Hadith and Sunnah - a comment

I wrote this in response to a question posed to me in the comment section of a Facebook post by a friend. The post was of a video of Dr. Israr condemning the celebration of Eid Milad un Nabi as  an unlawful bid3at based on the fact that the Prophet (sw) never enjoined it's celebration. While I respect Dr. Israr, I found his view disagreeable, as well as his projection of the jihad from the heart against such acts of bid3at as hatred. My response elicited the question of what I see to be the role of the Hadith and the Sihah Sitta in deen.

When my response began to look like a book report, I chose to post it here...

My perspective on the Hadith and Sihaah Sitta is that these should be used as references if and when a subject in the Quran requires elaboration, but when the text is self-explanatory, the Quran should suffice.

The Hadith are believed to be a record of the sayings and Sunnah of the Prophet. What they really are is in fact a record of memories of people and their anecdotes regarding the Prophet and other events and persons from times past his lifetime. Most of these records were not documented in writing until almost a century after the Prophet's death, except for the narrations of Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al Aas, who, it is claimed, wrote his recordings with the permission of the Prophet himself during his lifetime. Setting aside concerns regarding the accuracy of the process of collection and compilation, it must be noted that there is, unfortunately, no evidence or suggestion that while the Prophet gave his permission, that he ever reviewed what was recorded by Abdullah ibn Amr ibn al Aas. This does not mean that we discount his recordings or any of the others simply because they are memories or because they have not been verified by the Prophet. They may well be true. However, from what I have been able to gather from what I have read in the Quran so far, any testimony regarding the Prophet, for that's what the Hadith are, must be subject to the same treatment as testimony regarding any other person, especially when considering their use to determine what is or isn't religiously lawful. This would mean that for a testimony to render legal use, it would require the witness(es) to take an oath (5:106, 24:6-9 and 3:61, which refers to testimony regarding what is truly the word of God). Such an oath would be required of each witness in the relay-chain of a Hadith, and unfortunately there is no evidence or suggestion that any of those who relayed the Hadith or were witness to them took such an oath. Thus, while the testimonies may be true, without an oath they cannot be deemed sufficient for the purpose of lawmaking or passing judgment. 

The methodology employed to prove the authenticity or trustworthiness of a Hadith for the purposes of lawmaking involves placing blind faith in the character and trustworthiness of the narrators - this assignment of trustworthiness appear to be fairly arbitrary and varies between the Shia and Sunni sects - and then corroborating the account with verses from the Quran; in essence, using the Quran as a witness to the testimony - using the Word of God to bear witness to the trustworthiness of a testimony relayed years after the Quran was revealed. Regardless of ones faith in this process or the witnesses, it stands that the testimonies were relayed without oaths, which, if I understand the Quran right, I believe renders them unusable as the premise for religious law.

Moreover, the Hadith, while covering a variety of subjects, are not comprehensively all inclusive. A recording of the Prophet's words or his demonstration of an injunction of Allah could be just an example, one instance, of several possible answers or ways to accomplish the same thing... We don't know how many instances were forgotten, were never recorded or never passed down. So we cannot definitively say that because a certain action was never recorded it is not allowed, or if a certain action was recorded then that is the only way.

The Hadith of Allah however is comprehensive and complete, or so we believe. We believe the Quran was relayed to us by the Rasool exactly as he received it. We believe this because the Quran claims it to be so, saying that the Prophet was under oath to convey the message in it's true form. Now some might say, if I doubt the process of collection and the memories of people than I must doubt the Quran for it was compiled in a very similar manner to the Hadith collection, following the Prophet's death from the memories of men. To that I would say that I believe that this is an argument invented to coerce and blackmail people into blindly placing their faith on the Hadith, for the source of this information - that the Quran was compiled after the death of the Prophet - is the Hadith and those Hadith offer varying accounts and discrepancies regarding when this actually occurred. There are verses in the Quran that convince me that the Quran existed as a written compilation even as it continued to be revealed (52:2-3 and 80:11-16). I also find it difficult to believe that when God refers to the Quran as a "book" and in that Book He prescribes the writing of a Will to ensure that even in death a person is not devoid of his responsibilities (2:180), that He would allow the Prophet to leave without ensuring that the complete Message was compiled so it could be transmitted in its entirety accurately from generation to generation and to other parts of the world, given that the Message was not intended for a people of a particular time or locality, but for all of humanity - as if it were sufficient for people to only know or remember parts of the Quran and they could refer to each other for the parts they did not know, expecting that they would be around forever.

The Quran was the primary message delivered by the Messenger of Allah and hence should be the primary source source for determining what is and isn't lawful.  While I don't think many would dispute that, I think there is a prevailing assumption that the Quran requires further explanation and support from supplementary sources to be completely understood. I believe that the Quran (in verses 7:52 and11:1, 27:1, 38:29, 39:23 and 41:3) makes clear that it explains everything in detail and those who wish to understand it will find their guidance therein. To rely on another source before or alongside the Quran might be akin to suggesting that contrary to the Quran's claim (19:97, 44:58, 54:17, 54:22, 54:32), the message of Allah is in fact not easy to understand. To this end I have heard the argument that the Classical Arabic of the Quran is too difficult to be understood today as the language has evolved tremendously in 1400 years, and this adds to the difficulties faced by non-native Arabic speakers who must then rely on outside sources to understand a book that may indeed have been easy to understand for the Arabic speakers of that time. But then, the Arabic of the Hadith would technically need to be of the same era and just as difficult to understand. However, there doesn't appear to be as much resistance or hesitation regarding them.

In truth, and and as a manifestation of Allah's Power and Infinite Wisdom on ensuring that it is never too difficult to comprehend His Message, it turns out that Arabic is evolutionarily a very conservative language. James A Bellamy writes that the language of a pre-Islamic 5th century inscription (no. 8 from the slideshow menu) is closer to modern Arabic than the language of Shakespeare is to modern English (from Islamic-awareness.com)

The conservative evolution of Arabic over 1400 years and more means that the message is better preserved and remains accessible to todays population. With the growing number of resources available on the ever-accessible and faster Internet that can translate and explain the Arabic language and it's grammar for free and without the need to visit special libraries for resources, it is becoming increasingly more convenient and less difficult to decipher the language of the Quran.

What is perhaps most frustrating is that most claims about the difficulty of understanding the Quran's language are usually made without an honest attempt at reading the Book in a language that one may understand, likely because of the traditional discouragement towards making such personal attempts, which it is feared may result in a misunderstanding of the message... although one is encouraged to "recite" in the language they do not understand all they want. One cannot expect to understand a book or its subject matter simply by reading all the reviews, opinions and book reports on it and skimming over some excerpts. It could be that it is the various commentaries that produce the confusion and difficulties in comprehending the book and its message. Hence, the main source should be studied first or at least it should be the primary focal point, and everything else should be treated as supplemental. The Hadith in my opinion, would be supplemental to the study of the Quran and the determination of Islamic law.


Now I understand that the Quran, for instance, while ordaining Salah does not explain how to perform it step by step as it does the Wudhu. However it does set the following parameters about what Salat entails:

1. Remembrance 20:14 - (54:17, 22, 32, 40 show that Quran is for remembrance) 29:45, also reiterates that reciting Quran = establishing prayer = rememberance of Allah

2. Glorification 24:36, 33:42

3. For Allah 6:162

4. Seeking forgiveness for sin and exalting God 40:55

5. Standing 3:39, 4:102, 52:48, 26:219, 73:2, 20 (although this standing for prayer may be an expression and not literal)

6. Bowing 2:125, 9:122, 48.29 

7. Prostration 4:102, 7:206, 15:98, 26:219, 50:40, 76:26

8. Specified times 4;103, 20:130 before sunrise (fajr) before sunset (asr) hours of the night (isha) ends/extremities of the day (at its zenith - zuhr, and when it is ending with the sun just below the horizon - Maghreb), 30:17-18

9. Orientation/ facing a particular direction 2:144, 2:149-150, 7:29

Because of the manner in which this information is relayed, it is not obvious that all of these are requisite for prayer and must be included in the salat, except where it is stated that the salat is meant for remembrance and where prostration is indicated as being part of the Salah. The Hadith would demonstrate how to pray within these parameters, although from what I understand, there are no hadith that specifically describe the prayer process even if there are references to certain postures held during Salah. Even so, had there been one or more recorded testimonies describing in detail the Prophet praying from beginning to end, it would only serve as an example of how these parameters can be met while praying; and while one may prefer to pray in the manner of that example because he desires to be like the Prophet, the example cannot be used to establish rules regarding prayer, simply because the Hadith is not verified by an oath, even if it is believed to be true and the chain of transmittance is trusted. Moreover, if a Hadith claims that the Prophet engaged in a ritual during prayer that challenges or goes against any of these parameters, then that testimony would need to be investigated and challenged, much like a law or a bill would be challenged if it went against the constitution.

The Wudhu is different (the term Wudhu does not exist in the Quran but that is of little significance) in that the steps, and in fact, the areas to be cleansed and how they are to be cleansed are explained. The text is self-explanatory and thus does not require supplemental material. However if a Hadith claims that the Prophet engaged in additional steps during Wudhu, so long as they do not counter or exclude the step laid out in the Quran, the Hadith may be followed. However, those additional steps may not be turned into requisites and added to the requisites laid out in the Quran. 

My contention was chiefly that often times even when an explanation isn't necessary, the Hadith are primordially resorted to by scholars and clerics instead of what should be their principal source, the Quran. Using the Hadith as the primordial source tends to create rules where there are none. Is it that we feel that God did not establish sufficient rules for us? The parameters established by God in the Quran are sufficient. As long as a ritual does not transgress those parameters, there is no harm in it. But to outlaw something that the Quran did not outlaw, or to make compulsory something the Quran never enjoined, would be to transgress those parameters.

I would like to clarify, in case my writing created a different impression, that I am not at all dismissive of the Hadith. I do believe that some or most of the transmissions may in fact be true. However, they are not all-encompassing of everything the Prophet said or did during his lifetime as the Messenger of Allah and because there may be so much that is not documented, they cannot be use to conclusively establish or promulgate religious law; plus they were not transmitted under oath. Therefore, I believe they can only be used as supplemental reference but cannot employed in determining religious law or for the purposes of passing judgment on people or their actions.

And follow that which is revealed to you from your lord. Indeed Allah is ever, with what you do, acquainted. (33:2) 

And rely upon Allah; and sufficient is Allah as Disposer of affairs. (33:3)

Blind Faith vs. Faith in the Unseen – does religion require the suspension of critical thought?

It would not stretch the truth to say that personal endeavors to study and understand religion independently are met with a fair amount of discouragement in our communities. Perhaps it is not so much the endeavor but that one is using their own faculty of reason that is discouraged. If I were to engage in study as a pupil, for instance, of an established authority or expert on religion in the community, I do not suppose I would be subject to such discouragement; I might not be redirected to the local Masjid, or the really nice spiritual/scholarly lady who delivers lectures on religion from her home.

It is intriguing how much the discouragement of independent reasoning has become intertwined with the fundamentals of faith itself. From the onset, “Blind Faith” is purported to be a testament of our unquestioning submission to the Will and Reason of God. A Muslim is expected to accept the tenets of religion outright without question and without too much thought; lest he fill his mind with doubt that might lead him to question God’s Way and thus cause him to sin. Consequently, any attempts at independent study are greatly discouraged and inquiries that may challenge accepted precepts are shunned, perhaps even denounced.

But does God truly requisite such blind faith from His believers?

The edict of blind faith casts the mind almost as an evil entity, to be feared of leading one astray, perhaps because it can be influenced by the whispers of Iblis (Satan). And so when a question is raised that may dispute accepted doctrines, it is also cast as an evil that may raise further doubt and weaken one’s faith and that of others. More often, it is deemed contentious and provoking and may be seen to constitute disbelief, as relayed in the verse below:

Or do you wish to question your Messenger as Moses was questioned before? And whoever exchanges faith for disbelief has certainly strayed from the even path. (2:108)

It may appear at first glance that the verse has ascribed the act of questioning to disbelief. This is, however not true. In the verses that precede this one, Surah Baqarah maintains a consistent theme of drawing a parallel between the behaviors of some from the Jewish community towards Moses and their continuation of that behavior of disbelief, mocking and hypocrisy with the Prophet Mohammed (SW). The specific reference here appears to be the story related earlier [2:67-2:71] of the barrage of questions posed to Prophet Moses when he relayed the command from God for the sacrifice of a cow. His followers had responded with disbelief and skepticism (“Do you take us in ridicule?”) before proceeding to indulge Moses by telling him to ask his God to describe the cow He required, and then with each description that could have easily sufficed, sending him back for more. The intent was to badger and mock, and the interest in details was more a ruse to avoid or delay fulfilling the commandment than a genuine desire to learn about and fulfill God’s Will. Thus, the “questioning” that is being discouraged in this verse is not the type that seeks genuine understanding, but the type that is characteristic of unbelievers who aim to mock, disrespect or torment.

Another verse earlier in the Surah also seems suggestive of ascribing questioning to disbelief. It contrasts the believers’ submission to the truth from God with the disbelievers’ seeking of an explanation for the parables relayed in the Quran:

Indeed, Allah is not timid to present an example - that of a mosquito or what is smaller than it. And those who have believed know that it is the truth from their Lord. But as for those who disbelieve, they say, "What did Allah intend by this example?" He lets stray many thereby and guides many thereby. And He lets stray not except the dissolute. (2:26)

One could likely infer from this that asking questions that seek an explanation are akin to disbelief since believers accept what they believe to be from God without question because they know it comes from God. However, a closer look reveals that the comparison is not between people who accept without question and people who ask for an explanation, but between believers who accept the Quran and it’s parables as Divine revelation and disbelievers who do not accept the Quran as divine revelation and question religion as a whole. The question “What did Allah intend by this example” is not one borne out of reflection but is meant to convey incredulity… much the way the people of Moses asked for further description of the cow to be sacrificed, because they scarcely believed in him or the commandment.

Then there is also the story of Moses, and the person commonly referred to in Islamic texts as “Al-Khidr” [18:60-82]. This story is often asserted to demonstrate that the Will and knowledge of God is beyond our grasp and thus we must patiently and trustingly accept religion for what it is without question. While it is true that the Will and knowledge of God is beyond our comprehension, we must note that Moses asked to join the company of Al-Khidr to learn from him [18:66], and that while Al-Khidr advised Moses to bear patiently, he did intend to eventually provide an explanation [18:70]. Hence, there is no implication to refrain from seeking an understanding of the Will and Reason of God. Ultimately Moses parts ways with Al-Khidr in accordance with their agreement (18:69-70,76) and not as a reprimand for his lack of patience. Perhaps that was as much of the special knowledge that God wished for Moses to learn, or as much as Moses needed to see to understand the truth about God.

We see this also when Moses had asked to see God for himself. God does not reveal Himself entirely but allows Moses to witness enough to confirm his faith.

And when Moses arrived at Our appointment and his Lord spoke to him, he said, "My Lord, show me [Yourself] that I may look at You." [Allah] said, "You will not see Me, but look at the mountain; if it should remain in place, then you will see Me." But when his Lord appeared to the mountain, He rendered it level, and Moses fell unconscious. And when he awoke, he said, "Exalted are You! I have repented to You, and I am the first of the believers."

Moses’ falling unconscious is not a penalty on him but merely a consequence of God making Himself appear, for if a mountain can crumble, then how can man remain standing? This was a lesson from God in order for Moses to reaffirm His faith, not a reprimand or admonition.

Even as Abraham asked to see how God brings life after death, God Mercifully accommodated with a demonstration.

And when Abraham said, "My Lord, show me how You give life to the dead." [Allah] said, "Have you not believed?" He said, "Yes, but [I ask only] to satisfy my heart." [Allah] said, "Take four birds and commit them to yourself. Then [after slaughtering them] put on each hill a portion of them; then call them - they will come [flying] to you in haste. And know that Allah is Exalted in Might and Wise."

So we observe that it is not a sin to seek to satisfy one’s heart, and one may in fact seek to satisfy it despite having faith and believing, as Abraham did.

In another example of God’s Mercy in this regard, consider this exchange between God and the Angels as narrated in Surah Baqarah:

And when your Lord said to the angels, “Indeed I am going to place on the earth a vicegerent (khalifa), they said, “Will You place in it one who will cause corruption and shed blood, while we glorify You with Your praise and sanctify You?” He said, “Indeed I know what you know not.” (2:30)

To be quite honest, that doesn’t appear to be the most subtle of ways for the Angels to suggest to God what they thought of His plan. Most of us would think a hundred times and practice great caution in our choice of words before telling even a mortal with any authority over us that we don’t exactly agree with his/her idea, let alone tell them we think it’s a bad idea. Now this is God the Angels are speaking to and they criticize God’s creation as corrupt and violent (in no mild terms) besides suggesting that they are better – the same reason Iblis provides for not submitting to the command to bow to Adam [7:12-13].  Yet, God takes no offense to their candidness and audacity but Mercifully demonstrates to (and reminds) the Angels [2:31-33] that He may give of His knowledge to whom He pleases and thus only He may claim superiority over anything or anyone else.

If one is curious why this mercy was extended to the Angels but not to Iblis for what appears to be the same transgression, then one should note that Iblis was, in fact, of the Angels who were commanded to prostrate before Adam [2:34, 7:11]. Therefore, he was already recipient of the aforementioned Mercifulness of God and his transgression follows in spite of it. In proof of God’s allowance of the exercise of one’s free agency and will, Iblis is, nonetheless, allowed a voice (and an entire dialogue ensues between him and God) instead of being banished instantaneously, and when he asks for respite, he receives it [7:12-15]. God does not rescind the respite even as Iblis vows to spend his respite turning mankind away from God [7:16-17]. In this He allows Iblis to continue to exercise his free agency (and indulge in his rebellion [2:15]) until the day of resurrection.

Thus we see the Mercy that God bestows upon His creations; of free agency and of His provisioning evidence and demonstrations towards the truth in order to assist in the exercise of that free agency by making the right course distinct from the wrong.

(There is) no compulsion in the religion. Surely has become distinct the right (path) from the wrong. Then whoever disbelieves in false deities and believes in Allah, then surely he grasped the firm hand-hold with no break in it. And Allah Is Hearing and Knowing. (2:256)

Now I have come across opinions that state that this free agency is limited only to the initial choice of faith in God and that it does not apply once one has entered into belief in the Oneness of God. Yet the preceding discussion and verses negate this, since the Angels and the Prophets maintained belief in God and His Powers, even as they expressed their doubts. Conceivably, this may be a graciousness reserved for Prophets and Angels who spiritually rank higher than the rest of us (the rank of the angels as higher is debatable, considering they were commanded to prostrate to Adam), but that would not explain the respite afforded to Iblis who was of the Angels but chose to rebel out of arrogance [7:13] and go from a state of believing to unbelieving.

Principally, if we hold that God is All-Powerful, then God bears the capacity to make all of His creations submissive to Him. This is expressed in the Quran as, “If Allah Willed He would have made you a community, one.” [5:48](“…made them one community…” in [42:8]). It is therefore God’s intention to allow mankind to exercise its free agency until the Last Day, and the Quran serves as guidance [2:2] for that free agency towards the right path [1:6], distinct from the wrong.

And as in the case of Abraham where he was not able to see HOW God brought life after death but only that He does in fact brings life after death, and the case of the Angels who were unable to see why or how man was a better choice for khilaafat (vicegerency) on Earth, but only that God knew most and therefore best; the Quran guides us to notice and observe various signs that attest to God’s Existence, His Perfection and His Mercy, so that they may lead us to believe in Him even though we never see Him; to believe in the Angels, the Prophets, the Last Day, the abodes of life after death, and the events that transpired at creation and with civilizations in the past, even though they remain unseen to us.

 Those who believe in the unseen, establish prayer and spend out of what We have provided them. (2:3)

When the Quran speaks of the fate of the people of Lot, for instance, it points to the ruins and remnants of that civilization [37:137-138] that, at the time of revelation, were visible and known to belong to them. We find many such instances in the Quran, where God cites observable clues of the unseen fact or event so that they may be pondered upon, indicating that God does not expect blind acceptance and allows for the need to reason. Believing in the unseen, then, is not the same as having Blind Faith in the unseen – it does not necessarily require blind faith. Belief in the unseen may be derived through the assimilation of existent and observable facts that evidence the certainty of what cannot be seen. It may be borne out of deliberation, rationale and logic. Hence, belief in the unseen is a certainty derived out of reason and reflection, as opposed to being blind execution of a Divine order.

Consider how God led Abraham to be certain in his faith in God through seeing the truth about the heavens and the earth.

And like this, We showed Ibrahim the kingdom of the heaven and the earth so he would be of the ones who are certain. So when the night covered over him, he saw a star. He said, “This is my Lord.” But when it set, he said, “I like not ones that set.” When he saw the moon rising, he said, “This is my Lord.” But when it set he said, “If my Lord does not guide me, then I will surely be among the people who went astray.” When he saw the sun rising he said, “This is my Lord. This is Greater.” But when it set, he said, “O my people, indeed I am free of what you associate (with Allah). Indeed I have turned my face to the One Who Created the heavens and the earth, upright, and I am not of the polytheists. (6:75-79)

 There is difference of opinion in the interpretation of this passage since some find it ludicrous that Ibrahim could have been a polytheist at any point, especially since the preceding verse relates his disagreement with his father on the worship of idols; and suggest that this was his demonstration to his people as opposed to a personal journey in faith. To me, the verbiage seems to suggest that Ibrahim was allowed to witness and personally understand the movements of the heavenly bodies and the earth in order to gradually realize that they could not equate with the Eternal nature of God, which he seemed to be already aware of but now would have become more certain of; hence the focus on the “setting” of the stars, the moon and the sun.

But if it indeed was a demonstration for his people, we still see that they were directed to reason from what they could witness in order to understand the nature and extent of God and how limited their deities were. Even when Ibrahim (on God’s instruction) destroyed all of their idols but left one standing [21:57-67], and when he told the king who claimed “I bring life and death” to cause the sun to rise from the west [2:258], he appealed for their use of intellect and rationale. He intended for them to give thought to their beliefs and deliberate on facts instead of blindly follow their whims or the customs of their forefathers. He meant for them to weigh their beliefs with logic.

Similarly, in the Quran we are directed to reason and reflect upon what we can witness to derive our faith in what we cannot witness.

Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and earth, and the alternation of the night and the day, and the ships which sail in the sea with what benefits people, and what Allah has sent down from the sky of water, giving life thereby to the earth after its death and dispersing therein every [kind of] moving creature, and [His] directing of the winds and the clouds controlled between the sky and the earth are surely signs for a people who use reason. (2:164)

The Quran repeatedly calls attention to eminent facts and manifestations for one to deliberate upon so one with a discerning mind may weigh the evidence and use his reason to understand the truth and reinforce his faith. In the verse [2:26] referenced earlier where it reads, “…and those who believe know it is the truth from their Lord…” the believers’ certainty – that they know it is the truth - comes from this reasoning and discernment. Proponents of blind faith may argue that a believer’s faith is innate and instinctive, instilled within by God Himself (hence God guides whom He pleases; see [8:23] “And if God had known any good in them, surely He would have made them hear…”) and that only a nonbeliever would need to reason to come in to belief. An innate awareness may indeed be instilled by God but in Surah Imran, we find believers described as bearing the trait of reasoning – observing the signs around them and giving thought to them to reaffirm their faith.

Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are signs for those of discernment. Those who remember Allah while standing or sitting or [lying] on their sides and give thought to the creation of the heavens and the earth, [saying], "Our Lord, You did not create this for naught; exalted are You; then protect us from the punishment of the Fire.” (3:190-191)

The first part reiterates that everyday manifestations require discernment to be seen as signs from God. Accordingly, in attributing believers as persons who give thought to the creation of heaven and earth, it underlines thought and reason as essential to a believer’s faith and its reaffirmation.

Then, if belief is in reason, disbelief is in the refusal to reason.

Indeed, the worst of living creatures near Allah are the deaf and dumb, those who do not use reason. (8:22)

A commonality in the Quran between all the disbelievers throughout time has been their refusal to reason, predicated on a stubborn loyalty to their traditions and an arrogant refusal to change their ways.

And when it is said to them, "Follow what Allah has revealed," they say, "Rather, we will follow that which we found our fathers doing." Even though their fathers understood nothing, nor were they guided? The example of those who disbelieve is like that of one who shouts at what hears nothing but calls and cries - deaf, dumb and blind, so they do not use reason. (2:170-171)

It is ironic that many of the Islamic faith are guilty of being just such blind followers in faith. They follow the beliefs of their parents and they follow the teachings of people who claim expertise in religion. Often people will follow experts that their parents follow. They follow with such blind obedience that they will argue vehemently against any assertion contrary to the teachings of their chosen expert and adamantly refuse to analyze or give critical thought to the truth and validity of what is being preached to them.  

I wonder if the Islamic clergy’s assertion of blind-faith as integral to Islamic faith is partially meant to prevent their authority or their interpretation from ever being called into question.  They preach that faith is the “fear” of God and an immense “love” for His Messenger that is not reasoned but “felt” in one’s heart and that intellect and reason will fill the mind with doubt and lead one astray. Despite whatever innate spiritual realization or awareness of God one might feel, certainty in faith can only come from reconciling this awareness with true facts; and if God is truth, then all facts will bear witness to that truth. Therefore, critical thought and reason can only lead one towards the truth and towards a greater certainty in their faith.

So have they not traveled through the earth and have hearts by which to reason and ears by which to hear? For indeed, it is not eyes that are blinded, but blinded are the hearts which are within the breasts. (22:46)

We learn here that if one were to look for signs they would find them everywhere and so it isn’t that the signs cannot be seen, but that the mind refuses to see them (blinded are the hearts implying that they do not desire to see).

I have no doubt that the majority of questionable elements in religion that have placed Islam in its present mire arise from the various “versions” of Islam that are propagated by the respective sects and followed by the masses with unquestioning blind obedience. If the masses were willing to reason and critically assess the beliefs and philosophies preached by their respective sects or schools of thought, perhaps they might find more consensus in their beliefs than in centuries.

This discussion has established that contrary to conventional wisdom in religion, Islam does not require that we relinquish our reflective and reasoning abilities; rather, they are essential to attaining certainty in belief, and that it is reflection and thought that, in fact, distinguish a believer from the nonbeliever. The burden of attaining that certainty in belief is on the believer and not any Imam, cleric or scholar (see [53:38-39]). Thus, an independent effort to study and understand religion becomes a necessary part of faith. People seem to be wary of the “1-inch masjid” (an interesting term I have come across to denote an independent perspective on religion, usually at odds with prevalent views, developed and preached by a single individual who believes he/she has stumbled upon the real truth while everyone else is condemned), but it is precisely for this reason that one must use their own intellect and critical reasoning to discern the truth from someone’s misinterpretation and misinformation. Whether one follows a major sect, a 1-inch masjid or the views of a scholar who has spent a lifetime in the study of religion, critical thought remains imperative to faith.

I am not an expert on religion

I am ever so grateful to God to have been raised in a home where His name was mentioned often. I don’t think most of us realize what a great blessing this truly is. I was raised a Muslim and I am blessed to have parents who encouraged me to ask questions and seek out my own answers, even when it came to religion, to use reason and not follow blindly. And so, over the years as I learned more about Islam, a discontentment began brewing within me. Even setting aside the violent Al-Qaeda ideology that always earns a perfunctory dismissal from just about everyone I know – even so – I found so much of my religion to be disagreeable, so much of it that I could not accept.

I know of others who share this discontentment. Much of what they know about this religion hardly sits well with them. They admittedly find it depressing, yet they hold fast to their faith, a loyalty borne of sentimentality and dutiful servitude to the norms of the Muslim societies/countries we hail from or the religious precepts of our families. They hold it all to be true and they believe it all to be right, even if they would never practice some of it themselves… and would never want to. But when this strife between what one believes to be right and what one feels is right in his heart grows enough to spill over to blemish one’s day-to-day life, and one’s esteem, it is time to question what one believes to be true.

Now I know there is an overabundance of “experts” nowadays. Be it health matters, money management, stocks, parenting, resume writing, spirituality; there is never any advice, suggestion or argument. There is always “expert” opinion, unequivocally worthier and undeniably accurate (presumably… and we’ll believe them because they’re the experts). They stake a know-all-end-all claim to their domain, planting a flag and calling themselves king. I suspect this phenomenon has been native to religion far longer than to popular culture (just judging by the commonalities it bears with the notion of crusades and conquests that litter religious history), and it may perhaps be the true culprit behind the creation of the various divergent sects of Islam in existence today… all claiming to worship the same God, follow the same book, and stake a higher claim to authority over the religion than others.

So I would like to clarify that I am absolutely not claiming to be an expert at all. I am not seeking a following. I do not think I have all the right answers or that God has inspired me with truth that no one else can see. I only desire a critique of my own thoughts and findings. If anything, I wish to inspire dialogue and independent critical thought. I hope to inspire others to think so that they may reconcile their faith with their reason – so they know why they believe what they do and can be at peace with their religion and themselves.