But thanks still.=)
However, I think you're missing the whole point of this discussion (the point you are making abt salafism not being a school of thought of fiqh is highly contentious in the first place, I personally don't agree but I shall not dwell on it further). But my intention of this promoting this discussion is to enhance our efforts of unity, not divisions, and I think using of terms such as 'unlearned masses', blatant misunderstandings doesn't really go to helping this cause. But hey, it's a free blog, you can write whatever you want.=) Thanks again, for your comments.
And finally, Mufti TPJC dah berbual! Haha. I think he said it all.
Alhamdulillah.. Finally from the mufti himself.. Thanx An for the comments and further enlightenment into the Wahabbi issue.. Perhaps we still assume that it is ok to start labelling and segregate ourselves among each other.. somting that should start changing within ourselves insya Allah..
Yo walid... entertaining blog
**haha u r hilarious**
was told u had a discussion goin on in here
My 2-cents worth (heya y it's called 2-cents aniwei?)
err... i believe the discussion was already on right track cos from the Heading... it's "Wahabism vs Sunnism" (tats the platform rite?)
but interesting comments from Anonymous
I believe the way to unify the masses is by seeking out the SIMILARITIEs and not harp on the differences.
I encourage the Kitab Al 'Aqaid by Shaykh Hassan al Banna (which was recommended to me by Ust Saiful Adli). Beautiful presentation on the Salaf and Khalaf... Shaykh Hassan skilfully finds a middle ground and ends (i quote)
"...at present, most important aim that all the efforts of Muslims should be directed to, is the unification of our ranks and speak with one voice at every possible opportunity..."
Also, my beloved teachers (thank god! i havent had the similar encounters as u guyz did with the "fanatic-abt-mazhab-ustazs")... educated me to respect the scholars and my stand for Shaykh Ahmad Ibn Taimiyyah and Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Wahab is that they are Ulamas of their time. And the time and coditions & atmosphere of that era warranted their ideologies and led it's spread. Their intentions to were commendable and praiseworthy.
My Shaykh.. Sayyid Ahmad ibn Idris was quoted, "He (Shaykh Muhammad ibn Wahab) was one religious scholar among others, and no one enjoys infallibility but the prophets. At times he was mistaken and at times he was right.... His mistakes are pardonable..."
Radtke et al. The Exoteric Ahmad ibn Idris. Lieden; Boston; Koln: Brill, 1999.
So let's find the middle road and unify this ummah!
Allahu Akbar! Ana Muhammadiyuuna wa lillahil hamd
Ahmad
-from the boring place called Singapore-
Btw AbiFurqan, thanks al lot. I think your comments made me "terasa" a little. Haha. I have to hold my hands up and say I'm guilty of 'preaching' to only those that would listen( not that I'm in any position to preach in the 1st place, but that's another story!).
And Ahmad, thanks for the insight. Really appreciate your presence here. It's true, other than the Prophets, no one is infallible. Including Muhammad Ibnu Wahhaab, and also including our Imams. SOmetimes they can be right, sometimes not. But even when they are wrong in issuing a fatwa, they will get 1 pahala as said in the Prophet's hadith, so there is not need to criticse them as people (you can question the fatwa though I believe).
And hmm, since change should start from ourselves,may I suggest, we educated people do not use deragotary terms to describe others. I'll try to start from myself. =)
Deep discussion indeed! Learnt a lot via this blog alone! Anonymous..if I understand you correctly, we are Sunnis because we follow that of Ashari, Maturidi? Seriously, why do we need these terms Salafi, Wahabi, Sunni etc? Afterall we are all Muslims....It's just a matter of aqeedah rite? What happens if someone does not follow anyone on aqeedah? How do we classify that Muslim? Maybe I need a separate session with anonymous ;-)
By the way, just a sidenote: we, the Muslim community nowadays (esp in Spore) are so obsessed with having inter-faith dialogues ( which isn't a bad thing, don't get me wrong), so why can't we can intra-faith dialogues and confront this issue? Coz it seems to me like everyone wants to sweep this issue under the carpet and pretend as if nothing's wrong.
Maybe for a start, organizations like MS could have such a dialogue.
MS eh? hahah.. actually this is one of the considerations that havebeen put forth.. as of now we are trying to get to noe the Pakistani brothers first to understand their point of view before partaking in any discussion before rightfully understanding their positions.. insya Allah we'll have one..
on a personal note, perhaps why Muslims don't see intra-faith dialogue as a pertinent issue is that we 'assume' that all Muslims are 'ok' with each other. Ideological differences are not generally aired in public so much so that it requires immediate attention. And having such dialogues would only further strengthen the claim that we Muslims cannot be united? wallahualam
hmmm... intra-dialogue... interesting
juz a teaser bro,
Do you propose a dialogue with Ahmadiyyah Qadianis also?
Why?
To me, the reason in having interfaith dialogues is to find a common ground and work towards it for better acceptance of each other's belief. Through the dialogues, we dispel ignorances and create opportunity for discovery of the Deen.
But the basis of such practices was already practiced (in principle) by the example of our blessed Prophet (saw) who welcomed the Jews to the mosques when they had pertaining questions or for clarification of doubts as well as the maintanance of a warm/respectable relationship with the Christians of Abyssinia.
Does this differ from the "intra-religion" dialogues?
Actually... we do not need one cos we are already binded and AWARE (though sometimes our nafs may choose to deny) that we are brothers of the same faith. We disagree only at the level of details but not at the Kalimah Tauhid. We fail to realise if a Salafi, Wahabi, Ashari, Maturidi, Ja'afari, Zaidi, Shia dies.... Do we not have the obligation to bathe his corpse? Do we not shroud his janaza? Do we not pray over him? Do we not bury him in the Muslim cemetary AS A MUSLIM?
Why then all the bickering?
Bonus question...
When our beloved Prophet (saw) was on his death-bed, he exclaimed "Ya Ummatii, Ya Ummatii". Who was he referring to?
The Sunnis? Shias? Wahabis? Salafis?
Or the MUSLIMs?
**** the Ummah will be divided into 72 sects ****
personally i prefer the tafsir offered by scholars whom define that the "Ummah" and "saved ummah" which is reffered to in the hadith is the "Ummah al dakwah" and the "Ummah al-ijaabah" respectively,
that is the "Ummah al dakwah" are the those whom the Prophet (saw) PROPOGATED his dakwah to
while, the Ummah al ijaabah are those whom RESPONDED to the call of Islam by the Prophet (saw).
Ahmad
- Singapore Dar-Rurat -
Ahmad, I don't think you have explained yourself clearly why we don't need an intra-faith dialogue, or maybe I just don't get what you're saying. Haha. Oh well, maybe we just differ here, coz I still think we do need such a dialogue, to enhance understanding.=)
haha... sorry that i didnt explain why i feel we dun need "intra-religous" dialogue
my opinion (disclaimer)
- the dialogue system (if modelled after inter-faith dialogues) is only effective if the FOUNDATIONS differed. eg Christians vs Islam, Jews vs Islam
where the substance of the dialogues emphaisize the COMMON ASPECTS e.g. spirituality with God, influence of spiritualism in society, importance of faith/God in daily life, etc
not on differences eg... Jesus or Muhammad brought final testament, etc
- intra-faith dialogues is difficult (could be possible though) cos the BASIS/FOUNDATIONS are already there
a dialogue could not emerge cos u already know that our Kalimah Tauhid is the same.
hmmmm... have u ever attended an Interfaith-Dialogue before? Pls share
Ahmad
-Singapore Dar-Rurat -
I see... I get where you're coming form, Brother Ahmad. But you see, why don't we let all out in the open and have these intra-faith discussions, so that we could understand why our brothers of the same religion, do things differently from us? I think the concept is the saem as an Inter-faith dialogue, albeit in an intra-faith dialogue there's more common ground. In fact, even inter-faith dialogues can be held only because all religions have some sort of common ground, don't you think? At the same time of course, differences exist.
Erm, sadly, I havent been to inter-faith dialogues, though I usually read about what happened in it afterwards. The feeling I get is that these dialogues (those held in Spore at least) are very superficial, and very politically-influenced. Haikal has been to a few, maybe he would like to share.
haha.. indeed inter-faith dialogues are (tho I may be biased) abit too superficial and politically driven (well at least in Singapore). the basis of inter-faith dialogues are to understand the differences between the different religions and work upon the commonality that each religion has. However in Singapore through the some, albeit a little, dialogues that I attended, I feel we are merely scratching the surface and seem to only 'appease' each other and 'deviate' away from the limelight shown upon Islam.
However personally I feel intra-faith dialogues should not be based on aqeedah n tauhid but more so on the grounds of perhaps fiqh where jurisprudential thoughts differ from region to region. Here we have the same 'common groud' i.e the Quran and Sunnah where we can work upon. Personally I sometimes feel the dividing of our ummah via the lines of madzhab causes deep rifts instead of allowing someone to respect another brother's sch of thot. (Disclaimer: Saya tak tolak madzhab, cuma menolak fanaticism towards madzhab. Ultimately we are indeed brothers in Islam). Therefore if we were to work on something, we should start off with understanding the different school of thoughts so that at least we are more aware of the religion and now restricted in our worldview.
wallahualam
addendum: ...so that we are NOT restricted in our worldview.
Post a Comment