Shaykh Dr. Yasir Qadhi writes:
Some Thoughts on Navigating Controversies
Knowledge is the backbone of wisdom and understanding. When a person has knowledge, perspectives become clearer and easier to understand. When a person lacks knowledge, misunderstandings can creep in.
Of late, there has been a lot of discussion regarding specific statements and actions of our ‘ulama on controversial issues like same-sex unions.
Knowing this is a Facebook post and therefore must be succinct, and with the disclaimer that each of the following points requires much more discussion for a detailed analysis, I would still like to summarize four key, distinct areas that all Muslims should be familiar with, and not conflate or meddle up.
Firstly: knowing and practicing what our Sharī’ah says on a given issue. It is obligatory upon the individual (farḍ ʿayn) to know and follow the basics of Islam. If a particular society does not allow this, then (generally speaking) it is obligatory to migrate to a land where one can practice the faith without compromise in one’s own daily life. When it comes to same-sex actions, they are categorically and by unanimous consensus forbidden actions and constitute a major sin.
Secondly: preaching and admonishing others, and forbidding the evil and commanding the good. Generally speaking, this is a communal obligation (farḍ kifāyah) upon the community, and in particular the scholars are required to preach the truth as much as possible. However, if this is not allowed in some lands, it would not be obligatory for the entire community to migrate to another land. In early Makkah, the daʿwah was not public, and this is in and of itself not something that makes hijra obligatory. Whether it is recommended or not depends on broader factors, and might vary from individual to individual. In this land, we still have the freedoms to preach the truth and advocate our morality, and we say loudly and clearly that public promiscuity, and the display of nudity, and pre-marital and extra-marital and same-sex intimacy, is destructive to the core fabric of a society, and diminishes Allah’s blessings on a people.
Thirdly: enforcing Islamic morality and enshrining it in laws. This is to be done by the rightful authorities in a Muslim land. When Muslims live as minorities, obviously they are not obliged to enforce Islamic morality on others. The Muslims of Abyssinia did not go around breaking the wine jars of their neighbors – and in fact they would not be allowed to do so, neither by their local laws nor from the perspective of the Shariʿah. Were some vigilantes to start breaking in to other people’s houses and enforcing Islamic law on wine, it would be appropriate for the Muslim leadership itself to stop such vigilantes and to proclaim, ‘We understand the norms of our broader society and agree that the laws of the land are to be upheld by all.’ It would be grossly inaccurate to understand such a sentiment to be an approval of drinking wine!
Fourthly: cooperating with different groups to achieve a greater good. This is a very subjective area and goes back to the pros and cons of every situation. As well, the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ will be relative to who is assessing them. There can and should be a lot of leeway when it comes to this area, and hence we should understand that different Muslims might have different tactics. For example, in a hypothetical scenario, should Muslims cooperate with pagans and Zionists in an imaginary society to advocate for a better educational system for all of their children? From a purely technical perspective, as long as the goal is permissible and good, and one is not compromising by doing any ḥarām, it would be allowed; however in a real-life scenario, some might find such alliances as politically unwise for other reasons. So be it: live and let live, and allow different groups to have different opinions.
These are four distinct areas – and this is not comprehensive list either. More can be added. And each one of these four requires much more nuances and caveats and exploration. But some basic education is needed by all of us, because many people are confusing these categories.
When it comes to same-sex intimacy: there is simply no compromise in believing that such actions are ḥarām. And we publicly preach that these actions are harmful to the individual and to society, and we would much rather that they not be legalized or permitted. But given the fact that they have, we understand that we cannot enforce our morality on others, even as we preach that such public immorality does not bode well for the spiritual health of any society. And if the need arises, at times and places we will get together with diverse groups of people in order to attain privileges that our community needs, and if some disagree with such cooperation, that is their prerogative and right, but they should not extrapolate from a generic cooperation (category four) any compromise on our beliefs, preaching or political reality (categories one, two and three).
Lastly, as we navigate this thorny issue, let us not lose track of some basic, core, undisputed Islamic principles. Firstly, have ḥusn al-dhann of our elders and ʿulama, especially those whose track records are clear. Understand ambiguous phrases in light of clear ones, and give as many excuses as you can to those whom the community knows are attempting to protect Islamic values. Secondly, don’t seek to sensationalize and publicize every slip-up. Such a tactic is harmful to the interests of the Ummah, and causes much more harm than good. Even if a mistake happens, try your best (if you are qualified) to approach from within, and seek to rectify without a public expose. This is the prophetic method. Thirdly, if one must go public, then talk about issues and not personalities. Correct an incorrect idea, rather than attack a fellow Muslim by name. This too is explicitly prophetic. Lastly, follow the accepted and mainstream leaders of our community. Allah will not allow this Ummah to go astray, and our scholars are the inheritors of the Prophet (SAW). When some of our elder scholars and senior duʿat have clearly been blessed with acceptance by the mainstream clergy and laity, don’t allow fringe voices to cast doubts in your heart about them. Even if an issue arises, go to ʿulama whom you trust, and not to self-appointed online mavericks.
Remember what our Prophet (SAW) said: “Whoever says that all of the people are destroyed, in reality he is the most destroyed of them!” [Sahih Muslim]. And anyone who preaches that all of our mainstream ʿulama are misguided is the most misguided of all.
May Allah guide us all to that which He loves, and allow us to act upon the truth and preach it!
Original post:
Some Thoughts on Navigating Controversies
Knowledge is the backbone of wisdom and understanding. When a person has knowledge, perspectives become clearer and easier to understand. When a person lacks knowledge, misunderstandings can creep in.
Of late, there has been a lot of discussion regarding specific statements and actions of our ‘ulama on controversial issues like same-sex unions.
Knowing this is a Facebook post and therefore must be succinct, and with the disclaimer that each of the following points requires much more discussion for a detailed analysis, I would still like to summarize four key, distinct areas that all Muslims should be familiar with, and not conflate or meddle up.
Firstly: knowing and practicing what our Sharī’ah says on a given issue. It is obligatory upon the individual (farḍ ʿayn) to know and follow the basics of Islam. If a particular society does not allow this, then (generally speaking) it is obligatory to migrate to a land where one can practice the faith without compromise in one’s own daily life. When it comes to same-sex actions, they are categorically and by unanimous consensus forbidden actions and constitute a major sin.
Secondly: preaching and admonishing others, and forbidding the evil and commanding the good. Generally speaking, this is a communal obligation (farḍ kifāyah) upon the community, and in particular the scholars are required to preach the truth as much as possible. However, if this is not allowed in some lands, it would not be obligatory for the entire community to migrate to another land. In early Makkah, the daʿwah was not public, and this is in and of itself not something that makes hijra obligatory. Whether it is recommended or not depends on broader factors, and might vary from individual to individual. In this land, we still have the freedoms to preach the truth and advocate our morality, and we say loudly and clearly that public promiscuity, and the display of nudity, and pre-marital and extra-marital and same-sex intimacy, is destructive to the core fabric of a society, and diminishes Allah’s blessings on a people.
Thirdly: enforcing Islamic morality and enshrining it in laws. This is to be done by the rightful authorities in a Muslim land. When Muslims live as minorities, obviously they are not obliged to enforce Islamic morality on others. The Muslims of Abyssinia did not go around breaking the wine jars of their neighbors – and in fact they would not be allowed to do so, neither by their local laws nor from the perspective of the Shariʿah. Were some vigilantes to start breaking in to other people’s houses and enforcing Islamic law on wine, it would be appropriate for the Muslim leadership itself to stop such vigilantes and to proclaim, ‘We understand the norms of our broader society and agree that the laws of the land are to be upheld by all.’ It would be grossly inaccurate to understand such a sentiment to be an approval of drinking wine!
Fourthly: cooperating with different groups to achieve a greater good. This is a very subjective area and goes back to the pros and cons of every situation. As well, the ‘pros’ and ‘cons’ will be relative to who is assessing them. There can and should be a lot of leeway when it comes to this area, and hence we should understand that different Muslims might have different tactics. For example, in a hypothetical scenario, should Muslims cooperate with pagans and Zionists in an imaginary society to advocate for a better educational system for all of their children? From a purely technical perspective, as long as the goal is permissible and good, and one is not compromising by doing any ḥarām, it would be allowed; however in a real-life scenario, some might find such alliances as politically unwise for other reasons. So be it: live and let live, and allow different groups to have different opinions.
These are four distinct areas – and this is not comprehensive list either. More can be added. And each one of these four requires much more nuances and caveats and exploration. But some basic education is needed by all of us, because many people are confusing these categories.
When it comes to same-sex intimacy: there is simply no compromise in believing that such actions are ḥarām. And we publicly preach that these actions are harmful to the individual and to society, and we would much rather that they not be legalized or permitted. But given the fact that they have, we understand that we cannot enforce our morality on others, even as we preach that such public immorality does not bode well for the spiritual health of any society. And if the need arises, at times and places we will get together with diverse groups of people in order to attain privileges that our community needs, and if some disagree with such cooperation, that is their prerogative and right, but they should not extrapolate from a generic cooperation (category four) any compromise on our beliefs, preaching or political reality (categories one, two and three).
Lastly, as we navigate this thorny issue, let us not lose track of some basic, core, undisputed Islamic principles. Firstly, have ḥusn al-dhann of our elders and ʿulama, especially those whose track records are clear. Understand ambiguous phrases in light of clear ones, and give as many excuses as you can to those whom the community knows are attempting to protect Islamic values. Secondly, don’t seek to sensationalize and publicize every slip-up. Such a tactic is harmful to the interests of the Ummah, and causes much more harm than good. Even if a mistake happens, try your best (if you are qualified) to approach from within, and seek to rectify without a public expose. This is the prophetic method. Thirdly, if one must go public, then talk about issues and not personalities. Correct an incorrect idea, rather than attack a fellow Muslim by name. This too is explicitly prophetic. Lastly, follow the accepted and mainstream leaders of our community. Allah will not allow this Ummah to go astray, and our scholars are the inheritors of the Prophet (SAW). When some of our elder scholars and senior duʿat have clearly been blessed with acceptance by the mainstream clergy and laity, don’t allow fringe voices to cast doubts in your heart about them. Even if an issue arises, go to ʿulama whom you trust, and not to self-appointed online mavericks.
Remember what our Prophet (SAW) said: “Whoever says that all of the people are destroyed, in reality he is the most destroyed of them!” [Sahih Muslim]. And anyone who preaches that all of our mainstream ʿulama are misguided is the most misguided of all.
May Allah guide us all to that which He loves, and allow us to act upon the truth and preach it!
Original post:
