> Symptoms of Modernism

[salman]

List of symptoms of modernism disease which eventually leads one to apostasy - abandoning Islam in totality or the foundation and doctrine of Islam.

The list is based on my personal observation, so please feel free to add more or correct my list, insha'Allah

The symptoms are in order:

1 - Apologetic Methodology: In nutshell, it is falling in the traps of the kuffaar and answering them on their turf using their standards and principles. So, the person will end be focusing on appeasing the kuffaar or give them 'logical' answers to their questions against Islam. It is no big deal if we have to go against orthdox sunni understanding by rejecting the understanding of the people of knowledge because it is "against" the Qur'an and Sunnah and/or it does not give 'logical' answers. Even if some ahadith do not make sense or ahad (singular), we say they are not authentic

2 - First step to kufr methodology: We must answer to kuffaar logically so that they can embrace Islam or understand Islam better. There is no problem if we invent new interpretations, which were alien to Muslims for 14 centuries, because no scholar is perfect and scholars are not sources of Islam: we must take from the Qur'an and Sunnah and understand it ourselves. There is no problem if we appeal to odd opinions of scholars if it serves us. And there is no problem if we reject many ahadith because they 'contradict' the Qur'an; thus, they are not authentic.

3 - Modernist Methodology: We should interpret the Qur'an ourselves and not refer to 'jahil' scholars as they only come up with extreme interpretations and make Islam look bad and create divisions. Thus, there is no problem if we reject many parts of the Qur'an and Sunnah, specially if they have to do with hadoud, women issues, etc., because they were only time limited (** main problem is that they do not work with their intellect or appease the kuffaar so they have utilize back door to explain their kufr **)

4 - Super Modernist Methodology: The Sunnah is not an Islamic source as the Qur'an does not tell us to follow the Prophet (peace be upon him). We should only refer to the Qur'an; the Sunnah is man-made invented by these 'jahil' scholars after 2 centuries of Islam to support their 'extreme' interpretations. (** yet, they think they believe in the Qur'an and appeal to historical accounts **)

No wonder some of them make statements like followings:
How a Modernist Renders Prophethood Obsolete
How A Modernist Views the Qur'an. Totally and Thoroughly Kufr
How a Modernist Dispels Orthodoxy

I do not think we need these kinds of people to be calling themselves Muslims let alone defenders and representatives of Islam.

Rejecting the Sunnah in totality or even part of it willingly and knowingly (not ignorant) without any shari evidence (i.e., ijtihad based on sciences of hadith) is clear cut kufr and apostasy. Hence, many of these leave Islam and join the ex-Muslim crew to attack Islam and others hurt Islam from inside. That is why we say, there is no difference between kafir Ali Sina and Javed Ahmad Ghamidi. They both operate on same kufr methodology of shaytan and both are serving him (shaytan) well against Islam, yet the victory will always fall in the laps of people of Sunnah, insha'Allah wa Allahmdulillah, because this is the promise of Allah.

One interesting to note is that they are not first deviant heretical group. Many appeared in early centuries of Islam and even though their foundation and methdology is similar to modernists of our time; however, unlike modernists of our time, their focus was on noble issues - issues pretaining to tawheed and doctrine - whereas modernists of our time are focusing on secondary issues - issues pertaining to fiqh (i.e., women issues, hadoud etc.). The Jahmiyyah, Mu'tazilite and other heretical groups fell in the same trap, which the apologetics of our time has fallen into: playing on the court of the kuffaar with their rules, methodology and terminologies; thus, the kuffaar serve and the Muslims return and this game of back and forth continues forever. The Jahmis, Qadris, Mu'tazilie, Kullbis, etc., ended up rejecting the Attributes of Allah, and other issues pertaining to tawheed. And the heretics of our time ended up rejecting the Sunnah and rulings of Allah.

may Allah save us all from such fitnah and keep us on haqq, ameen

and Allah knows best

[al-boriqee]

good post akh

I think you might be good to argue with them, but you need to develop or build patience, because I can see you blow off like a canon when one of them makes totally inhumane speeches that they can make so easily about the sunnah.

If you think you can do it, I would like to see your defend the sunnah on their turf (and you know where Im talking about). One benfit I do know that you may get inshallah would be how to sharpen and harp on your dynamic of dawah and from what angle you can approach them which can eventually lead you to comment from a pure sunni aspect about their utterly stupid ideas.

[binnasoordeen]

Originally Posted by salman

1 - Apologetic Methodology: In nutshell, it is falling in the traps of the kuffaar and answering them on their turf using their standards and principles. So, the person will end be focusing on appeasing the kuffaar or give them 'logical' answers to their questions against Islam. It is no big deal if we have to go against orthdox sunni understanding by rejecting the understanding of the people of knowledge because it is "against" the Qur'an and Sunnah and/or it does not give 'logical' answers. Even if some ahadith do not make sense or ahad (singular), we say they are not authentic

yea bro I see this technique is followed by many people and in india a modernist claims that there are some authentic ahadeeth which contradicts quran @ the end what they tell is "how can we explain this to no-muslim they wont accept this" then they conclude with so and so quran contradicts ahadeeth

[Aayah]

Very good post, I was just thinking of starting a new thread about this to ask, but good that I found it here.

- Do those modernist deny the ahad ahadeeth when it comes to fiqhi issues?
I met someone claimed that he accept Ahad ahadeeth in general but he doesn't when it comes to fiqhi ruling.


- What do they think of Asha'iri and Mu'tazilah?

[salman]

Originally Posted by Aayah

akh boriqee will be a better person to answer these questions because he had more experience than me with different modernists whereas I have mostly dealt with extreme ones. khayr, my two cents;

I wanted to introduce another topic on this subject and I am sure that will clear up lots of things. I will try to bring it today, insha'Allah: "Reasons for modernism". Here is a quick draft of that post:

One thing that we need to understand about modernism is that the cause for modernism is colonialism pressure and challenges from the west. So whatever is challenged from the west either needs to be re-interpreted or rejected. If the west master doesn't have problem then we accept it whether ruling is based upon ahad or no ahad. The classical example given in support of our understanding is wiping over jurab (socks). As Ahl al-Hadith have been saying for centuries that if our fiqh and rulings were based upon human intellect then the Prophet (sal-allahu alayhi wa salam) would have told us to wipe bottom of jurab and not top. However, ... Similarly, if west had a problem with how we make wudhu then these modernists will have rejected wiping over socks or re-interpreted it. But the west doesn't care about how we rinse our mouths or whether we wipe bottom or top of socks. The west cares about so called 'barbaric' and 'sexist' rulings.

Once we understand this, everything becomes clear; all these fancy terms (i.e., maqassid, usool al-fiqh, ahad etc.), which modernists bring, are nothing but a back door to justify their deformation of Islam.

Originally Posted by Aayah

Do those modernist deny the ahad ahadeeth when it comes to fiqhi issues?

as you know and listed in the first post, there are different degrees of modernists. Some are very extreme (i.e., hadith rejectors, hadoud rejectetors, etc. Ghamdi type) and some are lenient like Shaykh Yusuf Qardawi and rest of his crew.

Pardon me for going bit off tangent here. And Akh boriqee correct me if I am wrong, jazak Allah khayran.

The issue of ahad hadith is deep rooted in our history. This issue was never raised during the time of the Salaf. However, the earlier people of bida'a (i.e., ash'aris) and ahl al-ray (ahnaf) argued that ahad ahadith cannot be accepted in matters of aqeedah, meaning they cannot be taken as hujjah with certainty. There is a difference of understanding between ahnaf and ash'aris. Ash'aris simply reject ahadith pertaining to Attributes of Allah because to them it is tajseem. Whereas ahnaf say that if a person rejects an issue derived from ahad hadith then he cannot be a kafir. That's why they differentiate between fardh and wajib. So as far I understand the position of ahnaf has to do with making takfir of someone and not with rejecting the rulings itself. The people of hadith replied to them that most of our deen comes through ahad ahadith so if we are to reject them then we will have to reject bulk of our deen.

As far modernists are concerned then generally speaking most of them are munkar of ahadith or they reject bulk of them. You will only see few of them saying that we don't accept ahad ahadith in fiqh and they are the moderate modernists. First, not accepting ahad ahadith in fiqh is a new phenomenon. Secondly, like I mentioned above, they will reject only the ahadith which is not challenged by their master, the west.

Originally Posted by Aayah

I met someone claimed that he accept Ahad ahadeeth in general but he doesn't when it comes to fiqhi ruling.

There are only two cores of Islam: tawheed and fiqh. How can he say that he generally accepts them but then he rejects them for one of the cores of our deen? If he is saying that then he is rejecting most of our deen. The arguments in support of rejecting ahadith has been extensively refuted by ahl al-hadith. I believe if I am not wrong the first person to defend the position of ahl al-hadith was Imam Shafi'i (rahimahullah) and he wrote a risalah on this.

Originally Posted by Aayah

What do they think of Asha'iri and Mu'tazilah?

well, many of them most likely doesn't even know about them. Just like Christianity, modernists of our time have lost their theology so they don't care about issues related to tawheed; they are more focused on hadoud laws, women issues, human rights, jihad, etc. There are issues in which they agree with mu'tazailah and asha'ris (i.e., issue of imaan and qadr) and their line of reasoning is pretty similar. Hence, they wouldn't think about them. Whatever the case maybe, the reasons for deviancy modernists, jahmis, mu'tazilah and ash'aris are the same: they bowed downed to pressure and challenges from their opponents and sacrificed their deen.

I hope this helps and Allah knows best

[al-boriqee]

Man, I can't wait to complete my work.

So far it is about 45 pages and thats a tip of the iceburg. Inshallah after I complete it, I believe everyone in the entire sunni world can benefit from it because it highlights some realities never even fathomed by many of us and I was able to decipher them into three particular groups, one of them being ascribed to sunnism and therefore on our side, but they twist our texts for a murji end, among them yusuf qardawi and others. as for the other two, well, when it comes out, inshallah yall will see.

salman, you will be my first hand man in reviewing it inshallah.

asalamu alaikum

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by Aayah

Very good post, I was just thinking of starting a new thread about this to ask, but good that I found it here.

- Do those modernist deny the ahad ahadeeth when it comes to fiqhi issues?
I met someone claimed that he accept Ahad ahadeeth in general but he doesn't when it comes to fiqhi ruling.

modernist are worse than the older sects for various reasons which inshallah will be expounded in full in my work when i complete it for the public inshallah. Basically, their methodology is not one of takdheeb of khabirul-waahid, rather their entire methodology is based entirely, or partially on hadeeth rejectionism, and this field is fare worse than the mutazila of old.

What do they think of Asha'iri and Mu'tazilah?

the ashaa'irah and the mutazilah are older sects by which they are within the "Sunni" side when contrasting the modernist in this polemic with them. This is why in their forum, a couple of us being salafi and a few ash'ari sufis are naturally united in combating this kufr.

[Aayah]

This is more than what I was looking for, JazakumAllah khair for clarifying many things brothers. I have been searching about the same topic and found some good links to refute those who deny the ahadeeth of ahad, I wish I have the time to translate them:
here
and here

Anyways, will be waiting your work you two in the topic inshaAllah

[salman]

wa iyyak and everything good is from Allah. Jazak Allah khayran for the links

English links:
Hadith Ahad and Hadith Mutawatir | saheefah.org
the other one I wanted to share is from English multaqa but it is currently down

[Aayah]

Now this is getting more serious!!

This person is denying the descending of the Messiah and the coming of the Dajjal (Anti-Christ) and the waited Mahdi! claiming that those are nothing but a false narrations by those who entered Islam and still influenced by their old faith (Jews, Christians). I know this is pure Kuffr

I am not debating him, but trying to draw him to say whatever he want with the least reply I could offer so I know more of what those people think!

May Allah save us