Class Notes

Shaykh Yasir Qadhi

London March 2016
INTRODUCTION:
Shaykh Yasir Qadhi has been teaching at AlMaghrib institute for over 10 years and over the years has
taught classical theology and aqeedah courses for the institute. However, over the years he became
increasingly bothered. Although he was teaching classic theology, he felt that there was more
important theology that needed to be taught that he wasn’t teaching.

With students asking questions revolving around modernity, liberalism, secularism, atheism, living in
the West, balancing the Shariah with broader socio-political circumstances around us and living in a
post renaissance era in Europe and USA, he felt the classic theology he was teaching was not as
relevant to students as other topics that were affecting them in this day and age. A lot of times, he was
resurrecting classical controversies that the average student was not affected by or had even heard of
- 1000 year old controversies such as the types of Qadr and the realities of the names and attributes of
Allah.

He felt that not much was gained from presenting these 1000 year old controversies and that in the
Islamic world, we are not taught issues of modernity. We are not taught about liberalism, secularism
and feminism. Rather, we study the same curriculum that was taught hundreds of years ago. With
some questions about Islam dealing with issues that even qualified scholars such as Ibn Taymiyyah
haven’t taught and with no other instructors having taught these topics, Yasir Qadhi decided to take it
on. For 1.5 years, he did surveys with his top students and and also on Facebook, asking what their top
issues/questions in theology were and after doing Istikhara decided and finalised the most important
issues in modern Islamic theology that he felt could be taught in one weekend.

It’s important to note that this course is not comprehensive and does not deal with the classical
controversies of Islamic Law but rather with modern theological issues (there is another class Yasir
Qadhi wants to teach in the future – controversies of classical fiqh).
THE 5 MODULES OF THE CLASS:
1. The Quest for ‘Real’ Islam

The first module will focus more on the effects of the controversies. For example how do practicing
Muslims deal with other practicing Muslims, especially when they don’t see eye to eye? How do we
overcome the tension between faithful Muslims? This module will look at how to resolve intra Islamic
tensions ‐ sectarianism. It will also look at the issue of how to navigate as a minority, in a democracy, a
secular land, when we are divided into even more groups ourselves.

The module will highlight how we all have our own understandings and things we differ in. Should we
ignore, compromise, overlook or be divided? And whether or not ultimate purity is going to come with
the cost of being by yourself as a group or for betterment of the ummah by coming together?

2. Faith and Reason

This module will look at the parameters of reason, what is intellect (aql) in Qur’an and Sunnah? When
does Allah tell us to use it and what are the parameters? What if aql conflicts with the texts (naql)? It
includes many sub-modules such as atheism, the role of intellect, and Darwinism, which is the biggest
issue for modern college age people.

The module will look at how we understand the proofs of atheists and how we present Islam to
atheists. It will discuss what the role of aql, reason, and rationality is and whether or not everything
must be reasonable or rational. It will explore whether certain things are beyond reason.

3. Islam and “The Other”

This module will explore Islam’s historic notion of exclusive salvation: Muslims alone are going to
Paradise and everyone else is going to Hell. We meet other people of other faiths who are very kind,
generous, and sincere. Why would they be punished just because they belong to a different faith? For
example if one lives their whole life feeding the poor but do not embrace Islam, is Hell the final
destination? What about the brutal Muslim dictator who murdered millions of people; would he go to
Paradise? This leaves doubt in our minds.

How do we deal with “The Other”? How do we deal with non-Muslims and hostile Muslims? There are
versions of Islam that very clearly preach hatred. This group will quote a single ayah from Qur'an to
base their ideology while ignoring other ayahs and ahadith.

4. Feminism

Is there such a thing as Islamic feminism? Are men and women really equal? Issues of sexuality, LGBT,
and same sex-union will be discussed. How do I deal with my gay co-worker who supports Muslim
rights and Palestine?

Liberalism as a political and social construct: What do we as Muslims need to think of when living in
liberal democracies? What are the parameters of Shariah in working with others for the greater good.
What are the positives we can derive and the negatives to be mindful of? Do we use liberalism to our
advantage because we truly believe in it, or do we use it in a hypocritical manner? For example,
women say, “I have a right to dress how I want.” We use this to support Hijab but not for women who
wear very little clothing.

This module will also explore the Parable of Muslims living in liberal lands.
5. Divine Law and Modern Governance

Which takes precedence? Loyalty to the Ummah or loyalty to the nation state? On the far left, people
say there is no ummah per se, so loyalty belongs to the nation state, whilst on the far right groups like
the militants think their allegiance is to ummah alone, which for them “allows” them to kill members
of the nation state. Both of these are extremes with some people even saying it is disbelief (Kufr) if we
are part of the system. How do we respond to these statements?

This module will look at questions such as what is the middle ground? Is there any precedence in
Islamic history? What if we live in a country that is opposed to Islamic countries both socially and
militarily?

The course will then end by talking about the reality of doubts and how having them is natural. How
the mere act of questioning does not make you a Kafir and that struggling in faith is the essence of
submitting to Allah. It will also look at the Hadith which states we have more right to doubt than
Prophet Ibrahim (AS) and will look at Umar (RA) when the Treaty of Hudaibiyya was formed in which
he questioned the Prophet (SAW) which he later regretted.
DISCLAIMERS TO THE CLASS:
Yasir Qadhi had a huge problem with this material - for some people here who specialise in modern
politics and philosophy, you would know this material from the Western side very well. However, this
is not a class on Western philosophy, therefore due to time constraints and the nature of this class, the
topics will not be explained in massive depth. He understands that each one of these topics could be
taught in much more time, for example there are entire courses about Islamic feminism. However in
this course every module will be condensed and simplified.

The reason for this condensation of material is not only down to time constraints but also due to an
Islamic principle in which it is dangerous for a person who has not been exposed to doubts, to be
taught them in a very detailed manner. One classical scholar, was severely criticised by
contemporaries and those later on as he caused many students to have more doubts after his classes
then they had when they’d started. He taught the arguments of atheists etc. leading to his students’
minds being bedazzled. He was therefore criticised for planting the seeds of doubt in student’s minds
even though he was trying to clear them. To avoid planting seeds of doubt and then attempting to get
rid of them, this class will be more of a summary that will contextualise the issues at hand. The reason
being that we need to understand that these issues did not exist in the same manner so many years
ago rather each one of these trends is a historical fad ‐ it comes, it rises and goes. They did not exist 50
years ago and will not exist in this manner in 50 years. Rather we should see ourselves as a speck
riding the wave. You and I are products of these social waves around us. We think these waves are
permanent and our societies teach us to believe a certain reality which is rarely questioned.

For example in the 1980s, the roles of a marriage were understood: the husband and wife roles and
same sex issues were understood in a wholly different way to how they are viewed today. Therefore
by contextualising the wave and understanding when and why they started, the aim is to allow you to
have the courage to question the question, rather than to question the religion, so to question where
these ideas are coming from and why. For example if you understand the history of liberalism you
would understand that it was a European solution to a European problem, whereas feminism came
about as a result of World war 1 and 2, leading you to question, had these events never occurred,
would these ideologies even exist?
Module

1
THE QUEST FOR ‘REAL’ ISLAM
Module 1: The Quest for real Islam:
Introduction:

How do we as Muslims deal with differing groups within the tradition? How fanatical must we be to
our own tradition? We must draw a line somewhere.

1.1| A Chronological Overview Of Islamic Theology:

1) Key Terms: Iman, Kufr, & Islam


Controversies regarding definitions started from the time of the companions (Sahabah) times and
revolved around questions such as: Who defines who is a Muslim? How does that differ from a
Mumin? What about those who commit major sins? What takes you out of Islam? Iblis technically
believes in Allah (SWT), the Day of Judgment, and the Prophets. But he is obviously not a Muslim. Why
not? What is the difference between the three terms above? Does Iman go up and down or is it
stagnant? So do you have to act upon Islam? Are actions a necessary part of faith? Where does faith
exist? Is it abstract? How many level of Islam are there? When does a Muslim become a Kaafir? What
must you do to leave Islam?

Although the controversy regarding definitions is a classical controversy, the debate is an issue that is
still being faced in the modern world today. For example, look at ISIS who have declared the bulk of
the world to be apostates and Kuffar. So they are happy to kill Muslims because they do not believe
they are Muslim, in their definition. Therefore, the controversies of definition are very relevant till this
day.

2) Nature Of The Divine (Tawhid Al-Rububiyya & Tawid Al-Asma Wa-L-Sifat):

Tawhid al-Rububiyya: The oneness of Allah.

Tawhid al-Asma wa-l-sifat: Allah’s names and attributes (there has been much controversy over His
Attributes).

One of biggest controversies, that took centre stage for around 750 years, was regarding the nature of
Allah. How do we understand His Names and Attributes in the Qur’an and Sunnah? Are His names and
attributes literal, metaphorical or symbolic?

What does it mean when Allah says, “I rose over the throne,” or “Go to Firaun (O Musa) because you
are in My Eyes”, or “I created Adam with My own Hands”. How do we interpret the Qur’an as the speech
of Allah (SWT)? What does it mean, when the Prophet (SAW) said Allah comes down in the last third
of the night? What is concept of Allah being a Lord?

These controversies surrounding the nature of Allah (SWT), such as: Who is Allah? What are his
Names and Attributes? became the most important controversies in early Islam, which overshadowed
and eclipsed all other controversies. From this we also debated in our history whether we need to
prove the existence of Allah (SWT) and if His existence is ingrained in us. If so, How? Why?
3) Worshipping Allah (Tawhid Al-Uluhiyya):

Another controversy is one regarding the concept of worshipping Allah – all Muslims verbally say we
worship Allah alone. But who gets to define the worship Muslims perform. e.g. Is invoking the names
of saints worship or not as it could be considered as taking something else as a god. Are there holy
sites other than Makkah, Madinah and Jerusalem? Is making tombs and visiting graves of the
righteous and asking them for things shirk? Given that some groups believe in asking someone in the
grave for what you want, is this Kufr, Haram or Mustahab? The fact that others don’t believe in this
practice shows that different groups have different opinions.

This leads to the question of, what is the precise definition of Shirk? How do you define worship?
What does “La illaha illa Allah” really mean? What are the conditions of the Kalima? What constitutes
Ibadah? What are the categories of Ibadah?

4) Predestination (Qadr):

The issue of Qadr is one that is is universal to every single religion and has existed in the past,
currently exists, and will continue to exist until the Day of Judgment. It goes as far back as the time of
Adam (AS) and Iblis. Adam (AS) blamed himself for what he did, while Iblis blamed Allah and Qadr.
Iblis argued that if everything is predetermined, then it’s not his fault.

It is one of the mysteries that the human mind is so interested in but we can never truly understand. It
is therefore one of the biggest controversies of the human mind, in which individuals try to reconcile
the power of god with the knowledge of god. If everything is predetermined, do we really have free
will? What is my role as a creation? Are we robots or independent?

As with every controversy, there is a spectrum of opinions regarding Qadr. There are eight recognised
schools in our tradition that try to understand this concept. Every school has left its hallmark on Qadr,
with each school attempting to grapple with the idea of free will vs. Allah’s knowledge.

5) Pillars Of Iman:

This refers to the belief in the Angels, Prophets etc. There is little controversy on this topic, however,
the differences that do exist are issues such as: What are the rights of the Prophets over us? What is
the difference between Prophets and Messengers? How do we know the characteristics of Prophets?
How many books were revealed? How do we view the other books that have been distorted? Can we
read these distorted books? Do Heaven and Hell exist right now? Are miracles a necessary
requirement for prophecy? How does a Prophet prove himself to be one? Are all actions of the Prophet
(SAW) or can they be categorised into different actions?

6) Companions And Righteous People:

This issue involves the biggest divide in Islam, which is the classic divide between the Sunni and Shia.
Sunnis believe that respect for companions is a point of theology and not a point of history. They
believe that Allah loves us when we love them. These companions (Sahaba) are considered to be the
most righteous of the righteous, according to the Sunni Doctrine. Whereas the Non-Sunnis don’t
necessarily believe this to be the case; for example the Shia only accept five people as Sahaba, with
some people even going as far as calling some Sahaba non-Muslims. This leads to the question of what
is the definition of a Sahabi? What are the levels? And what are their rights?

Awliya Saliheen

Another controversy is over righteous people (Awliya). The controversies here revolve around our
understanding of the concept of Awliya? What are their rights? Do they exist? Do they have any
powers? Can we recognise them? Should we be in their presence after their death? Should we invoke
their name? Do they exude blessings?

Some mystical groups really emphasize the importance of having a relationship with a righteous
person/saint (Wali). They believe a Wali can work miracles, whilst some consider the Wali the only
means of salvation. Some on the other hand dismiss this idea and say there is no such thing as saints.

Another issue is that of the family of the Prophet (SAW) (Ahlul-Bayt), do they have special rights over
us? Do they have privileges? What should we do if someone is a descendent of the Prophet?

These are all controversies that are found in other religions e.g. in Christianity where Catholic
Christians believe that in order to become a saint, you need two verified miracles.

7) Leadership In Islam:

Goes back to the day when the Prophet (SAW) died. To this day, we deal with this controversy,
especially after the Arab Spring. What is the role of the Khalifah? What is his authority? Is he humanly
or divinely appointed? Is he fallible or infallible? Do they have the right to propagate theology and
Fiqh or is their office just political? The Shia believe the Imam has both a political and religious role
whereas Sunni’s believe that the Khalifah only has a political role not a theological one.

Another question revolves around what obedience is required to the leaders and whether it is a
theological obligation to obey them. Mainstream Sunni scholars say that Muslims should obey the
rulers based on the evidence of Hadith. This is used in our world to tell Muslims not to rebel against
their rulers. Some scholars will justify fighting the rulers, quoting other Ahadith.

Although the Khalifah was abolished in 1924 there were certain groups that wanted to theologically
bring back the Khilafah. This notion lives on in many people e.g. Hizb at Tahrir, who believe the
Khilafah is requirement to be a good Muslim and they are obsessed with it. The majority however,
including ourselves have moved on and said, it was great to have one but it is not a necessary
requirement of Islam – you can still enter Jannah without a Khilafah.

8) Innovations (Bid’ah):

The issue of Bid’ah goes back 1200 years, but the key point is - who gets to define what it is? Every
traditionalist Muslim group literally says they do not want to follow Bid’ah, none of them say they
want to follow Bid’ah. Yet we are all aware there are many actions and practices that are under
discussion e.g. the Mawlid, where people differ on whether it is Bid’ah or not. The issue here goes back
to what Bid’ah is defined as. If you take a step back and challenge the definition and redefine it in
another way, some consider Mawlid not a Bid’ah. So the controversy is over definitions. No one
publically or willingly wants to do Bid’ah but there is difficulty in defining it. How much leeway is
there for rituals? E.g. Can we do something good in spirit that was not actually done by the prophet? In
order words, something that is within rules of Sunnah however wasn’t done by Prophet (SAW). Other
groups argue that much of what is done today by many people that consider themselves orthodox
Sunnis was not done by Prophet (SAW) e.g. Taraweeh, Khatm al Qur’an Dua, Witr etc.

9) Loyalty To Muslims And Its Opposite (Al-Wala’ Wal-Bara’):

What does it mean to be loyal to the Ummah? What about Bara’ to those who oppose the Ummah? This
concept of Bara’ forms the centrepiece for radical groups who have taken it to an unprecedented level.
Their theology is: ‘You are with us or against us’- If you don’t support us, you are a Kafir. They have a
black and white view of the world with no middle ground. We disagree with this notion. This begs the
question of how do we understand loyalty to the ummah and how do we understand how to cut off
those who oppose Allah (as is said in the Qur'an), what does this Ayah mean?
 1.2 | The Classical Groups
There were hundreds of different theologies that sprang forth over the last fourteen centuries.
However, only a few of those remain in some form or fashion.

1) KHAWARIJ:
This group considered all obligations to be a
necessary part of Islam. Therefore, all major sins
negate one’s faith (i.e. one major sin = non-
Muslim). You are considered a Kafir if you
commit even one major sin and are required to
take the Shahadah to re‐enter Islam.
This group was very militant and fanatical,
constantly rebelling against the Khalifahs while
harassing and killing other Muslims. They
formed at the time of Ali ibn Talib and were the
first group that broke away from the ummah.
They rebelled against the Khilafah and
assassinated Ali (RA) and also attempted to
assassinate Muawiyah.
Over time they split into 27 groups, however only
one of them remained. These were the Ibadiyya
,who fled to Oman. Currently most of them still
reside in Oman where the government is also
Ibadiyya and their current population (mostly in
Oman with some in Algeria) is about 1.5 million
which is very small.
2) MU’TAZILA:
This group has a unique definition of
Tawheed. They believe a major sinner is
neither Muslim nor non-Muslim but is in a
station between the two and that ‘Allah has
nothing to do with our actions’ – i.e. they deny
Qadr. We as Sunnis affirm Qadr. They therefore
say God’s justice entails complete free-will
(Does Allah not know? Or does He know but not
control?) and that there is no forgiveness for a
major sinner who dies without repenting.
This group was very popular in the third
century; the Khalifah at the time belonged to
this group and made it the official state religion.
This group more or less disappeared, with no
sects of them thriving today but continue to
influence other strands of Islam. So although
not existing as a separate group, most of the key
doctrines have been absorbed by the Zaydis,
Ibadis, and Twelver Shi’ites (hence why their
books are still around).

3) ZAYDIS (FIVER):


These are the “Fiver” branch of Shi’ism (five refers to the number of imams). They are in between
Sunnis and Shi’ites in their beliefs. It remains the only group in the entire Ummah in which Sunnis
consider them to be Shi’ite, and Shi’ites considered those people to be Sunni. They believed that any
righteous son of the “Family of the Prophet” can be an Imam; but no supernatural powers were given to
him. The Zaydis therefore don’t believe that the Imam has knowledge of unseen, they do not believe
that there is an all-powerful Imam. They were also respectful of the Companions, including Abu Bakr
and Umar, in that they believe they were legitimate Khilafas but Ali (RA) would have been better.
Zaydis are predominantly in Yemen and only exits in specific tribes and locations there. Their
population is roughly 9.5 million. Houthi rebels are Zaydis. Historically Zaydis used to get along with
the

 Sunnis. They have many similarities with Sunnism and many doctrines can be tolerated by Sunnism.
However, recent sectarian issues in the last 15 years have now led to tension between the two.
 4) ISMA’ILISM:

This group is considered the “Sevener” branch of Shi’ism. There are many branches of this group,
however the 2 primary branches are, the Nizari Aga Khanis and the Musta’li Bohris. Their population
is 15 million and 1 million, respectively.

With regards to the Nizari Aga Khanis, they are the only branch of Shia Islam whose Imam is alive and
known to them and is considered to be god’s manifestation on earth. Going back 600 years, the Ismaili
imam abrogated the Shariah, meaning this group rejects Islamic law. They do not have Haram and
Halal, do not have the ritual of the five prayers, no fasting in Ramadan, no Hajj. They don’t pray, rather
they sing hymns when they are in gatherings. Most of the Muslim world would consider them non-
Muslim, but people who follow this branch consider themselves to be Muslim.

The 2nd branch of the Isma’ilis is the Bohris. They have a separate dress code, hence women wear a
certain style of Hijab. Unlike Aga Khanis, they have Shariah and Fiqh and laws. They fast and pray and
their imam is hidden and not known. Given that they perform the rituals and fast, they can be
considered within the fold of Islam and not outside the fold of Islam).

There is also a group known as Alawis/Nusayris, which are a branch of the Twelver Shia, that is close
to Ismailism. It’s a very small population which has maintained political power in Syria for last 45
years. They do not follow any Shariah, hence have no Haram and Halal etc. and most of Muslim world
does not view them as Muslims.

5) TWELVER SHI’ISM:
This is a Shia group which believes in the
necessity of twelve divinely appointed infallible
(Ma’sum) Imams. They believe the 12 imam is
th
alive and in hiding right now and was
appointed by Allah. They believe he controls all
creation and has knowledge of the unseen etc.
They say he is an all‐powerful human chosen
by Allah. They also don’t give theological
respect to companions who are deemed to have
opposed Ali.
They currently exist all over the Muslim world,
with large concentrations in Iran, Iraq, India,
and Pakistan. Their population is estimated to
be 150 million, comprising roughly 15% of
Ummah, meaning they are currently the largest
sect in the Ummah after Sunnis.
6) SUNNI:
The Sunni sect is the Predominant
theology in the Ummah today. It is
characterized by the six pillars of faith (in
particular: Qadr), respect for the
Companions of the Prophet (SAW), and
affirming the legal status and preservation of
Hadith.
From the classical developments within
Sunnism, there are three that are considered
to be in existence: Athari, Ash’ari, and
Maturidi. The major points of difference
between these three groups are
understanding the Divine names/Attributes
of Allah (SWT), the specifics of Qadr (all
affirm Allah’s predestination of events), and
miscellaneous issues. From these three,
various trends have emerged that deal with
politics (or lack thereof), spirituality,
theology, and legal codes.
1.3 | Causes For Theological Controversies


1.) Neglecting parts of the sacred texts (e.g. hadith) –

This issue existed in the past and still exists today. It is where certain groups only read one verse or
one Hadith and ignore the others, or reject the Ahadith overall. Examples of groups who have rejected
Ahadith include; the Muta’zila, Shia and Kharijis. The problem here is that relying only on the Qur'an,
while ignoring Hadith, can give you a significantly different understanding of Islam. For example, the
Hadith about Qadr is very explicit. However, if you reject the Hadith you reject Qadr. Likewise, you
cannot believe in Hadith and reject Qadr at the same time. This leads to the question of who gets to
decide whether to accept or reject Hadith?

In our times, when looking at the issue of neglecting sacred text, for example in terms of feminism, you
will find that the Hadith have very specific commandments to do with men and women and there are
some concepts of feminism that cannot be accepted in accordance with the Hadith. One would
therefore be left with no choice but to reject some Hadith in order to say that men are women are
equal in all aspects. Hence, this mentality can only be championed if we radically re-interpret Hadith
or flat out reject them.

2.) Misunderstanding of the sacred texts –

What is the proper methodology of understanding Qur’an and Sunnah? Anybody who wants to offer
an interpretation to assert a claim can do so if they try hard enough. For example, one can interpret
the same ayah in the Qur'an to either accept or reject Qadr. So, how do we interpret it? “While Allah
has created you and that which you do?” Surah As- Saffat, 37:96. Meaning you may have the
Hadith/Ayah in front of you, but your understanding of it may be wrong.

3.) Relying on sources other than shari’ah for sacred knowledge -

An example of this is the beginning of the controversy on the names and attributes of Allah. This
controversy originated from Christianity where Christians would debate the relationship of God and
Jesus and the nature of God. This ideology then started to trickle down to the Ummah. TheMu’tazila
relied on Aristotelian Cosmology (aspects of Aristotle’s writings) to understand the Attributes of Allah
(SWT). They viewed these Hellenistic ideas as a fundamental ideology to interpret the Qur’an and
forced opinions from these ideologies onto Qur’an and Sunnah.

We may think this is ridiculous, however we can all sometimes fall into this same trap where we force
societal values onto the Qur’an. We want the Qur'an to be saying something, and then use other
sources to make it say that. We accept certain things because our culture and society endorses it, not
because that is what our religion actually states. We hear and believe what we want to hear and
believe instead of truly following the Qur’an. We fit Islam into what we want rather than fitting our
whims to the Qur’an. For example, how many young Muslims assert that Islam does not have
blasphemy laws?

Hence, because society has taught us certain values different to the values taught by the Qur’an, we
end up using sources other than the Shari’ah to force these two together.

4.) Political strife –

The assassination of Uthman (RA) opened the door to religion fanaticism. The failed coup against the
Umayyad Khalifas opened the door to a pacifistic deterministic sect that believed that“whatever
happens is the will of Allah”. This resulted in extreme determinism - the idea that one does not have
any control or free will. These examples show the effect of politics on ideology.
Politics and theology have never been separated in a society. It is impossible to separate the two.
Political differences have impact on theological world as example religion may be used to try and
justify political aims. We can take the Arab Spring as a modern day example. Sectarianism was created
by the rulers in this instance with religion being used to justify political stances. With people on both
sides of the Arab spring claiming to be fighting for Allah and scholars on both sides using theology for
politics and giving Fatwas to support their political aims.

Another example in our times is ISIS and radical groups. ISIS exists not because its followers read
Qur’an and then went crazy. It was because of political circumstances, bombs upon thousands of
bombs, a three-time invasion, and a dictator that betrayed the people. This chaos breeds only more
chaos; terror was inflicted on them, so now they are casting terror on others. The genesis of ISIS is
political not theological.

5.) Importing External Theological Controversies Into Islam-

Examples of exported theology include that of “the word” (Kalaam). There was a Christian
controversy in Syria which raised questions about the relationship of Jesus to God. Logos refers to “the
word”, and it is the title given to Jesus by Christians. Is “the word” God? Is Logos the Creator or the
creation? Logos translated into Kalaam in Arabic. We believe the Qur’an is the speech of Allah (SWT).
So, is the Kalaam/Qur’an created? This debate was one that was imported from Christianity. The idea
of feminism is another imported controversy which started off in Europe and was then was taken up
by Muslims. The idea of women leading Salah in congregation is also another imported controversy.

When people of other faiths argue about an issue, the argument eventually trickles down to us. It is
not a coincidence that these discussions are happening now in our Ummah. Judaism and Christianity
opened up the door to such an issue recently, and now we are attempting to follow in their footsteps.
The Rasul (SAW) told us that we will follow the ways of those before us, so much so, that if they
entered into a lizard’s hole, we will enter into the lizard’s hole as well.
For example, for the very first time in human history, the Abrahamic religions are agreeing to re-
negotiate on same-sex issues. Homosexuality existed since the beginning of time, but Jews, Christians
and Muslims did not support it. Never would a man of God publicly announce that he has such urges
and then justify it. But now they publicize it, while considering themselves to be religious and
spiritual. Imams who are publicly homosexual are now running mosques. The issues that are being
debated in outer Western Society are now being imported into Islam.

There is a Western notion that tries to separate religion from the public domain. However we believe
religious beliefs have to play a role in the public sphere. For example abortion and prostitution are
illegal in America, the reason being, although technically and from a secular viewpoint these acts are
okay, morality kicks in in these situations and these acts are therefore illegal, with 35% of people in
America arguing against abortion because of religion.

6.) Argumentation -

Excessive debates by people who are not qualified can cause great harm. Argumentation has been
viewed primarily in a negative manner in the Qur'an and Sunnah. Allah (swt) has criticized useless
argumentation, and it can be seen in the Qur'an that argumentation if necessary should be brief and
with intelligence, this can all be seen in the Qur'an where it says:

“And do not argue with the People of the Scripture except in a way that is best, except for those
who commit injustice among them, and say, "We believe in that which has been revealed to us
and revealed to you. And our God and your God is one; and we are Muslims [in submission] to
Him." (29:46)

Argumentation, in person or online, can lead to doubts and serious conflicts. It is not befitting of
Muslims to engage in argumentation, especially if they are not qualified and/or the one whom they
are arguing with is not interested in the truth. The Prophet (SAW) stated, “Never has a nation gone
astray, after have been guided, except that they were prone to excessive argumentation.” (al-Tirmidhi)

Overall, generally speaking, spending hours back and forth on an abstract issue will inevitably lead to
chaos and ideas of no benefit to people.

7.) Geographical climate –

This refers to the dominant ideas, trends, etc. that form the intellectual climate of a region.

Classical Islam

For example, in classical Islam, the city of Kufa was always anti-Umayyad due to tribal and ethnic
reasons. Therefore, it is not a coincidence that Shi’ism arose and was centered in Kufa, as it provided a
theological reason to oppose the Umayyad dynasty.

The city of Basra was known for their remnants of previous civilizations, such as that included
mysticism and asceticism. This provided the basis for Sufism. It is not a coincidence that Sufism arose
from a mystical society and thrived among a people of story-tellers.

In Baghdad, the Abbasids became involved with scientific works of Plato and Aristotle, viewing
themselves as “intellectual”. Therefore, it is logical that Mu’tazilism arose from Baghdad.

Modern Day

It is not a coincidence that Islamic feminism, same sex marriage, etc. are primarily Western
phenomenon. We are susceptible to absorbing the influences of the culture around us.

1.4 | Hadith Of 73
Various Narrations


Every Muslim has heard of this hadith. It is found explicitly in every single book of hadith such as
Tirmidhi, Ibn Majah, Ahmad etc, except Bukhari and Muslim. However, it is still considered authentic
as it’s found in all other collections of hadith. It is also reported by over 10 different Sahaba with
various wording.

1. Version Of Abu Hurayra - Abu Hurayra narrates the Prophet (SAW) said that the ummah
will be divided into 73 groups, but nothing about ‘guided’ or ‘misguided’. [al-Tirmidhi, Abu
Dawud, and Ahmad).

2. Version Of Mu’awiya B. Abi Sufyan (Abu Dawud) & Awf B. Malik (Ibn Majah) &
Anas B. Malik (Ibn Majah) - The Ummah will be divided into 73 groups: 72 will go to Hell,
and one to Heaven, which is ‘the group’ (Al-Jama’ah).

3. Version of Abdullah b. Amr - When the Prophet (SAW) is asked which group, he replies,
“What I am upon, and my Companions” [al-Tirmidhi]

However, it’s important to mention that in Bukhari and Muslim there is mention of one saved and
correct group. Specifically in Bukhari it is mentioned that one group remains on the truth.
 The problem here is that it the Hadith appears to suggest that everyone is going to Hell except one
group and every group claims to be this right group. For this reason some people are seen to reject
this Hadith as they believe it would encourage sectarianism. There is therefore a need to take a fresh
look at this Hadith and to see if there can be an alternative understanding. This Hadith is classified as
Hasan and the jist of it is authentic. In this Hadith the Prophet predicted that people from his Ummah
would split up and that there will be one group that remains on the truth till the day of judgement.

WHAT COMBINES ALL OF THESE OTHER GROUPS?

Firstly, they are all Muslim!
Maybe we do not correctly
understand the intent of the
Hadith. The very first word
that the Prophet (SAW) said
is “Ummatee” (My Ummah).
Therefore, each and every
one of those 73 groups is
part of the Ummah and is
therefore Muslim by the
testimony of the Prophet
(SAW). Anyone who says
they are Kuffar is rejecting
what the Prophet (SAW) said
as he very clearly established
a connection with all of those
people.
All 73 groups are Muslims
and therefore they all have
rights over us: e.g. returning
the salaam, visiting the sick,
attending funerals, accepting
invitations, saying
YarhamukumAllah to the one
who sneezes, etc.
Secondly, although they
are Muslim, they have done
something that has made
them different from the
‘one’ group.
 sect, and what differences
This is an issue of contention
and who gets to define what
another group is? Historically,
people have understood this
to mean a major difference of
theology. For example,
someone who denies Qadr
would be in a different group
and someone who says the
Sahabah are not righteous
would comprise a different
group, etc.
However, the problem is that
some sectarian lines have
now been drawn so
narrowly, E.g. saying Ameen
out loud, placing the hands
on the chest or lower in Salah
etc. that the question of who
gets to define where that line
is, is a big issue.
Thirdly, scholars have
elaborated on what exactly
constitutes iftiraq. In other
words, what makes a sect a
of opinions can be
tolerated?
Minor disagreements do not
make a different group
(firqah). The Sahaba
themselves had a different
understanding of Haram and
Halal. The Sahabah had
different opinions on various
issues. For example, did the
Prophet (SAW) see Allah
(SWT)? The Sahaba did not
consider those who held a
different opinion to be
Kuffar.
Differences in legal
schools/Fiqh were tolerated
and did not create a different
group. Minor differences of a
theological nature were also
tolerated and did not create a
different group either.
How Do We Understand This Hadith?

This Hadith is used to cause contentions and division. It is used by each and every sect to promote
itself and exclude the other sects. Every sect asserts that their members are the rightly guided people
and that the other 72 groups are the misguided ones. They have certainty (Yaqeen) in their hearts that
they are correct, but all the other groups have this same belief.

Some scholars say the Hadith is weak in order to avoid the argumentation and doubt. However, other
scholars certainly believe in its authenticity because there are so many collections and narrators who
narrate this hadith.

Is the majority of the ummah misguided?

No. Many people misunderstand this Hadith to mean that the majority of this Ummah will go to Hell,
which is not an unreasonable assumption if you assume all of the groups are of the same size.
However, this is a huge misunderstanding.

This Hadith does not necessarily mean that 72 out of 73 Muslims will be misguided but rather 72 out
of 73 groups. Each group differs in size; some groups may have millions of followers while some may
only have ten. This suggests that perhaps the 72 misguided groups are in reality a small fraction in
comparison to the 1 rightly guided group. This is the historical reality of our faith. One trend of Islam
has been the dominant/majority trend in which the followers worship Allah (SWT) and believe in His
Messenger, affirm the 5 pillars of faith, respect the Sahabah, etc. This dominant trend being Sunni
Islam which makes up the majority of the Ummah thus suggesting a sign of theological correctness
with 1.4 billion people agreeing to the basic creed - loving Allah, believing in the Prophet (SAW),
believing that the Qur'an and Hadith should both be followed and loving the Sahabah. All other
movements comprise roughly 10-15% of Muslims.

The bulk of the Ummah is rightly guided and not misguided. This is the logical conclusion. It is a
necessary corollary to the principle that Muhammad (SAW) is the final messenger. The notion that the
majority of the Muslims are misguided would necessitate a new Prophet. However, Prophet
Muhammad (SAW) is the last messenger.

The bulk of Ummah has been and always will be rightly guided (in terms of belief and Islamic
concepts) and will go to Jannah. Thinking that the majority of the Ummah is misguided, is
misguidance itself.

So, is everyone else other than our group going to Hell?

The Prophet (SAW) hoped that his Ummah would be 2/3 of Jannah. “I was shown the nations, and some
Prophets passed by with a few followers, and some Prophets passed by with no followers. Then I was
shown a great multitude, and I said, ‘What is this? Is this my ummah?’ It was said, ‘No, this is Musa and
his people.’ It was said, ‘Look at the horizon.’ There I saw a huge multitude filling the horizon. And it was
said, ‘Look there, and there, on the horizons of the sky.’ There was a multitude filling the horizons. It was
said, ‘This is your ummah, and of these, seventy thousand will enter Paradise without being brought to
account.” [Bukhari].

All Muslims of the Ummah will be dealt with mercy and justice by Allah (SWT). These other 72 groups
have a theology that is incorrect enough to potentially send them to Hell. However, even if they go to
Hell, because they are Muslim, they will eventually enter Jannah. Secondly, this sin of deviation is a
problem of theology and will be put on the left side of the scale. However, there will probably be good
deeds to be placed on the right side of the scale. It is possible that these individuals of the “other” sects
have enough good deeds to dissolve the bad deeds and their problem of theology.
It is not necessarily true that each and every member of those other groups is going to Hell. Rather,
the Rasul (SAW) could be speaking in a general manner. For example, when the Prophet said that
whoever drinks alcohol will have Allah’s curse on him, one has to take into account that this person
could repent, and Allah can forgive this person. Maybe these other sects will be forgiven due to their
ignorance. These people may genuinely believe that Allah (SWT) and His Messenger (SAW) want them
to believe and behave in the way that they do; they may genuinely love Allah and His Messenger. Do
not equate these people with individuals who never wanted to obey and worship Allah in the first
place.

Believing in the ‘correct creed’ is what it’s all about then?

When it comes to disputes, it’s important to remember there is a time, place and audience for them to
take place. Not every single dispute is important. The bulk of the Ummah is upon good. Rather than
looking at the differences between each firqa, we should look for commonality. The one who wants
unity will find commonality and the one looking for differences will find them. To define ourselves by
abstract minutiae is foolish. We need to think. There are ways to discuss differences but it is not for
the masses.

Is it going to benefit the British community to split amongst sectarian lines? This is not to say that all
differences are irrelevant, but there is a time and a place and language and methodology, to bring up
each type of differences. There is always prioritisation.

Looking at the Ummah right now, intra‐Sunni disputes, need to be trivialised at the mass level. The
masses do not need to be taught hatred of other people. Instead the focus needs to be on Salah,
avoiding the major sins etc. Not every dispute needs to have an arena, a lot of the intra‐Sunni dispute
are for scholars and do not affect us.

Remember the Ulamah are human beings - their understanding depends on so many factors like living
in a sectarian land for example. People make the Ulamah demigods but they should understand that if
people are taught a certain mindset in one land, the Ulamah from that area will promote that too.
Instead of being full of hatred and anger, let Allah be the judge. We have the right to kindly correct and
oppose, but ultimately, Allah is the ultimate judge who judges actions based on the intention.

It is not befitting that any two people who love the Prophet (SAW) to hate each other so much,
regardless of their differences. Why should we ignore what is common between these two? The one
who celebrates the mawlid and the one who doesn’t, both do it because of the love they have for the
prophet. How can you hate someone who loves the prophet and Allah? Also, we must never assume
that we are better than another Muslim. This arrogance is a great sin. What if we have other
deficiencies in our religion, whether it is in our theology, ibadaat (ritual worship), and akhlaaq
(character) that are more severe in the Eyes of Allah (Swt)? As Ibn Taymiyyah said, the people of
Alhul Bidah may be higher than person of Ahlul Sunah- due to his Taqwa and his righteousness.
Therefore, we can never judge another’s person. If you think you are better than another Muslim, then
automatically, you are not better than that Muslim.

An important note to point: The phrase that they will go to Jahannam does not mean that every person
who is a member of another firqa will necessarily go to Jahannam. We firmly believe as a rule of our
religion and interpretation of the texts that when Allah swt promises a reward, the reward is
mandatory. But when Allah (SWT) threatens a punishment, it is not mandatory and our hope and
desire is that mercy will prevail and there will be no punishment.
1.5 | Relevance Of Classical Divisions:

Certainty Versus Relevance


Knowledge can change your level of certainty. And 99.9% of the time, it goes down.

Every theological school has its own spectrum of opinions


Every theological opinion has the potential to change over time. For example, even the Qur’anic
interpretations can change and be fine-tuned. For example, Allah (SWT) says that man was created
from Alaq. Almost all classical tafseers translated Alaq to be a clot of blood. Modern science has told us
that there is no clotting of blood involved in the development of humans. However, we cannot change
meaning of the word. The original meaning of Alaq was to hang something; Mu’alaq is something that
is suspended. A foetus/embryo is indeed suspended in the womb.

Context dictates relevance

What context will change theology? When saving a drowning person, the individual’s Aqeedah is not
relevant. It is necessary to save the human life. However, if you find out that the person leading Salah
curses the Sahabah, you would would choose not to pray behind him anymore.
It is not in the best
interest of the Ummah that we hate other groups of Muslims or constantly break into different
Masajid based on tiny differences (e.g. praying 8 versus 20 rakahs in Taraweeh, mawlid celebrations,
etc.).

Books are not people/Modern lines being redrawn...

Sects are being redrawn. The modern Ummah no longer concerned about Allah’s attributes as
societies now have different priorities. Questions now arise about the LGBTQ movement, allowing
your daughters to leave the house without Hijab, premarital relationships, etc. Society has already
divided us, so it does not make sense to further divide our Ummah based on small distinctions.
Therefore, context plays a major role in
sectarian issues.

Circle Of Cooperation

Looking at the Western context in modern

times, we need to understand the different
circles of cooperation. How open or how
restrictive our circle of cooperation is depends
on the context.

The smallest circle would be for something like

teaching theology to our children. We have
every right to be particular in this aspect since
we want orthodoxy and the true Sunnah of the
Prophet (SAW). We are not going to
compromise on these principles because we
want our children to learn the Deen correctly.

However, it would be best to expand this circle when it comes to building a Masjid or school. We
cannot prevent someone from another group from praying in a certain Masjid because ultimately the
Masjid belongs to Allah. We should allow for healthy differences of opinions even if we do not agree
with them.
For larger issues, such as fighting Islamaphobia, standing with Palestine, etc., it is appropriate to
expand our circle of cooperation even further. We can (and should) work with Muslims of different
Aqeedah or even non-Muslims on these issues. Just because we cooperate with an individual on one
issue does not mean we agree with that person on every matter.

Overall, there are various circles of cooperation, at times it is narrowed and others it is expanded.
There are so many examples in the Seerah where the Prophet (SAW) got the pagans to help him.
There is space for cooperation - the problems arise when you have narrow‐minded, sectarian
individuals. You will always find sectarian minded theologians of every group, who are bigoted and
preach hatred of the other. The advice to us is to leave sectarian minded individuals and instead find
people in the Firqa we are comfortable with, who are level headed and looking at the benefit of the
Ummah. These are the people who can truly benefit us. Whoever wants to find differences will find
them, whoever wants to find unity will find unity.

Theological lines are being re‐drawn in the modern world. Those opposed to Islamic principles don’t
care about the Mawlid or minutiae of Qadr. If you don’t agree with same sex marriage or want to live a
chaste life, you are all part of one Firqa in their eyes. People no longer care about which branch you’re
in, they look at your ethics and values and to them, we are all in the same group.

Our kids are not debating Allah’s Attributes but they are debating Allah’s existence! They question the
role of religion, ethics, virtue, morality and even the ethics of the Prophet (SAW). These are very
different questions compared to what the older generations grew up with.
Module

2
Faith And Reason
Module 2: Faith and Reason
2.1 Atheism: An Introduction:

Atheism is a recent phenomenon that originated from France in the 17th century. A French catholic
priest was the first to communicate the idea in writing. People before him might have critiqued own
religious traditions but there are no records of anyone saying there is no god and no evidence for it
being agreed academically. Greek gods were mocked by their philosophers but not the supreme god’s
existence. This paved the way for future thinkers to come along.

Atheism is the product of many social factors:

3) The scientific revolution

that propounded the illusion
1) The enlightenment (the
2) The reformation critiques that we can explain
notion that the mind itself
of Catholicism and of the everything rationally and
can find truth without
notion of religion itself scientifically instead of
divine guidance)
“myths and legends of god”
which gave the impetus to
go further and question the
existence of god.

The most important thinkers that helped popularize what eventually became atheism were: David
Hume (d. 1776), Voltaire (d. 1778), Immanuel Kant (d. 1804) and Thomas Paine (d. 1809).

Voltaire:

Voltaire lived in a Catholic society and wrote a play mocking the Prophet. Outwardly the figures were
Muslim but the critique was actually against Christianity. In the 1720s he would not have been able to
publicly criticise Christianity as that would have been socially awkward so he used Islam as an outer
shell. The dialogue was all a critique of Catholicism. This was so obvious that the Catholic clergy
protested against the play due to it being against Catholicism. He was dismissive of all religions and
rituals.
 Immanuel Kant:

Immanuel Kant was a German philosopher who was extremely critical of church hierarchy and
anything spiritual in nature. He was considered one of the movers and shakers of the time. He Argued
that Africans are predisposed to slavery, and therefore white people were justified in treating them
like slaves. He is considered one of the greatest scholars of atheism.

Thomas Paine:

Thomas Paine (d. 1809) stated “My mind is my own church.” This was a precursor saying I am not a
part of any organised religion. He was one of those who began the trend of “spiritual but not
religious”. These mentalities came about during the post reformation and post renaissance period in
Europe. If atheism is present in any eastern land, it is generally a small phenomenon and is usually
imported by individuals who studied in the west.

Up to this point in time none of these people could offer alternative explanations of how we are here
or why we are here.

Percy Shelley:

Percy Shelley (d. 1822) wrote the very first work on atheism entitled The Necessity of Atheism. He
was the husband of Mary Shelley who authored Frankenstein. 1822 is quite recent in human history.
This was the first time a publication of this sort was written in the English language. In 1822 you
would not get burned at the stake like you would have been in 1722 or 1622 but you will be
ostracized from society for propagating these sorts of ideas. He was expelled from Oxford and people
shunned him. Society choked his social life and he died a miserable life alone. Although he could
legally be an atheist, social pressure meant you in effect lost your social life.

Ludwig Feuerbach:

The German philosopher Ludwig Feuerbach (d. 1872) was the first to scientifically and rationally
study the concept of religion. He was an atheist going beyond the cliché of there is no god. He argued
that “theology was anthropology”. Theology is the study of God while anthropology is the study of
culture and man. So, he argued that the study of God is the study of man. That is, if you study what any
society says about its God, you will understand more about that society than you understand about
God. Feuerbach influenced an entire generation of atheists such as Karl Marx, Schopenhauer and
Friedrich Nietzsche.

In this next stage of atheism, people spoke of rationalising the understanding of religion and
determining why would people create a god when there is none.

Karl Marx:

Political philosophers had their own ideas, arguing for systems of governance that don’t have any
morality. Karl Marx, the founder of communism, argued that no one should own anything. He believed
that you should not have any property and that everything should be shared between everyone. Such
a system would even endorse sharing your wife! Such a life would be worse than the life of an animal
since even animals have property and fight for their mates. It is impossible to be human and live a
Marxist life.
Later philosophers toned down this mentality and made their own version of political systems based
on pseudo‐Marxism. These systems took over large areas of the world like Russia and China, giving
rise to atheism.

Friedrich Nietzsche:

Nietzsche helped to popularize atheism. He wrote one of the most blasphemous texts of his time,
saying that God is dead. The story, entitled The Gay Science (The Enlightened Science), portrays a
mad man who enters a town with a torch looking for God. Everyone gathers around him and mocks
him, telling him to go find God. The story in reality portrays the madman as the sane individual and
the rejecters of God as the lunatics.

Nietzsche conveys the message that by destroying God, you have destroyed yourselves. The crime of
killing God is so great that there is no forgiveness for it because there is no one to seek forgiveness
from. What is left of reality? Who will tell you what is the truth? What is morality? There is no purpose
of existence if you eliminate God from your paradigm. Nietzsche eventually went mad himself taken
away by men in white coats to an asylum where he died.

Main arguments of New Atheists:

New atheism argues that society shouldn’t tolerate religion and that it should try its best to eliminate
religion as a whole. This strand has taken over as the most dominant strand of atheism. The
fundamentalist atheist militia is just as bigoted and just as dangerous as the groups whom they claim
to oppose.

The three most prominent figures of this movement:

1. Christopher Hitchens

2. Sam Harris

3. Richard Dawkins

New atheism claims that religion is the most potent and sinister evil of mankind. The presumption of
western dominance and superiority is quite evident in new atheism. They believe that anyone who
wants to be successful needs to get rid of religion.

1. The ‘evils’ of religion:

They argue that when analysing history, one realizes that the worst events in human history have
always been due to religion. Sam Harris wrote a book entitled “The End of Faith” in which he begins
with a detailed account of the 9/11 suicide bomber’s last day which sets the tone emotionally for the
rest of the book. It is convenient to include this, to show what the Muslims have done but not mention
any of the below with WW1 and WW2. One horror story after another is told to show how evil religion
is.

Harris uses the existence of evil to appeal to emotions. How can any God exist when that child died of
cancer or that tsunami killed those people? The existence of God is negated due to the existence of
pain and suffering. Throughout the book, he works his way through all his issues with religion.
Ironically, he writes “some propositions are so dangerous that it may even be ethical for killing people
in them” saying it is morally permissible to kill people for what they believe.

In refutation:

a) They are blinded in rage and are becoming the same ‘bigots’ that are fighting. To believe that
science and rational thought will save us from evil is naïve. Consider the victims of death
camps, atomic bombs, and weapons manufacturers. The devisers of these horrors are are not
doing it for religion but are instead scientists ‐ highly rational and logical. E.g.
Hiroshima/Nagasaki resulted in over 1 million killed based on the work of logical and rational
scientists. Those acts were not based on religion.

b) The assumption that they are better and the pinnacle of human society is based on arrogance
and simply not true. England was the largest coloniser in history. Atheists have a very racist
belief system justifying colonization by saying they are better than the others, therefore they
were colonising other countries for their own good. This is the so called ‘White man's burden’ ‐
the mentality that they have to colonize to spread the ‘good’. This is still seen in modern day
although no longer couched in the same language about religion. Now it is about democracy,
human rights, freedom, atheism...justifying what they are doing in the name of spreading their
values.

c) The existence of evil. Christopher Hedges wrote a book entitled “I Don’t Believe In Atheists” in
which he says “those who insist that we are morally advancing as a species are deluding
themselves.” He argues that hope is more reassuring than reality and that all the signs in our
present world point to the coming of anarchy and massive dislocation of populations. Factors
such as climate change, pollution, overpopulation, and wars depict that humanity is actually in
regression.

d) They stereotype and justify barbaric practice towards the ‘other’; portraying themselves as the
pinnacle due to a need to feel superior. They are trying to dehumanise us, and they are using
this to support political policies. There is an amazing picture that shows how all of this talk
merges together (A picture of a young Afghani girl who was attacked by the Taliban and who
had acid thrown on her face) on a cover of the Time magazine is used to justify their politics
and invasion by saying that we are invading to save people from evil Muslim values.

2. Lack of Empirical Proof:

Dawkins remains a staunch advocate of this argument. Such individuals say they want a scientific
experiment proving the existence of God. Just like you can’t prove the existence of Zeus, you can’t
prove the existence of the God of Abraham. Carl Sagan gave the example of an invisible dragon that
lives in your attic but leaves no trace. When asked to prove its existence, the response would be
similar to, “But the dragon is invisible, its noise is a wave that we can’t understand, and we can’t feel
its warmth because it’s a special kind of fire”.

How can we support a religion that supports so much evil?

Theodicy attempts to justify the existence of evil even though God exists. Scholars have talked about
this issue for thousands of years. As Muslims who follow the Qur’an and Sunnah, we believe there can
be several reasons behind the existence of pain and suffering:
 1. To combat evil with mercy
and compassion.
‐ You need some suffering to bring
about compassion. You need some
evil to bring about good.
‐ If there is no hunger, how can
there be generosity?
‐ If there is no pain, how can there
be compassion?
‐ If there were no poor people,
how can you give charity?
4. Allah (swt) can put us
through pain and suffering to
test our faith
‐ People who question the
wisdom of suffering want this
world to be a Paradise, and the
main premise of the atheist is,
“Why isn’t this world a
Paradise?”
‐ We need to understand that
this world is a stepping‐stone to
Paradise
‐ “Do people think that they will
be left alone because they say:
"We believe," and will not be
tested?” Surah Al‐‘Ankabut, 29:2
7. The result of our own sins
‐ Evil is not ascribed to Allah. In a
hadith in Sahih Bukhari, the
Prophet (SAW) said, “Evil is not
ascribed to You (Allah)”.
‐ “Evil has appeared on land and
sea because of what the hands of
men have earned (by oppression
and evil deeds, etc.), that Allah
may make them taste a part of
that which they have done, in
order that they may return (by
repenting to Allah, and begging
His Pardon).” Surah Ar‐Rum,
30:41
2. To reconnect us with Allah (swt) as
we come to understand our own
reality of existence.
‐ “Then why, when Our punishment
came to them, did they not humble
themselves? But their hearts became
hardened, and Satan made attractive
to them that which they were doing.”
Surah Al‐An’am, 6: 43.
‐ Pain and suffering revives our
spirituality and renews our faith.
‐ You are closest to Allah during times
of hardship and suffering. ‘Any evil
that brings you closer to Allah, is not
an evil, it is a blessing in disguise’.
5. Every single pain/suffering/evil
results in a good. There is no such
thing as pure evil. If we have the
right attitude and perception this
will be evident. For example:
‐ In the story of Musa and Khidr in
Surah Al‐Kahf, Allah (swt) mentions 3
stories.
‐ In each story, some kind of calamity
occurs (i.e. the boat is destroyed, the
child is killed, and the discovery of
gold is delayed). However, the end
results clarify why such evil
happened.
‐ We sometimes don’t understand the
wisdom of evil until later,
emphasizing why we need to trust
Allah (swt) and His Divine Decree.
3. To raise our ranks and to
forgive our sins by combatting
evil with patience.
‐ We don’t know the end result of
the child who died.
‐ On the Day of Judgment, the
ones who endured hardship with
patience will see their reward,
and will wish they had more
calamities in the dunya.
‐ The Prophet (SAW) said that
when Allah (swt) loves a person,
He tests them. Such tests
ultimately elevate our status.
6. Evil can show us our own
mortality, the existence of a
higher being, and how God is
above us:
‐ Pain and suffering are
disciplinary reminders that we
are mortals.
‐ Allah (swt) created life and
death in order to test us in terms
of our deeds.
‐ We are not gods, but rather, we
are at the mercy of the Creator.
8.Opportunity for moral growth
and spiritual fulfilment
‐ In the process, you become pure
by combatting evil and coming
closer to Allah and achieving a land
of no evil, a place of Dar‐u‐Salam.
When prominent atheists deny the
existence of God based on the
existence of evil, there remains a
huge logical fallacy. The existence
of evil has absolutely nothing to do
with the existence of God. Rather,
it deals with an attribute of God
and trying to understand how God
deals with His creation. If we don’t
understand an attribute of God,
that does not deny His existence.
We believe in a world where there is no evil, no harm, no suffering, this is Paradise. The way to obtain
it is to combat evil in this world. People are hasty ‐ they want Paradise here and now, they want the
perfect world right now, and if they don’t get it, they reject the teachings of Allah or even any religion.

2.2 Primary Arguments of Western Theists Argument from Design (or

Teleological):
This is the most obvious and self‐evident argument. Both Socrates and Plato had versions of this
argument in addition to St. Thomas Aquinas. The Scottish philosopher William Paley in
“Watchmaker’s Argument” made this theory the most famous. Paley states that if one is walking on
the beach and comes across a clock (in those times, clocks were very big with many gears and
pulleys), one would logically conclude there must be a watchmaker. Even if one does not see any
footprints, the existence of the watch automatically necessitates the existence of the watchmaker.

As Muslims, we believe that nothing happens by itself, conveyed by “la hawla walaa quwata illa
billah” (There is no change nor might/power to execute change except when Allah wills).

This kind of argument was resurrected with the ‘Fine‐Tuned Universe’ argument, stating that because
we exist, God exists. The beauty of the creation and the existence of creation is enough proof that
there is a Creator. Stephen Hawking, an atheist, says that the laws of science contain many
fundamental numbers and that the value of these numbers seems to be very finely adjusted to allow
for the development of life. For example, there are constants in the fields of chemistry, biology, and
physics. We don’t know why the numbers are so precise and why certain ratios are always the same.
Factors such as the weak force, strong force, entropy, density, and gravity allow for complete harmony
in our universe. Life could not exist without this perfect combination.

The proofs of the existence of a Higher Being are so numerous and varied that it is illogical and
nonsensical to say there is no God. The world around us cannot have come from nowhere and must
have had an all‐powerful creator. As we discover more about science, we can make this argument
even more sophisticated.

Argument of Morality:
Nietzsche denied morality, if you deny god there is no morality. There is no logical or rational
explanation for this morality to exist; it points towards a higher being.

Immanuel Kant argued that the existence of morality indicates there must be some kind of higher
being as well. Morality is universal; for example, lying, cheating, stealing, and rape are all considered
evil. Even a professional thief does not want his own property to be stolen, indicating that his own
morality still exists. Why does mankind agree on these principles?

C.S. Lewis was a very devout Christian, and his entire Chronicles of Narnia series is an introduction to
the teachings of Christianity to brainwash children. The beliefs of Christianity are strongly echoed by
Aslan being the son of a great king who is killed by evil witches and later resurrected. Redemption is
also very prevalent in this series. C.S. Lewis also argued in his work Mere Christianity, “...conscience
reveals to us a moral law whose source cannot be found in the natural world, thus pointing to a
supernatural Lawgiver”.
Argument from Consciousness:
There is no ‘natural’ reason for humans to have a consciousness greater than animals. The very fact
that we are the only species that has a level of awareness and consciousness at a completely different
level than animals indicates the existence of a Higher Being. We can be conscious of our
consciousness, we can analyse our situation and knowledge. We can have meta‐cognition ‐ knowledge
of our knowledge.

Argument from Higher Purpose (Or ‘Desire’ Or ‘Transcendence’):

All humans desire something beyond sensual pleasures – a higher goal. Even when humans have all
that they need, they still wish to find more purpose or meaning in their lives.

Reinhold Niebuhr Reinhold Niebuhr wrote, ‘‘Nothing worth doing is completed in our lifetime,
therefore, we are saved by hope. Nothing true or beautiful or good makes complete sense in any
immediate context of history; therefore we are saved by faith. Nothing we do, however virtuous, can
be accomplished alone; therefore, we are saved by love. No virtuous act is quite as virtuous from the
standpoint of our friend or foe as from our own; therefore, we are saved by the final form of love,
which is forgiveness.’’

He argues that because we want a purpose in life, there must be a Higher Being who implanted that
desire in us. The pleasure and joy you experience by helping others is more beneficial than the actual
help you offered, ultimately imbuing your life with meaning.

Arguments from Beauty:

The fact that the world is full of ‘beauty’, and that we as humans recognize this as ‘beauty’, is a sign
that there is a Creator who intended this world to be a world of beauty, and then gave us cognition
and awareness to appreciate that beauty. How can we recognize beauty if we were conglomerates of
chance?

 Plotinus (~ 240 CE) considered God to be the ultimate perfection of ‘Good’ and ‘Beauty’.
 Augustine of Hippo said, “Who made these beautiful changeable things, if not one who is
beautiful and unchangeable?
 Richard Swinburne explains that God has a reason to create a beautiful world rather than an
ugly one. The fact that the world is beautiful is evidence for God’s existence.
 The Prophet (SAW) said in a hadith, “Verily, Allah is Beautiful and He loves beauty.”

Other Arguments:
1) The Ontological Argument: God exists by definition.
2) Pascal’s wager (The Pragmatic Argument): If there is a God and you believe in Him, then you
stand to win and atheists stand to lose. If there is no God and you believe there is one, you don’t
lose anything. It is thus always more beneficial to believe in a God.
3) The Cosmological argument: look at the world and derive that it is created.
4) The Existence of Miracles: As Muslims, we can agree with this argument. People who deny
existence of God will deny the existence of miracles.

These arguments would not be used (generally speaking) to try and convince someone of God’s
existence ‐ i.e. you wouldn’t use this on an atheist.
2.3 Primary Quranic Arguments
These are simple and straightforward. Allah does not address atheists in the Quran as much as He
does other groups (because no one denied there was a God when the Quran was first revealed;
atheism was an unheard phenomenon for a long time). The Quran caters to Pagans, Christians and
Jews. More groups were hedonistic rather than atheist (theologically) – atheism is a very modern
phenomenon. Atheism for us is more a spiritual problem than an intellectual one (rejection of god is
an indicator of spiritual problem or arrogance rather than intellectual problem as there is more than
enough evidence which points to a higher being or creator). Also you cannot debate with arrogant
people or those who have already made up their minds. The Quran doesn’t want us to waste our time ‐
our religion is a pragmatic religion. With great difficulty, you can find maybe one or two verses on
atheism in the Qur’an. Showing:

A) It didn’t happen back in the day

B) These people have a spiritual issue, not an intellectual one. You cannot claim that something
as amazing and magnificent as life is coming by chance. We don’t live our lives without cause
and effect (e.g. if furniture is moved ‐ you won’t believe it happened by chance).

1. The Creation Itself:

This argument is the most obvious. By looking at the world around us, we find that cause and
effect is everywhere. Studies show that even a new-born has this innate sense of cause and effect
and will turn towards a light source. If your wallet goes missing – you thought tends to be that
someone could have taken it. So this is all cause and effect. In effect saying that we have no creator
are words with no meaning and no intellectual integrity. It doesn’t make sense for something as
beautiful and magnificent as life to have no creator.

“Were they created from nothing? Or are they themselves the creators?”

(Surah Al–Tur, 52:35)

This is the most explicit verse on atheism, Allah explicitly asks us, where do you think you came from? Are
they themselves the creators of themselves? There are only three logical arguments to our existence:

1. We came from nothing

2. We came from ourselves
3. We came from someone higher and more
powerful than ourselves.
The notion that we came from nothing was so nonsensical and illogical for the bulk of human history,
that Allah asks the question and does not even answer it. It is the height of arrogance to think you
came from nothing. This is the fundamental pillar of atheism. One simple phrase of ours destroys atheism
– la hawla wa la quwwata illa billa - nothing changes, and nothing has the power to change except from Allah.

Where does the power to evolve come from? What is the source of that?
The very power to change is coming from Allah.

“This is the creation of Allah! So then show me...what have those besides Him created?”

(Surah Luqman, 31:11.)

This verse was aimed towards the polytheists, but it can also be applied to atheists.

“So take a good look! Do you find any flaw? Then look again, and again...and your eyes will
become tired...” (Surah Al-Mulk, 67:3-4)

Allah (swt) challenges us to look for any imperfections in His creation. We see that everything is in
harmony, and that there are no flaws in His creation.

2. The Prophets and Revelations and Miracles:

The Prophets lived and existed and preached their messages. The message of the Prophet (SAW) is
truly an amazing message. It doesn’t make any sense for an illiterate shepherd in Mecca to come forth
with the teachings that he came with. In the middle of desert, he preached to his people not to worship
idols and that lineages are irrelevant (considering that he was the grandson of the most prestigious
noble Arab man, it was an amazing message). Every society felt that it was the best (e.g the Greeks,
Chinese, Indians, and Europeans). However, the Prophet (SAW) said that all of you are from Adam.

The amazing success of the early Muslims and the collapse of the Persian Empire are truly miracles. It
was the superpower that Rome itself was fighting for hundreds of years. Kisra tore the Prophet’s
(SAW) letter; the Prophet said, just as he tore my letter up, Allah will tear up his kingdom. And thus,
one of the greatest civilizations disappeared between a morning and an evening. By whom? Illiterate
Bedouin Arabs who did not have the weapons, mechanisms, or armies to take on such a force. Allah
gave them victory. Their success spread to Damascus, Jerusalem, and Egypt; the quick expansion of
Islam was a gift from Allah to the Sahhaba. 4000 people entered Egypt and conquered it in the span of
a few weeks. There was one victory after another even though this generation of Muslims was not
really technologically advanced.

Usually, when an army conquers a land, the invaded people will hate the ways of their conquerors,
preferring the ways of their ancestors instead. Islam is the only exception. It is one of Allah’s miracles
that the invaded people prefer the religion of its Muslim conquerors.

One of the proofs is the proof from the prophets and miracles. These religions have the most success.
Wherever Islam went, it remained. Main miracle of the Quran is the SOMETHING of the written word.
However the Quran is not a book of science.

In addition, the Qur’an itself is a living miracle. Simply listening to Qur’an soothes our hearts even
though we may not understand it. Even non-Arabs can understand how powerful the message is when
listening to Qur’an. The preservation of Qur’an is also a miracle in addition to the ease of memorizing
it.

You cannot prove the miracles to others, believers accept them. Do you believe the Prophet went on
Israa and Miraj? The Quraysh saw miracles with their own eyes, which are different to those who did
not see them.

3. The Fitra:

“This is the Fitra that Allah created mankind upon”

(Surah Al-Rum, 30:30)

What is the role of the Fitra according to the Qur’an and Sunnah?

Allah (swt) tells us that He created mankind upon Fitra.

The Prophet (SAW) said, “Every child is born upon the Fitra. Then, his parents convert him into
a Christian, Jew, or Sabian.” [Agreed Upon].

The Fitra is a knowledge and perception that Allah has given everybody. Children are born with
inherent knowledge and cognition – not mental; it is another perception (spiritual DNA). Your parents
corrupt the Fitra, which changes you. Islam is complementary to the Fitra.

Ibn Taymiyyah said the fitrah is fertile soil. Ibn Taymiyyah felt that the Fitra in another faculty that
can be just as important, if not more, than the intellect. Just like vision and hearing, the Fitra is another
faculty that Allah has blessed us with and embedded inside every human being. The Fitra gives us a
kind of conscience, intuition, and spirituality. We naturally feel guilty when we commit a sin or harm
another human.

The proof that Allah exists is already embodied in the child. The ‘aql (intellect) has a limited role, and
we cannot extrapolate the mind’s understanding to everything. Atheists took reason and rational to be
the solution for every problem; however, this mentality is incorrect because we also need love, truth,
mercy, and emotion to solve certain problems.
 No society in history embraced atheism. Even the most primitive religions and tribes in the middle of
the jungle believed in God. So, why does mankind feel the need to worship, even if it be at an altar?
Because the Fitra directs us to believe in God. The one who rejects Allah has chosen to destroy his
Fitra (the Arabic word kafara means to cover, just like the disbeliever covers up his Fitra). With a
covered Fitra, you destroy the spiritual heart that recognizes the signs around you.

If we ask converts why they converted, they would tell different stories of what made them do so.
These are actually catalysts - the real reason is that their Fitra remained pure and when they heard
Islam, there was a subconscious connection.
The knowledge is spiritual not intellectual. We believe as Muslims, the qalb (heart) has some
perception.
Allah says in the Qur’an: Their eyes are not blinded, their hearts in their chest are blinded.
The perception of the qalb is the Fitra which has cognition i.e. it can think. This perception is beyond
the brain and six senses and so some would find it strange.
Firasa (insight): Comes from the Fitra. The more corrupted the Fitra, the more difficult it will be to
embrace Islam. To see perfect uncorrupted Fitra, look at Prophet (SAW) for the first 40 years of his
life. There were no commandments, so why did the Prophet live his life in the way that he did? He was
truthful, trustworthy etc.

“We shall never believe in you till we see Allah plainly. But you were seized with a thunderbolt
(lightning) while you were looking.” (Surah Al-Baqarah, 2: 55.)

Bani Israel speaking to Musa (AS).

“And those who expect not for a Meeting with Us say: ‘Why are not the angels sent down to us, or why
do we not see our Lord?’ Indeed they think too highly of themselves, and are scornful with great
pride.” (Surah Al-Furqan, 25:21).

Who do you think you are to demand something from Allah? Atheists have arrogance inside of
them, and they have gone very far astray.

“And even if We opened to them a gate from the heaven and they were to continue ascending
thereto, they would surely say: Our eyes have been dazzled. Nay, we are a people bewitched”. (Surah
Al-Hijr, 14-15)

Even if they see the clear ayat, they would reject them due to their arrogance. An atheist was
asked, suppose you were to see God, would you then believe? He replied that he still wouldn’t
believe. Rather, he would think he is delusional and merely imagining. This is exactly what Allah
(swt) says in Surah al-Hijr. There is no evidence that will satisfy these sceptics.

“And how many a sign in the heavens and the earth they pass by, while they are averse therefrom.”
(Surah Yusuf, 12:105)

The one who has pure Fitra will understand the signs around him/her while the one who has a
dead Fitra cannot understand the signs properly.

This same concept can also apply to the state of the hypocrites and atheists. Atheists are
hypocrites because they demand proof that will not satisfy them anyway. The hypocrites will ask
on the Day of Judgment:

"Were we not with you?" The believers will reply: "Yes! But you led yourselves into temptations, you
looked forward for our destruction; you doubted (in Faith); and you were deceived by false desires,
2.4 | The
till the Role ofofIntellect
Command into
Allah came Islam:
pass. And the chief deceiver (Satan) deceived you in respect of
Allah." (Surah Al-Hadid, 57:14)

Deep down inside, the atheists and hypocrites knew that they were deluding themselves.
The Qur’ān asks us to ‘think’, ‘ponder’, and ‘reflect’. But in what context?

One of the hallmarks of western civilization from the beginning has been obsession with the human
mind. This is a uniquely western notion, not an eastern one. The western world always emphasized
rationality and thought, claiming that the mind is supreme and can solve any problem.

Muslims practice their faith more than other faiths. Other faiths will never be at peace if they are in
sync with the Fitra. Muslims believe (in the Athari / Taymiyya strand) that Allah indeed does praise
intellect but for limited roles and capacities. It is not praised unconditionally; rather, the intellect has a
use and limited function just like every other faculty such as vision and hearing. The eyes can see a
certain distance if there is light, but people are foolish to think they can see in the dark. One may have
the strength to lift an object, but he or she does not have the strength to lift mountains. Our faculties
have limits, so trying to go beyond such limits is foolish. So why do we assume the mind does not have
a limit?

The Qur’an and Sunnah praise the ‘aql conditionally, not unconditionally!

Role of Intellect in Islam

There are four main categories concerning the role of intellect in Islam:

1. To rationally prove that there is One All-Powerful Creator who alone is worthy of worship.
(The first part of the Shahada - La illaha illa Allah):

The atheist will be challenged to believe in the existence of God while the polytheists will be
challenged to believe in One God.

“Do they not contemplate within themselves? Allah has not created the heavens and the earth
and what is between them except in truth and for a specified term. And indeed, many of the
people, in [the matter of] the meeting with their Lord, are disbelievers.” Surah Al-Rum, 30:8

“Uff to you and to what you worship instead of Allah . Then will you not use reason?" Surah Al-
Anbiya, 21:67
2. To rationally examine the life and teachings of the Prophet (SAW). (The second part of the
Shahada - Muhammadar rasoolullah):

This involves thinking about the life and times of Prophet (SAW) in order to prove that he was truly
inspired by Allah (swt).

“Then do they not give thought? There is in their companion [Muhammad] no madness. He is not
but a clear warner.” Surah Al-A’raf, 7:184

“Say, "I only advise you of one [thing] - that you stand for Allah, [seeking truth] in pairs and
individually, and then give thought." There is not in your companion any madness. He is only a
warner to you before a severe punishment.” Surah Saba’, 34:46.

In this ayah, Allah says that he want us to stand up for His sake either singly or in pairs. So, we either
act individually or in groups to be sincere to Allah. When we study the Seerah, we realize the Prophet
(SAW) was indeed a sincere man.

“Say, "If Allah had willed, I would not have recited it to you, nor would He have made it known to
you, for I had remained among you a lifetime before it. Then will you not reason?" Surah Yunus,
10:16.

Once you rationally accept the shahada, it becomes blind submission and faith. One of the opening
verses in Quran is “…those who believe in the Unseen”.
 3. To ponder over the creation and marvel at Allah’s power:

We think and reflect over the creation of Allah in order to increase our Iman, Khushoo’, and Taqwa.

“Who remember Allah while standing or sitting or [lying] on their sides and give thought to the
creation of the heavens and the earth, [saying], "Our Lord, You did not create this aimlessly;
exalted are You [above such a thing]; then protect us from the punishment of the Fire.” Surah
Ali-Imran, 3:191

4. To ponder over the revelation and understand it:

We use our ‘aql to understand Allah’s revelation of Qur’an and Sunnah realizing that Islam will never
contradict rationality.

“Indeed, We have sent it down as an Arabic Qur'an that you might understand.”

Surah Yusuf, 12:2

Dangers of considering an ambiguous rational opinion over explicit Scripture:

1. An actual clash can never occur between true reason and explicit Scripture. If there is a clash, then we
have misunderstood something.
2. ‘Rationality’ does not have a precise definition, or a consistent methodology, or an external
verification mechanism. In fact, experience shows that much of what is deemed ‘rational’ is subjective
and faulty. Philosophers don’t necessarily agree with one another. They would never have become
famous if they had agreed with other philosophers.
3. Opposes the reality of ‘submission’ (Islam) to Allāh.
Even if something is supra-rational, we must submit. There is no such thing as an ‘irrational’
command in Islam. Ibn Taymiyyah gives an example of a man who goes to town asking for the mufti.
A guide takes him to the mufti in order to ask a question. The mufti answers him from the Qur’an and
Sunnah. Then the guide tells the outsider to listen to him instead because he was the one who guided
him to the Mufti and is therefore superior.

The Mufti represents the Qur’an and Sunnah while the guide represents the mind. Is the mind
superior because it leads you to Qur’an? No, just because the mind has acknowledged the Qur’an and
Sunnah, it doesn’t make it more knowledgeable. The fact that you are going to the mufti indicates that
you are not more knowledgeable than the mufti.
Module

3
Islam And The Other
 Module 3: Islam And The Other:
3.1 Are Good Non-Muslims Going To Be ‘Saved’?:

If we become excessively involved in trying to rationalize the judgment of Allah, we become guilty of
judging Allah. He says in the Qur’an,

“He cannot be questioned as to what He does, while they will be questioned.”

(Surah Al-Anbiya, 21:23)

The Rasul (SAW) said that my Ummah will remain in good standing as long as they do not argue about
Qadr and the fate of the children of the pagans. Such discussions have no practical implications in our
lives as it does not change our Ibada.

According to every single school of classical tradition in school of theology, every single strand agreed
that the non-Muslim who knows the reality of Islam and chooses to reject it, has deprived himself of
Allah’s mercy. There is no disagreement (Ikhtilaf) amongst the scholars of Islam.

The Fate of Those Who Have Never Heard of Islam:

1. The Mu‘tazilite and Maturidite position: Even before a Divine Message reaches a person, the person
should be a monotheist and ethically upright because the human intellect should lead to it. However, if
a person is a polytheist and/or leads an immoral life, he or she will go to Jahannam.

2. The Ash’arites position: Imam al-Ghazali famously categorized non-Muslims into three categories:

1. Those who have never heard of Islam, such as the Romans. Such people are 

automatically forgiven and will go to Jannah.

2. Those who have a distorted understanding of Islam and have been exposed to those
who propagate against Islam. These people e.g. viewers of Fox News they are forgiven
and go to Jannah.

3. Those who know Islam and have mixed with Muslims but reject Islam. They 
will not be
forgiven. 


Some scholars say this category (the Ash’arites) is a rather unreasonable position. If non-Muslims are
automatically saved while Muslims are struggling, then it would be better to be non-Muslim! If you
come across a non-Muslim, it would technically be safer not to deliver the message of Islam in case
the person rejects the message. If you leave him or her in ignorant bliss, it would be better for them.
3. The Ath-hari position: They shall be tested on the Day of Judgment with a special test.

The evidence for this is the following tradition:

“There are four (who will protest) to Allah on the Day of Resurrection: the deaf man who never
heard anything, the insane man, the senile man, and the man who died during the fatrah (the gap
between ‘Isa(AS) and the time of Muhammad (SAW). The deaf man will say, ‘O Lord, Islam came but
I never heard anything.’ The insane man will say, ‘O Lord, Islam came but the children ran after me
and threw stones at me.’ The senile man will say, ‘O Lord, Islam came but I did not understand
anything.’ The man who died during the fatrah will say, ‘O Lord, no Messenger from You came to
me.’ He will accept their promises of obedience, then word will be sent to them to enter the Fire. By
the One in Whose hand is the soul of Muhammad, if they enter it, it will be cool and safe for them.”
[Ibn Hanbal in his Musnad].

Allah will send the non-Muslims an angel on the Day of Judgment who will tell them that he is a
Prophet. The angel will tell them to jump into the fire. If they obey and submit, they will be saved. If
they refuse, they have disobeyed and they will go to Jahannam. Their fates will be in the Hands of
Allah (SWT). This is specifically referring to those who have not heard of Islam.

The Fate of Those Who Knowingly Reject Islam

The notion of ‘salvation for the one who knowingly rejects Islam’ was simply never entertained by the
pre-modern scholars. There is a unanimous consensus on this and none of the groups differ on this.
There are hundreds of verses of Qur’an that point to this. The Qur’an and Sunnah, in addition to
common sense, reveal that the only way to enter Jannah is through Islam.

Verses that indicate that Islam is the only religion acceptable to Allah:

“And whoever seeks a religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the
Hereafter he will be one of the losers.” Surah Ali-Imran, 3:85

“Indeed, the religion in the sight of Allah is Islam”

(Surah Ali-Imran, 3:19)

 Verses that criticize those who reject the Prophet/Qur’an:

“Not one of them but belied the Messengers, therefore My Torment was justified” (Surah Sad,
38:14)

“It almost bursts with rage. Every time a company is thrown into it, its keepers ask them, "Did
there not come to you a warner? They will say," Yes, a warner had come to us, but we denied and
said, ' Allah has not sent down anything. You are not but in great error.”

( Surah al-Mulk, 67:8-9)

“And whoever opposes the Messenger after guidance has become clear to him and follows other
than the way of the believers - We will give him what he has taken and drive him into Hell, and
evil it is as a destination.”

Surah Al-Nisa, 4:115

When it says, “...after the guidance has been made clear...”, it means that this person knows the
teachings of Islam.
To claim that you don’t have to believe in the Quran and Prophet is illogical. This would imply that
Allah revealed the Quran and the message revealed is that there is no message (i.e. you don’t have to
believe in it). What would be the point of the Prophet then? Therefore, it is one of fundamental pillars
that the Prophet is our Prophet that must be believed in.

This concept of Salvific Exclusivity – that Islam is the only way to Salvation has been discussed by
Yasir Qadhi in at conference where he titled his talk “The Path of Allah or the Paths of Allah?”. A video
of the lecture can be found online. He also produced a publication that can be found in “Between
Heaven and Hell: Islam, Salvation, and the Fate of Others” published by Oxford University Press.

Verses that criticize Other Theologies and Faiths:

The Qur’an is very clear in criticism of key Christian beliefs and often involves the use of the verb
Kafara or a noun derived from it, Kufr (unbelief) – the opposite of faith. In the Qur’an 9:31, God’s curse
is placed on those who claim that the Messiah is the Son of God. In 5:72-73, “They have blasphemed
(Kafara) those who say God is the Messiah, son of Mary” and “those who say God is the third of a
Trinity”. In 9:31 and 5:116, the Christian deification of Isa is made equal to shirk.

“I swear by Him in Whose hand is my soul, there is not a single Jew or Christian who hears of me than
dies without believing in that with which I have been sent, but he will be one of the people of Hellfire.”
(Reported by Muslim, 218).

In terms of unanimous consensus:

Dr. Yusuf al-Qaradawi writes that there are dozens of Ayahs and dozens of Hadith that indicate the
Kufr of Jews and Christians. However, he does state that God might have mercy on those who did not
hear of Islam properly.

In terms of common sense, not all religions can be correct because some have mutually exclusive
beliefs. For example, Christians say the only way to come close to the God is through His son. Muslims
say taking ‘Isa as the son takes you further away from God. These two concepts cannot co-exist just as
Tawheed and Shirk cannot co-exist. We cannot claim that all paths lead to Jannah when each path says
it alone leads to Jannah.

To claim that all religions are valid negates the purpose of Allah sending more Messengers and Books.
Messengers were sent because the message of the previous Prophets were lost, and the people
became misguided. No Prophet comes to tell his people, “you don’t have to follow me if you don’t want
to”. What’s the purpose if there is no purpose in the Prophet/book!?
Responding to Misunderstandings:

“But what about verse 2:135, in which Allāh says Jews, Christians and Sabeans will all go to
Heaven if they’re good?”

“Indeed, those who believed and those who were Jews or Christians or Sabians [before Prophet
Muhammad] - those [among them] who believed in Allah and the Last Day and did righteousness
- will have their reward with their Lord, and no fear will there be concerning them, nor will they
grieve.”

(Surah al-Baqarah, 2:62)

Response:

1) The verse is not preaching about pluralism – it is relevant only to good Christians and Jews
who did not meet the Prophet (SAW).

2) How can you understand this one verse in isolation to all other verses? It goes against the
entire message of the Quran. If you understand why this verse was revealed, will explain the
interpretations.

3) Was revealed when Salman al Farsi asked about the status of his Christian teachers, who told
him to go find the Prophet (SAW). They wanted to see the Prophet (SAW) but they died before
they did.

4) In the same surah, Allah criticizes Jews for disobeying Allah and Christians for taking Jesus as
His son.

5) Fazlur Rahman, A progressive Muslim - wrote a book called Islam in 1962 and in this book
propagated the idea that you did not need to follow Islam. He was the first person to say this in
the history of Islam.
 How can Allah punish someone even if they lived a life of good?
1. Know our limits, and the rights of Allāh:
We need to know our position and be careful about questioning Allah’s actions in an
2. Perhaps because of the
ease of what was asked,
and the gravity of rejecting
it:
We must also look at the
attitude of the person. For
example, a mother in a
wheelchair asks her son to
get her a glass of water. He
says, “No! Get it yourself!”
No one would say, well, it
was just a glass of water. It
is still very severe and
disrespectful. 
The
Prophet (SAW) says in a
Hadith that Allah will say
to the person in Jahannam
on the Day of Judgment, “If
you had everything in the
world and you owned it,
would you give it all to
ransom yourself?” The
person will say yes. Allah
will say, “But I asked you
much less than this. I
asked you not to commit
shirk and worship Me
Alone.” This hadith is
referring to the Mushrik,
but it can also be applied
to atheists.
effort to challenge him.
3. Definition of ‘good’:
Do we define good people
or does Allah define good
people? In the Qur’an, to
be considered ‘good’ you
must have Iman and good
actions. Having zero
theology doesn’t make you
a good person. If you
discover that a very
generous kind person has
a pornography addiction,
your view of that person
will undoubtedly change.
How can someone who
refuses to bow down to
Allah (SWT) be a good
person? Ultimate goodness
is to recognize the purpose
of your existence.
Recognizing Allah is the
most supreme truth while
the crime of rejecting Allah
deserves a punishment
proportionate to the
magnitude of that crime. 

4. There is some discussion
in Sunni literature
regarding the eternality of
Hell:
Some famous theologians
have proposed the
possibility of Hell not
being eternal. Perhaps - if
this is true - it can be used
to placate inquisitive
minds. There is also a
position in Sunni Islam by
extremely venerated and
accomplished scholars,
that perhaps they will only
be punished for a certain
time and then Hell will
cease to exist – so then
those people will cease to
exist.
3.2 Does Islam Preach Hatred of Others?

The Islamic Doctrine of Wala’:

The Qur’an and Sunnah clearly preaches us to have a special love for our Muslim brothers and sisters:

“And the believing men and the believing women: they are protectors of one another”

(Surah Al-Tawbah, 9:71)

“The example of the believers in their love, and mercy, and compassion, is like that on one body: if
even one part of it is in pain, the entire rest of the body joins it in staying awake and feeling ill!”
[Agreed Upon]

It is natural to have special feelings for one’s family, friends, and those who share something similar
(e.g. tribes, nations, interest, values etc.). But some strands of Islam argue that the opposite is also true
and that we must not have any positive feelings towards those of other faiths. Extremist groups like
ISIS interpret it in a manner that makes it impossible for a Muslim to be in America, saying that our
Islam requires us to hate non-Muslims.

Every society in the world has ways of showing extra friendship and loyalty to certain individuals. In
the U.S., the people are all American and they have a special bond between them. When we meet
family members whom we have never met, we feel a strong connection. People of a certain church
have a stronger bond with their own people as opposed to those from a different church.

If you are traveling in a foreign country where the people don’t speak English, and you find another
English-speaking person from Chicago, you have a stronger pull towards that person. This is a type of
Wala’; it is natural and part of human nature.

What better connection to have than with those who have your same Deen? It is logical and expected.
A Wali is one whom you turn to for protection and sanctity. The concept of Wala’ preaches that your
ultimate loyalty will be to God and those who believe in God. So, we have extra feelings of love for the
Muslims.

The Islamic Doctrine of Bara’a:

Bara’a is the opposite to wala’, anyone who wants to harm any of our ummah, we have to cut
off/disassociate from that group.
Analogous example: someone who ridicules your mother or accuses her of indecency, even if he didn’t
harm you, they harmed your loved one – so you cannot have a normal relationship with them. You will
cut them off on some level and that level depends on a variety of factors. Bara’a is only physical when
the opposing party gets physical.
There are specific verses and Hadith that can easily be interpreted to suggest that Muslims should
unconditionally dissociate from others.
 “You will not find a people who believe in Allah and the Last Day having affection for those who
oppose Allah and His Messenger, even if they were their fathers or their sons or their brothers or
their kindred...”

(Surah Al-Mujadilah, 58:22)

Surah Al-Mujadilah is referring to those who have openly showed animosity and hatred to Allah and
His Messenger (SAW), those who have waged war against Islam, and the people who would kill
Muslims at the time of revelation.

“O you who have believed do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies
of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them.
Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.”

(Surah Al-Ma’idah, 5:51)

Islam does not preach hatred of non-Muslims. This misunderstanding of Wala’ and Bara’a is a modern
phenomenon that can be traced to the rise of the Najdi Da’wah. Unfortunately ISIS and other groups
are partly the result of distorted perspectives on these concepts.

Awliya is not the same as friends; this is an incorrect translation and is contradicted by the Quran
itself. The Prophet (SAW) loved his uncle Abu Talib. The following ayah refers to the incident when he
died.

“You cannot guide the one whom you love...”

(Surah Al-Qasas, 28:56)

The Qur’an affirmed the love that the Prophet (SAW) had for his Kaafir uncle. Would we say that the
Prophet did not display the concepts of Wala’ and Bara’a? Of course not. Allah (SWT) has allowed the
marriage of a Muslim man to a Jewish or Christian woman. For any marriage to be successful, there
must be love.

Asma bint Abu Bakr (RA) said, “My mother came to visit me, and she was still an idol- worshipper. So I
asked the Prophet (SAW) about that, and said, ‘My mother is coming to visit me, and she is eager [to
do so]. Can I be good to my mother?’ He replied, ‘Yes! Be good to your mother.’” [Bukhari] The Prophet
(SAW) gave her an explicit statement that said she could be kind and respectful to her mother even
though she was non-Muslim.

In Surah Luqman, Allah (swt) says that if your parents try to force you to commit shirk, don’t listen to
them, but be good to them. You will still have love for your parents even if they are non-Muslim.

The Prophet (SAW) hired a pagan/non-Muslim as a guide out of Mecca. This was one of his most
critical moments in life. Is this protection and Wilaya? No, not in that sense.

Then what is wilaya?

Wilaya teaches us that as Muslims, we should not assume that other faith communities will protect us
based on faith. The only truly Awliya we have are those who believe in Islam. Islam differentiates
between those who reject Islam/fight against it and those who only reject Islam.

“And fight back against those who fight you, but do not go beyond that, for Allah does not love
those who transgress.” – (Surah Al Baqarah, 2:190)

So, we do not take these people as Awliya and we will never love these people.

Whom should we dissociate from?

We have hatred for those who want to harm or ridicule the Prophet (SAW). Out of our love to the
Prophet, we hate those who draw insulting cartoons for example.

Bara’a linguistically refers to dissociation. So, we dissociate ourselves from those who hate Islam as a
faith. We do not associate with such people. But we need to keep in mind that people can attack
Muslims for other reasons such as oil and natural resources.
“Allāh does not forbid you to be good (birr), and to be just (qisṭ), with those who do not fight you
with regards to your faith, and who do not expel you from your lands. Truly, Allāh loves those
who are just. What Allāh has forbidden on you is that you take as protectors (tawalli) those who
have fought you for your faith, and expelled you from your houses, and cooperated with others to
expel you. For whoever takes them as allies (tawalli) is surely a wrongdoer.”

(al-Mumtaḥanah, 60: 8-9)

We can infer:

1. People who persecute believers
because they are believers do not
deserve any Walā’, and Barā’a must
be done of them (how can you
genuinely love someone who insulted
your mother, for example?!)
2. People who do not hate you for your
faith (the people who give you the
freedom to be a Muslim and practice
your faith): you have a spectrum that
you can apply. The bare minimum is
‘...to be just’, and the highest is the
height of goodness (Birr).

Birr in Arabic is most commonly associated with treatment of parents; birr al-walidayn is one of the
highest honors.

To be just (Qist) is one of the lower levels of honor and is mere reciprocation of treatment.
Birr and Qist are on the opposite ends of the spectrum.

You can decide where on the spectrum you want to treat them. There is no prohibition in the Qur’an
or Sunnah of taking non-Muslims as friends. The Seerah clearly contradicts such a notion.

Conclusion: Islam does not preach a general, unconditional hatred of ‘the other’. Quite
the contrary, there are explicit evidences to demonstrate the opposite. What Islam does
preach is that people who persecute believers and hate the religion cannot be taken as
confidants and allies.
Module

4
Modernity And Islam
Module 4 – Modernity and Islam
4.1 Feminism

What is Feminism?

It can be considered as a movement, doctrine or belief system in which women want to reclaim or
guarantee certain rights – there is no single definition, each feminist has her own definition.

One definition from page 41 of the course notes is that:

“Feminism constitutes the political expression of the concerns and interests of women from
different regions, classes, nationalities and backgrounds… There is and must be a diversity of
feminisms, responsive to the different needs and concerns of different women, and defined by
them for themselves.”
(One of the 3 UN conferences on women’s issues (Mexico City, Copenhagen, Naibroi))

History

In order to understand the context in which feminism appeared, we need to understand the historical
religious, legal and social situation of women in Europe in the pre-modern period and we need to look
at how it was different to Muslim women.

Religious:
Christianity gave women a second-class role and considered them inferior to men. The Old Testament
depicts Eve as the root of evil and the one blameworthy for sin. The belief is that God cursed her as a
punishment with childbirth pangs of pain. In the New Testament, women are forbidden from raising
their voice in the church. Also, women were viewed as having direct connection to evil and the devil.
In Europe, many women were accused of being witches, and they were burned in Salem,
Massachusetts witch trials.

However, in Islam, Eve is not considered solely blameworthy for the sin. In fact it was Adam who was
blamed and both Adam and Eve asked for forgiveness.

Legal:
Legally, in Europe, a married woman lost all of her rights. In essence, she was the property of her
husband, which is why she changed her last name. Her body and property belonged to her husband,
and she was not allowed to own property. If a man caught his wife in an adulterous situation, he was
typically allowed to punish her anyhow he wanted. Until the late middle ages, a woman could not
enter or sign into a contract.

In Islam however, women have always been allowed to own property, enter into contracts and never
‘belonged’ to their husband. They had their legal identity and independence.

Education:
In Europe, women were not educated and there were no universities for women which were
considered exclusively male domains. It was only in 1969 that Yale began accepting female students
and Harvard from 1977. So, there are hardly any famous female thinkers or philosophers throughout
the middle ages. There are only a few in the entire 500 year period.

Muslim women were almost always educated from the very beginning and hence, we have had female
teaching institutions and scholars with almost all famous male scholars having had female teachers.
There is no equivalent for most of human history. There were so many instances of Europeans
entering in Muslim lands, commenting on how amazing the situation of women was. In one book, a
noble lady from Europe went in to Istanbul in the 1700s with her husband and a delegation and was
amazed by how much freedom the women of Istanbul had. Now, 300 years later, the condition of
muslim women is seen as backward.

For the bulk of human history, muslim civilizations/societies gave far more rights to their women
than their European counterparts.

It is not surprising that women began to rebel against the status quo in Europe.

The Three Major Waves of Feminism

1. First wave of feminism: 1850 – 1915 (WW1) – Women’s right to vote:

 Arranged campaigns and public marches (the Suffrage movement), standing in front of
Congress/Parliament.
 At this point they concentrated on just this one issue (the right to vote). They understood that
the right to vote was the key to influencing change. (In America, around 1915, women were
given the right to vote. This is only 100 years ago which is extremely recent in human history).
 The people who primarily participated in this were matrons (elderly/upper middle age). This
was because they didn’t want anything sexual implied and were told to wear noble and modest
clothing. They would also wear white (in order to demonstrate modesty, purity, cleanliness
and home values).
 The civil rights movement and the emancipation movement aided their cause and they were
very successful.

This wave was interrupted by World War One and World War Two where approximately one hundred
million men died in the war. In some cities, the majority of the male population was eradicated. Many
of the areas were only populated by women and crippled men. In this circumstance, the governments
demanded that women work in the factories as a temporary solution – in the name of serving the
country (patriotism). So, women started going to the factories, and fliers were seen of a woman flexing
her muscles, saying, “We can do it”. Such a flier depicted how women were eliminating their
femininity and becoming more masculine. It gave women a taste of economic and financial
independence.

2. Second wave of feminism: 1960’s – 1980’s :

From the 1960’s, almost every single workplace had women, they could be seen in media (e.g in TV
and movies, women took on lead roles portraying non-traditional work roles). In the 1970’s, the
government enacted the Equalities Act, making it illegal for an employer to discriminate on the basis
of gender, race or religion.

Women demanded sexual freedom and wanted to control their own bodies and sexuality. Previously,
women had to get the consent of the father to get an abortion but the landmark trial of Roe vs. Wade
in America in 1973 legalized abortion as women argued that their body belonged to them. This was
viewed as a success for feminism and was the pinnacle of the second wave.

This was also a time of sexual revolution. 100 years ago, it was unheard of that people from a
respectable family would engage in premarital relations. In 1960’s even, it was relatively uncommon
 and many people, especially the middle and upper class, did not engage in it. The right to abortion
allowed women to sleep whoever they wanted and not have to face the consequences.

3. Third wave of feminism Modern feminism: 1990’s – This wave is multifaceted:

This third wave split into many different strands - it is impossible to generalise because it covered
many different types of feminism. Even amongst themselves, they strongly disagree on many issues.

Some of them wanted full equality in all areas of public and private life – e.g. insisting that each
company have 50% men and women. This philosophy is embodied in Justin Trudeau’s new
government for which he appointed a gender-balanced cabinet. It is their intended goal that you take
gender that into account before you appoint somebody.

Another strand of feminism focuses on highlighting domestic abuse against women. Even in the
Western world, domestic abuse used to be a private matter but is now no longer the case.

Yet another strand focuses on sexual abuse. This is especially pertinent to England. Child abuse
scandals that took place in the 1960s and 1970s are coming to light now as things have changed. In
US, Bill Cosby has now been discovered to be a serial rapist. These women were asked why they didn’t
come forward previously. They remarked that in the 1960s, no one would have believed them and
were expected to keep it quiet. There is now a public acceptance that we will no longer tolerate sexual
abuse.

Other strands, encourage promiscuity. This has resulted in prostitution laws being challenged! In US,
this is illegal in all states apart from Nevada. This strand says that it is like any other business. While
this may seem reasonable from a logical perspective, they have no morality or ethics.

The reality is that there are so many different strands and impossible to discuss all of them
simultaneously. Some strands are halal e.g. wanting to own property or be independent legally or
speaking up in abuse matters. Others are un-islamic such as encouraging nudity and prostitution etc.

Islamic Feminism aims to achieve equality between men and women in all/most areas of private and
public life, according to Qur’anic principles.

A number of famous individuals have attempted to challenge the status quo and reinterpret the
scripture calling for exact equality. Almost all of them are professors of Islamic studies or academics at
western universities. Academia tends to encourage liberalism and feminism, so this is not surprising.

Some Famous Names:

 Fatima Mernissi – first feminist of modernity, writing in English, who passed away earlier this year.
 Amina Wadud - In 2007/2008 in New York inside a church, she led a Jummuah prayer as a woman
with a mixed congregation for the first time in Islamic history. Now an example of this in the UK, four
in the USA and one in South Africa.
 Asma Barlas
Kecia Ali
 Activists: Asra Nomani, Raheel Raza
- These authors are a failed enterprise indeed. There is no
doubt about it. If you read their writings, you will realize they are very intellectually shallow and
devoid of merit from the Islamic paradigm.
 The Methodology of Muslim Feminists

1.A new reading of 2. Typically, a 3. Using ‘universal’ 4. Claiming the God’s

the Quran rejection of hadith Qur’anic mercy/love/justice (or even
paradigms to Tawheed) could not allow for
This reading is One cannot legally reinterpret or a particular interpretation
sometimes completely claim men and eliminate other
unprecedented and women are equal verses/hadith Amina Wadud says that to claim
frequently while believing in women are subservient to men
linguistically Hadith. All They claim they is a kind of Shirk and goes
untenable. In order to progressives in this themselves have, for against Tawheed because
reinterpret the case reject Hadith. the first time ever, Tawheed says that women are
scripture, they have to One source of come to the subservient to Allah Alone.
read the Qu’ran in a deviation is to import true/real However, a man must obey the
very
novel manner and other sources other understanding of legitimate ruler, and the son
in a way that doesn’t than Qur’an and the verse. They must obey his mother and these
conform to Arabic Sunnah. appeal to emotions are not considered forms of
language. rather than intellect. shirk.

5. Emotional appeals to (many times legitimate) plight of women around the world

4.2 Gender Roles in Islam

What does Islam say about men and women?

It is narrated in At-Tirmidhi, that Ummu Salama asked the Prophet (SAW), “O messenger of Allah!
Allah has mentioned men in the Qur’an and praised their emigration, but how about women?” - this is
a type of feminism; so, when brothers deride such questions that Umm Salama asked, it is implicitly
insulting the Mother of the Believers and the Prophet (SAW).

To answer her question, Allah (SWT) revealed the following verse in Surah Ali-Imran, 3:195

“And their Lord responded to them, "Never will I allow to be lost the work of [any] worker among
you, whether male or female; you are of one another. So those who emigrated or were evicted
from their homes or were harmed in My cause or fought or were killed - I will surely remove from
 them their misdeeds, and I will surely admit them to gardens beneath which rivers flow as
reward from Allah, and Allah has with Him the best reward."

(Surah Ali-Imran, 3:195)

Islam makes no discrimination spiritually between men and women. Men and women are equal
spiritually in the Eyes of Allah, in their value, potential to earn jannah, potential to sin and punishment
too. The worth of a man is equal to the worth of a woman. A woman is not inferior in the Eyes of Allah
merely because she is a woman. Both have equal access to Jannah, but what is required of them to
enter Jannah may be different.

Dozens of verses mention the ‘spiritual’ worth of men and women being equal, such as:

“Whoever does an evil deed will not be recompensed except by the like
thereof; but whoever does
righteousness, whether male or female, while he is a believer - those will enter Paradise, being
given provision therein without account.”

(Surah Ghafir, 40:40)

“Whoever does righteousness, whether male or female, while he is a believer - We will surely
cause him to live a good life, and We will surely give them their reward [in the Hereafter]
according to the best of what they used to do.”

(Surah Al-Nahl, 16:97)

 “Indeed, the Muslim men and Muslim women, the believing men and believing women, the
obedient men and obedient women, the truthful men and truthful women, the patient men and
patient women, the humble men and humble women, the charitable men and charitable women,
the fasting men and fasting women, the men who guard their private parts and the women who
do so, and the men who remember Allah often and the women who do so - for them Allah has
prepared forgiveness and a great reward.”

( Surah Al-Ahzab, 33:35)

“The believing men and believing women are allies of one another. They enjoin what is right and
forbid what is wrong and establish prayer and give zakah and obey Allah and His Messenger.
Those - Allah will have mercy upon them. Indeed, Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise.”

Surah Al-Tawbah, 9:71

In pre-Islamic society, there were very few women’s rights. Islam empowered them with rights such
as the right to inherit and own property. In the farewell Khutbah, the Prophet (SAW) emphasized that
women need to be treated well. This Khutbah was only five paragraphs long, and the Prophet (SAW)
dedicated an entire paragraph for women. He told us to fear Allah with regards to our women, and
that they have been made Halal by the Name of Allah, and Allah will ask us how we treated them.

The Prophet (SAW) also stated in a Hadith that the best of you are those who are good to their
families, and I am the best to my family. He is telling us to follow his example.

Yet, there are differences!

Each gender has certain emotions, powers and intellectual abilities. Some differences cannot be
denied – biological, psychological, physiological, emotional, etc. Therefore, it is illogical to assume that
men and women have the exact same responsibilities. Allah has given each gender different roles,
values, goals, functions due to various qualities they possess which helps society flourish (when used
to complement each other - Men (organs/emotions/stamina); women (Reproductive
system/Hormonal changes/Emotions)).

In feminism, there is competition between the genders as women try to reach the benchmark of man.
However, in Islam, there is no competition as the husband and wife are both on the same team.

The basic problem with feminism is the presumption that if men and women are equal – they have
equal role in everything. Feminist privilege/prefer the male role (consider the traditional role of
women to be inferior). By considering the male role to be better you assume an inferior position and
therefore want what you classify as a ‘superior’ role. However you cannot compare the two roles.

From the perspective of the Shariah: Allah created the two genders predisposed to certain realities,
and when these roles come together, society flourishes.

Muslims do not believe in equality in social spheres – as men and women are not the same.

 Inheritance - both gender have a share. However men have different shares than
women.
 Responsibilities and roles – we have different roles. This is a matter of giving each
responsibility for what they will be better at. But both of these roles are need for a
healthy society.

The fundamental concept of feminism argues that men and women are the same. However,
there are differences, and Allah (SWT) tells us in the Qur’an that the man is not like the
woman.

“For men is a share of what the parents and close relatives leave, and for women is a share of
what the parents and close relatives leave, be it little or much - an obligatory share.” (Surah Al-
Nisa, 4:7)
 “And the male is not like the female.” Surah Ali-Imran, 3:36

Perhaps the most explicit verse is:

“Men are in charge of women by [right of] what Allah has given one over the other and what they
spend [for maintenance] from their wealth.”

(Surah An-Nisa, 4:34)

Men are Qawwam over Women

The Arabic word qawwam is the plural of qa’im. The root of this word is from the verb ‘to stand’
(qaama). So, if men are standing and women are sitting, the husband is protecting, maintaining and
providing for her in front of Allah. Qa’im is the one in charge; therefore, the man has certain rights.
How? Because Allah has preferred/blessed one (the man) over the other.

For example Allah has blessed man with physical strength, the patience to toil in the fields and height.
The one who is stronger will be in charge. Men have to pay for rent and groceries while women do not.
Women technically never have to earn a penny to take care of their needs because her father will take
care of her initially. If the father dies, then her brother will take care of her. When she gets married,
her husband will take care of her.

Men are in charge of protecting women and taking care of them – to ensure they are protected,
nourished and taken care of mentally, physically and emotionally. For men, his wife is a source of
Sakeenah – peace and tranquillity.

The Arabic word bima can have one of two meanings (or both meanings):

1) Some interpreted it to mean that the category of ‘men’ has certain privileges and blessings, and
that the category of ‘women’ don’t (not individual men/women). According to this interpretation, the
distinction and preference is inherent and natural (i.e. decreed by Allah through nature). It is a natural
fact that can never change. Men are in charge of women because Allah blessed them with certain
physical things that women don’t have. 


2) Others claimed that the distinction was because Allah had mandated that a man should take the
responsibility of providing for his wife and that she is required to obey him in domestic matters.
According to this interpretation, the distinction and preference is religious and mandated by Allah
through Scripture. So, Allah has preferred men over women in terms of legal status due to religious
reasons.

Linguistically, textually and rationally, both readings are plausible.

 “And upon women are also due rights, similar to the rights that are due by them [unto men],
according to righteousness; and men have a degree (daraja) over them.”

(Surah Al-Baqarah, verse 228)

Bil ma’roof means that an issue is culturally determined. Men have one Daraja over women (not
spiritual, but legally). From an obedience perspective, you cannot have two people driving the same
car. So, the men have a little bit more privilege over women, but they are not considered to be
superior to them.

The family is the primary unit of protection in society. With the destruction of the family, Fahisha
increases and we can see that people are getting more and more selfish and greedy.
At the same time, the Shariah did not come with detailed laws about gender roles and interactions.
The Shariah came with generic guidelines. It allows for adaptation and fine tuning, therefore if
cultures change, that is not necessarily a bad thing within the spectrum of the Shariah
An example would be a very traditional lifestyle lived by our grandmother which may not necessarily
be the ideal. As long as our lifestyle is within the confines of the Shariah – it is allowed.
The Prophet (SAW) did have issues with his wives. For example, one incident was so severe, that for
one month he was away from wives and slept in the masjid. Tensions spread amongst the city as
everyone was distressed by the distress of Prophet (SAW). Umar was also distressed as his daughter
might be divorced, but he loves the Prophet (SAW) too. He asked for permission to see the Prophet
(SAW) three times and Bilal told him, you cannot see him. Then he said to Bilal, tell him I am going to
enter anyway.

There is a famous hadith in which Umar RA saw the marks on the back of the Prophet PBUH and he
cried. In the narration of the Hadith he says: I wanted to lighten the mood to brighten the tension, so I
said to the Prophet: don’t you miss the good old days in Makkah with the women when they didn’t talk
back. Umar said I was arguing with my wife the other day and she raised her voice back at me. Can you
believe how the Ansari women have corrupted our women? The Prophet (SAW) then smiled.
This shows that the women in Makkah culturally were subservient, did not respond to anger or raised
voice. In Madinah, they would not allow their husbands to respond without responding in kind to
them. Neither is more Islamic – Islam did not dictate what women should do, it was just the culture of
the two places.
The beauty of Islam is that it doesn’t come with a thick manual of minutiae of laws. If that was the
case, the Shariah could not be practiced, it came with generic guidelines.

Changing contexts and times do necessitate fine-tuning the laws within the spectrum of
permissibility.
 Specifics of hijab

Fiqh of Hijab: Shariah did not come with specific rules but rather with guidelines. The Shariah allows
for many different types of Hijab. Even in different societies there are different versions of hijab. For
example, women wear the Hijab one way in Saudi Arabia while women in Malaysia wear the Hijab
another way. It is not appropriate to claim that one type/style of Hijab is the only correct one. Allah
(SWT) did not specify the texture or material of Hijab, but rather He left it open and flexible while
explaining what parts of the body need to be covered with loose clothing.

Specifics of gender interactions


The Shariah does not specify how men and women should interact publicly. In Saudi Arabia, there are
very strict prohibitions as all schools and public institutions are segregated. There are banks for men
and banks for women. This is not Haram, but it is not Wajib. That is their culture – it is stricter than
what the Sahaba did but not un-islamic.

We today are more liberal than our grandparents were. Sometimes, Britons might say that Americans
are too liberal but there is no ideal.
Gender interaction does change from time to place – in Saudi, men and women don’t even say Salaam
to each other. What happens then is that every interaction becomes sexualised which is the problem.
That should not happen because of a Salaam. In England, we have made gender interactions so
awkward. People think a Salaam might be flirtatious when it is not.

Specifics of Roles/Responsibilities of Husband and Wife


Every couple can renegotiate what they want to do. If the woman is the breadwinner of the house, it
does not abrogate the verse “men are qawwamun of women”. But psychologically, the man’s authority
may diminish.

Fine-tuning divorce laws


The Shariah is explicit about inheritance laws; we cannot change these laws. The Shariah allows for
some flexibility in divorce law. For example, some divorces take place that leave the woman stranded
with no monetary payment. In the Shariah, the husband would agree to the Mahr and in the past she
would return to her tribe, which would then take care of her. At those times, the women could always
return to their tribe.

In 2015, there is no tribal system. For example, a husband might have been married to his wife in
India for 20 years. Then when he says he wants to divorce her and find someone better, he pays her
only 1000 rupees which was the Mahr (this comes to about two and half bucks). The wife opposes this
and the man says it is in accordance to the Shariah and that Allah will curse you if you go against the
Laws of Allah! In reality, we can fine tune this and implement a culture that has a pre-nuptial
agreement. It should be the cultural norm to include a pre-nuptial agreement in the marriage contract
to account for changed times. Fiqh means that we adapt to change.

Women’s active participation in society (masjid boards for example)

There are movements that discourage women from going to the Masjid. In this society, telling a
woman to stay at home instead of going to Masjid is not practical nor is it beneficial. In the western
society, they should attend the Masjid because it is the best environment for them to be in and will
protect their Deen. Having a woman on the board helps the other board members understand issues
from the sisters’ perspective. The Shariah does not prevent a woman from serving on the board, and
technically, a woman can even be the president of the Masjid. However, most communities would not
be very supportive of such a notion as it may cause problems.
 The role of the mother.
The Shariah views the role of mother of paramount of importance. If anything compromises that,
precedence given to motherhood. It is almost impossible to be full-time mother and be simultaneously
successful at work and in mothering. This is not about older kids. The default here where we are
talking about very young children is that the Shariah would encourage mothers to remain with their
kids.
There is good article in The Atlantic written by the right-hand lady of Hilary Clinton entitled “Why
Women Still Can’t Have It All”:
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2012/07/why-women-still-cant-have-it-all/309020/
She said she had a loving husband, was successful at work but all the fame and money was not worth
it as she wanted to be a mother to my kids. You cannot have it all. The default position is that where
the husband is earning enough money, then she can stay at home.
Before couples have children and after the children are older, a discussion can be had if the wife
wishes to work. Otherwise, the default is that mothers should be mothers. You cannot replace that
time with them, by leaving them in childcare. Being with the mother directly, is something different.

Conclusion

While it is clear that men and women are spiritually equal, there are gender- specific roles that
men and women have been assigned in Islam. We must also realize that there is a spectrum of
permissibility that individuals, couples, and society can agree upon and that the religion allows.

Remember: Paradise lies under the feet of the mother, not the one who leads the Friday prayer!

4.3 Is There Space for the LGBTQ Community in Islam?

LGBTQ: LESBIAN, GAY, BIGENDER, TRANSGENDER, QUEER

History of modern LGBTQ movement:

 Officially began in the Stonewall riots of 1969 in which New York police invaded a gay bar. This event
created a backlash in which gays wanted their own rights.
 Formation of specific groups dedicated to the championing of LGBT acceptance.
 Publication (in 1989) of After the Ball: How America Will Conquer Its Fear and Hatred of Gays in the
1990s.

In this book, a six-point plan of action was outlined:

1) Talk 2) Portrays 3) Give homosexual 4) Make 5) Make the 6) Solicit

about gays gays as protectors a ‘just’ gays look victimizers funds - get
and gayness victims, not cause good look bad major
as loudly aggressive donors/corp
and as often challenger. Those who want to All the time. Made them orations to
possible protect us are fighting Have them look foolish, help
Tell people for our freedoms in movies like bigots, financially
Don’t hide, you are the because we are playing the people who support the
be proud to victims who oppressed. It is a just hero and are backward. above
be gay and being cause and the protectors cool 

tell everyone persecuted. are heroes fighting characters.
you’re gay! against discrimination.
All of these six points have materialized.

In the 1980s, there was public hostility to homosexuality. Key figures like Margaret Thatcher spoke
out against it, and she was applauded for it. In 2016, no politician can say such a thing.

The Hayes code of 1930 made it illegal for Hollywood to show any nudity, licentiousness, or violence.
It was in effect until the late 1960s, and it helped protect family values.

1973: the American Psychiatric Association changed its views on same-sex attractions, in a
very controversial manner...

This book is like the Bible of worldwide psychiatry, and it is the standard book to diagnose mental
diseases. Up until 1973, this book listed homosexuality as a mental disorder. In 1973, it no longer
listed homosexuality as a mental disorder.

During the previous years, psychiatrists who were gay or being lobbied by gays started mailing
pamphlets to all member of APA in an attempt to convince people to join the gay movement. The gay
community put pressure on the board of APA to remove homosexuality from its book.

The board decided that they would ask its members to vote whether they think homosexuality is a
mental disorder or not. Since when is science conducted via a poll in which the majority vote decides?
So, the vote was cast and around 60% voted that homosexuality should be removed and 40% said it is
a mental disease. So, by a small margin, the APA removed homosexuality from its book.

This decision made it unethical and illegal for a psychiatric counselor to tell a homosexual that he has
a problem. Such a person will lose his job. In America, licensed psychiatrists cannot tell a homosexual
that he needs to find help/treatment for his condition.

1986: first university department dedicated to Queer Studies is formed in New York

In the educational system, colleges started offering programs and classes about queer studies. Some
professors will teach an entire curriculum about LGBT issues.

1990s: mainstream TV shows promote homosexuality (e.g. Friends, Will and Grace, etc.)

- These TV shows depict the gay characters as the coolest character. Anybody who opposes them is
a fundamental bigot with foolish notions.
- This greatly contrasts the era of the 50s and 60s in which homosexuals were always portrayed as
evil perverts. They were never portrayed in a positive manner. And in general, sitcoms were
much more modest in those times. In the I Love Lucy series, the two main characters are actually
married in real life. Nevertheless, the sitcom never showed them in the same bed together and
they were always fully clothed.

1993: “don’t ask don’t tell” policy was adopted for gays in the military.

2009: Harvard dedicates a permanent faculty position

Harvard, Princeton, and Yale were supposed to raise men of God so they could become ministers. If
the male students were found with a woman off campus, they would be expelled. The times have
changed so much that some colleges have an entire week dedicated to Fahisha.
Muslims and Same-sex Issues

As other faiths attempted to legitimize same sex unions, this influenced some Muslims as well. Some
Muslims will try to justify homosexuality from the Qur’an. It is completely unprecedented. 
In 1987, in
America, Al-Fatiha was formed. It was a student group of Muslim homosexuals. In the mid 90s, they
opened up the first queer Masjid in New York. There are now 4-5 Masajid in America that publicly
promotes the LGBT community.

Scott Kugle’s Homosexuality in Islam


Has anyone ever argued that same-sex relations are Halal? Surprisingly, quite a few have done so. The
most famous is Scott Kugle in his Homosexuality in Islam (Oxford: Oneworld Press, 2010). Kugle tries
to justify homosexuality by distorting the story of Lut (AS) in the Qur’an.

- For the Qur’anic story, Kugle says, “...Lot condemned his tribe for rape and aggression that
happened to be male on male...the essential issue is aggressive use of sex as a weapon to reject
the teachings of the Prophets, and express infidelity towards God (p. 72).” So, he argues that the
Qur’an condemns the rape of homosexuals, not consensual loving sex. He bases this on the fact
that the people came to Lut’s house and told him to hand over the angels in order to rape them.

Kugle fails to take into account the verses in the Qur’an which describe Lut (AS) criticising his people
for consensual same sex, asking them: do you approach men with lust instead of women?

- For the hadith evidences, Kugle says, “As gay, lesbian and transgender Muslims assess the
authenticity of Hadith that are used against them, they raise a wider theological question, one
that is key to Islamic reform around any issue. Are Muslims bound by their faith to accept
Hadith?...Of course, it is a difficult issue that confronts the reason, trust and conscience of each
Muslim to decide which particular reports to believe...(p. 126).” So, Kugle is saying that a Hadith
is authentic if your consciousness tells you it is correct.

However, there is no Islam without Hadith. Claiming that a Hadith is authentic if your consciousness
tells you it is correct is not the science of Hadith.

- For the books of Fiqh and laws of the Shariah, Kugle says, “If Muslims do not adapt to new
circumstances by changing some rulings of the Shariah, then increasingly many will opt for
secular solutions. They may hold that the Shariah need not be followed outside of the field of
ritual norms of worship, or they may leave Islam altogether in frustration...[The] Islamic root of a
doctrine of inalienable human rights allows Muslims in democratic states to argue that the
secular human rights doctrine is not foreign to the Islamic tradition (p. 185).”

So, Kugle is saying that the homosexual Muslims need to be accommodated for because they have
inalienable Muslim rights. He is saying to forget the Shariah because secular laws are permissible and
can replace Islamic laws.

His book is intellectually shallow and superficial. The only people who will believe it are those who
already agree with him before reading the book,

Kugle said – if you don’t accept us we will leave Islam or re-define our own Islam – basically saying I
don’t care what the Ummah says, I have the right to redefine the Shariah and have my own version of
Islam. He says secular human rights doctrines is what the Shariah should be.
In our paradigm, ethics and morals are not based on a majority vote. We have our ethics and values
from the Qur’an and the Sunnah. We must submit to them, if we believe the Qur’an is from Allah and
Sunnah is from Prophet (SAW).
 Should He not know He that created? And He is the One that understands the finest mysteries
(and) is well-acquainted (with them). Surah Mulk, 67:14

Surely the one who created us knows what’s best for them.

Does this mean there is no room for Muslims suffering from same sex attraction (SSA)?
We know for a fact that Muslim lands did have homosexuals in them. Many times people knew who
they were but did nothing in public. So what should we do with Muslims who are dealing with this in
the Western world? The whole debate on same sex attraction being nature or nurture based is
irrelevant to Islamic law.
Islamic law does not deal with emotions and desires – it deals with actions. We are concerned with
action. That action is a sinful action. Same sex attraction, in and of itself is not sinful because the
Shariah does not judge based on feelings and emotions.
If someone is struggling with SSA, they should be told that they are are no lesser of a Muslim because
of this tendency and desire. Just the feeling in the heart is not sinful. Allah does not punish desires in
the heart. It is the action of the limbs that is punished.

It is possible that someone who is gay in orientation, suffering from SSA is better Muslim in eyes of
Allah than someone who is not. This has nothing to do with your spirituality.
The gut reaction of people and their instinct is to cut such a person off. That is the most detrimental
thing you can do if someone was to come to you for help. In general, when you are dealing with a big
issue, just talking to someone can help relieve the pressure.
Shaykh Yasir wrote an article entitled “Dealing With Homosexual Urges” which went viral:
http://muslimmatters.org/2009/04/13/dealing-with-homosexual-urges/
The fact that someone has a disposition does not mean they have to act upon it. If they act upon it –
how do we classify them? They would be classified as a major sinner but not a Kafir. Homosexuality
and lesbianism are major sins but not kufr.

It may be possible that one meets an actual practicing homosexual who acknowledges it is a sin.
Contrast this with us meeting a guy who you know has a girlfriend but then comes to Jumuah. One
would be happy that the latter to Jumuah yet we react differently to the former who is a practising
homosexual also committing a major sin. Why is there a double standard? The fact that the person is
coming to Allah, coming to the Masjid, demonstrates there is something in him to want to come to the
Masjid. He doesn’t have to come to the Masjid.
If you saw a Muslim stranger – you wouldn’t do Dawah to them, you do dawah when it is appropriate
i.e. after you get to know them. In this society, showing harshness to homosexuals will turn them away
from Islam.
Where do you draw the line? You would draw the line at someone who justifies and flaunts this. For
these people, we do not have space for them in our communities as you have flouted Allah’s Shariah
publicly. We draw the line at justification. They can go build their own community.
By drawing the line – we mean socially ostracise, we don’t do anything else. We will say this does not
demonstrate mainstream Islam. We are not criticising feelings but actions.

We cannot compromise in what we view as ethical and moral - what we can do is be careful in
language used and be more understanding to Muslims – we can and should soften our approach. As
long as they recognise they are committing a sin, we can accept them in the community.
The LGBT community is one of the most powerful in the Western world – have great reach and clout
that is almost unparalleled. The laws of this land allows this – but it is just another thing that is
allowed here like alcohol and pre-marital sex which the Shariah considers Haram. It is part of the
society we live in. We do live in a difficult time but we don’t gain much by being harsh on Muslim
brethren who are facing this issue.

4.4 Liberalism
(and secularism also included here for the purpose of our class)

There is no agreed upon definition of liberalism, but one can say that it is a political philosophy that is
founded on specific notions of individual liberty and equality.

 It is individualistic
- it prefers the individual over the majority/community e.g nudity laws.

 It aims to be egalitarian - everyone is equal.

 It is universalist – applicable in all times and places and should be applied across the globe.

 It presupposes meliorism – views itself as being the best way and assumes that human
effort can make the world better

Liberalism is currently the dominant political ideology of the Western World.

In our times, these three ‘isms’ are overlapping – secularism, humanism and liberalism in western
lands. Humanism – the religion of no religion is anti-religion. It says you don’t need to believe in God
and religion to have ethical values in life and humans have no need for divine guidance. This is a
modern trend, yet again!

Factors that Contributed to the Rise of Liberalism:

1) Decline of the European Feudal Order

Hereditary privileges were done away with and people were no longer locked in place based in
society on their father’s position. Hereditary privileges had meant that if your father was king, then
you become the king later.

Diving Right of Kings: Europe believed it was the Law of God that certain noble families could rule.
Even if they wanted to have a coup, you would need to find another noble family to rule.

2) Weakening of the Catholic Church and the rise of Protestantism

- Dozens of intra-Christian wars and rising intolerance.


- Religious values became civil wars, giving rise to secularism and liberalism.

-The Muslim world never needed secularism because Islam teaches tolerance; even non-Muslims
can freely practice their faith.

- Questioning the role of Church in state affairs

- Religion was too messy and bloody
- Reformation movement effectively removed the power of religion from the public sphere

o The Reformation was from a group of religious fanatics, which ironically lead to secularism.
3) Renaissance and the Scientific Revolution 


Questioning age-old religious concepts:



o The Church no longer held the sanctity that it used to
o Darwin proposes theories that eliminated God from the picture
o Eliminated the role of religion from the public sphere

o We as Muslims never had this problem because we never had clash between religion and science.

Rise of Biblical Criticism

Role of religion becomes secondary

All of these circumstances in addition to others allowed some key thinkers of that time period to
challenge the status quo and put forth alternative ideas of government. Individuals such as Thomas
Hobbes, John Locke (considered the ‘founder’ of liberalism), Montesquieu, Jean Jacques Rousseau,
Adam Smith (considered the ‘founder’ of capitalism), John Stuart Mill, and others all helped shaped
these notions. 


People enacted their own version of liberalism. For example, the French notion of liberalism was
based on the Laissez Faire principle. In America, liberalism was based on the teachings of John Locke,
which served as the foundation for the founding fathers. 


Just because liberalism worked for Europe, it doesn’t make it the best way for all people in the world.
Some modern academics theorize that modern secularism and modern liberalism can be viewed as
one sect of Christianity since it is based on Christian values. Liberalism and secularism are inventions
of medieval Europe that depend on the values of the particular time and place in which they were
born. They are based on a European Christian heritage. 


Hypocritical Aspects of Liberalism 


Each and every point that liberalism claims to champion is hotly debated and contested. Each and
every pillar of liberalism is hypocritical in all of its premises. The classical example is the much
vaunted freedom of religion and freedom of speech. We all know how hypocritical the west is in terms
of these two aspects. For example, look at the blatant bigotry of Ben Carson. However, because of the
Bill of Rights, we as Muslims are protected religiously. In the U.S., they cannot ban the Hijab or Niqab.
However, the same cannot be said in Europe. 


Freedom of speech is also a hypocritical notion. In 13 countries of Europe including Denmark,

Sweden, Germany, and Poland, you will go to jail if you mock the Holocaust, doubt its existence, or
even say that less than 6 million died. David Irving was sent to jail for 1 1/2 years for a book in which
he said the 6 million figure was inflated. Where is his freedom of speech? So you can’t mock the
Holocaust, but you can mock the Prophet (SAW)? Such mocking is legal and is championed as freedom
of speech. Even socially, we cannot say certain things or else we will be fired.

Militia groups of the right wing (e.g. KKK) have literature and rhetoric that is blatantly militant. They
have training camps in order to practice killing. In the Detroit area, a group of militia was arrested
because they had pamphlets explaining how to kill FBI and how to defend themselves against the
government. The judge threw out the case, defending their freedom of speech and rebuking the FBI.
This contrasts with some AlMaghrib students who were arrested for certain things they said online.
There is a clear double standard when it comes to white militia and Jihadi sympathetic kids.
Positives and Negatives of Liberalism

Liberalism is a philosophy that is a by-product of the social, political, and religious milieu of late
medieval Europe. While it has its positives, to assume that it and it alone is the only way to achieve a
successful society is just as fundamentalist and intolerant as the previous systems that it claimed to
oppose. Liberalism is not as liberalistic as it claims to be because its values are not consistent.

The positives of liberalism for a Western Muslim


1) Typically offers more religious freedom than other lands.

Sadly at times, it offers more religious freedom than some Muslim lands. We can practice our faith as
we see fit here in the west.

2) Religiosity in such environments is more genuine; not by habit.

Muslims living in the west can be very Islamically active. You feel like a better Muslim at times in a
liberal environment when compared to a Muslim environment. In a Muslim environment, people pray
and fast by habit. But in the US or UK, the only people who pray, fast, and come to the mosque are
those who want to. Some would say the quality of religiosity is higher with people living in the West,
than in Muslim countries, as they also suffer from racism and xenophobia. We should not discredit the
positives of liberalism. We have true brotherhood and sisterhood amongst ourselves in the west
because we choose to be in Islamic environments such as the ISOC at school or AlMaghrib seminars.

The Western Dawah scene is very energising. You genuinely feel the buzz and vibe of Emaan and
Taqwa which doesn’t exist in other lands. Those who want to immigrate to Muslim lands – 99.9% of
them once they go there they realise they should not have gone for religious reasons.

3) Possible to be a part of the system and influence it to some extent (be a part of the broader
narrative instead of creating your own; allows society to accept you).

Liberalism can allow us to retain our identity since society allows differences. It allows you to be who
you are. You should be an equal citizen to anyone else. If you want to wear Niqaab, you have the
prerogative to do so. But on the flip side, you don’t have the right to put my values on anyone else
either.

But there are negatives as well:

1) Freedom for you means freedom for those very different than you!

The liberal argument is to say that ‘I choose to wear hijab’. But the Islamic argument is that we are
commanded by Allah to do so. If you want to play the liberal system, you have to live by the liberal
rules. I you try to justify your “bizarre” Islamic society using liberal values, others will use those
exact same values to justify their un-islamic practises e.g. woman deciding to be topless. We accept
the system as being the way it is without believing in it in our hearts – it is just something we have
no power over.

2) Some would argue there is religious compromise 


3) Moral deterioration is inevitable 


Living in this land, we become more desensitized to the Fahisha, negatively impacting our own
Akhlaaq and family lives. When nudity becomes standard in this society, intimacy in the bedroom
changes.
4) Charge of ‘hypocrisy’ if we only use it for our own advantage and when we need to

Why are you using liberalism to defend your hijab but not nudity?

5) Ultimate change can never come from such a system

You can never promote modesty as a society from liberal values since such values allow you as an
individual to decide what is modesty. You may be able to defend individuals who want to be modest,
but you cannot defend a society that wants to be modest. Liberalism favors individuals over societies.

6) Muslims’ own understanding of Islam and Islamic values will be ‘liberal’

Muslims are own products of society and culture, so it inevitable that they will become liberal and
progressive as the values rub off on then. You can’t put a child in water and blame him when he gets
wet. There is no utopia other than Jannah. There will be no perfect place.
The bottom line is that liberalism has positive and negatives and we need to navigate through the
system.

4.5 Classifying Muslim Responses

WELCOME TO THE UNITED STATES OF VEGANOPOLIS – USV!!!
It is an entire culture that accepts
veganism as a necessary part of being ‘civilized’, and where the notion of slaughtering an animal or its
meat is universally acknowledged to be something from the past.

In the USV, eating meat is cruel, barbaric, medieval, and unethical. The people consider themselves to
be superior to every other civilization because they don’t eat meat. They are the most progressive and
modern civilization in mankind because they are vegan. The foreign policy of the USV is based on
whether a country eats meat or not. The countries that eat meat are the backward nations. The USV
will impose sanctions on them, invade them, and force veganism on them.

Muslims immigrated to USV and secretly ate meat. Their children had to balance between the
veganism that society upholds and their cultural ways of eating meat. How will the second generation
of Muslims react?

PEOPLE WILL RESPOND IN DIFFERENT WAYS:

1) Rejection of Islam

Meet Salman! He says, “Islam cannot be the truth, because it clearly allows and even encourages the
slaughter of animals!”.

The young man Salman is so convinced of the veganism of his land and the backward uncivilized
mentality of eating meat that he simply cannot remain a Muslim anymore. 


He publicly renounces his faith and writes a book mocking Islam. In his speeches, he will say that
when he studied the Qur’an and Sunnah, he decided he simply couldn’t remain loyal to such a
backward and barbaric way of life that permits the slaughter and eating of all cattle. 


Salman will express his disgust, explaining how the Qur’an commands its followers to line up the
animals and slaughter them after mentioning the name of God. He will then explain how the most
authentic book of Sahih Bukhari narrates that the Prophet’s (SAW – which he does not say) favourite
dish was the shoulder of a lamb and that the Prophet (SAW) used to command them to regularly
slaughter animals. In fact, one their Holy days is the day of sacrificing animals. 

He finds bizarre and exotic opinions and makes them sound mainstream, for example how some of the
Muslim schools of law even allow the eating of coyotes, foxes, cats and dogs. 


How can a religion that comes from God be so barbaric? How can a Prophet who is supposed to be the
best man like to eat meat? Salman rejects Islam and becomes a multi-billionaire.

2) Progressive Radical Reinterpretation of Islam

Meet Yasmin! “Well, Islam tolerated eating meat but its goal was indeed the eventual banning of
animal slaughter. The “maqasid-ul-Shari’ah” (goals of the Shari’ah) clearly show that eating meat does
not conform to the spirit of Islam”.

Yasmin and her group decide to remain Muslim, but they acquiesce to the dominant culture and come
to the conclusion that eating meat is unethical. How can you remain faithful to Islam when it allows
the eating of meat? Veganism is the way forward and eating meat is backward!

Yasmin becomes one of the leaders of progressive radical Islam to impose her own ideology onto the
Qur’an while rejecting Sunnah completely. Yasmin says that she is proud to be Muslim. As for you
people who claim that Islam allows the eating of meat, you are all wrong, and you have taken the
Qur’an out of context.

She will argue that since the Qur’an was revealed for all times and all places, it can be re-interpreted in
a completely different manner! You can’t adopt the opinion from 1000 years earlier and implement it
in our current times. Yasmin will explain how during the time of Qur’anic revelation, people were
drinking the blood of animals and eating dead carcasses! The Qur’an came to limit such acts and
ultimately turn people into vegans! This is the “maqasid-ul-Shari’ah” (she throws in an Arabic word
without knowing its meaning).

Yasmin goes on to explain how the Hadith that “Moslems” quote cannot be authenticated. We don’t
even know if they are true! The Prophet (SAW – which she does not say) was a vegan himself for most
of his life. She will quote a Hadith that she likes and finds advantageous for her argument, a Hadith in
the most authentic book (Yasmin will reject this book, but she happens to accept this one particular
hadith). In this Hadith, the wife of the Prophet (SAW) stated that SIX MONTHS would pass without the
fire being lit. CLEARLY, the bulk of his cuisine was vegan! (When there is a will there is a way).

Yasmin then finds the opinions that somewhat support her. She states that the Hanafi school was very
restrictive and didn’t allow for any meat except 2/3 kinds. She will take the Hanafi opinion and
extrapolate it to such an extent that it is practically one step away from veganism.

She will then explain how the Hadith tradition supports veganism. In their the authentic books (which
she rejects), the Prophet (SAW) commanded the kind treatment of animals. He soothed the animal
that was crying and asked what was wrong. The animal said that its owner abuses and beats him. The
Prophet (SAW) disapproved of these actions, so how can he possibly allow for the killing and eating of
animals!?

3) Traditionalist Conservatism

Meet Abdullah! He says, “Eating biryani (or kebabs) is an established part of Islam and in order to be
Muslims we must preserve it”.
Abdullah loves meat, especially biryani. He loves it too much to let it go. He wanted to preserve the
meat-eating heritage of his forefathers, and he disdained the USV even though his grades and level of
education was superior to those of the people of USV. 


His rebellious nature made him look down upon the USV. He took the cultural tradition of his family
and culture as an act of worship itself.

His friend Ahmed wants rice and lamb instead of biryani while others want couscous and chicken.
While the different meat-eating groups tolerated one another, they did not tolerate bean-eating
burrito groups because that is what the Kuffaar eat! The Sunnah of the Indians in 1850 is the real
Sunnah!

Abdullah becomes a counter reaction to popular culture. What was considered pure culture (e.g.
eating biryani) becomes Islam itself. So, anyone who does not eat biryani becomes a progressive
modernist and therefore a threat to the Ummah. It is MY way and the way of my forefathers;
otherwise, you don’t belong with me.

Abdullah has some isolationist ideologies of migrating to meat-eating only lands. Other people like
Abdullah want to make biryani a national food item. Others became enraged radicals who destroy and
burn vegetable farms; they also sacrifice animals in public and then run away.

4) Moderate Reform

Meet Ali! He says, “Eating meat is not a necessary part of Islam; and there is no doubt that elements of
our culture should be modified (e.g. humane treatment, methods of slaughtering, etc.). It is also
undeniable that consuming more fruits and vegetables is indeed healthy. So, we should try to take the
good of USV culture and modify some elements of our ancestral culture, while remaining true to the
Scriptures of Islam”.

This group attempts to historize both the dominant culture of USV and the conservatism of Abdullah’s
group. In other words, rather than just agree that veganism is the only correct lifestyle (“Rejection of
Islam” and “Progressive Radical Reinterpretation of Islam” group) or flat out reject veganism
(“Traditional Conservatism” group), this group contextualizes veganism.

They understand that even though veganism did not exist in pre-modernity, not everything about it is
haram. They raise questions such as: Is it possible to be vegan and a Muslim at the same time? Are
there any valid points behind veganism?

They try to eliminate the emotional aspect of the argument while explaining that eating meat is not a
fundamental aspect of Islam. It is possible to have sincerity and taqwa while abstaining from the
eating of meat. You can still follow the laws of the land while remaining a loyal Muslim.

Ali and others in this group tell the Muslims that if the USV merely frowns upon eating meat, they
should sacrifice the animals in private and eat the meat in private. But if the USV has officially made
such acts illegal, then maybe the Muslims should just give it up since eating meat is not an obligation is
Islam.

This group will argue that veganism has some positive aspects such as leading a healthier lifestyle and
pointing out the cruel slaughterhouses. Therefore, we should not be so dismissive of the entire
concept. Just because my father did not eat a bean-burrito (the staple food of USV), it doesn’t mean I
can’t.
This group is critical of both the modern culture and the culture of their parents. They look back at
their books to find the true teachings of Islam in order to analyse the possible compatibility with the
dominant culture of USV.

The groups listed above will always criticize Ali’s group.
In this hypothetical scenario, veganism
represents the current issues we face: feminism, 
gender equality, gender roles, and LGBT.
 Module

5
Divine Law And Modern Governance
Module 5: Divine Law And Modern Governance:
5.1 Introducing the Nation State and Citizenship

Nationalism and the division of the world into nation-states is a relatively modern phenomenon
(within the last 100 years). Historically, humanity was ruled under tribalism or kingship. In fact,
nationalism and division could only have emerged in a modern world, where:

 Languages become more predominant in a region because of print and paper - languages
were standardized by printing press
 Unified authority becomes easier to manage larger groups - governments are controlling
larger and larger groups
 Industrial changes breaks class structure e.g. the development of railroads

The beginning of fixed and static borders is typically dated to the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 in
which European entities agreed upon specific boundaries. Before this time, solid borders did not exist
since the status quo was more or less war.

In the Western world, both the American and French Revolutions helped popularize the idea of
‘nation’. You were loyal to the country and dynasty. The British anthem is “God save the Queen”, not
“God save the Country”. King Louis XVI was executed by revolutionaries under the motto “Vive la
Republique!”. Even the king’s sanctity was lost in order to protect the country.

Ironically, in the Eastern world, such theories generally arose from within an anti-colonial context
(e.g. ‘Indian’ uprisings against the British – but there was not a concept of a unified ‘India’ before the
British!). 
One extreme of Muslims will say that nationalism is Haram and ask questions like, how can
you say you are proud to be Pakistani? The other extreme of Muslims will say, I am Pakistani first and
Muslim second. This level of nationalism, also referred to as jingoism, is a level of nationalism that
borders on paranoia. The loyalty to the nation becomes a type of religion in which you can never
criticize the nation.

Both World Wars solidified the birth of modern nation states since the Ottomans lost, and the allied
forces took over the Middle East. Nation states are relatively modern phenomena, and even now,
change is continual E.g. Germany split up after the war, American acquired Hawaii in 1950s, Louisiana
bought from French and Alaska bought from Russia.

Trivia: What is the ‘newest’ country in the world? And how old is it?

The newest country in the world is South Sudan, which was formed in 2011. How can you be
nationalistic about your country when you yourself are older than the country?

The notion of being loyal to a country is a very modern notion. What does it mean to be loyal to an
entity, which does not breathe or live or even exist? In the UK, loyalty before was to the royalty – so to
a living, breathing family. That loyalty transferred onto the children and inheritors. But what does it
mean to be loyal to an entity? This is one of the problems of the nation state.
 There are many types of nationalism:

1. Ethnic nationalism (Germany in the 1930s)

You had to be of the Aryan race and from a particular Nordic stock to be considered a proper
German. This mentality led to Nazism.

2. Integral nationalism (Italy under fascist rule)

3. Religious nationalism (Israel)

If you are a Jew, you can automatically apply for Israeli citizenship.

4. Civic nationalism (America)

Diverse communities come together, and they all agree on the betterment of their civil society. You
come together for the greater good of the country e.g. America However, what is the greater good?

But there is always overlap between these types of nationalism. You never have a pure form of
nationalism – the Tea Party of America is an example.

Even though nationalism is the status quo of the entire world, it does have its critics. One of the most
famous critics is Benedict Anderson who wrote his classic Imagined Communities (published 1983).
He argues that the nation state is an imaginary political community; a nation must falsely have the
notion that it is unique and different from other nations. Such a nation will draw imaginary
boundaries on humanly drawn maps to establish its legitimacy.

Essentially what Anderson is saying is that countries are the collective figment of the imagination of
everyone in them, that people simply agree they are part of an imaginary country and that the concept
of “nation state” is merely a figment of imagination. Where did the lines come from? What changes
when cross a border from one place to another? It is like monopoly where play money is used, it is not
real. (We realize that stepping from America to Canada is merely stepping over an imaginary line that
doesn’t actually exist). Furthermore, Louisiana for example was purchased by the US from France.

His argument is about what makes a person American or what British values are? What combines all
of Britain and makes them different from other people of the world in terms of being human and
ethics. When we analyze the term “American Values”, we find it strikingly similar to “Canadian
Values”. Both set of values emphasize hard work, civic duty, and honesty. He is therefore arguing that
there is no such thing as a country and an identity associated with it.

Comparison between various other philosophies of rule:

Tribe Nation-state Ummah

1) Everybody shares the same
Definitions ancestors. Blood is common
among them e.g. aboriginals,
native Indians.
Everyone shares a border.
Everyone who lives within
the border is of that
nation (people belonging to
the same geographic area).
Everyone who shares a
theological view. They
share a methodology of
life.
2) Origins The most common and
(when are earliest form of society that
how did it we know of. It has been
begin?) around since the beginning of
time and is the oldest form of
political rule. We know it
very well because it was
upheld in the times of
Jahilliyah.
It was the standard way of
defining unity in Islamic
history, and recently, it has
fallen into misuse.
3) Founding The one who founded a
Myths/conce certain tribe was made into a
ption (who legendary hero. Stories
made it exaggerated the truth about
‘sacred’ and his bravery. Mythologies
how are they were given to their founders
viewed?) to make them superhuman -
super-powerful, super-
intelligent etc
4) The honor Men were encouraged
of serving (through propaganda) to
and dying fight for their tribe and
for… defend its honor. Bravery
was rewarded, as men could
become the leader/chief of
the tribe. If they died in
battle, they would be
immortalized in poetry. The
greatest thing in any tribe
was to serve the tribe.
Technically – 400 years ago
Realistically – 100 years ago
The Europeans, especially the tribes and every
Germans, were the first to
preach their superiority
because they belonged to a
certain state in the pre-WWI
era. This also occurred in
Italy with the rise of Fascism. Prophet Muhammad
People who founded the
nation state were given
sacred status. We are taught
their biographies, which are
half-myth, half-truth.
The scandalous and
dishonorable acts they
committed are conveniently
swept under the rug. For
example, the fact that some of
the founding fathers raped
their slave women is ignored
as we focus more on their
contribution to forming the
nation state.
Myths depict them as
“superhuman”, but in reality,
they are similar to the masses
of people who also have
negative qualities.
There is a myth of serving the
country and dying for the
country. It is glorified and
advertisements depict
serving the nation state as
glamorous since you get to
jump off helicopters and
become a real man.
When they die in battle a
huge honour is given (a
special graveyard, special
The concept of the
Ummah predates
tribalism (as the first
Prophet pre-dates the
Prophet has an
Ummah).
However, we will say
that it goes back to
(SAW). Allah (SWT tells
us that He sent the
Prophet as a mercy to
the world (rahmatan lil
alameen).
The founders of the
Ummah are given this
position by
Allah. There are no
myths in this system.
Rather, it is all fact and
we praise Allah (SWT)
for this.
The only one of these
three that offers a
tangible benefit for the
person – guarantees the
after-life for a
legitimate martyr (not
the crazies).
We are saved from the
Fitnah and torment of
the grave. We have the
honor of entering

5) What is Blood is common within
common members – generally the
between same religion & ethnicity.
members? Tribes are generally
homogenous.
6) How do You have to be born a
you treat ‘the member otherwise
other?’ you cannot become a
member. There was a rare
concept of ‘tabanni’ which
lets you in the tribe where
the Quraish would fully adopt
a child and say that the child
was their biological child. At-
tabanni is the Arabic word
for adoption.
Or you can live as a second
class citizen. Mawla refers to
those with second-class
status because they are not a
Quraishi; therefore, such an
individual would never have
power or authority.
Abdullah bin Mas’ood was
not a Quraishi and thus lived
as a second-class citizen. This
was a kind of discrimination.
coffin, medals, money, burial Jannah Ghaira Hisaab
with a 21-gun salute and (without account). The
name engraved in a marble ultimate honor and
wall. Effectively, he is reward is from Allah
immortalized). You don’t (SWT).
dare criticize them as this is
considered modern
blasphemy.
Language, religion, cultural Members believe in the
values, birthplace (not even same God, Prophet,
geography is entirely Book, calendar, religion,
common), heritage, views of Law of code, sacred
life all differ. This lack of language of Qur’an,
commonality, shows the history of actual glory,
problem with nation-state. heritage, Qiblah, and
ritual of Hajj.
The only commonalities
include a passport and We don’t share the
perhaps- protection from the same ethnicity,
government. (However some common language, skin
may argue that skin colour colour or financial
etc. may influence how much status (everyone is
of this ‘protection’ you equal and welcome).
actually receive).
You don’t become a member Shahada. You control
of the nation state. Rather, it whether you are part of
depends on where your the Ummah or
mother gave birth to you. If not. Each person has a
you are born in the nation free will in regards to
state, you have achieved the accepting or rejecting
highest level. the shahada. It is each
person’s personal
The second level is for the decision whether he or
immigrants who took the she is part of the system
oath ceremony. 
However, or not.
they are always afraid their
citizenship will be revoked
due to for example an error
in the application
Those who obtain a visa or
green card achieve the third
level. These 
people pay
taxes but can’t vote.
There remains some
discrimination to ‘the other’.
For example, an 
American
may be subtly discriminated
against in England if he/she
is forced to wait in line for an
event while those from the
European Union get to skip

7) The In the Jahilliyah society,
punishment leaving the tribe was almost
for ‘breaking impossible because the
away’ individual had nowhere to
find refuge. In very rare
occurrences when a person
left the tribe, he would be
considered a traitor with no
value to his life. You would
have to physically leave and
earn the enmity and
animosity of your former
tribe.
The Prophet (SAW) was
criticized because he
preached against the Arab
tribal hierarchy since
destroying the stability of the
tribe was considered treason
(reason why they tried to
assassinate the Prophet
(SAW))
8) Who is in The oldest and bravest
charge? people. The Chief.
What system
is used to For example, Abdul Muttaleb
judge? was in charge of the Quraish
tribe.
From a purely Islamic point of view, being a member of a nation state is Halal. The Prophet (SAW) was
a member of the Quraish, but he didn’t make the Quraish tribe his primary identity. Rather, his
the line.
Must give loyalty or you will
be severely punished. The
only crime to deserve capital
punishment – this is treason
(Britain).
For example, the Rosenbergs
were caught stealing
documents and selling them
to the Soviets. The judge at
the trial told them that they
have committed a crime
worse than murder. Selling
pieces of paper for money is
worse than murder? Look at
how sacred the nation state
has become.
The King
Riddah and blasphemy
– this also has a capital
punishment.
Hence treason and
blasphemy have the
same exact law as
treason and blasphemy
in the nation state.
The murtadd (apostate)
suffers the death
penalty.
Shariah and not a
person. The Khalifa
implements the Shariah,
However, there is a
basic rubric to establish
the legitimacy of the
Khalifah depending on
how faithful he is to the
Law of Allah.
You have a right to
eliminate the Khalifah
when he goes against
Shariah In essence, the
Islamic notions of wala’
make more logical and
rational sense than
either tribalism or
loyalties to the nation
state.
primary identity was Muslim. After you establish your primary identity as Muslim, you can be
Quraishi, Pakistani, etc.

To say that being a member of a nation state is Wajib is extreme nationalism, and this is Haram. But to
completely dismiss the notion of belonging to a nation state is unreasonable.

Our ultimate loyalty is always to Allah (SWT). Our nation state identity should never compromise our
deen. America is not a god. So, loyalty to America is not loyalty to a god. It is Halal to be an American.

As a side note to demonstrate a point. At airports, separate queues exist for EU and Non-EU citizens. If
in a Muslim country we had queues for Muslims and Non-Muslims – it would cause an outrage.
However it goes to show that the nation state discriminates based on – typically - where your mother
gave birth to you, something you have no control over. This is discrimination however it is so common
and acceptable that people are blind to it. The Shariah makes so much more sense as people can
choose to be Muslim or not to be – it is not a matter of chance.

Many western thinkers such as Albert Einstein, Mark Twain and George Bernard Shaw have pointed
out the flaws of nationalism.

5.2 The American Muslim Experience


Muslims Living as Minorities in Kaafir Lands:

Historically, Muslims have had a few opportunities to live as minorities in Kaafir majority lands.
Depending on those experiences, people’s Fatwas have changed. We need to benefit from Islamic
history, this is not a black and white issue.

Let us analyze three examples:

1) Muslims of Andalucia after recapture (al-Wansharisi’s harsh fatwa)

After the Reconquista (recapture) of Andalusia, the Spaniards treated the Muslims as second-class
citizens. The rulers initially promised them freedom, but Muslims were later told they could not pray
or practice their religion and that they must convert. 


Some Muslims fled to North Africa while hundreds of thousands of Muslims decided to convert to
Christianity because leaving was too difficult. A large percentage of them pretended to convert but
were truly Muslim at heart. 


Muslims requested Fatwas from the leading Moroccan scholars. One of the greatest scholars of that
time was Alwan Shareesy who followed the Maliki madh-hab. His position was crystal clear that the
Muslims cannot stay and must leave. Even the one who wanted to stay in order to gain Islamic
knowledge could not stay. 


Alwan was correct in his prediction that times would change and the Spaniard’s promises would
prove false. Within 10 years, new laws came in that stated no thre was to be no speaking of the Arabic
language, no Jummah salah, no Hijab etc finally leading to forced conversion and torture (the
inquisitions). Those who remained lost their Islam.

Groups like ISIS say Muslims must leave a kaafir country, quoting the fatwa of Alwan. However, the
context dictates the opinion.
 2) Muslims of India after the collapse of the Mughals in 1857:
The Mughals massacred entire villages of Muslims. They would find a man on the street and pull down
his pants to see if he was circumcised. If he was circumcised, they would kill him. 


British troops surrounded the palace of the last Mughal Emperor and arrested him for treason to their
Queen. So, he was forced to abdicate. 


When the last of the Mughals died in Nepal, the British took over India. The Muslims of India asked the
scholars around the Muslim world what they should do. Must we immigrate? The British have
promised us Shariah courts and Muslim judges. 


The British promised them religious freedom under the condition of loyalty to the Queen. The Ulamah
of that time almost unanimously said that it is permissible for the Muslims to stay in India under these
conditions and not to rebel. Hardly any Indian Muslims migrated and those who stayed were able to
preserve their Islam. Hence India preserved its Islam which is what led to the creation of Pakistan and
Bangladesh.

3) Muslims of Algeria after the French Invasion of 1830

When Napoleon’s success spread, the French decided they had a right to colonize the Muslim world.
So, they invaded Algeria and ruled over it from 1830-1961. The French were very brutal and callous
when they invaded as they massacred people and tried to suppress the Muslims. They were extremely
greedy and imposed heavy taxes on them. The Muslims of Algeria asked the scholars for direction. It
was not very black and white since it was their land. 


One camp of the pragmatics declared that since the French won and because they are stronger, the
Muslims cannot fight them. Rather, the Muslims must compromise with them to guarantee their
religious rights, working within the system to cooperate with French officials. 


The other camp said they would never live under the French even if they all die fighting, even if they
killed them all. Omar Al-Mukhtar followed this opinion; he and his followers fought until the end, and
they were all killed. 


So, there was a difference of opinion. We cannot say one is right and one is wrong. Both had pros and
cons. 


The division of lands was something various madh-habs did differently, taking their socio-political
world into account. Simplistic schemes of world divisions need to be updated. Perhaps even new
categories need to be found. No one has the ultimate solution for Muslims living in the west. We will
have to navigate through our western Muslim landscape in a unique manner in an attempt to find the
best option. The vast majority of scholars in our times say that it is permissible for Muslims to live in a
western democracy with some conditions as shown in the stories below.
THE STORY OF FUDAYK:

Fudayk accepted Islam during the time of the Prophet (SAW), but his entire tribe remained non-
Muslim. Someone told him that he had to make hijrah to Medinah in order to be a ‘real’ Muslim.

He was so troubled, that he travelled all the way to Medinah to ask the Prophet (SAW) directly about
the issue. He said, “O messenger of Allah! There are people claiming that whoever does not emigrate
will come to ruin.”

The Prophet (SAW) replied, “O Fudayk, establish the prayer, avoid bad deeds, and live with your
people wherever you like.” [Sahih Ibn Hibban (4861), Sunan of al-Bayhaqi, and others].

This hadith clearly demonstrates that if people are able to establish the basics of Islam, it is
permissible for them to live wherever they want in the world, as the Prophet (SAW) explicitly allows
Fudayk to live in any land he wanted. Given the modern dynamics of our world, this Hadith is
especially applicable. There is no land that will absorb all the Muslims. It is un-Islamic and naïve to
say all Muslims must migrate to a Muslim land. So, the claim of ISIS that all Muslims must migrate to a
Muslim land is incorrect.

THE STORY OF HUDHAYFAH B. AL-YAMAN :

Hudhayfah and his father were both Ansari and therefore Madani (not Makki). They were in Mecca
doing Umrah when the Prophet (SAW) began the Battle of Badr. The Quraish captured and
imprisoned both Hudhayfah and his father, saying they would not be set free because they would
fight against them with the other Muslims.

Yaman and his son promised that they only wanted to go back to Madinah. They both promised not to
fight them, taking a solemn oath in front of the Ka’bah. Upon returning to Madinah, they explained the
situation to the Prophet (SAW) who then commanded them to fulfill their promise. So, he forbade
them from fighting in the Battle of Badr, saying, “We shall fulfill their treaties with you, and rely on
Allah against them!”.

From this hadith, we learn that it is permissible to have a treaty/promise/covenant /passport, which
gives you certain rights and restrictions even if it is at the expense of other aspects. The visa is a
contract, and you are not allowed to break an oath or a promise; it is un-Islamic to be treacherous. It
is not allowed to be an American citizen or obtain a visa and then go against that visa because that is
false promise and a violation of the oath. If you feel so passionately about the situation, then you
should go live in another land and take its citizenship. Hudhayfah made a visa with Quraish, and the
Prophet (SAW) told him not to fight in the Battle of Badr.

Any Muslim who is given protection by another non-Muslim country must respect the conditions of
that protection. If he does violate the conditions (e.g. stealing, plunder, etc.), the ideal Khalifah must
return the renegade to the land of the Kuffar. A criminal is a criminal.

“And if they (another group of Muslims) ask you for help, in the name of the religion, then you must help
them, unless it be against a group with whom you have a treaty in place.” Surah al-Anfal, 8:72.

Mainstream clerics have, therefore, permitted the living of Muslims in non-Muslim lands and under
non-Muslim rule, provided they have the freedom to practice their faith.

Muslims can make the Niyyah that their taxes are going to roads or schools, not for the military.
 So how do muslims navigate ‘the system’?

Andrew March (a non-Muslim) is an expert on Muslim minorities, and he has given several models
that are in use:
1. The Thin Social Contract Model 2. The Internal Retreat Model

This is the standard position of most This is popular amongst ultra-conservative groups
clerics (Qaradawi, Bin Bayyah, etc.)
This is a subset of the first model with the caveat that the
The Muslims view themselves as being Muslims withdraw and cut off ties with the community forming
loyal alien residents of the governing their own bubble. These steps help to maximize your own system
system. They are legally obliged to uphold and spread your own ethics and values.
its laws because the Shariah says we must
honor our promises. This is prevalent amongst the Amish in addition to the Mormons
who left for Utah.
So, if they have a passport or visa, they
must remain loyal and avoid treachery. Due to the insular nature of this model, life becomes extremely
The Muslims must abide by the law to the difficult. No matter how insular you are, there must be
greatest extent possible. connections with the broader community e.g. the bubble of the
masjid may exist but parents and kids still go to work and school.
Therefore, they can import certain concepts into the Masjid.
3. The Self-Governance Model
Many people practice this model at the family level.
This is not possible in America and only
practical in one or two countries.
4. The Temporary Modus Vivendi Model
Each community governs itself in
accordance to laws that the government
Typically espoused by extremely political and/or radical groups
allows it to delegate: family law,
inheritance law, marriage issues, etc.
They agree to disagree with the prevailing system.
This model is actually an Islamic ideal.
Radical groups such as Hizb ut-Tahrir argue they are only
temporarily living in a non-Muslim land, and they will soon take
British India perfected this model, and
over when the Khalifah gains power.
modern India is almost acting upon such
ideals too.
Never in Islamic history has a Muslim minority become a
majority through force. This has only happened through peaceful
This model can be seen in modern Israel in
conversion. E.g. Indonesia and Malaysia: armies did not invade
which self-governance is the law of the
these countries. Islam became established voluntarily.
land.

5. The Thicker Social Contract Model

In this model, most Muslims are active in politics /media or sympathetic to those who are. This is a revised
version of the Thin Social Contract Model.

Religious constituents agree that the existing government is not divine; however, it remains just in most aspects
and therefore can be fully endorsed.

For example, suppose a Muslim is murdered. Islamically, the one who committed the crime is executed. Here in
the U.S., most murder cases do not reach execution. So should the Muslim family sue in the secular court and try
to get the maximum jail time for the criminal? Or should they just forget about it since the Shariah is not going
to be established? Even though the American government does not enforce Shariah, the family will feel
passionate about its system in an attempt to achieve the closest thing to justice and maximum jail time.
CONCLUSION
Feeling doubts is natural, and each one of us feels doubt some times. If kept within control, it can turn
into faith.

Story of Ibrahim

Ibrahim (AS) asked Allah (SWT) to show him how He resurrects the dead. Ibrahim was not asking out
of doubt or rejection but rather to reassure his faith. The Prophet (SAW) said that we have more right
to have doubt than Ibrahim.

Umar b. al-Khattab and Hudaybiyya

Umar (RA) overreacted to the treaty of Hudaybiyy. He asked the Prophet (SAW), aren’t you the
Prophet? The Prophet (SAW) replied, yes. Umar then asked, aren’t we upon truth? He replied, yes.
Umar asked, aren’t they upon falsehood? He replied, yes. Umar asked, then why are we humiliating
ourselves in front of them? Umar himself was feeling a kind of a doubt. He was not rejecting the truth,
but he wanted to understand the situation better.

Someone once said to the Prophet (SAW), O messenger of Allah! Sometimes thoughts come to
my mind. Were I to be shredded into bits, it would be more beloved to me than to say those
thoughts, and I am so angry and ashamed of myself that I would rather be cut into pieces than
say them. The Prophet (SAW) then said, that is the ESSENCE of Iman!!

How? The Prophet (SAW) was not referring to the thoughts themselves but rather feeling guilty about
those thoughts. To feel that bad about thoughts of Kufr is the essence of Iman! Shaytan throws
thoughts (Waswas) into our minds. We all have these Waswas about sins, desires, sensual pleasure,
drugs, alcohol, women, etc. Sometimes those waswas are about Allah and His messenger (SAW), Islam,
and the Qur’an. They are not from our heart but from Shaytan. If we feel guilty, that is the essence of
faith.

What to do?
Understand the overlapping roles of the intellect, and spirituality, and belief.

The basic premise of Islam: every part of your being (logic, rational intellect, fitrah, Prophets,
Qur’an)...all of it, causes you to believe that the message is true.

But the message also has matters that are supra-rational (soul, angels, Heaven, Hell, afterlife etc.) or of
ambiguous rationality (Islamic laws), or in very rare instances, of dubious rationality (Theory of
Evolution).

Sometimes even qualified scholars don’t understand certain aspects of Islam. But they believe in
Allah’s knowledge, mercy, and wisdom. They believe in Muhammad (SAW) and the Qur’an.

Given that everything else makes sense, and that the alternatives are nonsensical and illogical, belief
in Islam therefore, at times, requires a logical and spiritually fulfilling ‘leap of faith’, and that is the
iman bi’l-ghayb that is always praised in the Qur’an.

Western culture thinks rationality will solve all the world’s problems. However, logic and reason is
only valid in one sphere. There are other spheres like common sense, emotion, and Fitrah which can
overlap with logic/reason to guide one to Islam. We cannot rationalize each and every matter because
there are things beyond the realm of reason. The soul, Ghayb, and angels cannot be proven
scientifically because science has a limited role.
The Hadith Of Doubts:
The Prophet (SAW) said: “The people will keep on questioning until it will be asked, ‘This was
created by Allah, but who created Allah?’ Whoever experiences any of that, let him say, ‘I believe
in Allah and His Messengers.’ And let him seek refuge with Allah and stop [this line of reasoning].”
Narrated by Muslim in his Sahih.

Benefits from this hadith:

The notion that ‘more rational inquiry is always better’ is not itself rational, nor do those who claim to
champion it consistently follow it.

o You don’t question each and every aspect of your life since you take things for granted. The same
holds for religion. Once you know it is true, you take it for granted.

Questions should be useful and pertinent and asked of those who know.

o Too many questions can be harmful


o Not every question has a logical answer

Seek affirmation through what you know (‘I believe in Allah and His Messengers’) for what you
don’t know

o So, when you come across something you don’t understand, refer it to something you DO
understand.

o You affirm what you know (Allah and His Messenger) to counter that which you don’t know

Rationality has its limits, and delving beyond those limits will lead to irrational answers (‘...and
stop!’).

o We need to stop thinking about issues that will bring doubt to us and ultimately harm us.

o We need to busy ourselves with Qur’an, dhikr, and du’a.

The power of du’a (‘...let him seek refuge in Allah’)

o When we find ourselves in doubt, we need to immediately turn to Allah (swt) and seek His refuge

o The Prophet (SAW) would say more than 50 times every day, “Guide us to the Straight Path” in his
Salah.

Use these pieces of advice when future doubts come. Do not let any doubts grow. Use the above advice
to move on from them.

Surah Yunus, an early Makkah revelation, concludes its powerful message as follows:

“Say, [O Muhammad], "O mankind! If you are in doubt as to my religion - then I do not worship
those which you worship besides Allah. Rather, I worship the One who shall cause you to die! And
I have been commanded to be of the believers. So direct your face toward the religion, inclining to
truth, and never be of those who associate others with Allah...Say, "O mankind, the truth has come
to you from your Lord, so whoever is guided is only guided for the benefit of his soul, and whoever
goes astray only goes astray in violation against it. And I am not placed in charge over you! And
follow what has been revealed to you, and be patient until the Decree of Allah comes. And He is
the best of all judges.”

(Surah Yunus, 10:104-105, 108-109)

This Surah was an early Meccan Surah that discusses the message of the Prophet (SAW), which
admonished the Quraish. The end is very simple and clear as Allah (swt) says that a true Muslim will
believe and act upon Tawheed even if others of mankind have doubts about Islam. The doubts
mankind harbors about Islam will never shake the Iman of the true believers or cause them to deviate
from the Straight Path.

When people raise so many questions about Islam, we need to simple ask ourselves one question:
what will happen to me when I die? We realize that we must believe in Allah (SWT) because He is the
one who will cause us to die. The Prophet (SAW) is saying in the above ayahs, I worship the One who
will take your soul!

When Allah (SWT) says, “So direct your face to the true religion”, He is telling us to busy ourselves in
acts of ibadah because it remains one of the best ways to eliminate doubt. When we immerse
ourselves in the pleasure of worshipping Allah, He will dispel these doubts from our mind.

The surah concludes “O mankind! Verily, the truth has come to you from you Lord. So whoever is
guided is only guided for the benefit of his soul, and whoever goes astray only goes astray in violation
against it”. So, when these atheists and agnostics argue with you, it is truly their choice if they want to
be guided. If they are misguided, they only harm themselves, not you.

“And I am not placed in charge over you!” means that it is not my business to protect you. That is only
your own business.

A Muslim must be patient until the decree of Allah comes and remember that Allah is the most just of
the judges.