Madina Archives

Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board

shaking hands of opposite sex
dina
03/30/05 at 02:20:43
[slm] i have posted this question before i would just like advice from sisters (i dont feel i recieved before) i have interviews coming up.... i want to know how sisters respond to shaking hands of the opposite sex. [wlm]

Re: shaking hands of opposite sex
bismilla
03/30/05 at 02:40:29
[slm] I find that by just telling the people that you do not shake hands they accept it.  Say it with a smile and without any attitude or malice and it's almost always worked. For some of the people i found it was easier to whisper it quielty to them especially if we were in a group. Also, knowing and undetstanding why you don't want to shake hands helps, incase you get asked to explain. Insha Allah i hope Allah swt makes it easy for you.

Re: shaking hands of opposite sex
Saffiya
04/11/05 at 16:38:25
[slm] I'm sorry for the late reply... In Islaam it is not permissable for a woman to shake hands with a non-mahram man, whether that be for professional reasons or any other. It is not allowed. For anyone to say it is right is wrong. Some people say it is excused because of the western society we live in. However, it is important that we follow Islaam wherever we are and in whatever society we live in, no matter how hard it gets. This is the test for the believers. There is a Hadith which says something to the effect of 'the dunya is like Jahannum for the believers and like Jannah for the disbelievers'. We are all tested in different ways and we all know that Allah will reward us for the hardships we go through. But we have to remember that these are nothing compared to what some Muslims had to go through in the past. Imaan is testifying by your tongue, believing in your heart, showing by your actions and practising willingly. So as some people explain it - it is not just about your intention. Allah says in the Quraan (Surah An Nasr) that he has made Islaam complete - the perfect way of life, also Allah says that he does not burden a soul more than it can bear. Allah has, therefore, made us perfectly capable of following every law of Islaam.   Why should it matter to us whether the disbeleivers get offended or not. Do they mind or care about how we feel when they do obscence things in public?. Why do we have to feel embarrased by our divine way of life?. We are on the haqq - they aren't. I have been through this experience myself and simply told the male in question (a professional) that it is against my faith. He was more than apologetic, saying he should have known because he knows that I am a Muslim. Next time, In sha Allah he won't approach a Muslim woman to shake her hands. I understand that this is hard and I've also been through the difficulty in thinking 'what will they think?', 'is it rude'. Personally, I think if you are honest they will respect you for what you are and employ you for your ability, not for how good you have been in shaking hands. It is also important for sisters to explain to males that it is not just about Muslim women not shaking hands with men, the same rules apply to Muslim men not being allowed to shake hands with women. After all, how else are people supposed to be aware of this issue if we feel too embarrased to explain. This is dawah.       I pray that Allah SWT gives you strength in your imaan to deal with the difficulties in this life and showers his blessings on you. I pray that Allah SWT makes it easy for you and other Muslims in similar situations (including myself)....Ameen. W'salaam  :-)

shaking hands
tahirah
04/15/05 at 13:04:30
[slm] usually i put my hand on my chest, smile adn appologize because "i dont shake hands."  The response is usually brief suprise, then embarrasment for not knowing our culture.  If it is someone you will possibly be working with for a while it would help to explain why we dont shake hands with or even touch the opposite sex (out of mutual respect for the genders we leave contact to close relatives and spouses). be prepared for strange questions (although probably not during an interview):  once in high school my teacher asked if i could touch elbows instead! hope this helps! :) tahirah

...hands full!
Maryam
04/18/05 at 11:28:38
[quote author=tahirah link=board=sis;num=1112167244;start=0#3 date=04/15/05 at 13:04:30] be prepared for strange questions ... once in high school my teacher asked if i could touch elbows instead!  [/quote] ;D   Good advice from sisters. When I was nervous, I found that I could have my hands full, like with a cup of coffee in one and some files in another... ya know, like "sorry, but I got my hands full." However, that doesn't last very long.  At some point in time, I wasn't always going to be drinking coffee or carrying a load of files, etc.  So, yes, it is best to avoid and offer an explaination from the beginning.  Soon when the formalities of the interview have passed, they will more than likely be focusing in on your skills and abilities.   WaSalaam, Maryam.

hmm well...
Aabidah
04/25/05 at 16:28:23
[slm] InshaAllah you're doing well.. Sr. Saffiya, I have a counter argument for what you said... It is haraam for women and men to touch the opposite gender but there are circumstances in which it has been excused, based off of what some scholars say. If your circumstance is such that it will embaress somebody then you shake their hand. It depends on the circumstances but on a usual occassion, it is haraam.   wassalamu alaikum, Betul

you need evidence
Saffiya
04/27/05 at 16:28:42
[slm] Sister Betul...in response to your message, as Muslims before we say an action is haraam/halaal we need to have the evidence from Quraan and Sunnah to do so - we do not make the laws based on our emotions/feelings. Please don't take this the wrong way, but have you got any evidence from Quraan/Sunnah to support your statement regarding its ok to shake hands to avoid embarrassment? I have never heard of this before. I think it is important to get this specific situation clarified because we don't want to be misleading muslims. From your sister in Islaam [wlm] :-)

Fatwa
Kathy
04/29/05 at 09:15:36
[slm] A sis sent me this: Shaking Hands with Women: An Islamic Perspective   Date of Fatwa  24/ July/ 2003   Date of Reply 24/ July/ 2003   Topic Of Fatwa  Islamic Behaviour     Question of Fatwa Dear scholars, As-Salamu `alaykum. I have a problem that undoubtedly many others face. It is shaking hands with women, especially relatives who are not mahram to me, such as my cousins, wives of uncles, or sisters-in-law. Many pious Muslims face this problem, particularly on certain occasions such as coming back from travel, recovering from an illness, returning from Hajj or `Umrah, or similar occasions when relatives, in-laws, neighbors, and colleagues usually visit, congratulate each other and shake hands with each other. What I am asking is, is it proven in the Glorious Qur’an or the Sunnah that shaking hands with women is totally prohibited within the social and family relations when there is trust and no fear of temptation? I would appreciate if you would answer my question in the light of the Qur’an and the Sunnah. Wajazakum Allah Khairan.   Name of Mufti Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi   Content of Reply Wa `alaykum As-Salamu wa Rahmatullahi wa Barakatuh. In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful. All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger. Dear brother in Islam, first of all, we'd like to voice our appreciation for the great confidence you have in us. We hope that our efforts meet your expectation. May Allah help us all keep firm on the Straight Path, Amen! In his response to the question, the eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi, states: There is no doubt that shaking hands between males and females who are not mahrams (illegal for marriage) has become an intricate issue. Reaching an Islamic verdict on this issue away from extremism and dispensation needs a psychological, intellectual, and scientific effort so that the Mufti gets rid of the pressure of all imported and inherited customs unless they are based on the textual proofs of the Qur’an or the Sunnah. Before tackling the issue in point, I would like to exclude two points on which I know there is agreement among the Muslim jurists of the righteous predecessors. Firstly, it is prohibited to shake hands with a woman if there is fear of provoking sexual desire or enjoyment on the part of either one of them or if there is fear of temptation. This is based on the general rule that blocking the means to evil is obligatory, especially if its signs are clear. This ruling is ascertained in the light of what has been mentioned by Muslim jurists that a man touching one of his mahrams or having khalwah (privacy) with her moves to the prohibited, although it is originally permissible, if there is fear of fitnah (temptation) or provocation of desire. Secondly, there is a dispensation in shaking hands with old women concerning whom there is no fear of desire. The same applies to the young girl concerning whom there is no fear of desire or temptation. The same ruling applies if the person is an old man concerning whom there is no fear of desire. This is based on what has been narrated on the authority of Abu Bakr As-Siddiq (may Allah be pleased with him) that he used to shake hands with old women. Also, it is reported that `Abdullah ibn Az-Zubair hired an old woman to nurse him when he was sick, and she used to wink at him and pick lice from his head. This is also based on what has been mentioned in the Glorious Qur’an in respect of the old barren women, as they are given dispensation with regard to their outer garments. Almighty Allah says in this regard: “As for women past child bearing, who have no hope of marriage, it is no sin for them if they discard their (outer) clothing in such a way as not to show adornment. But to refrain is better for them. Allah is Hearer, Knower.” (An-Nur: 60) Allah explains that there is no sin on the old barren women if they decide to remove their outer garments from their faces and such, so long as they do not do it in a manner in which they would be exposing their beauty wrongly. Here the object of discussion deals with other than these two cases. There is no surprise that shaking hands with women is haram (unlawful) according to the viewpoint of those who hold that covering all of the woman’s body, including her face and the two hands, is obligatory. This is because if it becomes obligatory to cover the two hands, then it would become haram for the opposite sex to look at them. And, if looking at them is unlawful, then touching them would become haram with greater reason because touching is graver than looking, as it provokes desire more. But it is known that the proponents of this view are the minority, while the majority of Muslim jurists, including the Companions, the Successors and those who followed them, are of the opinion that the face and the hands are excluded from the prohibition. They based their opinion on Almighty Allah’s saying, “And tell the believing women to lower their gaze and be modest, and to display of their adornment only that which is apparent …” (An-Nur: 31) So where is the evidence on prohibiting handshaking unless there is desire? In fact, I searched for a persuasive and textual proof supporting the prohibition but I did not find it. As a matter of fact, the most powerful evidence here is blocking the means to temptation, and this is no doubt acceptable when the desire is roused or there is fear of temptation because its signs exist. But when there is no fear of temptation or desire, what is the reason for prohibition? Some scholars based their ruling on the action of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) on the day of the Conquest of Makkah. When he wanted to take the pledge of women he said to them, “Go, for you have given your oath of allegiance.” But it is known that the Prophet’s leaving a matter does not necessarily indicate its prohibition, as he may leave it because it is haram (forbidden), makruh (reprehensible), or because it is not preferable. He may also leave it just because he is not inclined to it. An example of this last is the Prophet’s refraining from eating the meat of the lizard although it is permissible. Then, the Prophet’s refraining from shaking hands with women (other than his wives) is not evidence of the prohibition, and there should be other evidence to support the opinion of those who make shaking hands absolutely prohibited. However, it is not agreed upon that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) refrained from shaking hands with women to take their oath of allegiance. Umm `Atiyyah Al-Ansariyyah (may Allah be pleased with her) reported another narrative that indicates that the Prophet shook hands with women to take their oath of allegiance. This is unlike the narration of the Mother of the Believers `A’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) who denied this and swore that it had not happened. It is narrated that `A’ishah, the wife of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), said, “When the believing women migrated to the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), they would be tested in accordance with the words of Allah, ‘O Prophet! If believing women come unto thee, taking oath of allegiance unto thee that they will ascribe nothing as partner unto Allah, and will neither steal nor commit adultery nor kill their children, nor produce any lie that they have devised between their hands and feet, nor disobey thee in what is right, then accept their allegiance and ask Allah to forgive them. Lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.’ (Al-Mumtahanah: 12)” `A’ishah said, “Whoever among the believing women agreed to that passed the test, and when the women agreed to that, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said to them, ‘Go, for you have given your oath of allegiance.’ No, by Allah, the hand of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) never touched the hand of any woman, rather they would give their oath of allegiance with words only.” And `A’ishah said, “By Allah, the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) only took the oath of allegiance from the women in the manner prescribed by Allah, and the hand of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) never touched the hand of any woman. When he had taken their oath of allegiance he would say, ‘I have accepted your oath of allegiance verbally.’” (Reported by Al-Bukhari) In his explanation of the saying of `A’ishah, “No, by Allah, the hand of the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) never touched the hand of any woman …” Al-Hafizh Ibn Hajar said: she swore to ascertain the news as if she (`A’ishah) wanted to refute the narration of Umm `Atiyyah. It is narrated on the authority of Ibn Hibban, Al-Bazzar, Al-Tabari, and Ibn Mardawih that Umm `Atiyyah said in respect of the story of taking the oath of allegiance of women, “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) held out his hand from outside the house and we (the immigrating women) held our hands from within the house, then he said, ‘O Allah, bear witness.’” In another narration reported by Al-Bukhari, Umm `Atiyyah said, “… thereupon a lady withdrew her hand (refrained from taking the oath of allegiance)…” This narration indicates that they (the immigrating women) took their oath of allegiance by shaking hands. Al-Hafizh said: we reply to the first saying that holding out hands from behind a veil is an indication of the acceptance of the allegiance even if there was no shaking of hands. As for the second narration, withdrawing hands indicates the postponement of accepting the pledge of allegiance or that taking the pledge of allegiance happened from behind a veil. This is supported by that narration of Abu Dawud on the authority of Al-Sha`bi that when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) wanted to take the pledge of allegiance of the immigrating women he brought a garment and put it over his hands saying, “I do not shake hands with women.” Furthermore, in his book Maghazi, Ibn Is-haq is reported to have said that when the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) wanted to take the pledge of allegiance of the immigrating women, he would dip his hands in a vessel and a woman would dip her hands with him in the same vessel. Al-Hafizh Ibn Hajar said: it is possible that taking the pledge of allegiance happened on more than one occasion. Sometimes, it happened without touching hands by any means, as narrated by `A’ishah. Another time it happened that the women’s oath of allegiance was accepted by shaking their hands with the Prophet (peace and blessings be qpon him), as narrated by Al-Sha`bi. A third time it happened that they dipped their hands in the vessel as mentioned by Ibn Is-haq. The most correct view seems to be that it occurred on more than one occasion, if we realize that `A’ishah talked about taking the pledge of allegiance from the immigrating women after the Truce of Al-Hudaibiyah, while Umm `Atiyyah talked about what seems to be the oath of allegiance of the believing women in general. By transmitting these narrations, I mean to clarify that the evidence of those who are of the opinion that shaking hands with women is prohibited is not agreed upon, as is thought by those who do not resort to the original sources. Rather, there is some controversy concerning this evidence. Furthermore, some contemporary Muslim scholars have based their ruling concerning the prohibition of shaking hands with women on the Hadith narrated by Al-Tabari and Al-Baihaqi on the authority of Ma`qil ibn Yassar that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “It would be better for one of you to have himself stabbed on the head with an iron needle than to touch a woman that is illegal for him.” Here, the following should be noted: 1. The scholars and Imams of Hadith have not declared the authenticity of this Hadith. Some of them say that its narrators are trustworthy, but this is not enough to prove the authenticity of the Hadith because there is a probability that there is an interruption in the chain of narrators or there was a hidden cause behind this Hadith. That is why Muslim jurists in the periods that followed the death of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) have not based their ruling on the prohibition of shaking hands with women on this Hadith. 2. Some Hanafi and Maliki jurists stated that the prohibition is not proven unless there is a certain qat`i (definitive) piece of evidence such as textual proofs from the Glorious Qur’an or authentic Hadiths on which there is no suspicion regarding the chains of narrators. 3. If we suppose that the above-mentioned Hadith is authentic, it is unclear to me that the Hadith indicates that it is prohibited for males and females who are not mahrams to shake hands. That is because the phrase “touch a woman that is illegal for him” does not refer to the mere touching without desire as happens in normal handshaking. But the Arabic word “al-mass” (touching) as used in the Shar`i texts of the Qur’an and the Sunnah refers to one of two things: 1. Sexual intercourse, as reported by Ibn `Abbas in his commentary to Almighty Allah’s saying, ‘… or ye have touched women …’. He stated that “touching” in the Qur’an refers figuratively to sexual intercourse. This is clear in the following Qur’anic verses that read: “She (Mary) said: ‘My Lord! How can I have a child when no mortal hath touched me?’” (Al `Imran: 47) and “If ye divorce them before ye have touched them …” (Al-Baqarah: 237) 2. Actions that precede sexual intercourse such as foreplay, kissing, hugging, caressing, and the like. This is reported from our righteous predecessors in the interpretation of the word “mulamasah”. Al-Hakim stated in his Al-Mustadrak `Ala as-Sahihain: Al-Bukhari and Muslim have narrated many Hadiths that show that the meaning of the word “lams” (touching) refers to actions that precede sexual intercourse. Among them are: a) The Hadith narrated by Abu Hurairah that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “…The hands fornicate. Their fornication is the touch ...” b) The Hadith narrated by Ibn `Abbas that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) said, “You might caress her.” c) The Hadith narrated by Muslim that Ibn Mas`ud is reported to have said that a person came to Allah's Messenger (peace and blessings be upon him) and told him that he had kissed a woman or touched her with his hand or did something like this. He inquired of him about its expiation. It was (on this occasion) that Allah, Glorified and Exalted be He, revealed this Qur’anic verse that reads “Establish worship at the two ends of the day and in some watches of the night. Lo! good deeds annul ill deeds …” (Hud: 114) d) `A’ishah (may Allah be pleased with her) is reported to have said, “The Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him) used to visit us (his wives) and it was his habit to kiss and caress us and do actions other than sexual intercourse until he reached the one whose turn was due and he stayed there.” e) `Abdullah ibn Mas`ud is reported to have said in his commentary to Almighty Allah’s saying, “… or ye have touched women, …” that it refers to actions that precede sexual intercourse for which ablution is obligatory. f) `Umar (may Allah be pleased with him) is reported to have said, “Kissing is to be considered among the touching acts, so perform ablution if you do.” (Al-Mustadrak, vol. 1, p. 135) Hence, the opinion of Imam Malik and the substantial meaning of the legal verdict issued by Imam Ahmad in this respect are that the touching of a woman that nullifies ablution is that which is accompanied by desire. And this is the way they interpreted Almighty Allah’s saying, “… or ye have touched women, …” That is why Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taimiyah regarded as weak the opinion of those who interpreted “mulamasah” or (touching) in the Qur’anic verse to mean mere touching without desire. In this regard, he says, “As for the nullification of ablution with mere touching, it does agree with the original rulings of the Shari`ah, the unanimous agreement of the Companions and the traceable traditions reported in this respect. Moreover, those who held this opinion have not based their ruling on a textual proof or an analogical deduction.” So, if “touching” in Almighty Allah’s saying “… or ye have touched women, …” refers to touching with hands, kissing or the like, as said by Ibn `Umar and others, then it is known that when “touching” is mentioned in the Qur’an or the Sunnah it refers to that which is accompanied by desire. We would like to cite here the following verse that reads, “… and touch them not, while ye are in retreat in the mosques …” Here, it is not prohibited for the one who retreats to the mosque for devotion and worship to touch his wife without desire, but touching that is accompanied by desire is prohibited. Also, this includes the Qur’anic verses that read “O ye who believe! If ye wed believing women and divorce them before ye have touched them, then there is no period that ye should reckon …” (Al-Ahzab: 49) “It is no sin for you if ye divorce women while yet ye have not touched them …” (Al-Baqarah: 236) For if he (the husband) touches his wife without desire, then the waiting period is not required and he is not required to pay her the whole dowry, according to the agreement of all Muslim scholars. So, whoever assumes that Almighty Allah’s saying, “… or ye have touched women, …” includes general touching without desire has exceeded far beyond the language of the Qur’an and that of people. For if “touching” in which a man and a woman are included is mentioned, it is known that it refers to touching with desire. Similarly, if “sexual intercourse” in which a man and a woman are included is mentioned, it is well known that it refers to actual sexual intercourse and nothing else. (See the collection of Fatawa Sheikh Al-Islam Ibn Taimiyah, vol. 21, pp. 223-224) In another context, Ibn Taimiyah stated: The Companions had debate regarding Almighty Allah’s saying, “… or ye have touched women, …”. Ibn `Abbas, supported by a group, held the opinion that touching here refers to sexual intercourse and added: Allah is modest and generous. He euphemizes with what He wills in respect of what He wills. Ibn Taimiyah added: This opinion is believed to be the most correct. The Arabs disagreed regarding the meaning of touching: does it refer to sexual intercourse or actions that precede it? The first group said that it refers to sexual intercourse, while the second said that it refers to actions that precede it. They sought the arbitration of Ibn `Abbas, who supported the opinion of the first group and regarded that of the second as incorrect. By transmitting all these sayings, I mean to show that when the word “al-mass” or “al-lams” (touching) is used to mean what a man does to a woman, it does not refer to mere touching but rather refers to either sexual intercourse or actions that precede it such as kissing, hugging, and any touching of the like that is accompanied by desire and enjoyment. However, if we investigate the sahih (sound) Hadiths that are narrated from the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him), we will conclude that the mere touching of hands between a man and a woman without desire or fear of temptation is not prohibited. Rather, it was done by the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), whose actions are originally a source of legislation. Almighty Allah says: “Verily in the Messenger of Allah ye have a good example …” (Al-Ahzab: 21). It is narrated on the authority of Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) that he said, “Any of the female slaves of Madinah could take hold of the hand of Allah's Messenger and take him wherever she wished.” (Reported by Al-Bukhari) The above mentioned Hadith is a great sign of the modesty of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him). Furthermore, it is reported in the two Sahihs that Anas ibn Malik (may Allah be pleased with him) said, “The Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used to visit Umm Hiram bint Milhan, who would offer him meals. Umm Hiram was the wife of `Ubadah ibn As-Samit. Allah's Messenger once visited her and she provided him with food and started looking for lice in his head. Then Allah's Messenger slept putting his head in her lap, and afterwards woke up smiling. Umm Hiram asked, ‘What causes you to smile, O Allah's Messenger?’ He said, ‘Some of my followers who (in a dream) were presented before me as fighters in Allah's Cause (on board a ship) amidst this sea cause me to smile; they were as kings on thrones …’” Al-Hafizh Ibn Hajar has mentioned lessons that are deduced from this Hadith: The guest is permitted to nap in a house other than his own on condition that he is given permission and there is no fear of fitnah. According to this Hadith a woman is also permitted to serve the guest by offering him a meal, drink or the like. Furthermore, a woman is permitted to look for lice in his head, but this last was an object of controversy. Ibn `Abd Al-Barr said, “I think that Umm Hiram or her sister Umm Sulaim had breast-fed the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings be upon him). So, each one of them had become his foster mother or his foster aunt. That was why he (the Prophet) used to sleep in her house and she used to deal with him as one of her mahrams.” Then he (Ibn `Abd Al-Barr) mentioned what indicates that Umm Hiram was one of the Prophet’s mahrams, as she was one of his relatives from his maternal aunts, since the mother of `Abd Al-Muttalib, his grandfather, was from Banu An-Najjar. Others said that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) was infallible and could control his sexual desires even from his wives, so what about other women who were illegal for him while he was granted infallibility from doing any wrong action or obscenity? This was one of his distinctive traits. Al-Qadi `Iyad replied that the distinctive traits of the Prophet are not proven by personal interpretations of Hadiths. As for his infallibility, it is indisputable, but the original ruling is that it is permissible to take the Prophet’s actions as a model unless there is evidence that this action is one his distinctive traits. Furthermore, Al-Hafizh Al-Dumyati said: It is wrong to claim that Umm Hiram was one of the maternal aunts of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) either by reason of marriage or fosterage. Those who breast-fed the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) are well known. None of them was from the Ansar except the mother of `Abd Al-Muttalib. She was Salma bint `Amr ibn Zaid ibn Lubaid ibn Khirash ibn `Amir ibn Ghunm ibn `Adyy ibn An-Najjar. While Umm Hiram is the daughter of Milhan ibn Khalid ibn Zaid ibn Judub ibn `Amir ibn Ghunm ibn `Adyy ibn An-Najjar. Umm Hiram has a common ancestor with Salma only in their grandfather `Amir ibn Ghunm. So, they are not among his mahrams because it is a metaphorical relationship. Al-Hafizh Al-Dumyati added: If this is proven, it is reported in the Sahih books of Hadith that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) used not to enter any house in Madinah except the house of Umm Sulaim besides those of his wives. When he was asked why, he said, “I take pity on her, as her brother (Hiram ibn Milhan) was killed in my company.” If this Hadith has excluded Umm Sulaim, then Umm Hiram is granted the same exclusion as her because they are sisters and resided in the same house; each one of them had her own apartment beside their brother Hiram ibn Milhan. So, the case is mutual between them, as reported by Al-Hafizh ibn Hajar. Moreover, Umm Sulaim is the mother of Anas ibn Malik, the servant of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him), and it was the habit of people that the master mixed with his servant and his family and did not deal with them as outsiders. Then, Al-Dumyati said: There is no indication in the Hadith showing that the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) had khulwa (privacy) with Umm Hiram, as this might have happened in the presence of a son, a servant, or a husband. Ibn Hajar replied: This is a strong likelihood, but it does not refute the original argument represented in looking for lice in the head and sleeping in her lap. Ibn Hajar added: The best reply is that it is one of the distinctive traits of the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) (See Fath Al-Bari, vol. 13, pp. 230-231). What I conclude from the aforementioned narrations is that the mere touching is not haram. So, if there exists reasons for mixing as that between the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) and Umm Hiram and Umm Sulaim and there is no fear of fitnah, then there is nothing wrong with shaking hands when there is a need for it, such as when returning from travel, the non-mahram male relative visiting his female relative, and vice versa, especially if this meeting happens after a long period. Finally, I would like to ascertain two points: Firstly, shaking hands between males and females who are not mahrams is only permissible when there is no desire or fear of fitnah. But if there is fear of fitnah, desire, or enjoyment, then handshaking is no doubt haram (unlawful). In contrast, if either of these two conditions (that there is no desire or fear of fitnah) is lacking between a male and any of his female mahrams, such as his aunt or foster sister or the like, then handshaking will be haram (although it is originally permissible). Secondly, handshaking between males and females who are not mahrams should be restricted to necessary situations such as between relatives or those whose relationships are established by marriage. It is preferable not to expand the field of permissibility in order to block the means to evil and to be far away from doubt and to take the Prophet (peace and blessings be upon him) as a model when there is no proof that he shook hands with a non-mahram woman. Also, it is preferable for the pious Muslim, male or female, not to stretch out his/her hand to shake the hand of anyone of the opposite sex who is not mahram. But if he/she is put in a situation that someone stretches out his/her hand to shake hands with him/her, then he/she can do that. I have tried to clarify the detailed ruling of the issue here in order to inform those who are in the dark about it how to behave while sticking to the tenets of their religion. Also, when the detailed Islamic ruling is explained and people are fully aware of it, there will be no room for personal justifications that are not supported by legal backing. Allah Almighty knows best.

re:
se7en
04/29/05 at 12:02:00
as salaamu alaykum wa rahmatullah, I think you can pull it off if you are just super nice in how you do it :)  you can put your hand to your chest, smile and say, "I don't shake hands, but I'm very happy to meet you" or something like that..

Wa alaikum usalam
nina
04/29/05 at 23:08:28
[slm] on many occassions i have done what many sisters have advised to do' politely put ur hands on ur chest as explain 'i do not shake hands' when i first became aware of not touching/shaking hands with the opposite sex, it was quite 'embarrasing' for me to tell them i dnt shake hands, since i have non-muslim relatives and i had to explain it to them, but Alhumdulillah, it has become natural. just wanted to ask, is it still regarded as touching if u touch the clothes of the opposite sex, for e.g. touching his arm which is covered (by a shirt or whatever)?? also, if u accidently bump/touch the opposite sex, e.g reaching for something and accidently bump, do u still loose ur wudhu?? Jazakhilakhair asa

Not Shaking, Your Head
AbuKhaled
05/03/05 at 15:09:52
Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem My dear Sisters, Assalam alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuhu. I’m sorry, but part of me cannot help but feel as if I went into a shop to find a changing room where I could pray salat unnoticed, only to emerge and realise I’ve just prayed in a female changing room and all eyes are now on me. That is, I’m a bit out of place here, lol. Forgive me for wading into your good-natured discussion, but I wished to share something which I hope you will consider to be beneficial to your thoughts on this question. A few days ago, for a reason yet unknown to me, Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala honoured some of us, by permitting us to sit at the feet of a great grandson of the Elect Nabi, salallahu alayhi wassalam; a young scholar par excellence, from the family of the purest of creation, alayhis salatu wassalam, and perhaps one of the foremost callers to Allah ta’ala in this age.  A person – and I exaggerate not at all – besides whom non-Muslims are said to have sat for a few moments, and embraced Islam thereafter. Someone who, when he addresses you, leaves you feeling as if it is a dialogue he is having, with your heart, alone. A scholar whose gentle smile takes you to a time where you remember a golden age. Someone who, when you walk away from his sublime presence, leaves you feeling cleansed, enriched, and nourished. May Allah ta’ala increase us in our closeness to those beloved to Him, azza wa jal. Close to the end of our time learning from this teacher of teachers – the subject being the sublime Prophetic Sira – a question was asked about shaking the hands of non-maharem at the workplace. As is indicative of a true scholar, no blanket answer was given, rather a cautious explanation for the generality of situations, contextualised with specific instances where a plausible Shari’ah countenanced excuse may apply (which for the purposes of this thread need not be elaborated upon). Suffice to say that in general it was explained that this is not permitted, wallahu a’lam. However, our Teacher addressed a point to the audience for reflection. Namely that often the matter is less about our not being able to shake hands with non-mahrem folk, but with *how* we respond when confronted with the situation. He – hafiDHahullah – explained how the one in whom the Prophetic character resonates should be able to handle such circumstance in a way that reconciles between the awkwardness, and not causing offence to the one who may not appreciate our non-gesture of not shaking. That it is possible to not cause umbrage, by being courteous and explanatory, whilst explaining one’s stance in not doing so. To highlight this, he – may Allah ta’ala preserve him - cited one wonderful example of the kind of hikma [wisdom] employed by one Brother in the US when faced with this very issue. This was a Brother who has learned some of the Deen, and is – alhamdulillah – firm in his istiqama [steadfastness] concerning such issues. Once, a non-Muslim lady approached him to shake his hand. The Brother did not recoil and shake his head. Rather, he humbly lowered his head in deference to her, smiled, and placed his hand on his heart. He apologised – not for not being able to shake her hand, but as a means of politeness, thereby relaxing what could conceivably turn into a misunderstanding and misconception – and explained that he could not shake her hand because he had promised his wife he would never touch the hand of another woman. What do you imagine was her reaction? Offense? Disbelief? On the contrary, so taken was she with the nobility of the answer, that she went home and demanded the same of her own husband. And imagine the implication of that? What had, in effect just occurred? That a non-Muslim woman went home and applied something which she positively attributed to Islam, into her life. In a time when we wonder if anything positive is taken from Muslims by our non-Muslim neighbours? So, therein lies a lesson for those who have an interest in learning. As for those who may question the example as one of apology, and hence blameworthy, then before you contend the Brother’s course of action, consider the reasoning behind what he did. Dwell upon why we don’t shake hands with non-maharem, and the implication to your spouse of the nikah contract you both agree to, and then find a way of reconciling that with his stated explanation. And if Allah ta’ala assists you by the sincerity of your intention, I believe you’ll be able to find a way to reconcile the two. I personally don’t consider there to be any contradiction, or blameworthiness; I thought it was a fabulous example of how to be. And Allah, subhanahu wa ta’ala, knows best. For sometimes, issues require involved explanations, yet time does not always permit such elaboration. So the wise one makes opportune the moment Allah ta’ala has placed before them, and acts according to the best niyya [intention] in a manner compatible with the Shar’iah, inwardly and outwardly. And sometimes there can be sweetness in brevity, to a tongue which is not used to another kind of honey. So why risk souring it when there may not be the time to overcome that distaste? Forgive me if you felt there was not the benefit in this that I had intended, Abu Khaled
NS
05/03/05 at 15:15:30
AbuKhaled

-
Nisa
05/03/05 at 18:36:42
[slm] JazakAllahu khairan for that beautiful glimpse into the answer given by the scholar you were honoured to learn from - may Allah swt preserve and protect our 'ulema, Ameen. I think it was fabulous the way the brother softened the approach of something which could be conceived as ill-mannered in western circles, and turned into an opportunity to display the true gentle and natural way that is Islam. May Allah swt reward you for sharing your insights, Ameen.   [wlm]

shaking hands with non-Muharram
timbuktu
05/14/05 at 23:23:34
[slm] bro Abu Khaled, that was a very good post, but I don't buy this as a valid excuse for Muslims who are versed in the deen. Your style is impressive, your mastery of the English language is superb, but your story has me doubting the authenticity of the scholar you have quoted. May we have the name of the scholar and any links which may tell us more of his background and accomplishments. Perhaps a link where we can ask him where do the following come from: this bowing of head and placing of hand over the heart and making up an excuse instead of telling the lady right out that our religion forbids handshakes between non-Muharrams.
05/15/05 at 11:32:13
timbuktu

hmm
jannah
05/15/05 at 00:03:33
slm, timbuktu i don't think it's an "excuse" or a "lie" its a beautiful way of explaining it to someone who does not understand this concept at all. some people are really awful at explaining and commit more offense... one bro here said "oh i can't touch you because you're impure and i have to wash" or something like that!! boy did those women never come to anything islamic ever again. negative negative anti-dawah!! and of course it's true.. do we not promise our spouses not to touch anyone else? this is the thing about dawah... you can tell someone what is correct and right in a way with wisdom or goodness. however, some people "think" that the "right" way is to tell them what is right or wrong point blank.. and this in itself is wrong! this is not the way of dawah or of islam... i mean think about it... think of all the times ras saw was confronted by someone who was not muslim... just take one example of the bedouin who came and went to the bathroom in the masjid!! how offensive is that!! and can u imagine what we would do in this day and age if someone did something like that??  ras saw did not go to him and say you are wrong and this is a najas and you are a najas etc etc... so please... why do we keep trying to make up our own dawah thinking we are all righteous and are going to "enjoin the good and forbid the evil".. let's follow the one our prophet saw gave to us and the sahabah and the righteous ones...

Commanding Right and Forbidding Evil
bhaloo
05/15/05 at 00:33:07
[slm] [quote] i mean think about it... think of all the times ras saw was confronted by someone who was not muslim... just take one example of the bedouin who came and went to the bathroom in the masjid!! how offensive is that!! and can u imagine what we would do in this day and age if someone did something like that??  ras saw did not go to him and say you are wrong and this is a najas and you are a najas etc etc... so please... [/quote] hmmmm, i disagree, here is the hadith: It was narrated that Anas ibn Maalik said: Whilst we were in the mosque with the Messenger of Allaah  (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), a Bedouin came and started to urinate in the mosque. The companions of the Messenger of Allaah  (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “Stop, stop!” The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said, “Do not interrupt him; leave him.” So they left him alone until he had finished urinating, then the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) called him and said to him: “These mosques are not the place for urinating or for anything filthy, rather they are for the remembrance of Allaah, prayer and reading Qur’aan.” Then he told a man to bring a bucket of water and he threw it over (the urine).   Narrated by al-Bukhaari, 217; Muslim 285. [quote] Commanding right and forbidding evil are extremely important in Islam, and the sad situation that Muslims are facing today are because they have negelected this. One of the earliest revelations received by Prophet Muhammad (SAW) was the injunction  Qur'an 74:2 "arise and warn" (Qum-fa andhir). The word "andhir" has been interpreted by scholars as 'commanding right and forbidding wrong'.  In the advice given by the wise Luqman to his son, the following is documented in the Qur'an: "O my son, establish prayers, command what is right and forbid what is wrong and patiently persevere all trials and tribulations. Surely, that is the most significant of deliberate actions." Qur'an 31:17 The true Believers are described by Allah as ... "the best community raised for the benefit of humanity; commanding right and forbidding wrong, and believing in Allah." Qur'an 3:110 This 'best community' is meant to be an exemplary community; a community that the Qur'an 2:143 refers to as a balanced community serving as a witness / standard for humanity. Allah describes Believers as ... "Believing males and females are friends and protectors of each other, they command what is right and forbid what is wrong" Qur'an 9:71 The Prophet said ... "Whosoever observes any wrong should rectify it physically, if unable to then speak out against it, if unable to then at least find it distasteful in the heart". Having said that, my post is not in response to brothers' Timbuktu or Abu Khaled, but rather to correct a misconception about the hadith mentioned (man urinating), and to clarify (briefly) the Islamic stance regarding, commanding good and evil.

Hmm
theOriginal
05/15/05 at 02:34:22
[slm] Just generally think of the response.  If you tell them our religion forbids it, they really get weirded out.  The more mellowed down you seem, the more open they are to the message.  Really, I think that's a beautiful way to approach this whole issue. When I was in high school, I attended an Islam Awareness Week booth at a university in Southern Ontario ..I was pretty much just looking around, when a non-Muslim girl approached the MSA president and stuck out her hand (it was obviously unintentional).  His reply was just shocking. He says, "I can't touch you, or I'll have to bury you after you die."  ??? I really don't know if that's good da'wah. Wasalaam

dawah
jannah
05/15/05 at 02:37:08
wlm, that is my point!! the prophet saw did not order him out of the masjid or yell at him.. he calmly told the sahaba to leave him and to take care of it and explained what the masjid was for... and there are numerous numerous examples like these of how the prophet saw dealt with people who were not muslim seriously i can't understand why the point between dawah and anti-dawah is not penetrating and btw telling people what is right and wrong is NOT enjoining the good and forbidding the evil!! it is all about the WAY you do it and Allah as my witness the WAY some people claim to enjoin the good and forbid the evil has only led people away from Islam and i have no doubt they will be responsible for it one day because it is wrong and ultimately extremely far from the sunnah they claim to follow.
05/15/05 at 02:38:01
jannah

shaking hands with non-Muharram
timbuktu
05/15/05 at 11:45:08
[slm] I don't know why we have to go to one or the other extreme. We need not be rude, and we need not be apologetic or defensive about our deen. When being served pork, would you say that on that particular day, or for the rest of your life you have sworn to a Catholic fast of abstention from meat? When being served port on Christmas, or Champagne on a colleague's elevation to the board, would you say you have promised your spouse after a nasty experience with vomiting from a night out that you wouldn't touch alcohol any more? [i]And what would a person who is unmarried or not spoken for :), say to avoid this shaking of hands.[/i] During my stay in the West, I faced similar challenges many times, and when I said clearly that this was prohibited in Islam, it was accepted with good grace. Occassionally it inspired a discussion on Islam, which is a good dawah opportunity. Of course, since I wasn't a very practicing Muslim, I was afraid of some embarassments, but those never happened.
05/15/05 at 12:31:59
timbuktu

Salam
theOriginal
05/15/05 at 13:14:29
[slm] I see pork and alcohol as a different issue altogether -- one that is not as controversial as shaking hands.  The reason for this is simply that non-Muslims (from MY experience) do not question you declining to eat meat or declining alcohol.  However, when you say "yeah man, it's forbidden to touch you in my religion" -- that sends a totally different message, one that most certainly puts the other person on the defensive, and in some horrible cases, on the offensive. We need not be defensive about our faith, I agree, but akhlaaq has a huge place in Islam.  We need to be mannerful and mindful of other people's beliefs and structure of thought.  And beyond that, it is up to us how we approach it.   One more thing (once again, in MY experience), I find that if you inaugurate a business relationship (or any other kind, for that matter), with a non-muslim by starting off with the mention of Islam, people automatically tune out.  They are less receptive to anything you say, because they have made up their mind to take you less seriously.  This is not necessarily because we are Muslim, but frankly, even for me, if someone starts off a business relationship by highlighting their religion, I don't like it.  It's not personal, and that's the whole point.  It's just business.   Beyond that, I would like to stress that I am not saying that we should forget that we are Muslim while we are at work -- it's a part of our life, all aspects of it, including work -- but it doesn't hurt to save the flaunting. My tuppence. Wasalaam.

shaking hands with non-Muharram
timbuktu
05/15/05 at 13:37:48
[slm] [quote]I see pork and alcohol as a different issue altogether -- one that is not as controversial as shaking hands.  The reason for this is simply that non-Muslims (from MY experience) do not question you declining to eat meat or declining alcohol.  However, when you say "yeah man, it's forbidden to touch you in my religion" -- that sends a totally different message, one that most certainly puts the other person on the defensive, and in some horrible cases, on the offensive.[/quote] I would agree that in the severity of actions, pork and alcohol are not in the same category as shaking of hands, but surely wearing of the hijab is perhaps lower down the scale from shaking of hands. Now [i]would you make up an excuse for wearing the hijab[/i] ro advocate dropping the hijab? sorry, the phrase in italics was added later: I am not asking this to make a judgement. The hijaab has already been dropped by many. [quote]We need not be defensive about our faith, I agree, but akhlaaq has a huge place in Islam.  We need to be mannerful and mindful of other people's beliefs and structure of thought.  And beyond that, it is up to us how we approach it.[/quote] Agreed, but where in akhlaaq does it say you have to take recourse to something like blaming it on a promise made to a spouse. The said spouse may not even exist for some. Is it against akhlaaq to say it isn't personal but your religion forbids such contact. And if it puts people off Islam, why would we want to hide what is Islam? On the contrary, the souls that do harken after such distance betwen the sexes will be readily attracted to Islam.
05/15/05 at 13:52:32
timbuktu

sister nina's two questions
timbuktu
05/16/05 at 12:37:18
[slm] sister nina asked two questions that I think need to be answered: [quote]just wanted to ask, is it still regarded as touching if u touch the clothes of the opposite sex, for e.g. touching his arm which is covered (by a shirt or whatever)?? also, if u accidently bump/touch the opposite sex, e.g reaching for something and accidently bump, do u still loose ur wudhu??[/quote] I answered this from my layman's point of view, but I became aware of some complications, so I have deleted the contents. This should preferably be answered by a mufti. and I hope bro bhaloo or someone else will come up with a reply from an authentic source. If that doesn't happen, I will repost with the points that I have thought of.
05/16/05 at 17:34:04
timbuktu

Not Shaykhing the Hands
AbuKhaled
05/16/05 at 17:46:12
Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem Akh Timbuktu, Wa-alaikum assalam wa rahmatullah. There seems to me to be some carelessness in your post, the consequence of which needs to be addressed. Firstly, your choice of words is somewhat unfair. I will illustrate shortly. Secondly, the conclusion you have drawn reflects a lack of attention to my original post. Again I will demonstrate duly. Let us take the first point: Exactly what is an “excuse” here? The explanation the Brother gave? Why did you infer that his chosen explanation was a backfooted attempt to explain the position of not shaking hands with non-maharem? He said he could not shake hands because he had promised his wife he would never touch the hand of another woman. This is an implication of the hukm shari’i [Divine rule], not the hukm itself. What would have been your explanation given the same situation? To confine your answer to the hukm – i.e. not being able to shake her hand? – without contextualising that, or providing some kind of backdrop to the hukm? How would you have chosen to explain the hukm? How would you have addressed the *why* of the ruling having emphasised the *what* of what the actual hukm was? And bear in mind the time constraint which you, not being there at the time, are not privy to. You have a small window of time, so you need to speak to the point, and effectively. So, to tell her it was impermissible, would have done what? Probably caused her to wonder why, right? That’d be natural for her, yes? So what then would have happened? Most likely one of two things: a. she would have not understood yet chosen not to enquire further, thereby walking away in confusion, possibly offended, but none the wiser. b. she would have asked why not? Which is a negative question usually. So you have to not only provide an explanation, but also overcome a mindset now. What the Brother chose to do by providing the explanation he did, bypassed this, by not only not giving her an opportunity to negativise the scenario, but avoiding the potentially more contentious scenario of explaining what the ruling is, and then why it exists. So, one method – and the one I guess you prefer – is to state the position we adopt as Muslims, and then to frame that in a way which is understandable to someone who does not share our paradigm, our worldview, our basis. It seems to me this is a longer way than what time sometimes allows for, aside from the fact that you’d also risk contending with a negative mindset. Yet her heart was warmed by learning an implication of the hukm, without having to tell her what the hukm is and why it exists. Hikma [wisdom] dictates that one knows how much a vessel can take lest one overfill it and some spills out. What he did was avoid the possibility of a contention, by neatly providing an answer which was in no way incompatible with the fact of why the ruling exists, nor at odds with it. And Allah azza wa jal knows best. I am reminded of an incident which occurred a few years ago, when a Brother embraced Islam. Immediately after he took the shahada, he was told that now he’d stepped into the Deen, if he ever renounced it he would be liable for the death penalty. He wasn’t told who has the authority to enforce that ruling, he wasn’t given any context to it, he was just told that this is the case if you apostasize. Brilliant. What do you think happened? It was as if someone had just embraced him, congratulated him, and then punched him in the stomach really hard. He panicked, he entered a state of confusion, bewilderment, and immediately became disillusioned with this newfound Deen. Allah knows best if he remained in the state of Islam. Certainly he didn’t feel any notion of peace. What would you call those who thought it wise to inform him about the hukm of apostasy (leaving aside the question of whether what he was told was actually correct or not)? Because they felt it wasn’t anything to hide, it was a hukm, and he was now Muslim, so he needed to know the hukm. Fair enough? Or maybe it wasn’t what they said, but how they said it? What do you think? Is there a way to inform a new Muslim of this which makes it palatable? A *nice* way of saying it? Would it have been a proof that they were ashamed of a hukm in Islam had they chosen not to mention this to him? Is it at all important that even if the hukm exists, there is a context to it, and qualifying factors which may effect it? Does it matter if the backdrop to a ruling is not elaborated upon to one who knows nothing about the Islamic worldview? Because for sure, the hukm is the hukm with or without the context. So need context be considered? Is it an apology to mention a ruling and then it’s context if by doing so you seek to make it more palatable? Or is it wisdom? Okay, so that was an extreme example. But a true one nonetheless. So, the Brother who was met with the non-Muslim lady, he did what he did. And you take issue with it. Because he didn’t explain the hukm – for which technically you are right, he didn’t – rather he stated the hukm and explained an implication of it, without saying that that was what he was doing, thereby allowing her to infer this was the reason for the rule, when in effect it is a consequence of it. Do you think at all that she would know the difference between the reason [‘illa] for a rule, the wisdom [hikma]  behind a rule, the cause [sabab] of that rule, the benefit [fadila] of that rule, etc.? Do you think there would be time to expound upon all that? Is it possible to convey the rule in a way that appeals to her outlook whilst remaining consonant with the Islamic paradigm? And is the ability to do that a sign of backfootedness, or agility? The lady’s heart warmed, and Allah ta’ala brought her a degree closer to the Sunna of His Beloved Messenger, alayhis salatu wassalam. Is there something blameworthy in that? What he actually did was to go one step beyond what you recommended he should have done, namely, “telling the lady right out that our religion forbids handshakes between non-Muharrams.” Because not only did he say he couldn’t shake her hand, he explained why, and he was right, because that is indeed an implication which is effected by entering into a nikah. It is like saying that marrying a Brother allows you to be in seclusion with him. If one wants to be pedantic, then technically they can argue that well no, it is not the act of marriage which allows the seclusion since the act of marriage is not a *proof* for actions, rather it is the adilla tafsilliyyah [detailed evidences] which form the proof for the act of being in seclusion with one’s spouse. The act of marriage is the sabab [cause] for that ruling to be effected. This is the kind of nuanced semantic insight a jurist needs, not the common folk. For them, it is enough to know that marriage allows seclusion with one’s spouse. Your dissatisfaction is that he didn’t confine himself to saying it is not allowed, but that in saying he cannot for the reason he gave, is in effect tantamount to being apologetic for Islam. Don’t get me wrong akhi, I can totally see where you’re coming from, for there was a time when I too was like this. When I considered it weak to give a reason beyond the hukm when that reason isn’t explicitly stated in the nusus [texts]. So not for me were the explanations that we don’t eat pork because it is a dirty animal! No sir, I would laugh in the face of such foolishness by asking that Brother/Sister, okay, so what if we got a newborn piglet, placed it in controlled conditions, gave it ghusl and ablution five times a day, fed it on halal and tahir [pure] food, such that it was purer than you or I!! Could we still not eat it, because now we can’t claim it is a dirty animal! I would scoff at such feeble arguments, and dismantle them at every opportunity. But then after a while I stopped, and looked at myself, and noticed something. A rigidity and harshness. An unwillingness to ever try and comprehend the other point of view. I reluctantly admitted to myself that I spent less time trying to make common ground than just trying to rebutt any opposing opinions to mine. Rather than meet my Brothers/Sisters halfway, I enjoyed proving them wrong, and being right. And anytime I sought to see the issue the way they saw it, the motive was only so I couldn’t be charged with not being objective, which itself is an insincere approach, given that your objectivity stems from an ulterior motive. All this (and more) led me to see my Islam as something really quite ugly, and all these traits embodied within me as really quite abhorrent. I felt that my Islam was something quite dislikable, and for all my deft intellectual boxing, my nimble, quick-witted arguments and sophistry, I had lost the essence of this whole pursuit and endeavour. Which is that Islam is not the aim, it is the means. The goal is Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala. The Sunna is not an idol we prostrate to, it is a means by which we reach proximity to Him, subhanahu wa ta’ala. And it is not a cloak we wear only externally, but an essence we need to embody completely, outwardly, and inwardly. The Shari’ah is not an end that we strive towards, but a medium which is necessary to gain salvation. And the Messenger of Allah, salallahu alayhi wassalam, is not just an example ot be emulated, but the only road to Him, jalla jalalu. I found myself wondering how it was that I possessed the ability to counter all these non-Islamic arguments and worldviews, and overcome any non-Islamic challenges to Islam, yet none of it affected anyone. The only winner was my nafs [ego]! And it seemed to win a lot! How was it that my being a Muslim failed to be a magnet for others to be drawn towards Islam, Rasul’Allah, salallahu alayhi wassalam, and ultimately, Allah ta’ala? How come I was practicing, yet not radiating? So righteous yet not affecting? Because it was all a charade, a play. My Islam was merely a veneer, like a thin coat of translucent piety barely covering a personality unaffected by Deen. Islam was a coat I put on when I went out, and took off when in the privacy of my own home. Something had to give. And that something was my nafs. It dawned on me – alhamdulillah – that my entire being, this whole edifice upon which my Islam was built, was a farce. A show. A pretense. I wasn’t interested in Allah ta’ala. I was interested in glory. I didn’t seek ikhlas, I just wanted others to think I did. I still sometimes become overcome at the thought that Allah ta’ala – despite the poverty of my condition – released me from my self before I imploded completely, as so many others subsequently did. That was some moons ago, and alhamdulillah I’ve learned a few things since then. I’ve learned that the more I learn the less I realise I know, because the more I come to appreciate it is that I don’t know. It is said that the frog in the well cannot know the ocean. Just like the first travellers in a world that had yet to be travelled. Can you imagine how their eyes must have opened when they realised there wasn’t an edge to fall off, in this world? When they saw the horizon on the ocean, and yet found they could never approach it, because no matter how much farther, and further, they moved, it still remained afar. That is humbling akhi. As is the knowledge that when you learn, your learning is accompanied by the realisation that there is so much more to learn, and so much you have yet to know. It is that constant awareness of what you don’t know, and that those to whom you rightfully look towards, know more than you, that should temper one’s words, and be a cause for their restraint, lest in haste we level a charge, or allow Shaytan to provoke us into harbouring a doubt, towards those whose station we are oblivious to. Which is why I defy you to find a true Scholar who is bereft of rahma [mercy ] for this Ummah. Many times when the awaam [ordinary folk] castigate the ‘Ulema for this fatwa or that opinion, they do so heedless of the motives of that Shaykh. That is not to say there are never incorrect fatawa issued, but that how come we only choose to focus on the smallprint when it is other than ourselves? When we seek forgiveness we seek generosity from others, yet when it is our turn to extend the husn al-thann [benefit of the doubt] we prefer to be stingy. One teacher recently mentioned to us how he once asked one of his Shaykhs why he accepted money from the government when the government is one of tyranny, oppression and distance from Islam? The Shaykh replied that he would be teaching with or without that money. Our teacher continued to relate to us that some years later, shortly after the Shaykh had passed away,  that he found out that his Shaykh had never taken a single penny which the government used to pay him. He used to give it all away to charity. And he marvelled at the humility of his teacher, who was content to have his affair known only to Allah ta’ala alone, lest some speck of some blameworthy trait – such as kibr [pride] or ‘ujb [conceit], for example – afflict him. Subhan’Allah. Yes, I could accept your contention if the Brother had said I cannot shake your hand because I might catch something, as that is blatantly nothing to do with the hukm whatsoever, and an outright lie. But what he said was no lie. Let us flip your example on it’s head, by referring to something you wrote in a subsequent post: “In fact, you do not lose your wuddu even by deliberately touching the bare skin of a non-mehram, unless it is the genitals. ie if one touches a non-mehram without sexual arousal, and not the genitals, the wuddu remains valid even though it is haram.” What you have written above does not represent the totality of the fiqh on this matter, nor is it a fair representation of the fiqh, because some mu’tamad [relied-upon] opinions across the madhahib state that touching without desire *is* a cause for the wudu breaking, wallahu a’lam. One should never express generalised views on fiqh positions unless one has studied sufficiently. It is a clear indicator that such study has not been undertaken when something such as the above is stated so haphazardly. And tahara [purification] is a basic subject studied very early on in the life of a talib al-’ilm [student of knowledge]. You need only consult the primers of fiqh in the madhahib to discover the error in the above if stated as *the* view on the question. Yes, what you have said reflects one fiqh stance on this matter, but there is ikhtilaf [difference of opinion] on this question, and that ikhtilaf is recognised, accepted and agreed upon. So, if we proceed by adopting the position – as so many Muslims do – that touching a non-mahrem is a cause for breaking the wudu, then would this be a fair answer to have given that non-Muslim lady? And if one followed that opinion, would it be considered as being apologetic to not cite it as the reason to her? When she has no concept of tahara, no notion of ubudiyyah [servitude to Allah azza wa jal], no frame of reference? I think not. Moving on. The example of this Brother, you said, has caused you to doubt the authenticity of the scholar. We return to that frog in the well. It is a sad indictment on our times when as little as this causes those who are not inheritors of the Prophet, salallahu alayhi wassalam, to doubt those who are. Particularly when doing so is injudicious. Because, the Shaykh was citing the example of a Brother. He did not say he had told that brother to say that, nor was he explaining a course of action he himself had taken. It was an anecdote that had been brought to his attention, which he chose to share with us. I saw it as an example of hikma, not as one of apologising for Islam by citing a wrong reason for a rule. Even then, why are you so quick to doubt the Shaykh? Where was your attempt at granting him the benefit of the doubt? Was there no positive lesson for you to be derived, at all? I am reminded of the Shaykh who entered the classroom and gave salams. None of the students replied, so he lambasted them for their neglect. On another occasion, a student entered the room and gave salams, and no one replied. He asked, “What have I done wrong that you don’t reply to my salaams?” Same instance, two different maqams [stations]. One chose to blame everyone else, the other chose to look to himself first. That is ihsan [sincerity] and a state of realization of where one is. I ask you, if you can recognise that there was something questionable in what the Brother did, would it not be safe to conclude that one who has studied the fiqh, who is known to be trained in da’wa, who has immense experience in calling people to the way of Islam, would *a fortiori* [by greater reason] be able to spot the same questionable aspects in the example, too? And that if he found nothing objectionable, them maybe, just maybe, there is a way of reconciling that which to you is neither obvious nor apparent? Is this conceivable to you? The way you have expressed yourself reminds me of someone who recently asked me, “Did you pay any sadaqa for…..?” Now personally I find such manner of asking a question blameworthy, for two reasons. One is because it could force someone to admit a deficiency (e.g. something they have neglected to do), which is not a nice position to put your fellow Brother/Sister in, if you have sufficient care for them. Why would you want to risk opening a door to doubting them? Shaytan pounces on such opportunities with glee. Why would you ask a fellow Brother/Sister something which could cause them awkwardness or embarrassment, because they may have been remiss in that which you asked of them? Secondly, because questions are linked to the questioner as well as the answerer, so as a questioner, one must know oneself. And the one who had asked me is known to me to be very judgmental by nature. And here was a prime opportunity to be judgmental had my answer been no. In the battle against one’s lower self – where judgmentalism is a blameworthy trait, an ill-fitting coat on any Muslim – one should strive not to create openings whereby one feeds such negative impulses. Kind of like an alcoholic walking past a liquor store rather than crossing the road before reaching it. A little more forethought could have seen the same question being asked in a much more positive light: “I know someone who would be a really good candidate for your sadaqa if I’m not too late in asking you?” Even if the one asked has not yet paid that sadaqa, you see how the question is framed in a much more constructive and positive light? Similarly, there is an adab of asking, and a courtesy of expressing oneself which inclines others towards reciprocity. If I am to be honest, my first reading of your post had me taken aback at your boldness and audacity in doubting someone as careful this Shaykh. And yes, I know he is not infallible. I know he is not the Qur’an and Sunna. But I also know that when people are in his presence, his mere example pulls them towards the Messenger of Allah, salallahu alayhi wassalam. During the Sira program, I asked a question about an incidenp concerning one of the Sahaba, radhi’Allahu ‘anh. And though I didn’t realise it when I asked, my question was posed in such a way that it seemed as if I was highlighting a contradiction between the action this Sahabi, radhi’Allahu ‘anh, had taken, and the course of action the Prophet, salallahu alayhi wassalam, had taken when faced with the same circumstance. It was not my intent to present the question in such a way, yet the Shaykh, due to his incredible sensitivity to the Sira, and his breathtaking adab towards the Sahaba, radhi’Allahu ‘anh ajma’een, immediately noticed that the implication of my question was such that it seemed as though I was citing an instance of contradiction, which he straightway sought to clarify. And it was only when he raised the notion that there was no contradiction, that it even occurred to me that such an implication (of contradiction) was latent in my question. And I suddenly felt so ashamed. That I had been so lax – and this was despite me formulating my question carefully – as to give rise to such a suggestion. It felt abhorrent, and unbecoming. Yet I felt as if I had just insulted that Sahabi, radhi’Allahu ‘anh, and I was disgusted with myself. Sometimes one doesn’t realise (i) what one is saying, and (ii) the implication of what one is saying (because implications naturally reside behind words that are readily readable, even when the intent is well-meaning. I find this world a barren place when it comes to folk who can pull me towards Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala, and our Sublime Nabi, alayhis salatu wassalam. Examples of those who can leave me in awe, who contribute something meaningful to my journey towards Allah ta’ala, who embody the hint of a virtue which was part of the being of my beautiful Nabi, salallahu alayhi wassalam, are like specks in the distance. That is, I struggle to see them, and rarely find them. Such ‘Ulema are a moment of clarity in a world wrought with confusion. Believe me, I, like you, am not blind to the faults of ‘Ulema. But I also realise that when I speak, when I write, it proceeds upon how little I know, not how much. I recognise that my window into ‘ilm is so much smaller than one whose breast has been enlarged by Allah ta’ala due to their proximity to His Rasul, salallahu alayhi wassalam. The reason I know you are unfairly questioning the authenticity of the Shaykh is because you are directing your questions about the bowing of the head, the placing of the hand on the heart, the making up of an excuse, towards him, when it wasn’t him who did any of these things. But of course, you can retort that by citing the example he is endorsing it. The bowing of the head was to lower the gaze in an obvious manner. I don’t think it would have been that difficult to figure this out if there was a niyya [intention] present to try and make some excuses for what the Brother did, if one really wanted to apply the same standard of Godfearingess to oneself that one so readily wants others to adhere to. Perhaps the placing of the hand on the heart was a gesture, because the heart is universally associated with mercy and tolerance. Is it a ruling you seek, to say one can place their hand on their heart at such times? You’ll probably find it in the same Book of Fiqh that told you you are allowed to have the nickname Timbuktu, or post on Messageboards where Brothers/Sisters interact, or have an emoticon which resembles a human face. Because all of these are actions for which you no doubt have some daleel [evidence] too. But seriously, when it comes to da’wa, there are usloob and wasa’il [styles and means], which fall into the realm of ibaha [permissibility]. Does Islam tell me whether I have to fly or can drive? Does Islam instruct me on whether my hands should be clasped, folded, held behind my back, resting by my sides, when I am giving da’wa? Do I need a daleel to know if I can raise my hand to indicate to Brothers to wait because some Sisters are about to enter the doorway? Coming back to the core question, I think you illustrated it best yourself in a subsequent post, when you wrote, “During my stay in the West, I faced similar challenges many times, and when I said clearly that this was prohibited in Islam, it was accepted with good grace. Occassionally it inspired a discussion on Islam.” So your chosen course of action occasionally inspired a discussion, His course of action prompted someone to try and implement an aspect of Islam into their life. His course of action, bi’idhnillah ta’ala, became a reason for someone to take a small step towards the Deen of Allah ta’ala. Who knows how that seed might grow. It might die, it might flourish. The point is, had it not been given a cause to be borne then neither option would exist. Now at least both do, which means there is a chance that the option to flourish is present. As far as making an excuse then I disagree. I think his answer embraced your proposed answer, but went further, in the same way that linguistically I could say, “That elephant is large.” Or I could say, “That elephant is huge.” If I said the latter then you would understand that the elephant must be large, for to be huge necessarily means it is large, even though I didn’t use the word large. Likewise, the message that handshaking is prohibited was conveyed, along with a basis for why. Whether at this point in her relationship with Islam she needs to know that is a consequence of the ruling, as opposed to the reason for it, is immaterial. And I concede the answer may not be suitable for unmarried folk to cite for why they aren’t going to shake a hand. So either you can continue to flog this horse to death, or spend that time coming up with something equally as affecting. Because one person, when looking at a glass of water, will always see only water, whereas another can see hydrogen and oxygen. May Allah ta’ala forgive me, Abu Khaled
NS

Salam
theOriginal
05/16/05 at 23:11:39
[slm] SubhanAllah..I'm speechless... I think I have been humbled just by reading that, and by knowing that I truly know nothing. JazakAllah Khair brother. Wasalaam.

words...
jannah
05/17/05 at 00:09:30
slm, jazakallah khair abu khaled... i never seem to be able to express my thoughts until you write them so eloquently with your words. [quote] ... Islam is not the aim, it is the means. The goal is Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala. The Sunna is not an idol we prostrate to, it is a means by which we reach proximity to Him, subhanahu wa ta’ala. And it is not a cloak we wear only externally, but an essence we need to embody completely, outwardly, and inwardly. The Shari’ah is not an end that we strive towards, but a medium which is necessary to gain salvation. And the Messenger of Allah, salallahu alayhi wassalam, is not just an example to be emulated, but the only road to Him, jalla jalalu. [/quote]
05/17/05 at 00:26:34
jannah

Is it him?
anon
05/17/05 at 02:55:40
[slm] In the sweetness of your words Sidi Abu Khaled, I smell the fragrance of Sayyidi Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi. Is it him? Is it him? Is it him?!
05/17/05 at 02:56:44
anon

word...
jannah
05/17/05 at 03:13:55
it's not him i can verify.. :) wlm,

of excuses and shuyukh
timbuktu
05/17/05 at 10:07:39
dear brother abu Khaled, assalamu aleikum The correct course of action here would be for me to acknowledge my faults and limitations, and to bend my head and retire in shame. I understand a little, [i]and only a little[/i], of where you are coming from, and also the harshness that you speak of, which seeps into and gradually takes over a soul that relies almost entirely on one's own rather than also looking at the other's point of view. There is plenty you have explained, and you have done it brilliantly. From my very, very limited knowledge, let me try to clarify a few things. I have been somewhat different, my brother. It always was my way to try to see the other's point of view, and do everything in my capacity to explain it as valid, and in this case too I think if I had given a full answer I would have written that a variety of answers and approaches are acceptible, depending on the circumstances. However, I also have this "failing" that I am not easily swayed by words or by the announced impeccibility of a source. In the days when I could, I tried to learn from many sources, and then form my own opinion, which in the absence of a sheikh is said to be very dangerous, isn't it? There is a saying that whoever doesn't have a sheikh has Satan as one. Unfortunately though, it is just a saying, and hence not necessarily true, in my view. Brother, a hukm without recognising the source may be beneficial in this world, but when the basic kalima is not there, is it of much use? You see I find a lot of people providing secular reasons, while avoiding the religious basis. I can understand this in the present context, when Muslims are being persecuted. And if that was the reason for the brother's statement, I wouldn't call it an excuse. I called it so because it was held as a fine example, whereas to me it is a bad example. I do think this declaration that one is a Muslim, hence this departure from the society's norm, is more necessary these days, for a little hiding of the Truth results in increasing the fear and hiding the Truth more and more, until the very basic of faith is lost. This is what I have inferred from a reading of history, and from observation of my brothers and sisters in Islam. Of course, this isn't the only reason, and Allah (swt) is not bound by my reasoning, and could effect a totally 180 degree out of phase outcome. JO said she is against "flaunting" religion. So am I, but I am also against hiding our faith. And I saw this element too in stating a secular reason. [quote]b. she would have asked why not? Which is a negative question usually. So you have to not only provide an explanation, but also overcome a mindset now.[/quote] Pardon me, but I do not understand the negativity in this "negative" question. To me it is a  question that opens the way for further dialogue. I have had such "negative" questions asked, and the resulting discussion was quite sensibly conducted, I think. __________________ The primary Islamic reason is that as [i]Muslims[/i], we are to abstain from touching non-mehrams. That reason was not stated. To be truthful, this prohibition isn't absolute, because nurses, firefighters, and other people engaged in saving lives may need to touch non-mehrams. The reason that was cited jumped at me as a "cultural" one - you know the argument that this virulent bug of terrorist Islam is the Arab bug, from Arab cultural roots, and the Ahadeeth refelect that Arab cultural bias. So, I was reminded of all these attempts to find the "reasoning" behind the hukm, and  to bring our Islam more in conformity with today's culture. And my other failing that I admit is that most of the times I become brief. Unfortunately I have lost the knack of saying much in a few words, so the full spectrum isn't covered. You may have noticed that I had deleted the contents of the post you mentioned, because I thought of many lines of thought that needed to be covered, and I didn't have the time for it. You are more learned, and more pious, so pointing out anything is like holding a candle to the sun but to let you in on my line of thinking, let me give you some examples of cultural greetings that have come to us from the non-Muslims, and isn't there a Hadith that if we imitate the non-Muslims, we will be among them on the Day of Judgment? Can we stand in front of authoritative figures in deference, like in the Indo-Pak. Maybe some other cultures have these, too? Can we lift our shirts/skirts a little, and bend our knees a little and make curtseys like the British? Can we clasp our hands together and say namaste like the Hindus? Can we stick our tongues out in greeting others (don't laugh. it is the custom of a people, although I do not remember which). What the brother did: bowing of head and placing of hands on his chest in deference to the lady is a non-Muslim cultural greeting. This together with the avoidance of Islam as the reason for not shaking hands, and this being endorsed (yes, citing the example as a good one is endorsement in my book), caused me to feel the anguish due to which I questioned the sheikh. This is not little in my limited understanding. I see a lot of shar already, and more coming this way. Anyway, I am unlucky in having lived an entire life away from shuyukh, and having a sort of doubting attitude, but I still love and respect all these shuyukh. Only I reserve the right to question them. And I also reserve the right to differ from them. Perhaps I never had this adab you mentioned, and [i]perhaps I need to cultivate this[/i]/ I thank you for your excellent style, which made your post a pleasure to read, and for your indulgence and I seek Allah's forgiveness if anything I have said is not the truth. There are a few more points I could question, but my post is long enough already, and the time of Maghrib is upon us here.
05/18/05 at 16:56:20
timbuktu

shaking hands
bhaloo
05/18/05 at 00:25:36
[slm] Abu Khaled, I have a question regarding the story you mentioned with the brother and non-Muslim lady.  How did the non-Muslim lady infer that this action was the action of a Muslim and the behavior of a Muslim?  Is it possible that the woman assumed that the man was just a good husband?  The reason I ask is because, you mentioned: "That a non-Muslim woman went home and applied something which she positively attributed to Islam, into her life."  And I was curious how she attributed this action to Islam, and not to the man just being a good husband? [quote] What would have been your explanation given the same situation? To confine your answer to the hukm – i.e. not being able to shake her hand? – without contextualising that, or providing some kind of backdrop to the hukm? How would you have chosen to explain the hukm? How would you have addressed the *why* of the ruling having emphasised the *what* of what the actual hukm was? And bear in mind the time constraint which you, not being there at the time, are not privy to. You have a small window of time, so you need to speak to the point, and effectively.   So, to tell her it was impermissible, would have done what? Probably caused her to wonder why, right? That’d be natural for her, yes? So what then would have happened? Most likely one of two things: a. she would have not understood yet chosen not to enquire further, thereby walking away in confusion, possibly offended, but none the wiser. b. she would have asked why not? Which is a negative question usually. So you have to not only provide an explanation, but also overcome a mindset now. [/quote] The shaking hands issue has been discussed here in the past, and the advice I have given people when they have asked me outside of this board is the following: When a person of the opposite gender extends their hand to shake your hand, bring the hand to your heart and say something like, "I am honored to meet you, but for religious reasons I'm not allowed to shake hands with members of the opposite gender". And talking with individuals that have implemented this advice, I think it is the most effective way.

Middle way to follow ....
faisalsb
05/18/05 at 03:13:38
[slm] Well first of all it's really nice to know that we have someone in shape of AbuKhalid who we can get "FAIZ" from. Regarding the original topic I am fully agreed with the approach AbuKhalid is talking about and surprisingly it's not inovation of certain shyukhs or people but comes directly from life of Holy Prophet  [saw] (Although it very much depends on the situation and nature of the incident that what approach we should follow and I think this is what we call hikma what our deen asks us to learn) If we look deeply into the problem of shaking hands then we come to know that the person who offers to shake hand with opposite sex actually invite us to commit sin and for sure we are supposed to forbid it. I'll like to give few examples how Holy Prophet  [saw] forbid evil and how he  [saw] delt with sinners: First example is when a sahabi came to him  [saw] and mentioned that he had sex with his wife while he was fasting so what should he do to repent? Holy Prophet  [saw] said, "Fast continously for sixty days" He replied, "I am unable to do that" Holy Prophet  [saw] said, "Then distribute meal to forty needy persons" He replied "I have nothing to distribute" then Holy Prophet  [saw] asked him to wait. After sometime Holy Prophet  [saw] received a gift in shape of food. Holy Prophet  [saw] gave that to the sahabi and asked him to distribute to needy people. The sahabi said, "Should I distribute to the people poorer to me? By God I am the poorest person of Madina" Holy Prophet  [saw] smiled and said, "Take it with you and let your family and yourself eat from it". Second example is a sahabi came to Holy Prophet  [saw] and said he had kissed a non mehram woman and wanted to repent, Holy Prophet  [saw] asked him to offer non obligatory prayer and ask Allah for forgiveness. Third example is from Hazrat Ali (RAU) once he was working (he used to work as a labour for his living) on one place which was like digging the land. A man came to him and said there are few people following me please don't tell that you have seen me. Hazrat Ali (RAU) accepted his request and left the place where he was working and started working slightly away from the original place. Soon the people approached him and asked him have you seen someone passed by from here? Hazrat Ali (RAU) replied, "Since I have been working on this place I have not seen any one passed by from here" Once I was listening to a live speach of Qazi Hussain Ahmad (Ameer Jamaat-i-Islami Pakistan) who is well know internationally for his hardline views. He was referring to the same problem while he was travelling by air, a western female reporter came to him and introduced herself and initiated handshake. He replied, "I can't shake hand with you due to the respect what I have for you as a muslim" Well the point what I am trying to make from upper mentioned examples is that we are supposed to follow shariah either one way or other and history is witness that Islam was spread due to good high moral charactor and SOFT behavior of muslims and today Islam is defamed due to bad charactor and intolerant behavior of muslims. I am not saying to backtrack or be appologatic about our deen instead it should be the other way around but we should think and act wisely.

What shape is he?
bhaloo
05/18/05 at 22:29:30
[slm] Faisalsb, alhumdullilah I like the answer your sheikh gave.  Though I think you might have added some grammar mistakes to the sentence, but I do get the point. [quote] Well first of all it's really nice to know that we have someone in shape of AbuKhalid who we can get "FAIZ" from. [/quote] Are you by any chance related to Saleema?   ???

Who is "Faiz" ???
faisalsb
05/19/05 at 00:56:48
[slm] [quote]Faisalsb, alhumdullilah I like the answer your sheikh gave.  Though I think you might have added some grammar mistakes to the sentence, but I do get the point. Quote: Well first of all it's really nice to know that we have someone in shape of AbuKhalid who we can get "FAIZ" from. Are you by any chance related to Saleema? [/quote] ;D Well that's a real practical joke actually the word "FAIZ" is a religious terminology equivalent to word "Enlightenment" but it's mostly used in indo-pak sub-continent. And for sure it has nothing to do with Saleema ....... :)
05/19/05 at 00:58:27
faisalsb

On Shaykhy Ground - pt 1 of 3
AbuKhaled
05/19/05 at 15:58:53
Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem Dear Brothers & Sisters, Assalam alaikum wa rahmatullah. I tend not to send PM’s, so I’d like to say hayak’Allah to the Brother who kindly gave me some very well-meant nasiha. Insha’Allah this post will demonstrate that your advice was received in the spirit it was sent, and actioned. I ask Allah ta’ala to continue to ennoble you in your manner of giving counsel. I will answer a few of the questions some of you have asked in reply to my original post. But you may have a job locating where those answers are if you just want to skip to those sections. Probably the easiest way to do that will just be to hunt for the quotes from the previous posts that other contributors have authored. =========== Akh Timbuktu, Wa-alaikum assalam wa rahmatullah. Thank you for your response. May Allah tabarak wa ta’ala reward you for the graciousness of your words. I am glad you elaborated on the mindset in which your observations reside. I’ve tried to note all your points so that I can do some justice to them. It is a true sign of the Rahma of Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala that we can claim the concern of brothers such as yourself, whose effort is to maintain a certain standard and address any notion of compromise that is sensed. This has its place too, and it is good to see that level of diligence in trying to uphold the Islamic justifications for actions. That said, we still need to iron out a few creases… I think I’ll set it around Cotton/Linen, rather than Silk this time… (See Sister Jannah, I know about stuff you’re into too…) I’m going to try and come from a different angle, with the intention of maybe adding another dimension to our dialogue. In the following example I am going to deliberately use a wrong justification, okay? Let us suppose the case of a 4 year old Muslim girl who up till now has never had to encounter the notion of pork, so the question of whether it can be eaten has never needed to be entertained. But now this child is enrolled into her first school, and it is a non-Muslim school, so you know lunch is served, and hence it is unavoidable that the issue of pork will arise. So you need to explain to her that this is something she cannot eat. She asks why? You tell her because Allah ta’ala has said that we, as Muslims, cannot eat it. But why? Because Allah ta’ala has said so. Why has He said so? Well, because He won’t be happy if we do. Why not? Because. Why? Because. Why? (Repeat cycle, then rinse.) So eventually the parent succumbs and gives the classic ‘pig is a dirty animal’ line so favoured by our elder generations. (The whole piglet having ghusl wudu thing won’t really cut any ice with a four year old, so we needn’t worry about any comebacks. Phew!) After answering a few more whys about pigs and how they roll around in their own yuckiness and eat all sorts of foul stuff, the child is suitably convinced. And an impression is formed. An impression which is carried through to older age, until a day when some clever fella points out the whole pig and wudu thing. And then one’s basis is reset to factory settings, for understanding that some ahkam come without Divine rationale, and thus we accept them and present them as so, as ahkam which we comply with without knowing the reason/wisdom/benefit behind them *from the texts*, and that it is enough that Allah ta’ala forbade it. But here’s the thing. That child may grow up with an erroneous notion of why we don’t eat pork – as probably many of us did – *but she will still never eat pork*. Hence she will never commit that sin, despite the basis for her not doing so being not quite kosher (hehe…). And ultimately, what counts is the act that is avoided, i.e. the sin. Regardless of the basis. The importance of the basis is connected to the soundness of one’s paradigm, but in terms of accountability it plays an infrequent role. Because the basis, like the roots of a tree, tends to be something which is referred to very rarely during the course of everyday life. It is the branches which bear the brunt of the weather. Of course the basis is not to be downplayed, but usually it takes more than a strong wind to reach the roots. Likewise, the fleeting gentle wind of exchange between the Brother and the non-Muslim lady was unlikely (though not impossible) to reach as far as her roots (basis), so he addressed the tip of the branch. And in doing so it seemed the effect was to sway the trunk a little. This whole exchange you and I are having seems to me to be two threes versus a six. It is all about ideals and realities. Your emphasis is on what is normative (i.e. what should be), whilst I have been addressing what is positive (i.e. what is). And yes, credit to you akhi, we need to be moving towards what should be, rather than contenting ourselves with what is. But as long one is conscious of that then I see no cause for blame here. Yes, if one remains inattentive to the normative then there need be some eyebrow furrowing. I know the danger of an incorrect basis. What if that child’s argument is rumbled by a fellow non-Muslim classmate, and she realises that it is wrong to say that pigs are dirty animals? There is a possibility she might not see a reason not to eat pork. Yet in reality how many children do you know whose connection to Allah ta’ala is forged in a way that allows them to refrain from doing things solely because they know that Allah ta’ala does not like us doing those things? For the many children I have encountered, the notion of Allah ta’ala tends to be abstract. Their motives for doing/not doing things tends to be for reasons other than the sake of Allah azza wa jal. My experience seems to suggest children are creatures who require rationale - however simplistic - by nature. And only when they start to become more mature do they appreciate the philosophy that we abstain from actions only because that is the instruction of The Lawgiver, subhanahu wa ta’ala. And that we don’t need to know why The Lawgiver has prohibited an act, or a substance, to refrain from indulging in it. On the contrary, to instil that kind of philosophy in a child sometimes results in presenting Allah ta’ala to them as someone to be scared of. Which is no way to inculcate a reverence and adab towards Him, azza wa jal. For there is surely a world of difference between one who doesn’t engage in extra-marital relationships because they are haram, and one who doesn’t because they love their Lord, azza wa jal, and it is that love which prompts them to refrain from the forbidden. Meaning that one seems to act as if their hands are tied, and the other complies much more willingly. Either way, both are abstaining from the prohibited, but their underlying motives differ. Yet it is the act for which we are accountable, for intentions count for nothing when the act is haram, wallahu ta’ala a’lam. You wrote, “However, I also have this "failing" that I am not easily swayed by words or by the announced impeccibility of a source.” In this we are both alike akhi. Despite how it seems, if you ask any of the Brothers/Sisters here who are familiar with my posts from the past, you will learn that I am extremely attuned to the quality - or lack of - of a person’s argument. What is not known to you is my backstory, so let us rewind time a little, and insha’Allah you’ll come to understand me a little better. I am someone whose interest in Islam came from the avenue of the intellect, not the spirit, nor the soul. What captivated me was not the example of Islam, but the intellectual acuity of some Muslims, which I came to associate with Islam. So I would be entranced when watching a Muslim debating a non-Muslim, and defeating them with solid blows to their arguments. That really pumped me full of adrenalin. As did protracted argument – in the sense of reasoning, not in the sense of heated exchanges - and discussion about proofs of the existence of the Creator, azza wa jal. I was attracted by/to compelling arguments. Anything related to ‘aqida, and proving the basis of our Deen rationally, using one’s intellect, appealed. And I became drawn to those who are known for their preoccupation, and some – namely those who are either convinced by, or upon, their way - say, their achievements and effectiveness, in this area. So Islamic sophistry became my weapon of choice when engaging non-Muslims and Muslims alike. And to be honest, I became really quite adept at handling most of what is thrown at Muslims by non-Muslims, and even by Muslims who tend to disagree with that approach. All discussions revolved around ascertaining the evidence, which was the strongest proof, what was the most effective argument, how to state the case most impenetrably, how to find weaknesses in the arguments of others, etc. Much of my time was spent trying to understand the other view, with an aim of refuting it. I suppose one reason why the intellectual approach was so favoured by me was because all around me I saw a pitiful intellectual legacy. It *seemed* like all the Muslims I came across, whose work existed in the public eye, who were publishing books, giving talks, addressing modern contentions, provided such lamentably poor defences for Islam, that even I, as a Muslim, could see through them. I saw a serious lack of intellectual depth and rigour. And it troubled me. I wanted to be able to defend Islam, to uphold it proudly, and present it irrefutably. I wanted to ensure that my own basis was sound, watertight and firm.  And I wanted to seek out the strongest manifestations of non-Islamic and non-Muslims argument, and destroy it, for the sake of Islam. So I would devour articles by the leading thinkers of Western thought, scrutinise the works of the renowned philosophers, whose writings laid the foundations for the societies we find ourselves in today, and whose thought influenced the politicians, thinkers, philosophers, commentators, etc., of this age. Why deal with the puppets when you can meet with the puppetmaster? What is unbeknownst to me then though was that there were some hidden dangers. One was that I had no steadying influence in my life, in terms of scholarly referents. No guide who could be considered an authoritative reference point. I was treading deep deep waters, for which I didn’t then realise, much training and knowledge is actually required. And because I knew no better, I ended up placing my trust in individuals who I now know not worthy of the mantle of being considered ‘Ulema. But not before almost irreparable damage was done to the basis for my belief, erroneous views concerning ‘aqida became a part of my outlook, and my comprehension of fiqh was a mishmash of this, that and the other. Wal iyadhubillah. But because I was deluded, into thinking that my intellect was a force to be reckoned with, I continued upon my way, referring to those who I thought were worthy of being my reference points (i.e. those more learned than myself, in the subjects I was interested in). I was dazzled by their ability to uphold their views, and defend themselves so effectively against what we considered ‘the kufr onslaught’, and do so with a force and clarity like thunder; it resonated within me. It was exciting to witness and be a part of that. You felt safe to be around such Muslims. As if that approach was invincible. They seemed so proficient and learned, so familiar with the range of opinions out there, that I thought they must surely have therefore studied them all thoroughly, before making their informed judgement on which is the strongest position, based on the soundest evidences/proofs. This fuelled one to dip one’s toes in areas where one really shouldn’t, bolstered by the sense that one possessed the tools to engage any idea or concept, any viewpoint or opinion – Islamic or otherwise - which was at odds with what I upheld as being right and sound. Now I look back and wonder how could I have been so naïve, arrogant and conceited. When I had no benchmark to measure what those I referred to were saying, against. How could I know if what they were teaching me of ‘aqida was sound when I knew not what sound ‘aqida was?? I had never studied ‘aqida, except through the filter (and agenda) of these Brothers. As far as I was concerned I had no reason to doubt what they were teaching me, so I accepted it as fact and truth. In one sense this is unavoidable. For instance, take the word ‘troglodyte’. You may not know what it means. So if I tell you, you’ll accept that, if you trust me, and/or have no reason to doubt me. However,  if you first encounter that word in a sentence, like, “And so the troglodytes continued to amass grain for the bleak winter ahead,” and then I say a troglodyte is a kind of vaccination, you know there is something not quite right, because from the context of the sentence, such a meaning is incompatible. But if I said a troglodyte is a kind of reclusive person that lives in places like the underground, then this would seem at least more plausible. On a larger scale then, when you begin to study a brand new subject, you de facto have no frame of reference, thus what is being taught itself becomes the frame of reference. And you then use it to benchmark any other related knowledge against. So, when we study ‘aqida for the first time, we learn that Allah ta’ala is beginningless. It is explained to us why this is the case, and we accept it using the only tool at our disposal, our ‘aql. But we find a strange comfort within the heart too, which we come to recognise as sakina [tranquility], for we are entering into the realm of the fitra. So that beginninglessness then becomes our frame of reference on this point of ‘aqida. Consequently, when someone comes to us and asks us about how we can avoid an infinite regress in relation to the origin of the universe, we know immediately that there is a problem, because to accept that notion would be to imply that He too, azza wa jal, is subject to a beginning, and this cannot be. But some of these points that one studies in the Science of ‘Aqida are subtle, and require a fine understanding indeed. And if one is not careful one can easily end up becoming convinced of an incorrect viewpoint in relation to a point of ‘aqida. After all, Islamic history testifies to a time when the Mu’tazila had the ascendancy in terms of the State sanctioned perspective on ‘aqida. Can you imagine that akhi? The very thought makes us incredulous now, in 2005, because we don’t have to go far to find an explanation for where the Mu’tazila went astray in ‘aqida. But back then it was an unprecedented era, and so that kind of refutation had not occurred yet by the orthodox ‘Ulema. So imagine being one of those who took the lead in voicing disagreement with the State-sanctioned view of ‘aqida? How confident must those scholars needed to have been? How refined must their fahm [comprehension] have been? When so many other scholars had become convinced by the thinking of the Mu’tazila. Something which seems so obviously wrong to us now, was the view of ‘aqida which preponderated the Islamic State. And affected so many ‘Ulema. Can you appreciate how profound the thought of the Mu’tazila must have been for it to have taken hold of so many scholars (notwithstanding the fact that many of them were coerced into agreeing with the Mu’tazilite view in the public arena, regardless of what they secretly thought about it)? Possibly not, as we live in a time where the kind of thought espoused by the Mu’tazila is clearly on display as being wrong. Yes, something can be wrong, but that doesn’t mean it cannot be profound. And some of the points of ‘aqida the Mu’tazila held were seriously convincing to a lot of people. It required a certain level of brilliance – by the tawfiq of Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala – to recognise the flaws in it, for which we all stand indebted today to those Imams, may Allah ta’ala grant them their rightful abode. So it was with I, that I unwittingly began to embrace unorthodox views on ‘aqida, and fiqh, without realising it. Do you realise how hard it is to break a person out of that? When one is convinced that what they are upon is sound? (If you’ve ever engaged with a Qur’an-only Muslim you’ll know the kind of obstinacy which can afflict a person, and they are completely sincere in that delusion.) Where I mis-stepped so fatally was in relying upon my intellect, myself, as being enough to understand Shar’iah evidences and proofs. Because my intellect seemed to suffice me, I began to trust it. I think possibly the reason for this was that most times when I encountered an argument, or someone who contended a view I held, I was able to present a more robust defence for my position than they were able to present for theirs. After I while then, I began to consider that my arguments and viewpoints were sound and reliable. Part of this was due to the primacy given to the ‘aql as the arbiter of truth/falsity amongst the circles I frequented. The reality was simply that Allah ta’ala had been merciful to me in not embarrassing me through an encounter with someone who was more adept than I at sophistry, and better able to defend their view than I was mine. Hence my emboldened attitude. This attitude of empowerment was further underlined by the fact that we use our ‘aql [intellect/reason] to comprehend the Deen. We use it to understand the Sacred Knowledge. So those whom Allah ta’ala blesses with an ‘aql that functions at a higher level, are better equipped to comprehend the Sacred Knowledge at its more deeper levels. Consequently they are also able to *present* it at a deeper level. My point in mentioning this rather protracted backstory is that I was fortunate, for Allah ta’ala revealed to me the error of the way I was upon. And I turned towards orthodoxy, alhamdulillah. But my trust in scholars, scholarship, authority, and authenticity took a serious beating after this miserable experience. I nearly left Islam as a result. Not because I wanted to, but because I felt obliged to. That that was the rightful thing to do. Eventually Allah ta’ala saved me from myself, and from my *self*. I found myself and my self, at the feet of some giants from amidst the folk of Allah ta’ala, at least, in the worthless estimation of this faqir. I could have landed in front of some okay ‘Ulema, but no, Allah ta’ala, again for a reason unbeknownst to me to this day, had me before some exceptionally brilliant Scholars, and Students of Scholars. The likes of which remain few and far between. Were it not for the soft heart and large embrace of these Saliheen, I probably would have been – and Allah azza wa jal knows best – a lost cause. I think the wisdom of their approach, the gentility of its caress, was a definite factor in my (i) being more provoked into questioning the basis I had adopted, and (ii) being able to let go of my wayward thinking more readily than I otherwise may have. And here’s the thing: they didn’t give me the answers to all my questions. Some of my questions went unanswered. Did I consider them to be hiding knowledge? No, though I could have. But I didn’t. Rather, I let Allah ta’ala take me to where He, subhanahu wa ta’ala wanted me, and rather than make du’a for what I wanted, I tried to make du’a to accept what he, azza wa jal, wanted for me. You could argue that these ‘Ulema withheld knowledge from me. Because for sure they could have answered my questions. So were they being backfooted by not entertaining all my questions? Was it apologetic to refrain from sharing that knowledge with me? I don’t think so. Rather, in a quite brilliant assessment of my condition, they realised the point I was at, and knew what I was not yet ready to accept. They knew - through the course of my rebuilding - that much groundwork needed to be done, and so it was a question of time. Because these were matters to do with the very foundation of my ‘aqida, so they could not be answered like a question posted to a MessageBoard. It required an investment, and long hours. Real tears, directed at the One from whom every success is sought, subhanahu wa ta’ala. Tears which contain sincerity. Crying which voices a genuine soul at torment, because it is lost in the wilderness of wrong thought, and heterodox opinion. And so it was, these Guardians of the Sacred Knowledge took me into their gentle care, tended to my roots, got rid of the weeds, and lovingly took care of this soul. They rebuilt my entire being, reconstructed my whole ‘aqida, took great pains to ensure it was now sound, and did so slowly, not in haste. With an investment of time, effort and yes, the answering of many questions. For my part, I did my best to exhibit the kind of patience unknown to me. I sought to quell my frustration at not knowing the answers to my whys and hows there and then. I was not used to this manner of learning. And what was this thing called adab? When did that ever enter the picture? How come no one ever told me about that? It was a beautiful thing to discover, but painful to once again realise that something so central to the success of our learning, had been so absent from my life and the pursuit of my study of Islam so far. Up till then I had proceeded upon the mistaken assumption that Sacred Knowledge is something you acquire. It isn’t, it is something that is given, by the One for Whose Sake we seek that ‘Ilm, subhanahu wa ta’ala. There is, you will always notice, a marked difference between those who make the assumption of the first approach, and those who realise the latter to be true. The former will rely on themselves, and thereby expend all their effort and energy on that study. The latter will devote their time to studying in such a way that they are – bi’idhnillah ta’ala – brought closer to Him, azza wa jal, so He favours them with the acquisition of Sacred Knowledge, tabarak wa ta’ala. If you treat the knowledge you possess as learning that you acquired, rather than something He, subhanahu wa ta’ala, blessed you with, is it of any value in the hereafter? Will you accord it the level of respect it deserves? Sacred Knowledge is an amanah [trust], not a right. And it was only when I finally found myself in the presence of people who treated it in this way that I began to realise (i) it’s worth, (ii) it’s purpose (i.e. not to be used as a weapon, or to defeat others, etc.), (iii) how wrong I had treated my learning up till now, and the immense ingratitude that reflected, (iv) it’s effect upon the soul, (v) the gravity of possessing even a portion of it, (vi) the abuse of it by those I had formerly referred to, which bordered on contemptuous really, hashalillah, and (vii) the importance of obtaining it in the right way, not just any way. These ‘Ulema, and their Students, often spoke little, yet still managed to say much. They were marked  with a presence which is difficult to describe, but it was overwhelming and overpowering. The confidence they possessed in regards to what Allah ta’ala had favoured them with knowing was incredible. Up till then I had only seen such confidence projected using forcefulness, intellectual intimidation, speed (to disorient your opponent by not giving them the time to think of a counter-reply), and arrogance. So I had come to consider such things as being the signs of someone truly knowledgeable. How far had I been from the truth of the matter, subhan’Allah. These new teachers were so, *other* than that. They saw no weakness in not answering a question. They had no issue with not knowing, just like Imam Malik, radhi’Allahu ‘anh. Yet on those occasions when a proof was necessary, they presented it so brilliantly, confidently, authoritatively, consumately and more importantly, endearingly. And it was all you could to prevent yourself from not melting completely. Such was the beauty of their manner, the sweetness of their concern, the softness with which they explained, and the obviousness of their absorption into the way of our beloved Nabi, alayhis salatu wassalam, that you were unable not to get drawn towards him, salallahu alayhi wassalam. They left you powerless to resist, and you gave up trying to if you had been. I found it easy to sit in humility in front of these giants. Because the gulf between what I knew, and had thought I knew, and what they not only knew, but *were*, left me reeling. I knew the climb was going to be steep, but almost vertical? I was not so far gone that I didn’t recognise that one seeks knowledge because one is ignorant, so the fact that I was before them was a proof that I was unlearned, and I should keep that at the forefront of my mind, to keep me grounded. I experienced some horrible realisations during these days. It dawned on me that my whole exercise of being Muslim up till that point was one of doing. That being Muslim was something I *did*, not something I *was*. It tasted foul, that realisation. I began to replay so many incidents I had been a part of, so many encounters I’d had with other Brothers/Sisters. So many victories during those exchanges. And I could not rid myself of the sense that my relationship with Islam had been so wrong. In fact that sentence itself tells the story perfectly. That is it in a nutshell. Namely, I had a relationship with Islam, but no relationship with Allah ta’ala. Empty salats. A void when reading the Qur’an. Zero effect. And something else so unbelievable to me now. No proximity to our Prophet, salallahu alayhi wassalam. I had had only an academic interest in learning about his, salallahu alayhi wassalam, Sira. But no desire for a ta’alluq [link/connection] on a more meaningful level, a’uzubillah. Any link to him, salallahu alayhi wassalam, or with Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala, was intellectual only, not spiritual, not real, not alive. Whereas now, it breathes, alhamdulillah. You know, and this is no word of a lie, one of our teachers told us recently aboqt a Shaykh I have yet to have the privilege to sit with. Apparently this Shaykh has said that if he is ever in salat and even for the briefest moment his khushu [concentration] slips away from Allah ta’ala, he renews his shahada. Dwell on that a moment, what he is saying about the seriousness with which he treats his connection to his Lord, azza wa jal. I heard that and was left speechless. How pathetic is the state of my affair. The irony is, my situation was better than many, because I was fortunate enough of have at least begun my study of rhetoric (the art of reasoning, persuasion and influence). I had some basic insight into the science of argument, so I was slightly better able to spot flawed reasoning than some others. Had I not been, I think I may have gotten into a deeper mess than I did. Or another theory is that because I did (study such things like rhetoric and informal logic), I got myself in deeper than I would have had I remained totally untrained in these subjects. A crack addict may be more experienced in knowing how not to burn the stuff, and thus better able to avoid wasting it, but s/he’s also better able to experiment with worse drugs due to that same extent of experience. [to be continued]
NS
05/19/05 at 16:00:02
AbuKhaled

On Shaykhy Ground - pt 2 of 3
AbuKhaled
05/19/05 at 16:02:38
However, when I finally began to rebuild my Deen – from scratch, I hasten to add – I was determined not to end up exposed to another set of well-meaning but ultimately misguided bearers of scholarliness. I did my utmost to find out about those in whom I was placing my trust. Because I didn’t want to learn from people who were mediocre. I wanted to go to those who were known to excel. The question was, whether I myself was worthy. Why should they pay heed to me? I could offer them nothing other than an abased creature. Allah ta’ala only, knows why they saw fit to accept me to sit at their feet. I made sure that I studied those subjects which are necessary to know if one is to effectivise one’s learning, and optimise one’s ability to comprehend. Those subjects which – by the permission of Allah – act as protection from one getting convinced by the kind of heterodoxy-masquerading-as-orthodoxy kind of Islam that I’d hitherto had the misfortune of being poisoned by, ma’adallah. (I found out something during this time too. Ssshhh. I’ll whisper it to you akhi: That real ‘Ulema actually study this stuff too! It is part of the Uloom al A’la [let us say, foundational, or objectival sciences?]. That is, those sciences which underpin the study of other subjects. Those subjects which are pre-requisites to the subjects which are the eventual goals for study. In the same way that a knowledge of grammar is a pre-requisite to a study of a language. Or the knowledge of how to read and write is a pre-requisite to be able to study, these days. But we don’t study reading/writing as ends in themselves, rather, as tools which enable us to study other subjects. In fact it is a modern day tragedy that Muslims, in general, have neglected this area of study. Proof: As a child you learn how to speak before you learn the grammar of speech, right? Does a child of three know what a pronoun is, or an adjective? No, yet s/he can still say, “He is a big man.” Yet within a few years that child is taught grammar. But have you ever considered then why it is that that same child learns how to reason (“But mommy, why do I have to come in now, cos Farah’s mom is letting her play out till later.”) yet is never taught the principles behind reasoning? No, on the contrary, we have to make an active and concerted effort to study critical thinking – the modern day name for this subject – if we wish to acquaint ourselves with this knowledge. Yet you can go to Mauritania, where traditional methods of knowledge are still preserved, and you will find pre-pubescent children, who have learnt grammar, logic and rhetoric.) Nonetheless, despite my equipping myself with this armour, the very real concern still remained, that how do I know these people also are not upon a way which is misguided? I found that, in these days when few are those ‘Ulema which the whole Ummah accepts, one way of ensuring one’s safety is to refer to those ‘Ulema from the past around which there is no controversy, and who the entire Ummah accepts as reliable reference points. And if one can find the Islamic tradition as passed down successively through generations, in unbroken chains of transmission, through the medium of those who strove/strive to uphold these agreed upon teachings, then one is insha’Allah upon the safest of paths towards Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala. And He, jallathana’u, knows best. So my point, in all this meandering, is that we are alike, you and I, albeit maybe for different reasons. I too don’t get “swayed by words or by the announced impeccibility of a source.” It takes a lot for me to emplace my trust in someone, especially if that person is presented to me as a person of knowledge or scholarship. But I can see how that impression may not be obvious to someone such as yourself about me, if you consider me by my use of expressions lauding the ‘Ulema I allude to. I can see how that might lead one – not necessarily you – to conclude that I am placing these Shuyukh on too high a pedestal. Personally, knowing myself as I do, I know it would be an unwarranted charge to level at me. I also know that I wouldn’t place that degree of surety in anyone if I didn’t feel they met the standard which I have come to believe Islam mandates of anyone in a position of responsibility towards Sacred Knowledge. Of course *you* cannot know whether I am justified in thinking like this about them, so I can accept your wondering whether I am not justified in considering these ‘Ulema so. “In the days when I could, I tried to learn from many sources, and then form my own opinion, which in the absence of a sheikh is said to be very dangerous, isn't it? There is a saying that whoever doesn't have a sheikh has Satan as one. Unfortunately though, it is just a saying, and hence not necessarily true, in my view.” What rendered the saying untrue in your view? And what do you understand by the saying? The following question is asked to understand you, not as a criticism of the approach you’ve chosen to take: What gave you the conviction in your opinion? What made you think that the opinion you formed was an opinion to rely upon? Were the sources you had at your disposal enough to allow you to formulate an opinion which could be considered informed? How can one be sure whether “many sources” constitute *enough* sources, to form an opinion? One aspect which is oft-overlooked by many of us when forming Islamic opinions, is the role which the nafs plays. Some of us take a completely external approach to knowledge, treating it as a pursuit which is only about the tangible sources one accesses, and then the correct and sound comprehension of what is learned, in such a way as to form some kind of coherent mental view. But it overlooks the subtle part played by factors such as ikhlas [sincerity]. For instance, is there any interplay between our ability to come to the correct view, and the degree of ikhlas we manifest in our attempts to do so? Do we proceed relying more upon our own abilities in reaching an informed opinion, than we do in turning to Allah ta’ala to assist in that endeavour? Do we ever entreat Allah ta’ala to grant us safe passage in coming to a right conclusion, or is that an aspect which is overlooked? For myself, in the past I can admit that it was all about the books I read, the tapes I listened to, the classes I attended. Yet few times did it ever occur to me that success in all these efforts can only ever come about through His, azza wa jal, granting it, so what consequence to all this time I dedicate to studying these subjects, when little, if any, is spent asking Him, subhanahu wa ta’ala to accept my efforts? Kind of like an athlete who is so focussed on training for the race, that he takes every conceivable step to maximise his chances of winning, and carefully removes any possible obstacle that might undermine his efforts, yet turns not once to the One who is the Guarantor of every achievement, worldy or otherwordly, tabarak wa ta’ala. Subhan’Allah. That, or the du’a made is some throwaway effort, made on the back of some rakats prayed in haste for ‘asr salat, so we don’t miss the train that’ll take us to the Islamic talk this evening. I realised that I was fooling myself in telling me that my focus was for His Sake, when I wasn’t focussed on Him, jalla jalalu. How could these efforts at studying the Deen succeed when I placed more importance, and attached more time to them, than the One for whom they were being undertaken? It struck me as kind of an odd irony. “Brother, a sunnah without recognising the source may be beneficial in this world, but when the basic kalima is not there, is it of much use?” Indeed, and a point which I anticipated would be made, since it was such an obvious thing to note. But could not such a Sunna one day become the small step which became the catalyst for a desire to know the One for whom all Sunnas are followed, subhanahu wa ta’ala? Should we forsake du’a for the potential, in favour of a forecast that it is of little consequence, before the story of her life is completed? What is unknown to you is where this insignificant little act may take her. Like the woman - upon the authority of our teachers - about whom it is related, used to clean the masjid, and passed away, and one day he – salallahu alayhi wassalam – enquired after her, only to be informed she had died. And he - alayhis afDalas salatu wassalam - expressed sorrow at not being notified of her departure [aw qama qal]. Someone apparently insignificant, who ostensibly played no memorable role in the story of Islam, yet whose insignificance was not so unimportant that it failed to catch the attention of the one whose attention – even for a fleeting moment - any one of us would ransom our entire worlds for, salallahu alayhi wassalam. Be aware, what is meaningless to you, may, in the Court of the Creator, subhanahu wa ta’ala, be a cause for a new shahada to be borne. Yes, it is equally as true that it may not, but here, the point to be dwelt upon, is that when one doesn’t know, then it is the good opinion of one’s Lord, azza wa jal, that we float our hopes upon. What harm could be done by treating this as the possibility for something wonderful, as opposed to choosing to downplay it? And ironically, how many are the Sunnas which despite the presence of the kalima, are soiled by an absence of the inner accompaniment necessary for their acceptance? “You see I find a lot of people providing secular reasons, while avoiding the religious basis.” Maybe so, but whatever our take on this example I have cited which you are contending, one thing which it cannot be accused of is being a secular reason. I’m not saying you have, but that if you are, then I would adamantly contest any charge that the reason the Brother gave was secular. However you choose to interpret the point he made about not shaking her hand because of the promise he’d made to his wife, in no way could it be considered secular, and I hope that is not your implication here. “I do think this declaration that one is a Muslim, hence this departure from the society's norm” Well now, here’s an interesting thing. From where did you get the idea that we being Muslim is the reason why we depart from this society’s norm? This is a fine illustration of how easy it is for us to miss nuances which ‘Ulema would sensitise us to. The departure you refer to is a consequence of our being Muslim, as opposed to Islam being the reason for our departure. It is no different from not shaking the hand on the grounds that it is a promise made to the wife. Both are implications of a hukm, as opposed to being reasons for the hukm. We avoid shaking hands of non-mahrem because that is the hukm of Allah ta’ala; it is an implication of the nikah. We depart from society’s norm – when/where we do - because it is the hukm of Allah ta’ala, not because we are Muslim (since being Muslim is not a daleel), rather departing is an implication of being Muslim. So you see akhi, how easy it is to fall prey to the same kind of thinking that you are charging the Brother with? And to all intents and purposes, what you have said here is no different from what he said to the lady. A fait accompli methinks. “Pardon me, but I do not understand the negativity in this "negative" question. To me it is a question that opens the way for further dialogue. I have had such "negative" questions asked, and the resulting discussion was quite sensibly conducted, I think.” A negative question is one which has attached to it some kind of negative (in this case the word “not”) and may also be preceded by a lack of understanding (not the same as a misunderstanding). Which often – not always, hence my use of the qualifier “usually” – is asked with some form of prejudgement in mind. It doesn’t *necessarily* imply a negative mindset, but can do. That is all I was saying. I used to share a flat with a non-Muslim friend for about a year. He was into casual drugs (Bronson, pills, E, etc.), casual women, casual clubbing, you get the picture. One evening, a year into our sharing the apartment, we got talking about Islam, and he was really interested with the whole science and Qur’an thing. But then he stopped me, saying he didn’t want me to tell him about the Qur’an. Why, I asked? He said because I made it sound so appealing - lol! - that he was afraid he’d have to succumb, which would mean leaving his wayward lifestyle, and he wasn't ready to do that. It was kind of nice, in a stupid way. Anyway, one thing he revealed then to me was that up until he’d met me, Muslims were like the lowest of the low in his mental scale of dislikeable people in the world. But since he’d met me, his whole opinion of Muslims had changed, because he had come to see that we can actually be “safe,” as he quite endearingly put it. I say this because here was someone who I never pegged as harbouring negative views about a set of people. Because all I ever knew of him was how well he mixed with people from all kinds of backgrounds, ethnicities, religions, upbringings, social classes, etc. yet all the while he had held this negative picture of Muslims which he’d never opened up to me about, despite our proximity as friends. So just because someone appears to accept an aspect of the Islamic way of life, doesn’t mean that inside, they do. What I’m getting at by this example is that, sometimes, what doesn’t outwardly appear as a negative question, may harbour some underlying negativity. But perhaps for reasons of political correctness the questioner won’t manifest to you their true thoughts, which could well be negative towards Islam. That said, I dislike generalisations, and I too have engaged many a situation where a “negative” question leads to a positive discussion. It is just that in such instances there is a risk it may not, because you may have the added factor of having to address a mindset along with a question. [continued]
NS

On Shaykhy Ground - pt 3 of 3
AbuKhaled
05/19/05 at 16:05:47
“The primary Islamic reason is that as Muslims, we are to abstain from touching non-mehrams” No akhi, the primary reason is that it is the hukm of Allah ta’ala. That we are Muslims merely makes us the subject of that law, not the reason for it’s existence. Wallahu a’lam. In fact, though it is ofbpoint, this could segue into an interesting juristic discussion (not that I am capable of that), about whether non-Muslims hold taklif [legal responsibility]. I have come across an opinion that they do, but am not sure if the view was rooted in orthodox fiqh sources. But I digress… “What the brother did: bowing of head and placing of hands on his chest in deference to the lady is a non-Muslim cultural greeting.” If I see a Brother drinking from a can of beer, either I can rush to conclude he is a sinner, or I can pause and try to think of as many excuses as possible, as is more befitting of me, being his Brother in Deen. Maybe he is being coerced to drink that? Maybe he is ignorant (you may question if that is possible when it seems everyone knows Muslims don’t drink. A friend went on a meeting with two Muslims once and one of them ordered a beer and flicked the first two drops away, citing some text (hadith?) saying the first two drops are for Shaytan. Yes Mr Fiqhtional, tell me some more stories!). Maybe the can doesn’t contain beer? Maybe maybe maybe… Anway: 1. You are reading more than what was there into the scenario. He didn’t bow his head and place *one* hand (not both) on his chest in some sort of emulation of a known greeting, it is merely that one action followed another in sequence. And where is such a greeting commonly done? Which culture, please? 2. To say that someone is emulating non-Muslims one needs to find a link to prove that is so. Just because someone wears a three-piece suit, doesn’t mean they are intentionally copying non-Muslims. For that is connected to niyya [intention], and unless one knows the intention of another, it is not safe to assume and infer based solely on the outward appearance of actions. “Anyway, I am unlucky in having lived an entire life away from shuyukh, and having a sort of doubting attitude (you notice I expressed my reservations about Sh. Qaradawi as well), but I still love and respect all these shuyukh.” The company of Shuyukh echoes back to the practice of the Sahaba, radhi’Allahu ajm’aeen. Suhba [accompaniment] is central to the Islamic experience (when/where possible, for circumstance may not always allow for it). It is attributed to Imam Abu Hanifa, radhi’Allahu ‘anh, that he is reported to have said that he preferred the stories of the ‘Ulema to fiqh, for that is the well of adab. The ‘Ulema, the Saliheen, and those like them, are the approximators to the way of our Beloved Nabi, alayhis salatu wassalam. No amount of indirect feed (books, tapes, CD’s, websites, etc.) can ever replace that, for there is inestimable baraka that passes from chest to chest due to that proximity. That company alone will teach what hours of study could never impart. Some Shuyukh are such that you learn as much by what they don’t do/say as what they do/say. Just observing them contains a lesson. Reading a hadith about how the Prophet, alayhis salatu wassalam, drank, is no match for witnessing an example of that Sunna through the practice of one of his – salallahu alayhi wassalam – inheritors. Books are drier than humans. And humans naturally learn better by the direct example of another, as opposed to learning through the indirect nature of books. The original method of imparting the Sunna was via  the living example. And these things are not incidental. Your doubt of Shuyukh will likely only be removed by an extended experience with them. A prolonged spell of suhba [accompaniment], were that possible, and you were so inclined too (I am not implying you aren’t). “Only I reserve the right to question them. And I also reserve the right to differ from them.” Okay, again, not to criticise, but to further comprehend: from where in Islam do you derive the above two notions? They seem alien to the teaching I associate with this Deen, for they tend to exalt the self, rather than the Creator of the self, subhanahu wa ta’ala. From where do these rights issue, and is ownership of them yours that you might reserve it? And on what valid basis would you differ from them? Rights are an interesting concept. You have reminded me of a great little article I read not so long ago by author Jamie Whyte (who wrote ‘Bad Thoughts: A Guide to Clear Thinking’), which was all about the questions of rights (as in ‘I have a right to my opinion’). He was contending that, actually, there is no worth to the statement that one has a right to their opinion. Because, as he argued, rights only possess any value when there is a corresponding duty to uphold them. So, we might say that we have an inalienable right to life. But this right has no value whatsoever unless there is a corresponding duty to preserve life. Which may, for example, be upheld by laying down a consequence for taking a life (e.g. prison). On the right to question, is there a corresponding duty to accept to be questioned *by you*? On the right to differ, is there a corresponding duty to accept *your* differing? So, what real value do both these rights, which you’d like to take ownership of – the right to question and the right to differ - truly hold? Do any of us have a duty to accept your right to do so? And if so, upon what grounds? Of course I can hold opinions, but of what benefit are they, to me? What tangible benefit is there to my akhira to me holding my own opinions? And is this benefit greater than the benefit of me succumbing to the opinion of those far more worthy - and perhaps actually entitled – to have an opinion, which can carry the honour of being known as an *Islamic* opinion? Ya ani, these are weighty questions, and far removed from the original purport of this thread, I am sorry. But such is the way when peoples bases become more obvious. One begins to address the assumptions upon which their views are founded. The experience of some of us, concerning scholars, is that some of us turn to Shuyukh, get misled and then doubt all shuyukh. What few of us do is to actually learn what the proper way is of accepting knowledge, where one can ask questions, when it is im/proper to do so, and how this should be done. Again, much of this is learnt through suhba [accompaniment]. Coming round, now, to some of the questions others have directed at me in this thread: Sidi Al-Anon, lol, no it is not, and I am far from worthy that it might be. Though I am interested how Sister Jannah could verify that. Then again, she is somewhat scary in inexplicably being able to know stuff like that. She is an entire X-File unto herself… Your Bhalooness (I’m glad your strawpoll vindicates my example.), you asked, “did the non-Muslim lady infer that this action was the action of a Muslim and the behavior of a Muslim? Is it possible that the woman assumed that the man was just a good husband?” That is a good question, and though I will need to revisit the narration, I recall that the reason she approached him initially was *because* he was Muslim and she had a question to ask. I understand the point beneath your question, and it is a good one.  Though recollection tells me that the context of this story was that the Brother was identifiably Muslim. Small minded people can never attain the true ranks of scholarship, for by it’s nature scholarliness requires an expansive breast and broadness of understanding. It is not just about the answer, but the condition of the answered (one). Hence you will see the same question asked by two different people to the same Shaykh, answered differently by that Shaykh, and when you enquire as to why, you will learn it was because there was some difference in the two questioners asking. Yet you as an observer may not have noticed any difference. The analogy here is like a man stood beside a doctor, and both of them are looking at patient. Whilst they’re both looking at the same person, what each of them is seeing is something quite different, because one is trained to notice certain signs in that patient. I remember once being told by someone I know, who is a doctor, that the little boy in front of us probably had chickenpox. When I asked how she knew, she said his eyes are red, and that is one sign. Not only did I not know that, I wasn’t even able to make a correlation between the redness of eyes and chickenpox. So likewise akhi Timbuktu, Allah ta’ala sometimes inspires those folk who are sincere in their way, who find themselves confronted by a certain situation, to behave in a certain way, which to an undiscerning eye may be seen to be a compromise, or unnecessary, or weakness. When in reality, it is entirely possible that at that moment Allah ta’ala provided for them an opening [fath] whereby they were inspired to do what they did, *within the confines of Islamic appropriateness* (lest someone mistakenly take that as an excuse to say they decided to accept a bacon sandwich from a group of non-Muslims who had gotten into a conversation with them about Islam, and offered them one of their sandwiches, and so as not to offend, they decided to accept!!). There are lines that one doesn’t cross. The question here is whether this example was one of those crossed. I say not, you say yes. We both say Allah ta’ala knows best. Forgive me akhi, authoring replies such as this exhausts me. And inasmuch as I know there is never a need for me to write at such length, it is a shortcoming in me that I am so verbose and laborious in my manner. Hence the rarity of the occasion that I stop by this place anymore. Because I know myself too well. And life simply doesn’t allow me to prolong extended dialogue like this, when it requires of me this much investment. Plus, the more I write, the more there invariably is to take issue with, ironically. I also know I lack the cleanliness of heart that is required to form any kind of an imprint on a soul such as your good self. Which then renders my exercise here somewhat pointless. (Hmm, how come that realisation never comes to me just after I write “Dear Brothers & Sisters”…). May Allah ta’ala forgive me for inflicting this tyranny and boredom upon you (all). Though perhaps I can sneak a cheeky little smile past you, knowing that you gracious souls shall, as ever, forgive me for such mischievous wickedness, since it is meant well. Ma’assalam, Abu Khaled
NS
05/19/05 at 16:32:36
AbuKhaled

Innuendos!
anon
05/20/05 at 00:12:58
[slm] [quote]Sidi Al-Anon, lol, no it is not, and I am far from worthy that it might be. Though I am interested how Sister Jannah could verify that. Then again, she is somewhat scary in inexplicably being able to know stuff like that. She is an entire X-File unto herself… [/quote] According to the hadith of the Prophet [saw] when one sits in good company it is as if visiting a perfume seller. I used way too many innuendos when I asked you about the scholar, the venerated grandson of the Prophet [saw] that you mentioned in your first post in this thread! A worthy student is always humbled by the nur of the heirs to the Prophet [saw] and does not consider himself worthy of carrying their frangrance. Blessings on our Prophet [saw] who said: "The world is cursed. Everything that is in it is cursed, except for the remembrance of Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala, and that which is similar to it, or whatever contains it, and the Scholar, and the one who is learning." Jannah thought I was asking about you.

Subhanallah
timbuktu
05/20/05 at 13:20:02
[slm] dear akhi AbuKhaled Thank you for your effort in taking so much labor and time, that you would rather have spent on more important matters. The real issue was that there was no mention in your initial post of how the lady had inferred that the brother was a Muslim, but whereas in my youth I could summarise and state my points in a concise manner, I now find myself beating about the bush and not being able to convey clearly what I meant. Not that this issue should have been blown up so much, because I should have given the benefit of doubt to the brother and the Sheikh. The time window was indeed short. One wouldn't and couldn't have thought out an answer beforehand to every potentially embarassing or "negative" situation. In this light, the brother's response should actually be considerd brilliant. And well, the Sheikhs do take into account the condition of their disciples. So it was wrong of me to be so sweeping about the scholars and the brothers, and my apologies to you and the concerned brother and the Sheikhs I have slighted. :) And it is true too that people do hide their negativity for appearing to be politically correct. I said: [quote]You see I find a lot of people providing secular reasons, while avoiding the religious basis.[/quote] You replied: [quote]Maybe so, but whatever our take on this example I have cited which you are contending, one thing which it cannot be accused of is being a secular reason. I’m not saying you have, but that if you are, then I would adamantly contest any charge that the reason the Brother gave was secular. However you choose to interpret the point he made about not shaking her hand because of the promise he’d made to his wife, in no way could it be considered secular, and I hope that is not your implication here."[/quote] Since you know the Brother, and now that you have told us so much, yes, it wasn't a secular explanation. However, from your original post it was not clear that the lady knew the brother was a Muslim. In that case perhaps you will forgive me because this would have been interpreted by the lady as a secular reason. Still you are right that an encounter like this would have left the lady pleasantly wondering. So, if she later comes across someone who would explain that this is the hukm of Allah (swt), she may see the light. For it is very true that Islam was spread by the example of Muslim living their lives according to the Quran and Sunnah. To tell you the truth, I am glad I have been so stupid, because then you took the trouble to explain, and also that you have narrated your journey. It is so wonderful I would like to know more rather than dwell further on the issues that my post had raised. There are, to generalise, three schools of thought in the broad Sunni school, any of which I would have thought of as orthodox, but perhaps there is a specific school that has been so labelled so I am confused, and need a clarification about which school is defined as "orthodox": 1. Tassawwuf, 2. taqleed and 3. Salafi, although the first two can be intertwined. Again broadly speaking the ahle Tasawwuf can be grouped into two branches: those who think that there is an underground spiritual government (comprising the dead saints and living saints) which controls the world through walis, qutbs, gawths, etc. and then there are other Sufis who do not think so. [i]Which of these is the orthodox Sunni approach? and you haven't answered al-anon's question about your guide being Sheikh Ya`coubi?[/i] :) Yes, I have had interaction with ahle Quran - today's Muatizilla, and have observed the same from them as you have. The questions you have asked about what makes one's own opinion reliable, and what gives one the right to question, are very important. I will see if I can formulate my thoughts on this in a way that doesn't expose my muddleheadedness. And only if I am able to do so, will I reply to it. Knowing myself, it may take some considerable time, though. :)
05/20/05 at 14:38:33
timbuktu

Shaykh Ya'coubi
Abu_Hamza
05/20/05 at 16:02:13
[slm] [quote author=timbuktu link=board=sis;num=1112167244;start=30#35 date=05/20/05 at 13:20:02][i]and you haven't answered al-anon's question about your guide being Sheikh Ya`coubi?[/i] :)[/quote] Actually, he did: [quote]Sidi Al-Anon, lol, no it is not, and I am far from worthy that it might be.[/quote] Wassalam.

Orthodoxy
Abu_Hamza
05/20/05 at 16:37:46
[quote author=timbuktu link=board=sis;num=1112167244;start=30#35 date=05/20/05 at 13:20:02] There are, to generalise, three schools of thought in the broad Sunni school, any of which I would have thought of as orthodox, but perhaps there is a specific school that has been so labelled so I am confused, and need a clarification about which school is defined as "orthodox": 1. Tassawwuf, 2. taqleed and 3. Salafi, although the first two can be intertwined. [/quote] Insha Allah AbuKhaled can answer this from his perspective, but I think when AbuKhaled was talking about "orthodoxy," he was talking in the context of 'aqida.  Tasawwuf, Taqleed and Salafiyyah are not variant schools of 'aqida.   In fact, you may have two people who claim to be on the path of tasawwuf, but have different 'aqaaid.  The same is true for the people who claim to be upon taqleed. Moreover, a muqallid may share the same 'aqeedah as a non-muqallid, and a mutasawwif can share the same 'aqeedah as a salafi. A more traditional division of the various groups of 'aqida would be something like the Jabaris, the Qadaris, the Jamhmis, the Maturidis, the Ash'aris, the Atharis,  etc.  If you were to ask, which of these is the orthodox school of 'aqidah, that would be a more proper question.  However, I think it is best for the purposes of this messageboard that we do not enter such discussions.  This is because everyone generally tends to believe his/her own 'aqidah to be the orthodox one, and therefore things can become ugly when people begin discussing matters like these on forums such as this one. Just my two cents. Wassalamu alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh

OrthodoxSee?
AbuKhaled
05/20/05 at 16:49:07
Bismillah Al-Rahman Al-Raheem Ya Sidi Timbuktu, Wa-alaikum assalam wa rahmatullah. You are far too harsh on yourself, and way too generous with me. Let us see if we might take a short walk together… But first, a few clarifications: 1. Don’t think I have missed your quite endearing way of asking me if I have a Shaykh, by saying, “and you haven't answered al-anon's question about your guide being Sheikh Ya`coubi?” That was really rather sweet of you, lol. However, sneaky as you are in trying to slide that question unnoticed amongst the others, if we remind ourself of Sidi Al-Anon’s *actual* question, it was “In the sweetness of your words Sidi Abu Khaled, I smell the fragrance of Sayyidi Shaykh Muhammad al-Yaqoubi. Is it him? Is it him? Is it him?!” I see no mention there of Shaykh Al-Ya’qoubi – hafiDHahullah – being my Shaykh, so what prompted you to think that that was what was being asked, other than your intrigue? Or that I have a Shaykh? I *did* answer his question, and say it was not Shaykh Al-Ya’qoubi - may Allah azza wa jal make me worthy - that I was referring to. 2. The Quraymeen – i.e. those who do not accept the Sunna as a source – are not to be confused with the Mu’tazila. There are distinct differences between the two. The Mu’tazila did not reject the Sunna, nor confine themselves to the Qur’an only. Rather, they made the ‘aql a source in itself. So for example, if a hadith contradicted the intellect, they would consider that hadith spurious, which is not the same as rejecting the Sunna *in toto*. Wallahu a’lam. They are marked with other notable aberrant positions which characterise them, outside of the scope of this post. 3. You were never stupid, and you are my Brother. I want you to remember that. Because it makes you not unimportant to me. The exhaustion I felt was of my own doing. I tire myself by not contenting myself with short or superficial responses. That is no reflection on you. 4. I do not know if the Brother was a “disciple” of the Shaykh, and am not quite sure what you may mean by that term. Nor do I know the brother. 5. I get the sense we are both using the word ‘secular’ differently. The following paragraph has confused me: “Since you know the Brother, and now that you have told us so much, yes, it wasn't a secular explanation. However, from your original post it was not clear that the lady knew the brother was a Muslim. In that case perhaps you will forgive me because this would have been interpreted by the lady as a secular reason. Still you are right that an encounter like this would have left the lady pleasantly wondering. So, if she later comes across someone who would explain that this is the hukm of Allah (SubHana Wa Ta`ala), she may see the light. For it is very true that Islam was spread by the example of Muslim living their lives according to the Quran and Sunnah.” Are you saying that from my original post, you thought the Brother was not Muslim? No, you can’t be saying that because presumably you know I would not then have referred to him as a Brother, and that there would have been no point to me posting the example had he not been Muslim, since the whole purport of the thread was about Muslims not shaking the hands of non-mahrems. Or are you saying that you knew he was Muslim, but that she didn’t know he was? It *reads* to me as if you’re saying that she didn’t know he was Muslim, and so she assumed his reply to be secular – which you seem to be conflating with ‘non-Islamic’ – in nature. If that is the case then all this while we have both been addressing completely different issues. Because if that is so, then your contention was less to do with his explanation, but rather, with the fact that she didn’t identify him as a Muslim. Which is a totally different issue to the contention *I* thought you had, namely, that she knew he was Muslim, yet she assumed his answer to be secular. Which, admittedly, confused me, because I wondered why you assumed she might not have associated his answer with Islam given that she knew he was Muslim. On the contrary, all this time I have been dealing with the question of whether the explanation itself can be considered Islamic. What you have said in the quoted paragraph merely boils down to perception (hers). Did she perceive him as a Muslim or not? And for this I must apologise, because only now has it occurred to me that this is what His Bhalooness was getting at too. I thought his question was about whether she would have linked the answer to him acting in his capacity as a husband, rather than his being a Muslim husband. So, to be clear, if your contention was based on thinking that the Brother was deliberately not identifying himself as a Muslim when explaining to her, to make it more acceptable to her, then I would have totally agreed with you that that was not the thing to do. But that is not what I thought you were getting at at all. Do clarify please, for my benefit, because until now this had not even occurred to me, that any of you might have been thinking this. And that’s because I never thought anyone reading my original post might have thought that the lady didn’t know the Brother was a Muslim. And because it never occurred to me, I never sought to make it clear. Sorry. Now I see a different reason for why you were unhappy with the example. And if I reread your posts in light of that, it all makes sense. Of course, if she didn’t know he was Muslim, she would not have taken it to be an Islamic explanation. Which then renders it much more chance how she might one day down the line encounter someone who could make the link between not shaking the hands of non-mahrem and Islam. Subhan’Allah… all that effort and we were talking at cross-purposes all the while. Lol. That’ll teach me. Now that we have dispensed with our starters – and boy, they were filling enough – we can move to our main course insha’Allah. You wrote: “There are, to generalise, three schools of thought in the broad Sunni school, any of which I would have thought of as orthodox, but perhaps there is a specific school that has been so labelled so I am confused, and need a clarification about which school is defined as "orthodox": 1. Tassawwuf, 2. taqleed and 3. Salafi, although the first two can be intertwined. Again broadly speaking the ahle Tasawwuf can be grouped into two branches: those who think that there is an underground spiritual government (comprising the dead saints and living saints) which controls the world through walis, qutbs, gawths, etc. and then there are other Sufis who do not think so. Which of these is the orthodox Sunni approach?” I need to define my terms here, so we are both on the same page, because I get the sense that what you understand by the above and what I understand by it, is not the same. And I would like state at this point that this Board has a very good record of not allowing known contentious issues to be discussed, and there is some possibility that what I am about to write could open the door to some contention.  Degeneration of discussion seems to follow these topics like a bad smell, so I will rely on the trusty Den Mother to step in with the lock down if necessary. For my part, I will endeavour to avoid anything controversial. And I will disappoint you now by saying that I am not going to go so far as to answer your showstopper question, sorry. I’ll try and justify why too. We ask Allah ta’ala to Guide us that we don’t mis-step and stumble, and worse, cause others to lose their footing. The phrase “schools of thought” can refer to different things. It is important that we confine ourselves to the same type when using the term. So, for example, if I am in a fiqh setting and I refer to schools of thought, I would normally be referring to things like Hanbali, Shafi’i, Hanafi or Maliki, to name only four. Were I to include Mu’tazila in that list, then this would be confusing, because that is a different type of school of thought, insofar as it refers to a school of thought pertaining to belief, whereas the first three are referring to schools of thought in the context of law [fiqh]. So this is the first matter I wished to draw your attention to, because the areas you have identified as schools of thought above are all of a different type. And I’m not sure if it is best to even consider them as schools of thought in the sense the term is used in the arena of scholarship. The following is more of an understanding than a definition, lest anyone start poking holes because I’ve excluded this, or included that, wrongly. Please be generous in giving the benefit of the doubt, as this is a tenuous enough topic at the best of times, and I am trying to edify without contributing to confusion and discord, may Allah azza wa jal forgive me for any errors. Tasawwuf is a discipline, not a school of thought. It is a synonym for Sufism, and it’s subject is primarily concerned with the inward states of being [ahwal]. It focuses on the heart and its treatment. Taqleed pertains to the following of qualified scholarship in the presence or absence of knowing the evidence/proof for that scholarship (e.g. a fiqh ruling). So it too cannot really be described as a school of thought. That said, there is a definite polarity between Muslims today, consisting of those who follow the *thinking* that lay Muslims need to make taqleed, and those who think that they don’t. And this further sub-divides into finer divisions, beyond the scope of our discussion. (Am I behaving Sister Jannah? Not breaking any Constitutional rules I hope?) Salafi, in the modern colloquial sense refers to a set of Muslims who espouse the following of the way of the Salaf, who for the purposes of simplicity, we may consider to be the earliest three (‘ish) generations of Muslims. However, I think what you are referring to is the Salafiyya; a set of Muslims who follow an identifiable methodology which calls for a return to the way of the Salaf, and which can be treated, I suppose, as an (as in ‘one’) approach to Islam. I am going to go out on a limb and guess that you are pitching tasawwuf and taqleed as one lense, and Salafi as another. If the above understanding is acceptable, then you should know that there is no *organic* connection between tasawwuf and taqleed, such that you say they can be intertwined. Both refer to entirely different concepts, and formally, taqleed tends to refer to the subject of fiqh, not tasawwuf. If what you mean is that in your experience you’ve found that proponents of tasawwuf also endorse taqleed, then this is more to do with paradigm than some organic link between the two concepts. And Allah ta’ala knows best. “Again broadly speaking the ahle Tasawwuf can be grouped into two branches: those who think that there is an underground spiritual government (comprising the dead saints and living saints) which controls the world through walis, qutbs, gawths, etc. and then there are other Sufis who do not think so.” That is a somewhat superficial distinction, which is marred by the fact that it creates a separation which I don’t think exists in reality as some formally identifiable difference. Maybe it is just the way you have chosen to phrase it. The extent of what I will say in relation to that paragraph is the following: Any Muslim who attributes *true* causation – in this case, “control of the world” – to humans, living or dead, is either misguided, unlearned, or ignorant. It is a foundational aspect of ‘aqida that one knows that Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala is the True Cause of everything, from the petal falling, to the heart beating, to the tsunami hitting, to the world ending. That which appears to effect causation, from gravity, to one snooker ball hitting another and causing it to move, to the wind on the leaves of a tree, to thirst quenching, etc., are known as *apparent causes*. They are like the Sunan of creation. Meaning that Allah ta’ala has created the world in a certain way, and there are natural laws He, azza wa jal, has emplaced, like fire burning. And He, subhanahu wa ta’ala is at liberty to break those natural laws, as in the Qur’an, when the fire did not burn. So, when people attribute causative power to other people, if by this they mean and intend true causative power, then this conflicts with our doctrine. If by this they mean apparent causative power, as in ‘she died because he stabbed her in the heart”, then this does not contradict our doctrine. And Allah ta’ala knows best. What I would say to anyone who feels that this needs more explanation, is that this is maybe not the correct place to enter into a didactic explanation of this point of ‘aqida, so you are advised to consult a scholar who is well versed in this subject. Now comes the hard part (lol!). Orthodox. What is orthodox? And here is where this thread can threaten to fall apart if we are not careful. Every sect claims for itself orthodoxy. I don’t claim I am upon orthodoxy, I ask Allah ta’ala to ensure that I am, and emplace my hope in Him, subhanahu wa ta’ala. Yes, I believe I am upon it, else I would not follow the path I am upon. But I don’t proclaim this to all and sundry as if saying it makes it more true. Nor do I point fingers to others and condemn them, as many do in these troubling days of ours. So, orthodoxy… Couldn’t you have given me something easier, like istinja?! To be completely honest with you Sidi, I am uncomfortable answering this question, because it will be read by those who are of the persuasion that tasawwuf is a legitimate endeavour, and those who aren’t. Those who endorse taqleed, those who condemn it outright, and those in between. Those who follow the manhaj [methodology] of the Salafis (as in the colloquial sense of the word), and those who don’t. Moreover, so few are able to treat this question fairly, from what I have seen. Their bias tends to impact, and that affects any objectivity which should have been in place when addressing the question. I harbour reservations about my own ability to do this too, and I fear I am not immune to those very same failings. Which is another reason for my disinclination, and partly why I feel that even by remarking on the above points about tasawwuf, taqleed and Salafi, I have invited some criticism from some corner somewhere. I have tried to restrict myself above to description, and refrain from opining. In reality Sidi, what Abu Khaled says is neither here nor there. My words carry no weight, and neither should they. Does my saying that X is orthodox and Y is not, make it so? No. You don’t know me to trust me that far. And the question you have asked strikes at the very essence of the approach to this religion you choose to take. I am not an ‘Alim, and I have no claims to knowledge. I seek not to be anyone’s reference point, and I am no kind of an example to anyone. Of course I have a view and a take on your question, but this is not the place to elucidate on that. Not because I lack the confidence to defend it, or consider it indefensible, but because it serves no beneficial purpose. Which, I realise, make it seem really dodgy. But in reality it is not. On the contrary, it is a recognition that we live in a time when the Ummah is polarised, and if those far more able than I have not yet managed to resolve that polarity, then what makes me think a small band of Muslims on a MessageBoard might? The Brothers/Sisters here who are sufficiently entrenched in their positions, on this matter, will each be able to debate the issue, to a lesser or greater degree, and there is no profit in being drawn into something which is so fundamental to people, that there is rarely any climbdown from either party. Both have their evidences and proofs, and both consider their to be the strongest. There are refutations and rebuttals and refutations of those rebuttals. It can all get quite dizzying in the end. What is worse though, is that it can begin to preoccupy one, and leave stains. Like hardening of the heart, ill-feeling towards your Brothers/Sisters, the transgressing of limits, non-observance of etiquette, and much much more. More than this, if one finds themselves at a point where they are asking this question, then that itself is a proof that one needs to be investing some serious time grounding oneself with some foundational knowledge of ‘aqida, fiqh, and ihsan (or tazkiyya); ideally with a reliable and qualified teacher. Once, a Brother I didn’t know, emailed me and asked me a question. The question centred on an issue which is divisive. It is one of those ‘you’re in this camp or that camp’ type questions. And I sensed he was asking me as a way of pigeonholing me. ‘Where does Abu Khaled sit on this? And by this I can identify his leanings and predisposition?’ So I emailed him back asking him if that was indeed the purpose for him asking me the question? He was honest enough to admit that it had been. He apologised and it ended there. You don’t really know me akhi, so there is no reason for my answer to this question to bear any meaning for you. That I am capable of stringing a few sentences together shouldn’t allow you to lose sight of the fact that, everything else aside, we don’t know one another, so you cannot possibly know whether I am someone from whom you should be accepting such answers. Especially on such weighty matters, whose implication reaches far and wide. Which, in truth, is often why I am so vague, and don’t name names. To decrease the possibility of anyone deferring to my words (not that I delude myself into thinking anyone would). I would *much* rather you refer to those more worthy of your attention and trust. For I have enough to contend with than taking on someone else’s burden. Sometimes I will have these kinds of discussions, where controversial topics are raised. But only in certain environments, and with certain people, who I know can be dispassionate, cautious, and above all, retain adab. That is no offence to any of my dear Brothers/Sisters here, but this is an open MessageBoard. You cannot know who is reading your words, and you are unable to prevent a loss of adab. Few are those I have met who can discuss absolutely any issue without losing their cool. Most are those who can only take so much, before unleashing a torrent of ad hominem invective, due to their being entrenched in their positions. I am also not exempt from this, so the wiser course of action is to neither provoke such degeneration of discussion, nor contribute to it. I know how frustrating that must be to a sincere seeker such as yourself, and these are questions so many of us have laid restless with at night, when the rest of the world has gone to sleep. But really, a public MessageBoard is not the place to answer such questions, whatever your persuasion. I know already that whatever I would have said in answer to your question, would have invited critique from those who disagreed, and disagreed they definitely would have because the members of this Board – Allah ta’ala bless them all, and grant them safe passage to the hereafter – reflect the polarisation of the Muslim Ummah as it stands today, like a microcosm. In our time here we have seen many flavours of Muslims come and go, yet due to the wise policies instituted by Sister Jannah and the other Moderators – may Allah ta’ala continue to ennoble you all – this is that rare place where Muslims of those differing slants can come and exist together. It is just a sad reflection of our condition that such policies, whereby certain topics are precluded from being broached, precisely because they invariably inflame and arouse the more, er, excitable (lol), contributors, need to be in place to ensure the good will and ongoing fraternity of the environment here, to not become unsettled. Which is possibly a benefit greater than the benefit of answering your question, and causing the seas to rumble. I hope you are able to understand my decision, and can forgive me for the cause of action I decided to take. As a headsup for you, anytime you come across someone from the ranks of common Muslims like myself, in a rush to answer the questions like the one about orthodoxy you have asked, know that this can be – not necessarily is – a sign of one who is careless with his/her responsibility towards others. Haste in answering such matters of controversy is a giveaway that that person – be it well meant or not – probably doesn’t appreciate the subtleties involved in such a discussion, and is therefore more lax than is appropriate in dealing with such questions. Often they are heedless of the implication of answering issues of such gravity and magnitude. Noticeably too, you will find that such a one often also lacks the depth and breadth of understanding which normally reflects an extended and proper absorption into the Sacred Knowledge. Not rushing to answer is the way of the ‘Ulema, for they are well aware of the burden one accepts when they give an answer and become a reference point for another. It is related, purportedly on the authority of Imam Nawawi, radhi’Allahu ‘anh, that Imam ash-Shafi’i, radhi’Allahu ‘anh, was once reported to have been asked why he - radhi’Allahu ‘anh - didn’t answer every question immediately? And that he - radhi’Allahu ‘anh - is related to have said, “Not until I know which is better for my hereafter, silence, or an answer.” [aw qama qal] That, my dear Brother, is the true sign of the ‘arifin [knowers of Allah subhanahu wa ta’ala]. May Allah ta’ala grant you some closure on this, and aid you in your search. The irony is that it really isn’t difficult to know what my answer would have been. Ma’assalam, Abu Khaled
NS
05/20/05 at 17:12:59
AbuKhaled

Class... take notes...
Kathy
05/20/05 at 19:31:18
This is the most politically correct paragraph on banned topics, I have ever read! [quote]To be completely honest with you Sidi, I am uncomfortable answering this question, because it will be read by those who are of the persuasion that tasawwuf is a legitimate endeavour, and those who aren’t. Those who endorse taqleed, those who condemn it outright, and those in between. Those who follow the manhaj [methodology] of the Salafis (as in the colloquial sense of the word), and those who don’t. Moreover, so few are able to treat this question fairly, from what I have seen. Their bias tends to impact, and that affects any objectivity which should have been in place when addressing the question. I harbour reservations about my own ability to do this too, and I fear I am not immune to those very same failings. Which is another reason for my disinclination, and partly why I feel that even by remarking on the above points about tasawwuf, taqleed and Salafi, I have invited some criticism from some corner somewhere. I have tried to restrict myself above to description, and refrain from opining. [/quote] Hey jannah, I think he has figured out a way to stay within our guide lines!! [quote]Degeneration of discussion seems to follow these topics like a bad smell, so I will rely on the trusty Den Mother to step in with the lock down if necessary.[/quote]

WARNING!
bhaloo
05/21/05 at 01:56:11
[slm] [quote author=AbuKhaled link=board=sis;num=1112167244;start=30#38 date=05/20/05 at 16:49:07]And for this I must apologise, because only now has it occurred to me that this is what His Bhalooness was getting at too. I thought his question was about whether she would have linked the answer to him acting in his capacity as a husband, rather than his being a Muslim husband. Do clarify please, for my benefit, because until now this had not even occurred to me, that any of you might have been thinking this. And that’s because I never thought anyone reading my original post might have thought that the lady didn’t know the Brother was a Muslim. And because it never occurred to me, I never sought to make it clear. Sorry. [/quote] I wasn't sure, and that's why I wanted clarification as to weather the woman knew the brother was a Muslim.  The second point you mentioned crossed my mind as well, but after thinking about it for a while I dismissed the 2nd point. p.s. Did you miss the post where brother Faisalsb referred to you as Abu Khalid, surely that must have brought back memories? ;========================================================================== Having said that, let me address everyone here, this topic is dangerously close to being closed.  Please re-read the rules of the constitution, especially this part: [i] 2. No prolonged arguments about any issues that even the scholars of Islam over the centuries have not come to a consensus on! This includes controversial issues (i.e. meat, music, Mawlid, the Taliban, voting, Madhabs, bashing scholars, suicide bombings, OBL, 9/11, Niqab, sunni/shia/sufi/salafi/jamaat/whatever debates). [/i] Remember, we are trusting that EVERYONE will abide by the rules of the constitution, if you can not abide by the rules, please let myself or Jannah know and we can remove you insha'Allah.  The rules are in place for a reason.  I don't like it when people try to test the admins/mods and see how far they can test our patience.  As a Muslim, we expect you all to uphold your agreement, i.e. abide by the rules of the constitution.

Thanks for your replies
timbuktu
05/21/05 at 05:59:54
[slm] brother Abu Hamza, thanks for that clarification on aqidah, and orthodoxy. brother AbuKhaled [quote]So, to be clear, if your contention was based on thinking that the Brother was deliberately not identifying himself as a Muslim when explaining to her, to make it more acceptable to her, then I would have totally agreed with you that that was not the thing to do. But that is not what I thought you were getting at at all. Do clarify please, for my benefit, because until now this had not even occurred to me, that any of you might have been thinking this. And that’s because I never thought anyone reading my original post might have thought that the lady didn’t know the Brother was a Muslim. And because it never occurred to me, I never sought to make it clear. Sorry. Now I see a different reason for why you were unhappy with the example. And if I reread your posts in light of that, it all makes sense. Of course, if she didn’t know he was Muslim, she would not have taken it to be an Islamic explanation. Which then renders it much more chance how she might one day down the line encounter someone who could make the link between not shaking the hands of non-mahrem and Islam.[/quote] It is not that I saw the brother "deliberately" hiding his identity as a Muslim, but there was nothing in the post to suggest the lady knew he was one. Your narrative was so captivating, and you mentioned orthodoxy, so I wanted to know what this means. Anyway, I got a treat by the responses. I do not try to pigeonhole anyone or to sneak in anything. No need for an answer if giving one violates the board rules, but I am truly interested. You said you don't answer PM's, so I asked this on the board. If you can make an exception about the PM, I will be honored, but I do not want to inconvenience you in any manner. Wa assalam

politically correct
jannah
05/21/05 at 12:59:28
slm, [quote] This is the most politically correct paragraph on banned topics, I have ever read! [/quote] seriously i've never known abu khaled to be so politically correct.. he could run for mayor of the Madina or something lol well u know, i do wish we could discuss banned topics... like our views on sufism, salafism, scholars, what we think, learn from each other's point of views, but the problem is it never works.. we will all have our differences and without a doubt it always "turns ugly" as abu hamza says it's just very difficult to accept when someone else has a different opinion especially when it's on such an important matter to us like islam. i think it comes from serious lack of knowledge on the topic of 'the ethics of differences in islam' we just don't know what topics we can differ on, how we can differ on them, and how we should treat someone who differs, what the priorities are and so on... also i've noticed this phenomenon of when people first start getting into islam, (also with converts) they are very strict and take the most hardline opinion on things. (perhaps it is natural because they are trying to understand and follow something new.) then alot of times the pendulum swings all the way across to the other side because after a while they are inundated with opinions and books and ideas and then it's like everything is fine and good, and at this point many new converts leave islam because they feel lost and they end up feeling that as long as ur a good person the religion doesn't matter!, but usually and eventually the pendulum swings back and slowly balances in the middle. the problem with the internet is that it makes people keep the pendulum on one end... because on the internet every website has one opinion, one viewpoint, one fatwa and there is no prequel, conditioning, understanding or wisdom that goes along with something text based. its like reading references all day, u end up getting a skewed view. once u start getting into reading everything on the internet and learning from it u are solidly on one side of the pendulum, even if you want to claim otherwise.   so i personally feel that learning from teachers is EXTREMELY important... we should ask ourselves why Allah sent down Muhammad [saw] and not just the Quran.. it's because we NEED to learn from teachers who are wise and knowledgable. you cannot get that from a fatwa or a book even. a scholar who is knowledgable can synthesize all these viewpoints and give someone such a better and most importantly balanced perspective of things. i feel sad that in this day and age we have 'fatwa banks' where people search and find a 'fatwa' for their supposed question/situation. i know people think they are learning from a fatwa but i think what they are learning is just dangerous and more injurious to muslims than helpful. fatwas were meant to be a tool for the learned. not for people to cut and paste to develop their islamic understanding the way they wanted. anyways that's my whole peptalk to encourage us all to attend more halaqas and courses and learn more about the deen inshaAllah... :) aiite w'salaam ps al-anon, only used like twice!!

special category in jannah :)
timbuktu
05/21/05 at 18:25:58
Off topic replies have been moved to [link=http://www.jannah.org/cgi-bin/madina/YaBB.pl?board=sis;action=display;num=1116975945]This Thread[/link] by jannah.
05/24/05 at 19:05:45
jannah
Madinat al-Muslimeen Islamic Message Board A R C H I V E S Individual posts do not necessarily reflect the views of Jannah.org, Islam, or all Muslims. All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the poster and may not be used without consent of the author. The rest © Jannah.Org