Originally posted in March 2011.

Googling The Sheikh

The term ‘Sheikh Google’ generally refers to an amateurish approach of studying Islam, more specifically to the study of Islamic Law (fiqh) and theology (‘aqīda). Yet of course, this does not imply a wholesale negative judgment on studying Islam online, but instead highlights a pitfall which some may fall into whilst reading on Islamic law or theology by themselves: equating basic literacy with scholarship. In other words, to simply ‘Google’ a topic (hence using it as one’s Sheikh) one may then think of oneself as an expert, or at least act like one.

One aspect that has plagued so many of the websites online providing knowledge on Islam is polemics; even when article(s) are written by a single author, there are straw-man attacks on other valid Islamic perspectives. For someone who wants a balanced and nuanced understanding, such sites are best avoided, or they can be used as a spring-board to generate questions, which can then be presented and discussed with a teacher. This is because when embarking on learning something new, it is dangerous to let someone’s deep held views have an unrestrained influence on your understanding, without you engaging the material critically.

The Exclusivist Approach

Another aspect of polemical material is the fact that usually one side is trying to ‘win’ the argument by trying their best to discredit the views of others. It is thus an exclusivist approach. This exclusivist approach ultimately leads to narrow-mindedness and an inability to appreciate or even listen to the views of others. This is further compounded by the fact that arguments are sometimes presented on the basis of “piety,” thus one view is presented as “more pious” than the other. Not fully understanding what could be meant by this, one not only becomes intolerant of those that differ with him/her, but also holds themselves more pious than the others. All this helps to create a very inflated ego, which gives the false guarantee of “you are on the truth” and ultimately becomes another manifestation of “Sheikh Google.” In this regard imām al-Dhahabī (d. 748 AH) says knowledge is: “Not the profusion of narration, but a light which God casts into the heart. Its condition is followership and the flight away from egotism and innovation.”¹

This should serve as a helpful yardstick of differentiating when one is honestly seeking knowledge or just accumulating information: when it starts to feed our egos instead of helping us overcome it. When this happens, we should sound the spiritual alarm.

Hence, it is this very involved approach, where ideas that are swallowed wholesale can be damaging to one’s spiritual and intellectual development. Here, Edmund Husserl’s notion of epoché may be useful, which means ‘bracketing out’ one’s own views and subjectivities to the best of one’s abilities in order to appreciate ‘the object’² or phenomenon as it is, which is the main purpose of phenomenology. This seems to echo what our Prophet ﷺ supplicated for by saying “Oh God, show the truth as the truth and grant us the ability to follow it, and show falsehood as falsehood and grant us the ability to refrain from it.”

True and correct perceptions are thus a gift from God. Yet gifts are usually bestowed on those that deserve it, and so it behooves a student seeking knowledge to keep this in mind particularly when studying Islam, especially controversial issues related to fiqh and ‘aqīda. Though this may be difficult, it can be made even more difficult by the group mentality that exists on some online forums. This can easily lead to issues of fiqh and ‘aqīda becoming more than issues of knowledge, but becoming polarities that define us. We fail to see that by becoming emotionally attached to certain positions, we bring detriment to our learning. At that almost irretrievable stage, we engage in mindless polemics to defend those positions, which destroys nearly all the blessings that knowledge brings.

Engaging The Text

Avoiding websites that offer partial information is perhaps easier said than done. Sometimes we may need an immediate answer to a pressing question, or can sometimes be shy to ask the local imam etc. In such scenarios the usefulness of being critical cannot be over emphasized. What do we mean by being critical? One thing for sure: it certainly does not mean being rude and difficult; rather, it simply means asking questions to clarify what is being said or to inquire for further information. However, this can be difficult to achieve online. This is because the process of reading involves reading what the author has to say, and then processing the information, and ultimately making a judgment on whether to accept or reject the information. Usually, one cannot engage in critical dialogue with the online author, and ask questions to seek clarification, all of which help to refine our understandings. And even if we do have this opportunity, it is usually limited in the form of comments. This fact should humble us if we get overzealous about an issue, and seek to engage in polemics or act as if we ‘know it all.’

Imām Abū Ḥanīfa (d. 150 AH) used to sit with several of his students, engage in long discussions over points of fiqh, and only after listening to all of what his students had to say, he used to state his opinion. Thus the understanding of his pupils was in a sense validated by their teacher. Although that is not to suggest he dictated his opinion to them, as this is proven by the fact that his two most famous students Abū Yūsuf (d.189 AH) and Muhammad (d.189 AH) frequently differed with him. Nonetheless it at least made sure they did not misunderstand him. It is this vital aspect that can be missing when we read online. What we take from a text might not be what was intended by the author, and although authorial intent has been dismissed by some modern literary theorists, as far as I am aware, it still has its importance when studying Islam.

When Facing Contradictions

The above also helps to highlight another challenge in learning from what ‘Sheikh Google’ and similar websites may present. One frequently comes across conflicting information and doesn’t know which to accept, so while one website says “xyz is permissible,” another not only says it is prohibited but is from the major sins! Without recourse to a teacher for further clarification, one has to inevitably decide independently on which opinion to give preference. This can be loosely identified as “tarjīḥ.” Tarjīḥ usually refers to the scientific process of a jurist giving preference to one view over another, which can be a complex process, and hence usually it is the activity of scholars. For example, the Mālikī practice of accepting the (historical) practice of the people of Medina as authoritative was not accepted by the other schools of fiqh. However, Sheikh Ibn Taymiyya (d.728 AH), though a Hanbalī, wrote a whole treatise supporting this doctrine. He thus engaged in a scholarly tarjīḥ. More importantly this usually enables a scholar to then offer scholarly criticism on why an opinion is weak in his view, as he bases his critique on an objective criteria, not his emotions.

In a similar manner, every Muslim engages in tarjīḥ when faced with conflicting opinions, although this is based on different criteria than the scholar – which is usually based on the argument’s persuasiveness, or which scholar one holds to be more knowledgeable and pious, or whether or not one goes for the difficult opinion or easier opinion, etc. This latter type of tarjīḥ is primarily geared to facilitate practice rather than be an intellectual scholarly engagement. Hence it does not befit someone who, after having read some answers to specific questions (fatāwā. [sing. Fatwa]) to then go on about how every other opinion is weak or misguided, simply based on the fatwa they read. For then, one acts as a scholar, as if to suggest one has read books upon books on the matter, when in fact, one has only read a few fatāwā. This does not mean belittling fatāwā issued by qualified scholars online but rather acknowledging the purpose of such sites, which is primarily to inform and facilitate practice, not produce scholars.

Online Fatāwā

It is not difficult to recognize the fact that the Internet has facilitated access to the knowledge of many great scholars, without which many people would have been deprived of such knowledge. And for this we should be grateful. This has obviously seen the rise of sites offering fatāwā. Again, whilst it is undoubtedly useful to seek answers to questions one may have, it is important to remember that whilst specific answers can be helpful for immediate practice, it should not be used as the main source or the only source of one’s education at the cost of a holistic approach. Ad-hoc answers can form scattered knowledge, which without proper guidance, can lead to confusion and or an imbalance in one‘s attitude.

Being critical also involves making sure a fatwa does actually apply to one’s situation. Indeed this can be a difficult task at times, and indeed as part of the training of a Mufti, certain institutions offer specific training on how to apply fatāwā to different contexts. If in doubt, it is best to seek clarification before acting upon the fatwa. It is also important to check the credentials of the person issuing the fatwa, especially if they follow an exclusivist approach e.g. ‘every other opinion is weak or wrong.’ If however someone is merely narrating the opinions of other scholars, than they need not be Muftis themselves.

In terms of the actual topics of fatāwā, edicts can be found given on everything under the sun. Though this can be seen as something positive, it also is worrying due to the possible implications of misapplying a fatwa. Therefore, a good criterion to follow is to discuss beforehand with a Mufti the issues related to the rights of others such as in marriage and divorce, as well as inheritance. This also includes contract law. Such issues have immense social implications, and it is best to tread carefully. Another issue that really should not be our concern, yet it does come up, is the issue of takfīr, or calling others disbelievers. Any website that deems a Muslim known for their knowledge as a heretic or disbeliever, should be flagged and avoided, and if one is left in doubt, then it is again best to discuss it with a scholar, and not the nearest Muslim online.

Scanning Your Teachers

While Imām al-Shāfi’ī (d. 204 A.H) was sitting in a mosque, a man came to him and asked him to provide the proof for the legal doctrine of Ijmā’ (consensus). If he was unable do this, then the man suggested the imām refrain from issuing fatāwā. The humble person that he was, the imām sought respite. When after a few days later the imām provided the proof, the man asked if the imām would teach him. He then became one of the imām’s leading students, whom we know as al-Muzānī (d. 264 A.H.).

The importance of a real life teacher who is balanced and firmly grounded in knowledge is indispensable when it comes to learning. This is because when we learn from real people, we learn knowledge as well as learn manners (ādāb). The right teacher may rebuke us if we raise our voices and discipline us if we act haughty and arrogant, which helps refine our character and ultimately become a better person, which is perhaps one of the most important goals of learning. And it is the absence of such a teacher when it comes to online learning, or when the Internet becomes our only source of learning, when we may become self-deluded into qualifying ourselves with attributes not befitting a student, ranging from adopting the attitude of a judge instead of a seeker, to always looking for evidences to back up our opinions and rejecting all others. This is reflected in the saying “a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.” Discussing the origins of this saying, Gary Martin identifies a 17th century writer who notes: “Twas well observed by my Lord Bacon, That a little knowledge is apt to puff up, and make men giddy, but a greater share of it will set them right, and bring them to low and humble thoughts of themselves.”³

Yet learning ‘a greater share of it’ requires finding a teacher that not only is able to impart such knowledge, but one who also embodies the ethics of differing (ikhtilāf), and who is balanced. Al-Muzānī knew this very well, thus he made sure al-Shāfi’ī was someone worth studying under. However, in the absence of such a teacher, it seems fair to concede to the fact that the harms that can result from a sectarian-minded teacher can far outweigh the shortfalls of learning from balanced, well-researched websites online. In such instances, we all acknowledge the usefulness of ‘Sheikh Google’ when used correctly, whilst recognizing that ‘Sheikh Google’ should never replace the real balanced Shuyūkh.

Sitting in the mosque board meeting, as one issue after another was raised, I’ll confess it was difficult not to drift into my own thoughts. However, one issue was raised that caught my attention that was, perhaps not surprisingly, the issue of finance and fundraising: the mosque needed funds for refurbishing the ablution (wuḍu) area. Without much progress being made, I identified a possible source, although it was not problem-free. The source I suggested had a large proportion earned from unlawful sources; however, there was an opinion within Fiqh (jurisprudence), which allowed the utilisation of such funds for public good (maslaḥa).¹ This objection was fairly raised by some, but as I started to explain how there was a scholarly opinion – “Forget the scholars!! We only follow the Qur’ān and Sunnah,” shouted a fellow member, whom I found uncharacteristic since this brother seemed to be a calm person. He then explained how Muslims should follow the Qur’ān and Sunnah only and leave aside the scholars to their own mumblings. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) he was older, held a more senior position than me, and most definitely had a louder voice than me and thus the saying “might makes right” had full effect. I looked down; although they took on my suggestion, I was somewhat frustrated at the rather superficial understanding of Islam this brother manifested. He was a brother of good character and a person who usually has a very pleasant demeanour, yet even he, when it came to Fiqh, could not escape this intolerant attitude.

This article aims to briefly take a look at the claim of some who say that they follow nothing but the “Qur’ān and Sunnah” or only the “Qur’ān and ṣaḥīḥ Ḥadīth.”

What is the purpose of this slogan? By merely using this term it seems a person alleges that any community member who does not affiliate with their group or understanding is not following the Qur’ān and Sunnah. When a person juxtaposes a valid legal (Fiqhī) opinion you’re following with “but you should follow the Qur’ān and Sunnah,” it implies that you aren’t. This attitude suggests truth is the monopoly of his/her group and the rest of the people are doomed.

What this also shows is that a person who takes this stance shows a lack of understanding of the process, by which the primary sources – the Qur’ān and Ḥadīth – are interpreted, and through which conclusions are reached.

Understanding How the Scholars Understand (fahm)

Look at the following diagram:

Figure 1

The primary sources in Islam are the Qur’ān and Ḥadīth, both which originate from Allāh. Whilst the Qur’ān is directly from Allāh using His words, the Ḥadīth is relayed to us through the words of the Prophet ﷺ though the meaning is from Allāh. These words are then recorded in the form of a text, thus both the primary sources are texts. These texts are then understood by scholars/jurists/interpreters in efforts to decipher what God intended.² This forms what is known as ‘fiqh’.³

One Understanding

Now in some issues (A – Ijmā’), there is only one understanding, one fiqh (as indicated by the red key colour in fig. 1). This means that the whole community of jurists are certain that what they have understood is actually what God intended. This is because either:

• The primary sources are clear-cut (Qaṭ’ī) in both their authenticity (thubūth) and meaning (dalāla). For example: the belief in monotheism, in the hereafter, the fact that the five daily prayers are Farḍ (obligatory).
• The primary sources are unclear (Dhannī) in either their authenticity or meaning, however a clear (ṣarīḥ), legitimate and genuine consensus has been reached. This means that there is a consensus and not just a claim of consensus.⁴ Yet such issues of agreement form the exceptions rather than the norm, as a brief look at any encyclopaedia of Fiqh proves. Based on this, Ibn Hazm explains how consensus is often erroneously claimed.⁵ What is interesting is that Ibn Hazm himself, may Allāh reward him, seems to fall into this error when he drew up his own list of issues in which he thought a consensus had been reached.⁶ Ibn Taymiyya later followed up Ibn Hazm’s list of issues of alleged consensus, and showed some areas in which Ibn Hazm erroneously claimed a consensus, when there was in fact none.⁷

Thus in such issues everyone is “following the Qur’ān and Sunnah,” therefore repeatedly chanting “only Qur’ān and Sunnah” is made redundant.

Many Understandings

Most issues however have a wide range of scholarly understandings (fig. 1. B – Ikhtilāf, the different views indicated by the different colours), all of which do go back to the Qur’ān and Ḥadīth. These varying views may be due to several reasons, which can be summarised into the following⁸:

• While the sources that relate to the particular ruling are agreed upon, the understanding of that Ḥadīth differs; hence it is the fahm (understanding) that is leading to the Ikhtilāf (difference of opinion). A clear example of this during the time of the companions is the incident of the ^cAṣr prayers at Banī Qurayẓa.⁹
• The source in relation to that issue is differed over, due to reasons such as a dispute in authenticity, or whether it was abrogated or not, or whether it is related directly to the issue under discussion.¹⁰ Thus whilst some jurists use a certain Ḥadīth and base rulings on it, others do not due to the aforementioned reasons.

Less Than Certain – Still No Rebuking
Sometimes jurists are not 100% certain that what they have understood or the ruling that they have arrived at is actually what Allāh had intended. This follows the process as:

1. Their understanding/views are all based on a sound interpretation (Ijtihād);
2. The primary sources are not clear-cut, which means Allāh deliberately did not reveal His will clearly;¹¹
3. There is no other means of verifying the will of Allāh other than through understanding the primary sources, since revelation has ceased with the demise of the Prophet ﷺ.

No one can condemn another for holding a valid view. “There is no inkār (rebuking) in matters of ikhtilāf¹²” and “an Ijtihād is not made redundant by another Ijtihād¹³”. This means that such differences will always exist and no amount of insistence on “ṣaḥīḥ Ḥadīth” will help unify them.

Is There A Way To Certainty In Such Issues?

No. The only situation in which one can be fully certain (Yaqīnan) that he is on the correct opinion in issues to which the primary sources are less than clear-cut, is if they receive further clarification from God. This is known as revelation (waḥi). Now this happened with the Prophet ﷺ when he made an Ijtihād and decided to take ransom from the captives of the battle of Badr. The companion Abu Bakr (ra) agreed with the Prophet ﷺ but `Umar (ra) disagreed. Allāh agreed with `Umar (ra) and made this known to the Prophet ﷺ using stern words (Qur’ān, 8:67-68) which caused the Prophet ﷺ and Abu Bakr (ra) to weep. As the Prophet ﷺ is no longer with us, and there is no prophet coming after him, this medium of clarification from God has ended, and thus no one can claim such an authority. And even if they did, they would have gone against clear-cut (Qaṭ’ī) texts, which negate such a possibility (i.e. wahi) after the Prophet ﷺ and thus anyone claiming this would be committing blasphemy and render their Imān (faith) void.

Points to Consider

There are several points,¹⁴ which are worth keeping in mind so that the simple notion of “only Qur’ān and Sunnah” can be avoided.

1. An Oversimplified Perception

If all that has been mentioned is understood, then it is simple to see how futile it is to continuously hurl the slogan of “only the Qur’ān and ṣaḥīḥ Ḥadīth¹⁵” especially in matter of difference of opinion (disregarding the reasons as to why the differences arose in the first place¹⁶). Indeed as Ibn Taymiyya stated,¹⁷ such differences arise rarely because the scholars based their opinion on whim or arbitrarily formed rulings. If that was the case, then chanting “ṣaḥīḥ Ḥadīth” is understandable, as one would think, “if only they knew of the Ḥadīth, then all differences will cease.” However this is not the case, thus it is useless to suggest that by following the Qur’ān and ‘ṣaḥīḥ’ Ḥadīth, all differences will cease.

Consequently, every time someone acts upon an opinion about which the Qur’ān and Ḥadīth are not clear, they are following an understanding of someone. This person can be a scholar or a non-scholar. Thus Ḥanafis, Mālikis, Ḥanbalis and Shāfi’īs are simply being honest when they admit that they are following one understanding of the primary sources out of many. However the person who refuses to adhere to the legal schools mentioned, nor admits to following any other scholar/jurist, but instead claims to follow the Qur’ān and Sunnah directly, and independently, the question remains: whose understanding are they following?¹⁸

2. Pretentious Certainty

Moreover what this also shows is that if someone, a scholar or non-scholar, gives the impression that their view regarding a dhannī (unclear) matter, is somehow objectively the only correct view, that somehow they have by-passed the ‘fahm’ as indicated in fig. 1 above, and have approached the Qur’ān and Ḥadīth directly as they may say, then one should be cautious of this person’s methodology, as this is impossible. His opinion is only one of many (as indicated by the different colours in fig. 1).  One cannot deny history, or the natural human process of interpretation. Every text thus approached and every ruling issued, was achieved by the human agent through interpretation. If one is not a prophet, then one cannot claim to have just ‘known.’ This means that there must be a methodology upon which such an understanding was based on. It is vital that we know what this methodology is to see the logic and evidence of the said opinion. If this is the case, and this person is denying this very human aspect then either:

• They themselves are unaware of their methodology and somehow think that they are actually approaching the texts ‘directly,’ similar to how Prophets receive information disconnected to history and context.
• They are either knowingly or unknowingly (good opinion obliges us to hold the former) hiding their methodology, to inject their opinion with an aura of false objectivity, and through this they wish to acquire more followers. In other words, to put it in bluntly, it is merely a marketing ploy.¹⁹

An Example

This attitude also seems to manifest itself towards how people approach the text Fiqh al-Sunnah. It is as if many people have misunderstood the purpose of the text and think this is literally what the title suggests, “The understanding of the Sunnah” without the human agent or fahm. Yet this is belied by the fact that the author, Sayyid Sabiq, states various understandings when he covers the many different issues. Thus to take this book as representing the ‘real Sunnah,’ and to take for example the Ḥanafī text Mukhtaṣar al-Qudūrī or the Maliki text Mukhtaṣar al-Khalīl as being ‘biased’ shows that one clearly fails to understand the dynamics of text-understanding, since if this applies to all human beings, it surely applied to the author of Fiqh al-Sunnah.²⁰ The blame in such a case however, rests on the reader and not on the author. One must be careful of a fetish for certainty in an area that offers none. Such indulgences are as bad as the desire for speculation in an area which is clear-cut

1. The Secondary and Tertiary sources

Another obvious fact that seems to be ignored when one insists everything must be mentioned from the primary sources explicitly is the negation of several other sources, secondary and tertiary. The fact is that everything is not explicitly mentioned in the primary texts (Qur’an and Sunnah). A quick look at the Islamic Juristic legacy shows that not only were there primary sources, but based on this, there were also secondary sources of authority – Consensus (Ijmā’) and Analogy (Qiyās) as well several tertiary sources. Moreover, there were different maxims developed after scholars’ surveyed different rulings in order to facilitate the jurist to encompass them with ease. This attitude also overlooks the highly developed maqāsid (teleological) theories of Islamic law by the likes of scholars such as imām al-Shatibi.

2. Ḥasan Ḥadīth

Lastly, when one insists on accepting nothing short of ṣaḥīḥ Ḥadīth, it implies the non-acceptance of another category of Ḥadīth, which is below the ṣaḥīḥ in authenticity, although is still used for purposes of law. This “lower classed” type of Ḥadīth is known as the Ḥasan Ḥadīth.

Is This Really Relevant?

Yes. This subject is relevant since if it was only ‘a few brothers in the mosque’ adopting such an attitude it could easily be avoided or changed. Yet it is worrying when one tunes into Islamic channels to find ‘accepted scholars’ pushing this line of thinking, helping to create a culture of narrow-mindedness and bigotry. It is not surprising that some of the masses are adopting this very attitude. So one is left to think that the TV scholar’s is the only authentic opinion, and the rest are baseless or weak. But this has many negative sociological problems, from breaking the unity in the mosque, to causing rifts within the family, and eventually creating a community at war with each other. Ultimately it means the Muslim community becomes what Prophet Ibrahim supplicated against: from becoming “a fitna²¹ for the Non-Muslims” (Qur’ān, 60:5) as their social discord projects Islam as a backward and intolerant faith.

If one hears someone adopting such an attitude it may help to remain cautious, ask them if there is a difference of opinion on the matter, and the basis of such a difference. One may also want to ask another scholar of a different orientation in order to maintain a balance and not become a fanatic (muta’aṣṣib).

Conclusion

The purpose of this short paper was not to attack specific members of the Muslim community or specific groups. It was rather to highlight an unhealthy trend that breeds a culture of intolerance. Finally it was to highlight and emphasise the fact that legal differences in dhannī matters are part and parcel of Islam, and simply insisting on following ṣaḥīḥ Ḥadīth will not decrease this. The jurists of the past and present, either directly or indirectly, ultimately base their understandings on the Qur’ān and Sunnah, hence it is nothing short of self-delusional to think it’s the luxury of a few individuals in exclusion to the rest.

Technology has played a significant role in facilitating this—take email as an example. In the past (which was not so long ago), you would have to write a letter, either by hand or type-written, after which you would post it through the mail. If you posted it earlier enough in the day, your recipients may receive it the same day, otherwise they would get it the next day or later depending on the amount you paid for postage. This whole process is now reduced to simply signing into your email account, writing your letter, and simply pressing ‘send’ and by the magic of technology, your letter is ready and waiting for your recipient instantly.

This instantaneous delivery has also spread to food, which has led to a relative increase in the consumption of fast food to such an extent that some have dubbed us as the ‘fast food generation.’ I am not suggesting that the ‘fast’ aspect of fast food is the only factor driving people to consume it, but it is reasonable to consider it as a significant contributing factor. Of course, putting aside all the good that may result as a consequence of this, as critical thinkers and conscious beings, it behoves us to stop for a moment and think about the negative consequences too, and one in particular: Instant gratification.

Instant gratification, as the name suggests, is when we want immediate rewards for something we do. It is connected with our appetites (nafs). In Arabic, it may be referred to as ‘ajl, as Allah, subhanahu wa ta’ala (exhalted is He), says:

“And when those who disbelieve see you, [O Muhammad], they take you not except in ridicule, [saying], and “Is this the one who insults your gods?” And they are, at the mention of the Most Merciful, disbelievers. Man was created of haste (‘ajl). I will show you My signs, so do not impatiently urge Me” (Qur’an, 21:36-37).

In these verses, Allah (swt) mentions the traits of those who reject the message of Islam, and then informs us that humans are often by nature, inclined towards haste. They want to see the outcomes of their actions immediately; this is a description of the human psyche.

“And they (those who reject faith) say, “When is this promise, if you should be truthful?”” (Qur’an, 21:38).

This is an example of the worst form such haste may take, i.e. seeking the fulfillment of the promise of threat the Prophets would often make to those to whom they were sent to.

Finally Allah (swt) says:

“If those who disbelieved but knew the time when they will not avert the Fire from their faces or from their backs and they will not be aided…” (Qur’an, 21:39).

Thus the message is clear: there are consequences of what we do, whether good or bad, even though we may be heedless of it or want to see them immediately.

A closer look at these verses shows that Allah (swt) first mentioned the hasty nature of people, and then gives them an example of their hastiness. This is to emphasize and bring to attention this fact, something Allah (swt) wants us to actively strive against. ((See Mafātiḥ al-Ghaib by Imam Fakhr al-Razī))

Delayed gratification, however, requires us to have long term views, and unshakable conviction that what we are doing will eventually result in whatever it is that we are seeking and, most importantly, the patience (ṣabr) and perseverance (istiqāma) needed to get there, two qualities of which Allah (swt) says:

“And Allah is with the patient” (Qur’an, 2:249).

“So remain steadfast as you have been commanded, [you] and those who have turned back with you [to Allah], and do not transgress. Indeed, He is seeing of what you do” (Qur’an, 11:112).

As Imam Fakhr al-Rāzī mentions, steadfastness is one of the most difficult things for people, yet at the same time, it encompasses all aspects of the Islamic way of Life.

Short-Courses or ‘Intensive Courses’

All the above brings to the main purpose of the article: the increasing supply of short courses on Islam and intensive courses, which are often delivered in short exciting bursts and often with an overdose of hyperbole marketed in a similar fashion to other more conventional forms of entertainment.

Now from the outset, I’ll confess I have also organised short courses on Islam for a very well-known speaker here in the UK, and thus I’m not advocating that there’s anything inherently wrong with them, if they are delivered effectively. However, what I am worried about is the growing trend of such initiatives, which to an extent, seem to be replacing more traditional forms of learning, which requires at least a few years rather than a few weekends to complete.

I have even spoken to friends and some people who actively attend such courses who have admitted they have become ‘short course junkies.’ And therein lies the problem. I believe such courses should be the stepping stone on the journey of knowledge, or ideally for those who are unable to commit longer periods of time to the pursuit of knowledge, not the be all and end all. Yet such students should be aware that this does not give them claim to scholarship, which even though may seem far-fetched, some often do through their actions and the manner in which they engage in discussion of Islamic knowledge. Such courses do not allow for the development of scholarly acumen, which requires organic growth, requires one to make mistakes, and subsequently learn from them. A weekend or two hardly allows for that. They do not need much emotional commitment, patience and steadfastness. They are more akin to your ‘fast food’ outlets; They satiate your immediate needs, give you instant-gratification, but will not do for the more serious long term goals. Of course everyone is not required to be a scholar, but the limitations of short courses needs to be kept in sight, if we are to reap the appropriate benefits. They may give you an imān (faith) boost, and make you feel good about yourself, but that is only one part of knowledge. We should be careful of reducing our perception of knowledge to just gratifying and appeasing ourselves, which is fundamentally to do with our ego, whereas one of the fundamental goals of knowledge in Islam is precisely to curb the ego, ((See al-Muwāfaqāt by Imam al-Shātibī)) much of which is achieved through the process of gaining the knowledge itself. Knowledge is not to be reduced to mere entertainment.

The second best of this Ummah (Muslim community), ‘Umar radi Allahu ‘anhu (May Allah be pleased with him), spent twelve years on Sūrah Baqarah. It took his son, ‘Abdullah (ra), eight years to learn Sūrah Baqarah, and we all know who he was. The question that needs to be asked is, was this long duration due to a weakness in Ibn Umar, or does this say something more about how they used to learn and serve knowledge instead of it being vice-versa? Imam az-Zurqani (ra) answers in his commentary:

“It was not due his slackness, may God forbid… the disapproval for haste in memorizing the Qur’an was narrated from the Prophet.” ((Sharḥ az-Zurqānī ‘alā Muwaṭṭa Imam Mālik))

Reforming not Demolishing the Status Quo

This is attested to by several incidents wherein the Prophet ﷺ, far from changing everything, approved of practices that were prevalent in the time of Jahiliyya (Pre-Islamic times). An example of this is the law of Qasama. This was when a body of a murdered person is found on a land occupied by a tribe, fifty inhabitants of that land must each take an oath that they have neither taken part in the death of this person nor have any knowledge as to who the killer is. If there were less than fifty people, than those present must take oaths more than once until the quota of fifty oaths is reached. After this, they are free from any liability, in terms of punishment, but must still pay compensation to the family of the murdered. It is recorded in the Musnad of Imam Ahmad and in Sahih Muslim:

“The Prophet approved of the law of qasama which was prevalent during the time of jahiliyya.”  (Muslim and Musnad Ahmad)

This was not only in penal matters, but the Prophet also did the same with the prevalent forms of marriages during his time. Aisha, radi Allahu `anha (May God be pleased with her), narrates:

“There was the marriage which is that still practised by people today in which a man asked another man for his ward or daughter, paid her her dower and then married her. Another type was that a man would say to his wife after she was pure from menstruation, “Send for so-and-so and have intercourse with him.” Her husband would stay away from her and not have sex with her until she became pregnant by that man with whom she was sleeping. When it was clear that she was pregnant, then her husband would sleep with her if he wished. He did that out of the desire for a child of noble descent… Another type of marriage was that a group of less than ten men would go to the same woman and all have intercourse with her. If she became pregnant and gave birth, some days after the birth she would send for them, and none of them could refuse to come. When they were gathered together before her, she would say to them, “You know what you did. I have given birth. It is your son, so-and-so!” She would name whichever of them she wanted to name, and her child would be attributed to him and the man could not deny that. The fourth type of marriage was that many men would go to a woman who would not refuse whoever came to her. They were prostitutes and they used to set up flags at the doors as signs. Whoever wanted could go to them. If one of them became pregnant, when she gave birth, they would be brought together and they would call the physiognomists who would then attach the child to the one they thought was the father. He would be ascribed to him and called his son. None of them could reject that. When Muhammad, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, was sent with the truth, he abolished all of the marriages of the Jahiliyya except the marriage practised by people today.” (Bukhari)

Moreover, custom or `urf, is something that is considered in Islamic law. This is evident in contractual law. For example, if in the sale of a car, it is known that it is the seller who usually delivers the product, then even though this may not be verbally stipulated, the sharia (Islamic ruling) will consider it as such. Thus the legal maxim, “That which is known by custom, is treated as if it has been stipulated verbally.” Another example is the obligation of the husband to financially support his wife (nafaqa)—the actual amount is not stipulated. It is referred to the custom of the people to decide how much is fair. Thus far from doing without custom altogether, many aspects and rulings of the sharia are dependent on the customs of a people, in order for them to be actionable.

Of course, if the customs of a people contradict a clear textual evidence of the Qur’an and sunna, then that is discarded, as the Prophet ﷺ exemplified. 

The Attitude of (predominantly young) Religious People

The point of mentioning all this is to highlight the fact that Islam is not supposed to be practiced in a vacuum, where anything, by virtue of it being foreign, is rejected and seen to be something that the sharia despises. This is more so when it seems almost fashionable for young practicing people to boast how some practice is “just” traditional, and hence they want to rid themselves of it.

Weddings as an Example

For example, during weddings, different cultures have different ways of doing things. All of this is fine, unless something contradicts the sharia. So having a pre-wedding function is completely fine. Thus it does not make sense, at least from a purely shari point of view, for people who start to practice newly or are practising to want to go against such functions in the name of religion, and upset a huge number of relatives. This breaks up unity and gives Islam a bad name and makes religious people seem like they are against having fun.

Reason for Rejection: Un-Islamic

The common argument is that because there is no precedent for such functions in the sunnah, it is by default un-Islamic. However, this attitude itself is Un-Islamic and rejected, since when it comes to social practices and events, “everything is permissible until proven impermissible.”

Reason for Rejection: Finance

Of course, sometimes halal (permissible) customs can place undue hardship on people, especially those that are not financially well off. In such situations, should a person not want to hold a customary function, it is completely justified and praiseworthy, since spending out of one’s means is discouraged. Yet the reason for breaking from one’s cultural practices would be finance, and not because something was intrinsically wrong with the function.

Reason for Rejection: Personal Choice

If someone wants to break from their cultural practices and tradition due to personal preferences, then it is only fair that they make this known and not mask this using religious justifications. This would be an unfair abuse of religious texts. Of course the motivation for appealing to religion at such times comes from the fact that breaking from traditions attracts the censure of one’s family and peers, and in an attempt to deflect such criticism religion is used as a shield.

Moreover, people should be wise when making such choices by taking into account the possible harms that may result. One needs to balance one’s individualism with the wider concerns of one’s family. After all it was the Prophet himself ﷺ who said to Aisha (ra) when she took a woman on her wedding night to a man from among the Ansar:

“O ‘Aisha, was there any entertainment (in the gathering)? For the Ansar love entertainment.” (Bukhari)

He ﷺ knew the custom of the Ansar and respected it.

We must not forget that our religion is a universal one, and our Prophet ﷺ is a universal prophet. Thus, we, who claim to follow the Prophet ﷺ must also adopt this in our attitude and practice. In the words of the Qur’an:

“And We have not sent you except comprehensively to mankind as a bringer of good tidings and a warner. But most of the people do not know.” (Qur’an, 34:28)

This universality implicitly accepts the cultures and traditions of all people with the condition that they do not contradict the Qur’an and sunna. This difference is an aspect of life that is to be embraced, not an imperfection to be erased.

“May Allah brighten [the face of] a person who hears a hadith from us, and reports it as he heard it, for perhaps the one whom the hadith is reported to, is more understanding than the one who reported it to them.” (Tirmidhi)

In this short article, we’ll explore a hadith with this in mind. However, at the outset, it is important to remember that this is ‘a’ prophetic method, not ‘the’ only and exclusive prophetic way, as the Prophet ﷺ often would address those present according to their intellectual capacity. As he said:

Treat people according to their ranks/ability/status (Abu Dawud) ((There is discussion over the authenticity of this Hadith. Nonetheless it has been narrated through several chains of narrations (isnad) all of which strengthen each other.))

Thus a philosopher or an academic will be engaged in different discussion than a simple nomad.

From Universals to Particulars

A man migrated (hijra) from Mecca to Medina because he intended to marry a woman called Umm Qays. The woman said she will accept his proposal only if he migrated. Thus he became known as ‘the migrator to Umm Qays’. The man then went to ask the Prophet ﷺ about the status of his action, will he get the reward for making the hijra? To this, the Prophet ﷺ replied,

 “Actions are by their intentions and every man (or woman) shall have what they intended. Thus he whose migration was for Allah and His messenger ﷺ, his migration was for Allah and His messenger, and he whose migration was to achieve some worldly benefit or to take some woman in marriage, his migration was for that for which he migrated.” (Bukhari)

The Prophet ﷺ first stated a universal (kulli or jinse):

“Actions are by their intentions and every man (or woman) shall have what they intended.”

He then applied this universal to two general categories (naw`):  Doing something for the hereafter, and doing something for this world.

He then placed the actual case in hand, i.e. migrating for the purpose of marriage, under the ‘mundane’ category (`ayn):

One of the strengths of this approach is that you not only answer the specific question under discussion, but also equip the questioner with the knowledge necessary to answer any other question of a similar nature. Furthermore, your questioner benefits from the fact that you expose your line of reasoning.

This Prophetic method is utilised by many Islamic jurists when they, like the Prophet ﷺ, answer questions. Moreover, as Imam Ibn al-Qayyim mentions, it allows breadth for the jurist to answer questions by including additional, but relevant, knowledge. By extension, it is completely acceptable for a Muslim to ask the jurist or mufti for his reasoning when the latter issues a legal response (fatwa), and the jurist should not be offended by this, as that would indicate he deems himself above the Prophetic method.

This approach of moving from generals to particulars is also employed in the science of Qawā’id Fiqhiyya (legal maxims), which unfortunately is not studied except by dedicated students of the Islamic sciences, more specifically those who are training to issue legal rulings (fatwa).

Lastly, it is important for us to note that this is not something jurists or scholars employ just to show intellectual prowess as is sometimes alluded to. As well as having a discourse which accommodates everyone, it is also vital that we appreciate and keep alive our intellectual rigour and sophistication. We need not ‘dumb everything down’, all in the name of accessibility. Sometimes, the onus is on the student, to ‘up her game’.

Employing This Method in Our Discourses

Of course, this method is probably not the easiest to grasp at first, and thus it needn’t be used all the time, however, to be better equipped at ‘internalising’ the logic of the Shari’a (Islamic law), it is indispensable. This will allow a person to acquire a new level of understanding, one that is deeper than simple do’s and don’ts. This eventually leads a person to grasp the aims and purposes (maqāsid) of the Shari`a, at least to some degree.

The Common Method

The more common method when teaching Islamic law and ethics, however, is to cover each issue individually with its ruling, i.e. the particulars only. This is due to its expediency and the fact that it equips people to immediately deal with the issue at hand and know the Shar’ia stance towards it. This is also a method employed by our Prophet ﷺ.

Can you think of any examples where the Prophet ﷺ uses this method? Write them in the comments section below!

As Muslims, the best role model we have is of course, the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ (peace be upon him). About him, Allah subhanahu wa ta`ala (exalted is He) says:

And indeed, you are of a great moral character.

And as Aisha radi allahu `anha (may God be pleased with her) described the Prophet’s character and mannerisms as a walking Qur’an, we will look at one of the ways in which the Prophet Muhammad embodied Qur’anic values.

In the Qur’an, Allah (swt) orders the Prophet ﷺ to:

‘[…] consult them [i.e. the Muslims] in the matter. And when you have decided, then rely upon Allah. Indeed, Allah loves those who rely [upon Him].’ (Qur’an 3:159)

Allah (swt) commands the Prophet ﷺ to consult his companions despite revelation coming to him. The question is why does he do this? Imam al-Razi gives several explanations in his Tafsīr al-Kabīr.

Firstly, the Prophet ﷺ consulting the companions makes them feel important and respected. This in turn, reciprocates good feelings towards him, and ensures a healthy and respectful relationship, which would ultimately benefit the Companions. Note how this is intended to benefit those who are consulted more than the one consulting. This is a good reminder for those in authority to always keep those who are in their charge involved. This is more so when it comes to the domestic realm, where husbands sometimes may not feel it necessary to consult their wives. As we know the Prophet ﷺ consulted Khadija (ra) when he received the first revelation.

More telling is the incident of Hudaibia, when the Muslims had set out from Medina towards Mecca intending `Umrah. The polytheists of Mecca had blocked them and agreed to allow them to perform the `Umrah the following year. Now the Muslims had already assumed the ihram (a ritual state which prohibits certain things usually permissible). To come out of this state, the Muslims had to slaughter their animals, and trim or shave their head. The Prophet commanded the Muslims three times to do this, but because they were overcome with grief, none of them were obeying this command at first. The Prophet was worried, and came back to his tent, where his wife, Umm Salama, was. She advised him by suggesting he simply go outside, slaughter his offering, and shave his head. No sooner had the Prophet ﷺ done this in full view of the Companions, then they too followed and thus all had come out of ihram. The Prophet ﷺ consulted his wife in such grave matters, and did not see it below himself to do so.

Secondly, even though the Prophet ﷺ had an intelligence and qualities far above any other creation,  Imam Razi says it is not impossible, due to the vast nature of human knowledge, for him to over look something which someone else may not. Moreover, others may offer different perspectives. Thus we see the Prophet ﷺ consulted the Companions when making very important decisions. For example, the location of the battle of Uhud was decided based on the opinion of the Companions, as the Prophet ﷺ wanted to fight the battle from within Medina. In fact, Imam Razi mentions that the order to consult the Companions came after the Battle of Uhud, because the Companions may have felt the Prophet ﷺ was upset with them, as he followed their advice, and went out of Medina for the battle, which ultimately lead to the Muslims’ defeat. This was also the case in the battle of Badr, when, based on the advice of Hubab ibn al-Mundhir, the Prophet ﷺ changed his initial location for battle.  If such is the case with the Prophet ﷺ, what of an average Muslim, living fourteen hundred years after?

Thirdly, Imam Hasan al-Basri and Sufyan ibn ‘Uyayna are of the opinion that such an order was given to the Prophet ﷺ so that consulting each other will become an established sunnah (tradition) of the this Umma (community). This consultation, even in domestic affairs, is something we can do religiously, intending reward from Allah (swt), by adhering to this sunnah. This is significant as we often do not see such actions, e.g. consultation and holding a family meeting, as something ‘religious’ or something that is encouraged by our faith.

Fourthly, by consulting the companions, the Prophet ﷺ was able to gauge the understanding and intelligence of the Companions. Of course, this benefit is clear when a man consults his family. He will be able to keep his children involved, as well as be on the same ‘wavelength’ as them, ultimately leading to better communication and a more open and honest relationship.

Fifthly, by consulting the Companions, they would have ownership in what happens. This means that they would exert their utmost as they will be responsible for the outcome. This is an effective way to share responsibility with children, and give them an opportunity to mature organically under the guidance of their parents. Thus they won’t be cut off, simply receiving do’s and don’ts, but actually taking part in deciding what these rules are.

Lastly, after the verse encourages the Muslims to consult, it also reminds them that they should ultimately be dependent on Allah (swt):

‘And when you have decided, then rely upon Allah. Indeed, Allah loves those who rely [upon Him].’ (Quran 3:159)

May Allah makes us of those whom He describes as “their affairs are mutually decided between them” and peace and blessings be upon our master and final messenger.

This article is based on the book “Qur’anic Principles” by Dr. Umar ibn Abd Allah al-Muqbil

This verse in Surah Baqara is specifically referring to the incident wherein Moses prayed for water for the children of Israel:

“And [recall] when Moses prayed for water for his people, so We said, “Strike with your staff the stone.” And there gushed forth from it twelve springs, and every people knew its watering place. “Eat and drink from the provision of Allah, and do not commit abuse on the earth, spreading corruption.”” (Qur’an 2:60)

There were twelve tribes at the time. To each, God had given a spring such that there was no need for one to transgress the other or to fall into dispute regarding it. Each tribe knew its watering place and with this fair blessing of God, they were all content.

Of course, the Qur’an has verses which all allude to the same generic meaning, even though the specifics of the cause of revelation in each verse may differ.

One such a verse is in Surah Isra:

“Say, ‘Each works according to his manner […]’” (Qur’an 17:84)

So like God gave the Children of Israel a watering place specifically for each tribe, He also gave every individual a manner, a disposition. This is further supported by the hadith (narration) of the Prophet ﷺ:

“Work, for everyone is eased to what he was created for.” ((al-Bukhari and Muslim))

So whilst the verse says people should work according to their nature, this hadith not only confirms this, but explains how when something is in accord with one’s nature, they will find that easy.

There are several other verses and prophetic sayings which carry the same meaning.

Lessons and Reflections

Contemplating over these verses and prophetic sayings, we can derive some lessons and morals.

Firstly, the fact that everyone has a disposition is something not only acknowledged by the sacred text, but enforced. This may seem obvious, but many differences and conflicts that arise between Muslim groups and organisations, between the different thoughts and approaches towards the Qur’an and hadith are partly a result of this, though on the face of it, this may not be apparent.

For example, some people by their very nature are simpletons. They like things black and white and find much difficulty when things are blurry. Such people lean towards clear-cut answers that usually say, “X is the correct opinion, and the rest is wrong.” My own personal experiences, though I accept this is anecdotal, supports this.  Of course, to what extent this is their ‘nature’ is debatable, as one’s generic understanding of something can influence how one goes about dealing with the finer details. For example:

There is only one truth.

Islam is true.

Therefore, Islam must have only one truth.

Whilst this is true in theory, Muslim scholars never held this attitude in all aspects of the religion. In fact, one can argue that in most issues, unclear issues, they entertained some doubt with regards to their legal position, hence the saying of Imām al-Shāfi’ī (may God be pleased with him):

“My opinion (as a jurist) is correct, with the possibility of error, whilst the opinion of others (i.e. jurists) is incorrect, yet there is always a possibility that it may be correct.”

Similarly, the greatest Imām, Abū Hanīfa (may God be pleased with him) said:

“We [i.e. the jurists] realize that this is merely an opinion; yet, it is the best we have been able to reach. If someone produces an opinion better than this, we will accept it.” ((See Shah Wali Allah ad-Dehlawi, al-insaf fi bayan asbab al-ikhtilaf fil-ahkam al-fiqhiyya))

This is probably one of the fundamental distinguishing traits between a well-studied person in Islam and a novice. So are the jurists negating the fact that there is only one truth? The simple answer is no. Why then do they tolerate differences? This requires a separate discussion, which I may address in another article if Allah subhanahu wa ta`ala (exalted is He) wills.

These differences of dispositions can also be seen influencing the Fiqh (Law) of the companions. Ibn Abbas (may God be pleased with him) is noted for having some lenient opinions and he would look deeper into the purposes and subtleties of an issue, while Ibn Umar would take a more cautious approach. Of course, it would be inaccurate to say this is only a result of their disposition, but it would be accurate to say that one’s nature had a part to play.

Acknowledging this can help us deal with many differences, especially those that are of a religious nature and even more so when those who differ with you claim that they have a higher standing than you, because their legal position is more supported by the texts. This is true, according to how they see it.  So you let people drink from their own watering place, while you drink form yours. You wouldn’t go over and try to persuade people to come and drink from yours, for you know that all these springs eventually draw their water from the ocean of the Qur’an and Sunna. This is the attitude we need when we encounter differences of opinion in Fiqh. So if one were to go to a village which is Hanafi in practice, it would be foolish and short-sighted to give a talk on the ‘correctness’ of raising the hands after ruku` (bowing, in prayer), something which the Hanafis don’t do. Similarly, it would be wise for one to excuse oneself from leading the Witr prayer (which has several ways of being offered) in an area where it is offered differently to how one prays. Doing so will lead to confusion and may threaten the harmony of that community.

Of course, there may be individuals who go out and try the watering places of others, and find out for themselves which one they find most sweet. But such is the exception, rather than the norm.

Secondly, people just embarking on seeking knowledge should remember this verse when they are choosing someone to learn Islam from. If we decide at an early stage to learn from someone with whom we disagree more than agree, then we may find ourselves spiritually bankrupt and none the wiser, for so much quarreling and bickering, especially with those who are more senior than us in knowledge and wisdom, hardens the heart. Hence Imam Malik’s dislike for disputation with regards to religion.

Lastly, understanding this verse will prevent us from thinking low and belittling the work of our fellow Muslims who are engaging in works different than ours. Numerous times I have heard our activist brothers and sisters look down at those who are in the pursuit of knowledge as not ‘doing’ anything. Similarly, there is a tendency amongst people of knowledge to stick to their inner circles and smear activists as merely having nothing more than a loud voice, often the voice being louder than their intellect. Instead, we should acknowledge that there are many paths to God. And this is not the sayings of a modern Hippy who is influenced by liberalism as some may think. For if this is true, then it must also be said for Imam Malik.

Imam Malik received a letter from Abd Allāh bin Abd al-Azīz al-Umari al-Ābid encouraging him to solitary confinement and worship, away from the people as was Imam Malik’s habit. So Imam Malik replied:

“Indeed God, the Almighty, has divided actions as He has divided provisions. So perhaps a man has an opening in salah [prayer] (i.e. he is good at it) whilst he does not have this opening in fasting, whilst another has an opening in giving to charity, whilst he does not have an opening in fasting, whilst another has an opening in jihād whilst he does not have an opening in salah. The dispersing of knowledge and teaching it is from the best actions of righteousness and I am pleased that God has made an opening for me in this. I don’t think I’m doing this without doing what you do (i.e. worshipping God) And I hope that both of us are on good (khayr). It is incumbent upon every one of us to be pleased with what God has apportioned for him.

“With Peace.” ((Imam Ibn Abd al-Barr, At-Tamheed))

As you can see in his reply, Imam Malik was actively aware that there were many ways to Allah (swt). Only the Prophet ﷺ is perfect, and it is he only who embodies all such ways, Indeed it is the Prophet ﷺ himself who taught this when he gave different replies to different people according to their nature and circumstances, when they asked the question “Which action is the best?” This knowledge had a direct influence on Imam Malik’s attitude and mannerisms when he said:

“And I hope that both of us are on good (khayr).”

They wanted to include, whereas many today have a fetish for excluding; they acknowledged the vastness of this faith, whereas many today represent it as an alleyway.

May Allah (swt) reward the early generations of this Umma (community) and those who follow them in the best manner.  And peace and blessing be upon our master and our final messenger, Muhammad ﷺ and his family.

It is one of those unavoidable facts of life: sometimes we find ourselves in situations we don’t want to be in. Often, we have to do things or resist doing other things. The Qur’ān and Ḥadīth mention such occurrences, and also elaborate on our response to them. Thus the following verse:

             “And We will surely test you with something of fear and hunger and a loss of wealth and lives and fruits, but give good tidings to the patient” (Qur’an, 2:155)

Although is confirming the fact that we will face times of difficulty, it is phrased in a way which alludes to how we should respond.

The Arabic word used for ‘something’ in the phrase “with something of fear…” uses the singular شيء instead of the plural for two reasons. Firstly, it places us in a state of apprehension in that, as the singular indicates, any one of the tribulations mentioned may afflict us. So the prudent amongst us will take precautions and live in a manner which prepares them to face such trials. In a sense, we are responding to trials before they occur. Yet at the same time, and this is the second reason why the singular was used, it gives us a sense of comfort that Allah (swt) will not throw all of these tribulations at us at once.

This verse is discussing two concepts and our response to them.

Situations

It’s interesting that the verse begins by mentioning two situations relating to our inward states – that of fear and hunger. Both are feelings and mental states.  This emphasizes how we react to situations, rather than focusing on the situations themselves.  Here we will briefly look at what is meant by ‘fear,’ before discussing how we ought to respond to it.

The word used in the verse is خَوْف, which literally is translated as ‘fear’. In reality, خَوْف more specifically refers to those thoughts we have about all the negative things that may happen to us in the future. This is in contrast to الارتياح, which refers to the good things we think may happen to us. The latter is a source of hope, whilst the former can be inhibiting if left unchecked. What is the Qur’ānic advice on how we should respond to these thoughts?

Our Response: Patience

The verse ends by explicitly mentioning what our response should be: patience. We’ve probably heard this before. Here lies the danger: the difficulty isn’t in the mental cognition of patience, i.e. just knowing what patience means – the difficulty lies in it’s practice. This is similar to how Buddhist monks in meditation spend hours simply trying to track their thoughts. The idea is simple; its implementation is not. So it’s not surprising to find someone like Imām al-Ghazālī (May God shower him with His mercy) expounding on patience. Indeed many Greek philosophers before him had done the same.

The Imām mentions how patience, more specifically when we resist doing certain things, is unique to humans –  in exclusion to the angels and beasts. Beasts, he argues, are predisposed to following the dictates of their nature, they don’t have an intellect to obstruct them from fulfilling their inclinations, and so they have no need to be patient. Angels do not have any inclinations except to offer their services to Allah (swt). Hence they too do not have the need to be patient. Humans, on the other hand, have passions and desires similar to beasts, yet at the same time have an intellect which discerns actions that are good and moral and those that are evil and immoral.

Of more interest, perhaps, to parents and educators, is that he says how children behave like animals in that they seek to fulfill whatever they desire. This is mentioned in a scientific manner rather than a derogatory manner. A child will disregard the fact that too much sweets are bad for the teeth, and will insist on having them if they so desire. Here, it is the parent or guardian that acts as the intellect for the child, by protecting the child from their own desires and lower self (hawā).  A spoiled child, unfortunately, is deprived of such a guardian, and in a sense grows up with a malfunctioning ‘intellect.’ This relates to appearances and realities. It may appear to be kinder if someone does as their child wants, or it may seem as if disciplining children requires a lack of love since someone truly loving their children won’t be able to properly discipline. The reality, however, is that true love and kindness is shown by securing for the child what’s truly in their long-term benefit. And hence the Prophet (saws) said:

“No father had given his child anything better than good manners.”

Fathers are mentioned here not because they are somehow better than mothers, but to stress the fact that the onus of the education of children primarily falls on fathers, possibly due to the cost factor involved, and in Islam, all financial obligations are placed on fathers. So this is something worthy to be kept in mind when we think about the education of our children; do we simply want them to store academic information and become skilled employees, or do we at the same time want to make them better humans and ultimately better servants of God?

Coming back to al-Ghazālī, adults, even those who have had a good upbringing, face two opposing forces from within. They have their bodily inclinations, including the need for food and drink etc…all of which if a person engages in without restraint will not only lead to negative consequences in this life, but will lead to the destruction of their hereafter (ākhira). The intellect then, fights back, and recognizes the danger in continuously and unrestrictedly fulfilling such desires, aware of the risk this poses to one’s hereafter (ākhira). This prevention of the self from acting out its desires results in the need for patience.

Physical and Spiritual/Psychological

Patience is then divided into two broad non-exclusive categories: physical and spiritual/psychological.

Sometimes we have to be patient physically; for example, when we find ourselves in situations having to perform physically demanding tasks. Other times, it is not so much as us doing something, but more of tolerating something done to us; this is characterized by what the Muslims went through for thirteen years in Mecca.

More frequently however, the need to show patience at a more spiritual or psychological level is demanded of us. This is the battle of the two forces of the intellect and bodily inclinations as mentioned above.

What this means is that patience is not the absence of ill-feelings or internal unrest. Rather, it is resisting the temptation to give in to such feelings and to avoid translating them into action. Other times, it is persevering through difficult times when we may not be able to change a situation we’re in. A good example of this is when the Prophet ﷺ lost his son Ibrāhīm. He said:

“The eyes send their tears and the heart is saddened, but we do not say anything except what pleases our Lord. Indeed, O Ibrahim, we are bereaved by your departure from us.”

The Elevated Status of the Patient

In several verses Allah praises patience. Indeed such an elevated status is divine acceptance of the difficulty faced by people who are patient.  One hadith will suffice here. The Prophet ﷺ said:

“Patience is half of faith (īmān).”

This is because one cannot be a believer except by abstaining from certain actions, statements and beliefs, while at the same time affirming others. Abstention from such actions requires patience, as does the performance of other actions. In that sense, all of īmān would be comprised of patience, so why did the Prophet ﷺ mention patience as forming half of faith? The answer lies in the fact that some of the statements, actions or beliefs may already seem distasteful to someone. Similarly, those things that one must engage in as part of his faith may already seem enjoyable to him. Hence, abstaining from them or engaging in them, will not require patience as the intellect and the bodily inclination are in agreement here.

Difficult times is not always a sign of sin

While it is no doubt a good thing to use a time of difficulty for introspection and take account of oneself, it is also worth remembering that the mere fact that we may be going through difficult or troubling times in our lives is not necessarily a result of sin. This verse states that everyone, be they sinners or righteous, will all face testing times, and when it happens, it’s up to them to use it to their advantage.

Look at the following verse:

“Kind speech and forgiveness are better than charity followed by injury. And Allah is Free of need and Forbearing.” (Qur’an, 2:263)

If one is not wholeheartedly willing to help a poor person or is unable to, kindly turning down the offer is better than to give charity followed by spiteful words. This is stated despite the fact that giving your wealth in charity is outwardly better and usually harder on the ego than simply offering kind words; Imam Fakhr al-Rāzī mentions why. The first case of charity is from pure goodness, whereas in the second case there is a mixture of good and bad, which can easily be predominated by the latter1. Then to encourage charity without feeling bitter Allah reminds us that He is free of need, whilst we rely on him. By the same logic, we should give to those who look up to us.

To further confirm the fact that spiteful words can destroy the reward of giving charity Allah says:

“O you who have believed, do not invalidate your charities with reminders or injury as does one who spends his wealth [only] to be seen by the people and does not believe in Allah and the Last Day…” (Qur’an, 2:264)

Thus the two causes that invalidate charity are:

1) To follow it with egotistical reminders and spiteful words (al-adhā)

2) To give charity with the intention of showing off (al–riyā’)

In the science of Tafsīr however, there is an agreed upon principle which states it is better to keep the application of a verse more general than to restrict it2. Based on this, as well as keeping in spirit with reflecting upon the Qur’an (4:82), we can generalise the above verse.

Firstly, we can apply this verse to any good deed. This is obvious in the case of showing off (riyā’). There are several Qur’anic verses and sayings of the Prophet ﷺ mentioning the destructive effect riyā’ has on our actions3. As for spite (al-adhā), then we can take this as an indication (juz’ī) to any verbal form of inflicted harm as a result of a good deed we have done. For example, after studying an area of Islam, we can feel very confident in our own opinions and thoughts, leading to ridiculing others or calling them innovators etc…

We can also apply this verse a step further. The specific form of verbal harm can be understood as alluding to any form of harm emanating from someone’s limbs, not necessarily the tongue. As for riyā’, it can be understood as symbolising any harmful action of the heart. For instance, feeling a “holier than thou” complex indicates a problem on both aspects. Here, one carries oneself arrogantly due to the conviction that one is somehow better at being Muslim than others, which is predicated on one’s perceived ‘good actions’.

As for defining what a good deed is has three aspects:

1) The outward form of the action itself,

2) The inward state of the person who performs it, and

3) Whether or not Allah accepts it.

Therefore while some actions may outwardly appear good, they are cancelled out due to the negative state of the person they emanate from. And in that sense a good action can seize to be good, especially when it leads to an evil end. This is a dangerous situation for us for if the very means which Allah gave us to purify our egos of spiritual blemishes become avenues which we use to only strengthen them, how than can we be from those believers described by Allah as having a “sound heart4“?

For those of us who do manage to (1) purify the outward form of the action as well as (2) our inner states, there exists a third level for that action to qualify as wholly good. This depends on whether or not Allah is pleased with that action. And because we can never be entirely sure of our judgment from Allah, we can never have certainty that what we have done is ultimately good or bad. It is this last humbling aspect that helps a Muslim keep their feet on the ground.

Since in the end, the value of our outward action ultimately depends on its connection to our hidden inward. Thus, when we fully understand this, we are all in a better state of hope and fear5.  Hope: because of the All Merciful nature of our Lord Who accepts our actions even though they don’t befit His majesty, and fear because we are aware of our own shortcomings and weaknesses.

May Allah help us to act and create with goodness throughout. Ameen.

Relevance

Though this subject may seem obvious to many, the mannerisms displayed by some brothers and sisters with respect to those issues wherein there is a legitimate difference of opinion (ikhtilāf) clearly shows that there exists some confusion related to concept of a scholar’s ‘selecting’ a legal opinion. We find this in the practice of the Prophet ﷺ when people asked him “what is the best action?” He would often give different answers according to the needs and background of the questioner. Similarly scholars throughout history addressed the needs of their time, even though looking back, some of what they addressed seems very obvious to even the most average person. Also, this article serves as a reminder for everyone including the author, as Allāh says, “And remind, for indeed, the reminder benefits the believers” (Qur’an, 51:55).

The Strongest?

There are many reasons why a scholar may deem an opinion ‘the strongest.’ In fact there are so many reasons, that it is quite possible (and has happened) that one scholar will deem an opinion stronger based on one criterion, whilst another scholar will deem another opinion stronger based on another criterion. It helps to be aware of the fact that the basis of weighing an opinion is an in-depth compound process, the explanation of which goes beyond the scope of this article. However those interested may refer to any good books on Usūl al-Fiqh (principles of jurisprudence).

Based on this, it is a mistake of students to understand the statement of their sheikh when he says ‘this position is the strongest’ to mean ‘all other opinions are weak or invalid.’ Despite the obvious fallacy in this way of thinking, it also shows a lack of understanding of what it effectively means when a scholar makes such a pronouncement. They are simply exposing their understanding of which position they feel is strongest, their personal stance, which is subjective. It is important to limit their perception and findings as such and not inflate them and exaggerate it as if it is ‘the objectively strongest opinion,’ which in all honesty, none but Allāh knows. Indeed this is with all aspects of fiqh.

“The Strongest” – But Why?

When one finds scholars at odds with each other over which opinion in a given matter is the strongest, and this is common, it may help to enquire about the reason as to why a position is ‘the strongest’, if the scholar or student of knowledge has not already explained so. After several enquiries one will notice that differences of opinion hardly arise due to one side basing their legal understanding on a hadīth whilst the other bases it on whim or mere opinion, as is suggested in some circles. Instead it is the understanding or fahm of the text that leads to such differences. This fact should inform the attitude of the average Muslim or student of knowledge, and help avoid the attitude of a fanatic when approaching such matters. The assumption should be that a valid reason for divergence exists, and not that one side has made a mistake, for such an approach deprives the one who adopts it of valuable knowledge and thus slows down their development.

This is backed up by many examples from the lives of the companions (may Allah be pleased with them all) as well as in the discussions that took place between later jurists, for example the incident of praying salāt al-`Asr at Banī Quraidha.¹

The incident of praying Salat al-`Asr at Banī Quraidha

The Prophet ﷺ had sent a group of companions and instructed, “No one should pray salat al-`Asr except in (the vicinity of) Banī Quraidha.”

Banī Quraidha was a tribe living in Medina. The only problem was that the time for the `Asr prayers had almost expired before the group reached the vicinity of Banī Quradha. Thus, they found themselves divided into supporters of two different opinions, one group strongly believed that they should pray only once they had reached their destination, even if that meant they would miss the time of `Asr. The other group prayed on the way and thus prayed al-`Asr in its time, though seemingly at odds with the Prophet’s ﷺ instruction.

Both groups of companions in this case made an Ijtihād or an attempt to arrive at a sound decision within the confines of the revealed text and legislation. The rationale behind the first group was that the Prophet’s ﷺ instruction was clear in asking everybody to pray at Banī Qurayẓa upon arrival, thus they gave preference to the literal and specific command to the situation at hand superseding the other commands to pray `Asr on time.

The rationale of the second opinion, however, was that the Prophet’s ﷺ purpose (maqsid) of the order was to ask the group to hasten to Banī Qurayẓa before `Asr to pray punctually, rather than actually intending to postpone prayers until after its due time. Their reason for this was that they put into context this specific command within the context of other commandments concerning praying `Asr on time and thus preferred to take the view of what they believed was intended, for it was known very clearly that the prayers had fixed times.

The case was related to the Prophet ﷺ and he did not censure any of the parties. This meant that he approved both methods, for the Prophet ﷺ did not remain silent on falsehood. And thus his silent approvals are part of his Sunnah, and both parties were correct in their attempts to arrive at the truth.

However, did he also approve the result of their Ijtihād? This is disputed. And this dispute continued centuries later, when scholars came and commented on which opinion was ‘the strongest’.  The famous scholar of the literalist school, Muḥammad ibn Ḥazm al-Ẓāhiri supported the group that prayed salat al-`Asr after they reached Banī Qurayẓa, as the Prophet ﷺ had said, and said this was the stronger opinion even if it was after midnight. This was in harmony with his literalist approach.

However the jurist Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyya asserted that it was those who prayed on the way that were correct. Ibn al-Qayyim had a more holistic approach, and so his criteria of judging which opinion is stonger differed from Ibn Ḥazm (may Allāh shower both scholars with his mercy and grace).

Thus what the strongest position is at times depends on which scholar one learns from. It is important for adherents of both views to not take the statements of each scholar out of the realm of ‘human understanding’ (fiqh) no matter how convinced they may be, and endow them with ultimate divine status.

There is however an exception to this. Sometimes there are opinions, which are deemed aberrant (shādh) by the overwhelming majority of jurists. Such opinions are left to their respective scholars without being adopted in practice. Unfortunately however, even this concept of an opinion being shādh is also abused and used in a polemical manner to discredit the opinions of others, and therefore care must be taken to verify whether something being claimed as shādh, is actually so.

Lastly, though it may seem tempting at first to students of knowledge to be overly ambitious and pass judgements as to which opinion they find strong and which they do not, it is important to remember that such an endeavour is a strenuous process, which one who knows the severity of, will never belittle. We learn so that our chests may expand to accommodate more wisdom and jewels from our intellectual heritage, and so we can embody this higher understanding in our practice. It is not so that we become more restricted and confined to one set of opinions or another. And if our attitude and morals do not embody such learning, then the question needs to be asked, what is the point of our learning?