Saluting the Final Prophet
Salāt on the Prophet tends to be a hazy concept, and nearly everyone I’ve met has little idea what it means and what it is for. Yet misplaced sensitivities around the Prophet often provokes irrational reactions by the mere question. For those unsure what "salāt on the Prophet" refers to, it's what people commonly understand as saying "peace be upon him" or the Arabic, “Sallalāhu alahi wa sallam”.
Now when it comes to God's final messenger who is most deserving of our allegiance and adoration, many rely on assumptions. As the famous Andalusian jurist and exegete Abu Bakr b. al-Arabi (born in Seville) put it: “People ought to consider their faith as they consider their wealth. In trade, they do not accept defective dinars, but only those that are unadulterated and good. Similarly, narrations about the Prophet are not accepted except those with reliable transmissions so that one does not enter into the realm of lying about the Prophet - where a person is after goodness he ends up attaining shortcomings, or perhaps even patent loss!”
Amongst scholars, both medieval and modern, there are various opinions as to what salawāt is, some opinions well reasoned, others poorly so. The plethora of opinions, if anything, demonstrates that it hasn't been patently clear and requires unpicking. In summary, this post is saying that to salāt on the Prophet is a type of salute which expresses support for the legacy of the Prophet and the cause of God. This desire is manifested through heartfelt acknowledgement, supplicating for it, and practically aiding it. For ease, I’ve worded most of this article in Q&A form to unpick the concept.
What is “Islam”? Facts Lost in Translation
So did God intend a religion called “Islam”?
If we examine the premodern world, the concept of religion as an institutionalised system didn't exist, so it is logical that the formalised religion of Islam was not what God was talking about. The message's focus was on guiding people to uphold certain principles and codes rather than prescribing a defined "religion" in the modern sense.
But does this mean revelation and prophetic teachings are just as nebulous as the ‘Religion of Islam’? Not at all.
God has consistently called the Semites to the tradition (مِلّةَ) of the Patriarchs - Abraham, Ishmael, Isaac and Jacob. That tradition is the civilisational manifestation of the primordial pre-Abrahamic ways, such as those of Noah and his offspring. When the Israelites abandoned the pledge to uphold the Abrahamic covenant and establish God's code, it was offered and taken up by the Ishmaelites, led by their divinely-appointed clansman Muhammad. In this final iteration, God universalised the code for all humans (and not just one group like the Israelites), thereby encompassing and unifying all other legitimate monotheistic traditions under the Ishmaelite banner.
In the language of the Ishmaelite legacy, God refers to this primordial tradition as Hanīfiyyah - الحَنِيفِيَّة (from the trilateral root h-n-f) and its people as the Hunafā - those who lean or incline towards God (حنفاء لله). The word isn't just found in Arabic but predates it and can be found in the Egyptian hieroglyphs. Aside from this key reference, God uses varying descriptive terms in Arabic for humans associated with this primordial tradition based on context. For example:
- In the context of describing those who affirm God’s sovereignty as opposed to those who deny it, God refers to them as the faithful to God (مُؤْمِنون بالله).
- In the context of those who uphold the Abrahamic tradition by acknowledgement and compliance to the entire code as opposed to merely adopting aspects of it and inventing breakaway variants like the Jews and Christians (who claim the tradition of Abraham) are described as the fully subservient to God (مُسْلِمون لله).
- In the context of describing those who adamantly and persistently strive in the King’s cause, God references them as the persevering (الصابِرون)
- In the context of describing those who stand by their pledges, and who act in accordance to what they claim, God references them as the integrious (الصادِقون)
In grammar, all of these agent nouns denote the performer of the action. In English, the "- er" suffix is used to create nouns that describe someone or something that does the action indicated by the base verb.
Therefore, when we translate the word مُؤْمِن to believer, in the context of the final message we are referring to faithful/loyal subjects of the supreme King - those who have confidence in their Lord. When we translate the word مُسْلِم to submitter, in the context of the final message we are intentionally referring to those who allege adherence to the entire code like the Patriarchs, rather than Jews and Christians who have broken away from the Patriarchs' tradition. Why does it go back to the Patriarchs? Well because God explicitly tells us that this is the backstory to His reference to 'submission':
Who but a fool would forsake the tradition of Abraham? We have chosen him in this world and he will rank among the righteous in the Hereafter. His Lord said to him, ‘Devote yourself (أسْلِم) to Me.’ Abraham replied, ‘I devote myself (ُأسْلِمْت) to the Lord of the Universe’ whilst commanding his sons to do the same - as did Jacob: ‘My sons, God has appointed the code for you, so make sure you devote yourselves to Him (مُسْلِمون), to your dying moment.’ Were you there to see when death came upon Jacob? When he said to his sons, ‘What will you serve after I am gone?’ They replied, ‘We shall serve your God and the God of your fathers, Abraham, Ishmael, and Isaac, the only one to be served, it is to Him that we submit (له مُسْلِمون).’ That community passed away. What they earned belongs to them, and what you earn belongs to you: you will not be accounted on the basis of their (good) deeds. They say, ‘Become Jews or Christians, and you will be rightly guided.’ Say: ‘No, (we are committed to) the tradition of Abraham, the godly primordial monotheist (حَنِيفًا), who did not claim sovereignty for another.’ [Quran 2:130-135]
In the ancient world there was no proper noun (name) for this tradition, but the tradition itself was simply referred to as what it is: The tradition of the patriarch Abraham (مِلّةَ إبراهيم) and his righteous descendants (وذُرّيّته). It means:
- To affirm the sovereignty of God, the Lord of Abraham, with loyalty and allegiance.
- To acknowledge the tradition of the Patriarchs, Hanīfiyyah, with a sense of fraternal belonging to it, a cognisance of its history, and strong solidarity with its cohort.
- To openly and humbly receive God’s royal decrees and comply with the entirety of the code with its final amendments, a Law (شِرْعَة) and a Way (مِنْهاج), universalised for all via the Ishmaelite legacy.
- To take a pledge to establish the code, support it, and uphold it - across all realms of life.
- To study the mission of the righteous before us as case studies in how to establish the entire code and serve the King, and walk their path in supporting and upholding the code.
But doesn't God label people "Muslims"?
No, not as a proper noun. As explained above, the final message was sent via the Arabic language, but words ought to be translated in translations, not transliterated (unless a relative equivalent does not exist). There has been an inconsistent practice of transliterating certain Arabic words instead of translating them, in what is obviously an ideological endeavour - otherwise there would be no logic in doing so. Further, semantic translations rather than pragmatic translations entirely confuse English readers. An example frequently cited to substantiate "Muslim" as a proper noun (name) is: "He has named you Muslims" [Quran 22:78]. Firstly, translating 'sammākum' here as 'named' is inaccurate. Secondly, transliterating "Muslim" is misplaced. In context, this is actually what God says:
Strive hard for God as is His due: He has chosen you and placed no hardship in the code1, the tradition of your forefather Abraham2. He has referred to those like you as the completely submissive (هُوَ سَمَّىٰكُمُ ٱلۡمُسۡلِمِینَ) both in the past and in this [message]3, so that the Messenger can bear witness about you and so that you can bear witness about other people4. (Quran 22:78)
Now here is a brief breakdown:
1 The code is relaxed, in that regulations have been relaxed after the punitive legislations introduced to it because of the disobedient Hebrews, about whom God said: "This is how We penalised them for their disobedience." [Quran 6:146] However, now that the Law is for all people, those punitive laws have been removed as amendments to the Law. Hence the final messenger of God said, "I was sent with primordial monotheistic godliness (الحَنِيفِيَّة) that is relaxed (السَمْحَة)." [Ahmad]
2 God was speaking to the Ishmaelites, the descendants of Abraham, inciting his tradition (مِلَّة).
3 God is motivating Ishmaelite subservience by referring to the loyal as those who have truly submitted to the King by adherence to the entire code - unlike the Jews and Christians - throughout time. Here, God alludes to the reference made by Abraham and Ishmael about their descendants: "Our Lord make us both subservient to You (مُسۡلِمَیۡنِ لَكَ) and make our descendants a community subservient to You (أُمَّةࣰ مُّسۡلِمَةࣰ لَّكَ)." (Quran 2:228). He also alludes to the Hebrew Prophets: "We revealed the Torah with guidance and light, and the Prophets who had submitted to God (ٱلنَّبِیُّونَ ٱلَّذِینَ أَسۡلَمُوا۟), judged according to it for the Jews. So did the rabbis and the scholars in accordance with that part of God’s Scripture which they were entrusted to preserve, and to which they were witnesses." (Quran 5:44) This appeal to the tradition of Hanīfiyyah is also emphasised where God speaks of the final Prophet's apostles as being the same as those of old: "Muhammad is the messenger of God. Those who are with him...You see them kneeling and prostrating, seeking God’s bounty and His good pleasure: on their faces they bear the marks of their prostrations. This is how they are pictured in the Torah and the Gospel." [Quran 48:29]
4 Muhammad will bear witness about the Ishmaelites in whether they upheld the pledge to adhere to the entire code unlike their Israelite cousins who broke off to create a faction (Judaism, and later Christianity). Jesus too will do so with regards to the Israelites and Christians: "I told them only what You commanded me to: “Serve God, my Lord and your Lord.” I was a witness over them during my time among them." [Quran 5:117] Ironically, the pledge to adhere to the entire code and not create a "religion" is made absolutely clear in God's dictate:
From the code, He has laid down for you all the same exhortation that He gave Noah, which We have also revealed to you (Muhammad) and which We enjoined on Abraham and Moses and Jesus: ‘Uphold the code and do not divide into factions within it’. What you call the Ishmaelite pagans to (i.e. the unified tradition) is hard for them; God chooses whoever He pleases for Himself and guides towards Himself those who turn to Him. They all divided, out of rivalry, only after knowledge had come to them...Those after them, who inherited the Scripture, are in disquieting doubt about it. So call people to that commandment and follow the straight path as you have been commanded. Do not go by what they desire, but say, ‘I have faith in whatever scripture God has sent down. I am commanded to bring justice between you. God is our Lord and your Lord - to us our deeds and to you yours, so let there be no argument between us and you. God will gather us together, and to Him we shall return.’ [Quran 42:15]
So is the tradition of the Patriarchs and the “religion of Islam” synonymous?
Islam might be closer to the primordial ideal than any other variant, but in the West it has become a variant nonetheless - driven by a postcolonial reaction, immigrant interests, and ethnocultural norms. Pointing out this obvious fact should not be spurned (which is in fact the behaviour of the Israelites that God disparages: see 5:70), but welcomed because it exposes the devil’s plans whilst also helping us to understand why things have been going wrong for a while. It invites a deeper reflection on how to return to the original call of serving God with the same vigour, fervour, and clarity as the righteous Ishmaelites and Israelites.
The tradition of the Patriarchs is far grander and sophisticated than modern Islam - whilst simpler in matters of the Law. It is civilisational. It is rational and sensible. It is a life mission. It is to serve the King, at His pleasure, in what He wants. This civilisational mission, rooted in serving the King and upholding His true and holistic code, is the foundation that can unite the Children of Adam on what empowers them to flourish, and strengthens them to be stalwarts in service to the supreme King. It transcends the modern religion of Islam and calls humanity back to the path of Abraham, where the true objective is not the establishment of "religion" but God’s sovereignty on Earth through the code He ordains - in the interests of all of His subjects.
The True Religion. Plain and Simple.
What is the Arabic and Hebrew term “dīn”?
The law and the code you live by.
There are two questions to consider:
- Personal: Which code do you personally live by, that God will judge you by? (Of course, this also requires that you know that code and do not make assumptions about it.)
- Social/Political: Which code do you ascribe yourself to for social/communal belonging?
In the Quran 3:19, God says that the only code He recognises and accepts as an expression of subservience to His will is ‘the submission’, referring to the submission of Abraham and other Patriarchs in his adherence to the entire code, one of many contextual references can be found in Quran 2:127-134 or 6:158-165. ‘The submission’, in Arabic is merely a verbal noun, and presented as an ellipsis (the omission of speech or words that are superfluous or able to be understood from contextual clues).
God literally calls this method of submission as the ‘millah’ of Abraham (millah in Arabic being a tradition people hold to be revealed by God). The code was carried by Abraham’s descendants for approx 2500 years via the Hebrew Israelites, and then spread beyond them throughout the world via the Ishmaelites (and later on others) in the last 1400 years.
Who then is Muhammad? He is God’s final messenger from the Ishmaelites, upholding the code of Abraham his forefather, and delivering the final amendments of the Law to mankind. He is God’s response to the prayers of Abraham and Ishmael, thinking of their descendants upon building the Ancient House at Makkah (then Bakka): “Send them a messenger from their own to deliver your signs (revelations) to them, teach them the scripture and wisdom, and purify them.” (Quran 2:129) God’s Law was first revealed to Abraham and then amended over thousands of years via 100,000s Prophets reflecting changing contexts and circumstances. The final amendments were eventually given to Muhammad.
So here we are today with the history of human civilisation behind us, revelation and the code to inform us as we look forward into the unknown future. It is all enough to guide us to live productive and contented lives with which we give thanks to the Most High, and flourish emotionally, psychologically, and physically.
In general, the contemporary Western Muslim is oblivious to all of the above, let alone a more detailed breakdown. The term “Islam” in today’s western context is a social marker of ethnic identity, and a political marker of minority identity. As a modern ‘religion’ it is the expression of a rudimentary ‘village religion’ which is over-simplified and mixed with folklore. In everyday life, the sincere Muslim is a theist initiated into this culture. Their religion is taught to them with an ambiguously defined ‘spirituality’ inspired by ethno-cultural identity and norms – it ends up a desire for a theism and the spiritual coached in the ethnic and political familiar.
The true Torah, Gospel and Qur’anic faith – characterised by God as the “Tradition of Abraham”, is truth. Today, Islam is the ‘village religion’ version of the Religion of Abraham which has skewed and misconstrued it on many levels. Judaism and Christianity also started this way. Moses and Jesus were on the tradition of Abraham, but those who later claimed Moses (the Jews) initially did to the Tradition of Abraham what Muslims are doing now, until eventually it became Judaism. Same with those who later claimed Christ.
Are Muslims really taking the same wayward path like the other two? Yes, it seems so – it all starts with village mentality and folk religion, evolving into a separate entity. It should come as no surprise since the final Prophet of God said, “You will tread the same path as was trodden by those before you, inch by inch and step by step, so much so that if they had entered into the hole of the lizard, you would also follow them in this. His companions said: God’s Messenger, do you mean Jews and Christians (by your words) “those before you”? He said: Who else?! (Muslim)
Some might argue that Islam is not village religion since it has a complex theology and legal formulations. Yes, but so too does Christianity and Judaism and that doesn’t make them legitimate. Many systems of thought go off on a tangent and then become complexified, based on perverted views, by later generations. Ziyād b. Labīd said: The Prophet mentioned something and then said, “…that shall be in times when knowledge (in the form of guidance) is gone.” I said: “Messenger of God, how shall (such) knowledge disappear when we recite the Qur’an, and have our children recite, and our children shall have their children recite it until the Day of Judgment?” He said, “Woe to you Ziyād, I considered you the most intelligent man of Madinah! Do not these Jews and Christians recite the Torah and Gospel, but know little of what is in it?” (Ibn Mājah)
In fact it’s something to think about: nearly every time the Prophet would discuss the misguidance of believers, he would draw on the Christian and Jews as an example. Why? Because he was warning on the ways in which the devil perverts believers and draws them away from the religion of Abraham and into their own sect. And another point to note: the sectarianism God refers to in the Quran isn’t the daft sects of Islam, but the sects of the tradition of Abraham, namely Judaism and Christianity. Unfortunately, the adherents of Islam are forming into an Abrahamic sect rather than standing as the upholders of the Abrahamic tradition itself.
But the Qur’an as the final testament of God is a true and accurate representation of God’s will. For those who read it with the intention to actually understand it in neutral terms (in as much as they can) rather than sing its phonemes, then the above is all patently obvious.
So how is it most Muslims miss this? How is it that Christians and Jews don’t know this?!
Because some humans (with varying agendas) have clouded it and are committed to their new formulation, emotionally blackmailing sincere folk with godly aspirations to commit to unthinking irrationality and superstition.
What we need is no-nonsense faith – The faith of Abraham in clear and simple terms. In context. Reflecting its environment. Making sense.
The 'Halal Police' vs 'Haram Police'
There are many things that are strongly pushed as being haram (unlawful) and presented as a decisive matter, and to say otherwise in many circles amounts to heresy or the common ‘following one’s desires’. Whilst we ought to be tolerant it is unfortunate when interlocutors fail to exhibit the same. Rather than there being one decisive conclusion, most of these issues have been subject to much debate over a millennium, and often, the majority of scholars from all schools of legal interpretation have actually held views to the contrary. Rather than being 'mainstream' many of these views have been somewhat fringe.
I believe these issues ought to be addressed robustly (and I hope to do so over time), and that people should be educated about the different and legitimate ways in which the shar'i sources can be understood or interpreted. We need to do this not only because some restrictions cause unnecessary challenges to people’s lives, but because even the most mundane of issues can cause impediments to the progress of Muslims in wider society. There seems to be an active effort under way by those in the scholarly realm to restore some balance that has been upset by conflations, misrepresentations and an attitude that sees restrictiveness as godly. On the latter, Allah said: “Believers, do not ask about matter which, if made known to you, might make things difficult for you…” (5:101) The Prophet said: “The most criminal of Muslims are those who question things that are not prohibited, and consequently those things become prohibited because of their incessant questions.” (al-Bukhari and Muslim).
But the main point of this post is this:
In our redress, people should not assume this is a free for all. We are not the 'halal police’ who simply seek to make permissible that which God hasn’t. Nor must we do this with the simplistic excuse of making things 'easy' since taklif, that is legal obligation from God, necessitates that we will be challenged and one purpose of divine commands is to test the nafs. We must be moderate and take a composed and sensible approach:
- If the 'haram police’ go to one extreme, we must not go to the other with extremely far-fetched conclusions to present something as halal.
- If takfiris throw people out of Islam willy nilly, it doesn’t mean that everyone is a Muslim no matter what.
- If some believe we must be vehemently anti-government even when the govt does something legitimate, it doesn’t mean we must acquiesce to all policies.
- If one argues absolute taqlid of a cleric, it doesn’t mean that we become anti-madhab or anti-taqlid.
- If someone reduces the shariah to the hudud (capital punishments), it doesn’t mean we become militant secularists.
- If some advocate a modern day caliphate simplistically predicated on the mediaeval “age of empire” and view the world through the lens of post-colonial grievances, it doesn’t mean we negate the idea of an Islamic political philosophy/theory and notions of Muslim governance as a means of Muslim self-determination.
- If some are anti-Western it doesn’t mean that we hold every western cultural product to be appropriate for believers (this also goes for eastern cultures).
- If men mistreat women, it doesn’t mean we legitimate man-hating. If feminists argue for complete gender deconstruction or the fall of religion (viewing it as unjust patriarchal hegemony) it doesn’t negate the fact that misogyny exists and attitudes in most cultures need to evolve.
Most people who take positions at one end of a spectrum are usually reacting to something, but if we go to the other end, we’re also being reactionary. The nature of 'truth' is that it is not a reaction nor is it defined as the opposite of falsehood; it is an entity that stands independent, regardless of whatever else is going on.
As believers, we are not defined by our differences to the 'other', God has given clear guidance and we follow that guidance regardless of who happens (or doesn’t) to concur with it. Because of our commitment to it we feel no need to incessantly argue with others, we remain confident but humble, and proceed. Fiqh or aqidah for the laity exists to inform them how to live and remain in God’s grace, and not to argue. Even if you have no intention to do so, be on guard and don’t let others pull you in. Respond in the words of the wise, “God is our Lord and your Lord, to us our actions and to you yours, so let there be no argument between us and you. God will gather us together and to Him we shall return.” (42:15)
Reacting to change
Different people react to change and the unfamiliar in various ways. The odd lot enjoy the challenge and bizarrely relish the idea of having the rug moved from under their feet. Others hold on for dear life. Some subconsciously commit to their ways but only out of comfortability. By studying the lives of prophets who called those claiming faith back to the Lord of Abraham, we see that change has always involved strife and division, and such a consequence has been accepted for the sake of the greater good that lies beyond it.
Unfortunately we don’t live in a neutral space. It would be wonderful to deliver God’s guidance without simultaneously having to contend with misinformation and inanity that has led believers to spiral into unproductive places, or commit to ideas or ways that impede their progress. Often people don’t even know they’re in such places and so change seems unnecessary. Occasionally I highlight the situation (but without getting personal) only to dispel the idea things are anywhere near great. Others, due to age and maturity, recognise after years how they’ve been impeded wanting to make sense of how it happened and now what to do. Those with an ‘outsider’s perspective’ assume this is what I greatly focus on but I really don’t. Those with an ‘insider’s perspective’ around me and on our courses witness how we build things from first-principles, learn what God has said and are inspired by it, and study the logic of God’s directives. Our environment is one aspiring to positivity, godliness, civility, being accurately informed, and personal improvement (and understandably some simultaneously want to make sense of where it went awry for them over the years, some already know, and some started without baggage).
As an erudite student characterised it, “You show a mirror which no one likes and go a step further showing people that they are responsible for the disheveled reflection that they see. It’s not just about not talking of all the stuff that makes people feel fuzzy and euphoric, it’s the accountability and rectification that must proceed from facing the music, which is an excruciatingly painful process. You pull out the no excuses card, nothing to hide behind, no victimisation, no blame games. The mirror shows a reflection that people don’t like, not because God chose to withhold beauty from us, but our own lifestyle and choices have led to this shabby state. Who likes hearing that? Which in a weird way is actually a positive message. You’re not calling people ugly. You’re telling them there is so much beauty and potential for goodness to be extracted from them that its criminal to be content with the current state of affairs. Initially there is a blow to the self esteem, but eventually we should see that accountability will do us good. Much good.”
Some things are so ridiculous that simply pointing them out makes it seem like you’re ridiculing them. It’s not you but the nature of what you’re observing. The Prophet was adamant in bringing people together telling the early believers to spend on unbelieving families and to keep ties, but pointing out the Qurashi ways was enough for the notables of Makkah to tell his uncle, Abu Talib, “You give us your nephew who has rebelled against the religion you and your forefathers have followed, and has sown the seeds of discord among your people and ridiculed their practices.” (Ibn Hisham) This outrage is driven by the feeling of being impugned, irrespective of right and wrong. During the first emigration to Abyssinia Ja’far b. Abi Talib touchingly told the Negus of the decency the Prophet called for and how his people irrationally reacted.
Now some people assert that we mustn’t look to the Hebrew Prophets as case studies because 1) only Muhammad is an example, and 2) Muhammad was soft/lenient with his followers/co-religionists. Both notions are misplaced.
Firstly, God explicitly tells us that Abraham and others are an example to follow (see: Quran 60:4) and the entire point of telling us the stories of past prophets is to take them as examples (it’s not exactly meant to be entertainment). Additionally, such an assertion is only made by laymen - no theologian would ever state this.
Secondly, as a Prophet, Muhammad was not sent to his own believers but to pagans, but the Hebrew prophets were sent to those claiming to be Abrahamic believers. So in the context of this discussion, the Hebrew situation is far more analogous. But let’s not forget that Muhammad was just as decisive with his people (Quraish) as the Hebrew prophets were with theirs, and his own companions were deferential so he had little reason to be stern or provocative with them, but when the occasion called for such an approach with the newly converted he was particularly forthcoming.
Now when it comes to addressing the current situation and studying reactions the following prophetic examples are quite insightful. For example, Moses recognised priorities and that unity for the sake of it wasn’t God’s will, but Aaron misprioritised: “Moses said, ‘When you realized they had gone astray, what prevented you, Aaron, from coming after me? How could you disobey my orders?’ He said, ‘Son of my mother– let go of my beard and my hair!– I was afraid you would say, “You have caused division among the children of Israel and have not heeded what I said.” (Quran 20:92-24) Aaron did not deal with the problem out of concern of being blamed for ‘division’, but clearly that was a secondary issue for Moses.
In Matthew’s gospel, Jesus informs his disciples (in Arabic hawariyun - see Quran 61:14 for reference) to spread the word warning his Jewish disciples about their own co-religionists, that “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves; therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. But beware of men; for they will hand you over to their councils and flog you in their synagogues.” (Matthew 10:16-17) The notion that change involves strife and division can be an unfortunate but foreseen consequence of change in the social world. Waraqah b. Naufal told Muhammad: “I hope to live to see your people drive you out.” The noble Prophet asked, "Never did a man come with something similar to what you have brought but was treated with hostility. If I should remain alive till the day when you will be turned out then I would support you strongly." (al-Bukhari) Similarly, the consequence of change was anticipated by Christ: “Do not assume that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn ‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law. A man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.” (Matthew 10:16-17) Christ’s point wasn’t that he intended to cause this, but that it would be an unfortunate consequence given the nature of the Children of Israel and their antipathy to change.
But these consequences have little to do with the person pointing things out.
They are reactions and thus in the hands of those called to change - it’s up to them how they react and what they make of the situation. If things are negative or divisive then that’s because onlookers have chosen to make it so. It’s about their perception. In part, the tales of the Children of Israel in the Quran is an intended lesson to believers: one can either transcend his/her sensitivities for the greater good and for the sake of God, or otherwise react like the Children of Israel, “Whenever a messenger brought them anything they did not like, they accused some of lying and put others to death.” Note that it was what “they did not like” - it was a matter of their perception. God shows us that one can choose to focus on the actual message like the sincere to God who were called to truth over millennia (like the sahabah or the hawariyun), or intentionally avoid the change by making it about the caller like the people of Noah: “But the leading disbelievers among his people said, ‘He is merely a mortal like you, trying to gain some superiority over you.’” (Quran 23:24) Rudeness is culturally defined, what some find offensive others do not. But the Prophets were certainly provocative as every narrative relates, and in this era of public noise and confusion drowning out what is sensible, people need provocation to steer another direction. A person chooses to put their sensitivities first viewing a well-intentioned nudge as negative, or they’re happy for something that will help them grow putting their heightened sensitivities away.
Different people have different goals. Ours is change and holistic realignment, with deep educational and critical engagement. We want believers to be the best they can and I personally don’t believe that can happen without being good with God, God being good with them, and then understanding what it is that God actually wants. Some are so unthinkingly committed to the familiar because they’re afraid of what they don’t know or initially recognise that they resort to spreading mistruths about others out of desperation. We shouldn’t be led by their insecurities but by our own confidence. Putting aside technical shar’i discussions on ‘accuracy’ and ‘authenticity’ which most are not equipped to ascertain, merely glancing at the Muslim condition tells you that things aren’t working. Simplistic explanations such as we’re not ‘blessed’ are wrong, the shari’ah has a material/worldly function which isn’t being realised. Generally, I don’t believe that the ‘outside’ world is to blame (the Prophet taught that it will always be the way it is), and in all the analysis of how things are, seldom do people or analysts critically and strategically address the condition of believers from first-principles.
Change is the hardest social objective there is and its leaders seldom escape demonisation - it's par for the course. Popularity is easy and many know full well how to get millions of followers on social media and how to be loved by everybody - it’s easy to see what appeals to the popular Muslim psyche. But then it makes everything about quantity rather than quality turning our endeavours into superficial popularity contests. Of course, being popular is nice and intuitively what we all like, but there are necessary tasks with which popularity will always remain in tension.
If we seek positive realignment (islah) and improvement then we cannot afford to react like peoples of the past:
“Their messengers came to them with clear proof, but they tried to silence them saying, ‘We do not believe the message with which you were sent. We have disturbing doubts about what you are asking us to do.’ Their messengers answered, ‘Can there be any doubt about God, the Creator of the heavens and earth? He calls you to Him in order to forgive you your sins and let you enjoy your life until the appointed hour.’ But they said, ‘You are only men like us. You want to turn us away from what our forefathers used to worship. Bring us clear proof then.’ Their messengers answered, ‘True, we are only men like you, but God favours whichever of His servants He chooses. We cannot bring you any proof unless God permits it, so let the believers put all their trust in Him. Why should we not put our trust in God when it is He who has guided us to this way we follow. We shall certainly bear steadfastly whatever harm you do to us. Let anyone who trusts, trust in God.’” (Quran 14:9)
A thought on intelligence and the faithful
It’s hard to keep track of time these days but we know we’re getting older. So are the kids. Despite being young our generation will soon be gone and the future will be theirs. But what future are we passing on? What kind of existence are believers living today? What have we fallen into? It’s not a matter of ‘catching up’ but being ahead, exuding confidence in what is actually superior (rather than misplaced confidence in the absurd), and with agility staying ahead of the curb. The Quranic sabiqun (see 56:10) engender this: those at the forefront driven by their imaan (affirmation and sense of trust in God) and high achievers in whatever they do, as God wills. “They are the closest (to God.)” (56:11)
But this is not what people are commonly taught is from God.
We’re frequently told that God put us on earth, only for the akhirah (afterlife). This idea is then commonly presented in a way that suggests people need not concern themselves about life on earth. Or their happiness. Or their worldly productivity. Material acquisition is pointless because life is just momentary, wealth is distracting, “You’ll be rich in Jannah”. Every lawful aspect of life, especially by those who cannot perceive of achieving them, is deferred to “Jannah” as an excuse to mitigate the duty to excel in the now. Believers need not put in effort and excel, plus resources count for nothing. (Even in the realm of shar’i learning some YouTube videos suffice.) The power and influence required to safeguard a shar’i environment will simply descend from the heavens - or by protesting with placards. Apparently there are no social and physical causal processes, it is not actions that fundamentally breed results. Everything will simply be the result of ‘blessings’ that come about from the ‘correct’ creed, observing restrictions, and ritual worship.
The creed? Well it’s all based on resistance. We must resist ideas, resist politics, resist everything. Often we don’t even know why we’re being resistant! We know what we don’t stand for, but we’re not quite sure what we do stand for. Besides the fact this is unproductive, it’s all unnecessarily tiring. With all the focus on the negative, the positive hasn’t offered much meaningful direction. Adam popped into existence spontaneously but was also gradually fashioned from earth and kicked out of heaven (not sure how he got to Earth). God is neither here nor there, nor nowhere nor everywhere. God has eyes, two eyes, no eyes - everything or nothing “in a way that befits His majesty.” Say your “Quls” or the spirits will snatch your body. Or a witch/wizard will control you. Or someone’s eyes will get you. Science is evil. Vaccines don’t work.
The restrictions? Don’t show this nor cut your hair like that. Don’t wear perfume, shape your eyebrows or beards. Don’t enjoy yourself except with food, but most things you can’t eat (so overeat what you can!). Go to the mosque but don’t let the women in or you’ll be tempted to fornicate, maybe even in the mosque! Don’t take out that loan even if you need the capital, it’s like having sex with your mother. Don’t mingle with the disbelievers, but live in “their” country, obey “their” laws and pay taxes. Be frightened of God. Don’t say God, say Allah. Don’t be western. Don’t be happy, death is nigh. But smile, it’s sunnah…and “Islam is easy.”
And what is ritual worship? Holding prayer beads. Lots of units (rak’at) of prayer (salah). Reciting Arabic phonemes from a holy book. Hunger for a month. A two-week walking holiday in Saudi Arabia. Wearing ‘Islamic’ eastern clothing with western trainers, jeans and jackets. It’s all for God so don’t be critical.
“You know what your problem is? You’re just logical.”
Is this somehow meant to be a negative?! How has the level of conversation amongst those who have the Qur'an and ways of the final Prophet plummeted to this?
The reason I’m writing this (as when I write most things) is because a good and intelligent sister with righteous intentions put it, “This appeals to my intellect and sits with revelation, but how do I know I’m just following what I want to hear?” Subservience to God is not suffering and silliness. And the same can be argued by an unbeliever - is it not the intellect that they ought to rely on to see the truth of Abrahamic monotheism? And a disfigured patchwork presented as deen that sounds absolutely nonsensical is just that. The intuitions of many sincere believers will tell them that this is so, “but then again, if everyone is saying it who am I to argue?” But everyone isn’t advocating such absurdity and most of us know living like the above is no way to achieve anything. Such ‘religious' takes will never produce anything of value, neither in this life or with God in the hereafter - and it’s certainly not good practice to (mis)represent God’s will with such ugliness and expect favourable outcomes. Personally I’ve never come across anything so dissonance-inducing.
But what about the textual ‘evidence’ for all of this? Well anyone can offer evidence for the greatest absurdity. The Christians for Trinitarianism. The Hindus for paganism. The religious extremists for murder and mayhem. The way of godliness and the intellect is the way of Abraham and his progeny: Ishmael and Isaac, Jacob and Joseph, David and Solomon, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad. Our rational and godly philosophy remains, as expressed by the shar’i philosopher Ibn al-Qayyim, that “the foundations and edifice of the shari'ah are built on wisdoms and benefits to a person, in their living and (life) journey. All of the shari'ah is justice, mercy, benefit and wisdom. Every issue that goes from justice to oppression, from mercy to its opposite, from benefits to loss, from wisdom to imprudence, then it is not the shari'ah even if it is made to appear so through interpretation (of revelation)." (I’laam al-Muwaqiin) These judgements we make, as Ibn al-Qayyim infers, through the intellect. It doesn’t matter if it’s an eastern or western/northern or southern intellect - human intellect is human intellect with the universal capacity to reason. The believers in God and His messengers are meant to be people of intellect and reason. They are meant to be the civilised and elite. They have been gifted with guidance and wisdom (hidaya and hikmah).
Ibn al-Qayyim likewise wrote, "…the principles of the followers of prophetic guidance (Ahl’sunnah) in which is manifested the evidences of the Qur'an, sunnah, narrations, critical deliberation and intellect." (Kitab al-Ruh)
How have we come to a time in which we actually have to advocate the use of reason in order to determine what’s intelligent and what’s inane?
Permissive Monotheism
The purpose of the shari’ah is to fully realise human potential, to guide to that which is wholesome and uplifting. It is also to safeguard people from the excesses that lead to less-than-optimal outcomes, and in the least, bad ones. The problem we have in sectarian debates is where the line is (mis)placed, and unfortunately, it is often the case that restrictiveness is seen as the marker of God’s will and guidance. God is rather explicit about this matter, where He stands on permissiveness vs restrictiveness, and the attitude believers should take. Yet, preachers driven by ethnic and sectarian commitments and interests muddy waters that are in fact very clear.
So what is our philosophy towards life as God intended it?
In what has become known as ‘conservatism’, religious personalities mischaracterise God’s law as restrictive when nothing could be further from the truth. Literally trolling the masses, preachers tell them that "Islam is easy" whilst arbitrary rules or poorly thought-out assertions cause misery, hardship and a narrative that perpetually inhibits growth and human development, whilst denying them resources and unendingly bringing about worst outcomes – all shamefully in the name of God. I'm pointing out the obvious here – one only need study life outcomes of Muslim demographics to see this is the case.
“Football is shirk (polytheism)”
Yes, only if you have a very warped view of what polytheism is, and what offends God. This is the type of absurdity that becomes widespread when God is not part of the conversation.
So let’s bring the Most High back in: Does God eternally condemn a soul to the blazing fire for playing football according to rules? Is the Most High, Lord of all the realms and their inhabitants, deeply offended by paltry rules of a mundane sport such as football?! Does the Lord who sustains the cosmos take it offensively that you decided to give a yellow/red card for a handball or a tackle, and take it as you trying to compete with Him in His kingship?! God the Supreme is far above seeing a yellow/red card as a challenge to His divine station, or as seeking equality to Him. And any such silly representation of an ilah is certainly not Al-lah (a definite clause).
Neglecting God for the Prophet
Now one would think that the title, at least to a monotheist, would be pretty problematic. Yet to many Muslims (let alone Christians) it’s not the case. And even where they do not openly oppose such a sentiment, it still leaves them uncomfortable. Why? Because they’re told that to elevate God above all else is fine, but there’s an underlying sentiment that if their Prophet is not up there with Him then that’s plain blasphemy. Yet is it God alone who occupies the highest station, both in our practices and in our hearts, “Exalted be God, the true King, there is no God but Him, the Lord of the glorious throne.” (Quran 23:116)
Moving beyond village religion
I'm entirely devoted to the grand and civilisational way of thinking, talking about, and advocating, true subservience to God. By ‘civilizational’ I mean an understanding of true subservience which resonates with the experiences of those who live in an advanced state of human society, as opposed to villages.
As such, for many of us the time for ‘village Islam’ is over.
And yes, the distinction between village Islam (synonymous with desert-dwellers) and civilizational subservience to God has been made in both the Prophet’s time and later on by fuqaha (jurists). There are many hadith that explicitly speak to the distinction, such as, “The testimony of a villager against one from civilised society (urbanite) is not be accepted.” (Abu Dāwūd and Ibn Mājah, and there’s a discussion on its reliability)
Continuing with the distinction, the distinguished Hanbali jurist Mansūr al-Bahūti wrote about leading salah, ‘The urbanite, one who is raised in a city or town, is ranked above the villager, who is raised in a village, because most villagers are crude and have little knowledge of the injunctions pertaining to the rules of prayer. God said of the bedouins, “They are the least likely to know the limits God has sent down to His Messenger” due to their distance from those they may learn from.’
Al-Shāfi’ī provided a nuanced position in his opus Kitāb al-Umm that intimates how he saw it: ‘And if a villager leads an urbanite then it’s not an issue, if God so wills, except that I would like that the people of fadl take the lead in every circumstance of leadership.’ While taking every situation on its own merit, the latter part of his statement suggests that he saw those of fadl (superiority) as tending to be found amongst urbanites.
To be honest, village Islam was never appropriate for us. But economic migration, largely from poor or rural places, meant that it was inescapable. This is certainly not a value-judgement about that generation, but a wakeup call for THIS one. Civilisational subservience to God isn’t just deep knowledge and insight that integrates various fields of learning and enquiry, but it’s also an attitude and a vibe. A culture behind the thinking that becomes the basis of action.
For far too long Muslims have been palmed off with village Islam.
Even when so-called scholars try to present a pseudo-intellectual argument, it's merely village Islam with sources and citations. Village Islam is great for the village and being simple is perfectly fine, but that’s about maintaining a humble status quo that regulates basic impulses by providing simplistic solutions. It is nowhere near erudite or rich enough to provide the tools to build and advance as a community in sophisticated societies, and especially in our western context.
Yet your mosques and institutions socialise you with it, most preachers and teachers advocate it as a norm, and it's the basis for public engagement.
It's like the difference in business acumen and attitude between running a million/billion-pound corporation, and a market stall. Yes, you can make money with both but they're hardly comparable in terms of profit, power, and influence. Yet magical thinking has Muslims believe that the market trader, in the aggressive world of unfettered capitalism, has a hope. If this line of thinking wasn't so widespread and tragic, it'd make for an award-winning comedy show.
The difference between village Islam and civilisational Islam has nothing to do with orthodox vs liberal/progressive - a false distinction made in defence of village Islam, but the extremely variant levels of engaging with orthodoxy. In fact, village Islam doesn't need to engage with the details of orthodoxy because it's meant to be simplistic. It all goes wrong because village Islam is ill-equipped to engage at such levels of depth and analysis. Such intellectual inquiry is inherently a civilisational undertaking.
We reliably see its bad effects across the board. For example, many jihadists (for lack of a better term) want change. But because village Islam has no constructive content (it’s about maintaining a simplistic version of subservience) they reductively proceed to destroy what exists merely to replace it with a medieval village. Many callers for “sharia law” are the same – their conception of doing "sharia law" is simply to re-enact village living. Yet, as the Hanbali legal philosopher Ibn al-Qayyim put it in I’laam al-Muwaqqi’in, ‘Whoever gives fatwas to the people merely from what has been related in books differing from the customs, habits, era, social/political circumstances and contextual variables, misguides others and is himself misguided. His injury to the faith is greater than that of a doctor who treats patients inconsiderate of their different customs, habits, era, circumstances and contextual variables, merely seeking to reflect what is in the general books of medicine. Such a doctor is an ignoramus, and such a mufti too is an ignoramus; both are the most harmful they could possibly be to the people’s religion and their bodies – may God help us!’
The vast majority of Muslims are afflicted with this quandary in some way: we’re told that “Islam is the solution” but none of us can see exactly how a village approach will resolve our problems, or the world’s. And no, I'm not merely referring to geopolitics, or the way powerful states influence others, but even to matters closer to home.
For example, we're plied with populist preaching and 'heart softeners' as if they'll constructively provide us a consistent godly resilience in modern life. Resultantly, people are taught to confuse an emotional spike with a way of being and outlook that correlates with God's account of reality. Or we're told that a 'good believer' is always studying and then sold immaterial courses on the particulars of hadith criticism, or the works of Ibn Hazm - entirely academic undertakings absolutely irrelevant to a modern godly life which is what the pitiable participants were actually looking for.
A practical example is where we're told women should stay in the home, take care of the house, and obey their husbands. But the village lifestyle doesn't work for those who live in metropolitan conurbations where astronomical prices means both men and women are forced into the workplace. So what inevitably happens is that a women works a 9-5 then comes home and takes care of everyone and everything, whilst the man does little to share the domestic burden (although she's sharing financial burdens).
Now there’s a refined and nuanced shar’ī way to discuss these issues that'll probably offend BOTH liberal and conservative sensibilities, but we've certainly not had them. Instead its polarised: it tends to be either village Islam, or a rejection of village Islam for secular liberal sentiments. A civilisational (high) shar’ī conversation is by-and-large non-existent in the public space.
These are mundane examples (to some). But the truth is that there ISN'T a realm in which village Islam isn't having deleterious effects today.
From our conceptions of God and the Law, to personal wellbeing, politics, finance or society, village Islam not only rules the roost but increasingly worsens every situation or fails to provide the direction needed. It's for this reason that I don't actually blame Muslims in politics: where village Islam offers little by way of political theory one will inevitably be drawn to other interests (in the name of Islam) such as ethnic minority rights and multiculturalism. And those who don't, end up on the other side seeming to associate with right-wing conservatism. What's heartening is that the intentions of many are good, but activists simply don't have the tools.
But what do you do when your leaders are actually the same as you, and most are no more sophisticated than village elders, or behave like shaman?
Recognise it for what it is and move out of the village. If you're not ready to, or you find it unsettling because it's unfamiliar, then you're free to village Islam but you're in no place to advocate it as the complete notion of what the Prophets delivered from God, nor should you bizarrely view it as an ambition.