Religious extremism is a term that is much debated across various spheres around the world. Thus it becomes imperative to give a meaningful definition to this term before proceeding. I believe it is very clear that one could be regarded as an extremist in general if he/she steps outside any set boundaries. Thus in this regard one can be referred to as a religious extremist if the person steps out of boundaries set by that particular religion.
As such it is becoming increasingly evident that in today’s Maldivian community we are increasingly facing with the problem of religious extremism. The consequences of this problem is severely detrimental to the country in whatever way we think about it; be it socially, economically, politically, or religious-wise. The problem has also been officially recognised by the Human Rights Commission of the Maldives, in its recently released Annual Report.
Hence we should be giving this real issue a more serious attention and look into the matter in terms of its historical background, in terms of how extremism began in the Islamic history and what could and should be done to ‘move back’ into the boundaries of Islam.
In this regard we know from historical literature that Islam’s third Khalifa Othman bin Affan was killed during a great turmoil by a group of youth and young aged Muslims who unfortunately dared to kill him.
History makes it clear that indeed this group (which was called the Khawarij) consisted of rushed and inexperienced youth. They were the kind of people who were taken in by delusions, who did not investigate before judging and did not learn the knowledge of what is permissible and what is impermissible.
It can be deduced that those people and whoever is similar to them in the present time (such as some we find in our country) share common features such as:
1- Weak knowledge of the truth of religion. Lacking understanding of its rulings and purposes. Some of them might think that they are scholars but they do not have the right knowledge.
2- Some of them care much about appearances and neglect true meanings. Such people know the words of the texts but they are unaware of the contents and purposes of that text. They do not hesitate in discussing the most difficult of matters and end up rushing the rulings and indulging their tongues in deciding what is permissible and what is not.
3- People like this excessively and extremely insist on their opinions without recognising the opinion of others or admitting the truth with their opponents. They are so narrow in their thinking and so limited in their sight yet they claim to acquire the truth and accuse their opponents of rebellion and debauchery or following their desires!
4- They usually choose the extreme position without regard for whether this was appropriate to the time, person or place. Their approach of the religion is always extreme and they close all doors of ease and concession for Muslims.
5- Being always extreme leads them to be harsh in their dealings with others, rough in the way they approach people and cruel in the way they call to Islam.
6- This kind of person always has a negative assumption of others. They only see the shortcomings of the others and treat them whilst assuming the worst. They do not try to find excuses for others and they do not start with the right intention and the good assumption.
7- The only thing left after that is issuing a judgment upon anyone that does not agree with them that they are disobedient or disbelievers. They make the blood and properties lawful for themselves and they don’t care about the sanctity of anything.
This was the trap that the group known as the Khawarij fell into at the early time of Islam. They were the most adherent to acts of worship (praying, fasting and reciting Quran) but they were tested by the corruption of their own minds and judgments. This kind of people killed Othman and fought Ali.
They fit the description of those whom their deeds has been made attractive so they considers them good - they are those whose effort is lost in worldly life - while they think that they are doing well in work. They were described by the Prophet when he said to his companions: “If you compare your prayers with their prayers and your fasting with theirs, you will look down upon your prayers and fasting, in comparison to theirs.” Despite that, he (pbuh) continued to say: “Yet they will go out of the religion as an arrow darts through the game's body”.
It is a duty for every Muslim to seek the right knowledge. This knowledge should be taken from trusted scholars who exert effort to acquire knowledge and to be god-fearing and just.
The practice of the Prophet and his companions was to bring ease and prevent hardship. He (pbuh) said: “Beware of being extreme and exceeding the limits in the religion, for that which destroyed the people before you was none other than extremism in the religion” and in another hadith: “Destroyed are those who are extreme, he said it three times”.
May we strive, as one united body, towards the common cause of eradicating religious extremism from our country!
Monday, 2 March 2009
Religious extremism in our country…
Posted by muiz at 20:55
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)



43 comments:
The problem I see is the lack of tolerance towards different viewpoints among Maldivians. We will make great progress by learning to tolerate.
Infighting in places like India are because of the vast number of religions and cultures. We Maldivians claim to have one culture/one religion, but we have our own infighting too.
It is impossible to get everyone to agree. This is not just among the so called extremists. The disagreement is there between the claimed scholars themselves.
The only way forward I see is to make Maldives secular place. No one should be forced to someone else's own interpretation of religion.
Very true Meekaaku!
I see your (muiz) article very interesting. But religion is extremism. How hard you try to eradicate, it will exist, unless state make it as a law to not force religion on anyone and seprate religion and state. When politics and religion mixes thats very dangerous. Thats whats happening here in Maldives.
Good article Muiz! I think its quite clear that knowledge is the key. One would learn to be tolerant and preach tolerance if he/she learns that Islam teaches one to be tolerant in their speech and actions! Just like how Prophet Muhammad(saw) and his great companions at at his time did.
Making the country secular is precisely going on the extreme side!! as Islam clearly says that the country should be run with islamic teachings as its basis. So once again, knolwedge will teach you that this is how it should be..
Salaam,
A very good article indeed. It's saddening to see some comments above use this opportunity to ridicule the need for Islam in our small nation. This in itself is part of the problem.
Before commenting on why we need to be secularists, we need to consider why the Church decided to separate state from religion. The only logical reason is that Christianity failed as a religion. As the Western world became more aware of things around them, so did their doubt in the religion of Christianity and how detrimental it was to their everyday life. This is also the reason why we have seen an increase in atheists and agnostics. This is hardly surprising, given the irrational nature of their theology of the Holy Trinity and the sorts. Unfortunately, they did not take the opportunity to look at a religion that made perfect sense, a religion that does not contradict itself - Islam.
This again brings us to the main topic of the article. What we lack in the Maldives is educating people about Islam as per teachings of the Prophet Muhammad (SAW) and the Holy Quran. This needs to be done at an earlier stage during the child's development and implemented in the education system.
is religion an individual endeavor then? should we strive to achieve knowledge through personal readings and prayer and indulgence into the texts?
How dare you (some commenters here) say that secularism is the solution. This actually shows how extreme you have gone and how deviant you have become from islam. And then eventually you will say christianity is the best...NO WAY !!!...
As Muizzu has mentioned, its the education which is lacking...Our education system REALLY SUCK BIG TIME (sorry for the expression)...We were never taught about certain facts that there would be differences of opinion among the islamic scholars and how to deal with it. Infact differences among the sahaabas were seen at the time of Prophet (SAW) too. But still they dint go to extreme and lived in harmony.
So I would have to say yes to the last commenter...if the education system is not doing its job...YES we have to embark on seeking the right knowledge. When we embark on a MS or a PhD for science or a Law degree we are really happy to do so...But when it comes to learning our religion we think thrice???...Dont we?...Getting informaition today is not a big deal compared to when we were kids...AND then comes the big phrase..."Its garbage on the internet too"...Well ofcourse there are garbage and real good stuff...When we seek information to the above mentioned degrees, we try to get the info from the authentic sources...So does should go when we seek knowledge about our religion...
I read this article few weeks ago and today I came across the following Hadith from the prophet (SAW), which I think is relevant to this topic (taken from the translation of Sahih Bukhari).
Volume 1, Book 2, Number 38:
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "Religion is very easy and whoever overburdens himself in his religion will not be able to continue in that way. So you should not be extremists, but try to be near to perfection and receive the good tidings that you will be rewarded; and gain strength by worshipping in the mornings, the nights." (See Fath-ul-Bari, Page 102, Vol 1).
So it clearly shows that going to extremes in religion contradicts with being a perfect Muslim (i.e. the one who follows the Quran and the Sunnah).
"This was the trap that the group known as the Khawarij fell into at the early time of Islam."
Learn the progress of khawarij movement here:
http://www.terrorism-illuminati.com/book/wahhabis.html
The problem in this country is multi fold.The scholars of the
Maldives(most of them) are like brain dead zombies simply copying and pasting slogans which they heard from the country where they studied without realising the unique nature of the Maldives.As an example,there is a Islamic party here which gets agitated about certain issues altho the reality is everything is going wrong here.These issues are typical issues which are considered 'shirk' in the countries where they had their shallow education.Valentines' day and Raajje islam vi dhuvas are the rare occasions which gets these people excited
I agree with meekaaku, regarding secularism (state's neutrality, tolerance/respect of religions etc) as a solution. However, as some commenters here states, I cannot agree that religion/islam itself is extremism. Secularism can be extremist too (eg during Ataturk's Turkey). But seriously, people such as Muizz here should study secularism the way he read on Islam. Secularism is not anti-religion but rather supposed to protect/respect religion(s) that is being practiced in the concerned nation, unless the concerned religion or its adherents are tolarent and respectful towards other factions. By the way I am a Muslim on my own right, and I have many Muslim friends who support secularism. So dont judge that all who support secularism are anti religion or atheists or christians...you guys are better than Umar Naseer in knowledge isn't it?
So you are advocating for Islamic secularism?
How about these oxymorons?
Islamic pork
Islamic mortgage
Islamic wine
There is an even more dangerous psycho disease which has become rampant amongst the Maldivian.The symptoms of this disease includes people making confusing statements such as :
“I didnt fornicate,I just spent time with a woman”
“I didnt drink alcohol,I just quenched my thirst”
“I didnt steal.I just took someone’s possession”
“I didnt sexually abuse kids.I just gave them parental love”
“I didnt act against the constitution.I just wanted to help the people”
“I(Anni) said I will resign from politics if Maumoonu gets more than 2000 vote,but I was not talking about presidental election”
“I never ever said anything bad at police or MNDF,I was just cracking jokes with them”
“I didnt throw stones at the police,I was playing baseball with the police”
“I(reeko moosa) didnt bring buddha to Maldives,I just assembled it”
---
All this was born after the election when people started saying
"I didnt vote for anni,I just got rid of Maumoonu"
Assallamu alaikum wr wb
I have been always sceptical about these allegations levelled against Mohamed Bin Wahhab and his mazhab.I mean,can a Muslim really do so much harm to the Muslims ? Could an Islamic movement be responsible for the plight of Palestine problem,creation of Israel and the killing of Muslims ?
Well,all these claims are just unbelievable.In fact the supporters of this movement will claim that their movement was responsible for the irradication of 'shirk' in the Muslim word.
But Adhaalath party's involvement in Maldives politics became an opportunity to witness the supporters of Wahabism(in Maldives) adhering to the teachings of Mohamed Bin Wahab's the allegations that I have mentioned are indeed nothing but the truth as evidenced from the following issues
1.Collaboration with a British agent(Adhaalath party's hussein Rasheed said he knew MDP was collaborating with conservative party,but he didnt care as DRP had relations with communist party)
2.They have more hatred for Muslims than the disbelievers(point number 1 is the issue)
3.They are quick to declare people as kaafir(remember their rivalry with Maumoonu and Hassan Saeed)
4.Contradictory statements(how soon they changed their minds between the first round and second of the elections)
5.Their support of violence.Adhaalath party may not have participated in violent acts.But they praised the actions of thugs as long as the thugs were against Maumoonu.
6.Rejecting clear cut sensed reality.Hussein Rasheed Ahmed said "ganjaa video" of Anni was fake.This so called Sheikh has no shame.Yet this hypocrite was more concerned about the absence of vowels in the Quran translation.Even if the Quran translation was written perfectly,a hypocrite can claim that he cant "see" vowels.
7.Interpreting the Quran to fit the political outcome they desire.
8.Obsessed with woman issues.Ever since the new govt was formed the Adhaalath party has been sleeping and they pop up once in a while whenever there is some issue about woman.E.g Valentine's day and the new year parties.They cant do much about other people's wine tasting.Maybe they are still debating on how to pronounce the name of the wine.Sulaa shiraaz or Shulaa siraaz
9.Their constricted view of 'shirk' is another amazing one.They didnt find it problematic when the whole population is ruled by the system of shirk.
How amazing it is supporters of people like ali rameez are blatantly and purposely defying government decisions and rules. I wonder how islamic are the acts of these people! they make it part of their lives to pick on trivial matters and go on defying the government. extremism is born out of such acts more than any other act!
I dont think a massive population is interested in visiting medhu ziyaarai anyway.
They are so emotionally attached to this 'grave worship' issue because this is,according to the supporters of Wahabism,the greatest achievement of its movement - irradication of "shirk"(polytheism).Funnily enough they did this on the behest of Britain who were looking for an opportunity to get Muslims fighting fellow Muslims.However this "shirk removal" operation led to the downfall of the entire Muslim ummah and left many scars that are not healed until today.
http://www.terrorism-illuminati.com/book/wahhabis.html
I'm surprised how mis-informed some folks on here are. Read about the work of Abdul Wahhab from independent, valid sources (not from websites where its name is a give-away of its real intention).
Abdul Wahhab tried to eradicate Shirk amongst the Muslim ummah and return to the original teachings of the prophet (SAW) based on the authentic hadheeths. The issue with Muslims at the time (and even now) was that people were blindly following their own Madhhabs and ignoring the Sunnah. This whole idea of calling the people who follow the Sunnah as Wahhabis was initiated by the enemies of Islam. I'm not saying that anyone who has a beard is following the Sunnah, but we have no right to call someone a Wahhabi or anything else, regardless of whether they practice Islam or not.
Thing's like grave worshiping were clearly against what the prophet preached. It even defies common sense. How can you expect a dead man to make Dua for you? We should read more about things that could constitute Shirk, as it contradicts with the fundamental message of Islam, i.e. Tawheed.
Finally, anyone can say that he/she is a Muslim. But how many of us really know about Islam, beyond what we've 'learnt' at school and the media? Did we try to find the correct sources and read them with an open-mind and an open-heart?
For those who are keen in spreading lies about Muhammad Ibn Wahhab : read this (www.islamhouse.com/d/files/en/ih_books/signal/en_Life_of_AbdulWahhaab.pdf - 2008-10-23) if you are sincere in learning the truth. It is sad people are so keen in defaming others when they know so little about them and just keep relying on heresy and false information!Guys, grow up!!!
If people did 'grave worshipping' nobody has the right to kill them in the name of 'killing the infidels'.Similarly in the media we hear some people declaring Islamic states in multiple locations of the world and start beheading people and cutting the hands.And I wont be surprised if some emotionally charged Maldivians people,on seeing these events,start implementing the punishment system under the pretext of implementing Islam.
Did you know that voting in a democratic system is real shirk.Why dont you launch a war against all of them?
www.islamhouse.com/d/files/en/ih_books/signal/en_Life_of_AbdulWahhaab.pdf - 2008-10-23
How on earth do I know this contains valid information?
Reminds me of the incident when Bin Baaz gave fatwa permitting Americans to invade Iraq and kill Muslims.His blind followers still defend his decision as if they were following some cult
To know the truth of Wahabi movement,there is no need for any book.What Adhaalath did during the last four years reflect the true wahabi teaching
Lets be clear.I dont think a massive number of people have any desire to visit medhu ziyaarai and do any 'grave worshipping'
But there is one more reason why certain people are getting excited over this issue.The model Wahabi state of Saudi Arabia has destroyed all the important Islamic historical monuments such as 'Darul Arqaam' - the house where the prophet Mohamed trained and cultured his companions.This is done in the name of 'preventing grave worshipping'.
But the real intention is to prevent the stirring up of Islamic emotions.Because if hajj pilgrims were to see these historical places,realise its importance and start linking back to our reality today,it might become problematic for the friends of Wahabis in the West.
http://tinyurl.com/holysites
The last few comments are wrong on so many levels.
Firstly, there are numerous books published about the life and works of Abdul Wahhab. Obviously as with any book on history, not all are correct. Since it's subjective, it all depends on what you read. For example, you wanted to find out the culture of, say, Nigeria. Which source do you reckon would have the most accurate information, one from a journalist in the UK or from a historian in Nigeria?
I agree that there won't be many Maldivians wishing to worship any graves. The prophet (SAW) was concerned that Muslims might start worshiping his grave and graves of the righteous people (as the Jews and the Christians did), which was why he ordered not to build any structures on the graves. However, over time people started building structures around the graves of pious people and starting worshiping at them. In fact this used to happen in the Maldives for a very long time and is still happening in many parts of the Muslim world.
Without a doubt, shirk is the highest form of injustice we can commit on this earth and this is why Adhaalath is voicing their concern over this issue.
Why do we have to brand people as Wahhabis or anything else? What is this so-called Wahhabi teaching? What is the source of it? If it is indeed the Sunnah of the prophet (SAW) are we then not mocking the prophet (SAW)?
Our ignorance is such that, even when the truth is right in front of us we tend to look the other way.
Mocking means making fun of someone's height,weight,physique and things like that.We have seen this sort of mocking by Adhaalath and their brain washed followers even in this website.Since in Islam there is no clergy,nobody can be above the Quran and Sunnah.
The comments dont contain anything against following the sunnah.Becoming puppets of Britain and executing their plans is not part of the sunnah that I know of.Or is it?
"For example, you wanted to find out the culture of, say, Nigeria. Which source do you reckon would have the most accurate information, one from a journalist in the UK or from a historian in Nigeria?"
Most of the Arabic scholarly books were written by non-Arabs.Imam Bukhari was not an Arab.Sibawi,the the master of Arabic grammar was not an Arab.The British intelligence know more about the reality of Maldives politics than Maldivians living in Maldives.
Regarding the statement:
"Why do we have to brand people as Wahhabis or anything else?"
Why do certain people call themselves a certain label and seperate themselves from others based on certain outward appearances.For example,if you visit Islamic centre in Male,a certain group of people have the habit of shaking hands with the people of their own kind,not all.But all are Muslims.
By the way,what do you have to say about Saudi Arabia demolishing all Islamic historical places ?
Yet again you fail to rationally provide counter arguments to what I've said.
I posed the question, if the so-called "Whahhabis" were indeed following the Sunnah of the prophet (SAW), are we then not mocking the prophet (SAW)?
Your counter comment was that mocking means 'making fun' of someone's physical appearance. Firstly, it doesn't answer my question. Secondly, since you've tried to claim what you were doing was not in fact mockery, by the lack of contradicting evidence, you've assumed that the Wahhabis are following the Sunnah. Lets say, following your own 'logic', I'm not allowed to say you're mocking the prophet (SAW), surely you are still contradicting with his message (again, assuming the "Wahhabis" are following the Sunnah).
I'm not aware of how you could say that mocking is 'making fun' of someone's physical appearance. Are you really that narrow-minded to think that you'd only be caught mocking someone if you made a derogatory comment about someone's height etc?
This is one of the meanings of the verb mock, taken from the Oxford English Dictionary.
mock: To scoff or jeer at; to hold up to ridicule; to address with scorn or derision; to deride, taunt. Also: to say or utter jeeringly (sometimes with direct speech as object).
Does it say anything about the physical appearance? You're definition of mocking is hence neither traditional nor colloquial.
You've made statements again, without really thinking about what you've stated, such as 'no one can be above the Quran and the Sunnah'. I ask you again, if someone was seen upholding the Sunnah, and you denounce them, what does it make you? Are you not trying to be above the Quran and the Sunnah?
What are you on about? The comments ARE about following the Sunnah. Forbidding grave worshiping IS from the Sunnah.
When did Adhaalath party become puppets of Britain? We all know that MDP worked with the Tories. Are you implying that just because Adhaalath formed the coalition with MDP it's complicit in following the British too?
If it wasn't for Adhaalath we might not even have a Ministry dedicated to Islam. Even if we did, who would run it? I don't agree with every single thing Adhaalath has done so far, but it is definitely a good start to at least have a department that has some, if not limited, power to deal with Islamic affairs.
You've taken my questions literally to distinguish between nationalities. Yes, Bukhari wasn't an Arab, but he was a Muslim. He didn't write books about the tradition of Arabs. He compiled the Hadiths, which you don't have to be an Arab but you certainly do have to be a Muslim! Unless, of course you assume that all Muslims are Arabs. (It's really amazing just how one-dimensional your thought process is).
The British intelligence know more about the reality of Maldives than Maldivians? I hope you're just being sarcastic here. You are assuming that the British intelligence knows everything happening inside Britain. Would it then lead to false accusations, convictions and even executions of innocent civilians in the UK?
When did the "Wahhabis" start labelling themselves as Wahhabis? Have you ever wondered why someone might be wary of shaking your hands? Could it be that you looked at them 'scared' and turn on your back to them? Could it be because you feel that they are extremists? I'm not saying that you are. There's nothing in the Islam that says that you should only shake hands with people who follow your way of thinking and anyone who is doing that, I'm afraid, is being misled.
I am not a supporter of the regime in Saudi Arabia (but this a whole different issue). It is wrong to destroy historical places just for the hell of it. But, if a certain monument or building was being used to promote polytheism would it then not be best to destroy it? Perhaps, they could've made the public more aware of it. Did you ever think that this whole issue has been blown up out-of-proportion by the Western media? They've not even visited the country and yet assumes to know everything about it.
Apologies for the long comment, I felt that I had to spell everything out clearly.
"I posed the question, if the so-called "Whahhabis" were indeed following the Sunnah of the prophet (SAW), are we then not mocking the prophet (SAW)?"
The comment about Wahabi movement did not contain any derogatory comments about following the sunnah or the beard.Can you show me a single instance of such derogatory remarks.If anyone does anything wrong he will be criticised for that specific action.So the concept "I follow the sunnah therefore I cant be criticised" does not exist in Islam.Whether you are following the sunnah or not is determined by your actions and statements.Not the other way round.
The label 'Wahabi' is a shortcut to refer to a concept,idea or a movement.Paradise could mean a tourist resort near Male or heaven.Labels are used as shortcuts in writing or speech for the sake of brevity.Male can be a shortcut to refer to "the capital of Maldives" for instance.No wonder Adhaalath party got into big time confusion over 'paradise' just before the first round of election.
Oxford dictionary meaning is not used to find Islamic meaning of terms.You use the sunnah,the rules of Arabic language,usul ul fiqh...etc.So much for the following sunnah.
"You've taken my questions literally to distinguish between nationalities. Yes, Bukhari wasn't an Arab, but he was a Muslim. He didn't write books about the tradition of Arabs. He compiled the Hadiths, which you don't have to be an Arab but you certainly do have to be a Muslim! Unless, of course you assume that all Muslims are Arabs. (It's really amazing just how one-dimensional your thought process is)."
What does the statement in the bracket mean? Are you not engaging in mocking according to the oxford dictionary meaning? And ofcourse thats part of your sunnah.
You said "For example, you wanted to find out the culture of, say, Nigeria. Which source do you reckon would have the most accurate information, one from a journalist in the UK or from a historian in Nigeria?"
To understand the culture and history of Maldives,most Maldivians rely on some person by the name of Ibn Batuta who is not a Maldivian or another French guy.If I wanted to know more about the truth of Maumoonu I would not rely on his party's media.In the same way,If I wanted to learn about the truth of MDP I cant rely on TVM or minivan news.Can you understand now ? Or is it still more complicated for your multi dimensional thought process ?
"When did Adhaalath party become puppets of Britain?"
If your understanding of shirk is so constricted to physical statues,this subject is too complicated for you.And if you refer to Oxford dictionary to extract Islamic meanings of terms,you might imitate British politics and still be not aware of what you are doing.
One Adhaalath party's top guy impersonated(mocking according to Islamic sources) someone's voice in a party meeting and the next day that guy was giving a speech about backbiting.
You're still beating around the bush. Let me break it down for you.
First, do you or do you not believe that there is such a thing called the sunnah and that we have to follow it?
There's no point in even arguing if your answer to the above is a simple No.
Secondly, if someone was seeing following the sunnah, whether you call them Wahhabis or any other name, would you not agree that they are following the prophet's (SAW) teachings?
Thirdly, if they are indeed following the teachings of the prophet (SAW), then by criticising them, are you not simply mocking the prophet (SAW) himself?
As you can see, I've not made any statements in this post or in any other posts. I've never said the people whom you refer to as Wahhabis are following the sunnah. I just want you to tell me if such a person is following the sunnah, how can you criticise them for doing so?
Where did I even imply that you won't be judged by your own actions? I'm trying to keep things very simple for you, yet you seem to infer things from my comments which I never even intended to say. I want you to tell me how you can tell someone not to follow something, when you know that something is directly from the prophet (SAW).
What is this insanity about the need for brevity? Let me get this straight, you're saying that you call someone with a beard etc. a Wahhabi just because it's convenient to do so? What is then the underlined meaning of the name Wahhabi? Wahhabism is a short-cut for what? People following the teachings of Abdul Wahhab? People who follow the Sunnah? It's a circular argument, it all comes back to my original question.
I didn't use the word mock in an Islamic context (you meant to say that in Islam mocking is commenting about someone’s physical appearance?) I just used it in the everyday sense of the word and the word itself comes from English. It's only natural then to look for it in an English dictionary I'd presume, or am I being wrong here too? I follow the sunnah so every source of information I use (whether it may be for worldly things or for religion) must be from the sunnah, right? That's a true follower of sunnah, right?
It's really frustrating that you can't get my point on this whole idea of the most-reliable-sources.
For the sake of simplicity, lets say you have two sources of information. The first source is directly related to what you're looking for (i.e. the analogy of the Nigerian historian) the other, less directly related and does not fully appreciate (this is an assumption) what you're looking for (the British journalist). Which would you choose?
In the case of Maldives, do we have any literature on the history of Maldives written by a Maldivian?
So by default we have to choose the information from wherever it's available, whether it may be from England or Morocco. It's not because we prefer Ibn Batuta's version of events to a Maldivian's, but rather the lack thereof. It's all very simple, all I'm saying is that we should look at the most reliable information. The problem is, you're reading my comments to argue back at me, without actually carefully thinking about what I've said. This is what I meant by 1-D thinking, you're pretty much focused on proving me wrong.
Where have I mentioned that Shirk is only due to idols? You're lack of evidence makes it more difficult for me to comprehend what you're trying to say? Would you rather use a Maldivian English Dictionary over the native English one? It's easy to make a statement, but it's much more challenging to back it with evidence, which you've failed, yet again, to do so.
I don’t follow on all the politics in the Maldives. But I’m quite surprised that I haven’t heard of an Adhaalath member imitating someone at a meeting. If this is indeed true, what do you expect me to say here? Just because he’s from Adhaalath he’s without faults? Just because he’s from Adhaalath he’ll never commit a sin? Are you that juvenile to think that I’m here to defend Adhaalath, regardless of their shortcomings? I’m just trying to clarify the absurdities in your comments.
Your 1-D thinking is amazing.When I say Wahabi I have explained what I mean in the previous posts.Anyway,let me repeat them for you.I refer to 'Wahabism' as a way of thinking which is characterised by the following traits
1.Those who are fond of blind following of scholars
2.Those who are quick to declare tafkeer on other Muslims.
3.Those are shallow in the sphere of politics
4.Those who play with semantics and eventually get confused with wordings rather the meaning of terms
Regards your question:
"First, do you or do you not believe that there is such a thing called the sunnah and that we have to follow it?"
Why ? Do you want to declare tafkir on me ?
The topic is not about the validity of the sunnah or whether I am a believer of sunnah.Or did you purposely introduce this issue to derail the topic and start beating about the bush.
The topic is about Wahabism and its effect on the Muslim ummah.
By the way,your comrades are the real epitome of one dimensional thinking and experts in playing with literal meaning of terms.Adhaalath party drugged the whole population with the literal meaning of 'CHANGE' and tossed whatever Quranic ayah and Hadith to justify.
"For the sake of simplicity, lets say you have two sources of information. The first source is directly related to what you're looking for (i.e. the analogy of the Nigerian historian) the other, less directly related and does not fully appreciate (this is an assumption) what you're looking for (the British journalist). Which would you choose?"
So with regards to Wahabi movement,have you presented an authentic source ?
Whatever dimension you are talking about,there is no theory that states that an Englishman will be more inclined to tell the truth about English history than a Nigerian.Truth is judged by the contents independently regardless of who wrote it,the cover of the book,the font of the written text..etc
Even an enemy of Islam can present an aspect of Islam which is accurate although his overall aim could be to attack Islam.
"But I’m quite surprised that I haven’t heard of an Adhaalath member imitating someone at a meeting. If this is indeed true, what do you expect me to say here?"
That is called mocking in the Islamic sense,if you dont know.And this was not a rare incident.But was the part and parcel of Adhaalath's mission during the last four years.
You've given me your definition of a Wahhabi. I won't disagree with you. Those are major issues with a person's ideology. But why do you call such a person a Wahhabi?
The obvious explanation is that you believe such a person is following Abdul Wahhab. If that is so, Abdul Wahhab should have the same beliefs as the ones you've pointed out. But it is clear from authentic sources that none of his actions fit with what you've mentioned. It is also evident that he followed the sunnah of the prophet (SAW).
Now we have two things to consider. First, how would you know if something is authentic and secondly, is it necessary to follow the sunnah.
I asked a question, which was worded in such a way that the answer was glaringly obvious. Yet, you've ignored the sensibility of the question and provided scenarios which, you thought, were in clear contradiction to the answer of the said question.
I didn't say the Nigerian's source is more valid simply because he's Nigerian, but it's the extra details that makes his source valid. Such, as him being a historian (the question was about the culture of Nigeria and the second person being a British journalist). So, considering the information available isn't it pretty obvious what the answer is? But I'm guessing you'd want to argue this by saying, 'oh..but the Nigerian might be studying history of Britain' or 'how would I know the Nigerian is a person who tells the truth'. I didn't include all the possible combinations a person can think of simply because I was trying to make a point here, which was that you need to be able to distinguish between authentic and false information and sometimes it is as obvious as the scenario of a Nigerian historian and a British politician.
I hope you do understand that I did not imply that a person is more truthful, knowledgeable because of his nationality or race (if you've even got that impression from my question then I'm not surprised that you're still not able to get what I'm trying to convey).
So for arguments sake lets ignore your comments about Ibn Batuta, Sibawayh etc. Your examples were not incorrect per se but they were either not related to what I was asking for or was in clear agreement to what I asked. Lets also now assume that you know what an authentic source is. So now, would you say that the hadith compilations of Bukhari and Muslim are authentic?
So now we come to the second part of my initial argument on Wahhabism, i.e. Abdul Wahhab was known to follow the sunnah. Firstly, I'd like to say that the Wahhabi you've defined is not following the sunnah simply because it contradicts with it. This is also why I've stated time and time again that I'm not saying that your 'Wahhabi' is following the sunnah.
What was the point in asking this, one might ask.
I want to know whether you think
a. it is necessary to follow the sunnah
b. 'Wahhabis' are following the sunnah
c. the actions of your 'Wahhabis' are from the sunnah
No Islamic scholar would reject the sunnah as it is indeed necessary for a Muslim to follow the sunnah. If a person denied the validity of sunnah, does that make the person a disbeliever? Would it be wrong to call a disbeliever a kaafir and would this lead to tafkir? I'm sure that you know exactly why I'm asking you this. There is a growing belief amongst Maldivians that we do not need to follow the sunnah, that all the hadiths could be made up. However, I haven't said that you are one of them.
Islam is not a religion where you can decide what you want to believe and completely ignore the rest. You can't just ignore the message of the prophet (SAW) and retaliate when someone calls you a kaafir. It doesn't work like that.
I do not see any point in arguing with a person who does not consider what the other person is saying and is always focussed on passing his illogical counter-arguments. Such a person might be provided with clear evidence that contradicts with his beliefs (I'm not claiming that I have presented much evidence) but would just ignore them completely and would, in his mind, 'win' the argument. Hence, even when such a person sees the truth they'd look the other way.
One final word, you argue about Wahhabis being obsessed about the semantic of words and yet you've fallen into the same trap by arguing about the Islamic meaning of mock. What if I had used insult instead? You see my point now? Regardless of the word I used, my intention was to show that if you crticise one who follows the sunnah you are clearly contradicting with the teachings of the prophet (SAW).
As much as I love proving you wrong, this will be my final comment on this topic. I've expressed everything I have to say. Unless I'm grossly misinformed about anything on Islam I believe that my comments are for the most part valid. I should also state that it was never my intention to show that I know everything about Islam, because I know I don't. I'm still learning and what I have commented is on the little things I am fairly sure of (not blindly following an Imam).
Allah(swt) instructs Muslims to spend their time wisely in Surah Asr.
I will comment only on the Nigerian historian vs English historian part.
Truth is judged independently of who wrote the book,when it was published,the font of the written text.This is regarding written text.
Imam Ali(ra) said :“ Truth cannot be identified from men, find the truth and you will find the deserving person”.
The same principles apply to speech.The truth in a speech is determined by the contents,not the pitch of the speakers voice,not the wavelength of speakers voice or any other external aspects.Those who are getting mesmerised by Sheikh Ilyas's voice need to their heads around this fact.
It is becoming obvious that Adhaalath party is getting humiliated by the govt(if they have any humility at all).And Adhaalath party members are trying hard to find justifications for the failure of the present govt.One such argument provided by them is that Anni came to power by Allah's power(Allah ge kulhadunwantha kamun) and therefore none can do much about it.This is a disgusting way to absolve themselves of the whole mess they have created.So why cant criminals and drug addicts say that their criminal actions are occuring by the power of Allah.If you want to apply a principle,apply it across the board.
This thread is still alive? Maybe something related here
How many of you visited Theemuge ? Dont you want to see the lifestyle of Adhaalath party members after the election ? I mean the lifestyle of Sheikh hussein rasheed's family in Malaysia and Sheikh Ilyas's house in India or Srilanka
I must be grossly misinformed. Here I thought that it was the previous regime who built that place and spent millions of dollars in doing so. All this time I was thinking that the previous president wanted to live an ostentatious, extravagant life dictated by his desire to live a life of excess.
But you've certainly have helped me open my eyes now to the point where everything is transparent. Naturally the question now arises, how could someone be so stupid that he did not realise this earlier.
Could it be that this person felt that the members of the Adhaalath party did not have anything to do with the previous dictatorship? Could it be that the Islamic scholars you mentioned gained their wealth in the righteous way?
Thanks for being for pointing out something that wasn't immediately obvious to me.
You will be shocked at the way the Islamic scholars gained wealth.One of them,who is a local judge,took pictures of poor children and went to Arab countries,got donations using those pictures and he lives in a luxurious house.
That is shocking! (it'd also be nice if you could've provided some proof along with your allegations).
It's obvious to anyone that you can't call such a person an Islamic scholar even if he won the top student award when he studied Islamic studies.
I'm not denying that there won't be people like this in the country but I know for a fact there are lot of genuine people out there. It's always good when you can tell the two apart.
You can ask any well informed person in S.hithadhoo and they will tell you the name of this person.
Using Islam as source of earning income has evolved over the years.Currently,if anyone can provide an Islamic justification(by twisting texts) for the hottest political viewpoint,one is guranteed a fortune. In the mid 70s things were a bit different.Some people came to Addu and convinced some moderately well off people to send their kids to jamia salafiya under the supervision of these scholars.However,what these scholars did was appalling.They took these kids to various parts of India and Pakistan used those 'poor kids' as bait to get donations.Some of the kids even had to beg in the streets of Pakistan or sleep in the mosques.One of these kids is a State minister in the current govt.
Later there was another high profile case where one scholar took a girl from Addu to Kuwait in the name of education but sadly ended as a sex slave.This scholar is still considered a scholar in Addu
I can't comment on what you've said about those people simply because I've never heard about it.
If these were indeed true I wouldn't consider them as scholars or righteous people and neither would anyone else with a right state of mind.
One has to be a hypocrite to defend such a person and I would not expect to see a pious person doing that.
Also, it goes without saying that we should look at all the information, where and by whom it came from. We shouldn't make assumptions and think of conspiracy theories just because we think it's the truth.
I don't want to attack a single person when I don't really know anything about them. In the same way I won't defend someone if I knew that person is not honest or is a hypocrite.
However, if someone is seeing bad-mouthing Islam or the sunnah of the prophet (SAW) then it does bother me as a Muslim.
I want to ask you a question now, is your hatred for Adaalath because you think that such people are in that party? I'm not aware of any such person but I don't really know that much about Adaalath to comment on every single person.
The way I look at Adaalath is that it is the only party that tries to uphold Islam. I don't see any other party taking Islamic issues in to consideration. Adhaalath is not perfect and there's room for reform within the party. And I think that's what should be done. What I don't want to see is our only hope of having an Islamic identity being taken away from us and this country being run by secularists. This is also the reason why we need Adaalath now because from what I have heard and observed MDP does not regard Islamic issues as that important. I can't imagine what the situation would be if Adaalath wasn't there. This is the only reason why I have a personal preference for Adaalath.
I also think that some people find some of the things which Adhaalath says, difficult to comprehend because we've been ignorant for a long time. Things like banning DJs. We know it's not strictly Islamic to have DJs, but it's been going on for so long that the youth have just got used to it and they'd hate anyone trying to take that away from them. It had to be done at some point but I don't know enough to say that it was done in the best of ways.
Forget about all the politics that goes on for a moment. We need to find a common ground in this divided community and the only way we can truly do it is being united in Islam. For that we need to learn Islam. The best way to learn it is if we have someone to teach it to us, provides the necessary resources. But it's not to say that we shouldn't learn things ourselves, quite the contrary we should take the time and ponder about the meaning of what we learnt so that it truly enters our heart and also seek guidance from Allah. And insha Allah this will not only be beneficial for our community but it will be inline with our ultimate aim, i.e. to achieve eternal happiness.
Where is Adhaalath mentioned in the post? If my post implies hatred for Adhaalath or love for Adhaalath,what is the significance?
The reason why I asked you about Adhaalath is because you responed to my comment at 20/04/09 10:53, with what appeared to me was an answer to a question I posed. If this comment wasn't from you or if you did not imply that in your comment, then I've made a false assumption based on it and I apologise for it.
Your opinion of Adhaalath or any other party makes no difference on what I've tried to convey. You might be more informed than I am on Maldivian politics or certain individuals and I have no motive to discuss politics with you.
Like I said earlier, what I would like to see is all Maldivians being on the true religion. If someone or some group tries to prevent Islam from being wiped away from our country then I am with them, whether it be Adhaalath, DRP or MDP, any other political or non-political organisation for that matter. My main concern is for the religious well being and unity of Maldivians and I hope that this would lead to better foundations for the rest.
For some people this might appear to be a very simplistic way to look at a much complicated issue. But I think it needs to be started at the grass roots and then built upon. Removing religion from the equation will inevitably, even if it was unintentional, will only lead to destruction. (BTW, I'm not implying here that you are trying to argue to the contrary). But I know that a lot people would have contrary beliefs to what I have.
Anyone has any views on this comment
"It also emerged that he has being advised from his political friends abroad whom he pledged Christianity, that the bests way to bring Christianity to Maldives is to publically use his addiction and drink alcohol, and also get as many Maldivians as possible to import alcohol and sell it among the Maldivian communities. Since he became the President the amount of alcohol trafficking has grown three hundred times more than previous, with daily bust ups of entire pickups of alcohol being caught by the police. We were being informed that this is done with gangs affiliated with the President and top party officials.
Ultimately the plan is to use it as an excuse and tell the Maldivian people that there are many Maldivians who want to drink alcohol and many Maldivians who want to be Christians. Then the plan is to use these people who want to drink and those people who want to be Christians and all the MDP loyalist members on his side, to rise against the Maldivian majority that will try to express against his Presidency."
source:
http://misdd.wordpress.com/2009/04/24/president-nasheed-is-purposefully-using-his-alcohol-addiction-to-bring-christianity-to-maldives/#more-1144
Ps: Just comment on what is written no who wrote it.
Sheikh Ilyas's speech last night was an absolute classic.Not that what he talked about contained any real substance.But the various qualities of his voice was simply unmatcheable.I am talking about pitch of the voice,the wavelength..etc .And unfortunately these qualities are what matters to the shallow thinking people when judging a speech.
The last anonymous comment pretty much sums up the average Islamophobe, the typical coward who will keep on bashing those who're actually making a sincere effort to bring back the moral etiquette that are disappearing from this country. Perhaps if he'd actually listened to what Sheikh Ilyas said instead of thinking up of snide, mocking comments to post in the blogs of devoted Muslims, he would've learned about a few very important issues highlighted by Ilyas Hussain. But oh well, why am I even bothering to respond? I would only be accused of "being shallow".
Even though we claim to be Muslims we do not want to live in an Islam state. We express our concern about a religious Islamic government. We seem to think that Maldives will then be run by Taliban-style mullahs. So, rather than trying to listen to our religious scholars we are now trying to find their faults. Rather than looking for what's right and wrong we've decided to live in a state of ignorance, the so-called moderate Islam. We have decided to close our minds to Islamic knowledge. Yet, we claim to be liberal, open-minded freethinkers. It's true, our whole perspective on this whole issue is truly and utterly ludicrous.
Post a Comment