Ethics of Disagreement III

(v) On adab

The real problem lies not in differing with people, but how we deal with these differences when they occur.

Adab cannot be translated into English. Etiquette refers to an external matter, whilst adab is fundamentally internal, though has an aspect which is witnessed externally. You can be arrogant yet have good etiquette, but you cannot be arrogant and have adab.

Adab comprises of two things:

   -  Al-tawadu`, humility – you believe that you are low

   -  Al-ihtiram, respect of others

If this is not something deeply rooted in your heart, it is hypocrisy. (1)

Many of the problems in the domestic environment occur due to a lack of adab. You feel you deserve respect instead of thinking yourself to be low and respecting others. Society teaches you reciprocity: “You respect me and I will respect you.” Islamic adab is that you respect others and think of yourself as low, irrespective of how they behave towards you. When you embody this, people will love you. People do not love you for following etiquette alone.

With regards to the adab of differing in opinion for people of knowledge (scholars, students), there are some principles:

     a) Have humility regarding your opinion, and have tolerance and respect of others - al-tasaamuh

Think: it could be possible that I am the one who is wrong. Be humble; it is just an opinion. God has made the world in such a way that the people who follow the truth will ultimately succeed. Abu Hanifah and al-Shafi’i did not receive revelation. However pious you may be, you are human and can err. You could be wrong. If you don’t take part in the argument, there will be no argument. Al-Shafi’i differed from Abu H and Malik, but respected them.

People say: if you pick the easiest or most convenient way to solve a problem, you are following your desires. But why is this only a problem for them when it comes to salah or acts of worship? In others areas, such as financial contracts, there is no such thing as a 'pure' hanafi. Even staunch followers pick and choose from other madhaahib to solve their problem. (2)

Islam did not come to teach people to make groups and have followers. This came after the first 3 centuries, following the Greek way of having schools. In Islamic tradition, the ulema were like doctors, treating people, not creating schools and collecting followers. Having particular schools of thought which you followed was a Greek tradition.

     b) Have an open mind, and make your teachings open - al-infitaah

Keep your mind open, understand the opinions of other people and be prepared to accept them if you are convinced. Make your teachings open and show your reasoning, so other people can also see and help you. 

No individual, text or school has an arbitrary authority in Islam. When people think this, it is dangerous, i.e. if someone is asked, “Why do you do this?”, and they say, “Because it is the fatwa of x, or in y book.” Rather, one ought to say, “I follow this based on this from the Qur’an and sunnah”. Teach people to obey God and His messenger, not to obey a school. (3) As al-Shafi’i said, “Both you and your teacher Malik need evidence.” If you can’t produce your argument, your fatwa has no validity. This is not the Catholic church.

Unity refers to a unity of attitude, not a uniformity of colour. We say that all colours are acceptable, we do not say that everyone has to be black or white.

With regards to what is said that the common people may be misled, then they should be trained to think and understand too, so that it is not that simply anyone can come and mislead them. If the people can be convinced with falsehood, then why can you not convince them with the truth?

Ibn Taymiyyah was in an environment where everyone opposed him, and he was imprisoned seven times. But he put out his arguments to the people, even though the people of bid’ah held political power. If your argument is proper and true and convincing, most people want to follow what their mind is convinced of. They are not inherently corrupt, except when their selfish interests come in the way. Openness will harm the people of bid’ah more than it will harm you. People will come to you from them. Openness ultimately helps the people of the truth if they are hardworking.

     c) Don’t impose your opinion on others

Abu Yusuf was in hajj with Harun al-Rashid, who had hijamah. He wanted to lead the prayer, so he asked Malik regarding this (as he knew Abu Yusuf’s opinion), and then led the prayer. Abu Yusuf prayed behind him, and when asked specifically, stated that leaving salah behind the imams for the likes of this was a sign of the people of bid’ah. There are many examples of the sahabah and salaf never needing to impose their personal opinion on others. (5)

Scholarship should be free. But, order in society is a different matter. This is a political issue that is faced by any government, and is no longer necessarily a matter of what is most convincing or evidence-based, but about policy and organisation. (4) Without order, a society cannot function. Abu H was free to think and teach what he wanted to, but the Abbasid rulers followed and implemented whichever system they chose to. Thinking, teaching and writing should always remain free. But rules are required to maintain order in society, irrespective of evidence or strength of argument. Even a weak opinion which maintains order in society is better than a strong opinion which does not.

Toenotes

(1) This was actually pretty awful for me, because I basically realised that I am, for the most part, an adab-less entity :( If I am completely honest, I rarely combine the two aspects (I wonder if there is something distinctly secular/Western about humility and self-esteem being mutually exclusive [but then what exactly it self-esteem anyway?]) I have excruciatingly high standards for sort of deference I imagine true adab to be, and I certainly wouldn’t meet my own standards (I know that’s not an excuse), but I’m going to make a conscious effort to remedy this inshallah. I like the point about etiquette. It’s so odd that polite society demands of one particular behaviours, but rather like the means and ends thing, the etiquette itself becomes the thing to be desired, and the aim, which would be presumably to think of others before oneself, put others at ease etc. falls by the wayside (rather like the hypocrisy necessarily entailed in gentlemen colonising the world). Also, I need to rethink my position on respect, but I think there is much more to this discussion. I suppose there is a degree of respect to which one is entitled to merely for being human (I have never disputed this), but are there then levels of respect that are achieved, and if so how; and in the event of that being bestowed by me, then who am I to afford this to someone (is it my respect? Why is that better or worse than that of anyone else? How does one evaluate the worth of respect?), and then are we not on that issue of reciprocity again which is the antithesis of real adab? (I can certainly respect someone who does not necessarily respect me [e.g. I feel them worthy of respect; they do not know me, or I don’t come up to their standards], but would I respect someone who openly disrespected me? And if not, is that more because of the slight to my ego, or because open disrespect of anyone [or is it me?!] precludes the state of being deserving of my respect?)

(2) I won’t go into this in detail here, but Sh. A made a really good case against the objection of lay people ‘picking and choosing’, in that he questioned the basis of why that was fundamentally problematic anyway. Surely it makes sense for people to choose the best way for them to solve their problem? There were several examples of this from the scholars. Fatwa has never been binding in any case; everyone has agreed that it is only qadaa that can ever be binding on an individual to follow.

(3) Al-Nisa, 4:59

(4) This is a really important point, and reminds me of why knowledge is not enough to be a scholar in the comprehensive sense (not simply an academic), and the knowledge of the world and society that is only acquired through living is required. I think one has to grow in age and maturity to really appreciate this point; 10 years ago, I would’ve had real difficulty accepting this, because it was inconsistent with my idealised world view (but if that’s the right way, then you have to do that). Yet it’s hard to balance the conflicting tensions, and we see this repeatedly in so many areas like the criminal justice system, substance use and harm reduction strategies etc.

(5) He gave lots more examples on this point and several others which I have in my handwritten notes but couldn’t be bothered to type in Arabic or translate. One day I hope to do that inshallah as several of them were pretty cool. 

Ethics of Disagreement II

(iv) 

On Virtues and Means

There is a difference between the fadilah, the virtue itself, and the wasilah, the means through which one attains this virtue. People may not be able to attain the fadaa’il independently, so the prophets taught the wasaa’il too, though the latter was not the main objective.

For example, fairness and justice is the fadilah. How you achieve this is the wasilah. The wasilah is not in itself virtuous. It could be that in a particular situation, the most fair system is a democratic one, allowing the members or relevant people to vote; if 52% (1) vote for a particular option, then we take that option. But it is not that system in itself that is virtuous. If the system can be manipulated and cheated, then it does not result in fairness, irrespective of whether it is democratic. (2) What matters is whether the government is fair in its dealing with the citizens, whether it is democratically elected or a monarchy or some other system. (3) Islam is interested in the virtue itself, not the means.

Fadilah can only come from the human mind, heart and action. It cannot be externally imposed. (4) At every point, it requires a human to think and make a judgement. If you make an effort to be fair to your family and treat them with kindness, even if you make a mistake, this is a virtue. However, if you leave that process to or a machine, or a random selection process, then it is not a fadilah. Virtue comes from your intention and decision. If there is no human judgement involved, it can never be a fadilah. Otherwise, even democracy is just a game, playing with numbers.

Obtaining the fadilah is not a game, or a superficial consideration. It may be said, “You need to treat people equally,” but that is not completely correct. You need to treat people fairly. Sometimes completely equal treatment helps achieve this, but sometimes it doesn’t. For example, men and women can never truly be equal. Women experience pregnancy and childbirth; in employment, they cannot be treated the same. They must be treated fairly, with kindness and respect according to their role. (5) Equality can help you attain fairness, but it is not in itself actual fairness. Understand the difference between the virtue and the means. One of the greatest confusions in modern times is the lack of distinction between, or inversion of, the means and the ends. (6) Food is supposed to be for energy, as a means; now food has become the end in itself. In fact, we are at the stage beyond that when food itself is harmful.

Similarly, when you follow a madhhab, it is not a virtue in itself. Following someone’s opinion is not a virtue. The virtue lies in how you carry out the act of worship. The madhaahib are simply means, or roads to the masjid. The virtue lies in praying in the masjid, not in which road you take to get there.

Toenotes

(1) Yes ok, he said 51% but I couldn’t resist. And actually, Brexit fits really well in this, considering all the poor gullible idiots who really believed they’d get £350m for the NHS.

(2) Chomsky: "The public relations industry, which essentially runs the elections, is applying certain principles to undermine democracy which are the same as the principles that applies to undermine markets. The last thing that business wants is markets in the sense of economic theory. Take a course in economics, they tell you a market is based on informed consumers making rational choices. Anyone who’s ever looked at a TV ad knows that’s not true. In fact, if we had a market system an ad, say, for General Motors would be a brief statement of the characteristics of the products for next year. That’s not what you see. You see some movie actress or a football hero or somebody driving a car up a mountain or something like that. And that’s true of all advertising. The goal is to undermine markets by creating uninformed consumers who will make irrational choices and the business world spends huge efforts on that. The same is true when the same industry, the PR industry, turns to undermining democracy. It wants to construct elections in which uninformed voters will make irrational choices. It’s pretty reasonable and it’s so evident you can hardly miss it." And if you could then, you certainly can’t after this political year!

(3) This is quite profound. It sounds very simple, and perhaps its simplicity makes me feel I’m not quite sure whether I fully agree with it. Though it certainly makes sense, it seems too simple a solution, perhaps even slightly glib, to do justice to a hugely complex area. Also, interestingly, I thought about how in the current climate this sounds radical, blasphemous even, to question democracy, and it is worrying that it should be like this. It reminds me of how passively affected we are by our environments, how your ability to think critically, and indeed what that means to you, is shaped almost entirely by forces beyond your control. What we consider to be freedom of speech, or in fact thought, occurs within a limited spectrum that is defined for us. S, I think you will like this by Talal Asad (Muhammad Asad’s son): http://escholarship.org/uc/item/84q9c6ft#page-6 (it’s a bit heavy but some really interesting points. Also, I learnt for the first time the difference between blasphemy and heresy).

(4)  But what of externally imposed structures to safeguard the fadilah – is this the role of the wasilah, functioning in an auxiliary manner? I wonder though, if there is a danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater here. It is difficult to deny that we focus disproportionately on the means, but the means could also push one, so to speak, into the fadilah? Conversely, would Goodhart’s law apply here, where the process of making a surrogate measure the target in some way results in its losing the information which qualified it to do so initially? Think clothing and piety etc.  

(5) There is much that could be said here, and much of that depends on how exactly one defines equality, which is not synonymous with simply sameness. However, I don’t want to be the archetypal annoying feminist taking offence at everything. I’m waiting to read his book on feminism!

 (6) This is such an interesting topic. I don’t want to write extensively on this (though of course I can, because it’s a toenote, and it’s mine), but this resonates with me on so many levels in so many facets of my life, including those where I myself am guilty of being obsessed by process. (I actually quite liked the idea of having some kind of algorithm to dish out different intensities of kindness to people depending on various factors such as strength of blood relationship, kindness owed, how nice they are, how much I like speaking to them, how acceptable their hugs are, how infrequently they say patronising things to me etc. It would certainly make my life easier not to have to navigate such issues, destined inevitably as I am to fail :() Anyway, the most glaring example for me was the absolute mindlessness of NHS bureaucracy which is so preoccupied with the means that nobody even remembers what the aim was, *dark thoughts of the CQC*; we’re so busy trying to prove what we’re doing that all we end up doing is trying to prove what we’re doing and not actually doing it. Sounds a bit like studying kitab ul-salah in fiqh…

Ethics of Disagreement I

I know I said I’d write something on religion and culture next, but I’ve changed my mind as I’ve just finished listening to the Ethics of Disagreement talk, and thought I’d share that first. This is not from tafseer Surat ul-Baqarah (so technically not tasting words divine) but an Al-Salam seminar. (1)

(iii) 

On roots and branches

The fundamental problem we have is not understanding the deen itself. Deen is the way that God chose for people to worship Him. It is obedience to God and worshipping Him and He taught. Your nature and your mind can teach you that you ought to worship God, but only God can teach you how to worship Him. The deen must be learnt in the light of God’s revelation to the prophets. You cannot make deen yourself, irrespective of how clever you are. Even a prophet cannot alter the deen. (2)

Whilst the deen is revealed to a messenger, how it is practised in a particular time and context refers to the madhhab, i.e. the ulema’s understanding and explanation of the deen. The madhhab always comes from people who are not prophets, but have two qualities: expertise in their field, and piety / sincerity. (3) They are learned, and do not give fatwa to please anyone or because they are merely emotionally driven to, but give fatwa to please God alone. He or she may then be right or wrong; even if they are wrong, they will receive one reward.

Therefore, there is only one deen, but there can be many madhaahib. Madhaahib are opinions, so there are hundreds of them. A madhhab cannot come from God; it is not divine. Reward does not come from following a madhhab. One should not use the names of Abu Hanifah and Maalik to divide the ummah; they were closer to God than we are. (4)

The difference between usul and furu`

1 – The usul of the deen are the fundamentals that make up the deen: obedience to God, worship, belief in the Day of Judgement, honesty, kindness to the people.

2 – Furu` l-deen l-kubra – the branches through which the usul cannot be attained except through them, e.g. nearness to God cannot be attained except through prayer, kindness to the people cannot be attained without charity.

3 – Furu` l-deen l-sughra – the branches which support and strengthen the major branches, e.g. wudu.

Consider the following circles. They read from out inwards: usul, al-furu` l-kubra, al-furu` l-sughra, the Qur’an, Sunnah, ijma`, and qiyas. 

The differences are in the smallest circle.Your differing is irrelevant as you are still surrounded by so many circles.  

The problem is actually that you fundamentally don’t pray properly. Many details in fiqh arise because people don’t do these acts properly focusing on the essence, thereby creating problems which you need a solution for, and then the scholars differ in the solution. If you prayed with khushu`, you wouldn’t need a great many of the details. (5) If you are rewarded even if you make a mistake, why would you spend time arguing about these issues?  

(continued)

Toenotes 

(1) I was wondering to myself whether I ought to bother with this seminar as I’m ridiculously overwhelmed at the moment, and I haven’t listened to any of the actual Al-Salam lectures this term, so it seemed pretty silly to spend several hours on a topic that a) I find really boring, b) I already know about, and c) I already know Sh. A’s opinions on. I can’t remember the last time I wasted any space in my head to think about this; I thought it was only teenage durul-uloom kids that are into that kind of stuff these days. But I’m so glad I listened to it! There were so many things to think about, including links to group psychology and Ibn Khaldun’s `asabiyyah that I’ve been mulling over recently, and I love his way of being able to conceptualise quite complex or nebulous topics both coherently and in a way that is accessible to laypeople in a simple yet profound manner.

(2) Al-najm, 53:3-4

(3) I love this. It can apply to almost anything in life. If you can combine expertise with integrity to any field, you will do a good job. So many of the problems in the world today can be put down to a lack of one of these qualities: the experts who use their knowledge for personal or other gain, at the expense of humanity; or the well-intentioned idiots who create more harm than good.

(4)  I was thinking to myself, I wish I knew this 15 years ago then I wouldn’t have had to agonise my way through working it all out myself and being stupid along the way. Then it occurred to me that I wouldn’t have been, developmentally, in a position to accept it then. I needed to have thought a great many silly things in order to stop thinking them. Anyway, the last few years sound remarkably like A Vindication of the Opinions of X. S, do you remember the talk on aqeedah we went to when he said he didn’t believe in aqeedah and I thought, oh, he must be one of those naïve ivory tower academics who doesn’t mix with the proles? Now I don’t believe in aqeedah. Then I remember after he mentioned something about politics once thinking, oh, he must be one of those naïve ivory tower academics who doesn’t mix with the proles. Now I don’t believe in ‘Islamic politics’.  Anyway, now I also don’t believe in mudood, but that’s possibly just because life’s too short to waste time stretching :) (And there’s no point anyway: http://www.cochrane.org/CD004577/MUSKINJ_stretching-to-prevent-or-reduce-muscle-soreness-after-exercise)

(5)  Al-mu’minoon, 23:1-2

Stories and stuff

(ii)

(Sem 2 Class 6)

On stories and the Qur’an

The Qur’anic way of explanation is different to that of the people. In human society, the purpose of storytelling is primarily that of entertainment, and certainly that is what it has been reduced to in contemporary society (1). When we read stories in the Qur’an, we approach them with this mindset, as if God is telling us a story to entertain us. Then, when we see gaps in the story as it is narrated, we seek to fill in the gaps, to know the omitted details in order to complete the story. However, we fail to grasp that in the Qu’an, nothing is for entertainment (2); in fact, nothing in the entire universe is for entertainment (3). Neither God’s Word, nor His world, ought to serve the purpose of merely entertaining you; they exist to convey His message and guidance (4).

Stories in the Qur’an are bayan, and there are different styles of bayan. At times, the believers may have asked a particular question, and Qur’an was revealed in response to that. At other times, there was no particular question asked or specific incident. However, this in itself indicates that what is being communicated is at least equally important, if not more so, than that which was revealed in response to a question or particular incident. This is because God knows that this is something that people may miss if left to themselves without being alerted to it, so He specifically draws attention to it. For example, there are repeated references to the Day of Judgement using very striking language such as oaths, to indicate the magnitude of the matter and the need to pay close attention to it. Otherwise, we would likely become too preoccupied with the mundanities of life to pay it any attention.

Because every story in the Qur’an is bayan, one ought to read each story and think carefully: which points has God mentioned here, and which have been omitted? The points that have been mentioned are the points that are important; they are more important than those you want to know about. Then consider: why? So, in such a situation that a prophet found himself in where there were myriad possibilities, why did he act in such a way? And what message does God what to convey to you by informing you about this? What does He feel is so important here that He draws your attention to it? Stories in the Qur’an are guidance, not entertainment.

One story mentioned repeatedly in the Qur’an is that of Banu Isra’il, and in surat ‘l-baqarah, many details are mentioned, and others are omitted. Additionally, the story is not in chronological order, and moves back and forth between different times. This was a really fascinating insight for me, because almost all my previous experience with tafseer, and certainly with this surah, has been about filling in the gaps in stories, rather than really looking at what has been mentioned and thinking about that (5). This makes me think that the argument about the use of israiliyyat in tafseer which concerns itself with the authenticity, or lack thereof, of reports, actually misses the whole point. Irrespective of authenticity, we fail to consider that whilst we fill in the gaps in the story, we do the message a disservice (6). God could easily have told you the particular details of that story and not compromised anything, yet He didn’t; not so that you could root around and spend your life arguing minor details, but so that you spent your time thinking about the issues that mattered.

I thought about it as similar to someone having a couple of hours to revise for an exam. Their friend had very helpfully collated all the main points that were highlighted from several textbooks and lecture-notes, cross-referenced them to the mark-schemes and past paper questions, and written them separately in a booklet for for you for some last-minute revision. Of course, you could then spend your limited time sifting through various websites to flesh out your succinct notes, but most people would think you were a bit of an idiot. Because, of course, only idiots pan for gold whilst ignoring the pile of gold ingots right next to them.

Toenotes

1) I need to think about this properly at some point. The qualification regarding contemporary society, by which I refer to modern secular Western society, was an attempt to acknowledge that this is not so simple. There are of course, other reasons for storytelling, and the purposes of education and cultural preservation certainly play a greater role in other cultures, though I stand by the assertion that storytelling in current times, is primarily about entertainment. In any case, this does not distract significantly from the point being made, which is essentially about the underlying human desire to create a particular personal, coherent narrative in their mind, and this may require seeking out additional information, even if unsubstantiated, from alternative sources to fill in ‘gaps’, where alternative sources could, and often do, include one’s own mind. The point is essentially about the danger of approaching the Qur’an with this mindset, despite having acknowledged God’s attributes and the reason for revelation as guidance which is explicitly and repeatedly mentioned in the Qur'an.

2) Al Tariq, 86: 13-14 

3) Al Mu’minoon, 23:115

4) This is an opportunity to mention a pet peeve, or rather, a horrid swarm of pet peeves (what is the collective noun for peeve?) relating to Qur’an recitation and associated arts or industries, if one may call them that. I may be just growing grumpier in my old age, but I find myself increasingly unable to tolerate showy recitations, mimicking popular reciters etc., and whilst I would previously just try to avoid these things, I now find them really insulting. Also, I think I might think that mudood and entertainment sit on the same spectrum, though I grant not necessarily in immediate proximity of one another; one wonders whether that particular spectrum ought to be abolished altogether in the interests of sadd ul-dhara'i' (blasphemous, I know!). Yes, S., there is possibly only one person in the world who really understands that sentence so of course I anticipate your rolling eyes…

5) I mean this in terms of primarily relating to the contemporary resonance of the story to our situation both as individuals and collectively. This should make more sense later - I initially began writing this post as something on religion and culture, and this was the prelude to that discussion, but became worthy of a post in itself; I'll do that next inshaAllah. 

6) Something similar has been mentioned by Sh. A. previously regarding israiliyyat in tafseer which he isn’t a great fan of so I don't think I completely made this up. I don’t have this to hand right now but will try to remember to reference it to this when I come across it. 

In the beginning...

Bismillah il-‘rahman il-‘raheem

I’ve decided to act on impulse and start this quickly, because I’m sure I won’t ever get to it otherwise. Also, it feels opportune tonight: S. leaves for Dar ul-dafaadi’ tomorrow (1); and there is a certain poetry about it being nearly the start of Dhul-hijjah, my sitting in a little room in a residential library with a window overlooking the church and graveyard, having spent the afternoon reading the Psalms and wanting to cry (2) and feeling desperately like grabbing a stranger to say, “Look, look, look at this! Will you be the glass into which I pour my effervescent insights?”, after walking through a red door in the morning (3), and spending three hours in the woods with myself and God (4). A degree of impulsivity in good is good of course, and rewarded with Nearness (5); I sometimes wonder if I would’ve been the person who ran endlessly through the pros and cons of saying “Make du’a that I am from them”, but Ukkaashah got there first (6). Or maybe His mercy envelops the I-thought-it-first-but-the-voice-wouldn’t-stops too, and then He makes them from Them anyway? 

Anyway.

The aim was to have some way of ensuring that I remembered to notice the twinkle of my increasingly starred margins of surat ul-‘baqarah notes because the light pollution was making it almost impossible to notice anything. Plus, S. is going, so there won’t be anyone to intermittently listen to my inarticulacy about how crazy it is that the whole surah is basically about us, us the new children of Israel, the embodiment of our own bête noire.

The notes are from sh. Akram Nadwi’s monthly tafseer classes with Cambridge Islamic College (7) which have been running for about a year now. I’ve been intending to go through them properly and type them all up, but as realistically that is unlikely to happen ever, it would be remiss of me to wait for such an occasion. Almost every class there are some really profound points that the shaykh makes which are more generally applicable, or I feel impact me significantly in some way, perhaps by drawing attention to something I have read hundreds of times but never really tasted and eaten and digested (8), or by differently conceptualising some basic tenet which I did not even consider that I did not understand, or even just (and of course, not just) reminding us repeatedly of The Point Of It All and not losing sight of the wood for the trees.

I’m not going to do this in any specific order, or determine any regular frequency of posting at the outset, though I will, insha Allah (9), attempt to post more than this one post(!). Also, I’m not exactly clear yet how I ought to write these, and perhaps that requires further time to think through, the luxury of which I do not have tonight. If possible, I would try to separate class notes from reflections, though in practice I suspect I will write some form of amalgamation of the two. Also, there will be some implied understanding and associations which would be obvious in the flow of the whole text though must be sacrificed here in posting excerpts; this seems, regrettably, unavoidable at this point.

I pray that this serves as a reminder for me and others. Wa billah il-‘tawfiq.



(i)

(Sem 2 Class 6)

On du’a and its essence

At first glance, du’a appears to be the most inefficient of actions. If you want something to happen, then du’a itself cannot realise that thing. If you are hungry, you need to obtain food, and then satisfy your hunger. Why then, did the prophets make du’a? Why did they not instead use the proper procedure and most efficient method of solving a particular problem, rather than ostensibly wasting time making du’a? The answer is that Du’a brings nearness to God. It causes one to correct the starting point, after which other things will follow. The reason He made you hungry was not simply that you obtain food, and then eat and drink; animals can do that too. It was in order than you obtain nearness to God – this is the real purpose. Assuaging your hunger through eating and drinking is a supplementary matter.

The reason God presents you with problems in life is not so that you find a solution to them; that anyone can do. One need not be a muslim (10) to bear, or find the solution to, a particular difficulty. The problem is presented to make you nearer to your Lord (11), that you turn to Him and ask Him, and that is in fact the essence (mukh) of worship. Why is that? Because it reminds you of the reason for your whole being, and that of all the whole universe. Therefore, the difficulty makes you closer to God, as it is a means for your du’a. It is not that difficulty inherently makes you closer to God, or is a positive thing.

Du’a is the actual solution, because the apparent solution (e.g. food, or relief of your distress), you will get anyway, albeit after many years. Then imagine, you will have your solution, in addition to years of du’a and the ensuing closeness to God! God could give you what you want straightaway; He is able to do this, but He allows you to draw nearer to Him in your difficulty. The problem is not that you have a problem, but that you don’t use the problem to gain nearness to God. Try to understand what God actually wants from you. The real purpose of the problem was not that you simply solve it, but that you use it to gain nearness to Him.

On the significance of being from as-haab ul-jannah  2:82

Being in the garden means being in the neighbourhood of God. His companionship is what gives value to the garden. It is not merely that there will be aesthetic pleasure derived from beautifully landscaped gardens beyond what your eyes had ever seen. In the world, perhaps beyond a certain amount of beauty, one can become satiated, or there is no longer a proportionate effect. The pleasure then will be due to being in the companionship of God and close to Him; there can be nothing greater than that.  

Toes

(1)  To S. With the greatest sympathy for your plight; to you I dedicate this humble endeavour; please accept it as a token of my sincere commiseration (I have really been reading way too many handwritten messages in books, sorry, I got a bit carried away :))

(2)  Obviously I didn’t; I already stuck out like a sore thumb in my unironed jilbab and brown skin, without weeping histrionics over >100-year-old precious Bibles and their tafaseer. In the interests of honesty, I confess to an occasional sharp intake of half a breath or slipping out of half a wistful sigh before I had the chance to snatch it back.

(3)  Not quite my secret country, but it I'm sure it'd do on a nice day. “Most of us, I suppose, have a secret country but for most of us it is only an imaginary country. Edmund and Lucy were luckier than other people in that respect.” (C.S. Lewis, Voyage of the Dawn Treader). And there is a link coming later about gardens and nearness and God shouting to you in your adversity.

The red door...

(4)  And intermittently various dogs with their humans, but that sounds slightly less romantic. That was great fun even though my feet hurt because I wore some boots which are really comfortable right up until they become uncomfortable, and then they’re really uncomfortable. The heady mixture of excited awe and sore-toe induced throbbing pain reminded me of the last time I felt like that (same boots) which was at the Louvre, except that time I was looking at statues of Greek men en déshabillé, I mean, err..other things, and this time I was looking at roots of trees.

(5)   Al Waqi’ah 56:10-11

(6)   Was it possible to ask that - what is the correct etiquette if asking the Messenger to make du’a you are from them – is there even an etiquette; is there a precedent for this – what if it’s a stupid question – what if it’s technically sort of cheating – what if he (s) says no – does that imply I won’t be from them at all, or just not them them – what if he (s) says yes – will I become lazy and not do anything else ever – can it be undone if he (s) says yes – should I put my hand up or stand up – should I say “Err, sorry to interrupt, but..” or wait for a natural break in the spee – Oh look, cool-name-guy beat you to it.

(7)  Here is how you get to it: http://www.cambridgeislamiccollege.org/course/diploma-in-advanced-quranic-and-tafsir-studies-surah-baqarah/ 

(8)  Today I was reading an explanation of Ezekiel 3:3 - And he said unto me, Son of man, cause thy belly to eat, and fill thy bowels with this roll that I give thee. Then did I eat it; and it was in my mouth as honey for sweetness  to mean “admit this revelation into thine understanding, take it, take the meaning of it, understand it aright, admit it into thy heart, apply it, and be affected with it; imprint it in thy mind, ruminate and chew the cud upon it; take it as it is entire, and make no difficulty of it, nay take a pleasure in it as thou dost in thy meat, and let thy soul be nourished and strengthened by it; let it be meat and drink to thee, and as thy necessary food; be full of it, as thou art of the meat thou hast eaten.” That's pretty cool. 

Ezekiel 3

(9)  Note to self: remember to write up why sh. A says saying bi idhnillah would be a travesty of Arabic language

(10) I will write muslim with a small m as opposed to a capital letter M to differentiate between the person in the state of submission to God, from the identity of being a follower of a particular religion or having some association with, or affinity to a particular culture. This is something sh. A mentions often and is very relevant to this surah - it will likely come up somewhere at a later date when I will address it in more detail then insha Allah. 

(11) “Pain insists upon being attended to. God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pain: it is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.” (The Problem of Pain, C.S. Lewis)
--------