How reliable is "scientific research"

Those who put all their faith in "scientific research" and hence question Islam based on those "research studies" need to wake up from their 'scientism'....

Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1182327/#pmed-0020124-b6

"There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims."

The above is also the problem with lots of medical "research".
See this article titled:
'There is a worrying amount of fraud in medical research'
https://www.economist.com/science-and-technology/2023/02/22/there-is-a-worrying-amount-of-fraud-in-medical-research

"In 2009 PLOS ONE published a round-up of 18 surveys of scientists, mostly in America, that had asked about fraud. Though only 2% of respondents admitted falsifying data themselves, 14% said they knew someone who had. Similarly, a third of those asked confessed to other questionable research practices, such as dropping inconvenient data points based on “gut feeling”, or making important changes to a study’s protocol while it was in progress. But they pointed the finger at 72% of their colleagues."

Also see this article in the reputed journal 'Nature' titled:
Medicine is plagued by untrustworthy clinical trials.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-02299-w
"How many studies are faked or flawed?
Investigations suggest that, in some fields, at least one-quarter of clinical trials might be problematic or even entirely made up, warn some researchers.
By studying the IPD spreadsheets, he judged that 44% of these trials contained at least some flawed data: impossible statistics, incorrect calculations or duplicated numbers or figures, for instance. And 26% of the papers had problems that were so widespread that the trial was impossible to trust"

Preserving the Ideological Gains of Ramadan: How Ramadan Impacts our World View

-Dr Habeeb Haris

Ramadan is not only a time of spiritual reset but also of ideological reset. It provides an antidote to the poisonous effects of modernity that are destroying our Aqeeda, Iman and ideology and are corrupting our world view.

It's important to note that ideology and spirituality are both dependent on one another. A change in one impacts the other too.

Modernist world view:

-Revolves around fulfilling the desire for food and sex, making man a slave of his stomach and genitals.

-Encourages a culture of instant gratification.

-Reduces the human being to just his physical body and it's needs while ignoring or suppressing his Soul and it's needs (Materialism over Spirituality).

-Teaches anthropo-centrism and sidelines God.

Ramadan's effects on world view: 

-Frees the Muslim from slavery of his desire for food and sex.

- Strengthens the Soul and makes it the master over his body and it's pleasures.

-Teaches patience and delaying gratification for higher purpose.

-Fights materialistic and naturalistic tendency by enhancing belief in the Unseen and strengthening Spirituality. 

-Takes a person from anthropo-centrism to Theo-centrism and from being Duniya-oriented to Akhirah-oriented.

We need to protect this ideological purity gained in Ramadan by safeguarding our world view from modern ideologies and dominant societal trends and by continuing to strengthen our Spirituality.

Counselling the Patients who Cannot Fast in Ramadan:

Dr. Habeeb Haris

Proper counselling of Muslim patients for whom fasting is contraindicated is important to ensure compliance.
Doctors / family members should console the patients for whom Ramadan fasting is contraindicated that they should not feel guilty about it as they are not doing anything sinful by not fasting. They can tell the patients that Allah has excused them and they will be rewarded inshaAllah for accepting His will with Sabr. 

The Prophet (SAWS) said: “When a slave falls ill or travels, he gets a reward similar to that which he gets for the good deeds he usually performs when at home [not travelling] and in good health." (Bukhari)

Imam Ibn Hajar writes in Fath Al-Bari, the authoritative commentary of Sahih Bukhari: “This applies to the one who is used to performing acts of obedience, but he was prevented from it, while his intention was to do it had he not been prevented.”
And the rewards of the missed Ramadan fasts can be acquired by observing the Qadha Fasts after they recover, or by offering the Fidya if they are terminally sick patients. Moreover, these patients can do all other acts of worship in Ramadan to compensate for the spiritual gains they think they are missing out by not fasting. 

Ultimately, Allah sees our intentions and rewards accordingly.

Dates in Ramadan - The Diabetic Dilemma

- by Dr Habeeb Haris

Dates in Suhoor and Iftar:

It is sunnah to eat dates in Suhoor and Iftar.
“The most excellent pre-fasting meal of the believer is dates.” (Sunan Abī Dāwūd 1399, Grade: Sahih)

The prophetic wisdom of eating dates at Iftar and Suhoor is the ideal biological decision, as fructose (the sugar in dates) maximizes rates of liver glycogen restoration. 

[Conlee RK, Lawler RM, Ross PE. Effects of glucose or fructose feeding on glycogen repletion in muscle and liver after exercise or fasting. Ann Nutr Metab. 1987;31(2):126-32. doi: 10.1159/000177259. PMID: 3592616.]

But the Prophet (ﷺ) would break the fast with water if dates were not available.

Anas bin Malik (RA) narrated:

"The Messenger of Allah would break the fast with fresh dates before performing Salah. If there were no fresh dates then (he would break the fast) with dried dates, and if there were no dried dates then he would take a few sips of water." (Tirmidhi: 696)

The Prophet (ﷺ) even stopped his companions from taking dates when they were sick.

"The Messenger of Allah (ﷺ) entered upon us, and with him was Ali bin Abu Talib, who had recently recovered from an illness. We had bunches of unripe dates hanging up, and the Prophet (saw) was eating from them. Ali reached out to eat some, and the Prophet (saws) said to Ali: 'Stop, O Ali! You have just recovered from an illness.' I made some greens and barley for the Prophet (ﷺ), and the Prophet (ﷺ) said to Ali: 'O Ali, eat some of this, for it is better for you.' [Sunan Ibn Majah, The Chapters on Medicine, Hadith No: 3442]

So, there is no problem if Physicians ask their patients to cut down dates intake in Ramadan to limit the calories. The sunnah can be achieved by taking a single date or even a small part of it. Diabetics can choose dates that are lower in sugar content like the Ajwa or the Deglet Nour or the Barhi (semi-dry). 

If it is proven that a patient will more likely get harmed due to eating dates, it is perfectly fine from a shariah perspective to advice him against taking it. 

But any such advice should be done based on a proper scientific analysis by taking the following thinks into consideration:

-The glycemic index (GI) of dates varies according to the variety of dates and the stage of their ripening. 

-Generally people do not eat only dates at Iftar. The effect on blood glucose will vary if other foods are taken with dates. Proteins, fats and fiber intake will all alter and decrease the glycemic effect.

-Brisk walk after Iftar to the masjid for Maghrib Salah will also decrease the blood glucose spike. That's what most people do.

-Also the extent of diabetes control of the person will affect his body response to dates intake.

Any good study has to take all these things into consideration before giving any blanket recommendations.

Moreover there are many studies which actually say that dates may not be that harmful for diabetics after all.

For example:

'Effect of dates on blood glucose and other metabolic variables: A narrative review'

by Sachdev Meenakshi and Anoop Misra says:

"The glycemic index (GI) of date varieties ranges from 42.8 to 74.6, and glycemic load (GL) 8.5–24. 

The glycemic indices of various stages of dates are; Rutab (semi-ripe), 47.2; Tamer (fully ripe, traditionally sun-dried), 45.3, and Tamer (commercial), 35.5. 

Glucose tolerance-based studies and cross-sectional studies show no significant changes in glycemic indices or association with glycemic worsening with intake of dates. Few randomized controlled trials (RCT) also showed no change in glycemia and weight in the intervention groups consuming dates."

Glycemic indices of five varieties of dates in healthy and diabetic subjects

By Juma M Alkaabi (Nutr J. 2011 May 28;10:59. doi: 10.1186/1475-2891-10-59)
“The results show low glycemic indices for the five types of dates included in the study and that their consumption by diabetic individuals does not result in significant postprandial glucose excursions.”

‘Glycemic indices of dates “Ramadan Symbolic Food” in patients with type 2 diabetes using continuous glucose monitoring system’

By Samir Assaad Khalil (Diabetes Research and Clinical Practice, Volume 172, February 2021)

Can People with Diabetes Eat Dates?
by Lisa Wartenberg, MFA, RD, LD  (https://www.healthline.com/nutrition/dates-for-diabetes)
“If you have diabetes, consider eating dates alongside a source of protein, such as a handful of nuts, which supports your body digesting the carbs a bit more slowly, further helping prevent blood sugar spikes.”

“dates generally have a low GI, between 44 and 53, which may differ slightly depending on the type of date”
 “they have a low GI and medium GL, those living with diabetes can enjoy dates in moderation.”. 

There are many other such studies and articles from different countries. What is needed is more RCTs (randomized controlled trials) pertaining to the glycemic index of different date varieties in different amounts and in combination with different traditionally taken Iftar meals in our homes and different levels of patient physical activity post Iftar. This will enable the Physicians to give proper evidence based and personalised advise to each patient.

Meanwhile it's ok to caution the patients to limit calorie intake through dates and other fruits in a nuanced way to avoid both dates-overindulgence and dates-phobia.

Human Intelligence V.S. Artificial Intelligence in Islamic Paradigm

Human knowledge is divided into necessary and speculative or deductive. Necessary knowledge is knowledge that cannot be doubted and speculative knowledge is ‘acquired’ by deduction from necessary knowledge and sense perception. The Islamic theologian ‘Adud al-Din al- ‘Iji (d. 756/1355) stated that humans are gifted with innate reason, necessary knowledge and the capacity for speculation and deductive reasoning. The purpose of these faculties is to reflect on revelation and creation to come to the realisation of the existence of God and they extend beyond the realm of sense perception to the metaphysical or spiritual realm, as well as the microcosmic and macrocosmic, as mentioned in Qur’an 41:53, which states: “We shall show them Our portents on the horizons and within themselves.”

Reason and rationality thus have a cosmological dimension and are related to the very nature of the universe, which was created with an intrinsic order and intelligibility. This view of reason and rationality stands in contrast to the reductive logic of means–ends forms of rationality that instrumentalise means in the pursuit of narrow utilitarian ends and is the type of rationality that is embodied by computers, and especially AI systems, which are trained to optimise their parameters based on ‘reward functions’ given by their designers.

It is important to note that a bifurcation between discursive and intuitive modes of thinking never occurred in Islamic thought as it did in Western metaphysics. Instead, the intellect comprises both functions of logical analysis and intuitive knowledge. Empirical, rational, conceptual, moral and spiritual modes of thought are all united in Islamic thought.

There is, therefore, a correspondence between reality and the intellect in terms of the intelligibility of reality and the registration of signs in the intellect and their signification. Hence, rather than meaning being superimposed by the mind, as in the case of a Kantian agent, the function of the intellect is to discover the universal principles and intrinsic intelligibility of the cosmos, and to participate in this intelligible order itself by doing so.

This opens the question of whether the multidimensional nature of the human mind and intelligence in Islamic thought implies a limit to what can be achieved in the quest for artificial general intelligence (AGI). From an Islamic perspective, AI research takes place in a context that is twice removed from reality as it is. The first veil is materialism or physicalism, which circumscribe what can be known about reality to what can be described quantitatively in mathematical terms. The second is that AI agents exist in a digital realm that is a further abstraction of the material world into a digital format. AI research works from behind this second veil and problems such as common sense and abstraction with limited data remain insurmountable challenges.

There are various attempts to provide a formal definition of intelligence in mathematical terms. In contrast to the interrelation between intelligence, consciousness and life in Islamic thought, a significant and often unstated presupposition held by AI researchers is that intelligence can be decoupled from consciousness, and indeed the phenomenon of life. In Islamic thought, on the other hand, intelligence, consciousness and life are unified through the existence of the soul.

The modern word ‘algorithm’ is derived from the Latinisation of al-Khwarizmi (c. 780–850 ce) whose work on algebra in the early ninth century influenced the development of European algebra. Al-Khwarizmi produced his mathematical works with the aim of aiding legal scholars in issues such as property relations, trade, calculating inheritance and wills according to Islamic law. It is an ironic turn of history that today’s algorithms are more often associated with surveillance, discrimination and dispossession in the logic of surveillance capitalism.

The vast Islamic intellectual tradition, which remains relatively unexplored in relation to AI, can be the source of crucial insights to resist the dehumanising tendencies of a mechanistic, materialistic and techno-scientific study of the mind and intelligence.

- Taken from Dr. Yaqoub Chaudhary’s article entitled "Islam and Artificial Intelligence" published in ‘The Cambridge Companion to Religion and Artificial Intelligence’

Scientific Method and it's Limitations

 Scientific method and it's limitations

- Subboor Ahmed (Taken from his Sapience Institute’s course on Darwinism)

 We need to understand the actual science and what is the function of the scientific method so the first thing we all need to get to grips with is what is science? Science is a beautiful method, it's the application of reason to the natural world. There's actually a lot of discussion about what is science? what is the method of science? what are the various ways that science can actually function?

I don't want to get into deep philosophical discussions about the different ways that philosophers can actually define science. Sufficient is for us to understand the generally accepted idea of Science and how darwinian evolution is a product of that scientific method and so we will be able to understand the limitations and the beauty of science itself.

What is science? Well, the generally accepted method of science that we all learn at school is the following: you ask a question, you do the background research, you construct a hypothesis, you test that hypothesis as an experiment, you analyze the results if the hypothesis is true or if the hypothesis is false, you will have to report the results and either try again or you will come up with a theory. That is the basic method of science that we all learn and that is sufficient for us to understand what is going on when it comes to any particular scientific theory.

Now one important note to keep in mind here is that this basic method of science is being used all across the world but apart from this scientific method there are presuppositions and limitations to science which are seldom discussed and that is what we're going to be getting into next.

1. The first thing to note is that Science is based upon Induction. Induction is the process by which we make generalizations based upon past experience. Think of the following example: there is a scientist in Wales who wants to find out what color swans are. So the scientist goes out and observes 10 swans by the lake. He notes that these swans are white. Over the coming weeks and months he notes more and more that all of the swans that he has seen are white. Say after 10 years he's seen maybe 10,000 swans. So based upon the fact that he's seen 10,000 swans, he makes the generalization that all swans are white or the next swan that I will see is going to be white. This is induction.

Now obviously there is a problem with this process and this problem was highlighted by David Hume and others and that is you can always have a new observation that can challenge your previous conclusion. For example, you can always observe a Black Swan or a red Swan and that means your previous conclusion, your previous theory, your previous hypothesis is wrong. So this general problem of induction is something which is inescapable. It means no scientific conclusion is graven in stone, all scientific conclusions can be revised.

Now this limitation is beautiful because it means that future scientists can actually come up with theories radically different to the theories we currently hold. So this is the first limitation of science and it's known as the problem of induction.

2. The second problem or limitation with science is known as Underdetermination. Now, underdetermination is a very interesting concept. In essence what it says is the following: the observations are not enough for someone to warrant an inference which is going to be conclusive. let me give you a very basic example to drive this point home. Imagine you are given $5 and you know that you can go to the market and buy an orange or an apple for $1 each. So you're given $5 and you are told to go to the market and buy apples and oranges. So you have to buy both apples and oranges and you have to spend the entire $5. When you are sent, the only information that you are given is what's been mentioned which is you have to spend the $5 and you have to buy oranges and apples and they both cost $1 each. Now when you come back with the bag, someone has to guess what you have in the bag. Now they can assume that you bought one orange and four apples or two oranges and three apples or three oranges and two apples and so on.

Therefore we have the problem of underdetermination, we simply cannot determine what is in the bag for sure.

There are obviously some inferences which are possible, the ones which I outlined, but we don't know for sure. So the data is not sufficient for us to warrant a conclusion which is going to be certain. That is the problem of underdetermination, we cannot be sure that this conclusion is certain because other things are possible.

Another way to think about it is a scattergraph. So you have a y- axis and an x- axis and you have dots. Someone can ask you can you please draw a line to infer the rest of the data. Now you can draw something linear, you can draw something exponential, you can draw something inverse. The way the data is scattered, many different types of inferences are possible many different graphs can be drawn. So again, the data is not enough to warrant one conclusion. So this is the problem of underdetermination and the consequence of this problem is that whenever there is a scientific theory which explains the data it doesn't mean that that theory is necessarily true because it is possible that many other interpretations, many other theories can explain the data just as well. Other scientific theories can explain the data just as well as the previous theory can. So this is the problem of underdetermination. We cannot be sure that the theory that we currently hold is the right one.

3. The Third limitation or problem with the scientific method is the problem of Unconceived Alternatives. This is a very interesting issue. What it simply states is the following: there may be solutions or theories that we can infer from the data but those have not been inferred because they are unconceived, meaning, they haven't been thought of. A classical example of this is the shift between Newtonian mechanics and the Einsteinian worldview. There were clear problems with the Newtonian model and these problems were explained away by ad hoc rationalizations. But these problems could have been explained by general relativity, the idea that Einstein pushed in the future. So general relativity could have explained those anomalies but nobody thought of it until Einstein did. So, general relativity as a theory was unconceived.

Therefore what we learn from this is there are always possibilities out there that we simply have not thought of or we simply do not have the tools to actually uncover them. So the problem of unconceived Alternatives means the same thing as the problem of underdetermination and the problem of induction which is we cannot be sure that the theory that we currently hold is the right one.

4. The fourth problem or limitation with the scientific method is Theory ladenness. What this basically means is the following: you cannot go out there as a scientist and collect data without a theory in mind. Now, that doesn't sound like a bad thing. But there are some issues with this. If you already have a theory in mind, that theory is going to color the data, it's going to color what data you believe to be relevant and what you believe to be irrelevant. So there is a confirmation bias and it's incredibly difficult to come out of that theory ladenness.

Again going back to the massive shift between Newtonian mechanics and Einsteinian worldview, what we found is that the people who were looking at the world from a Newtonian point of view would look at certain things as relevant and certain things as which were anomalous they could explain those away through ad-hoc rationalizations. So theory ladenness is a real issue and you have to have a theory in mind in order to look at data. The way Darwin explained this is if you don't have a theory then you might as well go to the Quarry and count Pebbles.

The issue here is the following: if you have a theory in mind, that theory is going to continuously confirm itself by telling you what is out there. So you're never looking at the world purely objectively, you are always colored by the theory and that means that your theory that you generate is always the victim of confirmation bias.

5. The fifth problem or limitation with the scientific method is methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism simply means that when scientists are studying scientific phenomena they can only refer to matter and natural processes they cannot refer to anything Supernatural, they cannot refer to anything which is immaterial, they cannot refer to the mind, they cannot refer to God, they cannot refer to anything beyond the material world, beyond naturalism.

Now, as an assumption in the scientific domain this is something that has recently been introduced. A way of thinking about this is the following example: imagine you are invited to walk into a room and when you are invited you see on the front door it says the color red is not allowed that means if you're wearing something red you have to take it off. So everybody that enters that room is not wearing anything red and the room itself has been stripped away of anything that resembles the color red. Now when you are in the room and you're sitting amongst a group of people someone says the color red doesn't exist as I can't see it anywhere. Now there's a problem with this. Obviously the color red does exist but at the front door there was a sign saying you cannot come in with the color red - so you cannot make a rule to rule out the color red and later on conclude the color red is not there. This is the problem with methodological naturalism leading to philosophical naturalism.

Methodological naturalism is telling you at the front door of the scientific lab you cannot refer to God and when you're inside you're referring to everything naturally and then a scientist may turn around and say therefore there is no God because God is is not amongst our discussion. The problem with that is the same problem with the example of the color red - you cannot conclude there is no God you cannot conclude philosophical naturalism by the assumption of methodological naturalism and this is something that often happens.

This fallacy of linking methodological naturalism and philosophical naturalism is something we see happening in the scientific discourse and it leads to a lot of issues and something we have to keep in mind is methodological naturalism limits the answers that are possible to a scientific theory. So in this case if we come across something in the biological

domain which looks designed, which looks like it couldn't have come about by natural random processes then apriori meaning before we even have the evidence, because of methodological naturalism, is the rule that ‘God has to be ruled out and there has to be a naturalistic explanation’. So this is the fifth problem or limitation with the scientific method and this is the problem of methodological naturalism.

To summarize, there are five distinct problems or limitations with the scientific method. The first is the problem of induction, the second is the problem of underdetermination, the third is the problem of unconceived alternatives, the fourth is a problem of theory ladenness and the fifth is the problem of methodological naturalism.

Keep these in mind because any scientific theory regardless of how successful it is, it is still limited by these five problems. So if we were to counter the darwinian challenge, if there was a darwinist who said: Darwinism is true, therefore there is no God, Darwinism is true therefore what your religious book says about Adam and Eve is false or Darwinism is true therefore a purpose to our lives is false; we can simply point out to the philosophy of science and to these five limitations and say how can you use a theory to challenge anything when this scientific theory has these limitations and so it's not set in stone, it's not something absolute?  This is the quickest way to dismantle the darwinian claims against theism and religion in general.

It's important to note here that someone may ask what about direct observations? Direct observations obviously don't change. We can see a fossil. We can see that water is H2O. How are these things going to be affected by the five issues that I pointed out. Here I want to point that this contention is misplaced. A direct observation in itself is simply a direct observation. It is not science. It is not something that's gone through the scientific method. It is simply a direct observation and a direct observation is not giving you a theory. A fossil is not giving you the theory of Darwinism. It's something that you can use to infer Darwinism or infer neo-Lamarchism or something else. But in and of itself the observation is not science. So this contention that because observations are certain therefore science is certain is actually a fallacy of equivocation.

The reason why we love science is because it does phenomenal things but like I mentioned there are limitations and there are problems. Which is why no scientific theory, regardless of how successful it is, can be said to be true. Just because the theory is successful doesn't mean it's true. Now this is counterintuitive but this is true. We know that science cannot lead to certainty because of the philosophy of science, because of the issues I mentioned. But in the history of science we actually have very good examples to show that a theory may be extremely successful but it doesn't mean it's true.

A classic example of a theory that was successful but was not true is the Newtonian model of the universe. Newton's theory was immensely successful and was used for a long time and it was making predictions which were confirmed time and time again. If you were to use Newton's Theory to make a prediction for where a planet is going to be 6 months from now and you went out after 6 months to look at the planet you would have found it precisely where the theory predicts. So this theory not only helped us understand the world it actually made the world a better place and many inventions were based upon this theory. This theory has helped Humanity immensely but it doesn't mean this theory is true because Einstein came about and he showed a complete paradigm shift. He moved us away from the Newtonian model to general relativity.

So what was the major shifts when it comes to the Newtonian model moving towards the Einsteinian model - gravity is a pushing force, the definition of mass changed, time and space was assumed to be fixed according

to Newton and according to Einstein time and space is flexible like fabric. So there is a huge difference between the Newtonian model and the Einsteinian model, yet the Newtonian model worked well for a long time. This is perhaps the best example in the history of science to show that scientific theory can be immensely successful but it can fundamentally be based on assumptions which turn out to be false and the theory itself can be superseded by a radically different theory.

Scientific theories work even when they are wrong. Another good example of this is the theory of phlogiston turned out to be false however it helped us discover nitrogen. Likewise, the Newtonian Theory turned out to be wrong but we can technically go to the Moon based upon Newton's Theory. So it doesn't matter even if a theory turns out to be false it can give us information and lead to results which are true.

Now here's another interesting point, theories work even when they contradict each other. Like I mentioned, general relativity is successful, it replaced the Newtonian model, yet quantum mechanics fundamentally contradicts general relativity. However, quantum mechanics is immensely successful and general relativity is immensely successful. So they both cannot be true, they both cannot be true descriptions of the world, yet are scientifically successful. What does that teach you? It teaches you something I've been saying quite a few times now -  success, scientific success, doesn't mean it's true. Scientific success simply means you have a good model. So if this is the case then even if darwinian evolution is

immensely successful it doesn't mean it's true.

What I'm saying about the history and the philosophy of science is not controversial. This is well known. There is a huge difference between the popular understanding of science and the academic understanding - and the academic understanding is that science doesn't lead to certainty. An excellent book to understand this is Thomas Kuhn's ‘The structure of scientific Revolutions’. In that book he mentions the shift from Newtonian model to general relativity and goes over some very interesting points about the history and the philosophy of science.

Picking up any book on the philosophy of science you will find the evidence to show that philosophers of science doubt this very simplistic understanding of science that many people in the public domain hold. For example, in the book ‘Philosophy of science a very short introduction’ by Oxford University, it says that historically there are many cases of theories that we now believe to be false but that were empirically quite successful. In another publication ‘Philosophy of science a new introduction’ by Oxford University, it says that science is revisable hence talk of scientific proof is dangerous because the term fosters the idea of conclusions that are graven in stone.

So it is not controversial to say that science can change and philosophers of science understand this and it's not surprising that those same philosophers try and reach out and grab the public's attention and tell them that this science that you believe to be immutable and graven in stone, that is not the case. Because if you think about it, if science really did work the way that some people think, and the way that certain people try and push it to be, then science would never change. A scientific theory from 100 years ago wouldn't be radically different to a theory today. It would just be a slight

adjustment.

The problem is that the scientific limitations are seen as something bad and the people pointing them out are seen to be pointing out problems with science when actually this is the beauty of Science and pointing out these limitations shows why science is beautiful and why we can have radically different theories in the future which are very different to the ones in the past.

So learning about the philosophy of science, learning about the limitations of science is not in any way undermining science. If anything, it is actually uplifting the status of science. Charles Darwin in ‘The Origin of Species’ says something very interesting in relation to what we've been discussing about the philosophy of science. Darwin said, “I am well aware there is scarcely a point discussed in this volume on which facts cannot be produced often apparently leading to conclusions directly opposite to those at which I have arrived. A fair result can be obtained only by fully stating and balancing the facts on both sides of each question and this cannot possibly be done here”. What Darwin is saying here is in essence under -determination. The same data that he has he's admitting someone can come up with something radically different to him using the same data.

Often the data is seen as decisive. The data is seen as something which cannot possibly be explained by any other theory, as if there's no other way of understanding it and this is the only way that is certain and that obviously is not something which makes any sense, if we know the philosophy of science. Charles Darwin was more sophisticated than the people who are frankly simpletons when it comes to the philosophy of science and who want to push the idea that science leads to this type of certainty which they crave. I was surprised to find that even a well-known darwinist who has been pushing Darwinism as truth literally has admitted to what Darwin admitted to. Richard Dawkins in his book says, “we must acknowledge the possibility that new facts may come to light which will force our successors of the 21st century to abandon Darwinism or modify it beyond recognition”. That's quite a statement! In essence he's speaking about the problem of induction. But the same can be said for the other issues. He is saying it could be that Darwinism is modified beyond recognition or replaced by something else. So he obviously is aware of some of the philosophical issues when it comes to science.

So anybody who wants to speak about Darwinism with certainty needs to face the philosophy of science and understand that no scientific theory - including Darwinism - can be said to escape the problems and limitations which we know through the philosophy of science.

Facets of Relationship Between Allah and Man: Need for Balance in Activism

There are many different aspects of relationship between Allah and Man.

- It begins with Knowledge of Allah and His attributes which is a cognitive/intellectual relationship.

- After knowing about Him comes belief and submission - that is Imaan (firm belief).

- After knowing and believing in Allah, one begins to establish an emotional - spiritual relationship with Him, like love of Allah, His fear, hope in His mercy, trust and dependency on Him, etc.

- After Imaan, ritualistic worship becomes obligatory on him.

- Relationship with Allah also demands Itaat (non-ritual obedience in all affairs of life).

Itaat is of two types- outer and inner.
The outer itaat is again divided in to individual and collective acts.

Activism (Political, social, etc.) comes under outer collective itaat and is one among many other aspects of Deen, even if it is an important one. Focusing solely on activism at the cost of the other aspects of one's relationship with Allah is a grave mistake and a modern biddah which distorts the understanding and practice of Deen and creates intellectual, spiritual and practical imbalances in the person. 

Such an approach is actually a product of modernity where state and politics dominate all aspects of modern life and society and all focus is on the outward and material manifestations of things.

Important Guidelines on Acquiring Deeni Ilm

Important Guidelines on Acquiring Deeni Ilm:

“Seeking knowledge is obligatory upon every Muslim. (Ibn Majah)”

Obligatory Ilm:

1) Matters concerning belief

2) Matters concerning all his actions (both outward and inward)

3) Matters concerning his abstaining from actions

 

Thus when a boy reaches the age of puberty, then the first thing that is obligatory upon him is knowledge concerning the testimony of faith and its meaning, even if that is not done discursively or with proof, but thereafter it is obligatory on him to know the discursive-reasoning and proofs which bring him towards knowing Allah.

When the time for prayer enters, it becomes obligatory upon him to learn how to purify himself and how to pray. If he lives until Ramadan, it becomes obligatory upon him to learn about fasting. If he owned wealth in which he possessed for an entire [Islamic] year, then it becomes obligatory on him to learn about paying zakāh. When the season for hajj enters, and he has the ability to perform it, it becomes obligatory on him to learn how to perform hajj.

 

As for those things that should be abstained from, then it obligatory on him to learn in accordance to the need or circumstance.

As for belief, it is obligatory on him to know in accordance to whatever notions/ideas dawn upon him. Thus, if a doubt were to dawn upon his mind concerning the meaning of the testimony of faith, then it becomes obligatory on him to learn that which will remove that doubt. Likewise, if he were in a land in which innovations/bid’ah were widespread, then it becomes obligatory that he be informed concerning the reality of that matter. Likewise, if a businessman were in a land in which the use of usury was widespread, then it is obligatory upon him to learn the prohibitions that apply to usury.

 [Extracted from Ibn Jawzi’s Minhāj Al-Qāsidīn, pg.33, vol.1]

In al-Mawsoo‘ah al-Fiqhiyyah (13/6) it says: Acquiring knowledge may be subject to the following rulings (as to whether it is obligatory):

• Learning may be an individual obligation (fard ‘ayn); this refers to learning that which a Muslim cannot do without knowing in order to carry out his religious duties, and to make his deeds sincerely for Allah alone, may He be exalted, and how to interact with other people. It is enjoined upon every accountable person, male or female – after learning what is needed in order to have proper understanding of the tenets of faith, which form the foundation of the religion – to learn about that which will help him to do acts of worship and to interact with others in the correct manner; that includes wudoo’, ghusl, prayer, fasting, rulings on Zakaah and Hajj, for those for whom these things are obligatory, and having a sincere intention for the sake of Allah when doing acts of worship.
  
  It is obligatory to learn the rulings on buying and selling for businessmen, so that they can avoid dubious transactions and transactions involving improper elements in all their dealings. The same applies to people in all professions, and everyone who is involved in a thing must learn the rulings connected to it, so that he can avoid falling into haraam when engaging in his profession.
  
• However, learning may be a communal obligation (fard kifaayah); this applies to learning any branch of knowledge that is essential for people’s well-being in worldly terms, such as medicine, mathematics, grammar, language, ‘ilm al-kalaam, modes of recitation, the science of hadith, and so on.
  
• Some types of knowledge are encouraged, such as extensive study and research in fiqh, and finding out about subtle fiqhi issues; the same applies to other branches of shar‘i knowledge.
  
• Some types of knowledge may be haraam, such as learning about charlatanry, geomancy, witchcraft, soothsaying and fortune telling.
  
• Some types of knowledge may be makrooh (disliked), which includes verses of poetry which contain descriptions of specific women.
  
• Some types of knowledge may be permissible, which includes verses of poetry in which there is nothing objectionable such as ridiculing a Muslim or mentioning faults of Muslims and so on. End quote.
  

That which comes under the heading of a communal obligation or supererogatory knowledge does not become an individual obligation for someone just because he has some free time or has the ability to become a scholar.

We should be careful from whom we take the Ilm of Deen:

Fitna of taking the Deen from non-Ulama:

Abdullah ibn Amr reported: The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Verily, Allah does not withhold knowledge by snatching it away from his servants, but rather he withholds knowledge by taking the souls scholars, until no scholar remains and people follow ignorant leaders. They are asked and they issue Deeni judgments (fatwas) without knowledge. Thus, they are astray and lead others astray.” (Sahih al-Bukhari 100, Muslim 2673)

Speakers/Orators vs True Scholars:

The Prophet ﷺ stated: ‘Today, you are in an age in which its scholars are many and its speakers few: whoever leaves a tenth of what he knows has followed his desires. Later there shall come an age in which its speakers are many and its scholars few: whoever clings to a tenth of what he knows will be saved.’ (Al-Harawi, Dhamm al-Kalam, 1:14-15. Albani declared it as sahih).

Ignorant Young Speakers:

Narrated Ali (RA): I heard the Prophet  ﷺ saying, "In the last days (of the world) there will appear young people with foolish thoughts and ideas. They will give good talks, but they will go out of Islam as an arrow goes out of its game, their faith will not exceed their throats. (Sahih Bukhari)

So the ability to give an inspiring talk or strong admonition is not from the signs of knowledge or from the signs of faith, far less does it indicate that that person's way is correct.

Ours has become an age wherein an ever increasing number of speakers and da‘is sell themselves to the public as if they are seasoned scholars or well-grounded students of the sacred sciences; when most of them are clearly not. Such speakers and da‘is tend not to have the dignity, gravitas nor decorum of the scholars, let alone their learning or wisdom. 
 
Senior Ulema are to be followed:

"Indeed from the signs of the Hour is that knowledge will be taken from the younger/lesser ones." [Reported by at-Tabarani in al-Kabeer (22/362), and declared authentic by Albani in as-SahIhah (695) and SahIh al-Jaami' (2207)].

The respected Sahabi, Hazrat Abdullah Ibn Mas’ud (RA) said:
“The people will remain upon goodness so long as they take knowledge from their Scholars, their greater ones and their elders. When they take knowledge from their young ones and their foolish ones, they will be destroyed.”

This is recorded in the introduction of Al-Kamil of Ibn ‘Adiy, vol.1 pg.260-261 & other sources.

Importance of a Teacher:

It is not possible for one to acquire sound sacred knowledge unless one is trained by a qualified teacher and mentor.

This is the secret behind a book or scripture never being revealed except Allah Almighty sent a Messenger to explain its contents. There are many examples where a Prophet was sent by Allah Almighty and no book or scripture was revealed unto him, but there is not a single case where a book was revealed without a Prophet carrying it.

The simple reason behind this is that if a book was sent on its own, man would not possess the capability to understand it without the teaching of a Prophet. If Allah wished, He could have sent the book on its own. Every individual could have found a book when he woke up in the morning, and a voice from the heavens would have declared: “Obey what is in this book” but Allah, the Creator of mankind, who is fully aware of the human instincts, chose to send the book with a teacher who would explain the contents of the book, both practically and verbally.

Allah Most High explains this concept in the following verse:

“Allah did confer a great favour on the believers when He sent amongst them a Messenger from among themselves, reciting upon them verses (of the book), sanctifying them, and teaching them the scripture (book) and wisdom, while before that, they had been in manifest error.” (Surah Aal-e-Imran: 164)

Similarly, Allah Most High says:

“And We have sent down unto you (O Messenger) the message, that you may explain clearly to men what is sent for them.” (al-Nahl: 44)

Therefore, it is the Sunnah of Allah Almighty that He has kept two means for the guidance of mankind. One is through the medium of His books (kitab Allah) and the other is the Prophets and their successors. Hence, both, the book of Allah (kitab Allah) and men of Allah (rijal Allah) are necessary for one’s guidance. Sufficing with one of the two will surely lead to deviation.

Umar ibn al-Khattab R.A. was careful to prevent the dissemination of unverified knowledge – chainless knowledge – that was to proliferate after his time. He said: “Whoever finds a book containing knowledge that he did not hear from an Aalim (scholar), let him dip it in water until its ink is diluted.” [Narrated by Khateeb al-Baghdadi in al-Kifaya (p. 352) and Imam al-Sakhawi in Fath al-Mughith (2:153).]

This hyperbolic ruling stresses the rigorous normative method in the conveyance of knowledge in Islam followed by the Sahaba and early generations.

Imam Malik (RA) was once asked if knowledge could be acquired from one who did not sit in the company of the Ulama (instead he sufficed with books only). He replied in the negative and said, 'Knowledge should not be acquired except from one who has memorized, accompanied the scholars, practiced upon his knowledge and has piety in him.' (refer Adabul Ikhtilaf pg.145)

Shaykh Muhammad Awwamah (an unparalleled Muhaddith of this time) mentions beautifully in his book, 'Adabul Ikhtilaf', 'They (the Ulama) never used to pay attention to one who did not have any Ustadh (teacher), neither would they consider such a person worthy of even being spoken to due to him being prone to mistakes.'

He further says,'Qadi Iyad and others have narrated that when Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal was requested by the ruler of his time (al-Mu'tasim) to discuss a certain matter with ibn Abi Du'ad, he (Imam Ahmad) turned his face away and said, 'How can I discuss with such a person whom I have never seen at the door of any Alim ever!' (Ibid pg.144)

Imam al-Shatbi in al-Muwafaqat further mentions three signs and characteristics of a expert qualified teacher:

1) He practices what he teaches,

2) He himself has been trained by a qualified scholar,

3) His students follow and pursue in his footsteps, for if his students generally tend to not follow him, then this is a sign that there is something inherently wrong with him.

There are many benefits and wisdoms in learning from a teacher:

Sound understanding of the texts, its correct interpretation, being saved from making errors in understanding the texts (for each science has its own special terminologies), getting questions and queries that may arise answered, practical application of the knowledge and obtaining the Baraka and light of guidance from that special teacher-student relationship are just a few to mention.

In conclusion, it is necessary for one that he learns his knowledge from a scholar of knowledge, piety and wisdom, and who himself has been taught and trained by a similar scholar. That does not mean it is incumbent for an individual that each time he picks up a book, he must find a scholar to teach him, rather one needs to study the fundamentals of each science with those who are qualified, thus become acquainted with the different terminologies, terms and expressions used and the foundational concepts of the subject. Thereafter, one may study a book on his own with always referring to senior scholars whenever something is unclear.

Isnad - The Chain of Teachers Linking to the Prophet ﷺ:

 True knowledge cannot be abstracted away from living, breathing people. For example, Allah sent revelation by way of the angel Jibril to the Messenger SAWS. The Prophet passed on his knowledge through companionship — namely, by teaching his companions, who took instruction not only from his words but also his actions, his behavior, his blessed manners, etc.

Human beings are thus the conduits of knowledge and the Islamic tradition has operationalized that through the concept of isnad, i.e., chain of transmission. To claim to truly know something of `ilm, i.e., what Allah has revealed, one has to know all the persons through which that knowledge has passed over the centuries until it arrived at you by way of your teacher.

Isnad was regarded by the early Muslims (salaf) as the first and primary condition in relating any aspect of Shariah even if it was merely relating one word.

With this, Allah Most High fulfilled his promise of preserving the Deen which includes the book of Allah, Sunnah of the Prophet ﷺ and the various Islamic sciences that are indispensable in understanding the former two.

“We have without doubt, sent down the Message; and we will assuredly guard it.” (Surah al-Hijr, V.9)

The “message” here refers to the book of Allah and also the Sunnah of his blessed Messenger (Allah bless him & give him peace), for whatever the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) says is from Allah Almighty, as Allah Most High says:

“Nor does he (the Messenger of Allah) say (aught) of (his own) desire. It is no less than revelation (wahi) sent down to him.” (al-Najm, V. 3-4)

The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) explained both verbally and practically the contents of the book of Allah. The Qur’an is quite ambiguous and limited in stating the laws of Shariah, and the Messenger of Allah’s (Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) duty was to explain these injunctions.

Allah Most High says to his Messenger (Allah bless him & give him peace):

“And We have sent down unto you the Message (Qur’an); that you may explain clearly to men what is sent for them.” (al-Nahl: 44)

So the promise of preserving the Deen is not restricted to the Qur’an, rather it encompasses the Sunnah and also the Companion’s (Allah be pleased with them all) understanding of the Sunnah and the understanding of those who took from them.

Early Muslim scholars examined and analysed each and every statement that came to them, whether it was the statement of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace), his companions (Allah be pleased with them all) or anyone else. They studied the life and character of those who were part of the transmitting chain (isnad) in the strictest way possible.

Imam Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak (Allah be pleased with him) said:

“Isnad is part of religion (deen), and if it was not for Isnad, one would have said whatever one desired. When it is said (to the one who speaks without an Isnad): “Who informed you? He remains silent and bewildered.” (See: Introduction to Sahih Muslim, 1/87, al-Jami’ li akhlaq al-rawi wa adab al-sami’ and others)

He (Abd Allah ibn al-Mubarak) also stated:

“The one who seeks matters of his deen without an Isnad is similar to the one who climbs to the roof without a ladder.”

Sufyan al-Thawri (Allah have mercy on him) said:
“Isnad is the weapon of a believer. When one does not possess a weapon, then with what will he combat?.”

These and many other similar statements of the predecessors imply that the early Muslims held Isnad to be indispensable in order to acquire Knowledge. So much so, that in order to relate even one word in their books, they would mention a whole chain of transmission that covered three or four lines.

Isnad was not only mentioned in order to narrate Prophetic traditions (hadith), rather, it was related for every form of knowledge, such as the exegesis (tafsir) of the Qur’an, stories of the pious and worshippers, incidents of history, etc.

[After the Prophetic traditions were gathered in the great compilations, such as Sahih al-Bukhari, Sahih Muslim and others, and other compilations in various other Islamic sciences, it was not deemed necessary to relate every statement with a chain of transmission going back to its original authority. Rather, it was sufficient to have an Isnad or Sanad going back to the author. The Isnad of the author going back to the original authority would be mentioned in his book.]

Till this very day, we have scholars from around the globe relating Prophetic traditions and other branches of Islamic knowledge with a chain that goes all the way back to the authors of the respective books.

What constitutes legitimate Islamic learning:

1. The crux of how one seeks sacred knowledge is best expressed by a famous maxim: ‘Indeed this knowledge is religion, so look from whom you take your religion.’ (From Ibn Sireen in Muqaddima Sahih Muslim:26) The upshot is that one avoids learning religion from those who are not Imams; or people not schooled, qualified or authorised in the traditional sciences: be it in theology, law, hadith, Qur’anic recital (tajwid), or any other discipline.

2. This qualification/authorisation (‘ijazah) must be part of an unbroken chain (isnad) of learning extending back to the Prophet, peace be upon him. One hadith says: ‘This knowledge will be carried by the trustworthy ones of every generation: they will expel from it the distortions of the extremists, the fabrications of the liars, and the mistaken interpretations of the ignorant.’ [Bayhaqi, Sunan, 10:209] If one takes knowledge from those outside of this unbroken chain, there is no telling what deviation can be passed-off as “the real deal” – as is all too often the case in these times.

3. To believe that the truths of Islam existed amongst the salaf; the pious predecessors, but then “sahih” or “authentic” Islam was lost or neglected for the next thousand years or so; until recently when it was rediscovered, is nothing but a dangerous myth which flies in the face of what God proclaimed in the Qur’an: Indeed, it was We who sent down the Remembrance, and of a surety We will preserve it. [15:9]

Consider also these following hadiths: ‘My ummah shall never unite upon misguidance.’ [Al-Tirmidhi, no.2255] And: ‘There shall never cease to be a group of my ummah unmistakably upon the truth.’ [Al-Tirmidhi, no.2230; Muslim, no.1920] Also the hadith cited earlier: ‘This knowledge will be carried by the trustworthy ones of every generation.’ [Bayhaqi, Sunan, 10:209]
What these proof-texts collectively tell us is that God has promised that knowledge of Islam shall always be kept intact and be transmitted from one generation of scholars to the next, in an unbroken chain.

While it is true that individual scholars can and do err; and while it is true that individual scholars can and do espouse aberrant (shadhdh) opinions that are excluded from the umbrella of legitimate scholarly differences; it is utterly preposterous to believe that many truths and sunnahs were unknown, lost or neglected by the entire scholarly community for many centuries (even a millenium), only to be revived or rediscovered by certain scholars in our time!

Such a belief could only be held by one whose heart is plagued either with ignorance (jahalah), innovation (bid‘ah), hypocrisy (nifaq), deviation (zandaqah) or disbelief (kufr). And we seek refuge in God from such things.

4. In terms of fiqh (Islamic law) the unbroken chain now only exists in the four remaining Sunni schools of Fiqh: Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi‘i and Hanbali. 

ISLAMIC SCHOLARSHIP

عن علي قال : قلت : يا رسول الله ، إن نزل بنا أمر ليس فيه بيان : أمر ولا نهي ، فما تأمرنا ؟ قال : تشاورون الفقهاء والعابدين ، ولا تمضوا فيه رأي خاصة

 

It is reported by Hadhrat Ali (R.A):

I asked, “O messenger of Allah ﷺ! If we are confronted with an issue which has not been described (in the Qur’an and Sunnah), with no injunctions in favor or against it, what do you command me to do in such a situation?”

He said: “Take advice of the Fuqaha (jurists-Ulema of Fiqh) and Aabideen (faithful worshippers) and do not employ your individual opinion”. [Al Mu`jam al-Awsat ; Hadeeth 1641, Classed as Authentic (Hasan) by Abu Yahya noorpuri]

The Holy Prophet ﷺ has explicitly stated in this narration that two conditions must be fulfilled by a person who wants to deduce laws and injunctions from the Qur’an and Prophetic traditions. Firstly; he must be a jurist and secondly, he must be devoted to worship.

The importance of the first condition is obvious because objectives of the Qur’an and traditions can be well conceived only by those who possess vast and deep knowledge, who are fully aware of the rules laid down by the earlier jurists and who have spent their lives in understanding the intentions of divine laws.

 

Similarly, the Prophet ﷺ has made it a condition for him to be a devotee and faithful, that is, he must have devoted himself to following the Shariah. Anyone who does not make distinction between permissible and forbidden in practical life and whose every day practices are in contrast of these laws cannot comprehend the intentions of Islam.

 

Deduction of the laws is, in fact, the “Search for the Truth”, and the Qur’an states that Allah bestows the faculty of cognizance of the truth to the one who confirms to it in his practical life.

“If you fear Allah He will give you the power of discrimination between truth and falsehood”. (8:29)

The purpose of Islamic scholarship is to derive, refine, and preserve the guidance found within Islam. When Prophet Muhammad ﷺ passed on from this world, he did not leave gold or land to be inherited. He left knowledge of God’s last message of guidance to humanity. An indication of this is found in a famous narration (hadith) where he stated that “the scholars are the inheritors of the prophets.” (While the qualifications for Islamic scholarship are extensive, it is something any believer can attain. The greatest scholars of Islam were men, women, Arab, non-Arab, rich, poor, from educated families, and orphans. There are no social prerequisites to becoming a scholar.)

The guidance that God sent through Prophet Muhammad: is preserved in two primary sources of knowledge: the Quran and the Prophetic Way (Sunnah). The Quran, the direct word of God, is the first source of Islamic teachings. In the Quran, some verses are explicit and easy to understand, while others are more ambiguous in meaning. To interpret God’s words requires specialized training in various disciplines; the scholars capable of such interpretation are called Quranic exegetes. The Prophetic Way (Sunnah) of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ is unanimously accepted as the perfect interpretation of the Quran, and it is used by scholars as an explanation and commentary of the Quran, and thus of the religion itself.

The Prophetic Way is understood from the life of Prophet Muhammad ﷺ : some parts of it consist of his own statements, while others are based on his actions—either actions he performed himself or his reactions to what others did in his presence. For most scholars, the primary, but not only, source of understanding the Prophetic Way is through the body of narrations (hadiths) about Prophet Muhammad ﷺ.

 These narrations have been compiled over time, and each has been evaluated as to its level of reliability. Despite the modern misconception that only the most rigorously verified narrations can be used, how to use the various types of narrations is actually the realm of scholars; laypeople should simply strive to make use of the basic guidance we can derive from them. These sources then provide scholars with proof-texts from which to derive particular religious understandings or legal rulings. Proof-texts are usually in the form of a Quranic verse, a prophetic narration (hadith), or a secondary source, such as analogous legal reasoning, the consensus of the jurists, or the words of an authoritative scholar.

The scholars of Islamic law laid out the legal methodologies by which a proof-text is processed and used in developing the overall picture for an issue. The methodologies are complex, but they include linguistic analysis, historical contextualization, chronological assessment, and juristic examination, among many other disciplines.

DIFFERENING INTERPRETATIONS AND SCHOOLS OF FIQH 

Some of the great Islamic jurists differed somewhat in the methodologies and processes they used for reaching legal conclusions; this led to the development of different legal schools (madhhabs) in Islam today. However, the schools of law all agree on the primary sources of law, differing mainly in their analysis and utilization of them. As a result, all of the schools agree on the essential issues and differ only on finer details that are secondary in nature. Jurists use proof-texts to derive legal rulings.

It is an oversimplification and an error to treat a proof-text as a ruling in and of itself—it must be processed by jurists using the legal methodologies, including a global analysis of all relevant proof-texts. The result of such a process may be a conclusion that seems quite different from the apparent meaning of the original verse (ayah) or narration (hadith) on which the ruling is based, but this should not be mistaken as “contradicting” the proof-text. With an understanding of these concepts, you will have an overall appreciation for the complexity of deriving religious rulings and be less likely to fall into confusion or oversimplification. 

Each legal school (madhhab) is both a particular methodology for deriving law and a corpus of centuries of scholarship contributing to the analysis of issues based on that methodology. (As a point of interest, it is actually not uncommon for the dominant position on a specific ruling within a legal school (madhhab), using the founder's methodologies, to be different from the founder’s original position.)

The very existence of the schools (madhhabs) clues us in to an essential reality in Islam: Differing positions can each be legitimate and valid, and believers can legitimately hold different positions, as long as each position is backed by qualified scholarship. Scholastic pluralism is a source of strength and divine mercy for the religion. It is the acknowledgment that in the absence of an infallible prophet, no one can be so certain of their interpretation that everyone else is morally bound to follow them. The holder of each position genuinely feels that they are correct, but each respectfully allows for differences to coexist harmoniously.

When the allowance for scholarly differences is combined with the agreed upon standards and methodologies of religious scholarship, the result is a rich pluralism which avoids both religious monopoly and religious anarchy. This should give you at least some idea of the complexity of definitively concluding that the religion says “A” or “B” on a given subject. Jurists of the past spent their entire lives working out the finer points of the religion so that it may be more easily practiced by the rest of us. Each of us is, thus, not expected to start over and figure everything out for ourselves. We are, however, expected to follow qualified scholarship.

For centuries, this has taken the form of following one of the legal schools, affirming widely-accepted works of creed, utilizing the works of masters of the spiritual disciplines, and deferring to the scholars when we encounter unknown religious territory. These parameters still allow for a vast array of opinions under the same methodologies listed above.

In addition to respecting the complexity of the scholarly process, we should develop a deep respect for “the inheritors of the prophets.” In the Islamic view, there is a strong correlation between knowledge and piety, since knowledge predisposes one to increase one’s commitment to God. This is one of the reasons Prophet Muhammad SAWS taught that we should all be lifelong students of Islam. We should strive to develop in ourselves a deep respect for the scholars, great men and women who spent their lives preserving the guidance we need to succeed in the next life. 

MISINTERPRETATION DUE TO SELF-INTERPRETATION:

As with all religious texts, just as there is the possibility of coming to different valid interpretations, so there is the danger of misinterpreting the primary sources of Islam. The reasons for this are many. One reason is the fact that the Arabic language conveys meaning in a very concise way. In the Quran, for example, many pronouns are used, and these frequently require an in-depth analysis to determine what they are referencing. Also, in Arabic a particular term can have different meanings based on its context. To understand its meaning in a particular sentence requires both a deep knowledge of the many meanings of the word and a clear understanding of that particular context. There are also phrases and statements in the Quran which have become proverbial in nature: When these are quoted in isolation from the words or verses that come before and after them, a naive listener may end up with a serious misunderstanding of their intended meaning.

In addition to these intrinsic challenges, there is the modern trend of untrained and unqualified individuals attempting to derive their own understandings directly from primary texts. Historically, even to gain access to scholarly works, a person had to study under a trained authority. With the advent of the information age, however, practically anyone can access scholarly works without any guidance, training, or supervision. Some have likened this situation to people having access to medical textbooks and presuming they can diagnose conditions or perform surgery, without training under qualified physicians. All of the above issues combined can make interpreting the primary sources of Islam quite complex. Hopefully, this brief sketch illustrates the dangerous potential that exists of misunderstanding the divine guidance. 

How common people can benefit from Quran translations and Hadith books:

There are benefits the ordinary Muslim can expect from directly reading translations of Quran and hadith, and benefits that he cannot, unless he is both trained and uses other literature, particularly the classical commentaries that explain the Ayat or Hadith’s meanings and their relation to Islam as a whole. 

The benefits one can derive from reading Quran and Ahadith are many: general knowledge of fundamentals like belief in Allah, the messengerhood of the Prophet ﷺ, the Last Day and so on; as well as the general moral prescriptions of Islam to do good, avoid evil, rewards of Salah, fasting, charity, other acts of worship, manners and morals, stories of previous prophets, status of Sahaba, events from Seerah, etc. Also, reading the Quran and Hadith creates concern for the Hereafter, motivates one to follow the Deen and brings one closer to Allah.

The Qur'an has itself stated that: 'And surely We have made the Qur'an easy for the sake of good counsel’ (Surah Al-Qamar). The word "Liddhikri" (for the sake of good counsel) in the verse itself is pointing out towards this general benefit.

 

Anyone who reads these and puts them into practice in his life has an enormous reward, even more so if he aims at perfecting himself by attaining the noble character traits of the Prophet ﷺ mentioned in hadith. Whoever learns and follows the prophetic example in these matters has triumphed in this world and the next. 

What is not to be hoped for in reading Quran translations and hadith (without personal instruction from a sheikh for some time) is two things: to become an Alim or Islamic scholar, and to deduce fiqh (Islamic jurisprudence) from the hadiths on particulars of sharia practice. 

Without a guiding hand, the untrained reader will misunderstand many of the hadiths he reads, and these mistakes, if assimilated and left uncorrected, may pile up until he can never find his way out of them, let alone become a scholar. 

The warning of the Prophet ﷺ against self-interpretations:

People who opt for such audacity should remember well that the Holy Prophet ﷺ has warned:

“Whoever says anything about the Qur'an without knowledge, then he should make his abode in Hell.” (Abu Daw'ud)

“Whoever talks about the Qur'an on the basis of his opinion, and even if says something true in it, still he made a mistake.” (Abu Daw'ud, Nasa'i)

Also, we need to remember that the canonical hadith collections were not written for readers uninitiated in the Islamic sciences. These are not books you can simply pick off a shelf and read without prior knowledge. Mustalah al-Hadith, Usul-ul-Hadith, Fiqh, Usul-ul-fiqh, and scholarly guidance in general are essential to understanding books of hadith. These books were often written by scholars, for scholars. This applies to even the Sahihayn. Just because they are 'Sahih' doesn't mean they are accessible to the average Muslim. The methodology authors used to write these books was often intricate or technical. Students in circles where these books have historically been read were already intermediate to advanced seekers of knowledge.

Common Muslims can benefit from reading simple Tafseer and Hadith Books written by authentic scholars for them such as Al-Arba'un an-Nawawiyyah - a famous small collection of 40 narrations that with which the author attempted to summarize the core principles of Islam, Riyad al-Salihin - another work by Imam al-Nawawi that compiles Prophetic hadith on the Islamic morals and spirituality, Kitabul-Adhkar - Imam al-Nawawi's book on Prophetic supplications and prayers, etc.

And regarding general Islamic books, websites and audio/video speeches the common Muslims can benefit from them with guidance of a scholar to avoid pitfalls, as not all books are suitable for all people and not all writers/speakers are reliable.

[Note- this article was compiled by putting together extracts from books and articles of different scholars on various websites. May Allah reward them all.]