Future Islam and the Secret of Technology

There is something prior to technology without which it cannot be understood, and that is a method that analyses and breaks things down into what it regards as logical component pieces. The process that exemplifies this best is the search for the atom. The Greeks, notably Leucippus and Democritus, proposed that if one breaks something in half, and then breaks the half in half, that one can proceed only so far until one comes to something that is not divisible, which they call the “not divisible” or atom. For “a” means “not” and “tom” means “divisible. Of course, we all know that what has been called the atom was itself divisible further into the sub-atomic particles, but the basic idea still stands. The inheritors of this thinking called the atom, “the basic building block of matter” for they thought that matter and thus the universe is essentially something that has been built, and by calling the atom a building block they of course implied that once one understands this process we too can build.

Now one person most eloquently expressed anxiety at this process, and that was Mary Shelley, for in her novel Frankinstein, and remember that Frankinstein is the doctor and not his monster although arguably it is the doctor who is the real monster, she embodied this process in the doctor who, having anaylsed the human being into his constituent organs, limbs and bones, then decides that he too can build a human. Tellingly, although what he builds is hideous, it is nevertheless human. Frankinstein is unable to return its natural need for love, and it is this that drives the creature over the edge.

So this building activity of technology derives from this prior process of analysing and breaking down into the simplest elements.

So what does technology do? We ask this in the most general sense in order to get beyond the very specific picture of particular technologies. But let us take a specific in order to understand these general processes better: a Hi-Fi system. In it we have, for example, an amplifier. The amplifier does exactly what its name implies: it takes a weak input, a weak signal, and makes it stronger. If we step back from this example, we realise that technology does this throughout its realm. It takes a weak signal and amplifies it, whether it is a sound or a force or an idea. The media take weak signals, such as silly ideas, or poor analyses of situations, but through the power of the technology, it is transmitted into thousands and often millions of homes; it is amplified. We see instantly that this process is intimately connected to power, both in the physical sense and the political.

So having derived a general from a specific, let us now list a few more general features of technology.

Technology telescopes: i.e. it brings that which is distant much closer, and this derives from the Greek root “tele” for distance. Obviously we have the telescope, telephone and television. Equally it brings that which is close to distant parts: the telephone is two-way. We can now blog and our writings can be read instantly in China or Borneo. All of us assume such a reality. We spend time in virtual communities.

Paradoxically, we see that it drives that which is closer further away, as most people have experienced with the mobile phone interrupting a conversation. The caller is brought closer but the people in the conversation are made distant.

It also microscopes: it enables one to see what is ordinarily too small to see. The detail. To do this it has to put a frame around the object excluding other things. This is an inescapable activity of science and technology. Focus in and exclude extraneous signals.

It accelerates. Things are speeded up, by planes, cars, and by processes. In general things are going faster today than they ever did, and will evidently go even faster tomorrow.

Technology reproduces, repeats, replicates, duplicates and multiplies, e.g. in factories. A simple movement is repeated endlessly. Industry analyses the manufacture of the shoe into minute processes which are then individually expedited by robots, or people behaving like robots, and then assembled. The shoe is no longer in the hands of a person but in the hands of a system, whether of machines or people or both. An unanticipated side-effect of this process is the utter boredom and tedium of people’s lives since the part of the process or the product over which they have control is in itself meaningless. People are creatures of meaning.

Although the above list certainly does not cover everything that technology does, it gives an indication of some very key things that it does do. However, the above are not necessarily technological or machine driven. For example, our outline of the factory could equally well be applied to schooling or the state. The school has become a kind of factory for manufacturing citizens. It is an industrial process. Similarly, the state is an industry for processing citizens from birth until death. Machines are used, but the essence of these two examples is that people submit themselves, whether actively or passively, to being parts of a great machine. Thus, the word technology is not going to do for what we are trying to describe, and for that reason some people, such as the French writer Jacques Ellul, suggested that really we are dealing with technique.

So here we have a technique or set of techniques or sets of techniques and technologies which accelerate, amplify, reproduce, and telescope. Programmers have a maxim of computing which is “rubbish in, rubbish out”. Any such system or set of techniques behaves much like a computer programme, so that it basically amplifies, telescopes, accelerates and endlessly reproduces the input. If it is the technical society that is destroying the planet, then it is this facet of it that is to blame. Before technique culture, mistakes were limited in scale. With technique culture, the mistakes are amplified and accelerated tremendously. What is perhaps more distressing is that the reach of mediocrity is extended greatly.

But where does this culture come from? The people of the planet asked themselves this question in different places and in different epochs and they said: it comes from Europe. Both Europeans and non-Europeans gave this answer.

As this technique culture grew, there was a broad spectrum of responses to it, whose two extremes were infatuation and repulsion. This was both in Europe and elsewhere. The first response was because of the control and the power it appeared to give, and men are prone to love control and power. However, they neglected to reflect on Dr Frankinstein’s case, for he was incapable of love. The people of technique culture are incapable of love.

The opposite response, repulsion and rejection, was to be found both in Europe and elsewhere. In its most extreme case it is to be seen in people who decided that no technology from later than the seventeenth century should be used, and they dedicated themselves to live in communities based on that principle.

Now these two responses were possible when technique culture was still growing, when there were still places it had not reached.

In the seventies, a New York painter called Tobias Schneebaum made a journey up the Amazon river. He was, probably deeply instinctively, trying to get away from the all-enveloping technique culture. He went as far up the river as anyone would think to go and arrived at a missionary settlement. He asked them what lay further up the river? They told him that there were really terrible cannibal peoples. He immediately proceeded further up the river. Seeing a beach with some curious boulders on it, he disembarked to inspect them, but was astonished to find them to be the heads of people who were squatting there staring at him. After a moment in which they contemplated each other, they leapt to their feet and embraced him wildly and happily. They were completely naked. He was taken in to their society, made welcome, and lived happily with them for a year without seeing anything untoward. At the end of that period, the young men, among whom he was included, primed themselves for some martial escapade, and he and they went to another village where there was a fight, with them killing a number of people there. Then they ate parts of the dead people, and he ate with them. This was the beginning of his disengaging from them and he ultimately returned to New York and wrote a book called, “Keep the River on Your Right”. However, the reprise of the story is that in the nineties he returned there with a documentary film crew. The missionaries had got there before him along with the Coca Cola. The erstwhile savages were now in tee-shirts and were suffering from various ailments such as unemployment, something for which they probably had no word in their language.

Thus, the reality is that the technique culture has penetrated everywhere on the planet. There is nowhere outside of it, and so the option of wanting it in that infatuated way or of rejecting it is no longer open to us. Whatever we think of it, we are stuck with it.

But now we have to ask the question again: where does the culture of technique and technology come from? We have inherited a crude theology from Rome which basically sees the world in terms of nature and civilisation. In the Christianised version, God is seen as the Creator of nature and man the maker of civilisation. The reality is that this is how people really do see things, no matter what philosophers and theologians say. And of course because man’s civilisation has grown so much that people no longer believe in God.

Early scientists such as Galileo, Descartes, Newton, Kepler and Copernicus were undoubtedly believers in the Christian sense, but what they discovered was so powerful and it produced so many results that as night follows day the next generation were basically atheists, such as Laplace who on being asked by Napoleon why his book on celestial mechanics had no mention of the Creator replied, “Monsieur, I had no need of that hypothesis.” This was from arrogant pride at the sheer extent of new information and in the power of the new technical scientific man.

But what was forgotten is that man is natural; he is a part of nature. What man creates is a part of the natural order, even when it seems un-natural. Thus it is a part of God’s creation. Everything comes from Allah. He is the Creator of everything because if this were not the case, we would be dealing with a plurality of gods, which is a very primitive idea. However, the natural order contains both fruit and poison, it contains both health and cancer. Thus, we are in need of a discrimination. Clearly something in our culture is cancerous. But we are not taking the stance of the rejectionists that sees rejection of technique culture in toto as the only way forward. Thus we are in serious need of some kind of discrimination.

Let us return to our shoe factory. The ability of the shoe factory process to turn out copious amounts of shoes is undisputed. However, the shoes suffer from one flaw: like most industrially manufactured things they are mediocre; they are neither superlatively well designed and made nor, on the other hand, unusable. The truth is that all things being equal and price being no consideration, anyone who had the choice of a handmade shoe or an industrially manufactured one, would choose the former. So why did the craft tradition go down before industry? Price. The industrial product was cheaper. Very often it was not cheaper because it was genuinely less expensive to make, but because the owners practised undercutting; they looked at the price of shoes and then decided that their shoes would be cheaper, often dramatically so. They knew that by this means they would drive their craft competitors out of business, at which point the price could be whatever they wished it to be. Now this is where our wished-for discrimination might come in useful. Undercutting used to be considered illegal in many societies.

In many traditional markets, a shoe of a known description had a known price. It was not acceptable to go below it. Thus, tradesmen had to compete with each other in terms of making the very best shoes rather than fighting each other by means of price.

So here we are up against a very different type of technique, which has little to do with machines or technology. We are up against financial and commercial technique and it has proved more decisive than the machine. We also see the difference between technique and law. Law is the idea, whether in society or in nature, that things work in a certain way. Technique finds ways to circumvent law. In our acknowledgement that the technique culture ultimately comes from Allah and our awareness that we are in need of a discrimination, it is clear that it is only Allah Who can give us the discrimination we need for that which comes from Him. It is Islam that contains that discrimination until the end of time. The task of future Islam is to recover law, Divine law, and to make it dominant over technique, both in terms of technology but particularly in terms of financial and commercial technique.

From: Abdassamad Clarke

See also:

• A study of the book ‘Root Islamic Education’ by Shaykh Dr Abdalqadir as-Sufi led by Hajj Abdassamad Clarke

The Dangers of Narrow-Mindedness

The Dangers of Narrow-Mindedness. Image credit: hobit&gollum.

Narrow-mindedness is defined as lacking tolerance or not having the mental faculty to see beyond the superficial and recognize the underlying truth. Currently, this tendency appears to be widespread in all segments of Muslim communities.

The primary reason for this deplorable condition is ignorance, the inability to recognize this deficiency and to take corrective action. This situation is further aggravated if the ignorant person considers himself to be the epitome of wisdom, and if, he is in a leadership or a highly visible position, he can cause unnecessary harm to a family, a community or a an entire nation.

Absence of insight can also result in narrow-mindedness by having a negative effect on one’s thought processes. Insight is a rare virtue, and quite different from ignorance. A person who lacks insight may possess some knowledge, but derives no benefit from it due to a lack of analytical skills while someone with insight assesses his or her knowledge of a situation and then selects and uses its relevant parts. Through insight, they are able4 to see what others may not. Ibnul Qayyim, the famous Islamic scholar and author, said: “One person may read a text and learn one or two lessons from it, while another may learn one or two hundred.”

A rigidly traditional individual’s perceptivity, like that of a captive frog in a deep well, is able to function only within narrow parameters. He does not realize that there are boundless vistas of knowledge beyond the scope of the well, therefore, his mental and intellectual evolution remains stunted. He is unable to take advantage of the knowledge available beyond his limited horizon.

Blind imitation creates another obstacle to one’s intellectual growth. The two world wars of the past century are the perfect examples of this disability that can allow ruthless political or religious leaders to manipulate the minds of people who are unable to form their own objective view.

Some individuals habitually look at things from one angle and accept them as actual facts without thinking that there may be a different side to the issue, or that reality may actually be quite different from appearance. In the following verse, Allah points out that the appearance of the hypocrites may not be a true indication of their reality: “And when you see them, you like their appearance, but when they speak and you listen to them, they seem worthless” … and then He goes on to give this warning: “They are the enemy, so be warned of them. The curse of Allah be upon them, how they are perverted.” [63:4]

Furthermore, some people are impressed by quantity at the expense of quality. Referring to the battle of Hunain, Allah says: “On the day of Hunain, your numbers impressed you but did not benefit you.” But, “If there be amongst you twenty who show fortitude, they will defeat two hundred.” This does not, of course, mean that appearances are to be completely disregarded or that quantity is totally irrelevant. These fundamentals should not be valued in isolation, but should be understood through insight and common sense.

A failure to prioritize or differentiate wrong from right often leads people to lose sight of the broader picture. Often people will focus on the immediate and disregard the potential disastrous effects of an action further down the road. Along with ignorance, narrow-mindedness and, of course, a lack of insight, these gaps usually prove detrimental to that individual’s future.

From: Islaam.com

See also:

• Shaykh Abu Yusuf: Compassion Dispite Disagreement

Read Ma`arif al-Qur’an by Mufti Shafi `Uthmani online

The Wisdom Behind the Commands of Islam

The Wisdom Behind the Commands in Islam. Image credit: milkymouse

FOREWORD

to the Urdu Edition

Praise belongs to Allah and blessings be on his Messengers.

It is my firm belief that commands of Shari`ah  are known to be true from the texts of Shari`ah itself. There is no need to investigate the wisdom behind them in order to obey them. If anyone makes knowledge of the wisdom of a condition for his obedience, he is actually being rebellious to the Holy Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace. We may take the example of a king or government, unless he is told why those commands were issued; such a man will be termed a rebel and proceeded against. Then, how can anyone say the same thing for the noble words of the Messenger of Allah? We should have no doubt, therefore that the commands of Shari`ah must be obeyed simply because they are part of the Shari`ah. At the same time, there is no doubt whatsoever that there are points of wisdom and deep significance in those commands. So, though our obedience must not be conditional to awareness of the wisdom and significance, yet it is sometimes helpful to satisfy some inquisitive temperaments to gain insight into the wisdom behind these commands. The firmly believing worshippers do not need to know the background but certain weak minds find that the knowledge is a convincing motivation to submission. (In the present times there is an abundance of people of such a disposition.) It is because of this reason that we find the fine points and deep insight in the writings and sayings of great scholars like Imam Ghazali, Khattabi, Ibn `Abdis Salam and others. Modern education, however has changed the outlook of people and many of them make it a point to investigate the reasons for the commands. Although the true remedy is to discourage them from probing into the wisdom of every command (because sometimes this tendency is harmful too) yet it is known from experience that, except for the sincere students. the common people do not need the advice. This tendency has led some scholars to dwell on this subject and offer their explanation to satisfy the curiosity of the common people. If they had respected the limits of Shari`ah, then they would have considered their efforts enough and not felt it necessary to produce a fresh explanation.

However, most of these efforts showed lack of true knowledge or its application and a plethora of baseless and perverse imagination and application of personal whims. Thus, they trespassed the limits of Shari`ah. I have before me such a book; it is replete with worthless matter and the writer seems bereft of sufficient knowledge. It is very harmful to the layman to read such books so unless he is provided with a correct alternative he cannot be stopped from reading worthless, harmful material. With that in view, I saw the need to provide a collection of topics free from  material for the laymen so that those inclined towards knowing the background of various commands of Shari`ah may refer to it now and then. If it may not be a source of profit, it will surely ward off the disadvantages associated with the worthless books. (However, there are some whose nature is to think little of the commands of Allah on realizing the wisdom behind them, or they began to think of them as the essence of the commands so that if there is no wisdom behind it, the command is not liable to be obeyed, or they take them to be the true aim and lose the importance of the commands). We had implied this possibility when we said, this tendency is harmful too. So, those who have the above-described nature must not read the collection I have presented. The collection which I have referred is now in your hands. I have reproduced much of what was sound in to the said book[1] and some of the suggested ideas prompting the well-known commands are not against the principles of Shari`ah and easily digested by common sense. But, all these suggested wisdom behind the directives are not definite and binding, and not the basis of the commands, and not dependable and reliable. They are merely symbolic and suggestive.

Some time before our time Mawlana Shah Waliullah has written on this subject in his book entitled, Hujjat Allah al-Baligah and I have heard that it has been translated (into Urdu) but it is not suitable reading for the common people because it is vague and mystical. Even in our times the book Asrarul-Shari`ah is written by an Egyptian scholar, Ibrahim Aafandi, a senior teacher in Madrasah al-Khadyuyah. It was printed by Mutba` al-Wa`iz, Egypt in 1328AH Another booklet, Risalah Humaydiyah was published before that. Both these are in Arabic[...]If you consult these books at the same time as reading my book you will advance in knowledge.[2] The style of each is different from the other so none of them was considered independent of the other. I have mentioned these books for this reason and also because my book should not be considered as a peerless effort. Even Shah Waliullah has said about his “Hujjat Allah al-Baligah“, that it is not a unique presentation but has its roots in the sayings of the Book and Sunnah. He has presented examples of some of its sources in the Book and Sunnah. I name my book al-Masalih al-`Aqliyyah lil Ahkam an-Naqliyyah. May Allah make it profitable and may he cause it toward off doubts and suspicion about the commands,

Ashraf Ali Thanwi

Thursday 1st Rajab 1334 A.H.

[1]Much of this was adopted from Hujjat Allah al-Baligah, as I found out later on referring to it, and some from our worthy predecessors. I praise Allah that it turned out so.

[2] That you may derive more benefit I have named some other books too. Al-Inhibat al-Mufidah by myself, al-`Aqal wan-Naql, Mawlana Shabbir Ahmad `Uthmani, Mawa`iz Haft Akhir wa ar-Ruh al-Arwah, Risalah al-Haq, Malatiahizb nine articles.

The Wisdom Behind the Commands of Islam, Sheikh Ashraf `Ali Thanwi

Gifts for the Seeker, Being some Answered Questions

Prologue

In the Name of God, the Merciful and Compassionate

No power is there, and no strength, but by God, the High, the Great!

Transcendent are You! We have no knowledge save that which You have taught us. You are indeed the Knowing, the Wise! [ 2:32]

ALL PRAISE BELONGS TO GOD, Who never disappoints those who hope in Him, never refuses those who ask of Him, never ignores those who quest for Him, never underpays those who act for Him, never deprives those who thank Him, never fails those who battle for Him, never allows those whose comfort is in His remembrance to be estranged, never surrenders to those who surrender to His might, never abandons to others those who depend on Him, and never forsakes those who trust and commit themselves to Him. Those who firmly hold to His Book shall never err, and those who take refuge in His Presence shall never find disgrace.

I praise Him for all that He has inspired and taught, and thank Him for all His grace and bounties. His help I request to fulfil His immense right [upon us], and I seek refuge in the light of His noble Countenance against the loss of His favours and the onslaught of affliction. It is God I ask whelm with His blessings and peace His most noble Prophet, most eminent Messenger and greatest Beloved, who is our master and patron Muhammad, and his Family and Companions, who are the essence and generosity, the very fountainhead of knowledge and wisdom. And may these blessings and peace endure for as long as pens write and banners are unfurled!

To proceed. The righteous shaykh of integrity and intelligent understanding, `Abd al-Rahman ibn `Abdullah `Abbad, has requested me to answer a number of questions which he committed to writing and presented to me in the town of Shibam after my visit to the great gnostic shaykh Sa`id ibn `Isa al-`Amudi, and to to other people of virtue, both living and dead, in those regions. I perceived in him signs of eagerness for the truth, combined with the fragrance of sincerity, and therefore promised him a response. The time has now come to fulfil that promise–by God’s ability and power–and to welcome the arrival of his pertinent questions with the hospitable offer of clear replies.

I feel it is appropriate to precede these answers with a prologue which will give insight and reassurance both to the questioner, and to all other intelligent people of similar tendency.

Therefore I seek God’s help, relying on Him, committing myself to Him, and asking Him (Transcendent is He!) to guide me to that which is correct in His sight, for He guides whom he will to a straight path [10:25]; the path of God to Whom belongs all that is in the heavens and the earth. Indeed, to God do all things return. [42:53]

I say: Know that to put a question whenever a need or problem arises and to seek further knowledge and insight it is the wont and custom of the elite of every time and place. It is deemed obligatory where obligatory knowledge is concerned, and a virtue in the case of supererogatory knowledge. For questions are the keys to the sciences and secrets of the Unseen which some people carry in their hearts and breasts. Just as valuables and goods kept within locked houses can be reached only by using keys fashioned of iron or wood, so too are these sciences and gnoses, borne by scholars and gnostics, to be reached only by questions fashioned out by the wish to profit, and accompanied by sincerity, enthusiasm, and courteous manners. Questioning is encouraged and enjoined by the Shari`ah, for God the Exalted has said: Ask those who recite the Book before you, [10:94] and Ask the people of remembrance if you do not know; with clear signs and the Scriptures. [16:43-4] And the Messenger of God, may blessings and peace be upon him, has said: ‘A good question is [already] half of knowledge.’ The intention of every leading scholar or Imam who has ever informed others of the breadth of His knowledge was that this should be known about him so that people might ask and seek it from him. This was related in the case of `Ali, `Umar, Abu Hurayra, and others among the [early] predecessors and those who came later, may God be pleased with them all.  And there were other scholars, such as `Urwa ibn al-Zubayr, al-Hasan al-Basri and Qatada, who likewise encourged people to put questions to them. Sufyan al-Thawri immediately left any town he entered when none of its people asked him for knowledge, saying: ‘This is a town where knowledge dies’. Whenever al-Shibli, may God have mercy on him, sat in his [teaching] circle and no questions were put forth to him, he would recite: ‘And the word shall fall upon them because of their wrongdoing; they do not speak.’ [27:85]

A scholar may sometimes question his companions to asses their knowledge and so be able to benefit them. It has been related in a sound hadith that the Messenger of God, may peace and blessings be upon him, once asked a group of his Companions about a tree of leaves which did not fall and which resembled the believer. None of those present answered, so he informed them, may blessings and peace be upon him, that it was the date-palm. Ibn `Umar was there, and had recognised it, but kept his silence; subsequently he informed his father the latter blamed him for his silence. `Umar, may God be pleased with him, often questioned his companions, and whenever one of them replied, ‘God knows best,’ he would become angry and declare: ‘ I did not ask you about God’s knowledge, but about yours: either say “I know” or “I know not”!’

A scholar may question one of his companions about something which he already knows, so that others present may benefit. Such, for example, were the questions put to the Messenger of God, may peace and blessings be upon him, by Gabriel, peace be upon him, concerning Islam, Iman and Ihsan.

A lesser man may for subtle reasons be in possesion of a particular item of knowledge unknown to  a superior one, and the latter may thus need to ask about it. An example of this is `Umar’s questioning of Hudhayfa, may God be pleased with them, about [future] tribulations, and about the hypocrites.

A scholar may ask his equal, or one who is nearly so, about the way he has understood certain things in God’s Book and the Sunnah of His Messenger, may blessings and peace be upon him, to see whether they share the same opinion, which will serve to confirm or strengthen it. This again resembles the practice of `Umar, may God be pleased with him, who asked a group of Companions about a particular interpretation of the verse When support comes from God, and victory, [110:1] and only Ibn `Abbas agreed with him–may God be pleased with them both. Many such things occured with great men, in both the early and later [generations]. As for `Umar’s question to `Ali , may God be pleased with them both, the purpose behind it was to learn from him, since `Ali was granted a privilege share by no other Companion, which was to be the Gate to the City of knowledge’–the city being the Messenger himself, may blessings and peace be upon him. As for the order given by the Messenger of God to his Companions not to ask him too many questions, this prohibition, although stated in general terms was particularly  directed at questions concerning legal judgements, retaliatory punishments [qisas] or hudud and public affairs. This was out of compassion for the Nation, and out of the merciful wish that they should not be charged with something they would unable to implement. The evidence to support this is His saying, O you who believe! Inquire not after things which, if they were discovered to you, would vex you, yet if you question concerning them when the Qur’an is being sent down, they will be discovered to you. God has effaced those things, for God is Forgiving, Forbearing. A people before you questioned concerning them, then disbelieved in them. [5:101-2] And there is also the saying of the Messenger of God, may blessings and peace be upon him: ‘God has made certain obligations incumbent upon you; so neglect them not. And He had drawn limits; therefore violate them not. He has prohibited certain things, therefore commit them not. And He has remained silent concerning certain things–out of mercy for you, not out of forgetfulness–therefore do not inquire about them.’ And in another hadith: ‘Those who came before you were destroyed by their great inquisitiveness and their arguments about [what was brought to them by] their Prophets.’ A man once asked the Messenger of God, upon whom be blessings and peace, whether the Pilgrimage [hajj] was a yearly obligation, and the Prophet kept his silence. When he repeated his question, he replied: ‘Once in a lifetime; and had I said “Yes!” it would have become obligatory for you, and you would have been unable to comply.’ Underlying this anecdote is a noble secret which is that it is not possible to disclose in writing but you can search for it within the context of  His saying (Exalted is He!): Whoever obeys the Messenger has obeyed God, [4:80] and Those who pledge their allegiance to you do but pledge their allegiance to God. [48:10]

A disciple who asks his shaykh a question, or a student who asks his teacher, should have no other aim but to benefit, and should beware of wanting to test him, for that may lead to his deprivation and failure. When a disciple or student asks a shaykh or a scholar about something the knowledge of which may be harmful or beyond his understanding, then the latter should stop and ponder; they are to inform the questioner of his lack of qualification only if their assesment of him is that [such a response] will not break his heart, and be religiously damaging to him, or that no aversion will arise in his soul which would deflect him from his quest; otherwise they should stoop in their answer to his level of knowledge and understanding.

Should they divert the answer from the strict implication of the question they are not to say, as one of the people of realization once said:

It is my duty to carve rhymes from the bedrock of words; It is not my concern if cattle  do not comprehend.

For such an utterance is peculiar to a certain spiritualal state and situation.

A shaykh or a scholar is like a compassionate father and a gentle tutor; he speaks in such a manner as to be of benefit and profit. Gnostics, however, are subject to overpowering and absorbing spiritual states in which they become unable to keep in mind what we have just mentioned; their states should be conceding acknowledged, for they are too high in rank to be objected to or accused of ignorance or negligence. This is not the place, moreover, to elaborate a justification of such authoritative writers for divulging in their books and treatises the secrets of Lordship and the realities of the Unseen.

It may be permissible for a man to question another with the intention of testing him in two situations. The first is when a scholar, compassionate and of good counsel, sees a man so deeply under the sway of self-admiration that he is prevented from seeking knowledge, or from adding to the knowledge which he already has, or from acknowledging the merits of the virtuous; he may then question him–preferably in private–to test and try him, so that this man may know his real worth, this being a form of counsel to him. The second is when one sees a hypocrite speaking assertively and threatening to confuse weak believers by introducing into religion things which do not belong to it, he may then question him in their presence to test him and demonstrate to them his failings and his ignorance. While doing so, his intention should be to counsel and warn him about his faults, in the hope that he will return to a fairer judgement and submit to the truth. It is this that has drawn the scholars, may God be pleased with them, into debates with those who innovate, deviate, or falsify the truth.

The scholars of the present time must not keep their knowledge to themselves and wait for someone to come along and ask, for most people today are complacent about religion, uninterested in knowledge and in anything else that will benefit then in the hereafter, to the extent that a man’s beard may grow white and he still knows nothing of the obligatory parts of the ritual ablution and prayer, or what is mandatory for him to know by way of belief in God, His Angels, Books, Messengers and the Last Day. The very states of such people mutely proclaim their ignorance; and for scholars endowed with understanding, that is sufficient to be a question.

A seeker travelling to God, whose sole aim is to acquire knowledge of Him, and whose wish is to rid himself of anything that may distract him from going to Him, should never ask for knowledge unless it is necessary in his [own particular] state and time. However, in this blessed time of ours, such a seeker is stranger than the Phoenix and rarer than the philosopher’s stone. So let each man be prolific in his questioning after knowledge, so as to profit and grow, for a believer is never sated with good things. In a hadith it is said: ‘Two [kinds of] people can never get enough: those who are avid for knowledge, and those who are avid for money.’ The proof for what we have just said about the seeker is what is related about Dawud al-Ta’i, may God’s mercy be upon him. When he decided to devote himself to God began by sitting with the scholars: he thus kept the company of Imam Abu Hanifa, may God’s mercy be upon him, for nearly a year. Sometimes when a question arose [in his mind] which he was , in his own words: ‘more eager to know than a thirsting man is eager for cool water,’ he refrained from asking about it, the reason being, as we said earlier, that a seeker is only to ask about that which is a necessity for him.

There are many proofs for the correctness of the topics discussed in this brief introduction; and it would lead us away from our intended brevity if we were to delve into every one of them. The indications that we have given will, however be sufficient.

Success is from God, also help and confirmation. We trust in Him, upon Him do we rely. He is our sufficiency, and He is Best of Custodians.

It is now time to begin fulfilling our purpose. God speaks the truth, and He guides the way. [33:4]

Gifts for the Seeker, Imam `Abdallah ibn`Alawi al-Haddad (translated from the Arabic by Mostafa al-Badawi)

Subjugation of ‘Ulama and Madaaris by Imperialist British .

Hazrat Shaykh Zulfiqar Ahmad (db)

The Campaign of 1857 and English Terror

Two fronts were opened against the British in 1857 – one to the north of Amritsar commanded by Hadrat Jafar Than-Siri (ra), and the second just to the south commanded by Haji ImdadUllah Muhajir Makki (ra). Together with Hadrat ImdadUllah (ra) stood noted scholars and warriors of the time such as Hadrat Rashid Ahmed Gangohi (ra), Hadrat Qasim Nanotwi (ra), and Hafiz Damin Shaheed (ra).

The Muslims suffered a crushing defeat in the War of 1857, and scores of noted scholars including Hadrat Hafiz Damin Shaheed (ra) met with martyrdom. The British then decided to tighten their rope and began a horrendous ‘Reign of Terror’ to crush any resistance in the subcontinent.

Over a thousand religious schools (madaaris) were burnt to the ground, and the rest shut down automatically as finances throughout the country were seized. Hadrat Shah WaliUllah Muhaddith Dehlvi (ra)’s Madrasa Rahimia was leveled by a bulldozer. In the following year, over a thousand Muslim scholars were hanged and their bodies were left hanging throughout the country to instill terror in the populace. Still more scholars were chained to cannons and ripped apart as the cannons were fired to salute the British victory.

Infinite Treachery

Despite this mass slaughter to crush all resistance, the British were still anxious to find a solution to these rebellions. They launched a three year survey headed by William Moore to determine a way to permanently keep this resistance from [resurfacing]. After three years Moore submitted a proposal to the Viceroy that Britain would need to implement three measures to free itself from these frequent uprisings.

Moore’s first suggestion was that the Muslims’ strong link to the Holy Quran needs to be severed; his second suggestion was that the British would have to find a means to root out the intense passion for Jihad from the hearts of Muslims. The third and last thing he stated was that the British had to sever any ties that the common Muslims had with their scholars, and thus their knowledge base. Moore said that Britain would have total control only when these three measures were implemented and seen through to their completion.

The Viceroy of Britain issued orders to act on Moore’s recommendations. More than four hundred thousand copies of the Holy Quran were burned over a three-year period from 1861 to 1864. The second step in this diabolical plan was to kill the passion of Jihad amongst the Muslims, and for this the British recruited various false scholars and hypocrites who issued fake and unlawful rulings that Jihad against the British was prohibited (haraam). This served to confuse and divide the Muslims and played right into the foreigners’ plans.

Trials and Tribulations of the Scholars

The culmination of this effort to completely subjugate the Muslims was to kill their scholars, which the British carried out mercilessly in the years 1864 to 1867. [Acting as upholders of the law], the British rulers in India staged mock trials in which scholars were falsely accused of killing Englishmen, and handed down death sentences within an hour of the trial. Fourteen thousand scholars were martyred in this three-year period. This inquisition was so widespread that the British historian Thompson writes that the noble bodies of the Muslim scholars were hanging from every tree on the road between Lahore and Peshawar.

Thompson further writes in his autobiography that he was visiting Delhi when he stopped at one of the tents along the way set up as rest stops for travelers. He noticed a foul stench coming from behind his tent, so he stepped out to investigate. He describes a scene in which forty scholars were stripped and thrown onto beds of coals, being taunted by British soldiers to admit their part in the War of 1857. The flesh and fat was melting and oozing out of their charred bodies and actually extinguishing the ambers. Thompson says that the bodies of these forty scholars stiffened and turned cold in front of him, only to be replaced by forty more who were thrust onto the burning coals.

Still other scholars were imprisoned and tortured in jail, not allowed food or rest in order to break them mentally. Maulana Jafar Than-Siri (ra) writes in his biography that he was in the Khot Laqpat jail when the order came to transport them to Multan. They were put into large cages that had metallic spikes fixed into them to maximize suffering, and in this way they reached Multan in three months. They would be denied food for days at a time to intensify their anguish, and be forced to relieve themselves in their cages. The spikes would stab and wound them at every turn, and thus also rob them of any sleep. Needless to say many died on the way because of these horrific conditions.

The surviving few who reached the Multan jail were further subjected to more torture, until it was ordered that all the scholars remaining in Multan be hanged. Hearing this, the scholars were very pleased and relieved, for they would be free of this life and attain martyrdom. Therefore, regardless of their past suffering, their faces were illuminated on the day their death sentences were to be carried out, something which surprised their captors. When asked why they appeared so peaceful and content on such a day that they were to be hanged, one of them said that they would at last be free and Allah (SWT) would give them the status of martyrdom. The British warden hence conferred with his officers and decided that the scholars should not be given the satisfaction of death, so they were instead sentenced to a further fourteen year sentence during which the British would intensify their torture.

Tears of Innocence

Maulana Than-Siri (ra) further says that his wife and child were brought before him as he and the rest of the scholars were being led away. Seeing him in shackles they both began crying, while his eight year old son said, “When are you coming back to us O Father, and why have these people tied you up like this?” To this Maulana Than-Siri (ra) had no reply, but said to his wife and child, “Be strong, and perhaps I will see you again in this life. If I do not then we will surely meet at the stream of Kauthar [a river in Jannah].”

Extracted from The Scholars of Deoband by Hazrat Shaykh Zulfiqar Ahmad (db), Tasawwuf.org

From: at-Talib

BOOK REVIEW: ISLAM – Its Basic Practices and Beliefs by Abdalhaqq Bewley

BOOK REVIEW

ISLAM – Its Basic Practices and Beliefs

by Abdalhaqq Bewley (2008, Ta-Ha Publishers Ltd, pp. 288. Paperback. ISBN 978-1-84200-088-5)

The Prophet Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, said that an hour’s reflection is better than a lifetime of worship. This latest book of Hajj Abdalhaqq Bewley is the fruit of a lifetime’s reflection and a catalyst for a lifetime’s reflection. It is also very practical. It deals with actions and the meanings of these actions and the results of these actions, in this world and in the next. It is a reliable source of knowledge for those who rely on Allah, or who wish that they could rely on Allah. Above all, this book is illuminated by a knowledge which has been transmitted from living heart to living heart. Accordingly it is vast but not encyclopaedic. Since words tether meanings, it is also grounded in the understanding of well known reliable written sources of recorded knowledge which have been studied in depth. Accordingly it is the work of a scholar, but not of an academic. The Qur’an tells us that the people of knowledge are those who fear Allah (Qur’an: 35.28) ~ not those who accumulate information.

Since the author, together with his wife Hajja Aisha Bewley, has been deeply involved in the translations from Arabic into English of the Noble Qur’an, Al-Muwatta of Imam Malik and Ash-Shifa of Qadi ’Iyad, as well as many other key Islamic texts, and since it is clear from the quotations he provides that he is well and widely read, it must have been difficult for him at times when writing this book to decide what to include and what to exclude ~ and yet this book is full of abundance and bereft of deficiency. Indeed whenever I thought that an important point had been omitted, I usually found it later on in the book. The author has so much knowledge to impart that it is presented in due measure so that it can be absorbed and retained.

The only limited criticism that I have is that the author does not say much about the intercession of the Prophet Muhammad on the Last Day, may Allah bless him and grant him peace ~ which will continue until not one person who said the shahada remains in the Fire, no matter how great the wrong action which took them there ~ but this is probably because the author is more concerned with emphasising the importance of our being scrupulous about intention and action in the first place, since it is each one of us who takes our self either to the Garden or to the Fire ~ and it is infinitely preferable to go straight to the Garden rather than via the Fire.

Shaykh Dr Abdalqadir as-Sufi once said, “Allah is so Merciful that I am almost tempted to say that you do not need to do the prayer ~ but you must do it!” In contrast, Hajj Abdalhaqq Bewley once said, “Probably more people obey Allah out of fear of the Fire than out of longing for the Garden. In contrast, Jesus, peace be on him, said that those who obey Allah purely out of love for Him are truly the nearest to God.”

However much you know, you only know a little. However much you know, you will certainly find knowledge in this book of which you were not aware before you opened it. This is especially because this book is primarily concerned with meaning. Accordingly it is an invaluable resource not only for the newcomer to Islam, but also for those who have been following the way of Islam as best they can for most or part of their lives and yet who know in their heart of hearts that they have not fully understood the significance of what they have been doing. As T.S. Eliot put it, “We had the experience but missed the meaning.”

As T. S. Eliot also wrote, “Where is the Life we have lost in living? Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information?” This book contains all three of these elements of learning about Life.

What is especially significant about this book is that it does not simply describe the basic practices and beliefs of Islam in abstract, but rather in the context of today’s existential realities ~ as well as of Existence itself. The Prophet Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, asked Allah to be able to see things as they are ~ and this is what this book is about.

In so doing, it articulates and evaluates the main modern thought constructs, philosophical concepts and ideological dogmas which many people on the face of the planet blindly accept as scientific gospel truth without ever having really reflected on or been capable of assessing them. In this aspect of the book there are echoes of the author’s earlier works, especially The Natural Form of Man, The Key to the Future and Zakat – Raising a Fallen Pillar. He reminds us that our greatest enemy is an ignorant self, but that it can be transformed by the grace of Allah to become a self at peace, pleased and well pleasing. Islam is the science of waking up.

In setting out the basic practices and beliefs of Islam by reference to both outward action and inward meaning, the author affirms clearly and eloquently the purpose of Islam and the reason for our existence ~ which is worship of the Divine Source of existence. He does this in such a way that the reader must inevitably arrive at a deeper understanding of both the Creator and the creation in both the Seen and Unseen worlds. As Shaykh Moulay Al-Arabi ad-Darqawi once wrote, Allah is only truly worshipped by means of knowledge: the deeper your knowledge, the more profound and illuminated your worship.

By holding firmly to this basic truth, the author avoids making the mistakes into which some religious groups (not only amongst the Muslims but more notably amongst their predecessors) inevitably fall: he does not tend towards worship of the Message ~ even though he has the great respect which is its due; nor does he tend towards worship of the Messenger ~ even though he is dearly beloved; the author simply reminds us that we have been created to worship the One Who sent the Messenger with the Message in order to guide us on the straight path.

In dealing with the nature of existence and of the One Who created it and all that it contains, the author inevitably deals with those aspects of the human situation with which people often grapple unsatisfactorily and with uncertainty, such as the nature of the Decree of Allah and how this contrasts with modern notions of free will and the freedom of choice, “when Allah created both you and what you do.” (Qur’an 37.96) As the author himself once observed, “Although I have to make choices, when I look back, I see that I could not have acted any differently!”

Perhaps one of the most reassuring aspects of the book is that while showing an understanding of such deviations as the khawarij/mutazili dialectic ~ which in its most recent form has manifested as the pseudo-salafi/modernist-reformer dialectic, the text is refreshingly free of such ‘too rigid/too floppy’ distortions of the original message. Hajj Abdalhaqq Bewley simply tells it how it is ~ and in so doing he confirms the role of traditional tasawwuf (sufism), which is to guard and establish the shari’a of Islam in order to arrive, by following the tariqa of Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, at knowledge of the haqiqa, in both this world and the next.

Hajj Abdalhaqq Bewley reminds us of the words of Imam Malik ibn Anas, may Allah be pleased with him: “Whoever has the shari’a without the haqiqa is astray. Whoever claims knowledge of the haqiqa without following the shari’a is a heretic. Whoever has both shari’a and haqiqa has realised.” He reminds us of the words of Imam Shafi’, may Allah be pleased with him: “Even if a man comes to you flying through the air, if he does not do the prayer ~ leave him!”

He reminds us of the words of Shaykh ibn Ajiba who states in his commentary on the poem of Ibn al-Banna of Saragossa, “The basis of sufism is in five things: Fear of Allah in secret and in the open. To follow the Sunnah in speech and deed. To turn away from creation whether it is coming towards you or leaving you. To be pleased with either a little or a lot. To return to Allah in ease and difficulty.”

If you read this book ~ and I recommend that you do ~ you will most probably react, to coin the author’s phrase, either like a moth or like a cockroach: you will either be attracted or repelled by its light ~ for real knowledge is light and this book is full of knowledge of the Real, “the Light of the heavens and the earth” (Qur’an 24.35). And if you are enlightened and inspired by this book, then it will act as a key to approaching the more detailed texts and seminal works to which the author refers.

Indeed if you do not already have a teacher, you may well start looking for one, for just as the Companions learnt from the Prophet, so the Followers learnt from the Companions ~ may the blessings and peace of Allah be for ever on him and on his family and on his companions and on his followers ~ and this is how every generation of Muslims has learnt from their predecessors, up until the present day. If it were not for the means, the end would escape us.

As Shaykh Dr Abdalqadir as-Sufi once said, “I can give you the key and show you the door ~ but you have to put the key in the lock, and turn the key, and open the door and pass through!” This is what this book will help you do.

If you are sufficiently awake to recognise that Islam is not what those who reject it or do not understand it say it is ~ and if you would genuinely like to understand what the way of Islam is and what its fruits and rewards are ~ then this book was written for you. If you sometimes feel like a golden fish confined in a transparent bowl, then perhaps this book will help provide you with the nourishment and sustenance that you need to enable you to make your way towards and discover the ocean in which in reality you are already swimming. As Shaykh Dr Abdalqadir as-Sufi recently remarked, “At last, a book about Islam that you can give to people!”

Hajj Ahmad Thomson April 2009/Rabi’al-Akhir 1430

From: Abdassamad Clarke

See also:

• Pride

• Anxiety

• Envy

• Showing-Off

• Conceit

• Ingratitude

Shaykh Abu Yusuf: Compassion Dispite Disagreement

Is Arabic the Language of Adam? or of Paradise?

[This article is a full translation of the fifth chapter of Ibn Hazm's Ihkâm fî Usûl al-Ahkâm. It's original title is: "The Origins of Language: Divine Providence or Human Codification". It is presented here for the interesting points it makes about matters of general interest, and should not be taken as the final word on linguistic matters.]

Regarding how languages came about – was it by divine instruction or by human codification – is a question that people have debated considerably. The correct view is that the origin of spoken language is instruction from Allah. The evidence for this comes from revelation and what reason demonstrates to be necessary.

As for revelation, Allah says: “And He taught Adam the names of all things then he presented them to the angels…” [Sūrah al-Baqarah: 31]

The rational necessity for this is as follows: Had speech been established by direct human codification, it would have been necessary for the people who set down its code to have had complete mental faculties, rational discipline, comprehensive knowledge, and direct experience with all thing found in the world along with knowledge of the limits, similarities, differences, and natures of those thing. However, we know by necessity that the interval of time between the first appearance of a person and the time when that person attains such a level is a considerable number of years, requiring education, protection, and the care of others. A person becomes independent only many years after being born. There is no way for a parents, responsible people, and nursemaids to cooperate in life without having a language by which they understand each other’s essential needs. These include their tilling, herding, and planting activities, also the means by which they protect themselves from the heat, cold, and wild animals, as well as their ways of treating illness. Every individual has to have gone through the experience of childhood, which we have already mentioned is a state of inability and dependency on others.

Moreover, the idea of codification necessitates that there was a time beforehand when language was not in existence, since it came about as the result of the activity of those who codified it. Yet, every activity requires speech in order to carry it out, sow how were the codifiers of language supposed to go about the business of codifying it without having a language already at their disposal? This is an impossible situation.

This rational proof follows necessarily from the evidence that the human species came about after having not existed, and from the evidence that there is a single Creator, and from the evidence proving the existence of prophethood and messengership. This is because no human being can remain in existence without speech, and speech is composed of letters, and composition is an activity that requires an actor to carry it out, and every activity that (the actor) carries out has a starting point in time. This follows from the fact that an activity is movement requiring aptitude. So it is affirmed that the composition (of letters) had a starting point and that the human being cannot exist without speech. Whenever the existence of one thing depends upon the existence of something else that has a starting point, then it necessarily has a starting point as well.

So it is affirmed that one thing must have come about after the other in succession, and it is confirmed that what is known of (language) is first known from the Creator, since (language) is something which, in its very nature, can only be known by way of being taught, and therefore requires that its first (human) teacher was taught directly by Allah. Then he in turn taught the members of his own kind what his Lord had taught him.

Also, the codification needed to establish a language necessarily needs to be conducted by way of an earlier language that the codifiers had in common or by a system of gestures that they all understood. They could only have come to a mutual agreement on understanding those gestures if they used a language to do so. Knowledge of the definitions and natures of things which is communicated through language utterances cannot be obtained except by way of language and explanation. There is no other way. From this we know that speech could not have come about as a result of human codification.

The only objection that can still be raised is that language is an instinctive act.

Rational necessity dictates that this idea is false. Instinct only brings about a single behavior, not a number of different ones. The composition of speech is a voluntary act that is carried out under many different circumstances. Some of the proponents (of this idea that language is instinctive) have resorted to a confused argument, saying that geographical differences necessitated by nature the different languages that the inhabitants of different regions speak.

This is also something impossible, for if differences in language are necessitated by the natural demands of different geographical environments, it would not be possible for more than one language to exist in the same locality. We can see with our eyes that this is not the case, since in most localities we find that various languages coexist, due to the movements of populations who speak different languages and those populations living alongside one other. This is enough to demonstrate the falsehood of that idea. Also, there is nothing in the nature of a geographical environment that would necessitate calling water by the name “water” instead of by another name composed of the same alphabet set. Whoever insists obstinately that there is (such a natural imperative) is one of two things: he is either being deliberately false or he is out of his mind. Therefore, the correct stance is that (language) came by way of by divine instruction by Allah’s command and His teaching it.

At the same time, we do not deny that people brought about a variety of languages after there had been a single language that they used to have in common by way of divine instruction, and by which they had been able to know the natures, modalities, and definitions of things. We have no way of knowing what the original language was that Adam (peace be upon him) spoke. All that we can say for certain is that it must have been the most comprehensive of all languages, the clearest in expression, the least ambiguous, the most concise, and the most extensive in vocabulary to comprehend the names of all things, whether substances or accidents. For Allah says: “And He taught Adam the names of all things…” [Sūrah al-Baqarah: 31] And this is the confirmation that dispels all problems and disputations on the matter.

Some people have suggested that the first language was Syriac. Others have said it was Hebrew. And Allah knows best.

What we do know for certain is that Syriac, Hebrew, and Arabic – the last being the language of the tribes of Mudar and Rabi`ah, not the (Old South Arabian) language of Himyar – are all a single language, and that language underwent change when its speakers settled in different geographic localities, so that it was fragmented. This is just like what happens when an Andalusian encounters the Qairawani dialect or vise versa, or when a Khorasani encounters either of the above. When we listen to the speech of people from Fahs al-Ballut, it is almost a different language than that spoken in Cordova, though it is only one night’s journey away. The same situation can be found for many other parts of the world, because when the people of a region live in close proximity to another people, their language changes in a way that is obvious to anyone who gives thought to the matter.

We find that the masses have changed the vocabulary of Arabic so significantly that their words have become as distant from the original as to be another language. different we find them saying “`eenab” for “`inab” (grape), “astoot” for “sawt” (whip), and “thalathdaa” for “thalaathah danaaneer” (three dinars). When a Berber becomes Arabized and wants to say “shajarah” (tree) he says “sajarah”, and when a Galician becomes Arabized, he replaces both the letters `ayn and the aspirate h with the throaty h, so he says Muhammad with a throaty h instead of an aspirate h. Such things are commonplace.

Therefore, whoever investigates Arabic, Hebrew, and Syriac will ascertain that the differences between them are of the nature we have just described. Those differences came about as changes in people’s pronunciation over long periods of time, from geographical dispersion, and from proximity to other nations, and that they are a single language in origin.

Having established that, we say that Syriac is the ancestor of both Arabic and Hebrew. It is generally known that the first to speak this Arabic was Ishmael (peace be upon him) and it became the language of his progeny. Hebrew is the language of Isaac and his progeny. Syriac is without doubt the language of Abraham (peace be upon him and upon our prophet), as it is narrated by the general historic consensus to such degree that we can be secure in our knowledge of it. Therefore, Syriac is the ancestor of both Hebrew and Arabic.

Some people have claimed that Greek is the simplest of languages. However, it is possible that this is only true for Greek in the present time, since much of it is lost. It has been marginalized by the fall of its speakers’ nation and the foreign occupation of their lands, or by their migrating from their lands and intermixing with others. A nation’s language, learning, and history are only maintained by the strength of its polity and by the vibrancy and leisure of its people.

As for those whose state has collapsed and whose enemies have vanquished them, who are preoccupied with fear, need, disgrace, and serving their enemies, their creativity dies. This may be why the Greeks have lost their language, forgotten their genealogy and history, and had their sciences perish into nothingness. This can be confirmed both through observation and through reason. The Assyrian Empire passed into obscurity so many thousands of years ago that now its language is completely forgotten. So how much easier can it be for most of a language be lost? And Allah knows best.

We cannot say that for certain that it is the language that Allah first bequeathed. It might be suggested that the original language has been lost without leaving a trace, or that it endures until today but we have no way of knowing which language it is. This is something we must admit. We know that there must have been some original language. Yet, maybe Allah taught Adam all of the languages that people speak today. Maybe it was one language back then with many synonyms signifying one signified, that then became many languages distributed later on among his progeny. This seems to me the most likely scenario. However, we can never know for certain. All we can say for sure is that there was one original language bequeathed by Allah.

What makes me feel that whatever Allah originally bequeathed must have comprised all of the languages spoken today, is that I see no reason why people who already have a common language they speak and understand would bother to develop a new one. That would be a tremendous and meaningless effort, the type of excess that no sensible person would think of undertaking. If such a person did exist, he would have to be excessively frivolous and poor in judgment, busying himself with what has no benefit while neglecting what concerns him – things far more relevant to him like the affairs of his afterlife, his worldly interests, his pleasures, and all the beneficial sciences,

Furthermore, how would such a person get the people of his county to abandon their own language and adopt the new one that had been concocted for them? I am not saying it is an impossibility, just that it is an extremely remote possibility.

If someone argues suggested that the king of a multilingual kingdom might try to unite everyone upon a common language, we could argue back that this is the very opposite of the codification of many languages; it is the reduction of many languages down to one. Moreover, why would the king go to the immense trouble of doing so when it would be much easier for him to unite them upon one of the languages they already speak or better yet his own language? This would be easier and more plausible than concocting a whole new language. And Allah knows best.

There are those who assume their language is better than others. This means nothing, since superiority comes about in certain well-known ways: either by deeds or by special distinction. A language has no deeds and there is no scriptural text conferring the distinction of superiority to one language over another.

Allah says: “And We did not send any messenger but with the language of his people, so that he might explain to them clearly.” [Sûrah Ibrâhîm: 4]

He also says: “, We have made this (Qur’an) easy, in your tongue, in order that they may give heed.” [Sûrah al-Dukhân: 58]

So Allah tells us that He only revealed the Qur’an in Arabic so that the Prophet’s people could understand it. That is the only reason.

Galen was very much mistaken when he said: “Greek is the superior language, because all other languages sound like either the barking of dogs or the croaking of frogs.”

This is blatant ignorance, since when anyone hears a language other than his own, a language he does not understand, it invariably sounds to him the way that Galen describes it.

People have said that Arabic is the best of languages, because Allah’s words are conveyed by it.

This does not mean a thing, because Allah has told us he always sent a Messenger speaking his native tongue, and Allah says: “There never was a people without a warner having lived among them.” [Sûrah Fâtir: 24]

He also says: “” [Sûrah al-Shu'arâ': 196]

This means that Allah’s words and revelations were sent down in every language. He sent the Torah, the Gospel, and the Psalms. He spoke to Moses in Hebrew. He sent the Scrolls to Abraham in Syriac. Therefore, languages are equal in this regard.

Regarding the language of the denizens of Paradise and that of the denizens of Hell, we do not have any knowledge about these except by way of scripture or consensus, neither of which exists on the matter. They certainly must speak some language, so there are three – and only three – possibilities: they will speak some language presently in existence, they will speak a language unlike any that presently exists, or they will speak a plurality of languages. In any event, the depiction Allah gives of their conversing with each other shows with certainty that they will all able to communicate intelligibly with one another, either in Arabic as it is given in the Qur’an, or in some other language, and Allah alone knows what it will be

Someone asserted to me that that their language will be Arabic, citing Allah’s words: “And their final supplication will be: ‘Al-Hamdu Lillaahi, Rabbi-l-`Aalameen’.” [Sûrah Yûnus: 10]

I countered this by saying to him: In the same way, it will have to be the language of Hell, since Allah informs us they said: “Sawaa’un `alaynaa a jazi`naa am sabarna, maa lanaa min mahees.” [Sûrah Ibrâhîm: 21]

And that they said: “An afeedu `alaynaa min al-maa’i aw mimmaa razaqakum Allah” [Sûrah al-A`râf: 50]

And likewise that they said: “Law kunnâ nasma`u aw na`qilu maa kunnaa fee ashaab al-sa`eer.” [Sûrah al-Mulk: 10]

He then said: “Yes. This is the case.”

I then said to him: Then you must furthermore assert that Arabic was the language of Moses and all of the prophets (peace be upon them), since all of their words are quoted to us in the Qur’an in Arabic.

However, your Lord shows your assertion to be a lie when He says: “And We did not send any messenger but with the language of his people, so that he might explain to them clearly.” [Sûrah Ibrâhîm: 4]

This means that Allah only quotes to us the meaning of what they said in their various languages in a language we can understand, to make it clear to us. That is all.

The letter-sounds of languages are all the same, none take precedence over any others, and there is no inherent ugliness or beauty in some to the exclusion of others. They are the same for all languages. Therefore such a flimsy and spurious claim is false. And success rests with Allah.

It was such misguided and common notions that led some Jews to permit telling lies and swearing false oaths in other than Hebrew. They claimed that the angels who convey human deeds to heaven do not understand anything but Hebrew, so they do not record against them anything else. This is patent foolishness. The Knower of the unseen and of what is in the hearts surely knows all the languages and their meanings – there is no God but He. He is sufficient for us and the best of protectors.

From: Islamtoday.com

Reading Soorat al-Kahf on Fridays

Is reading Soorat al-Kahf on Friday or the night before a recommended action?

Praise be to Allaah.

There are marfoo’ ahaadeeth concerning that which support one another and indicate that it is prescribed to read Soorat al-Kahf on Friday.

That was proven to be narrated from Abu Sa’eed al-Khudri and the isnaads stop with him. In an issue like this, it cannot be deemed to be his personal opinion; rather he must have learned it from the Prophet (blessing s and peace of Allaah be upon him). End quote.

Majmoo’  Fataawa Ibn Baaz (25/196).

From: IslamQA