Muslims: Just Because Something Is More Difficult Doesn’t Make It More ‘True’


By Suede Nikita

Here is a video of a poor guy who is about to get a hard time. Why? because he has made the serious error of trying to make Muslims lives easier this Ramadhan (in the UK at least) by explaining the authentic Hanafi position on when the fast of Ramadhan begins – namely that in the absence of twilight disappearing completely, one can eat until sunrise and pray the dawn prayer whenever one feels like it, even directly after sunset:

Now our non-Muslim readers will almost certainly be perplexed: why would Muslims be irate at someone for actually making things easier for them? Surely such a person would be welcomed, especially as the long fasts in summer can be very difficult.

But that isn’t how it works in Islam anymore. Due to the malign and prevalent influence of puritanical groups in the Muslim community (and if they aren’t secularists or modernists, nearly all of them are puritanical – Deobandis, some Brelwis, Salafis, even many Sufis, Shia…), almost every Muslim cannot shake the feeling that if something is ‘difficult’, it is more worthy and more Islamically correct. Religion should be challenging and hard they feel, otherwise what is the point?

And all of the forbidden things are ‘easy’ aren’t they, like getting drunk on Friday night or ‘free sex’ or not giving charity, thus by analogy, religion must be difficult.

Quite apart from the fact that anyone who has gone out ‘clubbing it large’ and woken up with a pool of their own vomit and matching hangover will hardly ever say that it is the ‘easy’ life, Muslims have in fact agreed with a very good definition of puritanism – namely, the suspicion of ease or pleasant sensations.

So when someone like the above erstwhile interlocutor for traditional Islam presents a classical and authentic opinion that seems ‘too easy’, he will find many willing executioners accusing him of heterodoxy, heresy and modernism.

If one is honest, this approach is often taken by Muslims to an extreme; for example, when ISIS fighters from the UK recently released a ‘recruitment’ video chastising British Muslims for preferring the ‘easy life’ and not joining the ‘jihad’ in Iraq (jihad here means extended rape and murder vacation in Iraq and Syria with access to ‘light skinned sisters’, a favourite of the sexually disempowered males who join these causes and not the Quranic jihad…you know, just to clarify):

Basically, having an easy life and not killing people to set up (your version) of an ‘Islamic state’ sucks and you are all guilty for having an easy time while those guys are living the ‘real Islam’, which means living in a ditch and blowing stuff up with occasional rape to ‘let off some steam’.

In fact the root cause of this worldview is again the puritanical mindset that looks towards ease with suspicion – the niqaab for example MUST be more Islamic because it leads to more difficulty and is more challenging. Thus the guy above must be wrong because he is in fact making the fast of Ramadhan shorter. His proofs are of no consequence – what matters to most is that it is just ‘too easy’. Likewise, people who argue that the beard for men is optional only (the strongest position in any of the schools), has to face a barrage of criticism for pandering to the ‘kufaar’ and modernism. Even most scholars who know the truth hanker down and tow the puritan line for fear of appearing ‘too liberal’.

So Islam is no longer defined by the truth but rather by opposing non-Muslims (even if they are right) and harshness and difficulty (even if they are not necessary).

Of course, as per Salafis and other groups characteristic misuse of the texts, hadith are cherry picked which seem to encourage the harshest opinions and the greatest difficulties and countervailing narrations ignored, declared ‘weak’ or explained away. The lay Muslims have no chance to get at the real Islam. If you can’t even tell the truth about fasting times for fear of being labelled a modernist (or worse), what hope have you of presenting the real position on Apostasy (death not mandated), adultery (ditto) or music (just like books – some good some bad, you can’t ban all because some are problematic)?

Another strategy is to discourage reading of the Quran and to label anyone who uses it as a proof as a ‘hadith rejecter’ or a ‘Quranist’ (as if being a ‘Quranist’ and following the Divine Writ could ever be an insult in Sunni Islam). This misuse of hadith and scholars opinions has already been extensively covered elsewhere on this site so there is no need to go into it here:

Likewise, Sufism is misused to encourage an extreme renounciation of the world and in a tangential manner to thereby justify harshness. The example of Imam Al Ghazzali is often used – for example how he left his family for ten years (the fact that it may have been only two or three years is never mentioned) and how he abandoned his fame and fortune. There are numerous ‘Sufi’ stories like this but they all have the same ‘message’ and are deployed for the same effect – religion is hard. In fact, all of the great Sufi masters came back to the world after a period of denial and isolation, including Al Ghazzali. These harsh, aesthetic exercises are like a medicine – it is used to correct a disease of the heart but afterwards, people go back to their normal life. Like some medicines, it is strong or even poision and is to be taken in small doses and only when needed. But like the over prescription of antibiotics nowadays, Muslims seem to recommend continual difficulty, mortification with all round misery and abstinence all of the time. Likewise, the opinions of certain Shafis who renounce good clothes and good food are taken over the opinion of Abu Hanifa or Malik (both of whom were known for their sartorial elegance and wealth).

The life of the Prophet (SAW) should be sufficient to correct these distortions but sadly people neglect to notice his vibrant social life, attention to dress, including fine clothes, impeccable male grooming as well as patronage and enjoyment of the arts of his time. He even enjoyed good food, but all we here today is about how limited his diet was and how there was no food in his house: the situation in extremis is made to appear to be the norm by people such as this closeted Salafist:

This individual is calling towards the ‘Sunnah’ of the Prophet by making a time of extreme financial difficulty and in fact virtual famine appear to be the day to day life or even preference of the Prophet and early Muslims. Yet it is well known that the Prophet enjoyed and asked for his favourite foods (the shoulder meet of the sheep for example) and had expensive clothes gifted to him. People try to confuse the magnanimous generosity of the Prophet (who used to essentially give everything away to anyone who asked for it or needed it) with total anhedonia.

In fact, the ideological ancestors of these puritanical Salafis and Debandis etc existed in the time of the Prophet as well;

Anas  may  Allaah  be  pleased  with  him reported that: “Three men came to the houses of the wives of the Prophet  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allaah exalt his mention ) and asked how his worship was. When they were informed, they considered their own worship to be insignificant and said: ‘Where are we in comparison to the Prophet  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allaah exalt his mention ) when Allaah has forgiven his past and future sins?’ One of them said: ‘As for me, I shall offer prayer all night long.’ Another said: ‘I shall observe fasting perpetually, never to break it.’ Another said: ‘I shall abstain from women and will never marry.’ The Prophet  sallallaahu  `alayhi  wa  sallam ( may  Allaah exalt his mention ) then came to them and said; ”Are you the people who said such things? I swear By Allaah that I fear Allaah more than you do, and I am most obedient and dutiful among you to Him, but still, I observe fasting (sometimes) and break it (at others); I perform prayer (at night sometimes) and sleep at night (at others); I also marry. So whoever turns away from my Sunnah (i.e., my way) is not from me.”

[Bukhari & Muslim]

This version is a bit problematic and the translation is possibly a bit strange too. In fact, although this story is well known and often stated, it does not have much effect as it is not explained properly – the men were actually talking behind the Prophet to his wives and possibly even complaining that he could not be ‘all that’ and they could thus excel him in worship – a far more serious issue than the usual teaching of this narration leads us to believe, namely that these people were merely slightly ‘over eager’ – in fact it may be that they were challenging the Prophet for being ‘soft’ or even being sarcastic when they said his past and future sins are forgiven. We need a commentary from the doctors of creed.

In fact the following narration makes it clear that the situation with puritanism worsened even beyond the above in the Prophet’s own lifetime:

A’isha narrates that the Prophet prepared some food and invited the people {but some refused to come as they considered the banquet too luxurious]. The Prophet. (SAW) made a khutbah (sermon), praised God and said; ‘What is the matter with people that they keep away from my invitation? I am the most knowledgeable and fearful of God amongst you’.

[Bukhari and Muslim]

Sadly, when puritanism afflicts a community to the extent that it has in the Muslim case, it rarely leaves through the practice of common sense, which of course is anything but common. In most cases puritanism starts to obstruct the people basic needs of the common people, for example, for a partner, a job and leisure (as indeed is now happening with ‘practising’ Muslims). Most of the affected justify it as a ‘test’ from God (‘I don’t have a wife/husband not because it was dumb to segregate myself from the opposite sex entirely but because God is testing me’ – i.e God always has to underwrite and get the blame from the harms caused by puritanism) but the younger generations who grow up watching this, especially when there are other ‘options’ on the table (as in most societies) will think: ‘There’s no way I am going through that’, and thus puritanism invokes it’s opposite – which in the case of the Muslim community won’t just be licentiousness or hedonism but Godlessness.

So if you want to limit and ignore the real message of the Quran and make it fit in with your puritanical leanings, culture, sexual paranoia, diet or whatever, then get ready for the ‘Age of Apostasy’ Muslim boys and girls!

You see, this Sheikh Sulaiman guy in the video above seems to know a lot about classical Islamic jurisprudence. I’ll give him that.

But when he gets the inevitable backlash for giving an ‘easy’ fatwa, he’ll realise he doesn’t know much about psychology…


33 thoughts on “Muslims: Just Because Something Is More Difficult Doesn’t Make It More ‘True’

  1. When they started they are blind. Many centuries ago they plotted on how to crush islam. They sent one person to Egypt to store the secret of the muslims. The person returned with a copy of the Quran. The person stated that as long as the muslims read and practice the injunction in the Quran they will be powerful. Therefore they deliberated on how to tactically make the Quran insignificant and unimportant. The ultimate program should make the muslims occupied so that they have little or no time for the Quran. The other programs include secular education, salafism and music, SECULAR EDUCATION, SALAFISM AND MUSIC!!!. As result of this today many muslims lost their islam while others claim to be muslims but they have lost the credence of islam. And all in the name of secular education!

    Secular education is evil and leads to apostasy.

    • Oh, and numb nuts, what verse says that the one who does not rule by ‘shariah’ is kaafir. You conveniently ‘forgot’ to mention it.

      While you are at it and if you have time before going to join your equally mental boyfriends in ISIS, do tell us about the Quranic usage of the word ‘shariah’ so that we can all benefit from your huge ‘knowledge’.

      Oh, and I hope you get captured by Shia militias!

    • Do you have any textual proof that adulterers must be killed? Or is it just emotional?

      I hate bad drivers and Miley Cyrus – but I don’t try and make a religious death penalty for them based on that.

      Killing in Islam is not based in ‘hadith is Sahih’ but on CERTAINTY. Certainty is with Muttawatir i.e Quran and few hadith. Hadith if stoning adulterers are mashoor only and also likely old Torah law abrogated by verse of lashing.

      Likewise, no ijma. Abu Zahra, Samarkandi and many Hanafis disagree. Including Abu Hanifa himself.

      So cut the emotional stuff Hyde!

      Also, why is the punishment for adultery more painful and protracted (stoning) than murder (beheading)? When murder is worse in Qur’an? Can you explain?

      According to Ibn Abbas there was no stoning verse in Qur’an – he says it was in Torah. And if you don’t agree and accept hadith saying goat ate it from under AA’ishs pillow, then it means Qur’an is incomplete as hadith says verse is lost, not abrogated. There is no proof that those verses were abrogated, no narration either. It is just a conjecture.

      So choose: if you want to stone adulterers you have to deny Qur’an authenticity or completeness.

      Don’t take my word for it, investigate properly.

      • (Emotional. Really would solve half the problems).
        I’m no scholar, just a lay, so sure I’ll take your word for it. You can be my witness for the Grand Finale.
        But I will say this, you can be a stickler for scriptural regulations but your avant garde critiquing will summon the next generation to end up going after the Nabi (R) and the Quran itself (yeah, yeah it should stand up for it..) Mark my words for that.
        We all will play a role in the Grand Apostasy of the 21st Century.For now though, Ramadan Mubarak:)

      • I agree. I don’t think the case for stoning people to death is strong enough to be ‘normative’ as some Muslims disingenuously suggest.

        This article is great, it beautifully articulates the mindset of some puritans so much better then I ever could

    • What is secularism according to you exactly Hyde? Is Muawiyah secularist for setting up Kingdom instead of Khilafa?

      How about Umar for suspending lashing?

  2. No hanafi scholar ever said what you say. It is a trend nowadays to claim that hanafi madhhab claims this and that without a proof. And all of this in the name of secular education. I know that you as a secularist are not able to accept stoning since it is barbaric but it is in the Bible. Do you want to say God was unjust in the Bible? The verse about the kufr of the one who does not rule by the shariah was revealed because the jews refused to stone the adulterer. You are indeed the hipocrites and jews of our times.

    • The Hanafi scholars were named. Yet as usual, you gave no references.

      You have no idea what the Injeel or Torah says unless you possess the original copies of these books or believe the current Bible to be verbatim true, in which case you are Christian.

      Oh, and you were banned ages ago. Stop posting under different names.

  3. Hyde The Fist of the North Star: think about it – did not stoning adulterers lead to apostasy when the EARLIEST Hanafi Imams do it?

    What is more likely to lead to apostasy: introduction of contradictions into Quran (murder is worse but punishment of adultery is more) and saying bits were lost from the Quran or not stoning adulterers?

    Why can’t you people actually read Nikitas point: the proof of something being bad in Islam is NOT the harshness of the punishment attached to it but God’s moral approbium. Shirk is the WORST sin but NO PUNISHMENT. Get it?

    And do you think the 100 lashes the Quran stipulates for adultery is insufficient and will cause people to apostate?

    How does following the Quran lead to doubting it or questioning the Prophet? What the hell dude?

    The problem is that having accepted that the Salafi style Islam us the ‘real’ Islam, when the normal position of Islam is presented, as Nikita so eloquently did, people take it to be ‘weak’ and “modern’.

    So they properly did a number on you: you can’t refute their harsh opinions because you have been made to normalise them.

    There will indeed be an Age of Apostasy, but it’s heralds are not us but those who insist on nonsensical arguments that support killing based on ‘lost ayats’.

    Come on, think about it Hyde, why is the only deterrent killing when it comes to adultery or anything else?

    In essence you guys are aping Christians: ‘the wages of sin is death’.

    Why can’t the wages of sin be lashing?

    Or just ‘sin’?

    • I am a ape now ?
      As I said I before, I am no scholar but was not lashing a symbol of embarrassment, how many are actually embarrassed by zina?
      and again emotionally speaking curbing degenerative sexual lifestyles would solve social problems , no ?

      • Once again: no one is saying adultery is good. Killing people by stoning them to death based on ahad hadiths or even mashoor ones IS NOT THE ONLY WAY TO SHOW MORAL DISAPPROVAL, agreed?!

        Shirk = worse than adultery. No need to kill anyone to show we are against it.

        Who called toy an ape Hyde, what are got on about now?

      • I don’t know what mashoor means…okay if not killing would a wipe suffice ? And for the record how many people have been actually killed by stoning anyway ? Isn’t adultery nearly impossible to prove ?

    • We will open a blog with the name “Apostates:Assemble”. If I and Hyde are not welcomed here we will go and respond to you from there.

      • But that would mean that you are an apostate. Since ‘Asharis Assemble’ is an assemblage of Asharis…

        Wow, you’re so takfiri that you takfired yourself! And poor Hyde!

        Oh, and you are banned! Months ago!

        But if you keep posting dumb stuff that makes people laugh at you like this, I’ll allow it!

  4. Do you notice Hyde that when ‘other groups’ from Shia to Deobandis to Brelwis just happen to give THE EXACT SAME FATWAS as Salafis, no one says ‘they must be compromising with Wahhabis’.

    But if anyone comes up with an opinion which is not ‘harsh’ enough or different to start Salafists have been spamming through their publishing houses, tv channels, scholarships etc, they are instantly suspected of being ‘modernists’, even if the opinion goes back to earliest Salaf and classical Imams or has rock solid logic?

    Two options dude: we are modernists (and so is Abu Hanifa etc) OR lot’s of people who think they are not Salafis are in fact taking their Islam from them.

    Free to choose!

    • And sorry to go on about this, but what is this crap out of ‘I’m not a scholar’?

      Do you think something as important as THE DEATH PENALTY should be left to scholars alone? Are we Catholic now?!

      I know you don’t mean that Hyde! Come off it!

      If life and death can be ‘left to the scholars’ then why believe in anything yourself? No such thing as individual religion. Each group (Jews, Christians, Hindus) should just leave religion to their respective scholars. And atheists can leave it to the scientists!


      • Relax. Breathe. I mean’t Islamic scholar, i.e. not going to delve into critiquing and scrutiny.
        Sure you don’t need scholarly opinion for the Death Penalty; hell I am 100% for it. If capital punishment became more normative, I bet crime would go down…well maybe not in America. Besides the Death Penalty is humane.

    • I’d probably go with the latter. Because of the black piss, the Nejdis have had an overwhelming influence on the Muslim world especially in the last 60 years.

  5. The verse says instead of sharia “that what God revealed”. It comes to the same. But that was not my point. In the explanation of this verse there is clear proof that stoning was in the Torah. We do not have the reliable Torah today but our tradition confirms that stoning was commanded there.
    The argument that God could never command such a cruel punishment does not work since he commanded it at least at one point of time. Whether He abrogated it later or not does not matter for that argumentation which bases on secular morality.

    MMMCLRU claims that stoning for adultery but no punishment for idolworship would not be just. When we assume that there was no punishment for idolworsjip or let us say blasphemy the law would not be just for your secular standards likewise. For example idolworship and blasphemy are also worse than fornication or consuming alcohol for which there are corporal punishments. The other point is that you base this on a false premise anyway. Who said that there is no punishment for idolworship? You say it but it is apostasy to claim that there is no punishment for apostasy as we have seen.

    You named three hanafi scholars. As for Abu Hanifa we know that this is a lie without a doubt. Claiming such an odd opinion for the great Imam cannot be accepted and especially not when you just claim it without proof.
    Abu Layth As-Samarqandi was a great scholar and disciple of Imam Maturidi. He was a hanafite jurist, maturidite, scholastic, monotheist, muslim. He has a Tafsir to the Quran and a commentary on Al Fiqh Al Akbar. Do you want us to believe that this great scholar believed what you believe? In his Tafsir I have read justifications for stoning.
    You probably mean another scholar from Usbekistan whose name is Atabek Shukurov but he is At Tashkenti and not As Samarqandi. It is known that he believes what you say.
    Under Abu Zahra I only know Muhammad Abu Zahra from the last century. He was hanafite and muslim but I do not know what he said about stoning.

    There is no stoning verse in the Quran. Whoever believes that there could be one is an infidel since it is a negation of the preservation of the Quran.

    There is an ijma of the jews, the muslims and the shiites that the punishment for adultery is stoning. There is also one for apostasy. You and your shaykh go against it oh satanists.

    • 1) You are already banned for swearing, abuse and spurious takfir (including on yourself), but this is sooooooo dumb I had to publish it.

      2) You failed to give the ayat of Qur’an. At all.

      3) There is no such concept as ‘Ijma with Jews in Shariah’. Or Judaism. Or anything.

      4) Where is your proof stoning was even mandated in Torah?

      Ahad hadith again? How do you know Prophet didn’t judge Jews by their own law, even if he didn’t accept it?

      5) No references from Imam Samarkandi (there is only one) or Abu Zahra. Or Sheikh Atabek (who no one except you calls Imam anything). But since you could not even give a reference from God…

      6) Same hadith you use to prove stoning say it (verse of stoning) used to be in Qur’an and was ‘lost’. So you don’t accept some parts of the hadith but accept stoning part. Hmmmm….

      7) You said anyone who says it used to be in Qur’an is kaafir. So Iman Bukhari narrates it and says verse was eaten by a goat. So you takfired him too.

      8) You spelt my name wrong

      9) You are do dumb you broke stupidity.

      • Oh and…

        9) No references from Abu Hanifa except ‘we know this is a lie’.

        ‘We’ presumably being Robert, Julie, Mansur and the other people who live ‘inside your mind’.

  6. There are 3 types of people that can be presented with ideas.

    Layman. A basic explanation can be understand.
    Real scholar: A explanation is understood based on principles and fatawa books a given as reference.
    Fake shaykhs and students who are wasting their time: These guys have studied in a bit in some madrasah or with some institute who is wasting his time. Evidences are provided and they still don’t understand the point. They have photographs of scholars they learn from and events they attend.

    Don’t waste your time. It’s better you either don’t learn or search for the truth.

    For these guys I’ve added a photograph from Nur al Idah stating that No isha, No prayer.

    For those who have not wasted their time in these places, attending full time, part time or weekend institutes, then the evidence I provided would have been enough:


    Muhammad ibn Abi Qasim al-Baqali al-Khawarizmi issued the fatwa “The time of isha does not enter and therefore there is no isha prayer”, Shams al-Aimmah al-Hilwani al-Bulhari disagreed and said there is Isha as there is compulsion of prayer and this is not lifted due to the time. Imam Baqali responded by giving the following example: “When a person has his hand cut off, does he need to do wudhu on it? When a person has no hand, compulsion to wash that part falls” No time, compulsion to prayer isha falls”. Imam Shamsul al-Aimmah took back his fatwa and issued the fatwa according to imam Baqali. (Remember, imam Shamsul al-Aimmah was one of the top imams of that time, titled Sun of the Imams)

    This became the relied upon opinion, narrated by all hanafis, in nearly all put books (Nur al Idah, Fatwa Shaamia, Fatwa Hindiyyah etc).


    Prayer is attached to time. You cant pray tomorrow’s Maghrib pray today. Neither can you pray yesterday’s today (only qada).
    No time, No prayer.

    What about splitting the night or estimation. We have a principle that we do not apply a principle that god has not given us in Quran or sunnah (one of the many reasons why us hanafis are closest to Quran and sunnah).

    A similar example to this is wudhu, if no water then tayamum. If can’t do tayamum no other replacement from god so no prayer.

  7. Sorry for the delay. We have been busy since Friday as the caliph of ISIS showed himself on the jumah sermon and there were many questions raised about him and his rule. So we had to advice people about what to do with the situation. Many asked if they should pledge allegiance to him.

    The blog “Apostates:Assemble” will indeed be fantastic. There we will answer all of your false secularist and modernist teachings and also that of your satanic shaykh Atabaek Shukurov.

    MMMCLRU seems not to understand what I use this verse for. It is the verse 44 from Sura Al Maidah whose content is not relevent now. What I am talking about is the background to this verse, the reasons for it’s relevation. When we look into the Tafsir we will see that the jews wanted to punish an adulterer by lashing. But the Prophet knew that the punishment from the Torah is stoning and not lashing. The Prophet confirmed that the real Torah and therefore the Allmighty God mandates stoning. We can show you this confirmation from various tafsir for example that of the great muslim and not apostate like you claim Imam Abu Layth As Samarqandi.

    There are many ahadith talking about stoning. They might be ahad for themselves but together they show that the practice is “mutawatir”. But I do not have really an idea of hadith sciences so my words are not important. But we as muslims do not care for if the hadith is sahih, ahad or whatever but we look at what our jurists say and our jurist including Abu Hanifa, Samarqandi, Ibn Abidin, Sarakhsi and all others say that there is stoning for adultery. You can read this in every single legal book from the islamic schools of law under the chapter of “hudud” punishments. It is up to you to prove the contrary since we are only following the common opinion.

    • But no one has seen you bringing any opinion at all (other than your own), let alone Imam Samarkandis.

      You claim that you don’t know about hadith but the narrations about adultery are collectively ‘muttawatir’.

      Only the first statement is true.

      Something being common is not a proof in Islam.

      Once again, I have approved your comment only so people can see how stupid and weak minded you are and thus have a good laugh at you.

      • Oh, and you neglected to provide the ayat that shows how ruling by other than Shariah mandates the death penalty. Just naming a random ayat without qouting let alone showing it’s relevance is not proof. Except for Islamophobes.

        With whom you share much in common.

  8. Pingback: Reflections On Ramadhan | Asharis: Assemble

  9. Pingback: Fasting Times and Puritanism | Asharis: Assemble

  10. Pingback: How Not to Mess Up Ramadan | Asharis: Assemble

  11. Pingback: The Trouble With Muslim Reformists – Blogging Theology

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s