The Definition of the Term Khawarij to the Ibadhis

Who are the Khawarij to the Ibadhis?

To the Ibadhis, to go out out from the religion of Islam has nothing directly to do with political rebellion, be it legal or illegal rebellion. It is based soley upon the rejection of the fixed Shariah laws practiced by the Prophet Mohamed sallalahu alahi wa salaam, or committing acts against the set of prescribed binding laws for religious practice, like the prolonged abandonment of prayer or acts of worship for others than Allah alone. Thus they do no consider their practice of Islam to be out of the confines of Islam. If they had used the definition of rebelling against a right (or even wrong) leader, then they would have been Khawarij and labelled Uthman's killers, Talhah & al-Zubair, and Muawiyah as such.

Logical definition, which gets rid of the necessity of having to define what a "right leader" is in order to understand the term Khawarij, unlike my Sunni sources.

So do the Ibadhi consider anyone to be Khawarij?

Yes, they consider the Azariqah Sect and its supporters to be Khawarij because Nafi Al-Azraq made the mistake of deriving a religious ruling from a single peice of [misunderstood by him when taken out of context] Islamic evidence, rather than the volume of evidence in sunnah of the Prophet Mohamed sallalahu alahi wa salaam's lifetime.

The Ibadhi believe that the Azariqah sect has gone out of the religion because they have rejected the shariah that guards that a Muslim's personage is safe unless they should apostate. [Osama Bin Laden falls into this category for example, as he believes killing innocent civilians and even Muslims to be okay by rationalization of out-of-context Qu'ran quotes not within the example of the Shariah laws set out by Rasoolulah Mohamed].

In such an example of saying that the Azariqah are khawarij, how is that rationalized?

The Azariqah believe that if a Muslim commits a major or minor sin, then it is lawful to shed their blood, capture their pocessions, and enslave their women and children, as it is quoted in the Qu'ran in Surah al-An'am, ayah 121: "And if you obey them you verily are surely polytheists [ie disbelievers, apostates]". Thus the Azariqah believe that Muslim believers [and innocent civilians] became/become apostates/polytheists when they committed/commit sins, even very minor ones.

The Ibadhi (and Sunni me, and all the Shia ladies that I know personally know) do not believe such rationalizing is correct. Firstly, the ayah is in context of telling us to eat halal meat, and that Allah compares those who do not follow His clearly prescribed conditions to the disbelievers. Secondly, and most importantly, there were Muslims alive during the Prophet Mohamed's [sallalalhu alahi wa salaam] time who used to commit sins, even major ones, but they were not subject to the laws for militant disbelievers who attacked the Muslims, or of Muslim apostates. Thus such a ruling is cleaaaaaaaaaarly imcompatible with the Shariah itself, and is a rejection of the foundations of the Shariah.

If one is to follow the Azariqah school of thought, all manner of horrors and attrocities can be committed upon the Ummah [Muslim nation and others friendly to us]. Jealous of your neighbor and want his lands? Find a small fault in him and then murder him, it's okay. That woman from your village who won't marry you? Fine. Point out that headscarf doesn't go quite enough over her breasts, and take her as your slave. She's not a Muslim afterall then is she? Or we could go with Osama. Any Muslim whose not fighting America deserves to die because they are personally responsible for their government's killing of Palestinians. Scary, the result of such a rejection of the sunnah, and shariah, isn't it?

To the Ibadhi the Azariqah are not Khawarij because they seceded from Ali R.A after the arbitration, or because they rebelled against the Umayyads. They are Khawarij because they misinterpreted verses from the Qu'ran, which in turn led them to commit acts of wickedness, and to invalidate laws. To the Ibadhi, rebellion against a Caliph or an Imam does not result in the renuncification of Islam, even if those who do so are deemed disobedient, sinful, or aggressors from within the contexts of Shariah law.

Conclusion:

To the Ibadhi Sect's school of thought, Muslims only become Khawarij through their deeds [acts of apostasy as defined by Allah's & His Messenger] and doctrines [that reject the Shariah and thus the Messenger and the Quran], but not rebellion in itself, or sins that did not lead to apostasy.

The Technical Meaning of the Term "Khawarij" pt. 2

Now, to study the technical definition of "Khawarij" from the perspective of some Shia scholars (who I will admit, I am generally less familiar with). Sheikh Muhammad Abduh [Nahju Al-Balagha Vol. 1, pg 78] attempts to explain the concept of what the Khawarij are more clearly than Sunni scholars by saying "the Mariqun [Khawarij] are those who have gone out of the religion, who have doubt and who are not sure, and he [Ali] crushed them with arguments and defeated them!"

To go out from the religion I personally would have to consider a Muslim to a. either commit extreme shirk of worshipping something other than Allah, b. to disregard the sunnah of the Prophet Mohamed sallalahu alahi wa salaam as being part of the religion, c. to give up prayer, ect. We know from history, that this is not so of the people of Nahrawaan. And if you are Shia, you will know this because Ali himself said they were not infidels/disbelievers.

To have doubt, to me personally, means, that the people of Nahrawaan's belief in Allah and the hereafter was weak. This is not evidenced at all, and is contradicted entirely for any Shia scholar who would state it is so by Ali's own statement about the people of Nahrawaan: "From infidelity they have already fled; and a hypocrite seldom remembers Allah." [Al-Baihaqi Al-Kubra Vol. p. 334, narrative no. 17189]. Meaning, Ali himself in history acknowledged that the people of Nahrawaan remembered Allah frequently. In fact, the people of Nahrawaan are always mentioned as praying constantly, especially by Sahaba companion Ibn Abbas, and Ali.

As for whether or not Ali crushed them with arguments and defeated them, he did indeed defeat them in the skirmish battle at Nahrawaan. But with force, not arguments. To clarify this, from Ali himself : "They are the people who have rebelled against us, and we have been given victory over them." None of Ali's arguments changed the so-called Khawarijites opinion, for indeed, Ali himself had been of the same opinion as them originally about Muawiya's tactic of raising the Qu'ran copies on spearheads saying "what is between these pages is the judgement between you and us" to keep the war away from them awhile while they were at the disadvantage to Ali's forces. Short history lesson: Ali's side had ALREADY tried negotiating with Muawiya's side on NUMEROUS occasions. Ali was no fool and realized a pause in the fighting right now was advantageous to Muawiya. Originally, like the people of Nahrawaan, he did not wish to agree to this truce, but the majority of his fighters did so he changed his position. Historically sahih (from a Sunni perspective) ahadith also corroborate from Muawiyia's advisor Amru bin Al Alas himself that this was not a sincere act of truce, but a military tactic. "Let us raise copies of the Qu'ran on spearheads as a sign of wishing to end this war… so that we may stop Ali's forces and weaken their strength." [Al Yaaqubi Taarikh Al Yaaqubi, Vol. 2, p 188].

Ali would have been in no position to persuade the so-called Khawarijites with arguments, seeing as he had originally stood adamantly with them. In fact, the people of Nahrawaan's arguments were so compelling that companion Ibn Abaas was persuaded by them. It is my personal belief after reading all accounts from Sunni and Shia sources of the incident, that Ali would have preferred to stand on the same side of the fence as the people of Nahrawaan, who rejected the pseudo truce agreement shouting "There is no judgement except that of Allah." Except that it was NOT the wish of majority whom he led, and since it led to disunity he was quoted saying "That is the word of truth behind which wrong is intended." [Al Tabari Al Taarikh Vol. 6, p. 17 (and numerous others sources saying the same, both sunni and shia)].

If you believe that Ali was sinless like Mohamed salalahu alahi wa salaam (I do not), you would have to believe that by saying that Ali meant that the people of Nahrawaan were right, but that there was more to be considered than that alone. Or, authoobillahi minash shaytaani rajeem, astighfuraAllah, that Ali received Divine revelation from Allah (I totally DOOOOOOOOOO NOT and believe to believe so IS shirk). If you think it is meant literally, than this would be a mistake of Ali's as no man is allowed to judge or assume intention. I say this with authority because of the case that a disbeliever proclaimed "la ilaha il Allah" and a Sahabi slew him. When asked by Mohamed salalalhu alahi wa salaam why he did so, the Sahabi said, "He did not do so except in fear of the sword." The Prophet angrily asked him: "Have you split his heart to see what exists therein?" So without Divine revelation, no man can pass judgement on another man's intention.

We know that the action of the people of Nahrawaan were honest, and even Ali says it was the truth. They rejected the false truce under the same pretexts that Ali had given for the war having been justified in the beginning. Perhaps, later having reconsidered what he knew about judging intentions to be for Messengers and Allah alone, Ali came to rule his followers about the "khawarij": "Do not kill the Khawarij after me, for he who seeks the truth but mistakes is unlike he who seeks misguidance intentionally [Muawiyia and his Syrian forces]. Scholars will say that Ali speaks of Muawiyia as one who seeks misguidance intentionally, and the Khawarij as those who do so accidently, but I feel more Ali was speaking about his own followers, when they chose to make the truce in error. BTW, the last statement is biased so feel free to strike through if you like. This is me trying to give Ali an out for a mistake I believe history would have him make.

At least from Ali's opinion, and thus I must conclude what should be the Shia one regardless of what their scholars say, the Khawarij didn't leave Islam like they regard Muawiyia to have done. They still regard them as Muslims, but as Muslims who will not follow majority opinion if it contradicts what they know of Qu'ran.

I have not found a single Sunni source that can tie in the "what is Khawarij" with "who" the Khawarij are purported to be alas. Abu Dawood says of the people of Nahrawaan "They are no people who follow their prejudices… they are the people whose traditions are the most authentic" and even Ibn Taymiyya says: "they are well known to speaking the truth to the extent that the traditions narrated by them are the most authentic of all" [Minhaj Al Sunnah Vol. 3, pg. 3]. So much so for the old "they innovated" argument, then I guess.

CONCLUSION:

SUNNI: So the Sunni technical description of "Khawarij" is people who are adamant followers of the Prophet Mohamed's traditions and honest to the point of being highly quoted by all ahadith scholars, yet they [people of Nahrawaan] left Islam and created the first disunity (which they didn't) somehow by disregarding Ali's military decision which cannot be evidenced from any of their decisions/actions concerning creed and tauhid, especially when reading from the perspective of respected companion and sahabi Ibn Abaas.

BTW, I follow Ibn Abaas over a lot of Sunni Scholars. For instance, he said the eye rims [aka kohl applied in the rim of the eye, makeup of the time upon the Salaf] was halal and what is apparent of. Yet I've never read Saudi Sheikh Ibn Baaz say the same right? Ibn Abaas walked with Rasoolulah. I'm going to take his word first, unless the hadith is proven to be fabricated or inaccurate ect.

???? (This is KIND OF why I don't follow scholars blindly when I can have daleel [Islamic evidence] instead).

SHIA: The Khawarij are those who rebelled against Ali's majority forces' decision to accept Muawiyia's fake truce. They were neither the first callers of disunity, nor did they leave Islam, but their actions are regarded as an innocent but misinformed mistake. [This is me taking Imam Ali over Shia scholars because he's more authorative I'd figure].

OOOOOR Ali himself admits his forces majority were mistaken, as I concluded [not a shia though so my opinion here doesn't count].

IBADHI: The people of Nahrawaan did not go out of Islam, but defended it to the letter even from their friends and allies. If the definition of Khawarij is one who rebels against a right leader, the people of Nahrawaan believe a leader must always lead by Qu'ran and Shariah and within its pretexts, and not simply be a leader regardless of Shariah legality. If right leader means someone injust, who disregards Qu'ran and sunnah, then this is not Islam they have gone out from, but from tyranny and corruption.

(K, I am not Ibadhi, and I don't know yet about LATER Nahrawaanese practices of Islam, but I agree about RIGHT LEADER).

So technical definitions now all dealt with in the highly confusing mess that they are, we will now delve into how the term "Khawarij" has been used historically.

What are YOUR thoughts on this thus far? Any takers?

The Technical Meaning of the Term "Khawarij" pt. 1

The core of the subject of whether or not there is a sect called "khawarij" depends entirely on your technical description of the word. Muslim scholars use different expressions to imply the technical meaning of the term "khawarij" but a technical description MUST, absolutely MUST contain who and what the Khawarij are to be concrete.

Al-Shahrastani [Al-Milalu Wa Al-Nihal Vol. 1, p. 129] has defined the Khawarij as: "Anyone that goes against a right leader upon which the majority has agreed [to have him for a leader], is called a Khawarij; be it against the Rightly-Guided Caliphs during the time of the Prophet's companions or against the followers of the Prophet's companions as well as against leaders at any time."

Al-Shahrastani's classification of course makes imperative the defining also of a "right leader".

Shia believe the right leaders of Islam to have been the Prophet Mohamed's family, daughter Fatimah, and son-in-law Ali due to interpretation of hadith, and following, their children. Sunni believe the companion Abu Bakr, the prophet Mohamed's father-in-law due to his marriage to Aisha, the same, according to the same hadith by another interpretation and consensus at the time of Rasoolulah's death, up until Ali, and sometimes Umar ibn Abdul-Aziz.

I personally believe the same definition of "rightly guided" as Al-Sharastani. That any Caliph [rightly guided leader of the Muslims] is just any pious and just Muslim leader that leads a Muslim state in compliance with Islamic law, as the Prophet Mohamed salalalhu alahi wa salaam did. Though for reason that will be explained shortly, I'm not sure if I buy his technical definition yet.

I believe the first Caliph would have to have been

a.) Appointed in accordance with the teachings of the Holy Qu'ran and Prophetic traditions. [I favor Abu Bakr, so do Sunni, and Ibadhi though both do not agree on the historical leadership after Umar, and Shia favor Ali]

And any Caliph existing now or before would have/had to:

b.) The Caliph must lead in accordance with those teachings and does not go contrary to them.

c.) The Caliph has not stepped down nor has he been deposed.

Al-Shahrastani means by rightly guided Caliphs specifically: Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali. If that is his technical definition as intended, then many Al-Shahrastani would never have labelled as Khawarij also fall under that label, including Talha, Zubair, and Muawiya... who rebelled against Ali [rightly guided Caliph] during his Caliphate.

That is the flaw in Al-Shahrastani's [and most Sunni scholars who I have thus far examined] classical technical definition I suppose [though I'd put modern day Qutbists and Osama Bin Ladens as Khawarij with no problem in breath and no Ibadhi would stop me from that] . That this technical definition's "what" does not make clear its "who".

Al-Shahrastani's definition of "what" the Khawarij are may encompass Aicha R.A, Talha, Zubair, and Muawiya, but when you ask the scholars of both Sunni and Shia who the first Khawarij were they will say the people of Nahrawaan (the Ibadhis).

But the funny thing about Sunnis especially holding the people of Nahrawaan as the first Khawarij not Talha and Zubair and Muawiya? Well, for one, Ali was no longer Caliph in the Sunni take on history when the people of Nahrawaan "went out" from his leadership.

Another meaning of "a right leader" can also be taken to mean a Muslim leader regardless of the means by which they have come to power or the legitimacy and legality of his political existence according to Islamic law.

I don't agree with a "Caliph" ever being this.

If this definition of a right leader is used then I am for sure Khawarij and proud of it. But historically, so would ever Muslim in history be. Sunnis would be Khawarij because they sided with Muawiya, Ibadhis would be Khawarij because they disagreed with Ali, Shia would be khawarij because Al-Hasan ibn Ali revolted against Muawiya, and Al Hussain organized a campaign in Iraq against the Umayyad leaders.

That doesn't work to clarify at all, does it.

Thus we can conclude that we are either lacking a a more definitive definition of "right ruler" or that Al-Shahrastani's "what" definition of Khawarij, is, er, lacking the ability to clarify the "who".

When trying to research this technical definition I ran into a problem. The technical definition is supposed to be the 'what' and the 'why'. Most scholars ignore what "khawarij" is supposed to be, assuming already that the people of Nahrawaan are "it" whatever that is disregarding the flaws of trying to be technical about it all, and launch into merely giving reasons they have been thus labelled, and listing actions they are purported to have done/do.

Most commonly, as related by Ibn Hajar [Al-Fat-Hu, Vol. 14, p. 8524] and Al Shawkani [Sharhu Al-Nayl, Vol. 7, p 164] we hear: "The word Khawarij is a plural form of the word Kharijah, which means group. They have been so-called because they have gone out of the religion and because they have innovated matters once not existed."

Ibadhi will argue Sunni innovate, Shia will argue Sunni innovate, Sunni will argue Ibadhi and Shia innovate. So that definiton (technically unsound as it is lacking "what" and "who") will be no avail to this study either.

One problem I have found in my study so far of the Khawarij (and please enlighten me if you found a better what and who then I have) is that in both classical and modern works on the subject there has been no cohesion between the definition and the conclusion. And that often when a definition of "what" is used, other that fall under "who" of that what are excluded for no logical or scientific reason.

The most respected statement (of course not by the Khawarij themselves;D) about the Khawarij is by Ibn Taymiyyah Al-Harrani [Al Tasfir Al Kabir Vol. 2, p. 8]. Ibn Taymiyyah says as for "who": "Khawarij are the first callers of disunity in Islam." Explaining: "The first disunity in Islam [was] after the murder of Uthman and the division of the Muslims, and when Ali and Muawiya agreed on making arbitration, the Khawarij opposed and proclaimed that: 'There is no judgement except that of Allah' and they disassociated themselves from the mainstream."

The Shia were already here, divided from the Sunni, and likewise, so any student of history might wonder at Ibn Taymiyyah calling the people of Nahrawaan [who historically opposed the arbitration between Muawiyia and Ali as a trick of Muawiyia's] the first callers of disunity. I know I do. Another case of same cases, different rulings. Also, Ibn Taymiyyah's definition of splintering one's self from Ali alone would not make one Khawarij as Ibn Taymiyyah himself does not consider companion Ibn Abbaas who left Ali (who personally considered war agaainst those of Nahrawaan unjustified) for Mecca, to be Khawarij. Even if you changed his definition to mean " the act of splintering from Ali combined with war against Ali" you'd have to say that Talha and Zubair were Khawarij too, and no one does. Some use the term "disbelievers" but not specifically "Khawarij". What's the difference one might ask? To go out from Islam is to disbelieve.

More to come. What do you think so far? Who are the Khawarij to you and if so, do you know why you consider them Khawarij? What does one have to believe/do to be Khawarij?

The Literal Linguistic Meaning of the Term "Khawarij"

To begin. What does "Khawarij" mean?

The word "Khawarij" is a plural form of the word "Kharijah" in fusah (formal Arabic).

Although in spoken Arabic it is common to refer to a single person as "Kharijiy" and to many as "Khawarij" which is quite different than the correct morphological rules of the Arabic language.

To make everything simple, "Khawarij" linguistically means "a group that has come out or gone out".

Sheikh Nasir Al Sabi'i stated that Ibn Al Faris has referred to the term linguistically as having two meanings, one being to pass through a thing, and another to differ in colours.

So linguistically, that's what Khawarij is supposed to mean: "One who has gone out or coming out."

The question most important to understand the term logically when we use it, is to determine what exactly is meant by going out or coming out.

Having determined the linguistic meaning of khawarij, which neither Sunni, Shia or Ibadhi will argue over, we must next state the technical meaning of the word "Khawarij".

SECTS IN ISLAM- writing "Al Khawarij"---also known as Ibadhi

Belated, I bring to you my promised beginning of the study into Sects in Islam by taking a closer look at their own logics and entities. I chose to start with the "Kwararij" because the majority of Muslims consider them to be the first original sect or division in Islam, whereas they [the Ibadhi] maintain that they are the only believers still on the right path, or at the very least, that they have the earliest sahih ahadith collection and that most other Muslims follow scholars or political leaders that have corrupted the Prophet's tradition.

I actually tried very hard to get someone from the Omani Ministry of Awqaf and Religious Affairs to write this piece but his response to me basically was, "seek and you shall find the truth", handing me of a bunch of books they don't give out to the regular convert. Which basically was saying that he trusted me to write honestly my findings.

I was given the titles "Ibadism in History Volume I: The Emergence of the Ibadhi School" by Ali Yahya Muammar, published by the Ministry of Awqaf and Religious Affairs; "The Overwhelming Truth, a Discussion of Some Key Concepts in Islamic Theology" by Ahmad b. Hamad al-Khalili [Grand Mufti of Oman], published by the Ministry of Awqaf and Religious Affairs; a book they are currently attempting to translate explaining why Ibadhi pray as they do which is unavailable to the general reader at this time; "Al-Khawarij: Reality or Legend" by Juma Muhammad Rashid Al Mazumi, published originally in Tanzania in Swahili. These are my sources from drawing an Ibadhi perspective. Please forgive what I do not know. I do not call myself Ibadhi.

****Hey, I already got one rude and ignorant comment on this post. I knew it was going to be controversial but hey, that was quick, and in good form. So I better make an ammendment****

No anonymous comments are further going to be posted on the exploring sects in Islam series on ILH. Pick an acronym.

Also, don't use insults or a term without an intellectual TECHNICAL & LINGUISTIC account for it.

In case you didn't read, which ANON. [just another ignorant purporting ignorance based on wrong assumptions] obviously didn't, I posted before on the blog, the whole point of this series is to explore terms and definition INTELLECTUALLY, based on their historical date, linguistic make-up, technical definition, purported definitions, ect.

When you call someone "evil" you damn well better have some scholaristic backing for your "new" sect lol.

Anyways, I just wanted to say, anon. you are wrong about the "secret" books. Because.

a. I named the titles of the books that are readily available upon request from the Islamic Ministry of Oman. At your request, they will be made available. They are not "secret" or I'd not have named them, and they certainly wouldn't have given them to a sunni, me, not exactly known for keeping her opinions to herself. The book I did not name is not available as of yet so I won't quote it alot. They were kind enough to loan me their own copy which is still undergoing editing and the whole publishing process. You could say I talked them out of it. I also haven't met yet with their ahadith scholars, but intend to, for a very long sit down about why they don't like some Sahih Al Bukhari ahadiths. I won't call anyone wrong until I know how they are wrong, why they are wrong, and how I might be wrong. It's a new goal for me in this life. You should try it too anon;p

b. They are not regular hand-outs for converts because most converts wanna know how to pray and read Qu'ran and wear hijab, or at least read the seerah before going in depth like Khalili's book really does. It is on intellectual Shariah and alot of other goodies you need a more scholaristic background to get some benefit out of. It is actually a hard read for me in places, a bit like reading an encyclopedia or studying for the bar exam.

c. Since one of the books deals on Shariah law and namely, how an Immamate Caliphate runs, it talks about stuff too in depth for someone who doesn't know how the Prophet Mohamed lived his life and lead the Muslims. For example, in Ibadhism, a Caliph who is corrupt and only claims to be Muslim but leads the people in corruption, must be replaced by way of the book's interpetation of Shariah. The educated religious men of Oman don't really want some idiot only reading one sentance and going out assassinating Sultan Qaboos or something cuz he doesn't get it. They knew from questioning me that I knew enough to not to be dangerous to myself or others. Anon, I'd be iffy on lending YOU the book, cuz you don't know how to read it all and get the big picture.

For those who can't be nice (or even just smart) in the exploring sects edition posts on ILH, why don't you just stick with the fashion posts? Most minds can handle those;D

Sects in Islam- Pixie's Perspective & Experiences

What you must know about me before you accuse me of any bias is that I first encountered Islam in the Sultanate of Oman, where I now happily reside. It is a Gulf country unlike its neighbors, having an Ibadhi majority (you’ve probably never heard of them as they call themselves, but the Sunni and Shia call them the Khawarij after events in Islamic history), and a Sunni population in the Balushi Al Batinah, Arab Sur and African and Arab Salalah [sometimes sufi here] areas of the country, and a Shia minority, mainly located in the capital Mutrah area. Here in Oman, we also have churches for Christians and Hindus. The Ibadhi rule our Shariah law, and the Islamic ministry is filled with their scholars giving their fatwas, and yet the religious freedom here and tolerance for all other schools of knowledge is quite unique in the Muslim world. Ibadhism is rigidly fundamental in how fiqh is deriven but as a practice as it exists in Oman, lacks the extremism which is to suppress other voices. Ibadhi Mosques and Bookshops have both Sunni and Shia books available. The same is NOT TRUE for Shia and Sunni bookshops and Mosques in the Sultanate. For one, if you have not been to Zanzibar or Oman, it is doubtful that you have ever heard of the Khawarij as they call themselves.
That is where I first saw Islam. Now, who I first knew as a Muslim:
You must know that the first Muslim who answered my questions about Islam was a Shia sister of the Jaffari school named Samia from the Shia quarter in Mutrah, Muscat, Oman. An Ibadhi sister named Intizar purchased my first Quran for me. An Sunni Omani man from Buhraimi on Oman’s border with the UAE, told me about women’s basic rights in Islam, and dispelled my Western brainwashed stereotypes of suppression of Muslim women.
Samia and Intisar both agreed on the basics of what one is required to understand in order to become a Muslim, and the rights of the Muslim woman, regardless of their highly differentiated vantages of history, and practice, at least, to someone who then knew nothing. Both said Allah is the only God, Mohammed was His messenger, as were many before him, the Qu’ran is perfect, Islam is the true messeage in its purest form.
I obviously agreed, because I converted.
I married a Saudi man from the South of the Arab peninsula who was Sunni, and as a Saudi, obviously studied on the writings of Abdul-Wahab on Tauhid (the Oneness of Allah). As I am also, and I agree 100% with what he wrote about Tauhid. People will label me a Wahabi for that. I am not, nor was Abdul-Wahab, the scholar. Do I agree with his politics and those who use his writings, and other writing besides those he had on Tauhid? Not in majority, no.
As I mistakenly said to one sister on blogger when I was too naïve on the subject of sects to know any better “you just became Shia because your husband is Shia!” so others will say to me, that is why I became a Sunni.
This is not so. But to that sister, forgive me my ignorance, and I ask Allah to forgive me.
My husband did not care what I became and never told me who I was, that I was praying Sunnah ect, so long as I stayed close to what the Prophet Mohamed followed and used my brain. That’s how I got to Islam in the first place wasn’t it? So that had to be the right way.
He has friends who are Shia and talks easily with all people and I followed his example in this in life [if not on blogger :Ooo]. I had never heard of Ibadhi anything then, or Sufis, or Ahmedis, and I knew the Qu’ran warned us against dividing ourselves into sects, so when a non-muslim or Muslim would ask me, “are you Sunni or Shia?” I would say, “We are not supposed to split ourselves up. I am just a Muslim.”
That was a more correct answer in its innocence and naivety, than my later ones in their ignorance and error, believe me. Alhamdulilah Allah has guided me to a straighter path than one of a parrot who repeats only what they have overheard.
I met sister Aalia from her blog Chasing Jannah, a Sunni who takes the Malaki school of thought in the majority of her fiqh but is not ruled by one school of Islamic jurisprudence. Her husband was Emirati and quite learned on the subject of jurisprudence and he introduced me to important things for Muslims just starting to go beyond the basics of the religion to know. For example, how a fatwa (religious ruling) cannot be derived from one piece of Islamic evidence, but the whole body of evidence and history in its entirety. He also educated Aalia, others, and myself on terms misused by Muslims, and the West, such as “fundamentalism”, “extremist”, “Wahabi”, “Qu’ran-only Muslim”, “Salafi”…
Our Sunni-majority Mosque had a South African Imam [Sheikh Younas Kathrada] of the Hanbali way of deriving fiqh, but he’d tell you all the others too, if you asked. The majority of the Saudi women I knew were strictly Hanbali-Sunnis, and they didn’t know how look for daleel, they just wanted fatwas from KSA, regardless of the evidence. A lot of Shaffi and Hanafi sistas from Egypt and Syria were the same within their school of jurisprudence. Alhamdulilah for my Sheikh there having an email. He may have been strict, but he was one of the best Sunni Sheikhs I have ever met if you asked him beyond what he’d stated not always so pleasantly in the Khutbah. BTW, if you google Sheikh Younas, you’ll find all this nasty stuff about him sending some revert to make a bomb in Chechnya and hating the Jews, and really, that man HATED anyone who murdered innocent women and children and civilians going about their lives whether Muslim or Jewish, so never ever allowed violence in Islam against innocents. And he embodied the Islamic message that races and nations had no priority or status beyond their faith and good works.
I admit, I gravitate toward the Hanbali manner of jurisprudence, though I often disagree with the Saudi jurists. I find that the more literal, and more stricter interpretation, is safer. But I do not believe whatsoever in being ruled by one way of looking at Islamic evidence, and find the Saudi Hanbali tend to take one piece of daleel literally, disregarding the rest, and make a fatwa from that. I cannot. It strips Islam of its soul, its spirituality. And no, I am not a sufi. Islam has only one correct path, the path handed down to the prophets and exampled by Mohamed S.A.W.
I have a Shia friend named C whose husband is Afghani-Pakistani. The way she practices her Shiism, with no stone with the name of Hussain in her salat and no visiting of graves, and mainly just a political belief that Ali should have been Caliph before Abu Bakr, Umar, and Uthman, does not make me bat an eyelash. I always felt she was my sister, and I know my Masjid through one Shia brother out forcibly on the men’s side, but I would have physically fought anyone who’d try to out or touch my girl C. She’s on a straighter path than many so-called righteous Muslims at that Mosque.
I also met a group of highly educated Bahraini and Iranian sisters who were more strictly Shiite. They were Jaffari. Because I did not hate them and call them Kufar from Islam like many in my Mosque would, they gave me books on their Islamic histories. Unfortunately, I found that the life and actions of the Prophet Mohamed was not as emphasized in importance, as later historical events, which are lesser in importance in jurisprudence to me, and only important in a political historical sense. I did not become Shia because a great deal of literature is from the period of the Persian empire and influenced by its culture, such as the Imam Madhi birth story (pure fiction and wholly inaccurate). Yet I did find a lot of their {EARLY} history to have some bearing of truth to it, where Sunni history glossed over some corruption and bad decision making of those it supports. And yet, I could never ever adhere to the sect of Ahlu Al-Beit School [Shia] because I do not believe the Prophet Mohamed’s bloodline is superior to the knowledge and faith and good works of others on that merit alone, also I have found historically accurate documents that Ali made mistakes and things that the Prophet Mohamed told us not to do such as burn anyone to death regardless of their actions in life as an enemy of Islam. Additionally, and I DO believe these are bidas introduced to the followers of Ali’s house, not bidas Ali himself would ever have supported, may Allah reward him, such as asking for intercession from the dead, visiting graves with any purpose other than to pray for forgiveness Muslims buried in them, praying on a stone with Hussain’s named on it, hit one’s self or grieve on Ashura for Hussain… Also, I met one Iranian Shia lady who said to my face that Aisha, the Prophet’s wife, was a whore, astighfurallah.
I know not all Shia curse the Sahaba, not all Shia hit themselves or even grieve Ashura, or pray with stones with the name of Hussain on them. So I am deeply, deeply sorry if I have ever generalized. I have used the term wrong, and also understand, Shia themselves reject the Ahmadi sect from Islam for their acts of kufar. Just like I insist that my Sunni brothers and sisters who do mass duas together after salat in congregation are performing a bida, one you even see in the Masjid Al Haraam. Did Rasoolulah ever do that people? Other than for rain? Think, before you do.
I find myself now defending the acts of some of my shia sisters that may be expressed as mere sunnahs (and would only be made haraam if were stated as fards or necessary acts in Islam) because so many other Muslims are ignorant of WHY, when they themselves might not even know why what they do is right, astighfuraAllah.
On discussing why we had not converted to Shiaism, although we knew our shia friends in many ways to be better examples of Muslims than our Sunni and Ibadhi friends, a Sunni friend from Sur, Oman remarked: “While I did not agree with almost anything I read they gave me to read and to study, I will give the Shia one thing. At prayer time, their Mosques are full, while ours are empty.”
I told people I was “Ahlu Al-Sunna wa al-Jama’a” because to me, Sunni clearly means to follow the sunnah. But of course, Sunni, shia, and Ibadhi all claim to do that. But regardless of what you call me, I have decided to no longer call myself that, I will let my actions and faith define my doctrine, and will endeavor that those actions always go back to the Prophet Mohamed, what he enjoined, and what he forbid, and nothing, nothing else.
Which has ALSO made me question some things which I am told all those who are Sunni must believe. So because I live in Oman now, I must have gone all “Khawarij” and “out from Islam, i.e Ibadhi”.
Nope;D, I drive the Ibadhi Islamic Ministy in Oman insane with my request for Islamic translations to english, and proof of sahih chains of narrations, too.
As I study Islamic history more and more (I had always had a pretty good background on the Seerah and the benefit of pre-Islamic times due to studying early Christian politics and influences in pre-Islamic times) I question more and more these terminologies that divide and cage us.
Through-out ideo-political history, negative and positive terminologies have been used to hide and disguise the truth. In the world where I come from, the West, democracy and its pillars of- freedom of speech, human rights, pluralism, ect- have always been the pretexts for a Capitalistic agenda to justify exploitation of the poor and oppression of the weak minorities, even the exploitation of the female sex. The Western/European ideo-politico-cultural war against Islam has arrived with new terminologies, “terrorist” supplanting “defending his own land” and “fundamentalism” for “those actually trying to practice their religion by more than lip service” serving well to legitimize Western policies towards Muslim lands, while the term “democracy” legalizes this Alien’s political supremacy.
The same is so sadly true in the history of Islam. When the early divisions occurred: Ahlu Al-Sunna wa Al-Jama’a, Ahlu Al-haqqi Wal Istiqama, Ahlu Al-Bait, and Al-Khwarij, many titles were created and used with the object of stigmatizing others as heretics. As a result, the Muslim Ummah has only these names as criteria by which to distinguish the orthodox sects from the ones that take one away from Islam. VEEERRRRRRRRY confusing, to both born AND new Muslims, I assure you, since many people tend to just follow what they initially taught or hear, good and bad names have played important roles and have had very far-reaching effects in the overall history of Islam.
To be honest, as someone who has been labeled “Extremist”, “Wahabi”, “Shia-lover”, “Salafi terrorist”, “Feminist”, “Islamist”, and “Khawarij” all within a stint of five short years, and I guarantee you, I am not that big of a flopper, labels alone are no good at all to define someone’s doctrine, the core of their faith, and the method of their actions.
Islamic sects must be studied in terms of their own logics and entities intellectually.
To prove my point, just about anyone who knows what extremists are, will know that I am not one since I think the use of cosmetics around non-Maharam is halal, and that Wahabi is an incorrect term, that I love some of my Shia friends but that that sect isn’t my home, that to be a salafi is to use just the daleel from the Islamic historical period of the Salaf and anyone one doing so won’t blow themselves or civilians up, feminists believe in having all the same things as men and I believe in only having my Islamic rights as a woman, I guess Islamist means one wants an Islamic government but I would settle for an educated Muslim majority population before I’d be so naïve as to cry for that, and Khawarij means one who goes against the rightly guided Caliphs which I wasn’t around to have done so. So, as you can see, a label simply being good or bad isn’t enough to understand whether or not a doctrine is correct or not.
So… my endeavor into studying the sects begins.

Understanding Islam Today: Traditionalists, Revivalists, and Reformers

BTW, before I write this post, I want to credit sister Nida from her blog "In the Shade of Islam", and my friends from our OPNO blog for inspipring and letting me re-post all these bits for ILH readers, even though I originally made the post for the OPNO blog.

This post came about from an argument between MOP & his wife, an OPNO author, about women praying in the Mosque with no barrier or wall between the women and the men of the Mosque. As non-muslim, you'd find a men-only Mosque totally sexist. I assure you most adamantly, I do too, and find this story most amusing, and to the point about the state of discussion that intellectually we are in today, regarding the religion of Islam, whether one is Muslim or not.

If you are a Muslimah, you may be on either side of the fence with this one, or trapped, like MOP is, in the middle, behind the barrier, and for knocking it down. So unto the tale:

Being that we were all about on a road trip, we were unable to pray in our individual houses, which is what is BEST/EASIEST/NOT A SIN for women (not men who are not travelling---for men who are not travelling it is a SIN/NO REWARD not to pray in the Mosque). Muslims get this belief that prayer is allowed/better for women in their individual houses, because the Prophet Mohamed, peace and blessings be upon him, told Umm Humayd Al-Sa`idiyyah "A woman's prayer in her house is better than in her courtyard, and her prayer in her own room is better than in the rest of the house." (Chain of narration recorded by Abu Dawud).

MOP's wife reasoned that this is because she can concentrate better on her personal connection with her Creator in her own home and she is physically very safe there. And that women being allowed to pray at home and not having to go to the Mosque as something that is compulsory for them, was a gift from their Creator, making their faith easier to maintain in the days when there was no brith control [for example, women & men were discouraged from bringing children to the Mosques that would interupt or hinder the worship and spiritual/intellectual development of others'] .

MOP's reasoning was that it hard for men to have that same connection to their Creator when a distracting woman is in the Mosque with them, and that if something is not done in the culture, it is merely best to avoid things that are sinful, and that it is not sinful for a woman to offer her prayers in a place that is not a Mosque.You see, dear readers, this whole argument came out from the fact that when we had stopped on our journey, we did indeed find a Mosque, but we could not find one that had an area purposely for women. Mosques in Oman usually have an entirely closed off seperate area for women to pray in. This Mosque it seems, at least in terms of the culture, been built soley for the use of men.

Now had there been such an area for women, I doubt MOP's wife would have argued very much. We are in agreement about the benfits of a woman's only side. There are many advantages to a closed-off women's only area, such as being able to adjust and re-adjust one's clothing, and them not having to worry as much about the Islamic requirements for their clothing, or even breastfeeding babies (not something you do while YOU pray, but something that can be done in an women-only side of a Mosque, and not something SO easily done when prayers are preformed by both the sexes together, and that, when a Mosque is mixed in terms of sexes, the Mosque purely becomes a learning and religious center for women, not a social one, whereas informal socialising may take place easily on a women's only area of a Mosque.

The important factor in the tale I am about to relate, is that in this case, there WAS no seperate women's area, but there was indeed a Mosque.

And, in Omani culture, this Mosque was used only by men.

As MOP's OPNO would argue, a Mosque is built for Islamic culture, not any nationalistic culture, and the rules of the Mosque are the rules of the religion, not those of the place where a Mosque happens to be built. Since there WAS a Mosque, albeit, lacking a seperate woman's prayer area, my dear friend and I had concluded that we would pray in the Mosque, rather than outside the Mosque.

MOP wanted us to pray outside.He was more than willing to pray with us there.

To sway his mind I said the following, quoting a saying of the Prophet Mohamed , peace and blessings be upon him: ""The Prophet (Allah bless him & give him peace) said, “If people knew the reward in praying Fajr and Isha together in the Mosque, they would go to the mosque even if they had to crawl.” And the chain of narration is recorded by Bukhari & Muslim. And the Prophet didn't just say 'if men knew, he said 'if people knew' meaning women too." So MOP related the hadith/saying about women's prayer being best in their homes. To which is my friend intelligently replied: "Habibi, we are far from our houses. But we do have a Mosque. The hadith does not say, 'it is better for women to pray in the courtyard of the Mosque than in the Mosque'. In fact, Allah [God] made it perfectly clear that women are to attend the Mosques in that the Prophet Mohamed told the men "Do not prevent the female servants of Allah from entering the House of Allah [i.e the Mosque]" and from many sayings of the Prophet and historical records, we KNOW that women among the BEST generation of Muslims prayed in the same room with the men, no barrier between them, albeit, in very modest dress void of perfumes, and in the back rows so that guys couldn't check out their butts." She was smirking.

MOP of course, knew it was perfectly halal for women to pray in the Mosque, and that we were all Muslim women dressed in a manner to attend any public event in the presence of men but he reasoned that since it was something regarded as outside the culture, it was ALSO perfectly acceptable to render prayers OUTSIDE the Mosque, and less trouble to do so.

WHYYYYY were there seperate prayer areas for women in Oman? both my friend AND I enquired of poor MOP. MOP said, because it was hard for men to concentrate on their prayers with women in the room. Why was this, all OPNO girls wanted to know (even the non-Muslim one) when the men among the earliest Muslims managed to, without treating the women like meat?

"Because it is a corrupt time for Muslims" MOP helplessly cited, which brought about the true reason for this post.

"More sin now than before?" my lips curled into a sneer at that line of reasoning.

MOP's wife and I are of western education, and both spent time as Muslims in the West. This line of reasoning annoys the heck out of us, because all [well, in Islamic scholarship anyways] Muslims believe that Islam as evidenced in the Qu'ran and practiced/explained by the Prophet Mohamed was the perfect example for all Muslims, for all times.

My girl, picked up from there, as it WAS HER husband afterall. "So you would reason, that we should leave off what was done by the Prophet, because what he left us with isn't good enough? That Islam should be CHANGED to meet these corrupt times?"

Of course, that is not what any decent Muslim Omani man could mean, but that is where his kind of reasoning leads. It leads to Muslims in the West who openly reject the things in their religion that don't so easily fit into their modern lives, like the jilbab and khimar, which takes the form of the black abaya and headscarf, that few Omani men like MOP would want their sisters and mothers and wives to reject. Yet in the West, my friend and I have seen it. Women say, it may be in the Qu'ran as a command, but it doesn't pertain to today. Well, there was no requirement of men and women praying seperate BEFORE but there is today. Same reasoning, opposite lines of the spectrum.

"What harm can come from you praying outside the Mosque?" MOP asked his wife as she shouldered her way past him up the steps of the Mosque as if she couldn't hear his question.

On our way there, an Omani boy, ten years younger than myself, tried to stop us, saying there was no women's Mosque. He did not know, that is was allowed for Muslim women to pray in a Mosque, so long as they did not wear perfume, and did all their Islamic requirements in way of public dress, and did not use the Mosque for purposes other than prayer and education from Islamic lectures. He did not know, clearly, that it is a SIN for a man to forbid a woman from attending the Mosque.

MOP prayed in front of us, we prayed in the back, and another Muslim man, who knew enough of Islam to calm the Omani boy down about us women being there, prayed on the opposite end of the Mosque from out party respectfully a small ways in front, as men are to do in the religion.

When we left the Mosque, OPNO belonging to MOP and he to her respectively, answered his question.: "The harm does not come from praying in the Mosque or outside it, but it lies in your reasoning, and what that reasoning allows us to forget. That boy no more knew what was allowed, than he knows why it is not allowed. Your reason, that it makes men uncomfortable, is not a reason in Islam, as Islam allows women to go where it is necessary and even pleasing and certainly beneficial for them to go. The women of Sahaba [the first Muslims] interacted with men in Islamic capacities where it was halal [not sinful] and beneficial for society for them to, in education, business, and religion. The danger, and it IS evidenced IN OMAN for our Western/Convert eyes to see--- by the way, is that when you seperate us from the Mosque, men stop seeing us equals in the religion, and more as meat. You see us as mothers maybe, and wives, at best, and at worst... If men cannot behave as the Prophet himself behaved at the Mosque, than they have no business/right of being there either."

MOP regarded her desperate plea, and assured us he was on the same side, and wanted very much for these things to be changed, but didn't want his wife to be the one to do it, in the manner that she did.

But then who is to to do it? We asked? Who is to change it?

We all agreed, seperate areas for women had their benefits, and women enjoyed them, but that some women suffered from their inability to approach Imam's weekly or daily with questions, or to recieve the same education and information Muslim men recieve from attending the Mosque regularily.

MOP even admitted to us, that in his village in Oman, women do not come to the Eid prayers, when praying the Eid prayer in congregation is CUMPULSORY on muslim men AND WOMEN, even women who have their periods, ect...

That is the danger of reforming/pseudo reviving of Islam. You lose the right legality, and the true message of it, whether the reform is in a liberal or a conservative direction.

Which brings me to:Today, there are, intellectually, 3 different ways of studying Islam, no matter the sect or manner of jurisprudence within those sects.Now I am stealing these definitions, credit to sister Nida, from her blog http://theidealmuslimah.blogspot.com/2010/12/revivalists-vs-reformers.html, and she's stealing it from Abdelwahab El-Affendi ;):

TRADITIONALISTS
Definition: Those following traditionally approved approaches and methods of interpretation, and basically handing down what has come from before in the same manner as before. These do not wish to update Islam, and seek to do what has always been done ie come to the same conclusion. *many intellectually documented ways of studying & viewing Islam are reform or revival based Islam passed down in the manner of traditionalists but those same types of intellectual Islam would not necessarily BE traditionalist in nature*

REVIVALISTS
Definition: Revivalists distinguish themselves from traditionalists by redefining the tradition into purist terms, while the former tend to accept the traditionl more or less in the context as it was handed down. The purpose of doing so it to impose an idealizized idea of Islam, with a tendancy to instrumentalize religion and to define their movement sociologically, rather than theologically. This can be done in either a very conservative or very liberal manner.

Mr. Abdelwahab El-Affendi's conclusion of this movement in terms of discussing Islam, the same as, and so much more eloquently expressed than my own: "Their version of instrumentalized Islam is spiritually, artistically, and humanly impoverished and narrowly partisan.”

REFORMERS
Definition: Reformers differentiate themselves from Revivalists by interrogating the tradition in more radical ways. Seeking to exploit the differences and conflicts within orthodoxy to eliminate or discredit those aspects of the tradition that have become difficult to defend in the modern era, selectively picking and choosing from various accepted authorities to support their modernizing (usually liberal, but not always) agenda.This approach seeks to work within the confines of orthodoxy while working hard to redefine it. It attempts to develop a radical rereading and reinterpretation of traditional Islamic sources by adapting traditionally approved approaches and methods of interpretation.Ultra-radical reformers launch a frontal attack on traditionalism, sometimes advocating treatment of the Qur’an as a “human” text and using the tools of modern literary criticism to decipher it.

Mr. Abdelwahab El-Affendi observes that "such a deliberate drive for a reformation... is based on copying another (Christian) experience in another religious tradition in another era is condemned from the start to the loss of innocence: it is no longer religious reform but social engineering and intellectual tinkering.” Mr. Abdelwahab El-Affendi wrote, that while reform of Islam is much applauded from non-muslims in the West, that they should be cautious in this as well: “The efforts of U.S.-based Muslim intellectuals to undermine Islamic authoritarianism could warrant an “even more ambitious agenda following up on changes in Islam’s ideology with changes in leadership and religious practices.” Much justifies these ambitions, but ambition must not be allowed to shift to illusion. To move from a valid appreciation of the increasing importance of the intellectual contributions of Western Muslims to a “wag the dog” theory that ascribes to them a leadership role in religious reform may be as misguided (and as dangerous) an illusion as the idea that creating an American colony in Iraq would be an advertisement of America’s love for democracy and an inspiration for freedom lovers throughout the Muslim world. Both illusions spring from the same quintessentially Western overconfidence, even arrogance, of which Muslim Westerners are not immune.”

I wholly agree, as a Muslim who lived in the west, letting the likes of Tariq Fatah and Irshadd Manji speak for me, and represent Islam, is misguided. Though one MIGHT say, the same reform movements exist in Egypt, ect.... to quote Nida who'd say it like I would but better;): "What defines 'progressive' islam is a distinct Western liberal ideology, so anyone ascribing to this ideology, be they American or Egyptian or whatever, is elevating Western ideology above tradition (a universal set of moral and ethical values). I believe the reason why the progressive ideology is popular in places like Egypt is due to the deep rooted colonial and neo-colonial legacy. It is mostly people who have been 'exiled' from their countries and had a 'Western/European' intellectual upbringing who are the leaders of this particular movement."But that does not mean, living here now in Oman, that I am free from the influence and power of such misguided reform movements. As this entire post has been an example of, the same line of reformist thinking exists heavily in even Arab culture.as Nida pointed out, what some call 'revivalism' is in fact reform: "changing the religious interpretations to an idealized modern vision of what they believe Islam looked like at the time of the prophet (peace be upon him)", regardless of whether or not that vision is based on the classical interpretations of Islam. "As per the mosque example, according to the classical texts women used to pray directly behind men, and now they are being boxed away into small corners of the mosque and encouraged to pray at home. The argument that is being used to justify this practice in some mosques is that "today there is more fitnah/sin"; therefore implying that we have to re-interpret Islam for modern, albeit corrupt, historical time period."

People have to be aware of where their ideologic reasoning leads them, same as when one studies socialism/fascism, two spectrum of the same line of reasoning.

I myself, do not support a reformation of Islam but a reformation of self, and the only revival I engender, is one of knowledge and awareness.

Hijab has been thoroughly documented on I LOVE HISHMA: onto sects in Islam since people made a big fuss about them on this blog:)

It's been a long time now hasn't it. Sorry life has a way of getting crazy.

But I would totally like to do a new section which is the study of Islamic sects (my personal thoughts interjected so please forgive) and after that, Islamic history AFTER the death of the Prophet Mohamed S.A.W.

I will say what I personally find correct, but I am going to try and find some guest writers to write from the perspectives of other sects, like Shia and Ibadhi, (and other, MORE splinter sects of each of us) as well, since I am SOOOOOOOOOOO tired of people on this blog being mean to me for me believing as I do, and feeling compelled to write what I BELIEVE or know to be correct. So if we all say what why we do what we do, call ourselves as we do, then at least, if we agree to disagree, it isn't in ignorance.

I want to do this because there is huge misunderstandings between us all. And I want the ummah united.

"I truly believe that the names Sunni (of the sunnah) Shia (followers of Ali) [Because Sunni, Shia, and Ibadhi all recognized Ali to be a Calipha at one time] and Ibadhi (Obedient to the Will of Allah) should apply aptly to ALL Muslims. . We SHOULD be these things, regardless of what we call ourselves. We should not be nations or titles, but everything that a Muslim is supposed to be." -Pixie

We *SHOULD* only say "I am a Muslim".

At the same time, I *HATE* when people use hadiths that don't go back to the right time period, or the chains of narration that are broken, or misuse term they don't understand, or the narrator was historically known to be a liar, or the historian had a political bias.

SO ACCADEMICALLY TERMS MUST EXIST. But let us explore them and their origins, and impact TOGETHER, as a Muslim ummah that desires knowledge of it beginnings, to determine its course.

So this new section of I LOVE HISHMA will begin (albeit slowly) with me, Pixie, saying, "I am a Muslim". This is what I am saying from a purely Islamic standpoint. I acknowledge that other Muslim bloggers with different historical understandings than me, through THEIR understandings, are also Muslims, though ACCADEMICALLY, on this point I *might* sometimes disagree, and they with me.

Can we do this together, all with the greatest respect to eachother? Do we have the will to see things from a different perspective to perhaps see where maybe we had some bias or misinformation, or misunderstanding as to other's intentions?

I am certainly not asking anyone to be threatened to conform to my way of seeing the world. But I want to know what you see and how you see it, expressing at the same time, what I do, where something makes sense, or where something contradicts what I know.

So if ya'll approve... We can start in the next few days inshaAllah :)

My shia sistas, I'll probably need your help for your perspective, since I am kinda far off from yours on a few basic things, so if ya'll don't mind for the benefit of others, sharing why you believe something and why you do things:) [At the same time not being offended if I don't post a hadith of yours (goes for Sunni and Ibadhi too!) that I believe is not sahih since I have to use what I consider ACCADEMIC historical authentication which I studied in univeristy.] So please, if I ask for help, please do, and without offense. I am actually not hating on anybody, though I have been told my writing tone can be harsh. I am very against discrimination and "ya'll are not Muslims" antics. Wallah, lol.

K, that's all for now. Let me know your thoughts.

Ammendment: I want to stress, after reading Nida's most excellent post that I HIGHLY recommend for my readers if any of you remain after my long absences;) http://theidealmuslimah.blogspot.com/2010/12/progressivism-humanism-and-islam.html, I do believe that there is only ONE Islam. I do not possibly think that all sects can possibly correct. But I personally need knowledge of them, and my own, to determine if I am indeed "Just a Muslim" or if I am following something less than what the Prophet Mohamed Sallahu alahi wa salaam was upon.

To quote Nida in short (and the Qu'ran) :D in case you're to lazy to follow the link:

“Then We put you, [O Muhammad], on an ordained way concerning the matter [of religion]; so follow it and do not follow the inclinations of those who do not know.” (45:18)

“And if you obey most of those upon the earth, they will mislead you from the way of Allah. They follow not except assumption, and they are not but falsifying.” (6:116)

And from these, and many other verses like it, God tells us that most of these interpretations are false. Additionally, He tells us that there is only one siraat al mustaqeem.

“Mankind was [of] one religion [before their deviation]; then Allah sent the prophets as bringers of good tidings and warners and sent down with them the Scripture in truth to judge between the people concerning that in which they differed. And none differed over the Scripture except those who were given it - after the clear proofs came to them - out of jealous animosity among themselves. And Allah guided those who believed to the truth concerning that over which they had differed, by His permission. And Allah guides whom He wills to a straight path.” (2:113)

“Progressive Islam” would like to have us believe that we can all live in our own truth – that all those wild interpretations out there are all Islam. But this cannot be. Allah revealed one religion to the prophet(s). Islam is one, while interpretations are many. Let’s be careful not to conflate the two.

-from Nida, author of the blog, "Ideal Muslimah"

491 Unmoderated Comments, OH DEAR!!!!

Asalaam alaykom ramatullahi wa barakto dearest sisters (and extroidinarily LOYAL followers):

I have been AWOL. I have 491 unmoderated comments! I don't know what to start with. I still don't have a computer so please forgive me, I don't like to go to internet cafes.

As for my personal life, I have settled quite nicely in Oman. I have a beautiful villa in a safe neighborhood (as opposed to before) and Y is coming in Ramadaan. Boxie will be back unless we marry her off.

I got offered a job in the abaya industry and in journalism here but for some reason where I am working right now just seemed more right. I am focussing less on dawah and more on educating myself (forgive all LOL, it is one of the blessings of being in the Gulf). But I still get to give dawah, ironically, to born Muslims.

I truly do love Oman. It is peaceful here.

A unique thing I have learnt about the country is the types of Islam practiced here. The main population of Oman practices Ibhadhi Islam, a small small minority are Shia (mainly in Mutrah area), and the Sunnis tend to be from Sur (Sharqiyah region). So I have had the oppurtunity to study Shia sources and Ibhadhi ones. I still hold fast to believing my readings in the Sunnah carry more weight and the basic principles of Shiaism to me are very wrong (also the history of the Saudi Royal Family makes me soooooo mad about what they practice as 'sunnah'). One of my friends who is shia got kicked in the head on hajj for using her clay stone. I of course think the use of the stone a bida but kicking someone ( a little girl of 8!!!!) in the head????? HOW IS THAT GOING TO CHANGE HER MIND? MAKE HER MINDLESS maybe... Grrrr.

Anyways, love Oman, will try to post more regularily. I have just taken a vacation from blogging. Please forgive!

Love always,
-Pixie