Freedom, Love, Unity for mankind is the goal...just so the world would be a bit better for the children, we will all return to God anyway!! why not do good??
I’m Muslim, @CandidwithLubna is not alone, many Muslims should be supporting her. We can not allow the thugs to take over Islam or the UK and make excuses for people to threaten a mother’s safety, and British culture @TRobinsonNewEra
https://t.co/AjfCriYULB
@FritzlfurterUK @CandidwithLubna Not rude at all, I think these issues should be addressed. However, it is up to people to face these matters. What the imams say does not matter, if people just follow. Muslims need to speak and think for themselves and not letting the dawa guys do it for them.
@CandidwithLubna Bravo, I’m inspired by your vision. It is not an easy road but needs to be traveled. I’m willing to help and support, not sure how but you are not alone. I did DM you, but I realise you are busy + get tons of DMs.
Has the hope of @Nigel_Farage becoming the man to save UK politics disappeared?
I think he is a good man, but is he the man to lead the UK for the people of The UK? 🇬🇧🏴🤔🫶🙌
He might be one of them, but I think we need a team… Knights of The Round Table? 😍 What a title!
Rethinking the Repression of Reason in Muslim Tradition: Redressing the Paralysis of the Muslim Mind
#Islam#extremism#reform
The umma is experiencing trauma. The umma is experiencing trauma because it exchanged the Book of Allah for books of traditions, resulting in sectarianism.
To follow tradition rather than revelation is to treat persons as superior to Allah. Which person is a better guide than Allah?
It is evident that the state of the umma changed. Allah said He does not alter the state of people until they change what is in themselves (Q, 13: 11).
The umma used to be on top of the world. At present it finds itself nearer to the other end. The umma went from hero to zero. Why?
The Book of Allah was not enough for the umma. It wanted more. So it turned to the ways of its forefathers. It turned from revelation to follow tradition. That is the chief cause of the umma’s downfall.
The reorientation from revelation to tradition was triggered by an enchantment with tradition. The turn was assisted by the repression of reason.
The repression of reason enabled tradition to mount a coup d’état, to usurp the place of revelation. The “coup” corrupted knowledge and triggered turmoil in the umma.
The turn from revelation to tradition was backed by the assertion that tradition, too, was revelation. This rested upon problematic exegesis, which asserts that everything the prophet uttered was “revelation” from Allah.
From then, matters went from bad to worse. Jurists did not pause at merely treating tradition as revelation (wahy).
They further treat tradition as tanzil, what Allah “sent down.” But traditions are not the words of Allah. They are not even the words of the prophet.
Traditions are paraphrases of paraphrases of what Muhammad allegedly said or did. They are not verbatim. Traditions are hearsay.
To treat the words of mere persons as “revelation” is an expression of cavalier exegesis, exhibiting a failure to differentiate the rulings of Allah from reports of persons.
The traditional ulama persisted in the promotion of tradition at the expense of revelation until tradition surpassed revelation. It was treated as a “judge” of revelation.
This represented a reversal of the relationship between revelation and tradition.
Revelation was subordinated to tradition. The Book of Allah was subordinated to books of traditions. This was a breakdown of rationality.
Reversing the relationship between revelation and tradition harmed the umma enormously.
Turning to tradition from revelation was tantamount to a relapse into shirk, following the way of the forefathers rather than the Book of Allah.
Allah prohibited “adding” to revelation in chapter 69: 44-46 of the Book. Those who do not judge by what He “sent down” are referred to in the Book as unbelievers, rebels, and wrongdoers (5: 44-45, 47).
The prophet prohibited the recording of his sayings, too. But hawkish rulers, in defiance of the prophet’s prohibition of the recording of his traditions, asked ulama to record the traditions. The effects would be troubling.
The Mongols erased the Abbasids when Abbasid rulers acted in keeping with the tradition according to which “the blood of the kafir is halal for the believers.”
Encouraged by this tradition, the Abbasids murdered a group of Mongol traders, as well as three ambassadors dispatched by Genghis Khan to ask for justice.
This brazen defiance of the Book of Allah resulted in the deaths of a million persons in the reprisals that followed.
Anti-rationalism also resulted in the deaths of five thousand philosophers, murdered by Musa al-Hadi in 786, during the mihna (inquisition).
This was a “reign of terror,” a persecution of intellectuals by the adherents of traditions. But there was barely a whimper expressed at this atrocity.
Anti-rationalism plunged Muslims into stupefaction and, due to the resulting backwardness, rendered the umma vulnerable to external assaults.
Traditionists heed the traditions of their forefathers rather than the Book of Allah. They use the Book of Allah chiefly for ceremonial purposes.
Muslims barely understand the Book of Allah when they recite it. Illiteracy of the Book is a problem. This is due to the demonisation of reason.
Reason was repressed by being subordinated to tradition. Even revelation was subordinated to tradition.
The relationship between revelation and tradition in Islam requires attention. For tradition eclipsed revelation. This was an aberration.
Traditional jurisprudence teaches that revelation is the foremost root of legislation. Tradition is treated as a “second” root of legislation.
Yet in exegesis, the relationship between revelation and tradition is reversed. Tradition is placed above revelation.
This reversal is expressed in the perceptions that “tradition judges revelation” and that “revelation requires tradition more than tradition requires revelation.”
These are troubling perceptions. For they treat the rulings of persons as possessing greater authority than the rulings of Allah.
Treating the rulings of persons as possessing greater authority than the rulings of Allah is an expression of scriptural shirk.
The reversal of the relationship between revelation and tradition encroaches on the pre-eminence of revelation. It represents a breakdown of traditional exegesis and jurisprudence.
Tradition experienced extraordinary ascent. It went from reports from past akin to hearsay to being treated as “revelation,” a “judge” of the Book of Allah, even capable of “abrogating” and “replacing” parts of the Book.
The result is a sharia where reports of persons in a few places replace revealed rulings. This transpired with the punishments for adultery, apostasy and blasphemy.
These punishments do not merely defy the Book of Allah; they also attribute an unjustified image of harshness to Islamic law and Muslims generally.
Hence, the relationship between revelation and tradition requires being reset. Tradition must be subordinated to revelation.
The teaching of abrogation was used to transform the religion of reconciliation into an agenda of territorial expansion and global conquest.
Juristic and shirk tainted exegesis as well as jurisprudence. The politicization of exegesis and jurisprudence reduced them to the rank of propaganda. These aberrations require attention.
The rejection of reason resulted in a paralysis in the Muslim mind. The umma became mentally handicapped. The rejection of reason rendered the umma bereft of reason.
The umma followed in the footsteps of al-Ghazali in his “breakdown” and also experienced a “breakdown.” This resulted in a culture of “intellectual retardation.”
The rejection of reason paralyzed Muslim thought. It corrupted traditional exegesis and jurisprudence by rendering both irrational.
The irrationality of traditional thought emerged in its errors. These encompassed the treatment of tradition as a root of legislation, the subordination of reason to tradition, and the teaching of abrogation in its different forms.
The fall into irrationalism was evident in the re-articulation of the religion of reconciliation as a religion of war, the alleged tension between the realm of peace and the realm of war, and the teaching of wars of aggression or jihad al-talab.
In rendering wars of aggression not merely permissible but required, a sixth pillar of Islam, the ulama rendered unlawful wars of aggression lawful.
Is waging wars of aggression against non-Muslims merely because of their unbelief and for no other reason any different from “state terrorism”?
This was the result of the rejection of reason and the abandonment of revelation to follow tradition or the ways of the predecessors. This was a transgression against religion.
The corruption of knowledge entailed by these errors signaled disaster for the umma. It went on a rampage of unlawful wars on the pretext of “propagating” Islam by the sword.
When the inevitable pushback came, the umma could not save itself. It remains in a state of subjection to this day. The umma has become the dhimmis.
Allah turned the tables on the umma and Muslims are at present tasting the medicine they used to administer to non-Muslims. In brief, the umma fell from grace.
Islam could provide the way out, were it not for the deformation of the knowledge of the religion by militant scholarship who, with their “explanation,” transformed a religion of reconciliation into an agenda for war.
This was due to the rejection of reason and a capitulation to anti-rationalism. It is therefore necessary to return to reason and a reliable understanding of the teaching of revelation.
This requires a rehabilitation of the traditional approach, which justified authoritarianism. It requires the rehabilitation and re-engagement of reason. It requires a return to reason.
Traditional knowledge is less relevant than before. To cling to tradition at present is akin to relying on a roadmap prepared a millennium ago and expecting to reach the desired destination. The landscape changed considerably in the course of history.
The Book of Allah is universal and timeless; the books of exegeses and traditions are time-bound and parochial.
It is necessary to make a fresh beginning and to free the knowledge of the Book of Allah of unwarranted accretions that tainted the knowledge revelation.
Interested readers may access the full text at the links below:
https://t.co/GE2wbVT1pn
https://t.co/Hki66MRXrm
https://t.co/aya8ASXy5Q
https://t.co/kYJcihQ28h
@paulocoelho Some resist change because they do not want to deal with those who resist change... sometimes it’s like we are waiting for people to die so we can make the changes, however it is often that the new replacement will solidify their predecessors habits.