Author Archives: Ikram Hawramani

Ikram Hawramani

About Ikram Hawramani

The creator of IslamicArtDB.

IslamQA: The Discovery of Paradise in Islam by Christian Lange

A review of Christian Lange’s inaugural lecture “The Discovery of Paradise in Islam” at the University of Utrecht.1

In his lecture, Lange refers to four unique aspects of the Quranic treatment of Paradise:

  • Paradise is not created at the end of time. It already exists.
  • Paradise is not in a separate realm or dimension; it is co-extensive with our world.
  • The nature of Paradise overlaps with the nature of our world (its architecture and material qualities). Rather than this being a result of a primitive Bedouin’s imagination, Lange argues that this is a deliberate strategy meant to stress the overlap between this world and the hereafter.
  • The Quran intentionally blurs the division between this world and Paradise, preferring to speak of it as if it is something here and now, within reach.

During the apocalypse, the Quran suggests that Paradise and Hell collapse into our world. It is not a merging of two realities. It is just a reshuffling of space. Paradise is already there, waiting until the time it is brought near by God. We do not have to be flown into a different reality to enter Paradise; our world, as it exists, will simply open up and merge with Paradise and Hell.

The Quran’s sensual Paradise has been criticized for its apparent celebration of base human desires; food and sensual pleasure appear to be the most important things in it. Lange says:

The sensuality of the Qurʾānic paradise does not result, in other words, from a bedouin’s vision of a decadent life filled with wine, women and poetry. Rather, it evokes an ideal, a perfectly structured and ideally harmonious world, a world that humans, in the happiest moments of their life, can already see before them.

The Quran, therefore, does not try to suggest a separation between our physical realm and the spiritual realm. They co-exist side by side, within the same reality and the same universe. The pleasures of this life are a taste of Paradise:

Say, “Who forbade God’s finery which He has produced for His servants, and the delights of livelihood?” Say, “They are for those who believe, in this present world, but exclusively theirs on the Day of Resurrection.” We thus detail the revelations for people who know.

The Quran, verse 7:32.

The Quran tells us that since all humans wish for a continuation of the best pleasures they enjoy in this world, it is only wise and rational for them to work toward Paradise. A day will come when the sky will open up and Paradise and Hell will crash in around us. On that day, those who took the wise choice will walk from the bliss of this world into a similar, but better, bliss–continuous and everlasting.

The Quran’s structure has been criticized for its apparent disorganization. Western critics see this as a result of the clumsy process of authorship and collation that took place during after the death of the Prophet PBUH. But Christian Lange disagrees, preferring to see the organization of the Quran as a unique literary accomplishment. He quotes Seyyed Hossein Nasr, who says:

The text of the Qurʾān reveals human language crushed by the power of the Divine Word… as if human language were scattered into a thousand fragments like a wave scattered into drops against the rocks at sea.

He goes on to quote Norman O. Brown (d. 2002), the American scholar of literature:

In consequence, what the recipient of the Qurʾānic experiences is a “totum simul, simultaneous totality: the whole in every part.”

Brown says that the Quran, like Jame Joyce’s Finnegans Wake, is

dumbfounding. Leaving us wonderstruck as a thunder, yunder. Well, all be dumbed! The destruction or the deconstruction of human language. It’s the Qur’an, it’s Joycean defiant exultation and incomprehensibility.

I agree with Lange that the Quran is not as incomprehensible as Brown seems to suggest. But the comparison with Jame Joyce is extremely helpful for Western readers wishing to understand the Quran.

To use a programming metaphor from Paul Graham, the Quran is not written in Arabic, it is written into Arabic. It is as if it is written by someone who knows all there is to know about Arabic, and about other languages, and who then feels free to do whatever he likes to Arabic, considering it a mere tool for expressing himself, rather than a defining framework for expression. The Arabic language is turned into a plaything. Rather than living up to our expectations of what Arabic prose should like, it constantly defies it and does its own thing.

I would say a good clue to the nature of the Quran is its name al-qurʾān, which means “the recitation”. The Quran is meant to be experienced. Like a symphony, every part of it is designed to create a certain state in the listener, while always reminding that listener, through its thematic background, that they are listening to this specific symphony. The Quran is not a history or an informational text, it is a carrier of an experience that is meant to shatter the listener’s understanding and experience of reality to reorder it and color it with the pigment of God.

If they believe in the same as you have believed in, then they have been guided. But if they turn away, then they are in schism. God will protect you against them; for He is the Hearer, the Knower.

The pigment of God. And who gives a better pigment than God? “And we are devoted to Him.”

The Quran, verses 2:137-138.

The Quran is a divine intervention in a world that shows us the smallness of our perspectives and understanding. And by taking us into a new realm of experience that no human could have created, it calls us to admit its divine origin and to humbly submit to its demands.

God has sent down the best of speech: A Scripture consistent and paired. The skins of those who reverence their Lord shiver from it, then their skins and their hearts soften up to the remembrance of God. Such is God’s guidance; He guides with it whomever He wills. But whomever God leaves astray, for him there is no guide.

The Quran, verse 39:23.

In conclusion, Lange displays a wonderfully sophisticated understanding of the Quran. He shows us how far Western Islamic studies has come.

IslamQA: Being a night person as a Muslim

Salamu alaikum. Brother, is there a thing such as a "nocturnal person"? What do you think of such person who is wide awake at night and sleeping during the day? Is it mentioned in the Quran whether it is prohibited or not?

Alaikumassalam wa rahmatullah,

That is often caused by having caffeine late in the day. As for the Islamic view, I know of no Quranic verses or hadiths that apply directly to it.

During Ramadan I often stay up the whole night until fajr because I am unable to work (programming and writing) when I am fasting, and to avoid spending an entire month unproductively, I switch my schedule so that I stay up at night and sleep during the day. I know some preachers speak against this, but since there is no clear evidence against it, and since my intention is not to avoid the difficulties of fasting but to be able to work, I believe it is fine.

IslamQA: The ruling on working for non-Muslims

Assalamu alaikum. What is the ruling for a Muslim working for non-Muslims?

There is no issue with working for non-Muslims or being partners in business with them. The Prophet PBUH and his Companions used to be involved in all kinds of businesses with non-Muslims; trade, rent and hiring.

Source:

IslamQA: On the Arab Spring

This might not be relevant anymore, but I just want to know what are your thoughts and opinion about the Arab Spring?

Personally I have a historian’s view of history; I look at society in terms of generations and centuries. So to me revolutions are never something to celebrate; they are just a violent expression of changes that would happen with or without them. As an example, if the American Revolution had never happened, hundreds of thousands of lives would have been saved and the United States would still have acquired its independence sooner or later.

The Arab Spring is just an expression of changes happening in the Middle East especially due to the spread of university education and Internet usage. Western powers love revolutions and use their intelligence agencies to support them and take them in the direction they want since it means they can install new governments that are more friendly to their interests. So for a nation, revolution is a plunge in the dark that makes the nation extremely vulnerable to foreign powers.

Revolution or upheaval never leads to some magical new government that solves the problems of the past. It leads to a reshuffling of the elite while the old problems remain just as before. Things slowly change as society changes with or without revolution.

So for me the Arab Spring is nothing to celebrate. It is just fireworks that represents the slow process of change that has been taking place decade by decade. While some are disheartened by the “failure” of the Arab Spring, personally I have no such feelings toward it. I am optimistic about the future of the Middle East since change is taking place. I don’t care about the fireworks, but about the structural changes taking place deep within society.

IslamQA: Is it better to delay salah until you are in the mood for it?

Which one is better: delaying salah until we do it in the mood or forcing ourselves to salah and feel compelled to do it? And why?

I would say doing it as soon as the time comes in is better because the Quran says:

The prayer is a timed obligation upon the believers.

The Quran, verse 4:103.

An important part of the prayer is to subdue the ego’s desires and break one’s routine for the sake of God. Doing this as soon as the time comes in is the best way to achieve it. As for how you feel about it, this is not as important; the point is to be able to force the ego to perform this act of worship regardless of what the ego wants. I believe this is the best way of proving to God one’s submission and eagerness to please Him.

IslamQA: The responsibility of the oldest child in Islam toward their family

Salaam. Brother, I want to ask you something. Does the eldest child have to be the backbone of the family? What if the eldest child is a girl and both her parents are still working, and her siblings are still students, what does Islam say regarding this and what are your personal opinion about women being the breadwinner? Thank you for your time.

Alaikumassalam wa rahmatullah,

There is no special legal obligation on the oldest child. A non-legal obligation may arise from their situation; for example the oldest child may be in a position to help the younger children and take care of them in some ways, this is a moral rather than legal obligation and would apply equally to both males and females and carrying it out would be an act of charity, while not doing it may or may not be sinful.

Children, however, have a legal obligation to financially take care of their elderly parents according to their ability and applies to both male and female children.

Additionally, males have a legal duty to financially take care of their needy sisters and other female relatives that they would inherit from in case of the female person’s death. But this is a matter of disagreement among the scholars.

Regarding women being breadwinners: if this is something that they arrange with their spouses/families then there is no issue with it. A woman’s earnings that go to her family would be considered charity since it is not her duty to earn money (while for a man it is a legal duty).

Sources:

IslamQA: What should one think about during salah?

Assalamu alaikum! I know you are supposed to focus and have "khushoo" during prayer, but what exactly are you supposed to think about? Are you supposed to focus on reciting and performing the steps properly? Are you supposed to think about Allah? If so, what exactly are you supposed to think about regarding Allah? Sorry if this is a weird question, but I find my mind wandering during salah because I don't know a specific idea to focus on.

Alaikumassalam wa rahmatullah,

The ideal thing to do is to focus on the meaning of the words you utter. When reciting al-Fatiha, when you say “Guide us to the straight path”, you should create in your mind a state of supplication; this should be a desperate and sincere prayer for guidance. When you say allahu akbar during the movements, you should think of God’s greatness; sincerely saying in your heart “God is Great” and doing your best to believe it and create a state of awe in your heart.

The best way to avoid letting your mind wander is to speak the words in a whisper that you yourself can hear clearly. Some Muslims pray with their mouths shut; this makes it very easy for the mind to wander and also goes against the command of the Quran:

Say, “Call Him God, or call Him the Most Merciful. Whichever name you use, to Him belong the Best Names.” And be neither loud in your prayer, nor silent in it, but follow a course in between. (The Quran, verse 17:110)

Take the time to speak each word carefully and clearly. Hearing your own voice helps you focus on the meaning of what you are saying.

IslamQA: The ruling on drinking ejaculate during oral sex

During intercourse, when my wife ejaculates and squirts, am I allowed to drink/ingest it?

According to the imams Mālik, Abū Ḥanīfa and an opinion transmitted from Aḥmad, ejaculate (manī) is impure (najis) where from a man or a woman, and since ingesting impure things is forbidden, the ruling is that it is forbidden to ingest ejaculate. However, the Shāfiʿī school considers ejaculate pure, which would mean ingesting it is permissible. But Imām al-Nawawī, one of the greatest representatives of the Shāfiʿī school, prefers prohibiting ingesting it.

The matter is not clearly spelled out to us by the Quran or hadith. These are the opinions that the jurists have arrived at out of their own reasoning.

So while oral sex is permitted by most scholars as far as I am aware, drinking ejaculate is at least highly problematic.

Source:

IslamQA: A Muslim who wants to only follow the Quran due to the contradictions in Hadith

Selam I come from Sunni tradition. As I try to do more in relation to my faith I have tried to learn obout history of islam. I am becoming more interested in being Quaran only muslim. I have big problem with hadiths. So many contradictions to Quran. They almost complicate relationship with God. They almost undermine the beauty of Quran to me. So many doctrins Sunni shia and dozen others. They all claim to be the right path but to me they have only devided Uma. I have read that some Sunni rulings say I would not be considert muslim anymore by being only Quran muslim What do you think? Am I wrong. Thank you.

Alaikumassalam wa rahmatullah,

I understand your difficulty and I have been in a similar situation myself.

The first thing to understand is that religion is only a tool for knowing God better. Religion is not the point; God is the point. So the disagreements and infighting between the sects should not in any way affect your relationship with God; think of it as children bickering.

Once you take that to heart, you can approach hadith with the eye and heart of one who loves God and His Messenger PBUH and wishes to reach the highest ideal of character and morality.

Hadith should never be a cause for you to feel burdened or conflicted. Hadith is meant to be your helper. The Prophet PBUH says:

If you hear hadith from me and your heart knows it, and your feelings and good cheer lean toward it, and you consider it close to you, then I am closer to it than you. And if you hear hadith from me hadith that your hearts do not know, and your feelings and good cheer are repulsed by it, and you consider it distant from you, then I am more distant from it than you.

Musnad Aḥmad 15808, a very similar version is considered hasan by al-Albānī

So make this your approach to Hadith. Take from it what is good and beneficial. And whatever troubles you, you can research it further or safely ignore it. Hadith was never meant to be a competitor to the Quran. Companions like Umar ibn al-Khattab [ra] refused to write down hadiths because they feared it would compete with the Quran in people’s hearts and minds.

So the Hadith literature we have is a very imperfect representation of the Prophet’s manners and teachings PBUH. Whatever good you find in it, take it and appreciate it. And whatever troubles you, seek its interpretation from those who are knowledgeable. And if nothing they say satisfies you, you can safely ignore the hadith.

Realize that God could have given us a 10,000 page Quran. He could also have asked the Companions to write down everything the Prophet PBUH said and did. This would have greatly simplified our lives. So why didn’t God choose to do that?

Because religion is both a blessing and test. God does not want to take out all possibility of disagreement among Muslims. He wants us to open our hearts and perfect our characters within the imperfect world that we live.

Choosing to only follow the Quran is not a valid option; it is an extreme response that means you failed the test of God. God wants you to do what is moderate and open-hearted. And that means to do your honest best to make sense of the conflicting scripture that we have. Trying oversimplify the world for yourself by rejecting all hadith narrations means that you abandon the Muslim community and choose comfort over sincerity.

Accept the Hadith literature in its imperfect form and use it to enhance your Islam.

I too used to feel strongly tempted to reject all hadith narrations in favor of the Quran. But as my knowledge greatly increased and as I rededicated myself to following God as sincerely and honestly as I could, I realized that that is the cowardly option to choose. The pious and admirable option is love. To love hadith, to love the scholars and their sincere attempts to make sense of our imperfect world, and to love the Muslim community, to love the fact that God did not make it too simple or easy.

So do not let your intellect overpower your heart. Learn to love the Quran and the Sunna the way they are. I do not say that this will take all of your trouble away, but it will give you a path to follow. And if you constantly and sincerely seek God’s guidance, He will guide you through this troubled path.

Does God really laugh? A study of the hadiths on God’s laughter

A review of Livnat Holtzman’s article “Does God Really Laugh? Appropriate and Inappropriate Descriptions of God in Islamic Traditionalist Theology.”1

There are a few hadith narrations that mention the laughter of God, which is something not mentioned in the Quran. One of the best-known hadiths mentioning God’s laughter is the following from Abū Hurayra:

So Allah will bring him near to the gate of Paradise, and when he sees what is in it, he will remain silent as long as Allah will, and then he will say, 'O Lord! Let me enter Paradise.' Allah will say, 'Didn't you promise that you would not ask Me for anything other than that? Woe to you, O son of Adam ! How treacherous you are!' On that, the man will say, 'O Lord! Do not make me the most wretched of Your creation,' and will keep on invoking Allah till Allah will laugh and when Allah will laugh because of him, then He will allow him to enter Paradise, and when he will enter Paradise, he will be addressed, 'Wish from so-and-so.' He will wish till all his wishes will be fulfilled, then Allah will say, All this (i.e. what you have wished for) and as much again therewith are for you.' " Abu Huraira added: That man will be the last of the people of Paradise to enter (Paradise).

Sahih al-Bukhari 6573

As part of my review of Livnat Holtzman’s article, I decided to do a quick survey of the major hadith collections (including the Musnad) for hadiths that mention the word yaḍḥaku (“he laughs”), I then gathered all of the hadiths that use this word in reference to God. Below is the result:

According to my probabilistic hadith verification methodology, here are the reliability indicators of the hadiths:

  • Abū Hurayra 22.7%
  • Abū Hurayra 26.5%
  • Jābir b. ʿAbdallāh 10.88%
  • Abū Razīn 5.85%
  • Abū Saʿīd al-Khudrī 1.94%
  • Nuʿaym b. Hammār 4.66%

The strongest hadith is the second one at 26.5% which falls between ḥasan and ṣaḥīḥ in my methodology (ṣaḥīḥ starts at 30%).

We can then do a final step to combine all of these probabilities. Since we are combining different hadiths, each probability is first halved.

1−((1−0.227)(1−0.265)(1−0.1088)(1−0.585)(1−0.0194)(1−0.0466)) = 0.803547688

(0.227+0.265+0.1088+0.585+0.0194+0.0466)÷6 = 0.208633333

(0.803547688+0.208633333)÷2 = 0.5061

The result is that all of these hadiths together have a probability of 50.6% that the crux of their meaning is authentic, which is much higher than the 30% necessary for ṣaḥīḥ. So the conclusion is that the support for God’s laughter is quite strong in the hadith literature. Note that this is only a partial survey, a complete survey will likely enhance this probability upwards of 60%.

Interpreting God’s laughter

The Ashʿarite theologians considered it problematic to attribute laughter to God, so they reinterpreted God’s laughter as a reference to His mercy. The traditionalists (the major group of them being the Ḥanbalites), however, considered reinterpretation unacceptable, so they taught that God’s laughter should be interpreted literally even if we do not exactly understand its nature.

Below is a statement of creed (ʿaqīda) attributed to Aḥmad b. Ḥanbal (d. 855 CE, after whom the Ḥanbalī school is named) and mentioned by Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya in his Hādī al-arwāḥ (The guide of souls):

We believe that God sits on His throne. However, He is not confined to limitations of space. We believe that God sees and hears and talks and laughs and is joyful.

The hadith scholar Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al-Wāḥid (d. 1149 CE), when asked about God’s laughter, said that it is hypocrisy and apostasy to attempt to interpret it.

The Ḥanbalī scholar Ibn al-Jawzī (d. 1201 CE) criticized members of his own school for believing that God laughs until His molar “teeth” can be seen (as is narrated in a weak narration). He says that the anthropomorphic descriptions of God found in the Quran and Hadith (such as God having “hands” or laughing) were only intended to help new converts to Islam connect with God. Had God been described to them theologically as not being a body, not being in any place, having no dimension, and not moving, the new converts would have become perplexed and unable to relate to Him.

So Ibn al-Jawzī takes a path similar to the Ashʿarites in interpreting God’s laughter metaphorically, as referring to His mercy and grace.

Ibn Taymiyya’s interpretation of God’s laughter

The most interesting contribution of Holtzmann’s article is her discussion of Ibn Taymiyya’s views on the issue. Whenever we see Ibn Taymiyya apply his vast intellect to a question, we can be sure to hear something original and interesting.

According to Ibn Taymiyya, it is wrong to consider laughter an imperfection in God as the theologians do. A person who laughs is more perfect than a person who cries. And a person who is capable of both love and hatred is more perfect than a person who is only capable of love. Part of perfection is to have the ability to respond to each situation in the most appropriate way possible.

Here he uses the same technique that he used to overturn Islamic theological orthodoxy and show that a God who acts in time is superior to a God who does not (see my essay Reconciling Free Will and Predestination in Islam with al-Māturīdī and Ibn Taymiyya). As Jon Hoover shows in his Ibn Taymiyya’s Theodicy of Perpetual Optimism, Ibn Taymiyya is dedicated to a juristic agenda whose first principle is to always seek to find ways to think of and describe God in the most perfect way possible.

So according to Ibn Taymiyya, while we should not attempt to exactly understand God’s laughter, we should also avoid the theological mistake of thinking that something that is imperfect in humans is imperfect when applied to God. Laughter can be a perfection for God. It is just one of the numerous ways in which His perfection becomes manifest to humans.

IslamQA: What is the meaning of Sheenam?

Assalamu alikum, My daughter name is Sheenam. I was told that it is a persian name meaning Light. Sheen is mentioned in Quran also. Can you confirm it?

Alaikumassalam wa rahmatullah,

The meaning of that name depends on the way it is formed. There is no standard Persian word that sounds like Sheenam. But in the Māzandarānī dialect of Persian shī means “morning dew”, while in standard Persian shabnam means “morning dew”. It is possible that shīnam is a dialect word that combines shī and shabnam. If that is true, then Sheenam means “morning dew”.

Also, shī in the Māzandarānī dialect also means “soft, gentle rain”, while nam means “raindrop”. So shīnam can also mean “raindrop that falls from a soft, gentle rain.”

Also, in the Māzandarānī shī also means “spouse”, while nam means “name”. Therefore shīnam can also mean “spouse-name”.

There is no word in the Quran that sounds like shīn.

IslamQA: Is the truth relative or absolute?

Is the truth relative or absolute? Which kind of truth should I go for?

Truth is absolute. In God’s perspective, for example, humans have no right to deny His existence and His signs. God’s view is that all rational and open-hearted humans will believe in Him; it is only arrogance that prevents this belief, as discussed here: A Quranic Phenomenology of Atheism.

However, while truth in itself is absolute (Truth is one of the names of God), our own knowledge and understanding of truth in most cases is only approximate and probabilistic. According to Abū Ḥanīfa faith (imān) is absolute. When a person attains faith, their faith in God is just as “perfect” as an angel’s faith in God. If we accept this, then everything other than faith is approximate. For example our understanding of God’s revelations can only by probabilistic; it continues to improve as way study His words and discusses them and debate about them with others.

Naturally, whenever something can be improved, this suggested that it is not perfect or absolute.

As for what kind of truth you should “go for”, if I understood you correctly, then you should go for God. There is no guidance possible without God. Even if you spend years seeking truth from other sources, even if you read hundreds of great books, you can never attain guidance without God’s help. But if you seek it sincerely and humbly through God, He can give it to you better than anyone else can. So seek God, rely on Him, and realize that there is no truth higher than Him or independent from Him. He created this universe, He created our brains and our rationality. We can never be superior to Him or reach beyond Him.

IslamQA: A born Muslim who does not want to follow any religion

Salaam. I'm in a state where I'm a born Muslim, but thinks that I don't want to commit to Islam or a certain religion. What do you call this? And what should I do? I feel wrong, but somehow it is liberating to imagine if I were to bound by no religion. Does only believing the existence of God suffice?

I understand the desire to want to be part of a “larger” truth instead of restricting yourself to one religion. Unfortunately this does not work for the simple reason that God does not approve of it. As a Muslim, you have inherited the legacy of Islam and God accepts no religion other than Islam from you. The Quran says:

Whoever [among the Muslims] seeks other than Islam as a religion, it will not be accepted from him, and in the Hereafter he will be among the losers.

How will God guide a people who disbelieved after having believed, and had witnessed that the Messenger is true, and the clear proofs had come to them? God does not guide the unjust people.

Those—their penalty is that upon them falls the curse of God, and of the angels, and of all mankind.

Remaining in it eternally, without their punishment being eased from them, and without being reprieved.

The Quran, verses 3:85-88.

From God’s perspective Islam is a truth that no Muslim has a right to deny. Breaking away from Islam means breaking away from the truth, and this is a sin that God does not forgive.

There is no higher moral law in our universe to justify your leaving Islam for the sake of believing in God without religion. If you believe in God, you must be willing to seek Him out and seek out His revelations and sincerely ask Him for guidance. You cannot just say that you believe in God and expect this to suffice you. God has plans for you and makes demands on you. You either humbly submit to this or you arrogantly think that you are above God’s wishes.

For more on understanding God’s perspective, please see my essay A Quranic Phenomenology of Atheism. I know that you do not wish to be an atheist, but the topics discussed in there are relevant.

IslamQA: Is witr like maghrib or not?

I have read somewhere that Witr salah has to differ from the Maghrib Salah. So can I pray two rakhat and do Salam and after that do one more separate rakhat.

There are different opinions among the schools on how witr should be done. You can pray it like maghrib, or like maghrib but without sitting in the second rak`a for tashahhud, or you can pray two rak`at, say salam, then pray a single rak`a. 

All of the above are acceptable ways of doing it unless you wish to strictly follow a particular school.

Source:

The Unleashed Thunderbolts of Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya by Yasir Qadhi

A review of Shakh Yasir Qadhi’s paper “‘The Unleashed Thunderbolts’ of Ibn Qayyim al-Ǧawziyyah: An Introductory Essay.”1

This 2010 paper by Yasir Qadhi is a study of Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyya’s al-Ṣawāʿiq al-mursala ʿalā al-Jahmīya wa-l-Muʿaṭṭila (The Unleashed Thunderbolts against the Jahmites and the Negators [of Divine Attributes]). I will focus on Ibn al-Qayyim’s positions as transmitted by Yasir Qadhi.

Ibn al-Qayyim speaks against taʾwīl, the act of reinterpreting a statement in the Quran or hadith in a way that avoids its literal meaning, such as saying that when God refers to His “hand” in the Quran, this is actually a reference to His power. Ibn al-Qayyim says that there are only three possible reasons why a speaker would speak in a way that would require reinterpretation:

  • The speaker is not sincere and does not wish to express the clearest possible meaning.
  • The speaker is not knowledgeable about what he is saying.
  • The speaker is not eloquent and is unable to express himself clearly.

Naturally, since none of these apply to God or His Messenger PBUH, Ibn al-Qayyim’s conclusion is that there is no room for taʾwīl in Islam. But there is another possibility that he does not consider; perhaps God uses such expressions as tests and as encouragement for Muslims to look more deeply into the matter so that they can get to know God better.

They are tests in that they lead to disagreement among Muslims and in this way bring out their characters. Will they hold on to the tie of religious brotherhood and overcome their disagreements so that they can love those who disagree with them, or will they fail the test and use these disagreements as justifications for demonizing and dehumanizing their opponents? I believe Ibn al-Qayyim falls into the category of those who at least partially failed the test; his use of the phrase “Unleashed Thunderbolts” clearly implies that those who disagree with them deserve extreme divine punishment as Yasir Qadhi says.

Ibn al-Qayyim goes on to mention four “pillars of falsehood” (ṭawāghīt, sing. ṭāghūt) that he believes are the fundamental principles that are relied on by misguided Muslims (i.e. Ashʿarites, Muʿtazilites and philosophers) to destroy the foundations of religion.

The first ṭāghūt is the principle of the theologians such as Fakhr al-Dīn al-Rāzī (d. 1210 CE) that verbal evidence do not yield certain knowledge. The theologians viewed the evidence of hadith as inherently probabilistic, since in almost all cases we can never be sure if the information was transmitted with 100% accuracy. They also viewed the process of interpreting the Quran and hadith as inherently probabilistic since we cannot always be sure that we understood the exact meaning that a verse or hadith statement is meant to convey.

Ibn al-Qayyim argues against that and says if that was really the case, life would become impossible since we could never be sure of the meaning of the statements that those around us made. Ibn al-Qayyim’s arguments as mentioned by Yasir Qadhi are all polemical and unconvincing.

The second ṭāghūt is the principle of the theologians that intellectual evidence takes priority over scripture when the two are in conflict. Ibn al-Qayyim relies on his mentor Ibn Taymiyya’s arguments against this principle, saying that reason and revelation can never be truly in conflict. Whenever reason and revelation appear to be in conflict, it is the deficiency of human reason that is to blame. Therefore when Aristotelian logic seems to support a truth that goes against revelation, the deficiency is in that logic.

This point is well made since the history of Islamic theology is full of theologians who believed that they had absolute logical proofs for their doctrines that were later proven to be logically invalid. Whenever we believe that we have discovered a fact that clearly goes against revelation, it may only take a decade or two before someone else shows us that the fact and revelation are actually not in conflict (as in the case of evolution).

Strangely, Ibn al-Qayyim goes on to argue that Hell is not eternal since it serves God no purpose to eternally punish a temporal creation. As I argue in my essay A Quranic Phenomenology of Atheism, the reason why eternal punishment may be necessary is that by disbelieving in God, a person stands up to the Infinite and asks Him to do His worst to them. It can be said that here Ibn al-Qayyim breaks all of his own principles: he ignores the literal meaning of the Quran and hadith, he prefers his own reason over revelation, and he breaks with the views of the Companions and the Salaf.

The third ṭāghūt is the concept of majāz (allegory) that is used by the Ashʿarites. Ashʿarites claim that the Quran uses allegorical language, for example when God refers to being “above” the Throne, this is merely an allegory rather than a reference to God having a direction of “aboveness” in space (since God is not in space). Ibn al-Qayyim strangely argues that statements such as “Zayd is a lion” are not actually allegorical because anyone with a sound mind can immediately understand the meaning that is meant by it; namely that Zayd is brave.

He argues that there is no textual indication that God’s attributes should be interpreted metaphorically. He says that it is demeaning to God’s exalted nature to suggest that attributes such as His being “above” do not have a literally meaning. He claims that all of the Companions and the Salaf agreed that these attributes should be interpreted literally.

The fourth ṭāghūt is the principle of the theologians that the traditions of the Prophet PBUH can only yield probabilistic knowledge. Ibn al-Qayyim’s view is that singular (āḥād) narrations (which lack multiple supporting chains) can yield certain knowledge when there is supporting evidence. I believe that Ibn al-Qayyim exaggerates the position of his opponents, since they too acted upon singular narrations despite acknowledging their probabilistic reliability. His act merely implies that his opponents are using an invalid approach to hadith–despite the fact the end result is largely the same. It is therefore merely or largely a polemical attack meant to lump together extreme rejectors of hadith with the Ashʿarites.

In his conclusion, Yasir Qadhi mentions that Ibn al-Qayyim’s attack is one of the most sophisticated ones ever launched against the Ashʿarites. He calls for reassessing common views of Ibn al-Qayyim and Ibn Taymiyya as shallow literalists. I agree that despite the failure of many of their attacks and their polemical style, they were worthy opponents of the theologians who must be taken seriously. Recent Western scholarship has continued to support this thesis, a good example being the 2010 book Ibn Taymiyya and His Times.

IslamQA: What is the meaning of the name “Arafat”?

Arafat (transliteration: ʿArafāt) is the name of a mountain 12 miles from Mecca where the pilgrims stand in supplication during the pilgrimage. ʿArafāt is the plural of ʿarafa which means “well-known”, “recognized” according to Ibn Sīda al-Mursī’s dictionary Al-Muḥkam wa-l-Muḥīṭ al-Aʿẓam (d. 1066 CE).

According to Habib Anthony Salmone’s An Advanced Learner’s Arabic-English Dictionary (1889) ʿarafa also means “patient”.

IslamQA: Is it permissible to use the name “Wahhab” without “Abdul”?

Asalamalaikum It is permissible to use Wahab/Wahhab name without Abdul or a similar prefix.

According to a fatwa by the website IslamOnline (which is overseen by the respected scholar Yusuf al-Qaradawi), using the name Wahhab without “Abdul” is not permissible because it is specific to God.

The fatwa refers to the opinion of Ibn Qayyim al-Jawziyyah that names that are specific to God’s greatness should not be used without “Abdul”.

Source:

A Manual of Civilized Sexuality

Get it on Amazon: Paperback | Kindle

My new book A Manual of Civilized Sexuality: What Science, Feminism and Our Pornographic Culture Cannot Teach Us about the Most Important Things in Love, Romance and Intimacy is now available on Amazon.com. While this book is written for a general Western audience, the contents are extremely relevant to Muslims interested in understanding Islam’s views on sexuality.

In this book I present a framework for a morality of human sexuality that makes no reference to religion (while being fully compatible with it).

The modern world demonizes masculinity among men while promoting it among women; believing that the only truly worthy woman is one who lives up to masculine standards of behavior and achievement. I show that by adopting an evolutionary1 view and combining it with Kant’s simple moral philosophy, we gain the very best that feminism stands for (true equality of the sexes) without either sex having to abandon its natural instincts and its masculine/feminine persona. I therefore present a post-feminist view of gender relations that makes feminism irrelevant for those who live truly moral and civilized lives.

Islam tells us that it is wrong for a man to do something as seemingly innocuous as admiring a woman’s body on the street. The scholars are also agreed that watching pornography is immoral. But where does the “wrongness” in such behaviors come from? I show that this wrongness is related to our basic humanity. Any erotic enjoyment that lacks an interpersonal aspect is morally wrong and damaging to one’s own humanity; it takes away our ability to enjoy the warmth of human relationships. We are not animals and our sexuality is deeply tied to our humanity–requiring very specific rules of behavior that the Abrahamic religions get right.

From the Amazon description:

A Manual of Civilized Sexuality explores the most important issues in the modern couple’s life: from dating and romance to the morality of eroticism and intimacy, to finding spiritual meaning in life. Author Ikram Hawramani unites Kant’s beautiful and simple moral philosophy with an evolutionary understanding of masculinity and femininity, showing how both sexes can lead authentic lives tuned to their own instincts while living in Kant’s “Kingdom of Ends” where love, beauty and freedom reign. Couples who have been happily married for decades and who continue to have infinite love and consideration for each other already live in the Kingdom of Ends. This book shows you the path for getting there.

IslamQA: Does God forgive sins if you keep repeating them?

Saalam Aleyckum, does Allah forgive everytime i make sins ? Even if i repeat thousand times the same ? And do you know how can we know that Allah loves us ? I feel like i don't deserve Allah mercy.

Alaikumassalam wa rahmatullah,

There is no limit to God’s forgiveness. If you are able to to sincerely ask for forgiveness, then that in itself means that God is willing to forgive you. When God decides that a person no longer deserves forgiveness then they become the type of person who never ask for forgiveness. This is what the Quran means by “sealing” the hearts of those who sin so much and do so many evil deeds that God decides to seal their fate and prevent them from seeking His forgiveness (as in the case of the Pharaoh in the story of Prophet Moses PBUH).

If you feel inspired to ask for forgiveness, if you are not happy with yourself and wish to be better, then that means God loves you and is there to help you. When God does not love someone He lets them become happy in their own state so that they never feel inspired to seek guidance or forgiveness and in this way their life goes to waste while thinking they are doing really well.

Page 24 of 73
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73