الرحمة قبل العلم-Shaykh Salman Al ‘Owdah

القصة الثانية: وهي قصة موسى والخضر: الرجل الصالح الذي أثنى الله تعالى عليه قائلًا: (فَوَجَدَا عَبْدًا مِنْ عِبَادِنَا آتَيْنَاهُ رَحْمَةً مِنْ عِنْدِنَا وَعَلَّمْنَاهُ مِنْ لَدُنَّا عِلْمًا) (الكهف:65)، فبدأ الله بصفة الرحمة للخضر قبل العلم، مع أن موسى جاءه ليتعلم منه العلم، فالله تعالى قال لموسى: “إن بمجمع البحرين رجلًا هو أعلم منك”، فذهب موسى ليطلب منه العلم، ومع ذلك بدأ الله تعالى بصفة الرحمة قبل العلم، لأن العلم إذا تجرد عن الرحمة أصبح عدوانًا، وسلاطة في اللسان، وبغيًا على الناس بغير الحق، وظلمًا للعباد، واستكبارًا في الأرض، ومكر السيئ، كما قال الله تعالى عن قوم: (فَرِحُوا بِمَا عِنْدَهُمْ مِنَ الْعِلْمِ)(غافر: من الآية83)، فإذا خلا أو تجرد العلم ـ حتى علم الشريعة ـ عن الرحمة أصبح وبالًا على صاحبه في الدنيا والآخرة، وكذلك المال والأولاد والدنيا والصحة وكل شيء إذا خلا من الرحمة لم يعد له قيمة.

Source: IslamToday.com

Living Islam

You can’t live Islam, until you know Islam. In order to live Islam, you need to know Islam. — Shaykh `Abdallah ibn Hamid `Ali

Imam al-Ghazali on Studying Science

by Imam Musafa `Umar

A thousand years ago, Imam al-Ghazali wrote in his autobiography Deliverance from Error: “A clumsy and stupid person must be kept away from the seashore, not the proficient swimmer; and a child must be prevented from handling a snake, not the skilled snake-charmer.”

This was his advice in regards to the science of philosophy, particularly the Greek philosophy of Plato and Aristotle which many Muslims took pride in studying. He was warning them of the dangers that could result from this study. But he didn’t stop there. He even warned people about studying mathematics and other sciences. Why?

So You Thought You Were Safe
“What’s wrong with math?” you might ask. “That has nothing to do with religion.” Here is what al-Ghazali had to say:

“The mathematical sciences…nothing in them entails denial or affirmation of religious matters…from them, however, two evils have been caused…”

The First Danger: Blind Conformity
“One of these is that whoever takes up these mathematical sciences marvels at the fine precision of their details and the clarity of their proofs. Because of that, he forms a high opinion of the philosophers [who were the mathematicians at that time] and assumes that all their sciences have the same lucidity and rational solidarity as this science of mathematics. Moreover, he will have heard the talk of the town about their unbelief and their negative attitude. [They say]: ‘If religion were true, this would not have been unknown to these philosophers […]’”

Al-Ghazali then expresses his deep regret over this sad state of affairs: “How many a man have I seen who strayed from the path of truth on this pretext and for no other reason!”

The only thing that has changed in our time is that it is not the philosopher who holds such a position in the eyes of students, but rather the scientist. How many times have I heard a Muslim doubting something about his own religion while saying: “But scientists say…”? One thousand years and not much has changed.

Imam al-Ghazali goes on to say that a man skilled in one field is not necessarily skilled in every field. Also, the internal consistency of one subject does not necessarily relate to another subject. Today, we find that even psychiatrists need a shrink or some family counseling sometimes. Just because someone may have the ability to process mathematical equations quickly in their mind or to figure out how certain chemicals react with one another doesn’t mean they have all the answers to life.

The Second Danger: Rejecting the Good
There is another problem. When some well-meaning believers realize the first danger, they begin to form a hatred for the sciences themselves rather than differentiating between the subject and its adherents. The Imam said, “The second evil likely to follow from the study of the mathematical sciences derives from the case of an ignorant friend of Islam who supposed that our religion must be championed by the rejection of every science ascribed to the philosophers…”

This mentality, the rejection of scientific research, whether it be in the natural or social sciences, is also very dangerous. Islam teaches us to take what is good and leave what is bad.

What to Do
So what should a Muslim do in such circumstances? There is no easy answer to that question. The Muslim perception is that everyone ‘needs’ a good (secular) education nowadays and there will naturally be some risks. If we concede the correctness of that ‘need’, the real solution will have to be a long term one, where practicing Muslims end up teaching the sciences, thus cutting off both evils from the root.

In the meantime, we can follow the words of the son-in-law of the Prophet ﷺ: “Don’t know the truth by men. Rather, know the truth and you will know its adherents.”

From: Suhaib Webb

The Excellence of the ‘Ulama

Imam Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah (ra)

In the Name of Allâh, the Most Beneficent, the Most Merciful

Allah, the Mighty and Majestic, says in the Noble Qur’an:

“Allah bears witness that none has the right to be worshipped but He, and the angels, and those having knowledge (Ulul-’llm) (also bear witness to this; (He is always) maintaining His creation in justice. None has the right to be worshipped but He. the All-Mighty. the All-Wise.” (Surah Aal-’Imraan:18)

This verse shows the superiority of knowledge (‘ilm) and its people; the following points can be inferred from this verse:

1. Allah chose the people of knowledge (Ulul ‘ilm) to bear witness to His Oneness (Tawheed) over and above the rest of His creation.

2. Allah honored the people of knowledge by mentioning their testimony along with His testimony.

3. He raised high the status of the scholars by associating their testimony with the testimony of the angels.

4. This verse bears witness to the superiority of those who possess knowledge. Allah does not make any of His creation bear witness except the upright amongst them.

There is a well-known narration from the Prophet (sallallahu `alaihi wa sallam), who said:

“The upright in every generation will carry this knowledge, rejecting the distortions of the extremists, the false claims of the liars, and the (false) interpretations of the ignorant.” (the Hadith is Hasan)

5. Allah, the One free from all defects, Himself bears witness to His Oneness, and He is the greatest of witnesses. Then He chose from His creation the angels and the scholars – this is sufficient to show their excellence.

6. Allah made the scholars bear witness with the greatest and the most excellent testimony and that is, “None has the right to be worshipped but Allah.” Allah, the One free of all defects and the Most High, does not bear witness except to matters of great importance and only the greatest from Allah’s creation bear witness to this.

7. Allah made the testimony of the people of knowledge a proof against the rejecters. Thus they are its proofs and its signs, indicating His Oneness (Tawheed).

8. Allah, the Most High, used a single verb (shahida) to refer to His testimony and the testimony of the angels and the scholars. He did not use an additional verb for their testimony; thus he connected their testimony to His. This shows the strong link between their testimony and Allah’s testimony, as if He himself bore witness to His Oneness upon their tongues and made them utter this testimony.

9. Allah, the One free from all defects, made the scholars fulfill His right (that none has the right to be worshipped but Him) through this testimony and if they fulfill it then they have fulfilled and established this right of Allah upon them. Then it is obligatory upon mankind to accept this testimony which is the means to reach happiness in this life and in their final return (to Allah). Whosoever takes this guidance from the scholars and accepts this truth because of their testimony, then for the scholars there is a reward equal to them. And none knows the value of this reward but Allah.

From: at-Talib

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