Sufism and Wahhabism might seem like diametrically opposed opposites within the world of Islam. Both of them are terms used (sometimes incorrectly) to refer to a wide range of practices and beliefs.
Originally, Sufism, tasawwuf started as an Islamic branch of knowledge that focused on spirituality and dedication to Allah (swt). Its origins can be traced to the earliest days of Islam. Among the Companions of the Prophet were those who were very poor, yet also very pious. These men, who were called became known as “Ashab As-Suffah,” or the Companions of the Porch. Another interpretation of the word tasawwuf is that it is a combination of the words suf and safa, which mean “wool” and “purity,” respectively. The Sufi scholar Abu ‘Ali al-Rudhabari took this to mean, “The Sufi is the one who wears wool on top of purity.”
A famous narrator of Hadith, Abu Hurrayah, was among those dedicated to Sufism. Thus, we can see that Sufism in itself is not a new development with in Islam. Some other scholars such as Abdul-Qadir Al-Jilani and Bishr Al-Hafi would wear rough wool, and while lacking a deep or precise knowledge of jurisprudence, always reminded their followers of Allah and the hereafter, and left a memory of a simple and spiritual life.
Sufism, afterwards, evolved into an educational method (tarbiyah), where students or followers (mureedun) follow a certain teacher (sheikh). The sheikh used to train those students according to a certain educational method, called tariqah. The goal of this training was to attain a certain level of spirituality by mentioning Allah or one of His names a certain number of times, fasting for a certain number of days, praying at night, reading specific surahs of the Qur’an a number of times, and so on. Before a student could join a sheikh, he had to give an oath to obey the sheikh and maintain a very high level of brotherhood between him and the rest of the students who follow the same sheikh. Over the centuries, the Sufi sheikhs started to form specific organized groups (turuq sufiyah) based on the methods they used for spiritual education and the loyal students they recruited. These groups, historically, contributed a great deal to the Islamic reform movements and jihad against invading forces. Examples of these groups are Al-Mahdiun in Africa and Al-Murabitun in Andalusia.
As time passed, a number of different methods and schools of thought developed among the Sufis. One group were those who felt compelled to perform jihad an-nafs (jihad of the self or ego), while still observing all the rules of Shariah. This is called As-Sufiaya Al-Muhaqqaqah (the verified Sufism). They verified their educational practices in order to pray, fast, remember Allah, etc., all according to the Qur’an and authentic Hadith. For example, they say that they isolate themselves in mosques for weeks following the example of Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him) when he used to isolate himself in the cave of Hiraa’ for weeks. They mention Allah together in circles (halaqah), and they cite relevant narrations about the Companions doing the same thing. The second group of Sufis neglect the Sunnah and Hadiths and treat the groups as mere social gatherings. Sometimes they will dance dance and light candles around these graveyards so that these sheikhs would intercede between them and Allah so that He answers their prayers. The latter practices, are clearly un-Islamic innovations.
Let us now examine Wahhabism.
Wahhabism is an Islamic movement that was named after Muhammad Ibn Abdul-Wahhab, who lived in the 19th century, and was a movement in what is now Saudi Arabia intended to ‘reform’ Islam to what it was at the time of Muhammad (saw). The Wahhabi movement has its roots in Hanbali fiqh, and specifically the thoughts of ibn Taymiyah. We can credit the Wahhabi movement for being the most conservative and cautious in terms of orthopraxy. It also had a role in consolidating most of the Arabian peninsula under the House of Saud.
From a Traditionalist standpoint, we can say that the difference between Wahhabism and Sufism is somewhat like the difference between John Calvin (Wahabi) and Meister Eckhart or Eastern Orthodoxy (Sufi). Wahhabism at times can be hostile to the esoteric elements of Islam, preferring to focus on orthopraxy. Wahabbis believe in a more temporal form of Islam, which no doubt has been to a degree politically influenced by Saudi political affairs. Sufism, on the other hand, is very traditionalist in the sense that it does contain elements of ‘Initiation’. Sufism is analogous to the devoted Orthodox hesychast. There is a real spiritual element to it, which, in its pure form (As-Sufiaya Al-Muhaqqaqa), is not anti-Islamic.
We should not deny the need to follow the Sunnah and the Hadith, and observe the commandments of the Qu’ran. Orthopraxy and ceremonial correctness are, after all, still vital to any religion. However, many Sufi practices do not negate or contradict actual Shari’ah, and Muslims ought to tolerate each other when it comes to these issues. In the Traditionalist perspective, this is roughly equivalent to a system of “inner” and “outer” laws, are demonstrated by the means of a wheel and its center: the “outer” law consists of rules pertaining to shariah, while the “inner” law consists of rules about repentance from sin, the purging of contemptible qualities and evil traits of character, and adornment with virtues and good character.
In summary, when considering Sufism, we must be aware of the practices of each sect and judge the practices. It is true that there are groups of Sufis which have come dangerously close to Pantheism, and those are rightly condemned as incorrect. Other Sufis, who abide by Shariah and strive to overcome the self and please Allah, however, should be tolerated by other Muslims.
In defiance of Vatican law, Mary Ann Schoettly, a 66-year old divorcee and former biology teacher, was ordained as a priest. Cardinal Justin Rigali of Philadelphia has strongly (and correctly) denounced the “pseudo-ordination” of Schoettly, the 47th woman associated with Roman Catholic Women Priests. “Such a ceremony,” he said, “is in violation of the constant teaching of the Church, based on Scripture and Sacred Tradition. Both clearly indicate that Jesus called only men to follow him as Apostles, and the Church has always regarded his choice in this matter as normative for all time.” Schoettly, who is divorced, says she hopes to remarry if she meets the right man. The ceremony was conducted by two excommunicated feminist priests inside a Jewish synagogue.
Rigali noted that the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith decried in 2007 that women who present themselves for ordinations at such ceremonies, and those “who falsely claim” to ordain them, are automatically excommunicated. Schoettley disagrees that she has committed a wrong, saying that she “disagrees with the interpretation”.
Whereas an entirely more reasonable and noble non-mainstream Catholic group such as the Traditionalist Movement and the Society of St. Pius X have been vociferously criticized by hypocrites throughout the media, this same media has been very sympathetic to Schoettley’s case. While the latter have been condemned by liberal fundamentalists as “hate groups,” or backwards, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran an article which was cynical towards the Vatican’s position, and portraying the heretical women as reformers. This shows that the liberal fundamentalists care only to undermine traditional values: the destruction of religion begins with increasing the role of women among the clergy then reinterpreting male-dominated imagery and language about God, and ultimately inverting the entire purpose of religion.
Such is the condition of the American soul: a withered, dessicated entity which has all but ceased to be the vitality of truth. Far from being the acme of human progress, American society is in fact at the most advanced stage of disintegration of modern civilisation. It is so because in America regression is taking place at every social level and is neither contained by any solid barrier nor challenged by any significant resistance. Evola writes that the feminist society of America is the “precise antitheses of any ‘classic’ and ‘Olympian’ conception of the world.” The conquest of Christendom by democracyis was exactly the beginning of the end of the Aryan, solar, and ‘virile’ tradition in Europe. The “average American” is therefore essentially without a soul – a degenerate vulgar being who seek only momentary fame without any ideals or ambitions, and it is precisely in this civilisation that we see a proliferation of ’spiritualist’, spiritistic, mystic sects (including revisionist-feminist Catholicism), in which the predominance of the feminine element is already significant in itself.
In societies which hold the individual as the focus of ideological progress, many people become excited at the idea of becoming “different” or more “original.” Westerners tend to cherish individuality to the point of rebellion, attempting to stand out and draw attention to themselves by their lifestyle, clothing, hairstyles, or cultural tendencies. In the last few decades, a variety of people – from Christian apostates and atheists, to crypto-Marxists and reform Jews – have seen an interesting current in which they shed the “old clothes” of Christendom, and taken on the “new clothes” of a corrupted ‘New-Age’ Buddhism. Those individuals are find Buddhism “exotic,” spurred on mostly by the superstitious, secret, and arcane qualities they perceive in this religion. Generally, those who adopt Buddhism do so not because they believe in the logic of its philosophy, but because they see a chance to escape from moral conservatism into moral permissiveness.
Such people convert under a spell of delusion. The New-Age movement has little to do with any of the mainstream branches of traditional Buddhism. Instead, Buddhism today is “most famous today for everything it originally never taught,” to quote an eminent scholar, A.K. Coomaraswamy. ‘Western’ Buddhism – if there is even such a thing – is in name only, attracting the most miserable ex-Christian rejects and atheists. Whereas we might say that in the past there was a real spiritual ethic within Buddhism, today, it has degenerated into an extremely sick religion inhabited by atheists, agnostics, and at best pantheists. These people congregate together at ‘dharma-centers’, which are little more than outpatient mental wards for depressed materialists, and engage in idle chatter about attainment of oblivion and the denial of all things spiritual. The crisis of Western Buddhism is therefore characterized only by secularism and “samsaric” character.With this said, we can admit without any sort of reservation that there are sharp discrepancies between the earliest texts (atthakathas) and the modern version of Buddhism. These are not mere inconsistencies in interpretation, as we might find between different schools of Islamic fiqh, nor even the product of historical evolution. The modern, revisionist, version of Buddhism lends itself to an unspiritual historical exegesis according to the letter. It is an exegesis which virtually ignores a deeper meaning implied in the Nikayas and explained in the commentaries. As an example, Siddhartha said “the six senses and their world are not the soul” (cf. Chachakha Sutta, MN 3). It seems odd, then, that modern Buddhists should say of the Buddha that he taught the rejection of the soul , because this would mean clinging to the six senses. Rather than denial of the soul, the Buddhism does teach one to distinguish the distinguish predicates of the soul from the very soul itself, and thus transcend base instincts.
Yet, it is in such base instincts that most Buddhists have put their faith. Western Buddhism is almost entirely modernist, not traditionalist, skipping over the tradition to what it believes to be “original” Buddhism borrowing, and modifying, Asian practices such as the sangha and meditation but largely ignoring ritual, faith, devotion, doctrine etc. Western Buddhism has been heavily influenced by the concepts of freethought and secular humanism. It has become a platform for mundane social activists, who incorrectly fancy themselves “experts” on the topic because of their involvement in purchasing all manner of trinkets and implements. Morality, too, has declined, with many people saying that there is no doctrine of “sin” in Buddhism, and that “formlessness” essentially means “liberty”.
If the modern portrayal of Buddhism is representative of the teaching of the Buddha, then it is certainly an ingenious exposition which makes all of creation voidat the drop of a hat. But if the premises of this portrayal are flawed, then the modern explanation of Buddhism is certainly not worth studying except as a lesson regarding the famous “principle of degeneration” which was already well-discussed by other Traditionalists like Evola. Traditional Buddhists worldwide need to take back the religion from the modernist heretics, and not allow Buddhism to turn into a rubbish-heap of mystical spiritual suicide and nihilism.
“We don’t seem to have any human rights,” lamented the father of Kevin Johnson, 22, of Sutherland, England.
The younger Johnson, a demolition worker, was stabbed repeatedly by teenagers aged 19, 16 and 17. The same criminals fled in a ”triumphant mood,’ according to the Daily Mail, before attacking a second victim only minutes later. While English law currently allows for a murder victim to apply for up to £11,000 (16,378 USD) in compensation, Mr. Johnson’s wife and father have been told by the Criminal Injuries Compensation Authority (CICA) that he has no right to claim the money because he fought his assailants.
The Daily Mail also pointed out that a RAF typist who suffered a minor thumb injury was compensated £500,000 (744,900 USD), and that incarcerated criminals had been paid a total of £6.5 million for various “human rights” abuses, including the prison’s refusal to provide narcotics – which are usually illegal – such as heroin for recreational consumption.
The case of Mr. Johnson exposes the huge flaws in the Western system of human rights. In such a system, the quality of life for the average person is very low, because the criminal is valued more than the law-abiding citizen, and the heretic is considered more worthy than the believer. For a countries which denies its own citizens fairness under the law, and the right to live in safety, it is outrageous and unacceptable that they can criticize other nations for attempting to keep the peace among their population.
Concepts such as “human rights” and “democracy” have now become ethereal concepts, to give benefit to certain groups, and to protect the most reprehensible, degenerate and perverted elements of society. They have become tools of victor’s justice after war, as a trump-card phrase to criticize countries which are non-compliant with the ways of western decadence, or, ironically to stifle criticisms of certain groups.
Indeed, the last form of imperialism that the world (and particularly those nations with ancient civilizations) faces today is that of “democracy” and “human rights”. Christendom and most of the West have already crumbled because of this abhorrent philosophy built on five centuries of putrid liberal culture.
The city of Xi’an in Shaanxi Province in China is home to about 50,000 Hui Muslims, and is home to China’s largest and best well-known mosque in China. The Grand Mosque of Xi’an is also the oldest surviving mosque in all of China.
Islam was first introduced to China during Islam the reign of Emperor Gaozong of Tang. An mission sent by the Caliph Uthman in 651, and lead by Saad ibn Abī Waqqās, the maternal uncle of the prophet himself were the first to preach the religion, and were given permission by the Emperor to build a mosque in Guangzhou (Canton). Today, the Guanzhou Huaisheng Mosque no longer exists in its original form, having been destroyed by a fire in 1695.
The original Great Mosque of Xi’an dates to the 7th century, but the current buildings were constructed in the mid-1300’s. It has a unique style which uses predominantly Chinese architectural designs, incorporating a single axis with courtyards and pavilions. The exterior of the mosque also incorporates traditional Chinese designes with tiled, flared roofs and a pagoda, and thus resembles the structures used for other religions such as Buddhism or Taoism. However, Islamic influences can be seen in the details of the mosque, such as the presence of Arabic calligraphy, or intricate design work on columns.
The mosque occupies a narrow lot about 48 meters by 248 meters. It is oriented to face along the Qibla direction, and five successive couryards lead to the prayer hall at the westernmost point along the axis. The first courtyard is entered via two modest side gates along the north and south precinct walls. Its eastern precinct wall is constructed of finely ground and polished brick and has a wide screen wall at its center, carved 
with floral patterns organized into three diamond shapes. Ornamental projections resembling wooden dougong brackets are carved into the brick under the raised eaves of the roofed screen wall. At the center of the courtyard is an imposing wooden gateway, or pailou (牌樓). It measures nine meters high, and has four columns that are connected to dougong (斗拱) brackets, which in turn support a blue tile roof.
The third courtyard contains a large octagonal tower called “Pavilion for Introspection” (省心樓). The tower is constructed from bricks, and is ten meters in height. Its eaves are decorated with blue glazed tiles and dragon heads are carved into the ridges. Dougong brackets are seen below the raised eaves of the roof. Inside, a moveable staircase leads up to the ceiling caissons, which are carved and brightly painted with lotus flowers. In the same courtyard, are also rooms along the walls. They contain the mosque library, the imam’s quarters, and the area for wudu. All the rooms here are separted by wooden panels that bear geometric designs incorporating chrysanthemums, lotus flowers and peonies.
The fourth courtyard is entered via three marble gates with wooden doors. The prayer hall is in the back of this coutyard, and is preceded by a large platform. In front of the platform is the Phoenix Pavillion (鳳凰亭), built in the Qing dynasty. The pavillion gets its name from the fact that it resembles a phoenix and interrupts view to the prayer hall. Its roofline appears to be chinese, but it hides a wooden cupola that crowns the central space, carried on squinches, attesting to the continued use of imported Islamic elements in interior space. There are lecture halls lining the north and south walls.
The musalla consists of a porch and a great hall with a projecting qibla bay. It covers an area of 1,270 These three sections cover an area of about 1,270 square meters, and copies from Han dynasty palace architecture. The joined hipped roofs of the porch and the main hall roof have parallel north-south ridges. The hipped roof of the projecting qibla iwan is perpendicular to that of the main hall. The heights of the roofs are kept proportional to the depth of the space, following Hui tradition. The portico, hall and iwan are differentiated by separate roofs, a common feature of early Hui mosques taken from Han palace architecture. The open portico, carried on six columns, is covered by the gentle bump of a rolled-shed roof, which dips down to join the roof of the great hall. This large hall, of equal width to the portico, sports a pitched roof raised above the others on two rows of six columns. It is curtailed at the back by the hipped roof of the qibla iwan, whose eaves are supported on twelve external columns. The rounded timber columns supporting these roofs are marvelously decorated with low relief woodwork. There is more sculptural woodwork on the lambrequins and the heavy dougong brackets. Six hundred polychrome panels with floral motifs and carved brackets decorate of the ceiling. Heavy cylindrical columns, painted deep red like the walls, divide the first two spaces into seven bays. Blue scrolls bearing Arabic calligraphy are hung from the porch columns.
The qibla bay at the western end of the prayer hall is dimly light with two skylights. The two meter tall pointed arch of the mihrab is decorated with carved arabesques and calligraphy and painted with in darker hues of red, brown than the central space. Four bands of Quranic inscriptions in the Sini script encircling the mihrab reveal the influence of Chinese calligraphy on Arabic lettering; one such inscription is embedded in a pool of lotuses. Behind the prayer hall, and accessed by two circular “moon gates” on either side of the portico wall, is the fifth court with two small constructed hills used for the ceremonial viewing of the new moon.
With today being the 50th anniversary of the Lhasa uprising against Chinese rule in Tibet, there are strange goings-on in the trendier parts of the West. In Berekley, a city known for its liberal political views, protestors gathered this morning in order to make a statement against China’s supposed mismanagement of the Tibetan situation. But, earlier this year, in the same location, there was, perhaps, another visual oddity worthy of mention. Last month, according to a local resident, scattered throughout Berekley, were prayer flags, clearly visible along the sides of roadways.
To the supposedly culturally and socially aware, such a sight may not be strange or troubling in the least. Yet, if one examines the underlying implications that this has from an authentically honest vantage point, then there does seem to be something slightly problematic with such a display, for liberals have long sought to attach the Christian faith in the public sphere. After all, have not entire court cases been fought over the constitutionality of crèche scenes and crosses in public areas? If someone had put up a roadside shrine to the Virgin Mary like the ones seen in many countries of Latin America, or displayed a banner with the shahada, would these selectively “tolerant” individuals really think it so benign? Was this not a public sidewalk? And lastly, don’t practicioners of monotheism have a right not to be confronted by the talismanic gilded idols of Tibetan Buddhism?
Now, I do not wish to denigrate Tibetans, or their religion. But, the display of such flags indicates (to quote a certain radio personality) “that liberalism is a mental disorder.” It most certainly is. The very same people who have attempted to eliminate traces of monotheism now have no problem showing a more “spiritual” side by displaying the relics of an ancient religion. To add to the irony, many such people cannot tell the meaning or function of such relics. They wouldn’t be able to tell the difference between a bodhisattva or buddha, the differences between the Sakya, Kagyu or Gelug sects, or how many levels there are in the bardo plain. They just like the flags. It gives them a false sense of self-confidence that they are socially aware, and care for others. It’s “good karma”. It is a symbol of their solidarity with the oppressed “colored” Tibetan people, and so on.
As others have pointed out, the two pseudo-ideological tendencies that underlie modern liberalism are feelings of inferiority and oversocialization. The leftist identifies with groups that have an image of being weak or defeated, and thus feels a kinship with other groups which they themselves see as “inferior”. The oversocialized leftist wants to assert his autonomy by rebelling, but in doing so, is only marginally capable of adopting broadly acceptable principles, and applying it ad absurdum in order to accuse others of violating that principle. In a society which operates as a secular theocracy, the leftist is therefore able to use activism as an act of piety which helps him to repress his failure in the religious world. However, unlike religion proper, leftist activism only engages in pathetic, narcissistic, and deluded attempts for selfish ends which ignore all current realities, and the cult-like zeal of the evangelists of liberalism attempting to play the role of dilantette pseudo-intellectuals further influences this. This is why activism can be seen as a “mock spirituality,” especially when the activist’s slogan becomes a prayer unto itself.
Such is the religious consciousness of so-called “modern man”: He is driven by a sense of rebellion and self-hatred to believe in the faith of his ancestors, and at the same time afraid that consigning all religion to the realm of superstition might offend others. He thus picks and chooses, as if he were a glutton sitting at a buffet table. From Christianity, he picks the phrase, “thou shalt not judge,” from neo-Paganism a respect from the environment, and from Buddhism a sense of nihilistic abandonment from pressing moral issues. Tibetan Buddhism, to them, feels like a “good superstition,” because the progressive “modern man” might say, “The Dalai Lama doesn’t tell me what I can and can’t eat, or whom I can and can’t sleep. The Dalai Lama is a man of peace, diversity and openmindedness,” or perhaps, “The Dalai Lama makes me feel good about myself.”
For G. K. Chesterton, a Christian apologist of the early 20th century, it is not possible to reconcile the primitive orthopraxy of idol worship with modernity, for if the ultimate answer is God, then the image of an anthropomorphic pantheon does disservice to man by leaving questions unanswered. This is one of the great ironies of the well-meaning inji who have fallen into a multicultural daydream with the Tibetan culture: if the flag-waving crypto-pagans of Berekley are closed off to any sort of religious belief, what precisely are they doing in their quasireligious exercise? Chesterton states that at the heart of man and his senses, is a desire to “sacramental idea” that makes itself felt throughout human
existence.
What we have in the Berkeley prayer flag does a disservice both to the revealed faiths and to that which is noble in pagan religions. Who can know if the people who fly them remember the Christian past of their ancestors, the signs and stories of a time when it was the message of Christ that gave the universe a sense of purpose and wonder? Like the nomadic consumer today, many modern souls go shopping for that wonder and purpose in other, more exotic, and more elite marketplaces, committing to nothing, and are ultimately left unfulfilled. That is because religious faith in any manifestation, whether put into true or false things, requires a relationship that modern man finds himself less and less capable of maintaining. In any form of religious devotion, whether it is Islam’s submission to Allah, the Christian veneration of saints, Hinduism’s bhakti, or even just the spinning of a prayer wheel in Nepal, one concedes to a higher power some sort of deference. For the “modern man,” however, can only lament this desperate sense of inferiority and lack of self-confidence too commonplace among the left.
Last Friday, there was a debate among some fellows from the prayer group here at the local University as to whether smoking is haram or makruh. Indeed, there are differing opinions on the matter according to various interpretations of Shariah law, and there is not a well-defined consensus on this action, although all Muslims agree that it is certainly not halal or even mubah. In this case, one person had heard it said that smoking is haraam because it harms the body, but another had stated that it is makruh because there are counteranalogies to the use of qiyas in that ruling.
Before we I attempt to discuss this further, I should say that I am not an expert in fiqh, and am merely trying to divulge a few things that I have learned about the topic. Fiqh in itself is a complex system of rules – hence the differing opinions among scholars primarily arise from the interpretation of such rules, and not from theological differences.
In Sunni Islam, there are four major sources of jurisprudence: the Holy Qur’an, the Sunnah and the Hadith, ijmaa (consensus), and qiyas (analogy).
The latter is used to compre the text of the Qur’an in conjunction with the accepted hadiths, with a modern situation and produce a sound ruling based on similarity. In other words, an analogy is made with an older, known ruling, to produce a new ruling. As a result of this method, the ruling of the Sunnah and the Qur’an may be used as a means to solve or provide a response to a new problem that may arise. This, however, is only the case providing that the set precedent or paradigm and the new problem that has come about will share operative causes, or the same set of circumstances that trigger a certain law into action.
In qiyas, there are four methods which are used to pronounce a certain action haraam.
- A specific mention of the known action as being haraam – for example consumption of pork or alcohol.
- Identification of the underlying cause of prohibition of an action previously ruled haraam, with the same underlying causes of a contemporary issue.
- Identification that the outcome of a certain action, that is previously ruled haraam. For example, one might say that wine causes someone to become addicted and spend excessive amounts of money on it, so another drug like cocaine is also haraam.
- Identification of a clear, known thing or action that bears a resemblance to the modern situation, such as the wine drinking. An obvious example of this is that if wine is prohibited, so are beer, vodka, gin, etc.
In contrast, an item that is makruh covers all foods, liquids, or substances which is harmful to the body, either physically, mentally, psychologically or spiritually. Anyone who is involved in the Makruh may be questioned on the Day of Judgement -( The day of resurrection where Muslim will appear before God who will judge people according to their deeds in the earthly life ) but may not be penalised.
In the Qu’ran, it is written:
“O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling are an abomination of Satan’s handiwork. Eschew such abominations that ye may prosper.” - Surah Al Ma’idah, 5:93
“But squander not your wealth in the manner of a spendthrift, verily spendthrifts are brothers of evils.” – Surah, Al-Isra, 17:26
“And make not your own hands contribute to your destruction” – Al Baqara 2:195
In any case, cigarette smoking clearly can fit the discription shown in these ayats, leading many scholars to pronounce it as being forbidden. This is certainly a more cautious opinion, and seems to make sense from a physiological and social standpoint.
However, there have been other scholars who have insisted that smoking is makruh. While one may not agree with them, their reasoning is has legal grounding and is certainly not baseless in its entirety. Among such scholars are major Hanafis of India and Pakistan, who say that the actual act of smoking is disliked (makruh tanzihan) unless grave harm is feared from it in one’s specific case. Whether one follows this opinion, it seems to arise from a difference in opinion in the issue.
As I have stated, I am not a scholar of fiqh, and do not want to give a conclusion here, lest I mislead anybody. Nevertheless as a former smoker, I also beleive it would be wise for all people – not just Muslims – to desist from smoking if only it is for health reasons.
I do not like to dwell on negative issues such as this too much, so this post will be short.
A recent poll among Americans shows that more Americans find inspiration in Barack Obama than in Hazrat Isa (as). According to Fox News, a Harris Poll stated:
Obama topped a new Harris interactive poll that asked 2,634 Americans who they admire enough to call a hero. Jesus came in second on a list that includes God, Mahtma Gandhi and George Washington. Other historic or notable figures making the top 10 were Martin Luther King Jr., Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush, Abraham Lincoln, John McCain, John F. Kennedy, U.S. Airways pilot Chesley Sullenberger and Mother Teresa.
In a place that claims to be a “Christian nation,” it is astounding that people have lavished so much praise upon a mere politician. I will admit that, perhaps the poll had implied to its respondents to name a political leader who they found inspiring, and in this context Jesus may not come up directly, while Obama does indeed fit the mold for many Americans. It should also be noted that this poll was conducted between January 12 and 19, 2009, before Obama took office.
In the West today, people have begun to worship the “golden calf” of democracy. In the Qur’an it says, “Verily, the rule belongs to none but Allah,” meaning that in practice, leaders should first and foremost be concerned with their moral status and the moral status of their nation. Obama has clearly shown his secularist leanings, which contradict all revealed scripture. Considering this, and that people have now put Mr. Obama above the Prophets and above the Isa al-Masih, is a matter that I find most unsettling.
Nevertheless, we should hope that God will grant Obama a sense of humility as the leader of the United States.
When one thinks of Tibet, one usually conjures up images of wide-open scenic areas, small towns, and most imporantly of all, Tibetan Buddhism.
While Buddhism is indeed predominant in Tibet, there is a little-known Muslim community which is descended from Kashmiri settlers in the region. They are considered to be Tibetan in ethnicity, and are separate from the other Muslim groups in China, such as the Hui, Uyghur, or Kazakh minorities. In modern times, they have settled in the larger cities such as Lhasa or Xigazê, but in the past, had also lived in the further Western regions of Tibet. They are related both ethnically and linguistically to the Balti and Burig peoples of India, who are, like the Tibetan Muslims, a mix of Tibetan and northern Indian stocks. In Tibetan, they are referred to as the Gyache.
Historically, Tibetans first contacted with Islamic missionaries before they had contact with Buddhism. Salah bin Abdullah Hanafi was sent by the Caliph Umar into the Tibetan region. During the reign of King Tride Tsugtan, the expanding Abassid Caliphate, who had been steadily increasing their influence in the East, began further relations with the Tibetans. started to appear in Tibet and were allied with them along with the Eastern Turks against the Chinese. The 12th century witnessed a large scale migration of Muslim traders from Kashmir and the Persian Empire to Tibet, most notable was the community that they established in Lhasa. Like their Arab predecessors, these men settled down and married Tibetan women, who followed their husbands’ religion. Formal proselytisation of Islam first took place in Baltistan and the Suru Valley from the 14th to the 16th centuries, which converted the vast majority of the Tibetan Burig and Balti communities. Islam spread from these areas into “Tibet proper”.
As of today, the large majority of the Tibetan Muslim in Tibet proper are Sunni, and follow the Hanafi madhab. Most Tibetans have assimiliated into the Tibetan community, but still follow Tibetan customs. The Balti and Burig, due to their more westerly location, however, had adapted a mixture of Afghani and Tibetan customs. Some of the Balti and Burig also follow Shi’a or Sufi religious practices. As in China where Islamic architectural styles merged with local styles in building mosques, the Tibetans also adapted the mosque to the Tibetan landscape. Mosques, for instance, are built in a quaint blend of Persian and Tibetan styles. This is evidenced in its beautifully decorated walls, sloping walls designed to withstand earthquakes, and even Kada scarfs being hung at the doorway of the mosques. Also, Tibetan Muslims in Tibet proper often carry Tibetan forenames wile retaining Persian or Urdu surnames. This practice, however, is less comon in Baltistan, where Tibetan names have become more common. Among Khaches, although the majority uses Tibetan for daily communication, Arabic is used in prayer (as in other parts of the world), and Urdu is sometimes used in qutba.
In recent years, Tibetans Muslims have re-opened contacts with Muslims from other nations which were previously not possible with Tibet’s former geographical isolation.
There has been much furor of late within the Catholic Church and among its critics regarding the personal thoughts of Bishop Richard Williamson, a clergyman who was ordained by Marcel Lefebvre, who was at the time leader of the Society of Saint Pius the Tenth (SSPX). The Bishop, who has otherwise had an exemplary career, has been criticized for his doubt of the existence of gas chambers. Angela Merkel, current Chancellor of Germany, had even phoned Pope Benedict XVI to recommend that the lifting of Bishop Williamson’s excommunication be rescinded should he not ‘recant’ from his supposed Holocaust denial.
In regards to Merkel’s comments, it is absolutely unacceptable that a Lutheran, should think she has the right to make demands of the Pope. Further, it is a display of gross arrogance that the German government believes that they have the right to enforce extraterritorial rights in the Vatican and enforce the absurd Holocaust denial laws in Germany.
From a religious perspective, the Catholic Church excommunicated Williamson on the grounds that he was ordained a Bishop without the permission of the Rome. The Holy See deemed his consecration “unlawful” and “schismatic” because of the absence of a pontifical mandate for these consecrations. On July 1, 1988 Cardinal Gantin issued a declaration stating that Lefebvre, Williamson, and the three other newly-ordained bishops “have incurred ipso facto the excommunication latae sententiae reserved to the Apostolic See,” on the ground of a violation of Canon 1382 of the Code of Canon Law. On July 2, 1988, Pope John Paul II issued the proclamation (motu proprio) Ecclesia Dei, in which he reaffirmed the excommunication, specifically calling it a “schismatic act” [1].
Pope Benedict XVI lifted the excommunication in the hope of reconciling with the SSPX. In other words, the latae sententiae was removed. Therefore, the Church cannot use something not included within the original grounds for excommunication to return someone to an original state of excommunication. Moreover, while some European nations have applied a number of sanctimonious and sacrosanct maxims to the Holocaust as a particular event, recognition of the Holocaust is not a part of the Code of Canon Law. By making such insolent demands of the Pope, the Holocaust lobby has proven once again that they have put the narrative of the Holocaust above God and above all religion.
In reality, however, the Holocaust, along with its details, is not a matter of religious belief. One has the right to dispute various claims concerning the Holocaust without fear of perishing in hell. It is not a mortal or even venial sin, whether it is committed by a bishop, priest, or lay person. The Holocaust and the official account of it is a historical event with details that have, through general consensus, been accepted as valid.
In conclusion, Holocaust denial in itself is not grounds for excommunication, and certainly not for maintaining an excommunication which was incurred by terms which were completely unrelated to Holocaust denial, and althourgh I am not a Catholic, I would like to express my staunch message of solidarity with Bishop Williamson and the SSPX in their fight for justice and freedom of expression.
