Why it may be better to stay away from Madhab wars altogether?

It’s way deeper (and more serious) than it appears to be

Less is more? That’s what the whole discussion is around today. Everyone around you must have at some point told you to seek (religious) knowledge. Some may have done it hypocritically, to hurt you and then slap off this religious facade on top, but others may have come from a good place. Whatever the underlying intention, this is sometimes not the best advice!

How can knowledge be bad? Wait, can knowledge BE bad? That’s a separate rabbit hole of philosophical discussion in of itself — so we are not going there right now. However, looking generally at the structure of the preservation and distribution of Islamic knowledge in particular, there are some hidden — and lethally dangerous caveats that nobody seems to be talking about.

And the biggest elephant in the room, is the difference of opinion (ikhtelaf). Yes, that could very well be the root of much much bigger problems. How? Let me lay the foundations first (no pun intended).

The rigid systemization of Islamic knowledge mainly came from Fiqh. That’s right. I’m gonna say it like it is, mayn. If you ask a scholar, he would tell you how the Fiqh originated from people asking questions for their day-to-day matters — how it evolved, etc. You learn how the formal structure of a modern fatwa came into existence — where the heck is a fatwa stored anyway?! Is there a citadel?! Where where?! You’d be asking these questions for months, going into spirals and spirals — but that’s not the point. The point is, the origination of a body sometimes has nothing to do with its current essence.

What I mean by that is, the origination story of a fatwa, and the whole field of Fiqh, may not have anything to do with what it is today — at least in part. Forgive me for the crude example — I don’t mean to mock — it’s like if a critic (or an innocent outsider) comes and asks why do you smoke tobacco? And the smoker starts telling you “well, the early Europeans and Americans found this plant — it had medicinal uses — it had something to do with spiritual and ceremonial practices” — you would go

bruh… Likewise, you ask someone where these notions of halal, haram, makrooh and all that come from. Makrooh? Makrooh to whom? To your scholars or to God? And then you open up the Principles of Islamic Jurisprudence. On the first few pages, you discover that the field of Fiqh is solely related to matters that are observable by physical means.

So for example, do you raise your hand in prayer or not? How do you perform wudu with dust? And so on; but the whole world of metaphysics is not part of Fiqh. And there is a reason why I italicized that specific clause. Because once upon a time someone said to me: “What is there in Islam other than Fiqh?” And I did not answer him because he was part of that malicious group whom my previous article was about. But it is now a good example to explain it to you — because many of you may have the same question.

So yes, there IS a lot in Islam other than the field of Fiqh — that is — there IS a lot that is not just observable via physical means. You may be thinking yeah yeah, it’s covered in ‘aqeedah, but it’s not just ‘aqeedah (creed). And I will come back to ‘aqeedah, God willing, in a moment, but there are a lot of other matters that are neither part of Fiqh nor a part of ‘Aqeedah.

What field answers the matters of intention? What about belief? Is belief physical? Is belief the same as ‘amal? And that is not an irrelevant question, guys. If you don’t get that right, you may be going to Hell. The Fiqh fellows would say “there is a ruling or a Hadith which tells that you are forgiven for whatever occurs to your mind” — but if your mind is believing in Zeus or somethin’, tell me how is that not hypocrisy? Not as in hypocritical or some other word salad — but hypocrisy as in hypocrisy hypocrisy! Cuz the mental gymnastics… ain’t gymnasticing!

And you wanna know the big rabbit hole? Qadr! You could say that the creed of ibn Abdul Wahab or something covers it up (“study ‘Aqidah!”) — but nah — it doesn’t cover a whole lot of aspects, mate. At this point it feels like a part of the universe with black holes n all — and you can get sucked into one. And that’s a good thing too — but here’s why it really could be as bad as being sucked into an actual black hole — or even worse.

You know how the muftis would answer this? And here’s what my problem with them kinda begins. They would try to fit the model of Fiqh into these questions that do not fall into the category of Fiqh. When someone shares with me a Fatwa regarding if “Allah is above the Throne or not”, that light bulb sparks up sayin’:

Somethin’ ain’t right! I go like: wait, wasn’t fatwa a Fiqh thing? And halal haram? Why is a jurist telling me what’s makrooh regarding an issue that is metaphysical? And why is he reducing it down to that? How on earth does a jurist have an answer to this question in the first place? And why the heck am I talkin’ to you?!

So that’s how the methodologies from Fiqh spill over into almost all fields of Islamic knowledge, streaming under the radar — and then comes the difference in opinion. If what we have discussed up till now, was the elephant in the room, then there’s a bigger T-Rex waitin’ around the corner. And oowhh — it has laid eggs!

Ladies and gentlemen, let me re-introduce to you —the difference in opinion! If you are a revert, you probably remember a Dai’ee telling you how the “difference of opinion” is not a big issue — it’s just a matter of putting your hands on your chest or on the navel — and it’s just about small matters — that’s what you’ve probably heard. But then one day you are going through a theology material — and you see the much-dreaded words: “difference of opinion”. And you go like…

What’s this fella doin’ in here, eh? Isn’t this supposed to be the solid, foundational material? How can there be a difference of opinion in that? So wait — wait! If there’s a difference of opinion in foundational theological matters, does that mean one opinion is the correct view and the rest is kufr? If that’s the case, then why the heck is ANYONE opting for the opinion that is kufr? And if that’s not the case, then how can both of the opinions be correct? Cuz this ain’t about raising or resting your hands in the prayer no more mate! To go complete no cap…

If you dig deep, it turns out that it is not a straightforward matter to call someone a kafir — (in low voice: even if he is) — because that could make you something like a khariji. So in order to work around that, people resort to this thing called “borderline takfiring” — and then there’s a little hack around to tighten that loose bolt as well — there is a famous fatwa of ibn Taymiyah (Sheikh ul Islam, innit bruv?) which you can use to basically label a person as a kafir, but you can’t tell him — otherwise he could go full Chinggis Khan on the world — finishing all the Salafis n saying “I am the punishment of your sins” on every other neighborhood (again, in low voice: Now is that actually what happened — let’s not go there — [in even a lower voice: cuz a Non-believer/Non-Muslim can’t kill Muslims en-masse]— but — you get the idea. Okay, let’s move on quick).

So basically you learn your way through to accept “differences in opinion” as solid conclusions to foundational (and non-foundational) questions. Now, someone can ask you — what is your opinion on this matter? Or which opinion do YOU follow? And there’s two ways about it. You can either start quoting the different opinions of the Athari, Ashari, Maturidi schools — in which case the other person would go like… okay?… but that Hermione Granger going “it’s leviosa, not leviosar” doesn’t answer me question mate! And he asks you what do you believe in? And you go: “I don’t have an opinion cuz there be scholars much bigge — “

Because quite frankly, you can’t just point to a video or an article (or worse, even a whole collection of books) to answer what is YOUR position on this matter. If you can’t say it (unless you’re mute or somethin’), then it means you don’t have an answer to this foundational question, doesn’t it? And it raises a big question mark on your belief — like a red triangle appearing on top of your head!

Or you can take the second route and say that I follow the Athari, Ashari or Maturidi school. You can say the Salafi creed is what I follow (or whatever the heck they call it). And if you take that route — the next question becomes… “did everyone else get it all wrong? Are they all kafir”? And after displaying a “processing screen”, the system crashes into red herrings, ad hominems, you’re fat, you’re gay, that kind of conversation.

So by either route, you learn to pave your way through huge huge black areas of uncertainty — of both foundational and non-foundational matters. And as you do this paving the way through the much recommended (or even forced) ‘Aqeedah cirriculum, something is likely to happen to you — very likely: You passively learn to put a pin in things and still go with it. The problematic underlying structure to your daily breaths, is something like: I could be doing this wrong, but that’s okay — as long as I “complete” the task as described by the scholars.

And the pattern sprouts instances of not only Fiqh-related matters (strictly speaking), but also the matters of theology. So you end up having the following underpinning: I could be doing shirk, but that’s okay. That’s literally the instance of this pattern that could very likely be sitting in your subconscious and you’re just okay with it. You’re okay with it? Really? Yeah, that’s why you’re trying to cope with those melatonin tablets, mate!

And that is why, I think it is sometimes better to not go into these questions altogether. You do not need to know everything. And what’s my rationale behind that? Well, you see — during the lifetime of Muhammad, it was different. If you heard of these matters, you could dig deep into them and when you’re stuck, you could go and ask him — whether directly or indirectly. But now you got questions you can’t find answers to in a normal sort of way.

If there are no solid answers to your questions, then what’s the point in discussing them? So if you avoid going into these areas altogether, you save yourself from at least that demonic type of effect on you — where you get used to putting pin in the essential matters — and go about your day.

And it kind of (sorry, disclaimer alert) pisses me off when these Salafis come up with banners shouting: “Heyyyyyyyyy!! We got answers to all ‘Aqidah questions — Heyyyyyy!!” And looking at the banners of these morons — you go into it and guess what? They haven’t got the answers. It just turns out to be a plot of making you kiss their hand like Michael Corleone or somethin’. If you don’t have the answers, don’t do false advertisement, mate! Why do you advertise like the release of iPad showing you got a mathematical model to even make a robot take shahadah? Stop the cap!!!

And seriously, are you smarter than Muhammad? Why didn’t he present these arguments? Is your so-called “Sheikh ul Islam” smarter than Muhammad? What do I call you? Genius! Morons!!!!

This is in no way preaching someone to do something. I am not a mufti or anythin’ like that — this is just an opinion of a normal dude. There’s more to write — but that Wahhabi cult — what can I say…