A closer look at allegations of ‘misguidance’ and ‘odd views‘…
The eminent Pakistani Islamic scholar Javed Ahmad Ghamidi, is often accused by traditionalist clerics of espousing novel views, which are against the consensus of the scholars of the whole Muslim Ummah.
His unorthodox views are often maligned and distorted, with a view to discouraging people from making their own minds up, about his work and ideas.
His opponents continuously push the narrative that he is a dangerous heretic, spreading misguidance in the guise of Islam. This propaganda has resulted in a number of his associates being killed, and forced Ghamidi Sahib himself, into exile.
Some critics assert that Javed Ghamidi has given Islam a pseudo- modern and Western makeover – in order to make it more attractive to a Western audience. They also claim that he is trying to change Islam by making it ‘easier’.
In truth, this is not so.
Ghamidi Sahib’s approach is based on some principles – the details of these principles can be found in his book ‘Meezan’ – for example:
- Understanding the Holy Qur’an in the context of Nazm of the Qur’an and Itmam ul Hujjah
- Taking the Sunnah from the consensus and practice of the Muslims instead of isolated reports.
If someone fairly considers his views, one will conclude that Mr Ghamidi always gives his opinion honestly, after due diligence and proper research.
Ghamidi Sahib applies his principles of understanding Islam, with total consistency. At times this leads to an ‘easier’ view, but at other times it leads to a stricter position than is generally followed.
At times, his understanding is a radical departure from the traditional one. At other times, his views are identical to those of his detractors.
Javed Ghamidi is not concerned with which views are popular or unpopular, familiar or unfamiliar. His life’s mission to honestly present Islam as he genuinely understands it, ‘Even if the heavens fall‘.
Is Mr. Ghamidi a liberal?
Allama Ghamidi is often disparagingly accused of being a ‘liberal’. He himself rejects this label.
Whilst his views on music, visual art, the veil etc, are less restrictive than the dominant religious viewpoint in Muslim societies, some of his views are very ‘illiberal’ indeed.
For instance, according to Ghamidi Sahib, God has reserved the entire Arabian Peninsula for Muslims.
Thus he states, that no Non-Muslim should reside there permanently, nor should they be permitted to build their places of worship in this region.
This is hardly a position attributable to a ‘liberal’ or ‘secular’ person!
Similarly, Mr. Ghamidi says that in marriage, the husband has a degree of superiority over the wife. He considers the husband – not the wife – as the head of the family as an institution .
He even agrees with the traditional notion that the Qur’an allows a husband to raise his hand to his wife, as a last resort in the case of a wife who is rebellious, (see my position here)
Does that really seem like a position a ‘liberal’ would advocate?
It is fine to passionately disagree with Javed Ahmad Ghamidi.
Indeed, there are a number of issues where he and I, completely disagree.
Disagree with Ghamidi Sahib, if you want, but don’t be dishonest by labelling him as a ‘liberal’, ‘modernist’ or ‘West-pleasing’ scholar.
Rather, he should be considered as a scholar of religion, who is striving his utmost to understand the religion of Allah with absolute honesty, and is playing an important and unique role in conveying the message of faith to the world.
Ghamidi’s ‘Strange’ Views
Since Mr. Ghamidi does not follow any traditional school of jurisprudence, and has himself re-examined the entire religion of Islam, his approach on many issues is strikingly different from that of our traditional scholars.
Sometimes, his opponents take his arguments out of all context. They are prone to exaggerating the ‘strangeness’ of views, with a view to portraying him as a ‘danger’ to Islam.
Interestingly, many of the things that Ghamidi Sahib is criticised for were also found to some extent in the early scholars (Salaf) too. For instance:
- Beards: Ghamidi Sahib is attacked for not believing that keeping a beard is obligatory for Muslim men. Yet, the official position of the Shafi’i School is similar in stating that shaving the beard is not a sin. At most keeping a beard is praiseworthy, not a requirement.
- Music: Along with Imam Ibn Hazm and Imam Ghazali, some Maliki jurists consider musical instruments permissible as does Allama Javed Ghamidi.
- Restrictions of Iddah: In the jurisprudence of Imam Malik, a woman can go out whilst observing Iddah during the day even without any necessity. Her only restriction is to return to the marital home by nightime. This contrasts with the absolute house confinement of the hanafi fiqh. Ghamidi Sahib’s position is the same as that of the Maliki school.
I could give many more such examples. Yet this suffices to illustrate that claims of ‘consensus amongst scholars’ are not always accurate.
Every argument should be judged on its own merits and demerits. No more, no less.
‘Stranger Things’ from Ancient Scholars…
If one peruses the texts of our ancient jurists, it is possible to find truly unexpected positions within them.
Sharing these ‘unpopular opinions’ here, is done without any intention to belittle our great Imams of yore.
For the sake of fairness, I have endeavored to provide readers with the basis upon which each of these controversial views, were arrived at.
- A number of the scholars of Kufa, including Imam Abu Hanifa, did not consider any type of alcohol to be absolutely prohibited except for wine made from grapes and dates . They regarded other types of alcohol (cider from apples, beer from wheat for example) to be permitted provided one doesn’t get intoxicated. The basis is that khamr specifically refers to wine from grapes and dates, as also alluded to in a hadith.
- Imam Shafi’i concluded that a daughter conceived outside of marriage, does not have the status of a daughter for her biological father. This is because she does not get inheritance and so on. As such the Shafi’i school does not consider the daughter in this case to be a mahram, and so they do not regard a marriage with such a person prohibited, to the biological father.
- According to Maliki jurisprudence, only four items of food mentioned in the Qur’an are forbidden to Muslims – namely blood, pork, animals sacrificed to other than God, and animals that die naturally. All other animals -even snakes, insects, dogs and so on, are at most makruh (disliked) not prohibited (Haram). The basis is that the Qur’an states ‘only’ four things are prohibited and so they do not include a fifth, in this category.
- Imam Abu Hanifa originally permitted the recitation of the Qur’an in Salah, to be performed in another language not only in Arabic, in his case, Persian.
- Imam Shafi’i held the recital of the name of Allah during animal slaughter to be preferred, not obligatory. Thus any such animal upon which God’s name has not been invoked, is still halal according to the Shafi’i position.
- Hadhrat Abdullah Ibn Abbas (RA), the distinguished companion and relative of the Prophet (PBUH) is reported in several ahadith, to have permitted the meat of donkeys (Qaradawi, pg.46), and temporary marriage (mut’aa) in case of urgent necessity (Bukhari: 5116). This contrasts sharply with the majority Sunni position whereby both actions are deemed absolutely prohibited.
The above positions show that our earlier scholars, were not afraid to disagree with the majority, if they genuinely felt a certain argument is backed up by evidence from the Qur’an or Sunnah.
Moreover, it is apparent that great scholars can make great mistakes.
Yet we shouldn’t resort to declaring these imams as a ‘fitna’ or accusing them of apostasy.
In much the same way, Mr Ghamidi’s unfamiliar views, should only be refuted politely and with strong reasoning, after a careful examination of the arguments.
Ghamidi Sahib himself does this, when disagreeing with other scholars.
One should always avoid stirring up outrage against people, and instead only point out the mistakes – if any – somebody has made in their reasoning, whilst remaining calm and polite.
I am firmly convinced that Ghamidi Sahib never lets his emotions, biases or desires , get in the way of sincerely and honestly presenting Islam to the world.
He presents his arguments from the Holy Qur’an, the hadiths of the Prophet, and the Sunnah of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) with complete frankness, but with great respect, politeness and civility.
His opponents should answer him in the same way.
One should also keep in mind that even a person of the calibre of Imam Abu Hanifa was called Fitna . Even Imam Bukhari was rejected and despised for allegedly being a Mu’tazili.
Great people often attract great slander
Difference is not Deviance
Our scholars often quote a Hadith to the effect that if a judge (or jurist) strives to reach a correct verdict, but gets it wrong, they are given one reward by Allah. Whilst if they reach the correct opinion, they receive two rewards (Sahih Bukhari, 7352).
What matters is intention.
This allowance is not limited to any single generation. Nor to the first three. It applies to all sincere scholars, for the rest of time.
There is also another beautiful hadith, which clearly shows how genuinely held, but different understandings of Islam are to be tolerated, not condemned.
Narrated Ibn `Umar:
On the day of Al-Ahzab (i.e. Clans) the Prophet (ﷺ) said, “None of you Muslims) should offer the
Sahih Bukhari, 4119Asr prayer but at Banu Quraiza's place."
Asr prayer became due for some of them on the way. Some of those said, “We will not offer it till we reach it, the place of Banu Quraiza,” while some others said, “No, we will pray at this spot, for the Prophet (ﷺ) did not mean that for us.” Later on it was mentioned to the Prophet (ﷺ) and he did not berate any of the two groups.
In the above instance, one group took the instruction to not pray asr until they reached, totally literally.
The other group, took the instruction to imply that they should reach the destination by asr time. Since they had not yet reached, and asr prayer was due, they performed it on time.
The Messenger (pbuh) did not criticise either group, since they had both sought to obey Allah and his Prophet, and any sincere difference in interpretation, is not to be deplored.
We too should open our minds and hearts.
Different understandings are not a threat to Islam. We don’t need to make everything into a battle of good vs evil.
Handing out fatwas of kufr, and shouting from pulpits is not the way to serve Islam.