Ahmed's idea for Mutazelism/Sufi

[MattyG]

From an email from Ahmed:

"About mutazelites, traditional Islam, shia and sufi. While I apreciating what
is already done, if everything would be started right now, I would advice to
make that there is muslim/sufi conflict.
Wanted to say that story must to be edited that shia was not accepted but like
"assimilated" through arguments. Maybe madhabs and taqleed policy was abadoned
and people returned to arguments of sources - Quran, Sunna and how Companions
of Muhammed (SAW) understanded them.
(Madhabs - 4 schools of Islam. There were 4 great sholars, who developed their
understanding of Islam and its rulings, but they sometimes did not have hadiths
which had sholars after them. Still, there was adopted "taqleed" (blind
folowing) policy that those early sholars being closer in time to time of
Muhammed (SAW) and information (dispite that hadith collections was collected
after them) so they could understood better. So every muslim should just choose
one of those 4 sholars schools and blindly follow them. But even after was
movement of "salafiyya" - that is - that muslims should understood Quran and
Sunna the way how it was understood by companions of Muhammed (SAW) and early
muslim generations (salafi). So their view must be taken as first.
So I advice that after some painful history (succesful crushade, losing persia
to mongols), muslims either had some "reformation" becouse of feeling need to
changes and return to true Islam (to strenght), or either rulers think that
that would give masses to think about something else not about their ruler
impotence, rulers gave support to sholars and medresses supporting "sallafiyya"
(salafi Islam) against taqleed (blind foloowing) (or madhabs) sholars. Also it
could be done for ensuring more unity cos sometimes people tend to go crazy
with those madhabs and do not marry each other, do not pray behind other madhab
imam etc. May be in interregnum history there was low level and intensity civil
war between shia (with their madhabs), Hanafi, Shafi, Hanbali and Maliki
madhabs (each against everyone). So Caliphate (and other fallowed)
"unification" on salafi Islam.
I just started this cos "sunni" can not accept shia as legitime schools. They
make serious errors in their beliefs. That is question of "Imamate". Shia claim
that "Imams" has absolute knowledge and understanding (thats ir unique
characteristics of God), and infalligility - that they do not make any
mistakes, even not in their thinking - that everything what they think and
decides and intent and do is corect and absolute without defect (that again is
only God). So muslims can not accept theese wrong believes as legitime. So
while shia maintains these politeistics believes they will not be accepted as
normal muslims. Some scolars do not recognise them as muslims, some just as
deviant muslims who commit shirk (politeism).
So it is not possible that they are part of "Traditional Islam".
There was some discussion what did make mutazelitism more than just some deviant
elitist thinking? I think that what is missing in INT history is sufi. May be
mutazelites mixed with sufi? That would explain better why there is casus belli
on them? So we get mutazelite-sufi mix who in sufi way ignores some obligatory
practise and introducing different bida (religios innovation which in all cases
ir forbidden and seen as evil even if people think that it has some good in
it.). Malwa could be sufi order as janisares of osmans were. Their advances
would innovativness (mutazelites - sufi), more missioanries (sufi sheikhs),
more colonists (here always would be normal muslims running away, also maybe
some philosofy of colonising wilderness...), may be better morale (becouse of
military sufi orders like malwa and other janisaries kind). Also may be in
conversion they recieve positive DP changes. Like +2 quality, +3 inno (colonist
harm could be cured by there religion stats, so they get tonns of colonist) and
others depend on ideas. May be their sufi philosofy includes one big sufi order
with main shaikh as almost patriarch? So it would give more centralisation
becouse patriarch would make more easy to govern like orthodox do. On oposite I
would like that Salafi Islam would turn to salafi understanding not selectivly
- so instead of kings there would some kind of election of ruler. Like shura
(concil) of ulemah (Islamic sholars), tribal leaders, diferent elites (You can
not get plebiscite at that time!) would choose some well known and honorable
man to be as caliph or emir. That is what I suggested in Champa. In INT for now
it would mean that just at death of one caliphs just apears event with elction
as Dithali has. So for start would be that A choice is those caliphs which we
already have. So difernet rutes for now would be just between like one who is
proposed by military wing (difernt groups propose morre military capable
leader) and another more administrative better proposed by differnet groups and
strongly by trader elite. May be in some case traders would propose military
man to fight for trade routes of persia and india or against pirates of
mediterian (crete, cyprus).
But those mutazelite sufi would support traditional (unislamic) kings by their
shaikhs (patriarhs :-) ) as sometimes as grey cardinals.
So Sufi-mutazelites would be by religion stats unstable, but salafi Islam would
be stable except that elections always would bring -2 stab hit.
Salafi would have CB on sufi becouse of acusing them as lefting Islam or
strongly deviated and spraeding disorder and falsehood.
Sufi would have CB becouse salafi would destroy sufi shrines. (Becouse it is
forbidden in Islam to build an building on grave (shrines, mousoleums).)

Also salafi would recieve events about destroy or not destroy some sufi shrine:

"~~~~~ At Syria town *** is a 4 centuries old sufi shrine and people are coming
and praying to that dead shaikh. We should level to ground that transagression
of command of Prophet becouse bulding building on graves. Also we should stop
this awful shirk (politeism) of praying to people about Prophet warned. While
this act would make angry local and foraign sufi, if we do not do this we will
lose some legitimity in eyes of ordinary and sholary muslims (becouse they are
somehow informed about taking decidion about sufi shrine). Also there is risk
that unopposed sufi would gain some support in ignorant masses"

A. Destroy

+4 BB (mutazelite-sufi states look)
-1 stab
+100 D (Shrine has some gold... :-) )
rebel at location
rebel at random location
-100 relations with some mutazelite states
flag "shrine1_destroyed"
-600 or more trade loss (trade loses with mutazelite country)
-2 adm for 120 months (worsened trade with mutazelites and sufi unrest)
+1 RR for 60 month



B. Not to destroy.
-2 stab
-2 BB (some prestige better)
quite a many random rebels
soem desertions
+100 relations wih mutezelite states
flag "shrine1_notdestroyed"
-6 misioanries
+1000+ trade (becouse of better relations with mutazelites states, trade is
better)
+1 innovative
+1 dipl rating for 60 month
+1 dipl rating for 240 month (better diplomatic options with mutazelites, but
still litlebit worse with salafi states)
-1 adm for 12 months (angry salafi)
-1 adm for 60 months
+2 RR for 12 months
+2 RR for 60 months
+1 RR for 120 months


Flag "shrine1_notdestroyed" gives random event "Mutazelite spreads" (diferent
from those already have) about that not only that "Syria" turns to mutazelite,
but some other too. Also "shrine1_notdestroyed" gives random event "Mutazelite
revolts" and "Salafi revolts" - in one case mutazelite are bolder and spreads
and on another case rules which did not destroy shrine has less legitimity.

So these destroy or not to destroy shrines events would be some 3-4 times in
interregnum period. If that one shrine is destroyed at ~1480, then at ~1600
trigers another almost the same event in basra, jordan or elsewhere. Is not
destroyed then ruler again solves problem or Syria shrine. So again ~1720. If
destroyed then ofcourse flags ar "shrine2_destroyed" etc..."

[Calipah]

Obviously our dear friend Ahmed is thinking in modern terms.

Salafi Islam is the most narrowminded and uncompromising form of the faith there is - I know, because my family and society practice it. The fact is, the Salafi Islam Ahmed is talking about stemmed from 3 important figures - all of whom I have very little respect for - Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal(A founder of the Hanbali School), Ibn Taymiya(The sweet child of every violent Islamic movement there is), and Mohammed bin Abdul Wahhab(The spiritual founder of Saudi Arabia - meh). Since the latter was not yet born, the fanatical Salafi Islam can not yet be established.

And by the way, Salafis dont just call for strictly following the Prophet Mohammed's hadiths and that of his followers , but also supposedly the 'Salaf As-Salih'(The Good Men) hence their name. And who are these good men?Fanatics and warriors who used the sword more than the good word.

You claim that Shia Islam is irreconcilable with sunni Islam - oh I know this argument, Ive heard the idiots preaching in our Mosques denouncing the 'Rafida heretics'(Vile name for the Shia...) whilst these men of the 'faith' lack a single iota of understanding for either Islam or history. The Shia movement as we know it today is only recent, and is really based on two sources - the Hashashin movement(or the Assasins, and hence the organization) and then the most important being the Party of Ali which is really more or less a political movement that started after the Prophet's death and it's members didnt even consider themselves different from the rest.

As for At-Tabaruk or gaining blessings from graves and tombs - it is not limited to Shia countries like Iran or Iraq, but there are Dervish graves in Lebanon and Syria, Holymen tombs in Egypt and Morocco as well as India, it is universally practiced in the Islamic world.

Lastly, Sufism is a mystical approach to Islam, and has taken many variations, flourishing in the Maghreb, the Sudan and India. Their interpretation stems from the Qalib(Heart) and Iman(Faith) - just read Jallal Ad-Din Ar-Rumi or Muhiballah Al-Kairawani's poetry and youll get the idea. Mutazelitism approaches Islam via intellectual interpretation, and dosent shy away from trumping God's authority with that of the mind - intresting I must say but I have my reservations. These two expressions are quite irreconcilable.

[MattyG]

From Ahmed

Obviously our dear friend Ahmed is thinking in modern terms.

Salafi Islam is the most narrowminded and uncompromising form of the faith there
is - I know, because my family and society practice it. The fact is, the Salafi
Islam Ahmed is talking about stemmed from 3 important figures - all of whom I
have very little respect for - Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal(A founder of the Hanbali
School), Ibn Taymiya(The sweet child of every violent Islamic movement there
is), and Mohammed bin Abdul Wahhab(The spiritual founder of Saudi Arabia -
meh). Since the latter was not yet born, the fanatical Salafi Islam can not yet
be established.

------------
Salafiyya is not people but metodology that salafi (rightious predescetors -
companions of Muhammed and nezt two generations) understanding of Islam should
be taken at first. Also bidaa (any innovation in religion which is forbidden)
surely should be avoided. If Calipah do not like Saudia, this is not excuse to
label Saudia as salafi Islam dispite some of their claims. If they would be
then he would not live in oppressing monarchy. Also it is not excuse to show
little respect for sholars dispite disagreeing with them. Also label salafi
Islam as "the most narrowminded and uncompromising form of the faith" is quite
strange becouse there should not be innovativness in Islam. That is called
bidaa, man... :-) And why to create another religion than that which was sent
by God? How can muslim be compromising to bring people inventions in God sent
religion? So God sent religion can not be innovative, or else it is human made
religion. I surely agree that there is lot of salafi sholars who are
"narrowminded" in meaning of their shallow understanding of life, humans,
religion and making fictions about who and what way was Muhammed (SAW) and
salafi. But "salafi" is methodology, not people. So "salafi" people are VERY
different.

And by the way, Salafis dont just call for strictly following the Prophet
Mohammed's hadiths and that of his followers , but also supposedly the 'Salaf
As-Salih'(The Good Men) hence their name. And who are these good men? Fanatics
and warriors who used the sword more than the good word.

-------------
Well, it is not good to use word "fanatic" without defining it. It is not
problem to say that Muhammed (SAW) and closest of his companions (RA) was
fanatics. They were persecuted, tortured, killed, starved, boikoted, they lost
their properties and become refugies and they needed to fight to survive. And
they could avoid it all and even get bonuses if they would just leave God sent
religion. In these days people who perform 5 daily obligatiory ritualistic
prayers are called fanatics and radicals... Then surely Muhammed (SAW) was
fanatic, as all other prophets were.
These people lived in tough time, and You know that. And to be warrior surely
doesnt mean anything bad. And You know that they had not only swords (what that
a kind of Gibbon???) but tounges and manners too. Religion are not butter - it
can not be spread by sword. It is done with tonge. (Religion, sometimes
butter.) I am not from those who tries to make fictions and make those men
saints. But they surely own more than just labeled as "fanatics and warriors".

You claim that Shia Islam is irreconcilable with sunni Islam - oh I know this
argument, Ive heard the idiots preaching in our Mosques denouncing the 'Rafida
heretics'(Vile name for the Shia...) whilst these men of the 'faith' lack a
single iota of understanding for either Islam or history. The Shia movement as
we know it today is only recent, and is really based on two sources - the
Hashashin movement(or the Assasins, and hence the organization) and then the
most important being the Party of Ali which is really more or less a political
movement that started after the Prophet's death and it's members didnt even
consider themselves different from the rest.

-----------
I did not say that I see shia as nonmuslim if something this kind is meant here.
But that is opinion of almost all ulemah that Imamate with is unfallibility and
all-knowing charistericticks (not in Zaidi shiism) can not be legitime Islamic
belief. So they can not be accepted as legitime opinion while still having this
Imamate princpe.

As for At-Tabaruk or gaining blessings from graves and tombs - it is not limited
to Shia countries like Iran or Iraq, but there are Dervish graves in Lebanon
and Syria, Holymen tombs in Egypt and Morocco as well as India, it is
universally practiced in the Islamic world.

-----------
Well, in all world, in every region are muslims who drank alchohol, commit
adultery and other sins. And in muslim societies are diferent unIslamic
beliefs. It is SHIRK (politeism) to pray to other than God. Dead or alive
shaikh or "saint" - it is shirk. If it is done by ignorance, then it is just
huge problem. If it is done by knowing, then those induviduals fall in
disbelief. That is what Muhammed (SAW) taught. Muslims can do anything, but
that doesnt change what is Islam. Islam is religion, not people deeds or some
beliefs which they atribute to Islam. You know all that.

Lastly, Sufism is a mystical approach to Islam, and has taken many variations,
flourishing in the Maghreb, the Sudan and India. Their interpretation stems
from the Qalib(Heart) and Iman(Faith) - just read Jallal Ad-Din Ar-Rumi or
Muhiballah Al-Kairawani's poetry and youll get the idea. Mutazelitism
approaches Islam via intellectual interpretation, and dosent shy away from
trumping God's authority with that of the mind - intresting I must say but I
have my reservations. These two expressions are quite irreconcilable.

---------
Well I thought that they is problem to merge them. One is greek rationalism
philosofy looking on Islam, other is just another in all religion existing
people who invent another religion then what God prescribed.
But well - shia accepted some of mutazelitism, and shia has accepted some sufi
thing - like those graves and saints... So if shia could on some extent merge
together - why not our fantasy?
I say that mutazelites in some extent acted as they stand over Quran. Some cases
they ignored prophet sayings and interpreted Quran in the way who they wanted.
Well - sufi too and energic on ignoring prophet forbidences and are not afraid
to intoduce in their practise what was not done by example to humans - prophet,
and ignoring practise what was done by that example.
Offcourse, sufi with their sheikhs have some "blind following of shaikh" and
that may be would be hard to merge with mutazelite rationalism.
Yes it is hard to merge them.
What if sufi takes from Interregnum_new_pseydo_mutazelitism just that people are
free to not exactly follow Quran in their interpretation, becouse thay do not
live in "Quran time", some more free will and may be something more.
So may be just mutazelitism ifluenced sufism. The real diference and conflict
would be that this new sufism would be used as political meaning. In pre1419.
baghdad later muslim rejected taqleed, madhabs and heredity. So they live with
those "elections" but at Granada some powerful ruler dicides that he will leave
power to his sons or he was thretened with "impeachment". So he supports some
(influenced by mutazelitism) sufi shaikhs who made (may be rationaly) claims
that these elections and possible "impeachments" should not be done and sons as
heirs is more stable and safe for country. So this ruler and later other rulers
who want to establish dynasties, support them too becouse of they interests.
May be that Cordoba ruler like alkochol and this why he was theatened with
"impeacment".
(Very interesting trip to Granada, Calipah. Interesting to read. Kind I
interesting in that clan history too, becouse we in europe almost never can
trace our ancestors deeper then few centuries...) So instead to be without
power, he consults his sufi shaikh who says that alkochol is lawful, that to be
king is nothing awful too, that it is not important to pray 5 daily prayers or
anything else, it is important only what is in your heart (but noone can see
what is in heart...) and so on.
So rulers get kingship legitimity, mases gets "shortcut" in Islam - "easy Islam"
where You could ignore many forbidances which "seems to be" in Quran and
Muhammed (SAW) practice. Shaikh will intermediate at grave and judgement day on
Your behalf and so on...
So rulers get high motivation to convert - they can secure power. That is power
and political conflict between "Salafi Islam" states and "Sufi Islam" states.
In this sufi states there is main sufi shaikh (patriarh) and clergy system
(other shaikhs who are ordained in this sufi order).
These sufi order which is mixed with state power is one hand helping to maintain
legitimasy, organizing army elites (like jannesares), but on other hand those
grand shaikhs tend to want to be greay cardinals and install puppet kings.
Maybe this sufi order creates more stability, but on other case, may be these
states has low stability becouse of uprisings of noncinverted population.

[MattyG]

it is important only what is in your heart (but noone can see
what is in heart...) and so on.

Surely Allah sees always what is in a persons heart.

[orimazd]

1. I read this thread and I wonder if I am back in Gawaher, lol. (It seems to me that Calipah might find that insulting, considering what he wrote, but...I obviously don't mean it like that). I asked a question over there which didn't get answered because people got confused over my wording, maybe I should ask it here. You know, I think I will at the end of my question in this thread.

2. Sometimes, MattyG, you say some things that make me wonder if you are a Muslim. If you are not, you surely know how to speak like one to an ignorant American like me (Well, I haven't seen you write PBUH after mention of Mohammed, so...right).

3. Anyways, on topic, I could have sworn that the Qur'an says, not in interpretation but specifically in word, that wine is forbidden. I know it is a common interpretation of the Qur'an, and has been for over a milennia, that this specifically applies to all alcoholic drinks (ignoring the Beowulf story and mead, of course). However, would you consider it innovation to understand it to mean exclusively wine? Why? I mean, if you are going to read to the word and not to a possible meaning (like a lot of Christians I know personally with the Bible...*cough*Baptist Student Center*cough*), then I could understand a Muslim not considering drinking beer haram, and not having it considered a bad thing to do. I hope that came out right. It probably didn't.

Now, on to what I asked on Gawaher in December. Respond if you feel like it--I won't feel hurt if you don't...perhaps it is really confusing to read if you are someone else, as opposed to being the one to write it.

Wasalaam aleikum and long time no see, y'all (literally, it has been years). I don't know if this is the right forum for this thread, but being a Westerner, this part feels (and felt back when I posted here) like the right place for me to ask things, espcially of the nature of this question.

It came up in a thread in another forum I post at, and the subject was a poll conducted by phone in America (which automatically means that you will get ridiculous answers) about what people think will happen in the year 2007, and one of the answers was that Jesus would return--a good 25% of people polled predicted this, despite the fact that it does not fit with Christian eschatology at all, and I assume the people who gave such an answer were devout Christians. I mean, after all, it is the US and most Americans are Christian. It came up in this thread (ie, was debated--most people at this forum [Islamic-Western Dialogue] are not Muslim, and the ones who are occasionally get banned for discussing things that are forbidden at said forum, such as Israel-Palestine, American ambitions in the Midde East, whatever they may be, and so on, since people get passionate about these subjects occasionally) that Jesus, in Muslim Eschatology, is still alive and will come back at the end to do His thing. One of the links provided to support this was here, and there is some wording in it that I find confusing.

What confuses me about this is where it says but. That is one conjunction which makes no sense in that context to my ears. The Qur'an I bought (as opposed to the fancy Qur'an I was given afterwards, which is at my apartment and is thus inaccessible) says essentially the same thing, though it says followers of the Book instead, bringing to (my) mind not a revelation of any sort like the Tanakh or the Bible, but only the Qur'an (It also leaves out the "as only a Messenger of Allah" part, as that is only context). But that but is really confusing in understanding this. Could someone help me with that? (Of course, remembering this place, many people will jump on it eagerly...[which they didn't ])

If I remember, I will look it up in my Qur'an given to me by the local Islamic Center here, but I don't expect the wording to be any different.

[Calipah]

Salafiyya is not people but metodology that salafi (rightious predescetors -
companions of Muhammed and nezt two generations) understanding of Islam shouldbe taken at first. Also bidaa (any innovation in religion which is forbidden)surely should be avoided.

Salafiya basicaly demands people to submit to the interpretations of the old Muslims - without regard to the changes and instabilities we have faced throughout our history. Bidaa is a broad term that is labeled on anything the fanatical Muslims of today dont like - or respect. I'll give you an example, the Prophet's grave had a long engraved poetic piece written by the Imam al-Baousiri - it was removed because it could have caused heresy, and not that it did.

If Calipah do not like Saudia, this is not excuse to
label Saudia as salafi Islam dispite some of their claims. If they would be
then he would not live in oppressing monarchy. Also it is not excuse to show
little respect for sholars dispite disagreeing with them. Also label salafi
Islam as "the most narrowminded and uncompromising form of the faith" is quite

Who said anything about Saudi Arabia?

As for the scholars, yes I have little respect for them, and with good reason. Islam teaches us to truly learn the faith and it's legistrations. What we have today is an army of automatons and sheeps following blindly what the 'clergy' of Islam say. The fact is, they are the reason we are still living in the past - skim any book from 800 AH to 1400 AH - the 'Imams', 'Sheiks' and 'Alama's' have copy pasted everything. New technologies and social upheavels are rendered in Qiyas, and the old interpretations remain without dispute....meh.

strange becouse there should not be innovativness in Islam. That is called
bidaa, man... :-) And why to create another religion than that which was sent
by God? How can muslim be compromising to bring people inventions in God sentreligion? So God sent religion can not be innovative, or else it is human madereligion. I surely agree that there is lot of salafi sholars who are
"narrowminded" in meaning of their shallow understanding of life, humans,
religion and making fictions about who and what way was Muhammed (SAW) andsalafi. But "salafi" is methodology, not people. So "salafi" people are VERY
different.

I did not ask for innovation of faith - I ask for new Ijtihad and interpretation. Quranic laws should be rendered to not only divine value but also historical reason. For example - they tell you that a Murtad "apostate" should be killed based on the Quran and the Sunnah. The Quran is rather mysterious and the text is unclear, simply saying that they will be damned to hell. The Sunnah has several conflicting Hadiths with the Prophet even releasing some apostates and letting them go! But hey, after the Rida wars (During Abu Bakir's reign) it stuck in our heads that we should kill people who leave Islam(Though the tribes in central arabia didnt really leave Islam, they were simply revolting against Medina's authority).

-------------
Well, it is not good to use word "fanatic" without defining it. It is not
problem to say that Muhammed (SAW) and closest of his companions (RA) was
fanatics. They were persecuted, tortured, killed, starved, boikoted, they lost
their properties and become refugies and they needed to fight to survive. And
they could avoid it all and even get bonuses if they would just leave God sent
religion. In these days people who perform 5 daily obligatiory ritualistic
prayers are called fanatics and radicals... Then surely Muhammed (SAW) was
fanatic, as all other prophets were.
These people lived in tough time, and You know that. And to be warrior surely
doesnt mean anything bad. And You know that they had not only swords (what that
a kind of Gibbon???) but tounges and manners too. Religion are not butter - it
can not be spread by sword. It is done with tonge. (Religion, sometimes
butter.) I am not from those who tries to make fictions and make those men
saints. But they surely own more than just labeled as "fanatics and warriors".

I labelled the idiots of the 18th century and upward as being the fanatics (Weither it's the Mahdi's revolt in Umdurman, the Wahhabist attack on Karbala, and our present ' Mujahedin').The old folks had their social and religious norms in their respective ages and times, and the Prophet Mohammed peace be upon him and his good companions are far from it.

However, to claim that Islam was not spread by the sword is too romantic a though. Islam was like any other faith, it spread through violant and peaceful means. Not that it is an enduring characteristic but it happened in many places (Zorastrian persia, parts of Sicily, North Africa and also Nubia). Christianity is no different, it spread via preaching and also the sword(Lithuania and Scandenavia). Relligions are like that....

I did not say that I see shia as nonmuslim if something this kind is meant here.
But that is opinion of almost all ulemah that Imamate with is unfallibility and
all-knowing charistericticks (not in Zaidi shiism) can not be legitime Islamic
belief. So they can not be accepted as legitime opinion while still having this
Imamate princpe.

Not just Zaidi Shisim, but Abadayia and Urdazi's. The fact is theyre our brothers...irregardless of sect.

Well, in all world, in every region are muslims who drank alchohol, commit
adultery and other sins. And in muslim societies are diferent unIslamic
beliefs. It is SHIRK (politeism) to pray to other than God. Dead or alive
shaikh or "saint" - it is shirk. If it is done by ignorance, then it is just
huge problem. If it is done by knowing, then those induviduals fall in
disbelief. That is what Muhammed (SAW) taught. Muslims can do anything, but
that doesnt change what is Islam. Islam is religion, not people deeds or some
beliefs which they atribute to Islam. You know all that.

God says "Inama al-Amal bil Niyat" - Deeds are weighed by intentions. Since Tawheed (Monothism) falls under three parts - Rububiyah(Godship - which is god's status in the universe and that is the master of everything), Uluhiyah(Lordship - which is god's right to be worshipped) and Asma was Sifa (Names and Adjectives that are his only...).

In which of these does praying at a tomb fall under?Perhaps Uluhiyah, but the Muslims there are asking for Shafaha, and we know it is permissable to ask it from good muslims. Anyway, Islam is not a unified body, it takes on many forms and absorbs the cultures of the region's it enters - thats what makes it's dynamic and beautiful...

Well I thought that they is problem to merge them. One is greek rationalism
philosofy looking on Islam, other is just another in all religion existing
people who invent another religion then what God prescribed.
But well - shia accepted some of mutazelitism, and shia has accepted some sufi
thing - like those graves and saints... So if shia could on some extent merge
together - why not our fantasy?
I say that mutazelites in some extent acted as they stand over Quran. Some cases
they ignored prophet sayings and interpreted Quran in the way who they wanted.
Well - sufi too and energic on ignoring prophet forbidences and are not afraid
to intoduce in their practise what was not done by example to humans - prophet,
and ignoring practise what was done by that example.
Offcourse, sufi with their sheikhs have some "blind following of shaikh" and
that may be would be hard to merge with mutazelite rationalism.
Yes it is hard to merge them.
What if sufi takes from Interregnum_new_pseydo_mutazelitism just that people are
free to not exactly follow Quran in their interpretation, becouse thay do not
live in "Quran time", some more free will and may be something more.
So may be just mutazelitism ifluenced sufism. The real diference and conflict
would be that this new sufism would be used as political meaning. In pre1419.
baghdad later muslim rejected taqleed, madhabs and heredity. So they live with
those "elections" but at Granada some powerful ruler dicides that he will leave
power to his sons or he was thretened with "impeachment". So he supports some
(influenced by mutazelitism) sufi shaikhs who made (may be rationaly) claims
that these elections and possible "impeachments" should not be done and sons as
heirs is more stable and safe for country. So this ruler and later other rulers
who want to establish dynasties, support them too becouse of they interests.
May be that Cordoba ruler like alkochol and this why he was theatened with
"impeacment".So instead to be without
power, he consults his sufi shaikh who says that alkochol is lawful, that to be
king is nothing awful too, that it is not important to pray 5 daily prayers or
anything else, it is important only what is in your heart (but noone can see
what is in heart...) and so on.
So rulers get kingship legitimity, mases gets "shortcut" in Islam - "easy Islam"
where You could ignore many forbidances which "seems to be" in Quran and
Muhammed (SAW) practice. Shaikh will intermediate at grave and judgement day on
Your behalf and so on...
So rulers get high motivation to convert - they can secure power. That is power
and political conflict between "Salafi Islam" states and "Sufi Islam" states.
In this sufi states there is main sufi shaikh (patriarh) and clergy system
(other shaikhs who are ordained in this sufi order).
These sufi order which is mixed with state power is one hand helping to maintain
legitimasy, organizing army elites (like jannesares), but on other hand those
grand shaikhs tend to want to be greay cardinals and install puppet kings.
Maybe this sufi order creates more stability, but on other case, may be these
states has low stability becouse of uprisings of noncinverted population

I dont agree since they are quite different expressions, one relying on reason, the other on mysticism, which are almost irreconcilable. Not to mention, Sufis tend to have many forms, from Dervishes, to Monastic orders. Also, Sufis tend to following the Quran's forbiddances rather strictly, especially in the Maghrib where the Shafii sect is very well spread.

(Very interesting trip to Granada, Calipah. Interesting to read. Kind I
interesting in that clan history too, becouse we in europe almost never can
trace our ancestors deeper then few centuries...) .

We have passed it down orally in our history, and it was accumulated by a literate member of the clan in 1895 - Hedjaz.

[Calipah]

3. Anyways, on topic, I could have sworn that the Qur'an says, not in interpretation but specifically in word, that wine is forbidden. I know it is a common interpretation of the Qur'an, and has been for over a milennia, that this specifically applies to all alcoholic drinks (ignoring the Beowulf story and mead, of course). However, would you consider it innovation to understand it to mean exclusively wine? Why? I mean, if you are going to read to the word and not to a possible meaning (like a lot of Christians I know personally with the Bible...*cough*Baptist Student Center*cough*), then I could understand a Muslim not considering drinking beer haram, and not having it considered a bad thing to do. I hope that came out right. It probably didn't.

Well no, Wine or 'Muskir' really has one meaning which is 'That which does not allow straight thinking'. The Islamic ban really makes sense - Alcahols dont let you have full control of your reason, and thus put you in a liable position. Makes sense to me, and the Quran is pretty obvious there. In the end of the day, it's really an individual choice...but to me it's logical more than anything.

Wasalaam aleikum and long time no see, y'all (literally, it has been years). I don't know if this is the right forum for this thread, but being a Westerner, this part feels (and felt back when I posted here) like the right place for me to ask things, espcially of the nature of this question.

It came up in a thread in another forum I post at, and the subject was a poll conducted by phone in America (which automatically means that you will get ridiculous answers) about what people think will happen in the year 2007, and one of the answers was that Jesus would return--a good 25% of people polled predicted this, despite the fact that it does not fit with Christian eschatology at all, and I assume the people who gave such an answer were devout Christians. I mean, after all, it is the US and most Americans are Christian. It came up in this thread (ie, was debated--most people at this forum [Islamic-Western Dialogue] are not Muslim, and the ones who are occasionally get banned for discussing things that are forbidden at said forum, such as Israel-Palestine, American ambitions in the Midde East, whatever they may be, and so on, since people get passionate about these subjects occasionally) that Jesus, in Muslim Eschatology, is still alive and will come back at the end to do His thing. One of the links provided to support this was here, and there is some wording in it that I find confusing.


Quote:
Then Abu Huraira said, "Recite if you wish, "There is none of the People of the Book but must believe in him (as only a Messenger of Allah) before his death. And on the Day of Resurrection, he (Jesus) will be a witness against them."" [an-Nisa 4:159][Al-Bukhari & Muslim]



What confuses me about this is where it says but. That is one conjunction which makes no sense in that context to my ears. The Qur'an I bought (as opposed to the fancy Qur'an I was given afterwards, which is at my apartment and is thus inaccessible) says essentially the same thing, though it says followers of the Book instead, bringing to (my) mind not a revelation of any sort like the Tanakh or the Bible, but only the Qur'an (It also leaves out the "as only a Messenger of Allah" part, as that is only context). But that but is really confusing in understanding this. Could someone help me with that? (Of course, remembering this place, many people will jump on it eagerly...[which they didn't ])

وقوله تعالى: ( وَإِنْ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ إِلا لَيُؤْمِنَنَّ بِهِ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ وَيَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يَكُونُ عَلَيْهِمْ شَهِيدًا )

قال ابن جرير: اختلف أهل التأويل في معنى ذلك، فقال بعضهم: معنى ذلك: ( وَإِنْ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ إِلا لَيُؤْمِنَنَّ بِهِ ) يعني بعيسى ( قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ ) يعنى: قبل موت عيسى-يُوَجه ذلك إلى أن جميعهم يصدقون به إذا نزل لقتل الدجال، فتصير الملل كلها واحدة، وهي ملة الإسلام الحنيفية، دين إبراهيم، عليه السلام.

ذكر من قال ذلك:

حدثنا ابن بشار، حدثنا عبد الرحمن، حدثنا سفيان، عن أبي حُصَين، عن سعيد بن جبير، عن ابن عباس: ( وَإِنْ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ إِلا لَيُؤْمِنَنَّ بِهِ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ ) قال: قبل موت عيسى ابن مريم. وقال العوفي عن ابن عباس مثل ذلك .

وقال أبو مالك في قوله: ( إِلا لَيُؤْمِنَنَّ بِهِ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ ) قال: ذلك عند نزول عيسى ابن مريم، عليه السلام، لا يبقى أحد من أهل الكتاب إلا آمن به. < 2-453 >

وقال الضحاك، عن ابن عباس: ( وَإِنْ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ إِلا لَيُؤْمِنَنَّ بِهِ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ ) يعني: اليهود خاصة. وقال الحسن البصري: يعني النجاشي وأصحابه. ورواهما ابن أبي حاتم.

وقال ابن جرير: وحدثني يعقوب، حدثنا ابن عُلَيَّة، حدثنا أبو رجاء، عن الحسن: ( وَإِنْ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ إِلا لَيُؤْمِنَنَّ بِهِ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ ) قال: قبل موت عيسى. والله إنه الآن حي عند الله، ولكن إذا نزل آمنوا به أجمعون.

وقال ابن أبي حاتم: حدثنا أبي، حدثنا علي بن عثمان اللاحقي، حدثنا جويرية بن بشر قال: سمعت رجلا قال للحسن: يا أبا سعيد، قول الله، [عز وجل] ( وَإِنْ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ إِلا لَيُؤْمِنَنَّ بِهِ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ ) قال: "قبل موت عيسى. إن الله رفع إليه عيسى [إليه] وهو باعثه قبل يوم القيامة مقامًا يؤمن به البر والفاجر".

PANDORA'S BOX HAS BEEN OPENED

Basically, it could very well mean that when Jesus comes back to earth to fight the Antichrist - long story there - in Damascus. Before his death, some people of the book would come to believe in him once more, that is to say Islam. Considering that he is alive to this moment, it makes sense. Also try reading the other verses before it....

If you are wondering what the 'But' is in the verse, the translation you have seems to be literal. The Arabic language is very lucid, and the BUT is equal to 'Illa' which acts as an enforcer of meaning and the whole verse is rendered into "And some from the people of the book before his death shall believe once more and he(Jesus) shall be a witness to their faith in the day of judgement".

Cleared that up for you?It's really just a language barrier only...

I advice buying Mohammed Asad's translation of the Quran, it's great.

[MattyG]

This has been very very cool.

Praise be to Interregnum.

And that Arabic script is beautiful.

Also, Ahmed tells me that the definition of an arab is anyone who speaks arabic. Is he right?

[MattyG]

From Ahmed

"Salafiya basicaly demands people to submit to the interpretations of the old
Muslims -
--------
Bidaa is bidaa, and bidaa in Islam is forbidden. ANd You know hadith about 73
divisions and right is one in which is Muhammed (SAW) and his companions (RA).
"changes and instabilities we have faced throughout our history." "Bidaa is a
broad term that is labeled on anything the fanatical Muslims of today dont like
- or respect. "
----
People are the same 5000 years ago, 1370 years ago and now. Bidaa is innovation
in religion. It doesnt forbid to You fly or use internet. Islam is perfect
religion and any addition is not from God and is evil. you know all that.


As for the scholars, yes I have little respect for them, and with good reason.
Islam teaches us to truly learn the faith and it's legistrations. What we have
today is an army of automatons and sheeps following blindly what the 'clergy'
of Islam say. The fact is, they are the reason we are still living in the past
- skim any book from 800 AH to 1400 AH - the 'Imams', 'Sheiks' and 'Alama's'
have copy pasted everything. New technologies and social upheavels are rendered
in Qiyas, and the old interpretations remain without dispute....meh.
----------------
Well - muslim world is occupied by enemies of muslims and Islam. All those
saudi, pharaons, ataturks and maliks are doing their best to sabotage muslim
societies, and that includes education. Yes, they have pocket ulemah and
al-azhar is third worst place in Egypt. Well - that is what would be good -
muslims would look what is Islam. Not how understood or explain some ulemah or
is in some traditions of society, but what is Muhammed (SAW) and his nearest
frends and students understood it. That is salafi - return to original. And
surely, You know that not Islam, but ignoring it, is creating muslim problems.



I did not ask for innovation of faith - I ask for new Ijtihad and
interpretation. Quranic laws should be rendered to not only divine value but
also historical reason. For example - they tell you that a Murtad "apostate"
should be killed based on the Quran and the Sunnah. The Quran is rather
mysterious and the text is unclear, simply saying that they will be damned to
hell. The Sunnah has several conflicting Hadiths with the Prophet even
releasing some apostates and letting them go! But hey, after the Rida wars
(During Abu Bakir's reign) it stuck in our heads that we should kill people who
leave Islam(Though the tribes in central arabia didnt really leave Islam, they
were simply revolting against Medina's authority).
-------------
Well, there is different opinion about rida. But as You know, that clasical view
of executing apostate is only if he openly and confirmingly rejects Islam. If
someone has lost his faith, them he should shut up and not scream to all world
about his problem. Then he is like attacking values of society and is open
enemy to them.
But You know that this is controversive point and other ulamah points that
executed apostates in Muhammed (SAW) time was traitors too, - they would become
soldiers of enemies... I surely agree about need of ijtihad, but only for
competent people.


Mahdi's revolt in Umdurman
--------
BTW - it myth that he claimed to be Mahdi. It was just his name... May be some
people misunderstood. Atleast this how explained our imam Mamoun from Sudan.


Not that it is an enduring characteristic but it happened in many places
(Zorastrian persia, parts of Sicily, North Africa and also Nubia). Christianity
is no different, it spread via preaching and also the sword(Lithuania and
Scandenavia).
---------
Conquering teritory is not equal with spreading religion. Otomans, GH and
Cordoba is few of examples when rulers should be flogged for antispreading of
Islam.

Not just Zaidi Shisim, but Abadayia and Urdazi's. The fact is theyre our
brothers...irregardless of sect.
--------
Zaidis count Aisha, Talha and Zubair (RA) as disbelievers...


In which of these does praying at a tomb fall under?
-----------
It is forbidden by Muhammed (SAW) to pray at grave. To pray to dead or alive -
it is shirk. Only God should be worshiped.

Anyway, Islam is not a unified body, it takes on many forms and absorbs the
cultures of the region's it enters - thats what makes it's dynamic and
beautiful...
------------
Well, while it is just different clothes, cuisine, then is no problem. In
religion I must remember You what You know - about 73 sects... But I think that
we are in situation when one brings to one side only becouse other started with
other side. Many times I have feel almost shame when reading not very deep
sighted fatwas of "salafi" sholars. Yes, I have some disguist of "minhaj
police", too... :-) Also muslim history is not Islam. I am just talking about
methodology and return to Islam of Muhammed (SAW) as all great ulemah did.



I dont agree since they are quite different expressions, one relying on reason,
the other on mysticism, which are almost irreconcilable. Not to mention, Sufis
tend to have many forms, from Dervishes, to Monastic orders. Also, Sufis tend
to following the Quran's forbiddances rather strictly, especially in the
Maghrib where the Shafii sect is very well spread.
-----------
Well, I lately proposed sufis influenced by some mutazelitism ideas. Sufis just
are better for conflict that mutazelites. Also sufi blind following to shaikh
is helping to introduce in game some kind of patriarchate.
Main deviance of sufis - "God is everywhere" (BTW - sorry for repeating all
stuff which You perfectly know.). Also they claim that their shaikhs have
special hidden knowledge. And they fall in 100 of ribas. They perform actions
which was not done by prophet and his companions, or which is unknown. Also
they tend to ignore practise which was done and ordered as obligatory by
Muhammed (SAW). Also they tend to ignore forbidances.
I just propose that more or less one way sufism would be spread - with some
shaikhs-patriarchs, with some ignoring of obligatory or forbidances...
But if they are not accepted, then we could take that Mutazelism _rationaly_
supported kingship becouse of stability, and becouse next king could be trained
for ruleship and opposed uncertainty of elections. also there arguments was
that king would not steal from state becouse it is his properity, not just for
some time. And he would left it to his sons - so he would guard family
properity. But in elections diferent groups antanigaze themselves, propose
random people who have no expearence in ruling and do not know its kitchen.
Also those people could steal, try to grab power, have oposition of group which
proposed other candidate.
So if mutazelites gain support from power - why they could not come with these
arguments? :-)
Also option of having them patriarchs is not something strange. It is logical
that main patriarch is main patriarch becouse he has best knowledge... :-)


I advice buying Mohammed Asad's translation of the Quran, it's great.
--------
He has some mutazelite influences. :-) I agree, I like his comentaries too. For
may be most precise meaning of Quran take Khan translation. But it is quite
hard to read for explanations in brackets..."

[orimazd]

Originally Posted by Calipah

Well no, Wine or 'Muskir' really has one meaning which is 'That which does not allow straight thinking'. The Islamic ban really makes sense - Alcahols dont let you have full control of your reason, and thus put you in a liable position. Makes sense to me, and the Quran is pretty obvious there. In the end of the day, it's really an individual choice...but to me it's logical more than anything.

Yeah...while there at least has been one arabic course offered at my school (one of my roommates was in it last semester, for a month or two), I don't have anything to go on that I can think of for myself. But that clears it up there, thank you.

وقوله تعالى: ( وَإِنْ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ إِلا لَيُؤْمِنَنَّ بِهِ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ وَيَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ يَكُونُ عَلَيْهِمْ شَهِيدًا )

قال ابن جرير: اختلف أهل التأويل في معنى ذلك، فقال بعضهم: معنى ذلك: ( وَإِنْ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ إِلا لَيُؤْمِنَنَّ بِهِ ) يعني بعيسى ( قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ ) يعنى: قبل موت عيسى-يُوَجه ذلك إلى أن جميعهم يصدقون به إذا نزل لقتل الدجال، فتصير الملل كلها واحدة، وهي ملة الإسلام الحنيفية، دين إبراهيم، عليه السلام.

ذكر من قال ذلك:

حدثنا ابن بشار، حدثنا عبد الرحمن، حدثنا سفيان، عن أبي حُصَين، عن سعيد بن جبير، عن ابن عباس: ( وَإِنْ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ إِلا لَيُؤْمِنَنَّ بِهِ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ ) قال: قبل موت عيسى ابن مريم. وقال العوفي عن ابن عباس مثل ذلك .

وقال أبو مالك في قوله: ( إِلا لَيُؤْمِنَنَّ بِهِ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ ) قال: ذلك عند نزول عيسى ابن مريم، عليه السلام، لا يبقى أحد من أهل الكتاب إلا آمن به. < 2-453 >

وقال الضحاك، عن ابن عباس: ( وَإِنْ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ إِلا لَيُؤْمِنَنَّ بِهِ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ ) يعني: اليهود خاصة. وقال الحسن البصري: يعني النجاشي وأصحابه. ورواهما ابن أبي حاتم.

وقال ابن جرير: وحدثني يعقوب، حدثنا ابن عُلَيَّة، حدثنا أبو رجاء، عن الحسن: ( وَإِنْ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ إِلا لَيُؤْمِنَنَّ بِهِ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ ) قال: قبل موت عيسى. والله إنه الآن حي عند الله، ولكن إذا نزل آمنوا به أجمعون.

وقال ابن أبي حاتم: حدثنا أبي، حدثنا علي بن عثمان اللاحقي، حدثنا جويرية بن بشر قال: سمعت رجلا قال للحسن: يا أبا سعيد، قول الله، [عز وجل] ( وَإِنْ مِنْ أَهْلِ الْكِتَابِ إِلا لَيُؤْمِنَنَّ بِهِ قَبْلَ مَوْتِهِ ) قال: "قبل موت عيسى. إن الله رفع إليه عيسى [إليه] وهو باعثه قبل يوم القيامة مقامًا يؤمن به البر والفاجر".

same to you

PANDORA'S BOX HAS BEEN OPENED

*grabs on to hope*

Basically, it could very well mean that when Jesus comes back to earth to fight the Antichrist - long story there - in Damascus. Before his death, some people of the book would come to believe in him once more, that is to say Islam. Considering that he is alive to this moment, it makes sense. Also try reading the other verses before it....

Oh, okay. And back then when I asked about it I checked to see if the verses preceeding it made its meaning make sense, and they didn't help.

If you are wondering what the 'But' is in the verse, the translation you have seems to be literal. The Arabic language is very lucid, and the BUT is equal to 'Illa' which acts as an enforcer of meaning and the whole verse is rendered into "And some from the people of the book before his death shall believe once more and he(Jesus) shall be a witness to their faith in the day of judgement".

Ohh! I see now. Thanks for clearing that up.

Cleared that up for you?It's really just a language barrier only...

I advice buying Mohammed Asad's translation of the Quran, it's great.

I haven't checked my gift-Qur'an, but I will when I get back to my apt. Before I play Interregnum 6.33, otherwise I would forget. For all I know, it is a Mohammed Asad translation itself.

[orimazd]

Also, Ahmed, I used to have a Khan translation that I read occasionally when I was in High School, but I let one of my friends borrow it my freshman year of college...chances are, now that I think about it, that he was afraid I might become a Muslim. Ahh, the wonderful Bible Belt...

[Calipah]

Originally Posted by MattyG

Also, Ahmed tells me that the definition of an arab is anyone who speaks arabic. Is he right?

No not really....Arabs are usually the original inhabitants of the Arabian peninsula who claim lineage from Ismael, but it has grown to encompass most of the assimilated socities in Egypt, Sudan, Syria, Iraq and the rest of North Africa, if only because of intermarriage and over a millenia of arab rule.

[Calipah]

Ahmed your giving me a headache, were two different folks with different opinions on faith, Kalas Kali Wali man.

[orimazd]

Ah, now that I have internet in my apartment I don't have to walk ten minutes to check something in my room and then ten more to go back. My Qur'an is translated by 'Abdallah Yusuf 'Ali.

[Calipah]

Two men, Abu Sa'd and Abu Ahmed were sitting in their neighbourhood's cafe. Abu Sa'id says "Have you heard my brother?4000 Germans have converted to Islam this year"

Abu Ahmed "Allah be praised, but I ask you Abu Sa'd, surly their Islam is different than ours?Their faith is still weak"

Abu Sa'd "Indeed"

Abu Ahmed "As a matter of fact, only our nation follows the true Islam and practices Shariah, the rest are lost in a sea of innovations, heresies, and polythiestic influences.....our faith is stronger and better than all infidels and sects"

Abu Sa'd "You speak the truth.....but...even our great country is surrounded by sin and evildoing"

Abu Ahmed "Truth!Only our city is still a fortress of believers!We are the stronghold of truth amidst the evils of our society. We are the Utopia that was never imagined even by Sorates, Plato and the ancient Macedonians themselves!"

Abu Sa'd "You speak the truth again my brother!....but can you not see the people who have lost faith?They drink, sin, and drown in heresy everywhere in this fair city of ours"

Abu Ahmed "Allah be praised! I see what you say, then surly our Hara(neighbourhood) only follows the true pure Islam. For our attendance to the Mosque never wavers, our donations to the poor are generous, and many amongst us have become Quranic reciters and Sheiks of the good book"

Abu Sa'd "Again, the truth never leaves your side brother! But....there are those amongst us who have been swayed by the devil...our purity is wrecked by some demonic elements"

Abu Ahmed "The Prophet bless us all!Then we are the only ones on the way of the righteous Quran, the Messenger's Sunnah, and the guidance of As-Salaf as-Salih. Allah praise his name for granting us this respite and sanctuary in a godless world"

Abu Sa'd sipped some of his coffee and said "Perhaps....but I always had doubts of the purity of your faith..."