[Al Bayan By Javed Ghamidi Pdf Free
Jamar Lizarraga
We have come a long way since those pre-modern times and like everything else, grapevine has been evolved considerably and transformed into a pseudo-conventional medium of attaining knowledge. It has now become customary in the cyber world to do cursory homework on scholars and jump upon the task of writing and discussing. But even though surfing can give you a lot to chew over, it cannot be an alternative for traditional methods of judging veracity and credibility of scholars.
As I suggested in the past, it is better to spend time in reading the scholars themselves, rather than gathering all the meat from those who have criticized them; sometimes derisively and in harshest of the ways. And I am not overreacting, as one of the search parameters in question, besides pointing to my rambles, retrieves links where Javed Ahmad Ghamidi is called a liar, cheat, fitna and even shaitan (the devil).
Two distinct and usually rival currents of Islamic thought, i.e. traditionalist and modernist, can be identified in the Muslim Subcontinent since its exposure to western civilisation in the 19th Century.
Those who identified themselves with the traditionalist stream primarily contended that religion cannot be re-interpreted and reformed beyond the canons of their respective traditions and any enquiry into religious sources, i.e. Quran and Sunnah, must not remain independent of tradition. A logical byproduct was an attitude that willfully disregarded all the western methods of education, the categories of education itself and ultimately shaped a weltanschauung that was completely ignorant of modern socio-political philosophies. Great scholars like Qasim Nanotwi, Rashid Ahmed Gangohi, Mahmood ul Hasan Deobandi, Anwar Shah Kashmiri and Ashraf Ali Thanwi were torchbearers of this school of thought. A religious seminary in Deoband was established to uphold this tradition and disseminate its contents to next generations.
However, Hameedudin Farahi (a comparatively less known scholar from Azamgarh) can be called the ideal manifestation of this doctrine and the only one dedicating his life in establishing and articulating the canons of this new methodology which was supposed to be rooted firmly in the language of Quran. His student Ameen Ahsan Islahi carried forward the project of his mentor and climaxed it in the form of Tadabbur-i-Quran. Javed Ahmad Ghamdi remained under the tutelage of Islahi for a large part of his life and worked with him on various intellectual projects.
Islahi is no more, but Dabistan-e-Shibli still continue to live in the form of Javed Ahmad Ghamdi and others who have been learning directly and indirectly from him. It is only after drinking from the fountain of this tradition that you can judge about the veracity or mendacity of those who belong to it. No amount of googling can do it for you.
Both Ghamdi and Modudi were students of Ahsan Eslahi sahab.
Mawdudi was one year older than Islahi and both were peers in Jamaat Islami. They never had a student teacher relationship. Ghamidi studied from both of them though very briefly from Mawdudi.
ghamdi is a right hand of jewish thinking. Will ghamdi is more intelligent than our ulema e karam? He is refusing also the Quranic verse about ababeel which is above mention He is refusing that ababeel didnt throw stone on abrahas elephant he was quraishies who throw stones nauzobillah
Of course he has opinions. All scholars do, and most share them quite freely. It is impossible not to have opinions and I for one would not want scholars to refrain from sharing theirs. Ghamdi at least respects his readers enough to be open about that.
But there is nothing impious about considering alternative explanations (scientific, mystical, poetic) that allow us to understand a challenging ayat in a way that does not require us to ignore the laws of the universe that Allah (sbt) Himself invokes as evidence of His power in the Quran.
Differentiating and drawing parallels between Fazlur Rahman and Ghamidi would be a good exercise. A sizeable difference would be that Rahman did not even started working towards a Contemporary Islamic methodology, except his unique approach towards Quran; Ghamidi, on the other hand is moving fast towards a coherent methodology. If he is lucky enough to find good students, we might see a Contemporary School in 50 years of time.
Adnan, I agree with you that its not a matter of arguing for the sake of it and learning has no end. I have as much emotional attachment with Ghamidi as any other contemporary scholar, may it be Tariq Jameel, Taqi Usmani or Khalid Aboul Fadl.
The above realization can be a beautiful thing so sometimes I feel that we should temper this drive to investigate and find the truth by the old acronym I learned a long time ago:
KISS: keep it simple stupid.
Also, my post came off shriller than intended. My apologies if I offended Adnan or anybody else. I just find it frustrating when traditionalism is equated with accepting debatable interpretations without question.
As far as Rahman is concerned, he was ahead of his times and IMHO, his primary project was more related to Islamization of Knowledge through educational reforms and revival of dialectics. In this regard, I tend to put him more in the ranks of Malik Bennabi and Muhammad Iqbal.
Another problem we face is that people are not willing to pay for books they shy away if they have to invest 100 dollars for a book or its equivalent in Euros or British pounds in the English language.
Another problem we face is that what is in the market place is either very costly or it is written by orientalists. With that said there at minimum a slew of theses written by Muslims in English and a host of other works that are not given proper regard and in stead orientalist works are digested in their stead.
So a possible way out of this crisis is to register and track down what is available in English, is of high quality and is written by qualified persons of knowledge. Then we need to focus and understand the concepts and build study circles around these works without a biased commitement but rather with the intent of understanding.
Yes, there are good and bad scholars. However, that too remains debatable and their works are enough to give degree to their wisdom and let experts judge the quality of their work. In my opinion, a valid criteria to judge a scholar is to see whether he is qualified enough to make the kind of assertions that he has.
Mr. Ghamidi, like Sir Syed, Farahi and Islahi before him, is far from being a scholar. Rather his Eman itself is doubtful, due to his rejection of beliefs proven by mass-transmitted narrations and concensus of the Ummah. Like like his disbelief in the decent of Esa `alayhi al Salam before the final hour.
ghamdi is not the real scholar because those who want to talk on islam must be aalim and studied in well known islamic jamia and futher course of fatawa become mufti and first of all ghamdi applied islam on his body too.
i am not advocating for Ghamidi , but i truly beleive that each scholar has the right to present his view and it is the job of general public to scrutunize his thoughts on the basis of Quran and Sunnah.
This is the prime difference between Ghamidi and the orthodox ulemas,i think this should not be taken as a conspiracy against Islam , but should be viewed as a different opinion and we should respect that.
The difference of opinion should not be taken as the basis to brand a person muslim or kaafir
Deen is not prastash. It is nizam e Zindagi. During Abbasis era deen was changed into madhab. GREAT ROLE IS PLAYED BY FALSE ahdidhs and tafaseers.
I thisk we need to investigate into this aspect of the tregedy and conspiracy against Islam.
ITS SO SAD THAT IN THE NAME OF ISLAM OUR MULLAS ARE TRYING TO ARABNISING INSTEAD OF ISLAMISING THE WORLD.
THEY WANTUS(NON ARAB MUSLIMS) TO BELIEVE AND AND UNDERSTAND THE ISLAM THE WAY ARABS DO.I ASK EVERY ONE IN THIS DEBATE THAT IS IT IMPORTANT THAT WE SHOULD HAVE OUR NAMES LIKE ARABS,SHOULD WE DRESS THE WAY ARABS DO, SHOULD WE FORGET OUR CULTURE AND CIVILISATION,IS THAT SO THAT ARABS ARE THE BEST HUMAN BEING THAT EVERY ONE SHOULD FOLLOW THEM BLINDLY.
AND WHY GHAMIDI SHOULD NOT HAVE HIS OWN SCHOOL OF THOUGHT,YET MANY ARABS SCHOLARS HAVE REPRESENT THE ISLAM IN TOTALLY DIFERENT UNDERSTANDING YET NON ARAB MUSLIM HAD NO OBJECTIONS.
I FULLY SUPPORT GHAMIDI AND HIS RERESENTATION OF SIMPLE NON ARAB ISLAM.PLEASE LET ISLAM BE LIBRATED FROM ARAB CULTURE.ISLAM IS NOT THEIR PROPERTY.
i really appreciate your view.
the civilizational downfall is the result of corrupting idea-forces,spoiled knowledge culture and lack of pursuit of knowledge
And unfortunately Muslims are living in the age of that downfall,which taught us that logic and rational has no use(when it comes to Islam )and knowledge is the authority of mullaz the product of madarsa who lives in fools paradise..with no understanding of text and context
These 2 assumptions which underlie this particular Reformist methodology have inevitable consequences. If Mr. Ghamidi does
not deny all the supernatural/metaphysical element in our religion, his followers eventually will.
I think we should have the courage to tolerate different views as long as they do not deviate from the fundamentals of Islam.
I wonder is this attitude was also adopted by our four imams, who differ so much with each other in the description of certain matters.
As far as my knowledge goes they held each other in high esteem and respect ,but at the same time prsented their own opinion .
Which is why we see there are gender differences in the state legislations in the Quran but no such differences in the religious legislations. Men and women fast, pray, perform haj, observe the halals and harams, zakat , die and resurrect and get judged exactly the same way as men.
All the functions of the religious legislation relies on constants such as the movements of the sun, movements of the moon, usage of water and direction of Qibla. These are constants and not changing. They remain the same whether in its shape, direction or time. It is apllicable and accesible to everyone, whether rich or poor, male or female or ignorant or intelligent. The theological issues are also constant and beyond change. Humans do not control angels or past prophets or the ressurection from death or heaven or hell. These are constant theological realities beyond the scope of human evolution and progress and are attained by faith and faith alone.
795a8134c1