eatandbeawesome: Let me know when you realise the amount of time you waste fighting with each other could be put […]

cynicallyjade replied to your post:You didn’t. But you implied that I was implying that we take the scholars to be infallible and that is wrong. We must take the Qur’an to be infallible and the sahih hadiths to be infallible. But for the decision to react to certain situations, we need…
In situations like this I’m often reminded of that time when Rasulullah (SAW) became annoyed at the excessive questioning by someone that was in the group that the Messenger (SAW) was addressing. Excessive questioning on matters that are plain lead to unnecessary debate and subsequently discord amongst Muslims.  I’ve asked this many times before but have yet to receive a response. Why is it that the narrators of ahadith are never referred to as Sheikh so-and-so, or Maulana so-and-so or Mufti so-and-so, yet our present day scholars (the majority of them) even refer to themselves by these same man-endowed titles? I was even advised at one time that I was not allowed to even engage with the trustees of our local mosque on matter that was blatantly contrary to the Sunnah simply because I am not an aalim, or sheikh, or maulana, or the like.  The issue at hand is a simple one, and not complicated at all. It is not a blanket disapproval or rejection of scholars, nor a blanket approval to seek out all knowledge independent of scholars. It is about applying your mind and not allowing yourself to slip into a state of intellectual laziness. If we are to always refer to the scholars, how then are we ever going to be able to refute their statements when they’re incorrect? Are we always going to have to refer to the statements of one scholar over another, since the rest of us are not competent enough to understand clear statements from the Qur’an and Sunnah?  We take our reliance on scholars too far. Look at the history of the Muslims and it’s easy to see how the sects were formed after the demise of Rasulullah (SAW). It was and is a dogmatic referral to scholars in every aspect of our lives that has led to the establishment of clerical structures that mimic the Christian Church.  Chances are that every single one of those sincere scholars that are so vehemently quoted will object to being treated in such a manner because it results in the erosion of knowledge within the Ummah rather than the empowerment of Muslims to be conscientious and knowledgeable without a constant reliance on ‘scholars’. I know many people that are more knowledgeable than recognised scholars but don’t dare refer to themselves as scholars because of the inherent responsibility and risk of pride and arrogance that such a title carries.  Another example of this miscarriage of titles is the current shambles we have of the madhabs. I doubt very much that any one of the four Imams suggested that their way be followed exclusively without the option to practise any part of the Sunnah that was identified by any of the other Imams. Yet our practise of it is such that we have established sects, schools of thought, madhabs, or whatever we wish to call it to a point where we have disputes in our local mosques about whether the Imam should be Shafi’i or Hanafi, and the subsequent withdrawal of support from the group that did not enjoy the benefit of their preference.  This is what a constant referral to scholars does for Islam. Hence my statement about moderation. Moderation. Moderation. Moderation. And not intellectual laziness that forces us to regurgitate the interpretations of scholars to a point where we become blind followers based on the principle of ‘but my scholar said so’.  Wallahu A’lim.

Moderation. Moderation. Moderation. Not Intellectual Laziness
Beautiful Struggle: Anonymous asked: do you pretty much hate all sunnis? <a href=””>remorsecode</a>:<blockquote><a href=””>the72sects</a>:<blockquote><a href=””>remorsecode</a>:<blockquote>Okay I might as well talk […]

Our problem is one of spirituality. If a man comes to speak to me about the reforms to be undertaken […]

Okay I might as well talk about this more in depth since I’m worried people might get a misconception that the Shia somehow hate all Sunni people. This is not true whatsoever. As the saying goes, hate the sin, not the sinner. This is all just my personal beliefs. I don’t have…
The number of generalisations in this post is in stark contrast to the very same intellectual pursuits that the original poster talks about. But set aside all the generalisations and whether there is or isn’t truth to the aspersions against Sunni’s, or whether it even cements the argument that Shia’s are supposedly on the right path, or not. The lingering thought I have in my head, the same way I think about every other ridiculous post about these Sunni/Shia differences is simply this…how does any of the facts contained in the post actually strengthen your Imaan?  If Imaan is purely about your sincerity of belief in the oneness of Allah, and not ascribing any partners to Him, and accepting His decree, then what does it matter what historical facts have been perfectly preserved or horribly twisted? If we weren’t there to witness it, and the available knowledge has contradictions, then let it be. It has no impact on who we are as Muslims right now, because in Islam right and wrong is clear. Anything that causes doubt in between should be avoided. Simple. Why complicate  beautiful way of life with these annoying attempts to convince everyone about whose history is more accurate?

Beautiful Struggle: Anonymous asked: do you pretty much hate all sunnis?

We tend to think animals are lower than us, but all the scientists in the world couldn’t design and operate […]