Accidental Paganism Based on a Name?

Well M. S. M. Saifullah and company at Islamic-Awareness.org have updated a couple [(1)(2)] of their excellent articles which refute hate-mongers, such as Robert Morey, and their half-baked and dishonest assertions that Allah is a pre-Islamic "moon god"—so please take the time to have a look at them as well as their other articles [(1)(2)(3)] on this topic.

The only potential insight that I want to offer in the whole "moon god" debate is that the underlying premise behind all of these polemics seems to be that Islam is accidentally a pagan religion due to its use of the word "Allah" for the Supreme Deity instead of an allegedly more suitable word—which these linguistically challenged Protestants rather conveniently assume to be the English word "God". Indeed, dishonest pseudo-scholars such as Robert Morey (and please take the time to read this Christian exposé of him, as well as the first article mentioned above in order to see plenty of hard evidence that he resorts to "forgery, deception, suppression of evidence and deliberate misquotation" in a desperate attempt to prove his pre-conceived notions) essentially assert that in spite of the fact that Muslims intend to worship the God of Abraham, Moses and Jesus, that they are, alas, still actually worshipping a pagan god. Needless to say, both at first blush and after detailed consideration, this type of thinking seems not only patently unfair, but to be a product of monstrous double-standards. Indeed, not only does the fact that the Qur'an repeatedly and consistently [(1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)] affirms that the God of Prophet Muhammad—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—and the earlier Hebrew prophets is one and the same push such an accusation into the realm of the unreasonable and unfounded, but it's also painfully ironic that the immense hypocrisy that's latent in this hateful diatribe eventually comes back to bedevil the religion of the slanderer himself!

No doubt, what's really worth noting about this nonsensical contention, other than the fact that for years to come it will probably continue to serve as a monumental example of the type of gross intellectual dishonesty and diabolical pseudo-scholarship that some strands of conservative Protestantism have a knack for producing, is the fact that the sloppy reasoning which it employs, if applied to the words used for "God" in the Bible, completely undermines the Christian faith that these textual charlatans are trying to defend!!! This is because both the Hebrew words for God (i.e. 'El, 'Eloah and 'Eloyhim) and the Greek word for God (i.e. Theos) were originally used for pagan gods! This is even true for the English word God and its various derivatives, which originally referred to "Germanic pagan deities" worshipped in pre-Christian northern Europe.

To top all of this off, modern speakers of Romance languages, such as Spanish, French and Portuguese, might be shocked to find out that their words for God (respectively Dios, Dieu and Deus) are all derived from Deus, which is a Latinized form of the name of the Greek god Zeus!!! Put that in your etymological pipe and smoke it, Robert Morey!

Consequently, based on Robert Morey's own logic (and I use the word loosely), for well over a thousand years the overwhelming majority of Christians in the world were therefore accidentally worshiping the god Zeus as they celebrated the Christian mass in Latin. And when Robert Morey finally came along, in all of his intellectual humility, and pointed out how others had gotten things all wrong…well he was using a word for God that was originally pagan in origin too! I mean really, isn't the sloppy thinking and unintended consequences of some hypocrites just simply amazing?!?

These devastating points don't even address the significant fact that Jesus himself, in spite of what some people seemingly believe, used the word Alaha (sometimes spelled Elah) when he spoke in his native Aramaic. Does that mean that he too was accidentally worshipping one of the Canaanite deities because Alaha is derived from a word that was originally used by pagans? And keep in mind that even in Jesus' time, many Aramaic speakers were pagans, not Jews. So instead of wallowing in such drivel, an intellectually honest person would—after actually considering the linguistic evidence—conclude that the various Semitic languages (Arabic, Hebrew and Aramaic) all use words for "god" and "God" that are very similar in origin, spelling and their root meanings. All of this evidence, coupled with the fact that all believers should find comfort in the certitude that all of these words have as a common ancestor the word for "God" that was originally revealed to Adam and the other early prophets, should be enough to squash the mistaken belief that there's some problem with any of these words when it comes to using them to refer to The One True God. For an excellent and detailed discussion of the various names of God, I highly recommend reading Dr. Umar Faruq Abd-Allah's One God, Many Names—and taking its recommendations to heart.

I'd like to mention that one could well argue that "Allah" is the most theologically superior of the just-mentioned Semitic words for "God", since as a contraction of the definite article "Al-" (i.e. "the") and the word "Ilah" (i.e. "god/God") it literally means "The God"—thus leaving almost no room for any of the ambiguity in regards to Divinity that crept into both the Bible and Christian Trinitarian theology. Indeed, on this level, the word "Allah" stands in stark contrast to the Hebrew words 'El, 'Eloah and 'Eloyhim, which are used in the Old Testament to refer to pagan deities as well as the One True God of the Children of Israel. However, in order to avoid slipping into anything that might appear to be rather pointless "My Word for God is Better Than Yours" antics, for balance I'll just mention that the Greek word for God, in a grammatical sense, is quite similar to the Arabic word, since it too is constructed from the definite article (i.e. "Ho") and the word for god (i.e. "Theos"), thus it (i.e. "Ho Theos") also rather unambiguously means "The God".

All of this should be abundantly clear to a native speaker of any of the languages just mentioned, since the word for God in any person's native language is most often very near and dear to their heart—and thus simply means GOD in spite of what others may feel about it. In spite of what the specific word might actually be, as long as a person is a true monotheist, the word they use for God is good enough—and this is certainly the case if they're intending to worship the God of Abraham, Moses, Jesus and Muhammad—peace be upon them all. Indeed, Almighty God, as Muslims understand Him, doesn't throw people into Hell for linguistic misunderstandings—especially when the only real misunderstanding is in the minds of some bigoted hate-mongers.

A wise shaykh once told me, in regards to some of these debates and antics, what essentially means: "Allah is God and God is Allah, so let's just leave it at that"—and a word to the wise is sufficient.

"Adore not the sun and the moon,
but adore God who created them..."
— Qur'an 41:37

Deen On...

More on the Young Marriage of 'Aishah

A comment, posted in response to Bani Qurayza, Marriage at Puberty and the Tacit Approval of Jesus, has prompted me to post some various articles and other material related to the marriage of 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha. I've had some of this evidence since shortly after writing my article The Young Marriage of 'Aishah several years ago, but just never got around to posting it.

Essentially, these materials address two different sub-issues related to this debate: 1) The reservations of apologetic modernist Muslims who, in their zeal to remove anything from Islam that those who adhere to modern Western values might find offensive, continue to quibble over whether 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—was only nine years old when the Prophet—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—consummated his marriage with her; and 2) The attempts by anti-Islamic polemicists to demonstrate that 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—had not reached puberty (i.e. was prepubescent) at the time of her marriage to the Prophet—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam.

In regards to the first sub-issue, I've posted two articles by Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad, which are entitled 'A'isha's Age at the Time of Her Marriage and More on 'A'isha's Age at the Time of Her Marriage. However, it's really the latter article that directly addresses the various points which are brought forward by apologetic Muslims, which in this case is one who goes by the nom de plume "The Learner". In regard to his strained, feeble and sometimes dishonest use of evidence, which he employs in a futile attempt to shore up his case, "The Learner" is rather typical of most apologists on this subject, so Shaykh Gibril's complete deconstruction of him pretty much undermines all of the arguments that I've heard surrounding this particular issue.

I feel that I should mention that I lost all intellectual respect for "The Learner" when he contacted me soon after I first wrote The Young Marriage of 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha. The essential reason behind this, and my subsequent decision not to waste my time trying to reason with someone who was so obviously sunk in gross intellectual dishonesty (if not complete self-delusion), was one of his statements in his article entitled More on Ayesha's Age. In this article, "The Learner" made the following statement in response to my article:

"But even then, the narratives describing Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of her marriage do not fall under the scope of Sunnah. Obviously, the narrative of Ayesha's (ra) age at the time of her marriage is not a part of "the sayings of the Prophet, (peace be upon him)", it cannot be termed as the Prophet's "practices" and neither can it be included in the "actions which gained his approval". The narrative of Ayesha's age is just a narrative of a historical event. Just because it has been reported by Bukhari and Muslim, does not change its status from being a narrative of a historical event to a Sunnah. Because of this fact, this narrative should be seen in the light of all other narratives of historical events which have been reported by Bukhari, Muslim and other historians of Islam."

Well beside the rather ironic fact that "The Learner", in spite of his above appeals to the authority of "Bukhari, Muslim and other historians of Islam", repeatedly demonstrates throughout his writing that he essentially has very little respect for their skills as masters of the sciences of hadith (thus they're downgraded to simply being "...historians of Islam"), his reasoning here is absolutely ridiculous. This is because he misses the rather glaring point that the hadiths in questions clearly mention the actions of the Prophet—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam!!! Indeed, the various narrations in both the collections of al-Bukhari and Muslim essentially state that "he betrothed (zawaj) her when she was six years old and he consummated (nikah) his marriage when she was nine years old"...thus there's no doubt that these were "practices" of the Prophet—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—thus part of his Sunnah. Only a person willing to engage in outright dishonesty could deny this...although this is what "The Learner" is seemingly willing to do in this case.

To add insult to injury, his quibble that 'Aishah's age at the time of her marriage is just "a narrative of a historical event" is simply inconsequential to the point he's so desperately trying to make. This is because any hadith that conveys anything that the Prophet—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—said, did or tacitly approved is essentially, at a certain level, "a narrative of a historical event"!!! Thus "The Learner" just further demonstrates that he's really missing the point when he states that, "Just because it has been reported by Bukhari and Muslim, does not change its status from being a narrative of a historical event to a Sunnah", because what makes something a Sunnah is the fact that it's authentically reported that he—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam-did such an action. There's no need for some desperately imagined need to "change its status", since if it's reported on both al-Bukhari and Muslim that the Prophet—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—did such-and-such an action, then this action is both part of his Sunnah as well as being a "narrative of an historical event"—although this latter portion simply restates the obvious and doesn't add any value.

Now that I've addressed "The Learner's" dishonest little game of horse hockey— a monumental contribution to poor polemics if there ever was one—I'll move on to addressing the issue which a comment from a previous post recently mentioned—and that's the arguments put forward by "anti-Muslim atheists" who challenge the "assumption" that 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—had not reached puberty at the time of her marriage. Before demonstrating that in order to adhere to such a position, one would have to have to be laboring under some assumptions as well, I'd like to point out that the mere fact that these hate-mongers have attempted to shift the focus of this debate clearly seems to indicate that they have acquiesced to the fact that marriage at puberty, based on historical evidence which documented the norms of various human societies, has widely and often been considered morally acceptable. Indeed, since it has already been clearly and effectively demonstrated [(1)(2)]—at least to any honest and fair-minded person—that there was nothing wrong with marrying a woman at puberty in the society in which 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—lived, it seems that the Islamophobes have abandoned their initial arguments and tried to move the debate on this issue into a second phase...and this is what I'll now address.

There's considerable evidence—both textual, logical and circumstantial—which, when considered as an integral whole, demonstrates that 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—had reached puberty at the time of her marriage. This evidence includes:

• The fact that Muslim scholars overwhelmingly agree that the minimum age of marriage is puberty. This can be clearly seen in the Qur'anic exegesis of the phrase "they reach the (age of) marriage" found in Surat al-Nisa' 4:6. In regards to this, four of the well-known classical commentators have the following to say [Click here to view an image of the following statements in the original Arabic]:

Tafsir al-Tabari: Clearly states that "And when He said 'they reach the (age of) marriage' then He means they reached puberty (al-hulum)"—and he lists numerous references.

Tafsir al-Qurtubi: In regards to the statement "until they reach the (age of) marriage", Imam al-Qurtubi says, "meaning puberty (al-hulum). And said the Most High, 'When children reach puberty' (al-Nur 59),meaning puberty (al-balugh) and state of marriage (wa hal al-nikah)."

Tafsir Ibn Kathir: In explaining, "until they reach the (age of) marriage", he states that "Mujahid said meaning puberty (al-hulum)".

Tafsir al-Jalalayn: Contains the explanation that: "'And Challenge' test 'the orphans' before they reach puberty in their religion and their conduct 'until they reach the (age of) marriage', meaning they reach puberty or the age of fifteen years old according to the Shafi'is".

• The above ruling regarding the age of marriage is mutually supported by an authentic (hassan) narration in Sunan al-Tirmidhi's Kitab al-Nikah,where 'Aishah herself says: "When the girl reaches nine years of age she is a woman". Reason dictates that this is because she was referring to her own experience in which she reached puberty at the age of nine. If this wasn't the case, all of the just mentioned tafsirs would seemingly need to state that "until they reach the (age of) marriage" means "nine" and not "puberty".
  


• In steadfast consistence with the above points, Surat al-Nur 24:59, clearly shows that children are considered adults when they reach puberty, since it says "And when the children among you come to puberty (al-hulum), then let them (also) ask for permission, as do those senior to them (in age)". Indeed, this is a clear Qur'anic reference that the age of discretion (i.e. adulthood) was identified with the onset of puberty.
  


• The fact that the various hadiths clearly state that 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—was "betrothed (zawaj)" when she was "six years old" and "consummated (nikah)" her marriage when she was "nine years old", clearly begs the question: "What, pray tell, were her parents waiting for?" Well the obvious answer to why they waited some three years between the betrothal and the consummation of the marriage is that they were waiting for their daughter to reach adulthood—which is, as already demonstrated above, clearly defined as puberty.


• The above question is answered directly and unambiguously on page 128 of The History of al-Tabari — Volume IX, where it states that "As for 'A'ishah, when he married her she was very young and not yet ready for consummation"—which clearly proves that they were waiting for her to reach puberty (i.e. to be biologically "ready"). Likewise, the statement that 'A'ishah—radi Allahu 'anha—was "not yet ready for consummation" would undoubtedly be nonsensical in a social context where marriage to prepubescent children was allowed. Thus it both severely undermines the merely circumstantial evidence which has been brought forward in an ineffectual attempt to prove the contrary, and serves as strong proof that the marriage in question certainly did not involve a prepubescent girl.
  

The honest conclusion after considering all of the above mutually supporting evidence as a whole, including a statement from 'Aishah herself, is that the marriage took place when 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—had become a "woman"—meaning that she had reached puberty.

Now in regards to the various hadiths ([1][2][3][4]) that anti-Islamic apologists have employed in an attempt to prove that 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—was still a young girl who was playing with dolls at the time of her marriage. Well unfortunately for them, they've jumped to some hasty conclusions since none of these hadiths ([1][2][3][4]) explicitly indicate whether the marriage had been consummated at this time. Rather, one could just as easily conclude—especially in light of the evidence I've presented above—that the incidents in which 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—was playing with dolls along with her young friends occurred at a time when she was still living with her parents (i.e. after the betrothal and prior to the consummation). Actually, based on the fact that the Prophet—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—was known to regularly visit 'Aishah's father Abu Bakr—radi Allahu 'anhu, these events could have taken place anytime during 'Aishah's childhood—radi Allahu 'anha.

As for the hadith which states that 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—still had dolls even at the time of either the battle of Khaybar (Muharram-Safar 7 A.H.) or the siege of Tabuk (Rajab 9 A.H.), at which time she would have been between 13 and 15 years old, well it doesn't disprove my point either. This is because one purpose behind 'Aishah's statement was seemingly to bring attention to the surprise of the Prophet—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—in discovering that she still had her dolls at such a late age. Indeed, since the other hadiths [(1)(2)(3)] make it abundantly clear that the Prophet—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—already knew that 'Aishah played with dolls when she was younger, his exclamatory statement "What is this?" simply shows that he was surprised that she still had them in her store room—and there's nothing to suggest that she was actively playing with them. Indeed, at least one of the narrations clearly states: "...saw some dolls with which 'Aishah used to play".

Consequently, to take this as evidence that 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—had not reached puberty at this time (i.e. the relatively late age of 13-15) simply to avoid the dilemma of her having in her possession (allegedly) forbidden dolls—even though there's no explicit evidence that such toys were inherently unlawful to keep in a community that was teeming with young children—seems rather extreme. Rather, a more balanced approach would be to consider all of the evidence, including the substantial point that the Prophet's statement "What is this?" seems to clearly indicates that he was surprised that 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—was still saving her dolls after so many years. Ultimately, Hafiz Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani concludes that: "To say with certainty 'that she was not yet at the age of puberty' is questionable"—and even this view is seemingly based on considering this hadith in isolation without taking textual evidence from other sources in account...but Allahu 'alim. Thus in the final analysis, the so-called "evidence" and "proof" that this hadith provides to those trying to spin a case of prepubescent marriage is "questionable" and anything but decisive.

In conclusion, I think all of this demonstrates that the mainstream Islamic position on the marriage of 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—still stands. Indeed, the articles and other evidence presented above has exposed the strained, dishonest and weak arguments of Westoxicated apologetic Muslims who—with their "Undermine Islam In Order To Save It" approach—seem dead set on proving that 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—was older than nine at the time of her marriage, regardless of how many upright scholars and reputable hadith narrators they have to slander. At the other extreme, we've shown that that anti-Islamic polemicists—the ones who seek to degrade the religion of Islam by claiming that 'Aishah—radi Allahu 'anha—was prepubescent at the time of her marriage—have, with their pre-conceived notions conveniently in place, selectively built their case on circumstantial evidence that neither stands up to scrutiny nor takes all of the evidence into consideration...wa Allahu 'alim.

Some Valuable Answers from Shaykh Gibril Haddad

I recently obtained a portion of a dialogue in which Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad responded to a series of questions put to him by a concerned Muslim in the United Kingdom. The questioner was seeking clarification to some statements that he'd came across by one of the U.K.'s extremist neo-Khawarij groups. I've posted portions of this valuable exchange below and, for our reader's benefit, I've spruced it up a bit—which included correcting some spelling errors, coloring the text of Shaykh Gibril's responses maroon and inserting parenthetical translations of some of the Arabic terminology.

---

Questioner:
(1) Concerning the Muslim rulers: can so-and-so be
called kaffir (i.e. disbeliever) based on his non-implementation of shari`a (i.e. Islamic Law) and his allowing of riba (i.e. interest) and other anti-Islamic laws?

Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad:
Yazid drank wine and killed dozens of sahaba; he was not called a disbeliever but dissolute and depraved, i.e. fasiq.

Questioner:
(2) "So-and-so's non-implementation of shari`a goes to show that whilst he has the ability to implement this law, he is denying it by not implementing it in the holy lands of Hijaz." Is this a valid statement?

Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad:
No, it is invalid both logically and legally.

Questioner:
(3) Where do we stand with regards to voting in a government which is responsible for the bombing of Islamic nations such as Iraq, Afghanistan and others? Does voting in itself constitute shirk (i.e. idolatry) or kufr (i.e. disbelief) for we are voting in a man-made system and "kufr laws"?

Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad:
Voting in a man-made system and kufr laws no more constitutes shirk or kufr than obeying man-made traffic laws in the same system. More than that, if voting empowers one to promote the lesser of two evils then it is an obligatory act according to the Shari`a.

Questioner:
(4) Where do we stand with regard to court hearings and arbitration and judgement according to "kufr law"?

Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad:
The same place we stand with regard to righteously and lawfully promoting right and truth everywhere inasmuch as we can.

Questioner:
(5) "Following the law of the land" - to what extent do we obey such a statement?

Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad:
To the extent countenanced by the Shari`a, which recognizes: [1] the validity of non-Muslim laws, especially those which are based on heavenly Scriptures; and [2] the fact that "the law of the land" is motivated by the protection of populations from inequity and crime.

Questioner:
(6) Are we living in Dar al-Harb?

Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad:
Shaykh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti confirmed to me the view that at the present time there is nowhere on the face of the earth a declared state of war between any two respectively Muslim and non-Muslim states.

Questioner:
(7) The hadith, "one who dies without pledging alliegence to the khaleef dies a death of ignorance," is presented by these groups to show that the Muslim masses are in a state of jahiliyya (i.e. pre-Islamic ignorance) for they do not giving bay'ah (i.e. oath of allegience) to their khaleef (i.e. Caliph - the legitimate Muslim ruler). What is the tafsir (i.e. commentary) on this from a scholarly perspective?

Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad:
The meaning of this hadith according to the Salaf and the 'Ulama is "one who dies without recognizing the caliph to whom the Jama`a of the Muslims have pledged their loyalty", such as in the case of the Khulafa al-Rashidin, the Jama`a being defined as the Sawad al-'Azam (i.e. the masses of the Muslims). There is neither such a Caliph, nor such a jama`a, in our time.

Questioner:
These ideas, as extreme as they appear, have a significant hold on people. So much so that stealing from non-Muslims has been declared as halal (i.e. lawful) under the concept that the lands of UK and US are Dar ul-Harb (i.e. a land generally at war with Muslims), and fraudulent transactions have been legalised under their law in the name of "Islam".

Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad:
Such are thieves who are passible of the full brunt of the law, as well as depraved innovators if not kuffar for misrepresenting the haram as halal and vice-versa.

Questioner:
Somebody needs to stand up and defend the pure and pristine
deen (i.e. religion) brought to us by Sayyidina Muhammad ('alahimus salam), but how is this possible with the lack of scholarship in these lands?

Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad:
"Somebody"? Rather, every person of sound mind and belief. It is just another false notion that one needs to be a scholar to stand for what is right, while the rest scratch their heads before sheepishly joining the line that ends at the slaughtering-block.

Moreover, a Muslim in a non-Muslim state, in the eyes of the Shari`a, is never more than a guest even if he is a voting, tax-paying, and even a born citizen in the eyes of that state.

Since before the fall of the Ottoman Sultanate, politicized Muslims, across the spectrum from modernists to purists, have consistently preferred to adopt un-Islamic strategies of power politics rather than what the Shari`a commanded. Any call to a return to Khilafa (i.e. rule of all Muslim lands by a single Caliph) by the very products of those philosophies is a masterpiece of hypocrisy.

---

Since, based on what I've seen, some of the above mentioned ideas are rather widespread amongst various portions of our Ummah, I pray that posting these insightful responses will be of some use, insha'llah. Indeed, I pray that "every person of sound mind and belief" takes these answers to heart and avoids "sheepishly joining the line that ends at the slaughtering-block".

Deen On...

Saleel.com — Exposing the Heresy of Our Age

I recently came across a nice website called Saleel.com which contains quite a few articles related to taqlid (i.e. trusting in the opinions of qualified scholars), following a madhhab (i.e. school of Islamic law) and various errors of the so-called "Salafis". Although the site contains some of the well-known articles on these subjects from the Masud Khan and other websites, quite a few of the articles are not so well-known.

Indeed, I don't recall ever seeing close to a dozen of the articles which Saleel.com has under the category of "Salafis"—or if I have seen them previously, it's been awhile. So in order to share this wealth of useful knowledge, I'll let my readers know that the titles to some of the articles that I found most interesting include Taqleed, The Legal Status of Following a Madhab, Taqleed or Following an Imam in the Matters of Shari‘ah, Salafiyya, The Feet In Salaat - The Salafi Error, The Deception of the Devious Salafis, A Note on the Absurd Fatwa of al-Albani Regarding Palestine, Al-Albani - A Concise Guide to the Chief Innovator of Our Time, Verdict on Taqleed and the exquisitely titled Asking for "Evidences" is a Clear Daleel of Your Ignorance.

Enjoy and Deen On...

Bani Qurayza, Marriage at Puberty and the Tacit Approval of Jesus

Back in February 2006, I posted a rather lengthy comment on the FreeBornJohn blog in response to some misinformed statements that I found there. Since the comment in question touched upon a multitude of topics that I hope some readers will find valuable, I've reposted the entire comment below (although I've modified it slightly in a few instances, mostly for cosmetic reasons):

Mere Muslim said:

Well I don't have much time to dedicate to this rather one-sided debate in which you're long on claims but short on facts. Indeed, this time you've really been caught in a LIE. Your little insertion of "(men, women and children)" into the above quotations seems to indicate that you've been reading the hatemongers again...or you just conveniently fabricated it on your own.

If you took the time to do a little research, you might actually learn something about the execution of the Jews of Bani Qurayza—and Wikipedia has an article with a lot of details. First of all, the only ones who considered killing the women and children were the Bani Qurayza themselves—seemingly because they recalled what other Jews had done such a thing at Masada roughly six centuries earlier. The Wikipedia article makes this clear when it explains that the second alternative for breaking the siege, as imagined by the chief of the Jewish tribe Bani Qurayza, was to "kill their own children and women, then rush out for a 'kamikaze' charge to either win or die". Also, the Muslims did not—I repeat DID NOT—kill any women and children of the Bani Qurayza, the Wikipedia article makes this clear (i.e. "The bulk of the tribe's men were killed...").

If you look into this incident further, the Bani Qurayza had agreed to let Sa'ad ibn Mua'dh decide on their fate, since they thought he would be fair and lenient. The Wikipedia article on him even mentions an often overlooked detail of this event, and that's that fact that he "is recorded as saying that he was invoking the laws of the Torah with his judgment which was to execute all adult male members of the tribe."

Indeed, the punishment that the Bani Qurayza received that day was one straight out of their own Torah, NOT from the Qur'an. Actually, had the Torah been followed, the women and children would have been killed—but Islamic law prohibits the killing of non-combatant women and children (and being that you're from the country that firebombed Dresden and other German cities, that's something you ought to take to heart).

As painful as this realization might be to some, the Bible instructs that if you lay siege to a city and capture it, if it's a city that is "far off from thee, which are not of the cities of these nations" then, after killing all of the adult males, you shall "take the women, children, animals, and whatever else is in the city-all its spoil-as plunder" (Deuteronomy 20:12-15). However, if it's a nearby city, as was the case with the fortress of Bani Qurayza, then "save alive nothing that breatheth" (Deuteronomy 20:16). So upon closer examination, it becomes apparent that the execution of Bani Qurayza was not based on Islamic Law, but rather on one of the foundational texts of Western Civilization.

Also, in regards to the "women and children" being "enslaved"—since I want to be sure that none of your quips slip by unanswered—well this one is Biblical as well. Not only is this obvious from the references to Deuteronmy 20 just mentioned, but if we take a look at Numbers 31:17-18, then this realization might be even a little more painful. These verses contain "the Lord's command" on how the Israelites should deal with the booty (no pun intended) once they conquer the Midianites. After being instructed to kill all of the males (including the children), they are told to "...kill every woman who has known man by lying with him, but all the female children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves"...so the Israeli soldiers got to keep the young virgins "alive for themselves"—and I hope I don't need to explain what that means.

In regards to your statement "Mohammed as a paedophile which, in modern terms, he was", well you're wrong again. If you bothered to do some research, instead of coming up with your own rather convenient definitions, you'd find that the definition of a paedophile is someone who is "sexually attracted primarily or exclusively to prepubescent children", thus Prophet Muhammad—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—certainly wasn't one.

Again, my guess is that you've been reading things written by Islamophobes again. While I don't deny that the Prophet—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—married his wife Aishah when she was nine years old (and I've written a detailed article on this topic), she was not "prepubescent" at the time, but had already reached puberty.

Also, of the many women that the Prophet Muhammad-salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam-married, much like the prophets of the Old Testament, Aishah was the only young bride and the only virgin. All of his other wives were older and/or previously married women, including his first wife Khadija who was forty years old when he married her and fifteen years his senior. It's also worth noting that in his younger years, the Prophet—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—was married to one and only one woman for over twenty years—and this was in an age of unlimited polygamy.

So based on all of that, the "paedophile" label doesn't stick since not only was Aishah not "prepubescent", but there is no evidence that the Prophet—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—was "primarily" or "exclusively" interested in children...but quite a lot of evidence to the contrary. Overall, I find it rather ironic that a member of Western Civilization would try to lecture Muslims about mass murder and sexuality morality, but such is the age in which we live.

By the way, if you insist on maintaining, in spite of the evidence, that Prophet Muhammad—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—was a paedophile, then sound logic dictates that Jesus Christ—'alayhi as-salam—gave tacit approval to paedophilia. I know that this might be a bitter pill to swallow, but if you'd do some research (and don't worry, I'm not holding my breath), you'd find that marrying girls at the outset of puberty was very much the norm in first century Palestine (i.e. the time in which Jesus lived)—puberty being taken as a biological sign that a woman was ready to bear children.

Now if marrying young women at such an early age, as all societies throughout human history have done until the modern era—and even some still do, was some sort of perverted crime, then Jesus Christ—'alayhi as-salam—would have been obliged to speak out against it. Indeed, any religious leader who is trying to call people to God-fearingness and righteousness has a moral duty to speak out against any crimes, gross injustices or social ills that he's been made aware of.

However, there's nothing in the four gospels which indicates that Jesus—'alayhi as-salam—ever spoke out against people in his largely Jewish society marrying girls at puberty. On the contrary, the Hebrew world "almah", which occurs in Isaiah 7:14 and is considered by Christians to be a prophecy of Mary's virgin birth, means a young woman, of marriageable age, who has passed the age of puberty.

It's based on this that many scholars think that Mary was around twelve years old when she gave birth to Jesus—'alayhi as-salam, although some feel that she might have been as old as fifteen. However, "in modern terms", regardless of which age you take, her betrothed husband Joseph would still have been guilty of committing a criminal act (at least in the US and UK). To be fair, however, we should mention that even this would not technically be considered paedophilia, since there's no proof he was "primarily" or "exclusively" attracted to young girls. And if you want to get technical, Mary was no longer a girl, based on the standards of the society in which she lived, since she was past the age of puberty, thus she was an adult.

Anyway, getting back to the subject of Jesus' tacit approval of marrying girls just after they'd reached puberty, it seems that Christians have one of two choices: 1) admit that Jesus Christ—'alayhi as-salam—failed in his mission as a moral leader (and even Muslims won't admit to this); or 2) recognize that based on the values of the society of his time, which saw nothing wrong with marrying young girls just after they reached puberty, nothing immoral was going on in this regard, thus Jesus was not obligated to speak out against any of it. So just like the Bani Qurayza issue, this is another one where Christians would be well advised to do some research, set their biases aside and then engage their brains before opening their mouths.

The Guardian had a nice piece yesterday which rebutted "those who claim that fear is stalking the offices of western newspapers, where cowardly executives allegedly shrink from publishing anything that might upset Muslims", and it's easy to see why. That's because Islamophobia is the only acceptable form of racism left. However, with the thick coloured lenses that you're obviously wearing, I doubt you can see that.

If you want to go on believing that the cartoons were "not offensive", well that's up to you. However, I think you should re-read some of the points I made since you're side-stepping the lot of them.

Sorry, but that's all I have time for tonight...

In order to clarify some of the points above, I feel I should mention that the Wikipedia article on Banu Qurayza is somewhat inaccurate, if not considerably biased. For one, to say that their execution was "following a siege mounted by Muslim immigrants from Mecca" is incorrect, since the Muslim army that besieged them was made up of both Ansar (original inhabitants of Medina who had converted to Islam) and Muhajirun (converts to Islam who had immigrated from Mecca). Not only is the statement in question inaccurate, but since it's found in the article's initial paragraph, it sets somewhat of an anti-Muslim tone that could easily present a false picture to someone who is unfamiliar with all of the reported details and circumstances of the incident. Indeed, in addition to implying that the Muslims were the aggressors, the initial paragraph conveniently omits the fact that just prior to attacking Bani Qurayza, the Muslims themselves were besieged by a much larger pagan army that had come from Mecca to destroy them.

Moving on...in regards to clear bias in the opening paragraph, the statement that "The Muslims claimed that the Banu Qurayza had planned to betray them to their Meccan enemies" essentially regulates the Muslim understanding of the actions of Banu Qurayza to nothing more than a "claim", although it's based on the same sources that provide all of the gory details that non-Muslims seem to focus on. Indeed, any honest reading of the sources regarding this incident leaves no doubt that the Jewish tribe of Bani Qurayza was guilty of gross treachery and high treason...thus it's much more than just a "claim".

Also, to say that "Most details...derive ultimately from a single account, that of Ibn Ishaq" gives a somewhat slanted view of this incident—an incident that many liberal, progressive and other assorted limp-wristed Muslims seem determined to deny. Anyone familiar with Muslim sira (i.e. Prophetic biography) literature knows that quite a bit of it is less than authentic and reported without isnad (i.e. chains of narration). However, like many incidents in the sira literature, the treason and subsequent execution of the men of Banu Qurayza is attested to in the authentic hadith collections, although in somewhat of a bare bones fashion compared to the more elaborate accounts that the sira material often provides. Although to be fair, the Wikipedia article does indeed state that the Bani Qurayza incident is mentioned in the authentic hadith literature, and it even quotes some of these hadith in detail. Nevertheless, I just wanted to make sure that no one was confused by the statement that "Most details...derive ultimately from a single account, that of Ibn Ishaq", since although "Most" is probably correct, this certainly doesn't amount to all.

Finally, in regards to puberty being the age of adulthood, it's interesting—especially in the context of this multifacetd posting—that the article on the Bani Qurayza mentions that "Sa'd ruled that all the adult males of the Banu Qurayza should be killed", and later explains that "This ruling was taken to refer to all males over puberty". This serves as just one more proof that adulthood at that time, even amongst the Jews, was defined as having reached "puberty"...as much as the disbelievers may detest it.

Insha'llah, we'll post more on some of these topics in the future.

Deen On...

SunniPath - Summer 2006 Registration

Today is the last day to register for Summer 2006 Online Courses at SunniPath.com, a complete list of which can be found here. Without doubt, SunniPath.com is the premier website for learning Islam online, and its features include:

• 18 courses, including several new courses and teachers
• Variety of subjects and difficulty levels
• Improved eLearning tools and features
• Opportunity to learn Islam no matter where you are

Attending these SunniPath.com courses also provides one with the opportunity to gain knowledge directly from true spiritual masters, such as Habib 'Ali al-Jifri and Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller. This includes not only the ability to listen to live lessons, but the opportunity to ask questions as well.

Also, in case anyone missed the official June 24th deadline, registration for all of the courses will remain open until July 10th. Most, if not all, of the lessons are recorded, so you'll be able to listen to any of the ones that you missed, insha'llah. However, for the final word on course availibility (and some of them, like the Arabic language courses, do fill up since they only take a limited number of students), please visit the SunniPath.com website and check with them.

Deen On...

Updates, Links and More...

I just want to let our readers know that not only is this weblog back in business in regards to new postings, but we've added about fifty new links to our Links Page, removed a couple of dead links from it, refined our Blog Roll, and added a few new Reading Lists on the side bar as well. Expect to see a lot more of these Reading Lists in the near future, insha'llah. I've got most of them almost built—or ready to be built—and hope to have them completed soon. We've also uploaded our new OPML file, which allows you to quickly subscribe to all of the RSS/Atom feeds on our Blog Roll—and we've pasted an OPML icon for this near the bottom of our side bar as well.

For those of you who are new to all of this, the purpose of an OPML file is to make it quick and easy to subscribe to a bunch of blog feeds, which is done by importing the OPML file into an RSS Feed Reader (a.k.a. News Aggregator). One of the great things about this is that once you've got your RSS (or Atom) Feed Reader—and NewsCrawler is the one I use—installed and configured, then you no longer have to waste time checking your favorite blogs one-by-one to see if they've been updated. Rather, by simply launching your RSS Feed Reader, you'll receive automatic notification of which blogs have been updated—and there are web-based RSS/News Aggregators which can do this as well, such as Bloglines.com and NewsGator.com. Most RSS Feed Readers work for podcasts as well, so make sure you subscribe to the Alhambra Productions and Zaytuna Institute podcasts so you can keep up with their latest audio and video releases.

Moving along...I've selected Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code, by Bart D. Ehrman, to be our new Book of the Month—although due to our lack of activity over the past few months, maybe I should call it the Book of the Quarter. However, we'll try to remain optimistic and determined in regards to how much time we'll have for blogging...so hopefully such a long posting famine won't happen again.

The reasons that I chose Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code this month are twofold: 1) the much acclaimed release of the film based on Dan Brown's blockbuster book; and 2) a couple of ill-informed and potentially embarrassing articles that I read, which were written by some Muslim doctors, demonstrated to me that some members of our Ummah are in dire need of a history lesson. In the not too distant future, insha'llah, I plan to post an angry tirade exposing the numerous factual errors and ignorance contained in these articles, since the slanderous and sloppy claims which they put forward are totally inexcusable...so please be on the lookout for that.

And by the way, for anyone who wants to know what Dan Brown got right in The Da Vinci Code and what he got wrong—whether by design or otherwise, Bart Ehrman's is the best book on the subject that I've found. Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code is relatively short, written for the layman, and—due to its academic perspective—relatively free from bias and an overt agenda. This stands very much in contrast to many, although certainly not all, of the responses written by Roman Catholics, Evangelicals and other Christians...not to mention those on the other side who try to lend credence to some of the themes in Brown's book in order to serve their own ulterior motives.

You also might want to drop by this blog again in order to read some responses I've written in regards to following one of the four traditional madhhabs...or not. I had a lot of pent up ideas, as well as some older writings that I've done, on this subject, some of which I released in a rather lengthy comment that I posted the other day on Higher Criticism—which is a blog that I hold in very high regard. I hope to have the new pro-madhhab rants posted soon, insha'llah, so keep an eye out.

Also, please don't forget to visit our Links Page, since I admittedly get a bit frustrated when there aren't a lot of hits on it after all of the trouble that I've gone to. And because in the past some people seemed to have missed the point of the somewhat cryptic format of our Links Page ...I'll explain that you're not necessarily supposed to know what all of the links go to. If the site's logo inherently makes it clear what the website's name or purpose is, I certainly don't fight it or try to hide it. However, in the case that it's just a logo that doesn't really tell you what the site is all about...well do some exploring and find out for yourself. That's the real purpose of the Mere Islam links page: To encourage exploring to various websites which are largely, but not exclusively, related to traditional Islam. For those who just want our "A-List" of useful links, well that's always on the sidebar of our blog pages in the cell entitled Website Links.

We thank all of our readers for their continued support. Please read, reflect, comment, enjoy and...Deen on.

Environmentally Friendly Web Hosting

I thought this was interesting news on a couple of future-looking companies that are taking some steps in the right direction:

Web Hosters Go Green
One customer boasts: 'Site hosted with 100% solar energy.'
By Jennifer Mears, Network World, 06/05/06

Here are some key excerpts:

"Affordable Internet Services Online (AISO) isn't your typical hosting service provider...Instead of drawing energy from traditional power sources, AISO is one of a growing number of hosting firms that is thinking green when it comes to power consumption. And it's one of just a very few that, despite running businesses that depend on always-on service, actually produces all the energy it needs on-site."

"In 2001, AISO invested $100,000 in the solar panels. Two huge arrays - which contain dozens of 2-foot-square solar panels and are each about 10 feet wide and 70 feet long - generate about 60 kilowatts of electricity per day, enough to power the company's operations."

"AISO is like most companies today in that it is always looking for ways to reduce energy consumption. It is migrating away from Intel servers, and now 99% of its systems run on lower-power-consuming AMD Opteron processors."

And then there's Sustainable Websites, who manages to "offset 100%" of their energy usage with Certified Wind Power. The article clarifies that the company "gets its electricity the traditional way, but purchases wind power through renewable energy certificates to ensure that its hosting business is '100% carbon neutral'".

Both Affordable Internet Services Online, Inc. and Sustainable Websites offer competitive rates for their Web Hosting plans, so check them out and consider making a switch. We all need to start thinking green before The Party's Over.

Deen On...

Unveiling the Three Suhrawardis

In recommending books for English-speaking aspiring Sufis, I recently heard an eminent shaykh recommend that murids stick to reputable and reliable translations of the well-known classical texts—and thus avoid modern texts that often suffer from New Age, perennialist and other un-Islamic influences. In that regard, the shaykh mentioned "al-Suhrawardi" as the author of one of these classical texts. Although my notes from this particular lesson don't indicate whether the shaykh mentioned the actual name of the text, I realized that he must have been referring to Kitab Adab al-Muridin, by Abu al-Najib al-Suhrawardi.

My knowledge in this regard was due to the fact that a few months prior I had became somewhat confused when I heard a mainstream Sunni shaykh mention that a certain "al-Suhrawardi" was a great Sufi master and guide. The reason for my confusion was that, in my ignorance, I was only aware of one eminent Muslim by the name al-Suhrawardi—and that would be Shahab al-Din Yahya al-Suhrawardi. Since this figure is, to say the least, rather controversial from a mainstream Sunni perspective, the shaykh's statement prompted me to do some research. I was already somewhat familiar with the Islamic philosopher named al-Suhrawardi due to purchasing Seyyed Hossein Nasr's Three Muslim Sages: Avicenna-Suhrawardi-Ibn Arabi a few years ago, coupled with the fact that I had seen a translation of one of his major works that had been recently published. However, further research helped quell my confusion since I soon learned, with the help of Wikipedia, that although this Shi'a founder of the Illuminationist School (Hikmat al-Ishraq) of Islamic Philosophy is probably the best known of Muslims bearing the the name al-Suhrawardi, he's quite a different person than Abu al-Najib al-Suhrawardi—who was very much a mainstream Sufi of the Ahl al-Sunna, being Ash'ari in 'aqida and Shafi'i in fiqh.

For those who are interested, in order to avoid confusion in the future, there are three Muslim sages who bear the name al-Suhrawardi, also spelled al-Suhurwardi, that one should be aware of:

• Shahab al-Din Yahya al-Suhrawardi (born 1155, died 1191 CE) was a Shi'a philosopher of Kurdish origin, and founder of the School of Illumination (Hikmat al-Ishraq)—one of the most important doctrines in the history of Islamic Philosophy. His life spanned a period of less than forty years in the middle of twelfth century CE, produced a series of highly assured works that established him as the founder of this new school of philosophy. His teacher was Majd al-Din Jaili who was also the great Sunni Imam Fakhr al-Din al-Razi's teacher. Shahab al-Din al-Suhrawardi was unique in his deep insights into the origins of Iranian and Greek philosophy, as well as his treatment of Islamic teachings.
  
  Arising out of the peripatetic philosophy developed by Ibn Sina, al-Suhrawardi's illuminationist philosophy is critical of several of the positions taken by Ibn Sina, and radically departs from the latter through the creation of a symbolic language. The fundamental constituent of al-Suhrawardi's philosophy is pure immaterial light, of which nothing is more manifest, and which unfolds from the light of lights in emanations through the descending order of the light of ever diminishing intensity; through complex interaction, then in turn give rise to horizontal arrays of lights, similar in concept to Platonic Forms, which govern the species of mundane reality.
  
  Shahab al-Din al-Suhrawardi also elaborated the idea of an independent intermediary world, the imaginal world ('alam al-mithal). His views have exerted a powerful influence down to this day, particularly through Mulla Sadra's adoption of his concept of intensity and gradation to existence, wherein he (i.e. Mulla Sadra) combined peripatetic and illuminationist descriptions of reality. He is sometimes given the honorific title Shaykh al-Ishraq, or "Master of illumination", as well as being called "The Master of Oriental Theosophy". In his writings, he attempted a synthesis of Zoroastrian, Platonic, and Islamic ideas. The "Orient" of his "Oriental Theosophy" is the symbolic Orient, the East and the dawn as the symbol of Spiritual Light and Knowledge. He taught a complex and profound emanationist cosmology, according to which all creation is a successive outflow from the original supreme Light of Lights (Nur al-Anwar).
  
  He was executed in 1191 on charges of cultivating Batini teachings and philosophy, by the order of al-Malik al-Zahir, son of Saladin, and sometimes is called al-Maqtul (i.e. "the Slain"). A critical edition of his Hikmat al-Ishraq was recently (2000) translated into English and publshed as The Philosophy of Illumination by Brigham Young University Press.
  
  
• Abu al-Najib al-Suhrawardi (born 1097, died 1168 CE) was an Iranian Sufi and founder of al-Tariq al-Suhrawardiyya. He was a Sunni scholar, staunchly Ash'ari in creed, who studied Islamic law in Baghdad, then set up a retreat by the river Tigris where he gathered disciples. At the age of about twenty-five, he left his academic pursuits in order to dedicate himself to a life of tasawwuf and eventually became an esteemed murid of Ahmad al-Ghazali—the brother of Imam Abu Hamid al-Ghazali. In 545 A.H. he was appointed to teach Shafi'i fiqh at the prestigious Nizamiyya academy, but was later removed for purely political reasons. Both before and after this appointment, he continued to teach fiqh, hadith and tasawwuf at his own madrasa, and he was considered to be an authoritative mufti as well. After his lifetime, his paternal nephew, Abu Hafs Umar al-Suhrawardi, went on to spread and expand the Suhrawardiyya order, of which he was a co-founder. Although he was known to have written a number of books, his Kitab Adab al-Muridin seems to be the only one to have survived to the present day. He is also sometimes known as Diya al-din Abu 'n-Najib al-Suhrawardi.
  
  
• Abu Hafs Umar al-Suhrawardi (born 1144, died 1234 CE) was an Sufi who expanded the al-Suhrawardiyya Sufi order, by obtaining the support of the caliph, that he co-founded with his uncle Abu al-Najib al-Suhrawardi (mentioned immediately above). He authored a Sufi text entitled 'Awarif al-Ma'ârif, a translation of which is due to be published by Fons Vitae as Knowledge for Encountering God.

In the end, knowing the biographical details of all three of these well-known al-Suhrawardi's might not do away with all of the confusion, since many articles and books—including the various transtions—simply list the author as "al-Suhrawardi" without specifying which one!

By the way, Abu al-Najib al-Suhrawardi's Kitab Adab al-Muridin was ably translated into English back in 1975 by Menahem Milson and published by Harvard University Press. Last year I was able to track down a used copy that was still in great shape. I didn't have my hopes very high, since I was expecting the book to contain a hypercritical and rather hostile introduction, complete with a host of faulty conclusions that one expects to find, as a matter of course, in books on Sufism produced by Western Orientalists.

However, I found Milson's translation to be a pleasant surprise. Not only was his translation seemingly sound—although since the Arabic text isn't included, I have to reserve final judgement—but his introduction was balanced, informative and relatively free from bias. I certainly felt that he treated the subject matter in a fair manner—and much better than your typical hostile Orientalist. Indeed, he clearly demonstrated that Sufism was not (and is not) some sort of antinomian Muslim sect that was somewhat aloof of the shari'a and in opposition to orthodox Sunni beliefs—misinformed myths that some Muslims and non-Muslim "experts" continue to propagate to this very day. Not to deny that Milson's introduction couldn't be knit-picked on a few points, I hope that the following excerpts will demonstrate the refreshing nature of his clarifications:

"To be sure, this does not suggest that those persons neglected
the divine law. Quite the contrary. Being painfully aware of
human imperfection, they held that man could not possibly
go too far in attempting to carry out God's orders. Hence, one
of the characteristics of those early Muslim pietists was their
utmost scrupulosity (wara') in observing the rules of the
shari'a in ritual and social matters" [pages 2-3].

"The question of the origins of Sufism has long been debated
by Western scholars, most of whom, until the last generation,
held that the essential ideas of Islamic mysticism had origin-
nated from alien, non-Islamic sources. Admittedly, Sufism
absorbed a considerable number of heterogenous elements;
the influence of Neoplatonism was especially significant. It
should be recognized, however, that the primary sources of
Sufism are Islamic, the Quran being first and foremost among
them" [pages 3-4].

"Since the fifth century A.H., Sufism has attracted a large
following in all strata of society. This development appears
to have resulted from the need which many Muslims felt to
enrich emotionally their religious life. Such need was ex-
perienced not only by the uneducated, who were naturally
debarred from the intellectual satisfaction that could be de-
rived from juristic and theological studies, but also by many
of the religious scholars ('ulama')—guardians of the divine
law of shari'a. Layman and 'ulama' alike adopted Sufism to
satisfy that need" [page 6].

"Yet Sufis did not constitute a sect; with few exceptions they
remained within the fold. They have always regarded them-
selves, and have been regarded by most other Muslims; as
part of the orthodox (sunni) community, a concept which is
expressed in the Arabic idiom ahl al-sunna wa-'l-jama'a-
'those who adhere to the tradition and the community.'
Indeed, the Sufis held that they were the very core of that
community. This idea is expressed in one of the best known
Sufi compendiums in these words: 'The most excellent of the
Muslim community, who keep their respiration with God
and safeguard their heart from the intrusions of heedlessness,
have singled themselves out with the name of Sufism; and
this name has become famous in reference to these great men
before the year two hundred A.H.'" [pages 6-7 - and the "Sufi
compendium" just mentioned refers to al-Qushayri's al-Risala,
which has also been reliably translated into English by Barbara
Von Schlegell].

The remainder of Menaham Milson's introduction to his translation of Kitab Adab al-Muridin, which is actually entitled A Sufi Rule for Novices, goes on to discuss Sufi doctrine and practices in more detail, provide a fairly detailed biography of Abu al-Najib al-Suhrawardi and then offer an insightful overview of the text itself.

The actual translation of Kitab Adab al-Muridin, which spans from page 27 to 83 in the book, includes 208 points, in a somewhat abridged form, which relate to proper Islamic adab-which the author translates as "ethics". Accepting the fact that the Arabic word adab is a multifaceted word that is rather difficult to translate using a single English word, suffice it to say that Kitab Adab al-Muridin is essentially a "manual of ethics" that discusses everything from points of Islamic creed ('aqida) and the various states (ahwal) of the soul, to personal acts of worship ('ibada) and the proper use of a host of dispensations (rukhsa) within the Islamic shari'a. All of the diverse points of the original text are covered in fairly good detail, the only abridgement being that some of the detailed proofs from the Qur'an and hadith literature are omitted. In short, this is certainly a valuable book for aspiring Sufis who want to improve their knowledge by reading a translation of a classical text. Unfortunatley, A Sufi Rule for Novices has long gone out of print so I pray that Almighty God gives success to all those murids who try to find a copy.

Deen On...