> Symptoms of Modernism

[al-boriqee]

Im galdd you raised this point. I forgot to incorporate this in my work. Therefore I will add it. However, these idiots follow the view of the famous historian Ibn Khaldoon. Ibn Khaldoon is the one who opined that the riwayaat of Imaam Mahdi and I believe the dajjal, but particularly Imaam Mahdi are all inventions brought into the ahadeeth due to the political climate of the umawiyyah and the rivalry with the uprising of the abassiyyah. This is where the origin of todays denial of Imaam Mahdi lies at.

here are the topics upon which my work is going to be ellaborating on inshallah. I post it in order to give a glimpse to the audience the magnitude of their deviation and to highlight precisely how extreme and far off these people differ with Muslims

·Al-Muqadimah (The Introduction)
·Issue 1: The Academic Characteristic of Modern Progressivism explained
·Issue 2: Explaining the Psychological Basis of Progressive/Modernist Thought Along With M’utazili thought Which Was Revealed in the Qur’an in the Story of Iblees. Understanding the Basis Between Prophetic Methodology and Philosophy
·Issue 3: The Degrees of the Modernist/Progressive Spectrum
·Issue 4: Errors in the Creedal Doctrines of Modernist/Progressives

• Murjism=Liberalism: Explaining the Heresy of Irjaa and the Modernist/Progressive link to the Murji’a
• The Concept of Itmaamul-Hujjah among Certain Revisionists and the Extent of Irjaa
• How Their Irjaa has Affected Their Understanding of Islamic Doctrine on Allegiance and Disassociation and What This Doctrine has done as a result
• Modernist/Progressives agree with the Ahlul-Kalaam in the Doctrine of al-Asm’a wa Sifaat
• Aql (Intellect) over Naql (Scripture)
• ØTahqeem al-Qawaneen: Ruling with Humanly Conjured Laws and Its Inherent Opposition to the Very Basis of Islam in reply to Secular Progressives
• Tabdeel bi Shar’i: Altering the revealed law on The Basis of what is Being Altered Does not Befit Reason and is Inhumane in reply to Modernists
• Their Errors in the Doctrine of Taqleed and their Extremism of Labeling the Following of Scripture as Idol Worship
• Hadeeth Rejectionism and its Subsequent Levels
• Ethics: Between Islam and Revisionism
• The Concept of Truth: Between Islam and Revisionism
• The Purpose of Life: Between Islam and Revisionism
• Denial of al-Mahdi in Islam & the Descent of Isa,

·Issue 5: The Fallacy of Incorporating the Efforts of the European Reformation into the Islamic Paradigm.
·Issue 6: Addressing Modernist/Progressive Principle 1: Textual Doctrine and Practice (The Qur’an) has to be reinterpreted according to the change of time.
·Issue 7: Addressing Modernist/Progressive Principle 2: Their Claim on the “Necessity of Ijtihaad” explained

• Ijtihaad Being Construed for Islaah
• The Requisites for Ijtihaad
• How Ijtihaad is Explained in the Western Paradigm
• Their Argument on the Fossilization of Islamic Thought

·Issue 8: How Modernist/Progressives Are Different than the M’utazilah Sect of Old
·Issue 9: Contemporary Contentions of Modernist/Progressives
·Issue 10: The Actuality of Maqaasid ash-shari’iyyah (The Higher Aims and Objectives of the Divine Legislation): Between the People of Islam and the People of Revisionism
·Issue 11: The Claim of Modernist Ideologues That the Qur’an should ONLY be Understood according to pre-classical jaahili (preIslamic) arabic idiomatic usage
·Issue 12: Various Fiascos of Modernist Reinterpretations
·Issue 13: Various Blasphemies of Modernists/Progressives

so far I got 63 pages and I still have about 70 percent give or take, more to go.

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by salman

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.

yeah your right.

however I would say that the particular flavor of ash'aris and hanafis rejecting hadeeth is on a totally different scale than the munkarul-hadeeth movement. These sects in particular did so because they folloed the philosophical aspect o the mutazili school based on scholastic grounds.
However, with the munkarul-hadeeth scoundrels, their plight is totallty and utterly rooted in nothing more than religious malpractice 1000%.

their enitre 'itiqaad is based on westenr antics than on Islam whereas the hanafis, ash'aris, and yes, even the mutazilah, their views were based on Islamic antics, and this is why in a section of my work, I will have to clarify the stark difference between these modern scoundrels and the mutazilah of old, because they are actually much worse than the mutazilah.

[salman]

Jazak Allah khayran akhee; your point is agreed upon. I simply brought it up to show that the issue is not new and there is a difference between how early opponents against accepting ahadith viewed it and how the modernists of our time view time.

There are some good topics in your risalah; I look forward to reading it. I am not too sure if I can be help much but I will do whatever I can insha'Allah.

@Ayah

Bismillah

sister, like I said, all their rejectionism has nothing to do with ahad hadith, usool al-fiqh and maqasid al-shari'ah. This is simply an excuse to backup their rejectionism. The methodology of these modernists is exactly the same as secularists and comes from their god, iblees. It is very simple and straight forward: "this doesn't make sense to me. Explain it to me rationally and I am going to reject whatever doesn't work my intellect". So the asl (foundation) of modernism is to reject whatever doesn't work with their limited intellect. Hence, to modernists, if everything in Islam doesn't work with their intellect or if everything in Islam is questioned and challenged by their master, the west, then they will reject everything. Their asl is kufr and due to this very reason many of them outright declare apostasy while others hurt Islam from within. Other innovation and destructive tool adopted by these modernists is the math-hab of irjaa. Like the west, they have turned Islam into a personal thing, a spiritual belief. As long as we believe there is a God or as long as pray and do spiritual deeds then we are all good. Whereas we know that Islam is more than a spiritual belief system.

This whole ideology is contrary to what Islam and prophetic world stands and calls for. Islam asks to humble ourselves and wholeheartedly submit and surrender ourselves to the will of our Lord. But people operating on this (modernist) ideology wants us to remain arrogant and not pay attention to our deficiencies. Islam says surrender yourself but they say "why explain to us rationally because we believe we are capable to derive our way of life by ourselves". Their whole point of "explain to me rationally" is ridiculously stupid that it cannot be described with any words except with a small analogy. Imagine you are on a battle field then an enemy soldier corners you and he is pointing gun at you. Then he says: "surrender yourself" but you say in reply: "but why! explain to me rationally".

To sum it up

Allah says: "O my slave Islam is the only religion for you so willingly surrender yourself to My will"
Muslim Modernist: "Yes, I do submit but I need to change how You have presented Islam to us because there are some people who don't like it"
Kaffir: "You are my God, but I don't believe in you and I am certain that I know more than you because my deficient mind is capable of everything".

Allah says: "They will not take you as their friends and accept your deen unless you embrace their deen"
Muslim Modernist: "Well, that is not true because if I explain to them rationally by altering your rules upon us then they will become Muslims and take us as their friends"

Uncorrupted Muslim: "We hear and obey!"

and Allah knows best