When Allah(swt) created Paradise he directed Jibrail(as) to go and look at what had been created.  Jibrail(as) went and saw the beauty and bounty of Paradise and returned to Allah(swt) and said , Oh Allah anyone who hears of the beauty of Paradise will not be able to help but enter it.

What was on my mind at the time I have no idea.  The above is paraphrasing from the beginning of a Hadith Qudsi and the full text is:

On the authority of Abu Hurayrah (may Allah be pleased with him), who said that the Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said:

“When Allah created Paradise and Hell-fire, He sent Gabriel to Paradise, saying: ‘Look at it and at what I have prepared therein for its inhabitants.’” The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “So he came to it and looked at it and at what Allah had prepared therein for its inhabitants.” The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “So he returned to Him and said: ‘By your glory, no one hears of it without entering it.’ So He ordered that it be encompassed by forms of hardship, and He said: ‘Return to it and look at what I have prepared therein for its inhabitants.’” The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: “So he returned to it and found that it was encompassed by forms of hardship (1). Then he returned to Him and said: ‘By Your glory, I fear that no one will enter it.’ He said: ‘Go to Hell-fire and look at it and what I have prepared therein for its inhabitants;’ and he found that it was in layers, one above the other. Then he returned to Him and said: ‘By Your glory, no one who hears of it will enter it.’ So He ordered that it be encompassed by lusts. Then He said: ‘Return to it.’ And he returned to it and said: ‘By Your glory, I am frightened that no one will escape from entering it.’

It is actually number 38 in Imam Nawawi’s collection of 40 Hadith Qudsi.

There are no such things as coincidences in life.  Allah, Most Exalted, doesn’t operate on chance – so why have I come back on now and why this hadith?

This hadith teaches us many things because just like a kaleidoscope it paints a different picture depending on which way you look at it.   But essentially it is about fighting our lower selves and not succumbing to our whims and desires.   If you genuinely believe in the Divine and that our existence does not end with death then the reality is that we are just transients in this world.  The world is a means to an end and not the end itself – it is the means by which we travel from one point to another or more accurately to travel back to the same point for Allah, Most Exalted, tells us many times in the Quran that we came from Him and it is to Him that we shall return.

So if we are just passing through this world, why do we insist in putting down roots?  For this is what our whims and desires do – they weigh us down and tie us to this world.  Surely any seasoned traveller would confirm for us that it is better to travel light.  This is a journey where you can’t simply pay extra and get your excess baggage through.  The price for that excess baggage is not even worth contemplating and yet we still do it thinking perhaps that it is like one of those interest free deals where you can put the pain of payment off for a while in the hope that something will come along that will take the burden off you.  But this account will just continue to pile up.  As Allah, Most Exalted, warns us:

Surah Al-Humaza
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful

Woe unto every slandering traducer, (1) Who hath gathered wealth (of this world) and arranged it. (2) He thinketh that his wealth will render him immortal. (3) Nay, but verily he will be flung to the Consuming One. (4) Ah, what will convey unto thee what the Consuming One is! (5) (It is) the fire of Allah, kindled, (6) Which leapeth up over the hearts (of men). (7) Lo! it is closed in on them (8) In outstretched columns. (9)

And:

Surah At-Takathur
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful

Rivalry in worldly increase distracteth you (1) Until ye come to the graves. (2) Nay, but ye will come to know! (3) Nay, but ye will come to know! (4) Nay, would that ye knew (now) with a sure knowledge! (5) For ye will behold hell-fire. (6) Aye, ye will behold it with sure vision. (7) Then, on that day, ye will be asked concerning pleasure. (8)

It looks like it is time for me to sit down and look at all these suitcases I have around me – carryon luggage only on this trip.  No check-in, the cost is too high!

 You know you are starting to get old when you find yourself thinking about why ‘young’ people do what they do and now that I’m on the other side of 40 I guess there is no escaping from this.  But this is what I have found myself thinking about over the last few days – why it is that young people do some of the things that they do and as a parent with children who will soon be at the age when they want to ‘make their own decisions’ it becomes even more important.  Because on what basis do they make these decisions?

 The issue which is particularly on my mind is this issue of wanting to be happy.  I know this sounds like a strange thing to be devoting so much thought to, for surely there is nothing wrong with this, but bear with me and I’ll see if I can explain a little more clearly.  There are actually two aspects to this which I am seeing becoming more prevalent in the younger generations – firstly, asserting their right ‘to be happy’, with home, education, relationships and just life in general; and secondly, when this ‘happiness’ is not forthcoming to stop what they are doing and go looking for happiness elsewhere.  The third point in this discussion is of course what does it actually mean to be ‘happy’?  Let me start with the last point first because I actually think the other two stem from this issue.

 If I was to ask 10 people in the street what happiness meant to them there is a good chance I’d get 10 different answers.  For some it would be about relationships, for others a successful career, money, having the latest gadgets or just not having anything to worry about.  While the examples given may be different, what they will all have in common is a connection with some personal desire being satisfied.  Generally when our desires are satisfied this engenders a feeling of happiness – or at least that is the language we use.  But is this really the ‘happiness’ we all seek?  There is a fundamental problem with this view of happiness.  Firstly, it is a fleeting emotion because desires by their very nature are fluid and ever changing.  When one desire is met, and we get a good feeling about it, it is not long before the ego replaces this with another desire and we find our moment of ‘happiness’ is now but a memory and we long for something else to satisfy our new desire.  On this view then we can never have any real long term happiness.

 Secondly, the things we desire are often driven by outside influences which often we are not even consciously aware of.  Modern western society, built on consumerism and individualism, functions by the generation of personal desires which the institutions of that society are then geared up to meet – whether we are conscious of it or not, society works by building the desires in us which it is structured to satisfy and through that satisfaction exercise a measure of control over us.  For these societies to continue to grow it becomes crucial that new desires are encouraged in people on an ongoing basis – whether it is for material goods, leisure activities, personal growth etc – for this is what the economists refer to as ‘demand’.  And for a consumer based economy to grow you need a consistent growth in demand.  The rub of it though is that, despite our notions of personal freedom, most of the things we demand we do as a result of society’s influence upon us than any real need on our own part.  The consequence of this is that people in western societies are in an ongoing pursuit of desire satisfaction.  This becomes like an addiction because the emotion generated by the satisfaction of desires, while it makes us feel good, is momentary only and so we are constantly on the look out for the next ‘hit’ of pleasure.  And like any addiction, over time it takes a greater level of stimulus to generate the same response in us.  This isn’t happiness at all.  At best this is satiation and the one who is driven by the need to be sated is controlled by whoever has the power to feed that need – no different to a drug user and his/her supplier. 

 So much for our notions of freedom then.

 Does this mean there is no such thing as true happiness?  Not at all.  Happiness is something that can and does exist and is a worthy pursuit for all of us.  The tricky part is in understanding where it lies.  From my perspective as a Muslim the answer to this is in understanding the nature and purpose of our existence in this life.  It is a fundamental belief in Islam that our existence does not terminate with our death, that there exists a life after that.  Further, it is also a basic tenet of the religion that the afterlife will result in either a life of eternal happiness and bliss or one of damnation until the Mercy of Allah (swt) is manifested for us and we are raised to paradise.  The afterlife is an eternal one by the grace of Allah, Most Exalted is He.

 So the happiness we should be pursuing is that of eternal paradise promised to us by Allah (swt) and we achieve this by fulfilling the purpose of our existence in this life, which is as Allah (swt) tells us in the Quran (51:56)

 وَمَا خَلَقْتُ ٱلْجِنَّ وَٱلإِنسَ إِلاَّ لِيَعْبُدُونِ

 “And I did not create the jinn and mankind except that they may worship Me”

 While there is an enormous amount of detail that sits behind this command, at its essence this is what our purpose is – to worship Allah (swt).  If we do this then Allah (swt) has promised us eternal paradise.  Our happiness in this world should come from knowing that our actions are those that serve this purpose and which will lead to this outcome.  This is the only sustainable happiness we have available to us.

 And this is where the first tension in our pursuit for happiness in this life arises.  The happiness I have described above is essentially a spiritual state in this life, and while it is not necessarily divorced from material satisfaction it is not driven by it nor is it dependent upon it. Hence there is a tension between a society which emphasises the need for personal satisfaction in the here and now and a spiritual imperative which says that personal satisfaction is fine provided it does not compromise eternal happiness.  This is often a difficult tightrope for people of any age, let alone the young, to walk upon.

 The tensions become greater in those situations where there is in fact a conflict between those things which will give us personal satisfaction and those things which will lead to eternal paradise.  As an intellectual construct, for any Muslim, it is a non-issue – the eternal clearly takes precedence over the temporal.  However, at a practical level, to live this day-in-day-out is not such an easy thing and, I think, for the younger generation even more so. 

It becomes a question of time horizons and perspective.  So called ‘modern’ society encourages people to live in the ‘now’, what is happening to the individual in this moment in time is what is important.  Even when people are encouraged to look forward this is still within the framework of our mortal existence and not anything beyond that.  One of the common criticisms levelled at Islam is that it is a religion which is caught up in the past and has not adapted to the times we live in.  To a certain extent this is true, in the sense that there is an extremely strong emphasis on the history, in particular the time and life of the Prophet (saws).  But it is wrong to suggest that this is the only focus.

 Islam actually has a dual focus from a temporal perspective.  It teaches us to look to the past for guidance on how we should behave, for the principles which are immutable and relevant for all times, but it actually focuses our vision on the future.  Not in terms of what our lives are going to be like in this world but what will happen to us AFTER this life – in essence it encompasses the whole spectrum of time.  But what is the role of the ‘now’ moment in this context?  The purpose of ‘now’ is not our happiness or satisfaction but in taking what we learn from the past and using that to move closer to what will grant us happiness at the end of time – and that is to please our Lord, Most Exalted is He, through our worship of Him.

 But it is hard for many people to be motivated by something which is by its nature intangible and beyond our imagination.  Most young people struggle to come to terms with denying themselves certain things, things which will provide an immediate sensory high, or pursue difficult things for rewards which are promised for some indeterminate period of time in the future.  And living in a western country makes this even more problematic given the continual exposure to a society which elevates the individual and the satisfaction of individual desires above most other things.

 One consequence of this is that we find many younger people on an emotional roller coaster – one minute on a high because some external event has triggered a momentary emotional response and then on a low when that event either concludes or when the ego becomes sated and no longer satisfied.  People become driven, and make decisions around, what is going to make them happy in the ‘now’ without realising that this is in fact a futile approach.  All this does is to fuel the ego and build its desires to ever greater levels which will become harder and harder to satisfy. 

 The only way out of this cycle is to step out of the loop and remember what our purpose in life is.  We are the servants or slaves of Allah (swt), our only purpose is to please Him, Most Exalted is He.  What rights does a slave or servant have for happiness or to have their desires met?  Only those accorded to them by their Master, and Allah (swt) in his great Mercy has laid out for us very clearly what is required for us to be granted this happiness.  

 It is not great secret.  If we are able to focus on this then it becomes extremely liberating because no longer are we dictated to by our own ego or nafs, by desires which are fuelled by a society that seeks to draw us away from our Divine Creator.  The nafs is tied to this world and a love of this world is the first step to forsaking the promised happiness in the hereafter.

 It is a hard thing for young people to let go of those things which give us an immediate buzz and fix their sight on something which is distant and ephemeral, it becomes easier to do this as you get older and you have more years behind you than likely to be in front of you.  But this is what they need to do if they truly want to be happy.  If you are a true slave of Allah (swt), with sincerity and purity, then you know that He, the most Merciful and Benevolent of Masters, Most Exalted is He, will provide all that we need in this world and the next.  One of the implications of this, and our understanding of the Diving Attributes, is that our knowledge is limited whereas Allah (swt) has knowledge of everything that ever was or ever will be. 

 This means that our ability to appreciated what is in our best interests is limited and so if we have complete reliance on Allah(swt) then whatever occurs in our lives will serve to bring us closer to Him and therefore eternal happiness.

ٱلۡحَمۡدُ لِلَّهِ رَبِّ ٱلۡعَـٰلَمِين

إِيَّاكَ نَعۡبُدُ وَإِيَّاكَ نَسۡتَعِينُ

 والسلام والصلاة على سيدنا محمد وأهله وصحبه والتابعين لهم بإحسان إلى يوم الدين

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.  All Praise to our Creator and Sustainer, He whom we Worship Alone and He in whom we seek Refuge.

  And peace and blessings upon our Master Muhammad, his Family, Companions and those who follow them with excellence until the Day of Reckoning

 In recent times there has been a trend within some parts of the Muslim community to question the practice of praising the Prophet  or, to be fair, praising him ‘excessively’.  The reciting of poems, the singing of qasidas and the practice of holding mawlids, have all been challenged and in some cases labeled as blameworthy innovation (bid’a). It is not my intention to get into a debate about sufism or salafism or wahabism or any other ‘ism’ in relation to this issue.  Let us put all that nomenclature aside for the moment. 

 What I want to discuss is the practice of praising the Prophet  and whether this claim of ‘excessive’ praising is a valid one or not. It is common ground that praise is due to the Prophet , the only real question is how much and what form should this take.

[For the full article click  Mahaba]

 Prayers and Blessings upon our Master Mohammad, his family and companions.

 In writing this work I do so as a reminder to myself first and foremost and then to all my brothers and sisters in Islam, intending through such advice to benefit the ‘Umma of Allah(swt)and allow each and every one of us to better meet our obligations to He whom we owe all Praise and Thanks.

This will be the first of a series of articles, insha’Allah, which will look at fundamental structural issues within the Australian Muslim community with a view to providing both an explanation for some of the current inhibitors to community development and ultimately to recommendations for moving forward.

The topic I’d like to cover in this discussion is Structure and Strategy – even a cursory knowledge of the issues confronted by the community over the last decade and the manner in which those issues have been responded to will show an approach which is anything but strategic.  One of the factors, and I wish to make it clear that it is only one, that contribute to this failing on our part is the representative organisational structure and a lack of clarity of the role that organisations at different levels of that structure should and do play.

While from a religious perspective there is no standardised structure within the religion (ultimately Islam is a personal relationship between each of us and Allah, Most Exalted is He) there is unquestionably an established organisational structure. 

Generally the current structure is a standard pyramid as shown below:

A review of the ASIC database and of organisations registered with various government departments, both at State and Federal level, indicates that there are over 700 organisations claiming some franchise with the Muslim community in Australia.

The AFIC website post the 2009 National Congress shows approximately 100 member organisations.  To be a member of AFIC an organisation needs to be a member of a State Council and as the number of member organisations affects each State Councils rights within AFIC, it is safe to assume that these represent the sum total of all member organisations of these Councils.  This means that there are over 600 other organisations within the community who fall outside this formal structure – this is a ratio of 1:6.

Hence, the claims by many Muslims that this structure does not in fact represent them. But, while this may be true and a fundamental problem with the system, in the absence of an alternative structure it is what is left for Government and the rest of the community to deal and interact with.

What it clearly suggests to us however is that there is a fundamental problem with this system which is driving individuals and organisations to seek alternative methods of representation and operation.  The role and work of these organisations will be reviewed in the articles to come.

Let us accept for the moment that this is the formal and recognised structure within the community.  If so, what is the purpose and role of the different tiers of this pyramid?  What I am outlining below is what I suggest this should be and not what it necessarily currently is.

AFIC – The National Peak Body

If the AFIC is truly the overarching leadership body for the community then its main principle role has to be a strategic one.  The word ‘strategy’ is bandied around by all and sundry these days to elevate the work that they do, but what do we mean by ‘strategy’ here?  Strategy for the AFIC should mean:

Fostering the long term viability, sustainability and growth of the Muslim community in Australia. This entails development of a future where the Muslim community is vibrant, respected and an integral part of Australian society and then determining the factors that will bring that vision to life and engaging with the rest of the community to implement that vision.

This visionary work should be setting the foundation for outcomes that are cross generational and impact on the community as a whole – how it engages with Government, other Faiths and anticipates and meets its own future needs and demands.  It should be about the building of capability rather than the delivery of service.

I do not intend to go over the actual activities of AFIC – anyone who has any knowledge of the community is able to make their own judgement on whether AFIC operates in the manner I am suggesting but my own view is clearly that it does not.

Just one example of this is the recent calls for submissions by the Human Rights Commission for its report on Freedom of Religion and Belief in the 21^st Century.  This is obviously an issue of profound importance to the Muslim community both generally and particularly given the focus on the community in recent times plus the developments in terms of religious freedoms that have affected Muslims in Europe.

AFIC, to its credit, did make a submission, but with all due respect it was an extremely disappointing contribution from a body that purportedly represents the whole community on a national basis.  It was essentially a 3 page letter which reads more like a funding request than a serious contribution to a report which is likely to significantly influence government policy over the next decade or so.

This merely highlights the most glaring shortcoming of the AFIC as an organisation – a focus on matters that could and should rightly be done either by the State Councils, and their Member Organisations, and a failure to adequately address the long term strategic needs of the community.  One would be hard pressed to identify the last piece of major policy work that was even commissioned by AFIC let alone carried out by the organisation itself.

This failure to properly grasp what its role is has major flow on effects to the State Councils and Member Organisations.  AFIC in many ways is then seen as a competitor rather than an enabler – a competitor both for patronage and for funding.  If it is playing in the same space as its members, and in my view in the space that they should rightly have some monopoly over, then this clouds the whole relationship between all the organisations. 

The need to take control of AFIC then is seen in the same light as controlling the competition or growing your own organisation.  The natural consequence of this is the interminable squabbles, rows and ultimately legal battles over control of the organisation and the funds it controls by competing with its own members.  The loser out of this process is the community which ultimately bears the cost, both financial (which is not insignificant) and reputation wise.

This situation will not be rectified until AFIC recognises what its role should be and realigns its efforts and structures accordingly.  Only when the grand vision is set for the whole community, and each tier can see the role it plays and how it will be sustained and grow within that vision, will change start to take place.

This will not be an easy task by any stretch of the imagination but without it, the current formal structures are ultimately doomed to fail and in the vacuum created by their demise some alternative will inevitably emerge and it may not be something that we as community either control or is in our best interests.

The next piece wills, insha’Allah, consider the roles of the State Councils and Member Organisations.

 http://www.jcpa.org/JCPA/Templates/ShowPage.asp?DRIT=4&DBID=1&LNGID=1&TMID=111&FID=623&PID=0&IID=2974&TTL=Muslim-Jewish_Relations_in_Australia:_Challenges_and_Threats

 Islam is the second largest non-Christian denomination in Australia comprising 1.7% of the population as recorded in the 2006 Census, some 400,000 people.  While the Jewish community is significantly smaller in size it has a long and active history in Australia.  It is only right therefore that the two communities should identify those matters which pose a challenge or threat to ongoing harmony and seek to overcome some of those issues.

 In hindsight I probably should not have had high expectations given the publication and the audience it is aimed at but I am ever the optimist.   The disappointment stems essentially from the following:

• Leaving the reader with the impression that the Jewish community has been a part of the fabric of Australian life since the first settlement, while the Muslim community is predominantly a late comer on the scene.

 This is being somewhat disingenuous with the facts.  Yes, it may be true that there were Jewish convicts as part of the first settlement but the reality is that the numbers of Jews in Australia was never large nor significant and was in fact in decline until the rise of Nazi Germany and the persecution of Jews that followed.

 In fact the numbers were in such decline that a Jewish demographer predicted that there would be no Jews living in Australia by the 21^st Century[1].  Obviously that did not eventuate, but the reality of the matter is that there have never been any large numbers of Jews living in Australia until post WWII when Australia took in significant numbers of Jewish migrants and refugees following on from the holocaust.

 A situation no different to the Muslim community.  In fact a closer look at the waves of migration may even suggest that throughout the period up to that point the Muslim population in Australia exceeded that of the Jewish one.  It is estimated that there were some 6000 Afghan Muslims in Australia in the 18^th Century[2]. While the White Australia Policy was in place, this did not apply to Malays, who had been given an exemption to work in the pearl industry, or to Southern European migrants such as the Albanians.

 The story of post WWII migration is well known and speaks for itself, but it is incorrect to give the impression that Muslims and Islam were nearly devoid of a presence in Australia prior to this while Judaism was not.

•  The only ‘Challenge” or “Threat” to the relationship comes from the Muslim side.

 While Mr Jones covers off on some common actions and initiatives, the complete lack of any acknowledgement that a relationship exists between two bodies and is a function of the actions of both is pretty much fatal if his intention was to foster a change in the status of that relationship.

 Have Muslims said and did the things that he refers to?  Of course they have – it would be ludicrous to suggest otherwise.  I’m not even going to try and get into the whole issue of the context of those quotes and the true meaning.  The reality is that he is right – there are in fact members of the Muslim community who hold the views he suggests.  Even some of the more senior or prominent members of the community have said and done things, in the past, which have not been done in the right way.  But what is the benefit of rehashing these matters?

 With the exception of the incidents arising from the Gaza conflict the majority of the other matters he refers to go back over a decade or in some cases over 2 decades.  And his attempts to link Muslims with the far right are just astonishing.  On this point he refers to:

 “as a speaker the anti-Israeli, left-wing political activist Rihab Charida (now the representative of Iran’s Press TV in Australia), who spoke on Middle East politics in the company of a number of anti-multicultural extreme rightists.”

 Is this it?  No he also refers to the promulgation of the writings of David Duke.  Seriously, to suggest that this amounts to forming links with the far right is just plain ludicrous.

 And then we have a reference to the Gaza conflict and the analogy that many Muslims made, including AFIC, to Nazi Germany. Was it intemperate?  Maybe.  Was it the best way to get the message across?  Perhaps not.  But what it was, was a clear signal of the level of frustration, anger and hurt felt by the Muslim community to what was occurring in Gaza.  The fact that the Jewish leadership in Australia refused point blank to acknowledge in any way the injustice of what was occurring only made the matters even worse.  Is it any wonder that the reaction was unprecedented?

 I accept that many Jewish people would have found the analogy offensive and hurtful – but this does not make it anti-Semitic.  What many Muslims could not, and still can not, come to terms with is how a people who suffered the way the Jews did in Germany could stand by and make excuses for what was occurring in Gaza.

 But let’s go back to the issue of the two-way nature of this relationship.  If we accept there has been some intemperate rhetoric on the Muslim side, what has been the case on the Jewish side?  Is it all sweetness and nice as Mr Jones seems to indicate?

•  In 2007 Professor Raphi Israeli of the Jerusalem University made claims, supposedly on his study of the European experience, that once the Muslim community reached a critical mass (10% in France for example) it almost will inevitably lead to radicalisation and major problems for the host nation.
• The Australian Islamist Monitor is a whole site full of hatred and vilification which very clearly has Jewish contributors to it.
• In 2008 the Australia/Israel and Jewish Affairs Council published a piece on its website from Douglas Davis which can only be described as a rant.  This was a response to the Arch Bishop of Canterbury’s comments in relation to the use of Sharia Courts in Britain.  He essentially tries to draw an analogy between the growing role of Islam in Britain and the encroachment of the apartheid regime in South Africa.  In fact a read through almost any of Mr Davis’ articles on the AIJAC site shows the same common theme of the insidious(my words) encroachment of Islam into the broader community.
• Or can we recall two video games that came out recently?  The first was called Muslim Massacre and developed by a Brisbane man with the only mission being to kill as many Muslims as possible.  Given that the Jewish community is so against racism I would have expected a show of solidarity with the Muslim community in opposing this vile game.  I didn’t hold my breath…and a good thing to.  But of course I could be seen to be unfair in judging an omission.
•  What about the game “Rising Eagle – Gaza” though?  Again the only aim of this is to kill Muslims.  In Gaza! But this time by Israeli soldiers! And it was developed by an Israeli!  What was the reaction of the Jewish Community in Australia to this blatant racist game? The Australian Jewish News interviewed the business man behind the game who made the absurd claim that this game “can only bring greater understanding”.  Excuse me?  Greater understanding?  By the killing of Muslims by Israeli soldiers? 

 And the reaction of the Jewish Leadership…….ECAJ president, at the time, Robert Goot is quoted as calling the game “unhelpful and inappropriate.” 

 That’s it?  “unhelpful and inappropriate”? 

 One wonders what the reaction would have been if the case was reversed.

 The reality is that I could go on….just as Mr Jones does.  There are as many examples of intemperate and inappropriate commentary and action on the Jewish side as there is on the Muslim side.  But if you are genuinely after greater understanding there is no benefit in dredging up things of this nature from years gone past and there is certainly no benefit in painting a picture that says it is all one sided.

 he reality is that the vast majority of people on both sides neither ascribe to this rubbish nor promulgate it and to emphasis it does all of them a huge disservice.

 There is fundamentally only one basic issue which poses any serious challenge or threat to ongoing harmonious relationships between the two communities and that is the treatment of Palestinians. Local Jews can repeat ad infinitum the claim that they should not be held responsible for the actions of Israel – the truth is this does not wash.  We, as Muslims, learnt this to our detriment post 9/11.  Why should the Jewish community expect anything less?

 I do not hold the Australian Jewish community responsible nor accountable for the actions of the Israeli State.  Unless, that is, they support the actions that Israel has been taking.  What we do ask is that it acknowledges the moral and legal wrong doing of the occupation and the attacks on Palestine.  Nobody seriously advocates the destruction of Israel, not even the Iranians, anymore but the actions of Israel can only lead genuinely objective observers to question its motives.

 Unfortunately the world has become a very small place and when people do things in the name of your religion you either have to speak up in opposition to such actions or be taken to support them – we know, because we have been faced with this situation every time a Muslim breaks a law in any country in the world sine 9/11.

[2] Muslim Journeys, Hanifa Deen, http://uncommonlives.naa.gov.au/life.asp?lID=9

This issue of who is an ‘enemy’, I must admit, had been a hard one to grapple with and the experience is just another reason why we should leave these matters, ultimately, to the scholars.  Without having a deep understanding of the primary sources it is far too easy to draw the wrong conclusions.  I guess I am saying this as a disclaimer in relation to what comes next.  As I deepen and broaden my own knowledge I may very well return to this issue and revise the situation.

 It is given that those people who are actively and physically ‘fighting’ Islam and Muslims would constitute an enemy.  The verses of the Quran are numerous on this issue.  Similarly I think it generally uncontroversial that disbelief in and of itself does not make someone an ‘enemy’ per se.

 In 4:90 Allah(swt) is expanding on the issue of who it is permissible to fight against and who it is not.  This verse carries on from the previous, which has a general commandment to slay ‘the renegades’.  This verse then states:

 إِلَّا ٱلَّذِينَ يَصِلُونَ إِلَىٰ قَوۡمِۭ بَيۡنَكُمۡ وَبَيۡنَہُم مِّيثَـٰقٌ أَوۡ جَآءُوكُمۡ حَصِرَتۡ صُدُورُهُمۡ أَن يُقَـٰتِلُوكُمۡ أَوۡ يُقَـٰتِلُواْ قَوۡمَهُمۡ‌ۚ وَلَوۡ شَآءَ ٱللَّهُ لَسَلَّطَهُمۡ عَلَيۡكُمۡ فَلَقَـٰتَلُوكُمۡ‌ۚ فَإِنِ ٱعۡتَزَلُوكُمۡ فَلَمۡ يُقَـٰتِلُوكُمۡ وَأَلۡقَوۡاْ إِلَيۡكُمُ ٱلسَّلَمَ فَمَا جَعَلَ ٱللَّهُ لَكُمۡ عَلَيۡہِمۡ سَبِيلاً۬ (٩٠)

 Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace) or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you or fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you, not and (instead) send you (guarantees of) peace, then Allah hath opened no way for you (to war against them). (90)

The Scholarly explanation of this ‘Exception’ is that it relates to those people who do not wish to fight the Muslims but neither do they wish to fight their own people, i.e. they are neither with nor against the Muslims.  I would have thought that this would in fact cover the majority of people living in the West.

 In Chapter 60 Allah(swt) talks further about the relationship between believers and non-believers and then in verses 7-9, in relation to why we should deal kindly and justly with non-Muslims, states:

 عَسَى ٱللَّهُ أَن يَجۡعَلَ بَيۡنَكُمۡ وَبَيۡنَ ٱلَّذِينَ عَادَيۡتُم مِّنۡہُم مَّوَدَّةً۬‌ۚ وَٱللَّهُ قَدِيرٌ۬‌ۚ وَٱللَّهُ غَفُورٌ۬ رَّحِيمٌ۬ (٧) لَّا يَنۡهَٮٰكُمُ ٱللَّهُ عَنِ ٱلَّذِينَ لَمۡ يُقَـٰتِلُوكُمۡ فِى ٱلدِّينِ وَلَمۡ يُخۡرِجُوكُم مِّن دِيَـٰرِكُمۡ أَن تَبَرُّوهُمۡ وَتُقۡسِطُوٓاْ إِلَيۡہِمۡ‌ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يُحِبُّ ٱلۡمُقۡسِطِينَ (٨) إِنَّمَا يَنۡہَٮٰكُمُ ٱللَّهُ عَنِ ٱلَّذِينَ قَـٰتَلُوكُمۡ فِى ٱلدِّينِ وَأَخۡرَجُوڪُم مِّن دِيَـٰرِكُمۡ وَظَـٰهَرُواْ عَلَىٰٓ إِخۡرَاجِكُمۡ أَن تَوَلَّوۡهُمۡ‌ۚ وَمَن يَتَوَلَّهُمۡ فَأُوْلَـٰٓٮِٕكَ هُمُ ٱلظَّـٰلِمُونَ (٩)

It may be that Allah will grant love (and friendship) between you and those whom ye (now) hold as enemies: for Allah has power (over all things); and Allah is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful. (7) Allah forbids you not, with regard to those who fight you not for (your) Faith nor drive you out of your homes, from dealing kindly and justly with them: for Allah loveth those who are just. (8) Allah only forbids you, with regard to those who fight you for (your) Faith, and drive you out of your homes, and support (others) in driving you out, from turning to them (for friendship and protection). It is such as turn to them (in these circumstances) that do wrong. (9)

There are other similar verses which make it clear that those people who are not ‘fighting’ you are not to be treated except in this way. 

 Between these verses, and the other similar ones in the Quran, I think it reasonable to conclude that the ‘enemies’ of Islam or Muslims are those people who are fighting (by this I take it to mean a physical situation and not metaphorical) us because of our faith – so those people who are trying to prevent us from practicing our religion or who forceably are trying to make us follow another religion; or those who are physically fighting us for our homes and lands – Palestine comes immediately to mind.  In the absence of either of these situations I do not accept that a non-believer would fall into the category of ‘enemy’.

 This is an extremely complex situation – there are some very clear cases of who fits into what camp but it is in the shades of grey between that the issue becomes somewhat difficult.

 There is no question that the continued Israeli occupation of Palestine and its treatment of the Palestinian people would fit within the category of “driving you out of your homes” even if they are not fighting the Palestinians ‘for their faith’.  This means that the State of Israel is an enemy of Muslims generally and will remain so until they withdraw from Palestine and stop the slaughter and oppression that is taking place there.  This does not extend to the Jewish people as a religious group but only to the state of Israel itself and the people involved in that conflict.

 The situations in Afghanistan and Iraq are more complex to categorise, not least because there are Muslims on both sides of those conflicts, i.e. the outside forces are both fighting against Muslims but also with Muslims.  The escalating conflict in Pakistan is even more complex given that, at present, there are no outside forces involved but if things continue as they are it is extremely likely that they will be.  But it is essentially a conflict between two Muslim groups.  What does the involvement of outside forces on one side of that conflict mean for the categorisation of those forces generally?  I think it would be hard to say they are the ‘enemy’ of Islam in those circumstances.

 What about the rest of the West and in particular the situation in the non-Muslim lands that we live in?

 I do not accept that there is a ‘war’ by the whole ‘West’ against Islam.  This, to my mind, is a ludicrous notion.  We, here in Australia, are free to practice our religion.  What the future holds is another story but for the moment that is the case and I have faith that the Australian people are generally and genuinely good hearted and that this will continue to be the case.  While that is the status quo then I do not believe we can make a generalisation that Australians, or Australia as a State, is an ‘enemy’ of Muslims or Islam.

 In my view all the above clearly establishes a position whereby it is incumbent on us as Muslims to not only treat our fellow Australians with justice, mercy and kindness, but that we also have a positive obligation to prevent other Muslims amongst us from committing acts of violence that would harm innocent Australians.

 Finally, the Prophet (saws) is narrated to have said:

 The merciful are shown mercy by the All-Merciful.  Show mercy to those on earth, and the Lord of the Heavens will show mercy to you.”

 This mercy is at the heart of the Islamic tradition and spirit – a spirit that, despite propaganda to the contrary, saw the spread of Islam through the excellence in character, conduct and dealings of Muslims with non-Muslims with a commitment to justice and fairness in ALL situations.  It is unfortunate that there are some Muslims today who have strayed from these traditions and it is only because of this that we now see anger, intolerance and ugliness replacing justice and forbearance to the detriment of us all.

 Any benefit in the above is all from Allah(swt) and the mistakes and omissions, which undoubtedly there are, are mine.  May Allah(swt) forgive me and extend His Mercy for those mistakes.

What these programs generally cover off are some good fundamental personal skills – presentation, communication, negotiation and the like.  All excellent skills to have and skills which all good leaders have.  But they are not the ONLY skills that leaders have and in the absence of anything else they may make you better at your job but wont really progress you very far along the leadership road.

To genuinely build your leadership skills you will need to have 3 elements:

1. The theory – an understanding of what it is that makes good leadership;
2. The practice – an opportunity to practice the theory in a staged approach; learn from that experience and then use it to move on to the next stage of development;
3. A Mentor – someone who can guide you along the journey.

Obviously there are those rare individuals who have the inherent ability to become great leaders on their own but for the vast majority of us it will take time and hard work – not something that you will get in a 1 day workshop or even a week intensive.

So the first piece of advice if you want to develop your leadership potential is to find a structured program that builds on the learned knowledge, provides an opportunity for you to implement the learnings before moving the next stage and which also provides the possibility for you to access a mentor along the way.

There are two camps here – one, which says that the ‘West’ as a collective is an enemy of Islam and so any support at all is a betrayal of the religion; and the other which intuitively takes the position that this is not correct but which has difficulty in articulating its reasons other than if we are aware of a wrong being committed we should stop it.

I am neither a scholar nor a ‘leader’ of the community, but I am a Muslim and so I need to understand for my own peace of mind what I believe to be the case.

For me the whole issue is bound up in the concept of Justice.  Justice, or ‘Adl’ in Arabic, is one of the main themes running through the Quran and it seems to me that there is something inherently wrong, or unjust, if I, as a Muslim, am aware of something that will cause great harm to many innocent people and choose to stand by and do nothing about it. 

So let’s consider the verses in the Quran that refer or allude to justice in some way.  It should be kept in mind that Allah(swt) uses a number of labels in the Quran when referring to people – Muslims, Mu’mins, Muhsin and others, which all refer to the collective group of ‘believers’.  Then there are labels such as, Mushrakeen, Kafireen etc which all relate to the collective of ‘non-believers’.  Finally, though, in many verses in the Quran Allah(swt) simply refers to Naas, and its derivatives.  There is consensus that this refers to the whole of mankind irrespective of the state of belief. 

With that in mind let us now consider some verses.

In 4:58 Allah(swt) states:

إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ يَأۡمُرُكُمۡ أَن تُؤَدُّواْ ٱلۡأَمَـٰنَـٰتِ إِلَىٰٓ أَهۡلِهَا وَإِذَا حَكَمۡتُم بَيۡنَ ٱلنَّاسِ أَن تَحۡكُمُواْ بِٱلۡعَدۡلِ‌ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ نِعِمَّا يَعِظُكُم بِهِۦۤ‌ۗ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ سَمِيعَۢا بَصِيرً۬ا (٥٨)

 

Allah doth command you to render back your Trusts to those to whom they are due; and when ye judge between people that ye judge with justice: verily how excellent is the teaching which He giveth you! for Allah is He who heareth and seeth all things. (58)

And in 5:8:

يَـٰٓأَيُّہَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ كُونُواْ قَوَّٲمِينَ لِلَّهِ شُہَدَآءَ بِٱلۡقِسۡطِ‌ۖ وَلَا يَجۡرِمَنَّڪُمۡ شَنَـَٔانُ قَوۡمٍ عَلَىٰٓ أَلَّا تَعۡدِلُواْ‌ۚ ٱعۡدِلُواْ هُوَ أَقۡرَبُ لِلتَّقۡوَىٰ‌ۖ وَٱتَّقُواْ ٱللَّهَ‌ۚ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ خَبِيرُۢ بِمَا تَعۡمَلُونَ (٨)

 

O ye who believe! stand out firmly for Allah, as witnesses to fair dealing, and let not the hatred of others to you make you swerve to wrong and depart from justice. Be just: that is next to Piety: and fear Allah For Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do. (8)

While both verses are addressed to the ‘believers’ there is nothing to indicate that the charge to act with justice is only towards other ‘believers’.  In fact in 4:58 in reference to judging between people it is the word ‘naas’ which is used.  This is clear evidence that the admonition to judge between people with justice applies to ALL people and not just Muslims.  In fact the great scholar Ibn Kathir, in his Tafsir (explanation of the meaning), notes that this verse was revealed at the time that the Prophet(saws) had sent one of his Companions to collect a tax from the Jewish community. 

This is reinforced in 4:135 where Allah(swt) extends the notion of justice to include cases where you stand against yourself or family.

يَـٰٓأَيُّہَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ كُونُواْ قَوَّٲمِينَ بِٱلۡقِسۡطِ شُہَدَآءَ لِلَّهِ وَلَوۡ عَلَىٰٓ أَنفُسِكُمۡ أَوِ ٱلۡوَٲلِدَيۡنِ وَٱلۡأَقۡرَبِينَ‌ۚ إِن يَكُنۡ غَنِيًّا أَوۡ فَقِيرً۬ا فَٱللَّهُ أَوۡلَىٰ بِہِمَا‌ۖ فَلَا تَتَّبِعُواْ ٱلۡهَوَىٰٓ أَن تَعۡدِلُواْ‌ۚ وَإِن تَلۡوُ ۥۤاْ أَوۡ تُعۡرِضُواْ فَإِنَّ ٱللَّهَ كَانَ بِمَا تَعۡمَلُونَ خَبِيرً۬ا (١٣٥)

 

O ye who believe! stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts) lest ye swerve and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do. (135)

There are many other verses which follow a similar line – see 11:85 for example.

These verses of the Quran establish a clear and unequivocal criteria that we as Muslims need to deal with ALL people with justice regardless of their religion. 

But, the argument will run, this does not apply to dealing with our ‘enemies’.  If we put aside for the moment the danger of such a generalisation as saying the ‘West” is our enemy, what other verses may apply here?  There are obviously numerous verses which deal with fighting and defending ourselves against enemies in an out and out marshall sense, but that is not quite what we have today.  Are there other verses which may apply?

5:2 states:

يَـٰٓأَيُّہَا ٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ لَا تُحِلُّواْ شَعَـٰٓٮِٕرَ ٱللَّهِ وَلَا ٱلشَّہۡرَ ٱلۡحَرَامَ وَلَا ٱلۡهَدۡىَ وَلَا ٱلۡقَلَـٰٓٮِٕدَ وَلَآ ءَآمِّينَ ٱلۡبَيۡتَ ٱلۡحَرَامَ يَبۡتَغُونَ فَضۡلاً۬ مِّن رَّبِّہِمۡ وَرِضۡوَٲنً۬ا‌ۚ وَإِذَا حَلَلۡتُمۡ فَٱصۡطَادُواْ‌ۚ وَلَا يَجۡرِمَنَّكُمۡ شَنَـَٔانُ قَوۡمٍ أَن صَدُّوڪُمۡ عَنِ ٱلۡمَسۡجِدِ ٱلۡحَرَامِ أَن تَعۡتَدُواْ‌ۘ وَتَعَاوَنُواْ عَلَى ٱلۡبِرِّ وَٱلتَّقۡوَىٰ‌ۖ وَلَا تَعَاوَنُواْ عَلَى ٱلۡإِثۡمِ وَٱلۡعُدۡوَٲنِ‌ۚ وَٱتَّقُواْ ٱللَّهَ‌ۖ إِنَّ ٱللَّهَ شَدِيدُ ٱلۡعِقَابِ

 

O ye who believe! violate not the sanctity of the Symbols of Allah, nor of the Sacred Month, nor of the animals brought for sacrifice, nor the garlands that mark out such animals, nor the people resorting to the Sacred House, seeking of the bounty, and good pleasure of their Lord. But when ye are clear of the Sacred Precincts and of pilgrim garb, ye may hunt and let not the hatred of some people in (once) shutting you out of the Sacred Mosque lead you to transgression (and hostility on your part). Help ye one another in righteousness and piety, but help ye not one another in sin and rancour: fear Allah: for Allah is strict in punishment.

Imam Ibn Kathir states that the meaning of this verse is the apparent one, i.e. do not let your hatred of people who have done you wrong lead you astray, but that you are required to treat everybody with justice and that it is forbidden to help another Muslim in something that would be a sin.

There is an oft cited Hadith (narration) of the Prophet (saws) where it is narrated that he said:

انْصُرْ أَخَاكَ ظَالِمًا أَوْ مَظْلُومًا which translates to “Support your brother whether he was an oppressor or the victim of oppression”.  Many use this Hadith to support the position that you are required to side with a fellow Muslim in all situations.  The only problem with that approach is that this is not the full narration.  Imam Ibn Kathir goes on to state:

He (the Prophet(saws) was asked, “O Messenger of Allah! We know about helping him when he suffers oppression, so what about helping him when he commits oppression” He said,

 which translates to تَحْجُزُهُ وَتَمْنَعُهُ مِنَ الظُّلْمِ فَذَاكَ نَصْرُه

Prevent and stop him from committing oppression, and this represents giving support to him.

What greater oppression can there be than the taking of an innocent life? Another Hadith which is often quoted by the same people is one where the Prophet(saws) commands us to enjoin the good and prevent the evil.   The Hadith narrates that the Prophet(saws) stated:

 

مَنْ رَأَى مِنْكُمْ مُنْكَرًا فَلْيُغَيِّرْهُ بِيَدِهِ، فَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ فَبِلِسَانِهِ، فَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ فَبِقَلْبِهِ، وَذلِكَ أَضْعَفُ الْإِيمَان which translates as:

 

He among you who witnesses an evil, let him change it with his hand, if he cannot do that, then by his tongue, if he cannot do even that, then with his heart, and this is the weakest faith.

Again there is nothing in either the words or the scholarly writings in relation to these narrations that limit their applicability only to matters which relate between Muslims.  They use general language and would apply in ALL matters where a Muslim is committing a sin or wrong.

So we have clearly established the general requirement for justice in all our dealings with non-Muslims.  We have also established an obligation on us to prevent other Muslims from committing oppression, injustice or sin, or at the very least speaking up against it if we can not prevent it.

The only consideration left, in my view, is the issue of whether these apply to ‘enemies’ and if so what constitutes an ‘enemy’ – we will cover this off in Part III insha’Allah.

But one of the biggest issues facing us is, I think, the fundamental question of what is our own obligation to the non-Muslim community?  In many ways this is a rephrasing of the often asked question of where does the loyalty of Muslims lie, with their religion or their country?  When the question is phrased in that way it becomes meaningless and straight away leads to Muslims becoming defensive.  The simple fact is, that it is not a question of religion or country – any person who believes in the existence of a Divine Creator, and all that goes along with that, can not answer that question in any but one way.  Obviously religion comes before all else – it is a nonsensical question.

It is also the wrong question to ask.  The question isn’t where does the loyalty lie.  The question is what obligation does your religion impose upon you as a citizen of this country?  If that question was asked it would be far more thought provoking for the Muslim community and I would suggest more beneficial for the broader community.  It would in all likelihood also show up a greater divergence of opinion within the Muslim community than the first question.

There is no doubt that over the last 2 decades there has been a greater focus and increase in religiosity within the community generally but certainly within the Muslim community.  I believe I would be right in suggesting that the younger generation of Muslims in Australia are far more focused, and in many respects knowledgeable, about their religion than their parents were.  They are, on the whole, more educated – despite the media stereotyping.  The percentage of Muslims attending tertiary institutions is significantly higher than the national average.  But with these higher education levels and greater religiosity comes a need to address questions that their parents were too busy surviving in a new country to worry about.  One of those is what does Islam say about my role in this society?

The way this question often plays out in reality now is in the fight against terrorism and the need for western authorities to get assistance from within the community to counter this threat.  The reality is that without information coming from Muslims themselves no western government or police authority would have a chance of stopping such events.  In almost every case where there have been charges of terrorism brought post 9/11, if you look closely enough, you will find evidence of information coming from within the community itself which has allowed the authorities to take action.

The debate which is now taking place within parts of the community, and one which will only grow, is whether or not providing such support to western authorities is religiously appropriate.  It may seem a silly question for most non-Muslims but that is only because many still can not grasp the fundamental principle of Islam which is absolute submission to the Will of Allah (swt).  Once you accept that as being a driving premise for Muslims then the lens by which you see and judge things changes completely.  

Part II to come insha’Allah

And this then leads to one of the more serious repercussions of the w.w.w. when it comes to religions and religious knowledge.  From an Islamic perspective, budding students of knowledge sought out specific scholars and, if the scholar consented, learnt by listening and observing the person of knowledge.  For attaining religious knowledge was more than just receiving and memorising information – it included the Adab(etiquette) of the student to the teacher (something which is geared to instilling a sense of humility and humbleness to go along with the knowledge); it included the contextualising of discrete pieces of information within the ocean of religious knowledge; but more importantly it represented a personal relationship between student and teacher which could be traced all the way back to the time of the Rasul(saws).  It is this last factor which is at the heart of what is now referred to as ‘traditional scholarship’ within the battle that is taking place for the middle ground in both scholarship and Islam generally. 

A fundamental part of the Muslim identity is attached to this chain, perpetuated and protected by traditional scholarship, of a direct link with the Rasul(saws) and the immutable and unchanged words of the Holy Quran – the two primary sources of all religious knowledge and principles in Islam.  No other of the main world religions can lay claim to having a body of knowledge that has been maintained from the time of the inception of the religion to the present day.  That is not to say that the religion is mired in the past, for Allah (swt) tells us:

ٱلۡيَوۡمَ أَكۡمَلۡتُ لَكُمۡ دِينَكُمۡ وَأَتۡمَمۡتُ عَلَيۡكُمۡ نِعۡمَتِى وَرَضِيتُ لَكُمُ ٱلۡإِسۡلَـٰمَ دِينً۬ا‌ۚ

This day have I perfected your religion for you and completed My favour unto you, and have chosen for you as religion AL-ISLAM. (5:3)

Obviously this does not mean that every possible development in human history since then has been specifically mentioned by either the Rasul(saws) or is mentioned in the Quran but the principles which will govern all these situations were, and it is the role of the scholar to apply those principles as the times and society change.  For the Rasul(saws) has said:

“The scholars are the inheritors of the Prophets. Verily the Prophets did not leave behind dirhams and dinars, rather they left behind knowledge. Thus whoever takes it, takes it as a bountiful share.”

So we can see just how important the role of a scholar is in Islam in both maintaining the link with the Rasul(saws) and in dealing with the changing would in which we live in. 

This tradition of students sitting at the feet of scholars (both figuratively and metaphorically) has lasted for over 1400 years – until recent times and the advent of the w.w.w.  Suddenly for the first time in Islamic history any individual, regardless of intent or intellect, has access to just about the whole store of Islamic scholarship and information – who needs to spend the time listening to an old man painstakingly talk through one text and not moving on to another until the first is completely understood?  Who needs to think about the Usul(principles) of hadith and Quran Tafsir when they can get access to every single hadith transmitted from the Rasul(saws) without worrying about its status? 

But all this does is give people information – it does not give them learning; it does not give them analytical skills and it certainly does not give them wisdom.  Is it any wonder then that we now have people who have used this little knowledge and twisted it to somehow sanction the killing of innocent civilians?  When you remove the scholar from the picture, you do several things:

1. You give knowledge without the wisdom to understand or apply that knowledge;
2. You give knowledge piecemeal without building solid foundations of understanding; and
3. You pander to the nafs (personal desires) rather than learn to control it.

On this last point, it is human nature to believe in our own abilities and intellect and so the attraction of thinking that we have the ability to emulate the scholars of the past is quite compelling.  This is even more so in modern society where individualism is such a force.  The end result of this is an ever increasing trend to individuals performing their own Ijtihad(religious reasoning) rather than relying on scholars.  Every Ahmed, Mohamad and Aisha is now a religious expert and has their ‘opinion’ with the ability to cut and past ahadith and verses of the Quran off the internet to support that ‘opinion’.  But this is misguidance, for Islamic knowledge has never and should never be acquired in this way.

There would be no baraka(benefit) in this at all.  It is not the fact of it being obtained over the internet per se but the complete dissassociation with any scholar that makes it so.  The golden chain back to the Rasul(saws) has been severed in such cases.  The Sunnipath site describes the need for this connection best when it states:

2. The executor of the inheritance is the teacher. For a student’s knowledge to be reliable, he must acquire it through direct aural instruction (talaqqi or mushafaha) from a teacher. This has been a self-evident requirement of Islamic pedagogy from the earliest of times. Imam Shatibi, the great Andalusian Maliki scholar of legal methodology and philosophy, said that direct aural instruction is “the most beneficial and reliable way [to acquire knowledge],” explaining that this is because of :

a special quality that God Most High has placed between the teacher and the student, which is witnessed by anyone who interacts with knowledge and scholars. How often it happens that a student reads something in a book, memorizes it, and repeats it to himself, yet does not understand it. Then, when his teacher reads it to him, he suddenly understands it and acquires knowledge of it by being present [with his teacher]. This understanding may come about through conventional means—such as contextual indications or an explanation of the difficult point in a manner that never occurred to the mind of the student—or it may arise not through any conventional means, but through something that God gifts the student with when he presents himself before his teacher in manifest indigence and plain need of what he is being instructed in. (al-Muwafaqat, 1:73)

3. The heir’s lineage is the student’s connection to the Prophet Muhammad (God bless him and give him peace) through an uninterrupted chain of teachers along with an authorization to teach from his own teacher. Through direct aural instruction, the teacher gives birth to the student into the world of religious scholarship, and the student becomes like the teacher’s child. It is in this sense that Imam Nawawi wrote of the great Shafi`i jurist, Ibn Surayj, “He is one of our grandfathers in our chain of transmission of Sacred Law.” (al-Majmu`, 1:214) But merely listening to a teacher deliver a lesson is not sufficient for being born into the world of scholarship. For a student to claim a teacher as his parent, the teacher must approve of the student by authorizing him to convey sacred knowledge to others.

It is this tradition which has in fact provided the integrity of the religion for the last 1400 years – a proces whereby new phenomena and issues are addressed within the framework or a scholarly tradition that has maintained its link to the Rasul (saws)  rather than through individual and ad-hoc rationalisation and reasoning. 

And if Islam is to assume once again the emminent position that it had previously when it was at the forefront of society and the advancement of civilisation, it is this tradition that will be at the vanguard.