Modern Man

When you read “The Histories” Herodotus, then what should strike you is how little man has really changed down from those 2,500 years, when it was penned. 

It’s true that the ways and means that we allow ourselves to be socially organised under, really do determine who we inevitably will become and what we will achieve. And yet 2500 year old man, was essentially the same as today’s man. 

Just as the Athenians were the same people as the Spartans, for they were both Greeks, but what crucially made them different were their differing modes of social organisation. 

And it is this realisation that should put the lie to the modern held belief in the natural progression of man. That there is something inevitable about us becoming better, more efficient and more happy. 

In reality man either regresses or advances based upon the social mores the he chooses to live under. 

And the reality is that that choice is yours to make on a daily basis. 

And that is one of the reasons as to why the last revelation sent to mankind came down over a period of 23 years, in order to bring into existence the perfect society of man- the Kingdom of Heaven on Earth. 

But Real Man- individual Man, his needs, desires and what drives him- has not changed one iota past the advent of Modern Man around the era of Ibrahim (as) (circa 3000-4000 years ago). 

Most pertinently God declared Ibrahim (as) in His Speech to be the father of us all; the father of the Muslim Nation. 

When you deliberate upon the speech and actions of our father Ibrahim (as), as contained within our scripture, then his intelligence is clear to behold.  

And when you deliberate upon the actions and sayings of our Messenger (saw) then you can only marvel at his intelligence. 

From the manner in which we cut our nails and share a date-fruit, all bear the hallmarks of someone who allowed his intelligence to bear even upon each supposedly mundane action. 

One of the hallmarks of our religion is it’s insistence on using our intelligence and our rational faculties, this even though we admit to there being a hidden World that we cannot see. For the Quran declares many a time, “We did this to make you think”. As if part of the continual blessing of it, is that it continually challenges us. 

The contradiction here, between believing in an Invisible World and focusing on rationality as a tool, belongs only to those who have no faith, and cannot see past the trees to the forest, and the evident intricacies, and care, that abounds.

Here our rationality, that is guided by the Speech of God, first hand is asked to consider that very Speech. Can it have come from any other, other than the Most Gracious? Could Muhammed (saw) have penned it? And at every instance of the Quran challenging us to think, we come back to the fact that it is unique, immutable and clearly a revelation sent down, and protected, from on High. 

But most incredibly our Messenger (saw) showed us that our rationality should extend beyond that and encompass our whole life, and not just our religious life. 

And yet it is human to house contradictions within one body. 

When we examine v4 of S Azhab *1, it is interesting when we deliberate that in essence what makes each of us unique is the capacity to house contradictions, and to live with them. And as I hinted in a previous post, maybe it’s this that necessitated abrogation as a phenomena within the revelation of the Qur’an. 

Even more interesting is that the Qur’anic speech talks of Abrogation and yet I am hard pressed to find a real example of it, that cannot be explained by a contextual reading. Maybe abrogation was in itself abrogated? That is a question for another day. 

Even with this understanding that people are essentially complex creatures, having and fulfilling multiple identities with layers of hidden motive, that we should still strive to rationalise within each of their respective remits. 

Because rationalising here means ironing out the contradictions within each of those distinct remits. Just like when the Most Gracious rebuked the Qurayshi idolaters- “What for you the sons, and for Him (God) the daughters?” This because the pagan Arabs called the angels- daughters of God. 

What rationality demands within each of those remits is a focus on being true, just and faithful, but being primary to the goodness that resides within each of our souls. Not allowing the expression of falsehoods, injustices and faithlessness. 

So for example the hats and roles, that determine who I am, are varied. 

As a boss, it is my duty and obligation to pay my staff on time, and to not over-burden them with duties and tasks. 

As a father my duty is to both provide materially and spiritually, to set out limits to freedom as a means of allowing my sons to grow into those freedoms via understanding their consummate responsibilities. 

As a social creature, my responsibility is to overlook my fellow brothers errors when they impinge on me, but when they do an injustice to another to correct them and not overlook their errors. 

To myself, my responsibility is to ensure that the livelihood that I earn comes from a halal and clean means. And that the company I keep must be sound, and I should not associate with those that slander another, or cause fitna, even when they smile and joke as if it were a nothing. 

To my wife, my responsibility is that I must provide her both with my time, my company, and lots of loving care. 

To my parents, my responsibility is to keep their company and to be kind to them even as they looked after me as a child. 

But all of these complex and differing roles vie with one another, and it is this that causes both friction and conflict within ourselves. 

That is the reality of what it means to be a man, and that has not changed down through the ages. 

Knowledge is sought through study, deliberation and contemplation. 

Not lectures, nor talks, nor this above. 

May this be a door for you to contemplate for yourself. Aameen. 

*1 Al-Azhab v4, when you contemplate this then your heart will be uplifted. For it is an argument brought by the Most Gracious, and what it points to is incredible. For it is neither literal, as an argument from a literal point of view would carry no force. Allegorical off course the heart points to love, but explain the conflict alluded to? And actually allegorically barely catches the truth… go further and contemplate the context. 

I will give you no more hints, except that it is worthwhile. 

Legitimacy and Authority

Legitimacy and Authority 

The question of both legitimacy and authority is often not framed using either of these words, even though they are central to our understanding of society, at large, and that of our beautiful religion, that concerns itself most with our social order. 

Indeed the Messenger (saw) said “pray as you have seen me pray”. All legitimacy, and therefore authority, is derived from both his actions and his words. 

His words here command us to heed his actions. 

Furthermore he (saw) told us that he learnt the prayer firsthand from the archangel Jibreel (Gabriel) (as). 

Down through 1400 years, this command to pray “as you have seen me pray” is the bedrock of all legitimacy. Not because it talks of prayer, but because it is like a rope extending down the centuries to a terminus within the Messenger’s (saw) own life. 

However when we are faced with multiple schools of thought, how then can we cope with the demand that legitimacy puts upon us, in the face of difference of opinion. 

Many faced with this dilemma resort to a concept which has more to do with the false religions that predated Islam, and some that to this day still advocate “blind faith” as being the kernel of their religion. 

How can we as a Nation justify our behaviour with appellations to “blind following” (Taqleed), when God’s speech declares “are the blind equal to the seeing?”, whilst also declaring that it is a guide to the pious (muttaqun)?

In Ali Shariati’s system of thought one of the pillars of unbelief is the promotion of ignorance. 

The promotion of Taqleed, which came to be defined in the era following on from the cementing of the four madhabs (schools of legalistic thought), is nothing short of the promotion of ignorance. 

And then for scholars to justify it by appellation to the era directly following on from the loss of the revelationary connection, when the Messenger (saw) left this earthy abode, is just plain wrong. 

It is to remove Taqleed (blind following) from its origins within the sectarianism of the Madhabs (four schools of thought) and to transpose it to the generation that the Messenger (saw) called “the best generation is this generation and the one that follows that, ….”  

There was never any sectarianism in Kufa, nor in Medina, neither in Misr, during those first few generations. And the same is true for the centuries that followed up until the cementing of the Madhabs into four schools of legalistic opinion, that demarked what it meant to be a Muslim during that era. 

Granted that we had moved on from that, because we as a Nation realised that sectarianism had no place within our faith. 

But we still live within its shadow when we justify ourselves using arguments that Taqleed is both beneficial and necessary. 

But if those first few generations did not do “Taqleed”, and granted they were also not all scholars who deliberated on all that they did, before putting it into action, what in the body of knowledge of our religion could give them legitimacy within their practice of that same religion?

“Allah t’ala will never unite my Ummah upon misguidance”

It is as if this saying of the Messenger (saw) was made to solve this problem. 

In Islamic legal theory this is the foundation of Ijmaa’ - the consensus of the scholars- as a source of knowledge. 

But it’s power deepens beyond that. 

For it is with this saying that we can escape from accusing the first generations of blind following, for if they were holding to the commonly held views and practises then they were safe in their justification of those things. 

As the centres of jurisprudence developed in spatially distant lands from Kufa to Mecca to Misr, it is clear that so long as you held to the commonly held views and practices within those centres of population you were safe by virtue of this Hadith. 

Alhamdolillah using it  in a descriptive manner blesses us, and saves the honour of our forbears. Indeed it is said that those that curse the prior generations are themselves cursed. 

But taking it in a prescriptive manner makes it even more powerful as a determinant of what and how we should deal with difference of opinion in this age. 

The scholarly classes have used it in a prescriptive manner to advocate for the Ijmaa  (consensus) of the scholars, and here it’s potential for unification has been thwarted. 

However. when we apply it to our selves and the practice of our religion, and we try and understand the implications that this Hadith brings to us, then it opens a door. 

“Allah will never unite my Ummah upon misguidance”

Says to me when I look at it from the perspective of my own practice- “strip away all that is superfluous, and harken to that which is clear and agreed upon”. 

And this understanding in fact resonates with the clear prescription of the Messenger (saw) to make things easy for the people. 

So for example with this understanding the raising of the hands, between the first takbeer and the right and left salutations over each shoulder, is superfluous. 

It is not agreed upon and therefore should be abandoned. Whereas the first raising of hands at the outset of the SALAAT is agreed upon and should never be left. 

In each matter we should endeavour to strip away that which is not agreed upon, in favour of that which is agreed upon, and when we do this we will realise not just the beauty, simplicity and succinctness of the religion, but we will also make the religion more appealing to humanity. 

This prescription to strip away the superfluous is indeed a powerful tool to unite us all, whilst also allowing for further difference of opinion. And it is a means for guaranteeing legitimacy, and legitimate authority for those that would seek it. 

Knowledge is sought l through study and reflection. Not by attending lectures or talks or reading this above. 

I write to stimulate your thought, and not to spoon feed.