22 replies to this topic

[Sufi]

I have personally favored such an approach for a long time, and while it is clear that Pakistan has already begun to develop a new distinct cultured past, CJ movement, calls for democracy, fight against Taliban etc.. would'nt it be wonderful though to include within this class of visonary movements engendered by "some enlightened" lawyers, politicians, military men, a movement started by "enlightened" scholars of this deen, who without abuse of their religious credence, tred a path that in principal is reminicent of our Beloved Prophet's Past, and in practice empowered by our relaizations of modernity. Thus I present Zafar Bangash.

Muslim political thought seems to have drifted from the teachings of the Qur’an, and the Sunnah and Sirah of the noble Messenger of Allah (s). In Part I of this essay, Zafar Bangash, Director of the Institute of Contemporary Isla-mic Thought, places it back in the Sirah to enable the Islamic movement to transform wayward Muslim societies.

Every committed Muslim agrees that the Qur’an and the Prophet’s (s) Sunnah and Sirah must form the bases for all activities in life. The Qur’an is the eternal source of guidance revealed to the noble Messenger of Allah (s) who then demonstrated a practical example of its teachings in his own life. Thus the Qur’an and the Sunnah and Sirah form an integral part of a Muslim’s journey through life. While there is no disagreement on this at the theoretical level, at the level of implementation Muslims have a tendency to pursue secondary or even tertiary paths rather than remaining close to the primary sources of Islam: the Qur’an and the Sunnah and Sirah. Each group insists on the validity of its own interpretation as a framework for their work. Even this would be acceptable were it not for the fact that they also insist that theirs is the only valid understanding and every other interpretation or approach is either flawed or entirely wrong. Such thinking has caused much confusion in the Ummah and has led to endless arguments and numerous unpleasant developments.

It is, therefore, imperative to review the Prophetic Sunnah and Sirah carefully in light of the teachings of the Qur’an to determine how the noble Messenger of Allah (s) transformed the jahili society of Arabia in the short period of 23 years into the Islamic State, turning the savage people of the Peninsula into the most-upright human beings on earth.

In the glorious Qur’an Allah (SWT) describes His noble Messenger (s) as the “best of exemplars” (33:21). His Sirah (life-history) and Sunnah (life-example) are guides for humanity till eternity because he embodied in his blessed life the teachings of the Qur’an. Even before receiving the first revelations confirming his mission as the last and final Messenger of Allah (s), he led a pure and clean life earning the title of al-Amin (the trustworthy one) from the tribal, wayward, and quarrelsome society of Makkah. He was soft-spoken, kind, and compassionate. Allah (SWT), in His Infinite Wisdom and Mercy, called his beloved Prophet (s) a “Mercy for all the worlds” (21:107). Allah (SWT) also commands those who have made a faith-commitment to Him to “Obey Allah and obey the Messenger” (4:59) in all matters. In fact, Allah (SWT) reminds His servants that if they truly love Allah (SWT), they should express it through loving and obeying the Messenger of Allah (s).

Almost all Muslims are aware of these lofty qualities of the noble Messenger (s). These are repeated in jumu‘ah khutbahs as well as in sermons on other occasions, especially in the month of Rabi‘ al-Awwal when the birthday of the noble Messenger of Allah (s) is celebrated with great joy and fervor. By approximating our behavior as closely as possible to that of the noble Messenger (s), Muslims hope to achieve nearness to and the pleasure of Allah (SWT).

Allah (SWT) says in the noble Qur’an that Prophet Muhammad (s) was sent with clear signs of guidance in order to bring those who commit themselves to Allah (SWT) —that is, make a faith-commitment — and do the associated deeds (that validate the commitment), out of darkness and into light (65:11). The great Muslim thinker, writer, and shaheed, Sayyid Qutb (1906–1966), has said that any action or behavior that does not conform to the commands of Allah (SWT) is jahiliyyah (ignocracy); similarly, all actions and behavior that conform to Allah’s (SWT) prescribed path are good, wholesome and commendable. Thus, even the simple act of kindness to one’s family, friends, relatives, or total strangers becomes an act of ‘ibadah (worship) because it is pleasing to Allah (SWT).

Throughout history societies have experienced dramatic upheavals but no substantive change in the way people conduct their individual and communal activities under the authority of largely corrupt, self-serving, and undisciplined human masters. The one breakthrough in this degrading continuum of human subservience and bondage to other men was the one initiated and institutionalized by the noble Messenger of Allah (s); it was a comprehensive disengagement from the mushrik theater of national exclusivism, religious racism, and racist religion and all they stand for and occupy in the world. It was a totality for it encompassed the entire spectrum of human existence. Historically, most changes have resulted in one class of people replacing another; the French and communist revolutions were of this kind. Similarly, the balance of political and economic power merely shifted from one class to another, not materially deconstructing the injustices that led to a revolutionary “change” in the first place; the ordinary people’s social mobility and political identification with the ruling classes were seldom affected or enfranchised.

The noble Messenger (s) transformed both the individual and society but he neither promised wealth nor power to attract adherents to Allah’s (SWT) principled cause. He also did not instigate class warfare despite great disparities in wealth at the time. Nor did he launch a movement merely to rectify people’s morals even though the Arabian society was steeped in immorality and corruption. For 13 years in Makkah, he emphasized only one point: the Oneness of Allah (SWT). While it may appear to be a simple statement, in the mushrik society of Arabia, it signaled an ideological challenge that carried profound implications.

The Prophet (s) brought the entire Arabian Peninsula into the fold of Islam in the relatively short period of 23 years. From hopelessly divided warring tribes, he organized the people into an Islamic state that not only defeated the two superpowers of the time (Byzantium and Persian) but also went on to dominate the world for more than 1,000 years. What methods and processes did the Prophet (s) employ to bring about such profound change at the individual as well as collective (societal) levels? We need to address these questions by studying the Sirah from a new perspective. The Sirah must not be viewed merely as a series of unrelated events but as part of the divine mechanism to transform humanity by bringing it into conformity with Allah’s (SWT) laws.



The Qur’anic perspective of the Sirah

We must reflect on the Prophet’s (s) Sirah in light of the Qur’anic description of his role in society,



Muhammad is not the father of any man among you; but he is the Messenger of Allah, and the Seal of all the Prophets (9:40).



This day have I perfected your deen for you, and completed My favor upon you and have endorsed for you Islam as your deen (5:3).



Say [O Prophet] to all mankind, “I am a messenger to all of you” (7:158).



You have indeed in the Messenger of Allah the most beautiful pattern of conduct for him whose hope is in Allah and the Last Day, and who engages much in the praise and conscientizing of Allah (33:21).



Whosoever obeys the Messenger, obeys Allah (4:80).



A messenger reciting unto you the revelation of Allah made plain, so that he may bring those who make a secure commitment to Allah and do validating deeds [of that commitment], out of darkness into light (65:11).



He [Allah] it is Who has sent the Messenger with clear guidance and the deen of Truth, so that it becomes evidently obvious [as a better way] over all other systems and beliefs, however much the mushriks may detest it (9:33).



These samples of ayaat from among many others in the noble Qur’an establish the centrality of the Prophet’s (s) role in reorganizing and guiding the affairs of man. In the first set of ayaat (9:40, 5:3, and 7:158), Allah (SWT) confirms Muhammad’s (s) position as the last and final Messenger (s); so no more prophets will follow him. Also, Allah (SWT) confirms that the deen of Islam has been “completed and perfected” which means this must now be followed by all people, including the followers of earlier prophets and scriptures. In order to remove any doubts among those who have a tendency not to understand things clearly, Allah (SWT) makes it clear in Surah al-A‘raaf that unlike the earlier prophets, he is the Prophet (s) for all mankind (7:158). All previous prophets were sent for a specific time period, place, and people and the message they brought has now been consolidated and encapsulated in the final revelation, the Qur’an. Further, that since the message delivered by the final Messenger (s) is complete, it must encompass all aspects of human endeavor: spiritual, material, individual, collective, social, cultural, economic, political, as well as dealing with civil and military affairs.

The second set of ayaat (33:21, 4:80) relates to the lofty character and personality of the noble Messenger (s) and how obedience to him has been equated with obedience to Allah (SWT) Himself. Indeed, obedience to all the previous Prophets (Å) also meant obedience to Allah (SWT) because they were all tasked to deliver Allah’s (SWT) message to mankind. This position has now been vested solely with the noble Messenger of Allah (s). This is illustrated by an episode in early Islamic history when the Prophet’s (s) companion ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab was seen reading the Torah. Upon inquiry, ‘Umar said that the Prophet (s) himself had said it was one of the Books of Allah (SWT). The Prophet (s) told him that if Moses (a) were alive today, he too would have no option but to follow the Qur’an. Thus, following the Prophet (s) and the Qur’an is obligatory for all people, regardless of what previous books or religion they followed.

The next set of ayaat (65:11, 9:33) highlight the Prophet’s (s) indispensable role as the one who leads humanity out of darkness and into light. Darkness must be understood in its proper context: it is any state that is not in conformity with Allah’s (SWT) prescribed laws for humanity. Light, on the other hand, means that state in which one is mentally, physically, emotionally, and intellectually attuned to Allah’s (SWT) commands and consciously striving to adhere to them at all times. Allah (SWT) has promised that He will make Islam dominant in the world (9:33). This was realized during the lifetime of the noble Messenger (s) but did not end with his earthly mission; this promise is available to all those who follow the Prophet’s (s) Sunnah and Sirah. As Dr. Kalim Siddiqui has observed, the Prophet’s (s) role as the last and final Messenger of Allah (s) and as the “best of exemplars” (33:40, 33:21) was not confined to a specific time period.1 The Prophet’s (s) method is applicable to all times and in all situations. This is Allah’s (SWT) infinite mercy because Muslims can always hope to emerge from whatever depth of darkness they have fallen into provided they follow the Qur’an and the Prophet’s (s) Sunnah and Sirah.

As Muslims embark on the process of transforming their societies by applying the prophetic model, it may be argued that we face a very different historical situation, the greatest of which is the absence of the noble Messenger (s) himself. His presence at the advent of Islam was a source of great inspiration for early Muslims. This is completely true. There are other differences as well: the Arabian society of the Prophet’s (s) time was rather small, comprising a few thousand people in Makkah and a similar number in Madinah. The Arabian Peninsula as a whole had several hundred thousand inhabitants but today, the world’s population has surpassed six billion and Muslims account for about one-fourth of this total.

Is it possible for Muslims to be able to transform their societies in 23 years as the Prophet (s) did in Arabia, starting with a handful of followers? Is there a time limit in which change must be achieved? These differences — the Prophet’s (s) physical absence, and the much larger scale today — however, should not overwhelm us. The Prophet’s (s) physical presence has not been made a condition by Allah (SWT) to achieve success in this world; Allah (SWT) is in charge of everything, and thereby it is not the prophetic presence that is important, but the prophetic model. And so for anyone who is interested in resuscitating a societal formulation based on principles of institutional justice, the foundational tools and the driving instruments in the form of the Qur’an and the Sunnah have been preserved for all times to come. Any group that can coalesce into a motivated covenant-bearing force, better known as al-ladhina amanu, can achieve what the Prophet (s) achieved over 1,400 years ago, because the shaping strategy is already in place. All that is required is a human society that is ready to execute Allah’s (SWT) command and share the Prophet’s (s) destiny and legacy; and no expectation is more guaranteed than Allah’s (SWT) promise.

The Prophet (s) had to convince the mushriks at a time when the Qur’an was gradually being revealed; today there are nearly two billion Muslims in the world, in possession of the entire Qur’an, as well as the Sirah and Sunnah of the noble Prophet (s). True, the Muslims are disconnected from Islam and the Sirah but this is precisely the challenge we face today. We have to make the Sirah applicable in our lives by understanding it the way it must be understood and followed. There are other impediments as well: kufr has not only become globalized but in the words of Dr. Kalim Siddiqui, it has also penetrated the House of Islam.2 Yet the Sirah as a model is the divine prescription for humanity and is applicable in every situation regardless of different historical time periods.



Prerequisites for change

The process of transformation, however, requires a priori, a clear understanding of the nature of society in which we live. During the Prophet’s (s) time, Arabia was steeped in jahiliyyah in which idol-worship and subservience to human tribal authority formed the principal mode of religious, social, and cultural behavior. People believed in Allah (SWT) as Provider and Sustainer, but they made themselves rivals with Him in the area of dominion and governance, hence their designation as mushriks in the Qur’an. Injustice, oppression, tribal arrogance, and therefore tribal warfare borne of such arrogance, and female infanticide as well as slavery were other practices that characterized Arabian society of the time. Today Muslims are afflicted by many of the same problems even though idol worship may have been replaced by such other idols as nationalism, money, and class interests. Exploitation is as rampant and widespread in the world including the Muslim world today as it was in the jahili society of Arabia. It is, therefore, imperative for Muslims to recognize and understand the nature of zulm and darkness that surrounds them as they embark on the process of transforming their societies.

For some Muslims, the Prophet’s (s) Sirah is merely a means to attaining greater spirituality, oblivious of its relevance for the real and practical world at large, as if men misruling in the practical world is somehow divorced from impacting a person’s individual spirituality. Like their attitude towards the Qur’an, Muslims use the Sirah to seek blessings but not guidance, and individual but not collective salvation. The Prophet’s (s) birthday is celebrated with great veneration, even fanfare, but no lessons are derived from it for the arduous struggle in life. Many Muslims quote hadiths (the Prophet’s (s) sayings and practices) endlessly but either do not follow them or use them selectively to support their preconceived notions and ideas.

The Muslims’ attitude can be compared to an episode in early Islamic history. Prior to signing the Treaty of Hudaybiyyah in 6 AH, the mushriks of Makkah sent a number of emissaries to negotiate with the Prophet (s). One Qurayshi delegate, ‘Urwah ibn Mas‘ud al-Thaqafi, noted the companions’ reverence for the Prophet (s): they would not let even the water he used for wudu’ (ritual washing for purposes of purification and harmonization) to fall on the ground; they rubbed it on their bodies as a sign of blessing. When ‘Urwah returned to his fellow chiefs, he advised them against fighting a people so dedicated to their leader. There was another aspect which ‘Urwah did not witness but is relevant for our discussion: with the exception of one person, each of the 1,400 companions of the Prophet (s) gave a bay‘ah (the oath of allegiance given to the head of an Islamic state, described in the Qur’an as Bay‘ah al-Ridwan, 48:18) that they would fight to the last man if war were imposed on them. This followed a rumor that ‘Uthman ibn ‘Affan, the Prophet’s (s) emissary sent to Makkah to negotiate with the Quraysh, had been murdered. The situation facing the Muslims was bleak: there were only 1,400 of them; they were far away from Madinah and armed with only a sword each; there was no prospect of help from any quarter and no possibility of escape in the event of defeat. Yet their commitment to Islam and to the Prophet (s) was so great that they were prepared to face every challenge. The difference in attitude between the early and contemporary Muslims is that today’s Muslims would readily splash the Prophet’s wudu’ water (or perfume) on their bodies but refuse to give their bay‘ah! When we reduce the Prophet’s (s) Sunnah and Sirah to little more than splashing perfume and gobbling large amounts of halwa, as some of Muslims have come to do, then it should not surprise us if Allah’s (SWT) promised help (47:07) does not materialize in our lives.

Similarly, Muslims spend endless hours arguing about the number of miracles the noble Messenger of Allah (s) performed and whether the mi‘raj was a physical journey or merely a vision. While there may be merit in discussing these issues at some level, the Muslims’ current plight hardly allows for such indulgences. It would be far more relevant to consider the circumstances in which the Prophet (s) was rewarded with the mi‘raj. He had to endure 12 years of extreme hardship and when the worldly prospects for his mission looked almost totally bleak, there was an explosion of divine mercy, resulting in the mi‘raj. Therefore, the mi‘raj must not be viewed merely as a phenomenon that occurred in isolation but as the culmination of a long process of struggle to establish Allah’s (SWT) deen on earth. Unfortunately, many vital issues have been frozen out of Muslim consciousness during the dark period of Islamic history. The study of the Prophet’s (s) Sirah, for both historical and contemporary reasons, has also fallen victim to this phenomenon. It is our duty to rectify this error.



Nature of the struggle

Seldom, if ever, in history has any ruling class voluntarily relinquished power or accepted the inherent injustices of its system. Whenever its inequities are exposed, the system has reacted violently to suppress such attempts. The struggle to transform a society built upon principles of human authority, as opposed to Allah’s (SWT) authority, into the Islamic state will not be without human or material costs. It will demand great sacrifices because those who have a vested interest in the established order will use all means at their disposal to crush any challenge but the Sirah also shows that through sustained effort, change can be achieved.

The Prophet (s) faced numerous difficulties and challenges in his quest to convey the message of Islam and to establish the Islamic state. At the start of his mission, Islam was propagated only among his close relatives and friends. This may be categorized as the initial quiet phase. When Allah (SWT) commanded him to proclaim it openly (Surahs al-Muzzammil and al-Muddaththir), the message was then neither confined to the cave where the Prophet (s) received his first revelation, nor to a small circle of acquaintances. It was proclaimed, propagated, and spread in the marketplace despite clear risk to the Prophet’s (s) person and life. The beneficiaries of the established system immediately adopted two tactics to undermine the challenge: ridicule the message and persecute those who were weak; that is, the slaves and the downtrodden. In this phase, the Prophet (s) counseled patience, with the expectation of delayed satisfaction, to his followers. As the persecution intensified but failed to break the spirit of resistance, the Makkan chiefs resorted to offering inducements to the Prophet (s) to get him to modify his stand vis-a-vis their system. When this also failed, a reign of terror was unleashed upon the committed Muslims, including a three-year siege in Sha‘b Abi Talib, ultimately leading to a plot to kill the Prophet (s) himself. With the Prophet’s (s) migration to Madinah where he secured a territorial base, permission to take up arms was granted by Allah (SWT). Muslims today will have to go through similar phases as they struggle to establish Islamic states in their territories.

It may be noticed that armed struggle was delayed for as long as possible because time was needed to attract and consolidate a sufficiently large following; a safe territorial base from which to operate was also necessary. As physical confrontation was delayed, resentment against the established system built up because of its oppression and tyranny borne of arrogance. When armed clashed finally occurred, the challengers proved highly motivated, willing to make every sacrifice for their cause. Allah also helped them because He is with those that are oppressed and persecuted and those who strive in His cause (28:05; 47:07).

The declaration of Islam at the popular level was necessary to deconstruct the socio-political order in Arabia in order to pave the way for implementing the Islamic order with its own ideology and power base. There are some Muslims who recoil in horror at the suggestion that the Prophet (s) may have had anything to do with politics. This is clearly the result of corruption in politics and the abuse of power and authority in the world, but it also reflects the distorted view some Muslims have of the Sirah itself. Since crookedness and lying are considered normal, indeed essential parts of politics these days, little or no room in it for honest people, Muslims have assumed that politics per se is dirty. Similarly, treating Islam merely as just another “religion” like so many others despite the Qur’an’s clear reference to Islam as a deen (3:83; 5:03) has unfortunately resulted in Muslims overlooking many important dimensions of Islam and of the Sirah.

There is another misconception, prevalent among some Muslims, that the Prophet (s) was sent merely to convey the message; he had no other responsibility beyond that. These Muslims may accept that perhaps rectifying people’s morals was part of his mission but little else. According to such thinking, if the people of Makkah had merely been worshipping idols everything would have been fine and there would be no need for the Prophet (s) to migrate to Madinah leading to the establishment of the Islamic State. But fasting, praying, and going to Hajj is supposed to open a connection with Allah (SWT) that translates into withholding society from moral corruption (faahishah) and institutional mechanisms of human bondage (munkar). The Makkan mushriks and their Yahudi counterparts in Madinah would have been happy with praying a new way and fasting for one month out of the year so long as they could maintain their generational systems of exploitation. Why do so many Muslims feel apologetic about the use of force against evil and oppression? Part of the reason may be found in the anti-Islamic propaganda alleging that Islam was “spread by the sword.” In order to refute such allegations, Muslims have resorted to a pacifist interpretation of the Sirah.



Absence of miracles in establishing the Islamic state

There is another important aspect highlighted by the Sirah: the Prophet (s) did not perform any miracles in the struggle to establish the Islamic state. This was clearly a distinctive part of the final implementation of the divine program in its Muhammadi incarnation. If the Islamic state had come into being through miracles and not through sustained human effort, future generations may have used this as an excuse to claim that they could not possibly achieve the same results without some form of divine intervention, such as miracles. Muhammad’s (s) mission was meant to get humanity to commit the kind of effort that would bring it to terms with its latent human capacities; and that a measure of these capabilities would be enough to overthrow all those forces who try to rival Allah’s (SWT) power presence on earth, and thereby divert the mass of human beings from their responsibility to ensure a balance of justice in their real world. Miracles, or a demonstration of Allah’s (SWT) suspension of the natural law, in previous human experiences with scriptural integration did not give human beings confidence in their innate abilities to extricate themselves from ambiances of injustice and oppression. However, in a world and a historical continuum where no more revelation can be expected, then human beings have to be confident in the skills, capabilities, and strength that Allah (SWT) has blessed them with; and the Qur’an, the Sunnah, and the Sirah activate and energize Allah’s (SWT) power presence in the covenant-carrying human instrument. Allah’s (SWT) miracles are interwoven in the hand and experience of man as it executes the divine command.

In fact, the establishment of the Islamic State in Madinah provides additional proof of the finality of his prophethood. In addition to correcting peoples’ beliefs and morals, the Prophet (s) also demonstrated superb mastery in the conduct of state and politics, two fields not normally associated with prophetic missions. With the exception of the Prophets Yusuf, Musa, Dawud and Sulayman (a) none of the other prophets ruled a state or acquired worldly power. This has perhaps led to the assumption that religion itself has nothing to do with politics. The Prophet (s) established a state in a society which had not known this level of political and executive organization before.



Conditions in Makkah at the advent of Prophethood

In order to consider how the Prophet (s) transformed the jahili society in Arabia, we must first get a better understanding of the environment in Makkah. While it had no organized structured system, it was governed by what is referred to as customary or tribal law. The desert dwellers were not accustomed to formal laws; the harsh climate dictated its own logic that meant people had no loyalty to any place or people. It was these tribal customary laws that governed re-lations between tribes as well as individuals.

Most books on the Sirah mention the tribal nature of society but have not paid much attention to economic factors that shaped the Makkan aristocracy’s attitude to Islam. Financial interests, it must be noted, often in-fluence people’s attitude towards other aspects of life as well. The history of colonialism and im-perialism can be understood in the light of this phenomenon. Makkah has always been a desolate place; its barren hills stand as a stark reminder to its inhospitable environment. Its location at the centre of the East-West and North-South trade routes, however, gave it a commanding position that was the envy of other tribes. Similarly, the location of the Ka‘bah, the first House of Allah (SWT) on earth, conferred on Makkah a sanctity that other places lacked. In the year of the Prophet’s (s) birth, the Christian governor of Yemen, Abraha, had attempted to destroy the Ka‘bah because he had built a rival temple in Yemen that he thought would replace the Ka‘bah as a place of pilgrimage. When this failed to materialize, he decided to invade and destroy the Ka‘bah but his invasion ended in disaster because birds carrying plague-infested stones attacked his army led by an elephant and miraculously destroyed it (Surah al-Feel). This naturally enhanced the Ka‘bah’s prestige not only among the people of Makkah but also in the rest of the Peninsula and beyond.

Caravans traveled to Makkah both because it was located on the trade routes, and also because people came to perform the pilgrimage. Over time, the belief in one God, as preached by Prophet Ibrahim who had built the Ka‘bah with his son Isma‘il (a), was corrupted and people began to associate partners with Allah (SWT). Idol-worship crept in, interestingly, again as a result of the merchants’ journeys. Whenever they went out of Makkah, they would take a stone from the Ka‘bah with them to worship. In Syria, they found that people worshipped idols made of stone. The Makkans also adopted this practice. Ultimately, there were 360 idols in the Ka‘bah belonging to different tribes. Thus, both the Quraysh as well as non-Makkan tribes developed a vested interest in preserving the system built around idol-worship.

Like other people in history, the Makkan aristocracy also lived according to the dictum: might is right. Powerful tribes suppressed and exploited weaker ones; slaves, women and the poor were especially vulnerable. Since tribal warfare was common, plundering others’ wealth — camels, sheep, etc. — and abducting women and children, were regular features of life.

But it was the endless wars between tribes, often for no other reason than false pride that necessitated tribal alliances. The struggle to survive in such an environment dictated its own logic: alliances were necessary to keep hostile forces at bay. This was true of tribes as well as individuals. Those people whose own tribe could not protect them because it was weak, or refused to protect, allied themselves with powerful people or tribes. The noble Messenger (s) was protected by his own clan, Banu Hashim, as long as his uncle Abu Talib was alive. After his death, the Prophet (s) became quite vulnerable. His uncles Abu Lahab who assumed clan leadership, far from providing protection, viciously opposed his mission.



1. Dr. Kalim Siddiqui, Political Dimensions of the Sirah. (Crescent International: London, UK, 1992).



2. Dr. Kalim Siddiqui and Zafar Bangash (editor), Political Thought and behaviour of Muslims under colonialism, an article in In Pursuit of the Power of Islam: Major writings of Kalim Siddiqui. (Crescent Internat’l: London, UK, 1996), pp. 257-87.



Part II of this essay will look at the consolidation of the Islamic power base in Madinah and the ideological, socio-political, and economic challenges it had to survive and ultimately overcome.

[lein303]

No one in the world will give a danm about the pan-islamic (Ummah) movement unless it reforms itself. Now that is the plain old truth that it has no future either unless this occurs. I might sound like an out-spoken critic but im really not. Most of todays pan-islamic movements dont favour democracy, captialism, etc.. but favor socialism??? Reason being that Socialism has always been the favorite of 3rd world countries due to the former soviet bloc which split the world into 2 camps

The Caliphat is nothing more than a presidency in essence, it just has a different name. Now the Caliphat is suppose to take advice from the Shura Council now why cant the shura council be elected by the People? This would be a simple compromise between democratic movement and islamic movements to put them under a single bloc and philosophy. Another problem of Islamic Movement is their failures to adopt constitutionalism because they believe that the Quran is the supreme guide which should guide every aspect of society.

Nothing will be accomplished without compromise as it always has been in history and right now the Islamic Camp is the one thats not willing to because, of there strictness

[Sufi]

No one in the world will give a danm about the pan-islamic (Ummah) movement unless it reforms itself. Now that is the plain old truth that it has no future either unless this occurs. I might sound like an out-spoken critic but im really not. Most of todays pan-islamic movements dont favour democracy, captialism, etc.. but favor socialism??? Reason being that Socialism has always been the favorite of 3rd world countries due to the former soviet bloc which split the world into 2 camps

The Caliphat is nothing more than a presidency in essence, it just has a different name. Now the Caliphat is suppose to take advice from the Shura Council now why cant the shura council be elected by the People? This would be a simple compromise between democratic movement and islamic movements to put them under a single bloc and philosophy. Another problem of Islamic Movement is their failures to adopt constitutionalism because they believe that the Quran is the supreme guide which should guide every aspect of society.

Nothing will be accomplished without compromise as it always has been in history and right now the Islamic Camp is the one thats not willing to because, of there strictness

In my opinion a prophetic model of change would not focus on all at once, that is, a widespread change across the Muslim world at once. So a pan-Islamic identity, one which focuses on the Ummah at large, of the sorts Hizb-u-tahrir preaches is a defunct model.. one not fully informed of Sirah.. in fact, even the Prophet focused on establishing Islamic rule only in Medinah, then Mecca, his was a singular geographic focus, borne more out of limited resources and plain common sense, which a pan islamic model, in its utopian ideal, fails to achieve. So while I have posted an article from a pan-islamic resource, I have only done so because, even within pan-islamic dialogues one can begin to see strategic shifts of paradigm, or a realization of practicality as a source of determining action.. This is a far and wide shift from Utopian visions of a united Muslim world, at least in its start. As for the achievement of structure, of a islamic governance system, then Islam in general provides broad provisions of systems which can incorporate specifics. An example would be the Khilafah, as it concerns the Khalif. The fact that there are not very clear cut means of arriving at the selection of one.. is in fact saying to Muslims that diversity of systems, institutions is allowed in Islam, so long as these preserve and promote Islamic principals, so long as they culture Islam within people.. but these institutions and systems of governance need be within a broader structural islamic frameworlk found in the Quran and hadith. And it is in this I see a new promise for Pakistan.. and Sirah is a most pratical resource towards achieving these institutions and systems built upon broad religious principals, and customized to specifics which serve the "current" interests of Muslims today. I think most pan-islamic movements fail upon this very idea.. they fail upon specificity...

[Caesar]

Sufi, if I may ask, can you clarify the following question:

1- Is such a movement only Pakistan specific or is intended for all Muslims?
2- A natural reaction to such a movement will be emergance of movements in Christain countries, won't this lead to clash of civilisations and more chaos?

[Pak-Eye]

Caesar,

Bro clash of civilization is already there i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Palestine ... it more has to do with oppressor vs oppressed

I read about this phenomena; unlike communism, natzis etc why they are unable to oppress Muslims with all their weapons, media, money, politics?

There must be some logical reason behind it; its written all over in history:

"Outside Islamdom, Christian missionaries from Europe usually succeeded in making converts. Whether for spiritual reasons or for material ones, substantial numbers of American Indians, Africans, Hindus, Buddhists, and Confucians accepted the Gospels. But Muslims did not."

Personally I don't believe such a movement could be applicable to all Muslims states at once

[Caesar]

Caesar,

Bro clash of civilization is already there i.e. Iraq, Afghanistan, Kashmir, Palestine ... it more has to do with oppressor vs oppressed

I read about this phenomena; unlike communism, natzis etc why they are unable to oppress Muslims with all their weapons, media, money, politics?

There must be some logical reason behind it; its written all over in history:

"Outside Islamdom, Christian missionaries from Europe usually succeeded in making converts. Whether for spiritual reasons or for material ones, substantial numbers of American Indians, Africans, Hindus, Buddhists, and Confucians accepted the Gospels. But Muslims did not."

Personally I don't believe such a movement could be applicable to all Muslims states at once

Thanks Pak-Eye for responding. Personally I think that such a movements needs to ensure that:

1- It has adequate resources
2- Has a good plan
3- Highly educated people with a lot of experience are included in their leadership group
4- Highly experienced management teams

[Saqr]

No one in the world will give a danm about the pan-islamic (Ummah) movement unless it reforms itself. Now that is the plain old truth that it has no future either unless this occurs. I might sound like an out-spoken critic but im really not. Most of todays pan-islamic movements dont favour democracy, captialism, etc.. but favor socialism??? Reason being that Socialism has always been the favorite of 3rd world countries due to the former soviet bloc which split the world into 2 camps

The Caliphat is nothing more than a presidency in essence, it just has a different name. Now the Caliphat is suppose to take advice from the Shura Council now why cant the shura council be elected by the People? This would be a simple compromise between democratic movement and islamic movements to put them under a single bloc and philosophy. Another problem of Islamic Movement is their failures to adopt constitutionalism because they believe that the Quran is the supreme guide which should guide every aspect of society.

Nothing will be accomplished without compromise as it always has been in history and right now the Islamic Camp is the one thats not willing to because, of there strictness

Presidencies, ministerials, monarchies, etc, are nothing more than models of organizing power along institutions, government and people, organizations, etc; they're not overarching concepts such as the Khilafah/Caliphate. The term Khilafah linguistically translates as "viceregency" in English, and it retains this definition within Islamic Jurisprudance - i.e. Shariah. In other words, the Caliphate is a concept that derives governance from peoples' recognition and agreement of The Creator's Sovereignty in all matters. Hence it fundamentally differs from the modern concept of the State where sovereignty in all matters is allocated to human beings. This crucial difference can be observed with the way today's states formulate their policies - which are often based on a mix of material interests, ideological reasoning (realism, liberalism, Marxism, etc) and jurisprudance (secular or divine).

What you are talking about with regards to presidencies is essentially a model of how power could be organized within a state. It is no secret that there is a Representative Assembly within the Khilafah, but it does not legislate laws based on material interests! The title, "Lawgiver" belongs solely to Allah SWT, hence the People's Assembly does not hold a legislative role in the Khilafah. Another example is elections: the Caliphate need not use vote-based elections in order to select successive leaders, it is allowed to use councils of scholars, leaders, etc - as was done during the time of the Rashidun. However despite the way these Caliphs came into power, they still required the approval of the Ummah (people) through acquiring consensus, general agreement and support. So one could acquire the aforementioned through elections, but not necessarily. Systems and models differ and change with time, but the concept remains the same.

I don't understand what you mean by "failures to adopt constitutionalism" when in fact the concept of Khilafah strictly adheres to following Shariah as the supreme and fundamental law. I think it was an issue of definitions, but the Caliphate would never derive its policies, laws and values from anything but Islam - i.e. Quran and Sunnah - as it accepts God's Sovereignty in all matters.

[Saqr]

In my opinion a prophetic model of change would not focus on all at once, that is, a widespread change across the Muslim world at once. So a pan-Islamic identity, one which focuses on the Ummah at large, of the sorts Hizb-u-tahrir preaches is a defunct model.. one not fully informed of Sirah.. in fact, even the Prophet focused on establishing Islamic rule only in Medinah, then Mecca, his was a singular geographic focus, borne more out of limited resources and plain common sense, which a pan islamic model, in its utopian ideal, fails to achieve. So while I have posted an article from a pan-islamic resource, I have only done so because, even within pan-islamic dialogues one can begin to see strategic shifts of paradigm, or a realization of practicality as a source of determining action.. This is a far and wide shift from Utopian visions of a united Muslim world, at least in its start. As for the achievement of structure, of a islamic governance system, then Islam in general provides broad provisions of systems which can incorporate specifics. An example would be the Khilafah, as it concerns the Khalif. The fact that there are not very clear cut means of arriving at the selection of one.. is in fact saying to Muslims that diversity of systems, institutions is allowed in Islam, so long as these preserve and promote Islamic principals, so long as they culture Islam within people.. but these institutions and systems of governance need be within a broader structural islamic frameworlk found in the Quran and hadith. And it is in this I see a new promise for Pakistan.. and Sirah is a most pratical resource towards achieving these institutions and systems built upon broad religious principals, and customized to specifics which serve the "current" interests of Muslims today. I think most pan-islamic movements fail upon this very idea.. they fail upon specificity...

From what I've read on HT's stuff, they did not mention anywhere that the united Ummah would come in one go nor in any short-term period. In fact, it is very clear to everyone - their supporters and critics alike - that HT wants a "base" from which the Caliphate could start; and then expand from there. From what I can see, they derive this belief on the basis of Madina as a starting point and expanding, often through methods such as political-dialogue, trade and if 'need be' war. However this isn't a belief that could exclusively be confined to HT, it is very clear from the Sirah of the Prophet SLAWS and the development of the Khilafah-e-Rashidun that the aforementioned actually occured.

With regards to the 'utopia vision', IMO anyone with knowledge of Sirah and Khilafah-e-Rashidun would accept that life under the Caliphate could be anything but utopian. Even a well respected, well loved and credible Khalifa can deal with a tragic and bloody civil war. Madina for much of its earlier days - at least during the Prophet SLAWS' leadership - was a city of poverty, instability and insecurity. The great wealth and success we know about in Islamic history had occured during later eras, at a time when we had imperial monarchs.

Hence the issue isn't what we believe will exclusively lead us out of our miserable situation today, but more importantly an issue of what is truly right and what is truly wrong. How we define right and wrong is critically important to everything in life; whether personal or public - this is where we derive laws, value, beliefs, policies, etc. Remember that we are accounted for our lives, and the consequences are eternal.

[lein303]

Presidencies, ministerials, monarchies, etc, are nothing more than models of organizing power along institutions, government and people, organizations, etc; they're not overarching concepts such as the Khilafah/Caliphate. The term Khilafah linguistically translates as "viceregency" in English, and it retains this definition within Islamic Jurisprudance - i.e. Shariah. In other words, the Caliphate is a concept that derives governance from peoples' recognition and agreement of The Creator's Sovereignty in all matters. Hence it fundamentally differs from the modern concept of the State where sovereignty in all matters is allocated to human beings. This crucial difference can be observed with the way today's states formulate their policies - which are often based on a mix of material interests, ideological reasoning (realism, liberalism, Marxism, etc) and jurisprudance (secular or divine).

What you are talking about with regards to presidencies is essentially a model of how power could be organized within a state. It is no secret that there is a Representative Assembly within the Khilafah, but it does not legislate laws based on material interests! The title, "Lawgiver" belongs solely to Allah SWT, hence the People's Assembly does not hold a legislative role in the Khilafah. Another example is elections: the Caliphate need not use vote-based elections in order to select successive leaders, it is allowed to use councils of scholars, leaders, etc - as was done during the time of the Rashidun. However despite the way these Caliphs came into power, they still required the approval of the Ummah (people) through acquiring consensus, general agreement and support. So one could acquire the aforementioned through elections, but not necessarily. Systems and models differ and change with time, but the concept remains the same.

I don't understand what you mean by "failures to adopt constitutionalism" when in fact the concept of Khilafah strictly adheres to following Shariah as the supreme and fundamental law. I think it was an issue of definitions, but the Caliphate would never derive its policies, laws and values from anything but Islam - i.e. Quran and Sunnah - as it accepts God's Sovereignty in all matters.

I fully agree with you but most modern day laws cannot be derived from the quran thats impossible and something which I truly emphasise is compromise which is the key to an islamic resurgence and revolution. Look at every modern day democracies of the west they were nothing more than a compromise of the rebels and establishment. Today in islamic countries we have 2 major groups, the liberals (Democracy lovers, modernist) and the Islamist (more conservative). The Neo-liberal camp is totally against a theoretical islamic state and instead supports western style democracy (with aspects of nationalism) whereby the Islamist camp fully rejects the notion of democracy and instead wants a truly islamic state (one modeled after the first caliphats). The ones on the far left could be considered neo-liberals and the ones on the far right could be considered wahabi's. Nothing will be solved unless both camps can come to the table and compromise, this is the first essential step to bring the resurgence/revolution under one ideological umbrella. The next major step is how to overthrow the dictortial regimes which has strong roots in almost every muslim country.

Another major reality which I would like to highlight is how much democracy can literally save muslims. If you havnt noticed the democratic muslim countries the pan-islamic leaning parties are much much more popular (Turkey, Pakistan, Malaysia, etc..). This also applies to muslim countries ran by dictatorships (Egypt, KSA, Iran) but these dictatorships are so hell bent on retaining there positions that they use intense nationalism to pursue there agenda's.

[Pak-Eye]

Thanks Pak-Eye for responding. Personally I think that such a movements needs to ensure that:

1- It has adequate resources

There is abudance of petroleum, agricultural, natuoral and human rsources throughout the Muslims lands; its a matter of management only

2- Has a good plan

I agree, it needs to have a good plan; personally I haven't seen any credible plan from any current pan-Islamist groups; is where they fail

3- Highly educated people with a lot of experience are included in their leadership group

We have very educated and skilled people; its just a matter of their proper highering and putting them in respective positions and responsibilities

4- Highly experienced management teams

This is again a big question mark for pan-Islamists; exactly who could and should be in the management teams? I believe the management need to represent people representing all sects/groups

[Saqr]

I fully agree with you but most modern day laws cannot be derived from the quran thats impossible and something which I truly emphasise is compromise which is the key to an islamic resurgence and revolution. Look at every modern day democracies of the west they were nothing more than a compromise of the rebels and establishment. Today in islamic countries we have 2 major groups, the liberals (Democracy lovers, modernist) and the Islamist (more conservative). The Neo-liberal camp is totally against a theoretical islamic state and instead supports western style democracy (with aspects of nationalism) whereby the Islamist camp fully rejects the notion of democracy and instead wants a truly islamic state (one modeled after the first caliphats). The ones on the far left could be considered neo-liberals and the ones on the far right could be considered wahabi's. Nothing will be solved unless both camps can come to the table and compromise, this is the first essential step to bring the resurgence/revolution under one ideological umbrella. The next major step is how to overthrow the dictortial regimes which has strong roots in almost every muslim country.

I was once concerned about Islam's capability of keeping up with the times, it was one of the reasons as to why I was against Shariah and pro for recognizing Israel (check my old posts). However after careful study and consideration, it isn't Shariah that is behind, but us Muslims. One of the results of sincere and careful Ijtehad is acquiring more knowledge and understanding of Shariah. Islam has given us the guidelines to adhere with regards to how we conduct our economic and political affairs; are we here to simply 'accept' the status-quo, let outsiders lot and plunder us...and be known for compromises, cowering, etc? We must ask ourselves...how much does Judgement Day to us?

When you talk about democracy, are you talking about accountability, sufferage, citizenry, constitutionalism, justice and private liberty? Islam has already offered all that to us, but in return for our public and moral obligations. So why is it that we need to re-flag ourselves under a concept that challenges the sanction of the Lawgiver? Who gave us this right? Or is this based on a flaw within the Quran?

Another major reality which I would like to highlight is how much democracy can literally save muslims. If you havnt noticed the democratic muslim countries the pan-islamic leaning parties are much much more popular (Turkey, Pakistan, Malaysia, etc..). This also applies to muslim countries ran by dictatorships (Egypt, KSA, Iran) but these dictatorships are so hell bent on retaining there positions that they use intense nationalism to pursue there agenda's.

You are confusing models of authority with concepts of absolute sovereignty. Muslims living under the Khulafah Rashidun were able to question the accountability of their leaders than much more openly and greatly than the Muslims living during Ottoman times; although both were Caliphates. The countries you mentioned are not Shariah states, despite some are authoritarian and others based on consensus. The key issue here is to determine who holds absolute sovereignty in all matters, Allah SWT or us. Of course, Allah SWT could've given this right to us, but we need proof of this. I do agree that popular consensus is integral for healthy states.

[Saqr]

1- It has adequate resources

There is abudance of petroleum, agricultural, natuoral and human rsources throughout the Muslims lands; its a matter of management only

2- Has a good plan

I agree, it needs to have a good plan; personally I haven't seen any credible plan from any current pan-Islamist groups; is where they fail

3- Highly educated people with a lot of experience are included in their leadership group

We have very educated and skilled people; its just a matter of their proper highering and putting them in respective positions and responsibilities

4- Highly experienced management teams

This is again a big question mark for pan-Islamists; exactly who could and should be in the management teams? I believe the management need to represent people representing all sects/groups

I completely agree with your points...and with regards to number 4...consensus among groups is very important.

[visioninthedark]

OK guys - have read the posts.

I have no disagreement what has been said about following the Sira of the prophet in our lives .... which makes us better human beings.

However, the idea of an ideological state .... is another story.

You guys have not mentioned in any of your posts that we have different Fiqh in Islam that Interpret Islam differently.

What I have noticed is that most Muslims who grow up in the West seem to have no clue about the diversity within Islam that exists and WILL NOT GO AWAY.

No One group will simply calmly lie down and let another group interpret and enforce their version of Islam.

Don't think this is a light issue that can be swept under the carpet.

Being a Shia (Jaafri Fiqh .... follower of Imam Jaafar As-Sadiq ..... who was the sixth grandson of the Prophet .... and is the largest fiqh among the Shia which almost 95% follow) ..... I know for a fact that Shia's anywhere in the world wont simply lie down and accept .... for example a Deobandi or Wahabbi interpretation of Sharia .....

and please keep in mind that depending on different sources ...... Shia Muslims are between 20-30% .... in Pakistan and generally in the Islamic world

Now, if that percentage of the population is not happy with a system and are oppressed ..... trust me it will not be successful.

You can't kill or wish away 20-30% simply because they disagree with a diffrent interpretation of the Sharia.

You can't oppress 20-30% of a population in perpetuity.

And remember .... Imam Hussain .... the prophets grandson fought against a Khalifa ..... so following his example ..... Shia's don't believe that a Khilafa is something DIVINE .... and so will be willing to follow his example .... and fight against any system where they are oppressed .... whether it has the label of being "Islamic" or "Khilafa" or whatever.

Add to that the various differences in Sharia interpretation between the Sunni Fiqh .... Maliki's perform namaz like the Shia as per Imam Malik (who is one of the four main Sunni Imams), while Hanafis perform namaz different from Malikis, etc etc

and you will realise that trying to impose a MONOLITHIC interpretation of Islam or an Islamic state .... is in itself against Islam and destructive to Islam

Therefore ..... in my opinion ..... the only option for Muslims as a whole to progress is to develop their link with God through being better human beings themselves .....

once this is achieved ..... they will be more confident and more tolerant of others

Once we have a society that is PERSONALLY and INDIVIDUALLY upright and pious ...... any SYSTEM that is formed by that society will be a reflection of its moral and religious values .... and no matter what the label .... will be in keeping with the true spirit of Islam

[Pak-Eye]

Vision bro:

I can understand what you are saying and surely are of concern

Small minor differences mean nothing as you stated like praying methods plus many more ; but a fundamental difference means something is wrong. When we have 1 Allah, 1 Quran and 1 Prophet Mohammad (SAW) ... how a fundamental difference should come? There are two things bro; either wrong or right, there is nothing in between when it comes to fundamental beliefs

Let me say it with deep sincerety I understand how you see things; if you like we can discuss it in PM but for obvious forum rules, won't be discussing here

And finally this statement that let God be the judge is somewhat misleading; I am not saying to start killing people like looser Talibans, but also you can't be silent, as rightly said by ibn Hanbal

"If I remained silent and you remained silent, then who will teach the ignorant?"

Personally I don't see logic in following only one Imam; all were great scholars and devoted their lives for Islam; people need to understand that each of these imams were born in different times with different challenges as per time and rulers ... but in the end all were teaching Islam. What logic does it make to follow 1 Imam and leave all the teachings of all other Imams? I say read all Imams ... as finally they were preaching in the light of Quran only

Imam Shafi said: "If I say something, then compare it to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His messenger and if it agrees to them, then accept it and that which goes against them, then reject it and throw my saying against the wall”

May Allah guide us all

[visioninthedark]

Vision bro:

I can understand what you are saying and surely are of concern

Small minor differences mean nothing as you stated like praying methods plus many more ; but a fundamental difference means something is wrong. When we have 1 Allah, 1 Quran and 1 Prophet Mohammad (SAW) ... how a fundamental difference should come? There are two things bro; either wrong or right, there is nothing in between when it comes to fundamental beliefs

fundamental beliefs are 100% the same - there is no dispute on that - all follow the same God, the same Prophet, the same Quran - in this all are in 100% agreement - this is not even an issue at all.

Let me say it with deep sincerety I understand how you see things; if you like we can discuss it in PM but for obvious forum rules, won't be discussing here

Let us do that - but please forgive me if I am not immediate in replies - fact is life can get quite busy sometimes - and we may not have the opportunity or the time to access PDF constantly - however, as long as we keep the PM's flowing that will be good - so I'm happy to take this to PM level with you.

However, please bear in mind, I am no Alim, I am just an ordinary human being who has his own opinions on things that sometimes may not even agree with the mainstream of the Fiqh I have been brought up in. So, if I am wrong, may God forgive me ..... atleast the intention is good.

And finally this statement that let God be the judge is somewhat misleading; I am not saying to start killing people like looser Talibans, but also you can't be silent, as rightly said by ibn Hanbal

"If I remained silent and you remained silent, then who will teach the ignorant?"

and you are absolutely right - which is why as a Muslim Shia - in general we despise those who tell us to shut up - after all - Imam Hussain didn't shut up - did he?

however, Imam Hussain also taught us through his own example - that when a Zalim system be it Yazeed or Taliban are bent upon destroying the truth - we should take up arms against them and fight back - whether we are 10 and they 1000 does not matter - this is the biggest lesson in life for a Muslim - to fight against those who MISREPRESENT Islam like the Yazeed or the Taliban - and those who do so are following the example of Imam Hussain.

Personally I don't see logic in following only one Imam; all were great scholars and devoted their lives for Islam; people need to understand that each of these imams were born in different times with different challenges as per time and rulers ... but in the end all were teaching Islam. What logic does it make to follow 1 Imam and leave all the teachings of all other Imams? I say read all Imams ... as finally they were preaching in the light of Quran only

Imam Shafi said: "If I say something, then compare it to the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His messenger and if it agrees to them, then accept it and that which goes against them, then reject it and throw my saying against the wall”

May Allah guide us all

Absolutely true what Imam Shafi said - and if you research his quote you will find he is quoting Imam Ali on that word for word.

I totally agree with you on not following one Imam.

As a Muslim Shia, I follow Rasool-e-Khuda, and his sunnah as brought to me through Imam Ali and all the religious scholars and Imams who were from his ahl-al-bait - who are considered to be closest to the source of religious knowledge which is Rasool-e-Khuda himself.

Why go far? and to a diferent time, when those of his own family are there to explain his message and his sira from that very same era and time.

My two cents worth.

However, lets continue our discussion on PM as you suggest.

[Pak-Eye]

Thanks bro

Sure will continue in PM; and don't worry I will not take you into pages and pages of religious references, not at all.

For me personally, its the Muslim unity that concerns me the most

Thanks again

[visioninthedark]

For me personally, its the Muslim unity that concerns me the most

and me too - which is why I cannot tolerate the intolerant - and those who tolerate the intolerant

Thanks

[Pak-Eye]

^
Did PM you bro ... check it out

[Sufi]

Definition:: DEEN: an Islamic way of Life.

In my opinion while Diversity is important to recognize, we should move forward inspite of it. Rather, one must recognize that Deen was made Easy upon the Muslim (Quran). Thus in provisioning people with choice, embodied in legitamate differences in Fiqh, or Shaira, DEEN assauges an inner desire to reconcile the worldy life with Religion. So if there is a recognizability between Deen and Worldly life- within or over which it -Deen- is implemented, for Rememberance of Allah -Salah, Zikr- or for Fullfilling the Commandments of Allah - Divorce, Moon Sighting, etc, then for EASE choice is a natural recourse derived from the Quran and Hadith, In a way Sacntioned By Allah. Allah Also commands an implementation of Islam as Deen and as a Sharia-ic System. The Quran at one point more or less states "We have created for you a ""path, system"" so follow it, and not the fantasies of those who hold no knowledge". This is important, for it proves that while Diversity in Islam is Divinely ordained, Muslims must 1st. continue to reconcile with it. & 2nd. Implement an Islamic System. But Since Islam came to Ease Adveristy, and Since Deen is Easy to Follow (Quran), the choice of Whats Ease to one individual must be left up him, the society will not decide whats Easy for an individual specifically, rather its job is to provide an individual with a set of choices.

An Example:
Differences of Fiqh Allow for different interpretations of What Classifies as three divorces in ISLAM. Some say its the Verbal saying, while other say, Say Talaq Talaq Talaq as much as you want, it only classifies as one instance, and one must follow Quranic injuctions regarding what follows.

I would say, upon these matters, that State Provides these choices, the Individual Decides..

[DarkAngel]

To be honest the only real division I see in the muslim world, and this I say after after having sit with most of these factions in their gatherings and discussed with their people and scholars, is not really amongst the individual sects but rather between the muqalids and ghair muqalids (no offence intended to either point of view, just stating an observation). But still, at the very least we can concentrate on th 80% thigns we have in common rather than focusing on the 20% that make us apart, and learn to tolerate the 20% that we differ in. No one will disagree on honesty, banning of usury, the need for hilal income etc. Minor differences people need to tolerate. Differences of Aqeeda and primary beleifs such as those between the sunni and the shia need to be limited to the discussion table. Hypothetically even if one side is right about the others being kafir, no one said you cant live peacefully with kufaar. The muslims lived with Jews who were outright enemies of the Quran and Islam.

Sagr definitely got it right when he said the problem is with the muslims not the shariat. Western wannabes aand anti-islamic people can cry all they want about rpacticality an dother such nonsense. Fact is the religion is universal. And the rulings that come with it are universal.

[platinum786]

The problem here is not with Islam, but with Muslims. We're all itolerant.

Take a look at this forum. Most of us don't know squat about each other and look how much hate there is towards the beliefs of others.

Learn to stop hating before you create super states.

[Pak-Eye]

^When something is severly wrong as clear as daylight, its the right to call it wrong and that also loudly

This topi drama of engineered words like 'tolerance' is all air; I mean someone telling you in written over an internet forum is now called being 'intolerant'

Get over with this; unless we Muslims (including myself) fix our own home, our own sect, religious and political, as well ethnic and regional ... no god damn democratic and civilized nation is gonna come to help us

[DarkAngel]

It is intolerance when you kill aand abuse, not when you stand up correct mistaken beleifs. Far too often people have exonerated themselves from any responsibility to do anything worthwhile in the name of tolerance. Or will people start preaching tolerance towards ttp and quadianis next? I for one will have no such tolerance for a person who is twisting Islam to his/her personal agenda if tolerance means shutting up and letting them continue. The concern is 100% valid, the offered solution is not. The key is not so called toelrance, the key is realignement of all allegiances to Allah OVER all other entities be they sects, nationalism or anything else.