Deen vs Mazhaab

[Major]

Deen vs Mazhaab


This is a topic i am studying now a days, but still have some confusion with regards to it even from the books. I feel like there are some contradictions in this topic thus anyone that has knowledge in this could plz clear it up for me.

From my basic understanding,

Deen means Code of life
Mazhaab means Religion

Now, Islam is not consider a religion, but it is considered as Deen. It is a way of life. In the Quran and Hadith, the word Mazhaab (religion) hasn't been used but the word Deen has been used.

Mazhaab is part of Deen. Thus, it comes under Deen.

Now my confusion occurs at two places,

Whenever you read an Islamic studies book, any chapter you read, supporting verses from the Quran would be used. Now whenever I have read this chapter on Deen, the English translation of the verses that are use mentions the word "religion" and not "deen".

The translation of verses of Surah Al Maida
”Today I have perfected your religion for you and have completed My favour upon you and I have chosen Islam for you as a religion….”

Second area where I am confused at is when Christianity, Judaism and other religions are just considered as religions and not as Deen. The argument for that is the message that God had sent had changed by its people. Thus, does that mean the jewish way of life or christian way of life arn't Deen anymore?

If Islam is not a religion and only Deen (Code of life). Than what other code of lifes exists against which we could compare Islam?

Do Communism, Capitalism and Socialism fall under the umbrella of code of life that we can do a comparison of it with the Islamic way of life?

If someone could help dumb it down for me, I would really appreciate it.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

I am no religious expert, however this is my understanding:

Deen and Mazhab is the same thing. Islam is a religion, and like all religions Islam teaches what we can do and what we cannot do. And their are many different interpretations and schools of thoughts on the values of Islam. What should still apply today, what was only valid for a certain period of time, etc.

One of the best scholars in my opinion on Islam was Sir Syed. He taught us subcontinent Muslims to look at Islam through a modern, liberal and rational lens. Told us that Science and religion do not conflict with each other. And Islam does not have to be practiced the same way it was in the 7th century, but instead we can reinterpret Islamic scriptures using the values of the present day

For example the traditional view in Islam is that a Muslim man can marry 4 times. A more modern interpretation to that could be in the old days men would die in war, so that was ok. However in the modern times this that does not really apply anymore, so need for polygamy.

Islam says Muslim women can only marry a Muslim man. However in the old days women either have to convert to her husbands religion, and even if she did not her children would almost certainly be raised in the fathers religion. A more modern interpretation can be that women today who can financially support themselves, don't need to depend on a man, and live in a land where their rights to their children are secure, can marry a non Muslim man. In this marriage if she can raise her children as Muslims the its irrelevant that the father was non Muslim

Islam says interest is not allowed. A modern view is that only applies to usury, and interest taking in to account the time value of money, and the risk associated with lending should be allowed.

 

[Justcrazy]

Deen and Mazhab are used as interchangeable words in common parlance , but in Islam the difference liek sky and earth. Mazhab basically means fiqh in Islam or Jurisprudence , where as Deen means complete code of life from birth to grave.

During the Khulafa E Rasheed we could see deen in administration , where shariah law was imposed completely , even on the Khalifas themselves. After which as soon as Khilafat E Rashda ended with Imam Hassan , we could see the kingship coming. During that time also people were Muslims , prayed , fasted and did hajj etc , but they lacked the spirit. The state and Religion were separated.

If you look into the Quran it always uses the word Deen. The problem with English translation is that you are reading the words of the translator , not the Creator. The Quran is a linguistic miracle only in Arabic not when translated.
English also is not that eloquent language that can grasp the entire fabric of Arabic.

Jewish way and Christian way was off course Deen for them in those times in those places. Now , those books have been abrogated , their laws are no longer applicable , they have been replaced by Quranic laws , its an upgrade which was required.

Right now all major religions like Christianity or Hinduism etc do have their scriptures and jurisprudence , but the issue is that they do not want to implement them.

Communism , socialism etc are not codes in that sense because they are man made philosophies , they do not have religious affiliations , they are basically atheist as far as their outlook is concerned.

 

[Justcrazy]

I am no religious expert, however this is my understanding:

Deen and Mazhab is the same thing. Islam is a religion, and like all religions Islam teaches what we can do and what we cannot do. And their are many different interpretations and schools of thoughts on the values of Islam. What should still apply today, what was only valid for a certain period of time, etc.

One of the best scholars in my opinion on Islam was Sir Syed. He taught us subcontinent Muslims to look at Islam through a modern, liberal and rational lens. Told us that Science and religion do not conflict with each other. And Islam does not have to be practiced the same way it was in the 7th century, but instead we can reinterpret Islamic scriptures using the values of the present day

For example the traditional view in Islam is that a Muslim man can marry 4 times. A more modern interpretation to that could be in the old days men would die in war, so that was ok. However in the modern times this that does not really apply anymore, so need for polygamy.

Islam says Muslim women can only marry a Muslim man. However in the old days women either have to convert to her husbands religion, and even if she did not her children would almost certainly be raised in the fathers religion. A more modern interpretation can be that women today who can financially support themselves, don't need to depend on a man, and live in a land where their rights to their children are secure, can marry a non Muslim man. In this marriage if she can raise her children as Muslims the its irrelevant that the father was non Muslim

Islam says interest is not allowed. A modern view is that only applies to usury, and interest taking in to account the time value of money, and the risk associated with lending should be allowed.

There are major flaws in your answer , but I would like to know something before proceeding
I would like to know what were Syed Ahmed Khan opinion about Jinns , angels , and prophets ?

 

[Major]

Deen and Mazhab are used as interchangeable words in common parlance , but in Islam the difference liek sky and earth. Mazhab basically means fiqh in Islam or Jurisprudence , where as Deen means complete code of life from birth to grave.

During the Khulafa E Rasheed we could see deen in administration , where shariah law was imposed completely , even on the Khalifas themselves. After which as soon as Khilafat E Rashda ended with Imam Hassan , we could see the kingship coming. During that time also people were Muslims , prayed , fasted and did hajj etc , but they lacked the spirit. The state and Religion were separated.

If you look into the Quran it always uses the word Deen. The problem with English translation is that you are reading the words of the translator , not the Creator. The Quran is a linguistic miracle only in Arabic not when translated.
English also is not that eloquent language that can grasp the entire fabric of Arabic.

Jewish way and Christian way was off course Deen for them in those times in those places. Now , those books have been abrogated , their laws are no longer applicable , they have been replaced by Quranic laws , its an upgrade which was required.

Right now all major religions like Christianity or Hinduism etc do have their scriptures and jurisprudence , but the issue is that they do not want to implement them.

Communism , socialism etc are not codes in that sense because they are man made philosophies , they do not have religious affiliations , they are basically atheist as far as their outlook is concerned.

Thank you for answering,

So deen is basically a way of life? The islamic way of life right?
I understand that deen also has the criteria of Allah being soverign and deen comes from divine.

But lets keep the above point aside and talk about way of life. If deen is a way of life only,
Than communism, capitalism, socialism, would they also be considered as a way of life?

I am asking this question so that i could understand the conept through comparison.

As in communism where state owns everyrhing the way of life changes, amd so does in capitalism

 

[Itachi]

I think the context in what it is used will carry the specific meaning.

E.g. "mazhab ke naam pe gunda gardi galat hain"

In this context, the word clearly refers to religion.

I won't comment on religious aspect as it is out of my knowledge area. But if Muslims themselves refer to as mazhab, it should point to the way of life.

What scripture refers to should be different.

 

[ARK Rafay]

Thank you for answering,

So deen is basically a way of life? The islamic way of life right?
I understand that deen also has the criteria of Allah being soverign and deen comes from divine.

But lets keep the above point aside and talk about way of life. If deen is a way of life only,
Than communism, capitalism, socialism, would they also be considered as a way of life?

I am asking this question so that i could understand the conept through comparison.

As in communism where state owns everyrhing the way of life changes, amd so does in capitalism

Yes. Deen is the way of life. It's a complete system. It includes mazhab, economic, social and political system.

All these isms are political philosophies. Some have a system for social, economic and political way of doing thing. You could maybe say it can be considered a way of life but none of the isms are as inclusive in terms of social, economic, political, philosophical, individual and societal law, justice, etc as our Deen.

 

[KB]

From my basic understanding,

Deen means Code of life
Mazhaab means Religion

Now, Islam is not consider a religion, but it is considered as Deen. It is a way of life. In the Quran and Hadith, the word Mazhaab (religion) hasn't been used but the word Deen has been used.

Mazhaab is part of Deen. Thus, it comes under Deen.

Now my confusion occurs at two places,

Whenever you read an Islamic studies book, any chapter you read, supporting verses from the Quran would be used. Now whenever I have read this chapter on Deen, the English translation of the verses that are use mentions the word "religion" and not "deen".

The translation of verses of Surah Al Maida
”Today I have perfected your religion for you and have completed My favour upon you and I have chosen Islam for you as a religion….”

As stated here and as recognised widely amongst Muslims, din denotes something more extensive and more ambiguous than the term religion implies. In Montgomery Watt’s words, din, “in Arabic commonly refers to a whole way of life … which permeates the whole fabric of society in a way of which men [and women!] are conscious. It is—all in one—theological dogma, forms of worship, political theory, and a detailed code of conduct, including even matters which the European would classify as hygiene or etiquette.”

Yet, even as this is widely acknowledged, as correctly stated above often din is nevertheless simply translated as religion. The example given above of the common translation of Surah Al-Ma’idah, is a good one in making this point. Why should this be?

We might turn to the late Shahab Ahmed, in his long and dense, but also remarkable and arresting book, What is Islam? The Importance of being Islamic. Ahmed argued, amongst much else, that there is a tendency to interpret Islam by deploying Western concepts of what religion is: “In seeking to pick out certain phenomena as religion and in seeking to render those phenomena mutually translatable, we end up imposing the language and criteria constitutive of a single phenomenon and historical experience—namely, Christianity and its quarantining by the category of “religion” in the post-Enlightenment West—on all other phenomena.”

For Ahmed much flows from the narrowing down of din when misinterpreted as religion in terms of the Western construct. It leads to a privileging of a normative text-based core as the supposed orthodoxy. It thereby, for Ahmed, wrongly relegates expressions of poetry, philosophy, visual arts etc. to mere aspects of ‘culture’ or something belonging to a ‘secular’ sphere, even if they were “Islamically meaningful,” or that they in some way conveyed and embodied Islam to Muslims of the time.

 

[Major]

Yes. Deen is the way of life. It's a complete system. It includes mazhab, economic, social and political system.

All these isms are political philosophies. Some have a system for social, economic and political way of doing thing. You could maybe say it can be considered a way of life but none of the isms are as inclusive in terms of social, economic, political, philosophical, individual and societal law, justice, etc as our Deen.

Thanks for replying.

But why are isms negated? Yes they are human made, but they have research behind them before they were theorized.

If we look at socialism it closely resembles the islamic way of life doesnt it?

Often the political and economical systems do end up resembling Hazrat Umar's way of governance, and muslims often take credit for it that the system followed is Umar's. But the western economies that adopted such systems only do so based on the research of human philosophies

Yes at the end they come to the conclusion of the Divine system somewhat, onoy difference is the source

 

[Major]

As stated here and as recognised widely amongst Muslims, din denotes something more extensive and more ambiguous than the term religion implies. In Montgomery Watt’s words, din, “in Arabic commonly refers to a whole way of life … which permeates the whole fabric of society in a way of which men [and women!] are conscious. It is—all in one—theological dogma, forms of worship, political theory, and a detailed code of conduct, including even matters which the European would classify as hygiene or etiquette.”

Yet, even as this is widely acknowledged, as correctly stated above often din is nevertheless simply translated as religion. The example given above of the common translation of Surah Al-Ma’idah, is a good one in making this point. Why should this be?

We might turn to the late Shahab Ahmed, in his long and dense, but also remarkable and arresting book, What is Islam? The Importance of being Islamic. Ahmed argued, amongst much else, that there is a tendency to interpret Islam by deploying Western concepts of what religion is: “In seeking to pick out certain phenomena as religion and in seeking to render those phenomena mutually translatable, we end up imposing the language and criteria constitutive of a single phenomenon and historical experience—namely, Christianity and its quarantining by the category of “religion” in the post-Enlightenment West—on all other phenomena.”

For Ahmed much flows from the narrowing down of din when misinterpreted as religion in terms of the Western construct. It leads to a privileging of a normative text-based core as the supposed orthodoxy. It thereby, for Ahmed, wrongly relegates expressions of poetry, philosophy, visual arts etc. to mere aspects of ‘culture’ or something belonging to a ‘secular’ sphere, even if they were “Islamically meaningful,” or that they in some way conveyed and embodied Islam to Muslims of the time.

Thank you @kb for your reply. I understood the first part of my question but what about the second part.

Do the concept of capitalism, socialism, communism also fall in the catergory of way of life? And could these way of life be used as a comparison with Islamic way of life?

I understand that one is divine and the other is human made, but for comparison sake can thry be done?

 

[Justcrazy]

Thank you for answering,

So deen is basically a way of life? The islamic way of life right?
I understand that deen also has the criteria of Allah being soverign and deen comes from divine.

But lets keep the above point aside and talk about way of life. If deen is a way of life only,
Than communism, capitalism, socialism, would they also be considered as a way of life?

I am asking this question so that i could understand the conept through comparison.

As in communism where state owns everyrhing the way of life changes, amd so does in capitalism

Yes Deen is a complete way of life , there is NO separation of state and religion. Religion dictates all the laws , whether it is individuals or society as a whole.

Yes they can be considered as way of life , from secular point of view. In the above answer I thought you were asking Islamic point of view.

 

[Gharib Aadmi]

There are major flaws in your answer , but I would like to know something before proceeding
I would like to know what were Syed Ahmed Khan opinion about Jinns , angels , and prophets ?

He tried to give a rational approach to angels, demons, and jinns. He did not deny that they could exist, however he suggested it was also possible that they do not exist, and human tendencies both good and bad could be the real meaning of angels, demons, and jinns. As far as prophets he said they were the messengers of god, however its possible that the miracles attributed to them were simply allegories.

I am not saying he is right or that he was wrong. However no one has a monopoly on Islam, and the religion can have multiple opinions.

 

[ARK Rafay]

Thanks for replying.

But why are isms negated? Yes they are human made, but they have research behind them before they were theorized.

If we look at socialism it closely resembles the islamic way of life doesnt it?

Often the political and economical systems do end up resembling Hazrat Umar's way of governance, and muslims often take credit for it that the system followed is Umar's. But the western economies that adopted such systems only do so based on the research of human philosophies

Yes at the end they come to the conclusion of the Divine system somewhat, onoy difference is the source

Because one is man made and another is God made.

You mention how socialism resembles to Islamic way of life. You would know when all the Islamic laws were in place during the time of Prophet PBUH and Khalifas the people in general were living a good decent lives under the Islamic Laws. Concept of Zakat was introduced as well.

At the end the question is why should a Muslim think a certain political philosophy is superior than our Deen's?

 

[Justcrazy]

He tried to give a rational approach to angels, demons, and jinns. He did not deny that they could exist, however he suggested it was also possible that they do not exist, and human tendencies both good and bad could be the real meaning of angels, demons, and jinns. As far as prophets he said they were the messengers of god, however its possible that the miracles attributed to them were simply allegories.

I am not saying he is right or that he was wrong. However no one has a monopoly on Islam, and the religion can have multiple opinions.

Honestly I do not know where exactly to start from , because the blunders of Syed Ahmed Khan are far too many.

Denying ayats of the Quran is kufr and Syed Ahmed Khan did that. The things that he denied were Quranic ayats which were backed by authentic hadith and entire generations of Muslim scholarship. The evidence is overwhelming.

He categorically said there are NO angels , No Devil , NO punishment in grave , there is No physical resurrection , no heaven , no jinn ,

All this he wrote in his books like Tahdib al akhlaq , Nur al Afaq .

Now if you have read the quran even superficially will know that an ignorant person can claim such things. What he said may be his own religion but no where near Islam at all. Any Muslim who even has limited knowledge would easily refute this mad person.

Opinions are on matters which are not present in Quran and Hadeeth. We cannot have an opinion on whether there is one God or 10 Gods.

This is the reality of Mr Syed Ahmed Khan.

Now in the above post you made comment that since many people died in earlier days so polygamy was ok but now it is not.
Polygamy was optional that time also as well as now.

Polygamy is required for the society to function properly. Quran is NOT a time bound revelation , because Muhammad SAW is final messenger and no more new prophets can come after him.

 

[Major]

Yes Deen is a complete way of life , there is NO separation of state and religion. Religion dictates all the laws , whether it is individuals or society as a whole.

Yes they can be considered as way of life , from secular point of view. In the above answer I thought you were asking Islamic point of view.

Thank you bro, your replies have made the concept easier for me to understanding. Thanks for the reply.

He tried to give a rational approach to angels, demons, and jinns. He did not deny that they could exist, however he suggested it was also possible that they do not exist, and human tendencies both good and bad could be the real meaning of angels, demons, and jinns. As far as prophets he said they were the messengers of god, however its possible that the miracles attributed to them were simply allegories.

I am not saying he is right or that he was wrong. However no one has a monopoly on Islam, and the religion can have multiple opinions.

Sir Syed Ahmad Khan had a very rational approach to religion and to which many of us can agree with. However, people who dislike him would never agree to his views

Because one is man made and another is God made.

You mention how socialism resembles to Islamic way of life. You would know when all the Islamic laws were in place during the time of Prophet PBUH and Khalifas the people in general were living a good decent lives under the Islamic Laws. Concept of Zakat was introduced as well.

At the end the question is why should a Muslim think a certain political philosophy is superior than our Deen's?

the answer is that is simple. Deen's system is yet to be proven by implementation. There isnt enough research on it.

Plus, there is no research on islamic economics and not even theories. To bring in a system you need to have research on it with subjects. Which is why deen hasn't been implemented yet.


Even socialism came into existence like this. Muslims like to take credit for it but this man made system came in through research and implementation.

 

[Justcrazy]

[MENTION=135038]Major[/MENTION]

Brother, Syed Ahmed Khan denying angels and devil and punishment in the grave, etc is disastrous. His problem was that things which he could not explain, he denied them, somewhat like Ghulam Ahmed Parvez.

But Ghulam Ahmed Parvez did not deny the Quranic ayahs.

I simply do not know how can anyone defend all the views of Syed Ahmed Khan. I as a Muslim can only hope that he repented to Allah swt before he died.

 

[KB]

Thank you @kb for your reply. I understood the first part of my question but what about the second part.

Do the concept of capitalism, socialism, communism also fall in the catergory of way of life? And could these way of life be used as a comparison with Islamic way of life?

I understand that one is divine and the other is human made, but for comparison sake can thry be done?

We can of course make comparisons, as long as we remember that the point of comparisons is not only to consider similarities but also to understand differences.

We should also keep in mind that trying to understand something, not on its own terms but in relation to something else, carries some risk of slippage. What I have in mind, here, is that the idea of an ‘Islamic way of life’ - ambiguous, dynamic, subject to human agency and containing diverse interpretations - becomes transformed into an ossified and impersonal ‘system’ when attempting to compare it to communism/socialism/capitalism.

The idea of Islam as a system - a complete, comprehensive and largely knowable code for Muslims - was of course one that Maulana Mawdudi in particular did much to advance in the twentieth century. For Maududi the achievement of political power was essential to the proper working of the ‘system’. But as Rumi once wrote: There are many paths to the Ka’ba. There are others for whom Islam is not a system but a message from God to humanity. And for many the purpose was not the achievement of political power but the fashioning of the individual hearts of believers.