By Yasien Mohamed
Adapted with slight modifications from "Fitra: The Islamic Concept of Human Nature" © 1996 TA-HA Publishers Ltd.
Taken from http://www.angelfire.com/al/islamicpsychology/fitrah/view_on_fitrah.html
According to Ibn Taymiyyah every child is born in a state of fitrah; in a state of innate goodness, and it is the social environment which cause the individual to deviate from this state. There is a natural correspondence between human nature and Islâm; man is suited for Dîn al-Islâm and responds spontaneously to its teachings. Dîn al-Islâm provides the ideal conditions for sustaining and developing man’s innate qualities.[1] Man’s nature has inherently within it more than simply knowledge of Allâh, but a love of Him and the will to pracitise the religion (dîn) sincerely as a true hanîf. This points to the element of the individual will, a pro-active drive which purposefully seeks to realise Islamic beliefs and practices. Ibn Taymiyyah responded to Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr’s notion of fitrah and argued that it is not merely a dormant potential which should be awakened from without, but rather the source of awakening itself, within the individual. The hanîf is not the one who reacts to sources of guidance, but one who is already guided and seeks to establish it consciously in practice.[2] The central hadîth refers to a change which may be affected by the social environment; Ibn Taymiyyah maintained that this change is one from a given state, a positive state of Islâm, to Judaism, Christianity, Magianism, etc. The social environment may be also guide the individual to îmân and good conduct so that the motivation in him to do good may be expressed, aided by external sources of guidance.[3] Ibn Taymiyyah was of the view that the human soul possesses an innate receptive capacity and a need for Islâmic guidance while Dîn al-Islâm is an adequate stimulus for this capacity and a sufficient fulfillment of this need.
Moreover, if sources of external misguidance are absent, the fitrah of the individual will be actualised involuntarily and good will prevail.[4] In support of this view, Ibn Taymiyyah cited Abû Hurairah’s reference to the central Qur’ânic âyah (30:30) after the latter’s quoting the central hadîth.[5] In other words, whenever Abû Hurairah, may Allâh be pleased with him, reported the central hadîth, he used to recite after it the following Qur’ânic âyah:
‘Set your face to the dîn in sincerity (hanîfan: as a hanîf) which is Allâh’s fitrah (the nature made by Allâh) upon which He created mankind (fatara’n-nâs). There is no changing the creation of Allâh. That is the right dîn but most people know not.’ (Qur’ân 30:30)
Abû Hurairah’s citation of this âyah after the hadîth apparently means that the fitrah of the hadîth refers to the fitrah of the Qur’ânic âyah, which is a good fitrah because the right dîn is being described as Allâh’s fitrah. The logic of this argument is that Abû Hurairah, may Allâh be pleased with him, meant that fitrah is associated with Islâm (al-Qurtubi, 1967). And according to Ibn Taymiyyah it is the social circumstances, as represented by the parents, which causes the child to be a Jew, a Christian or a Magian.
Since the Prophet, may Allâh bless him and grant him peace, did not mention the parents changing the child from a state of fitrah to a state of Islâm, we must suppose that the child’s state at birth is in harmony with Islâm, in the widest sense of submission to Allâh (Ibn Taymiyyah, 1981). Another implication of this view of fitrah is that, while good constitutes the inner state of a person’s nature, evil is something that happens after the person is born. That is to say, deviation after birth is due to the corrupting influence of the social environment.
Ibn Qayyim (d. 751 A.H.), a disciple of Ibn Taymiyyah, held similar views on the positive interpretation. He did not regard fitrah as mere knowledge of right and wrong at birth but as an active, inborn love and acknowledgement of Allâh which reaffirms His Lordship. He also explained that Qur’ân 16:78 (‘And Allâh brought you forth from the wombs of your mothers, knowing nothing…’) does not refer to innate knowledge of Allâh or Islâm, but rather to knowledge of the particulars of religion in general which is why the latter type of knowledge is absent at birth. Moreover, fitrah is not merely the capacity or readiness to receive Islâm, in which such a condition can be unfulfilled when parents choose Judaism or Christianity as the child’s religion; Ibn Qayyim argued that fitrah is truly an inborn predisposition to acknowledge Allâh, tawhîd and dîn al-Islâm.[6]
Imâm an-Nawawî (d. 676 A.H. / 1277 C.E.), a Shâfi‘î faqîh who wrote one of the principal commentaries on Sahîh Muslim, defined fitrah as the unconfirmed state of îmân before the individual consciously affirms his belief. We have already alluded to this positive view of fitrah and the implications it has for children whose parents are polytheists.
Al-Qurtubî (d. 671 A.H.) supported the positive view of fitrah by using the analogy of the physically unblemished animals in the central hadîth to illustrate that, just as animals are born intact, so are humans born with the flawless capacity to accept the truth; and, just as the animal may be injured or scarred, so can fitrah be corrupted or altered by external sources of misguidance.
Notes and References
[1] Ibn Taymiyya Dar‘u Ta‘arud al ‘Aql wa al Naql. Vol. 8, ed. Muhammad Rashad Sa’im. (Riyadh: Jami‘at al-Imam Muhammad ibn Sa‘ud al-Islamiyyah, 1981), Vol. VIII, p. 383 and pp. 444-448.
[2] Ibid., p. 385.
[3] Ibid., p. 385.
[4] Ibid., pp. 463-364.
[5] Ibid., p. 367. cf. also al-Qurtubî, Al-Jâmi‘u al-Ahkâm al-Qur’ân, p. 25.
[6] al-Asqalânî, Fathul Barî, p. 198
Just posting the above because a poster is refusing to accept that fitrah is good and I want to show that it is not only my view or something that I came up with.
I got the above from the interwebs, specifically: http://www.angelfire.com/al/islamicpsychology/fitrah/view_on_fitrah.html
The above quoted work also mentions [qs:30:30]
I had thought this was something all Muslims had agreed on, but it seems to not be the case.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
You should read discussions before you jump to respond to them.
Fitrah comprises the instincts and organic needs people are born with and this is no doubt good including the inclination in humans to revere something greater than themselves - how they fulfil these instincts requires revelation. They carry NO CONCEPTS or VALUES when they are born. You argued they did. Please provide proof.
The verse you cite does not say they have any concepts so is not proof.
Ibn Qayyim's argument that people are born with innate acknowledgement and love of God is wrong - we see babies and this does not exist. They make the classical mistake of trying to make a judgement of reality, which is visible to all, through incorrect interpretations of indecisive verses, resulting in contradictions.
There was a recent study of 6 month olds where babies were found to prefer right from wrong.
and ibn Taymiyyah's view mentioned above is not the same as what I had said as in "the natural predesposition to do good", but something that drives a person to do good, much more stronger.
(the article also mentioned Imam Nawawi and Al Qurtubi...)
More, if you believe that God made a covenant with our sould before birth, then us not remembering and also not having some innate ability to distinguish between right and wrong could be seen as unfair ad I do not think that is a correct understanding.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Maybe you can provide a link to it...
The instincts provide the natural predisposition to do good eg the instinct to revere - instincts are powerful and they provide the drives to do action - however what one reveres is the point and the instinct provides no guidance on that, concepts do! Even Ibrahim's story shows that he considered worshipping all sorts until his intellect and reasoning led to the conclusion it should be the creator of all things. The the Ibn Taymiyyah citation is irrelevant.
Likewise these citations - mentioning scholars names isn't enough - their citations have to actually support your argument and your point!
Nobody remembers or has any recollection whatsoever of this primordial contract - they are liars if they claim they do - we know of it only through revelation.
Thus it is another proof that the mind is blanked of all ideas and concepts when we are born and we need revelation to guide and steer our natural dispositions.
Six-month-old babies 'can tell right from wrong'
It is actually a proof against it - you are saying that God took a promise from us and then threw us into the dark without any means for telling right from wrong and will eventually punish us for not avoiding the wrong.
Why are the citations irrelevant when they show that they atleast thought it was a predesposition to do good, or something much more powerful?
(have you read tafsirs about the story of prophet Ibrahim (as)?)
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
"Researchers asked infants of various ages to choose between characters which they had seen behaving well or badly, and found they overwhelmingly favoured the "good" characters."
For children to understand the question, they must have been told about good or bad - thus conditioned! Those children who are never told of good, bad, naughty, nice etc ask them - children who have been discovered reared by animals for instance - they emulate the animals they live with and adopt their habits. Humans can no doubt absorb morality they observe around them, thus confirming the hadith a child will become what his parents make of him.
It will be interesting to see what experiment can isolate the conditioning factors and demonstrate morality is innate. The current experiments don't do that.
Nope - God took a promise from us and then sent revelation to us of what is right or wrong - humans cannot figure it out! If they can, please explain how.
The first revelation came through Adam to his children and then through prophets.
Why are the citations irrelevant when they show that they atleast thought it was a predesposition to do good, or something much more powerful?
If there is anything I've missed that the tafsirs pick up let me know - I'll consider it ia.
you should have kept reading. it even explains how this was done in the article. and it was not done by asking them. It was done through observing them and their reactions.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Not from reading tafsir itself but the ideas has been mentioned to me that the story about Ibrahim may be less literal than it can seem - the father is actually the uncle (because the prophets are supposed to have pure lineage) and the questions that prophet Ibrahim (as) pondered over were not his own, but those of his people (the idea that prophets are righteous even before proclaiming prophethood).
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Firstly, if 8 out of 10 have morals - what about the 2 out of 10? Are they born without any moral inclination? One would expect there to be consistency in morality if it existed.
Secondly, why the behavior is more reflective of instincts than morality - as similar "intelligent" behavior is seen even in animals and we don't argue they have morals, but are driven by instincts.
Try hitting a child and its survival drive/instinct pushes it to protect itself - how it does that is driven by concepts.
Likewise instincts provide a similar drive to save a drowning man or someone in danger - morality kicks in how one meets these drives. So the sexual drive pushes us to reproduce, however how we do that is moral or immoral - the drive itself is not morality.
The study does not separate these elements out and attributes instinctive drives for morality. Unless they define morality so broadly to incorporate instincts!
Finally, they have not managed to isolate and exclude human socialising effects - young babies abosrb this sort of information at a rapid rate which needs to be isolated to attribute their behavior to inert morality.
All of the above objections raise problems with their assertions - which is why I would go with conclusions of psychologists and thinkers like Piaget, Freud, Locke, Ghazali etc that humans are born without any inbuilt moral criteria or concepts.
Finally, maybe you can explain the case studies of children that have had no human conditioning having lived with animals - aside from the instincts I've mentioned, all they have exhibited are animal traits - no morality despite being of more advanced ages.
This bit has piqued my interest.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Maybe you can respond to the rest of the critique - or do you just lift articles that superficially support your argument, but when probed, you can't actually provide a robust argument in their favour?
I think it might be a useful exercise to look at your intellectual methodology as it results in numerous problems in your thought stream - a separate thread would be appropriate - and if we start with your epistemological concepts that underpin your entire way of thinking... facing up to a discussion on that?
this is an example of a nasty tone to your writing which would be unnecessarily abrasive if you were discussing with richard dawkins, let alone a sincere, earnest Muslim.
Instead of discussing the issure, it becomes little more than petty point scoring. No matter how patient You has been with you, you seem to get more childish.
Don't just do something! Stand there.
The rest of the critique is something we would go around and round in circles about and not come to an agreement of what it all means.
The mention of Imam Ghazali however is interesting as it hints that your position is one that has been held by Muslims in the past, making the views I am presenting about fitrah to not be unanimous.
I am actually helping you out here by asking you to show that your position has a basis that has been accepted by atleast some historical Muslim theologians and is not a new view.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
You don't follow classical scholars or orthodox Islam - if you did, you would accept the Caliphate which was generally supported by all strains of Sunni Islamic thought.
Likewise, it is interesting you are arguing innate morality which Asharite thought argued against arguing necessity of revelation to determine morality.
That aside, my conclusion is that your discussions are insincere and the discussion above shows it to be the case.
You start arguing a point, bring evidences as if you accept the conclusion and those are your evidences, and when your evidences are critiqued, you politically move across streams of thought to "points of interest" in a reply and then start citing scholars, a premise which you do not already accept. Furthermore, numbers of scholars are irrelevant to prove a point - useful maybe - but the argument must hinge on the evidence and not numbers - otherwise you should reject the Prophet(saw) as most went against him in Mecca.
My premises and principles are consistent and that's why I've suggested discussing epistemology - which you don't want to discuss as your entire thought systems has problems, emanating from fundamental principles...
Great, I had thought we were coming to some sort of mutual understanding...
Is that post a long winded way of saying "I cannot/will not back up my assertions"?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
This is arrogant.
"One will not enter Paradise, if one has an atom’s weight of arrogance in his/her heart." (Muslim and Tirmidhi)
Don't just do something! Stand there.
Not a very happy understanding of present and past and other people's logic, just vague accusations and unusual presumptions. When the going gets tough you adopt an intellectual tone and some impressive references but I don't see an underlying case for each point you make. If I wanted to be a dick I would suggest opening a thread on the subject. Why not pay some respect to people, demonstrate in the way you approach things that you are aware of your own fallibility? People who are all agenda and no listening make for such sucky conversation.
Nope - it states I have responded to your argument that babies have morals - your turn to respond or concede the point.
I have asked if you want to discuss espistemology - as that's where your problems originate - you playing politics refuse to do so.
Now you're trying to hide there. Personal attacks instead of providing historical evidence for your views being accepted by Muslims (while I have shown that Muslims had stronger views than that.)
I think it is important to discuss real issues instead of losing ourselves in a conversation that is only academic and has no real purpose except beinga test of intellectual mettle. I have no desire to be considered an intellectual or to test my debating skills for the sake of it. I am willing to admit that you are smarter than me and have read books by authors whose names I have never heard of. But that does not make you always right or infallible.
Your first paragraph is a slur that I am not orthodox or follow classical scholars. you are free to make as many slurs and insinuations as you like, but this is unrelated to here. The next sentence is that I reject the caliphate. I would disagree and say I only reject your understanding of the caliphates and their history - but this is unrelated to the issue of fitrah. an attempt to obscure the issue?
The next paragraph had a auestion which was why only 8/10 and not 10 out of 10. It is all about statistics and you can control some of the parameters of observation and not all. Maybe the other two were busy doing something else, like sucking their thumb?
The general point though is one of statistics which points towards even babies having a moral compass. Not my view but the view of the researchers.
On the Ashari view vs the ma'turidi views on aqeedah, the ashari view does not reject reason (just like the ma'turidi view did not reject tradition). It only goes to there if you decide to turn it into a caricature. On the issue of fitrah, the ahari view is NOT that it is not good, but that without guidance (in the form of the qur'an, the prophet
past books and past prophets) you cannot figure out everything yourself for yourself. As an example, figuring out that you need to pray 5 times a day, this you cannot do without the qur'an and the sunnah telling you it is true. It however does not contradict the idea that humans have a natural predesposition towards good.
Your third paragraph was unrelated and an analysis of how I post. you are entitled to your views and debating it will just turn this discussion into something else where you will then conveniently "forget" that you were on the back foot not being able to back up your views.
Your fourth paragraph is talking about your own infallibility. you are entitled to your opinion, but I ask for someone so against ecularism how come a lot of the authors you mention as having read seem to have non Muslim names? Either you are accepting their views, or making your views by opposing them instead of reading up on normative Islamic opinion.
Imam Ghazali is the ace up your sleeve. If he had the same view as you, he will give you plenty of backup. So instead of turning this personal, just show that those were his views. I really am interested. In a non sarcastic manner.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Firstly, most of the scholars you provided did not argue what you are arguing - please provide accurate citations rather than your interpretations of what scholars may understand about our topic when they discuss a topic close to ours.
Secondly, even if I provide classical scholars that argue that morality is not inate, you will never believe the point. Just like classical scholars looked at and threw democracy in the bin and went with the Caliphate system without elections but with the all important baya - but you still don't accept that - and that's not my interpretation - that is what the scholars said and practiced.
This is not a slur - it is a fact. I have discussed a number of points with you - the solution to when Muslim land is occupied is another example - the classical scholars would say the solution is Jihad - you however argue it will lead to loss of life and reject it! The classical scholars put forward the Caliphate form of government - you argue against it and no, you do not argue against my understanding, you are arguing against the scholars' conception of it. You argue to bring democracy into Islam, you argue we can dump religious socio-political bonds and replaced them with secular nationalistic ones - bring me one classical scholar that argued you can do this?
Great answer - sucking their thumbs! It undermines your whole premise of innate morality as 20% did not exhibit it!
Stats works on the basis of analysing for statistically significant events through distributions - the results are probabilistic of the variables being considered and indicate the degree of potential correlation - if you have been unable to exclude social conditioning the correlation that is visible is disputable as the social conditioning could be the correlating factor - something you have totally missed and ignored.
What are you on about??? What relevance does this have?
The Asharites argued that morality is not determinable through reason but through revelation - if it is innate, then what is the point of revelation? The point is that it is not! I have yet to see anyone (Muslim and non-Muslim) who believes innate morality explain how lieing can be agreed upon by all as morally wrong however all will not agree to the moral goodness of lieing to one's wife - whilst Islam mandates it as morally correct. Likewise, Jews were told it is morally offensive to have filthy clothes and the offending garment morally must be cut - Muslims are told it morally must be washed - which is innate? Neither!
I think your reply is to an earlier version of my post. I had added to it to explain a few more things.
you are reading stats as an absolute where the babies were in a situation where all the probables were able to be controlled. That is not how such research works. Do you think drug trials work on 100% effectiveness in curing the illness they are for?
Either way, I had told you that that part of the dicsussion would be ciurcular and it has turned out that way.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
anonymouse, can u be at least COURTEOUS enough to answer at least ONE of his questions, instead of questioning the relevance of them. He has answered your questions, even though the majority of them are nothing more than petty point-scoring and diversion tactics.
Don't just do something! Stand there.
My points still stand to your modified post. Feel free to respond to each one.
What do you mean by "predisposition to good"?
unrelated to this discussion and I would use the example of Hadhrat Khalid Ibn Walid, one approved by the prophet
too, whre he withdrew from a battlefield when the Muslim forces were outmatched.
once again a different subject that we have discussed elsewhere. I showed you through historical facts how your understanding was flawed. You are free to reject the examples, but I did not make anything up on the spot - I used historical examples.
as for democracy I even showed how that can be seen as a technological progression of what was done to elect the first caliph (and even you accepted = or maybe even proposed - an implicit bay'ah that can be given where each individual does not have to explicitly do it). But once again a different topic.
I did not say much on the issue of leadership, but once hadhrat Ali (ra) had been selected as the caliph, Ummul Mu'mineen hadhrat Aisha (ra) still opposed it and tried to get a different person nominated (which was eventually resolved at the battle of the camel). She is the mother of the believers and some scholars havce said that two thirds of all fiqh is from through her, so if she thought that the caliph could be challenged...
But once again that is unrelated to this issue, discussion of fitrah. You are saying my view is wrong, but you have not presented any evidence for it - not logical, not historical, not from the qur'an and sunnah. ALl you have done is say "I have read these people and they do not agree" where many of them have non Muslim names. I then decided to ask you for the reference for the one obvious muslim name in there to back up your point yet you refuse to do so.
Are you sure it is me who is being disingenious?
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Bad example - proves my point - Khalid was doing jihad and used a strategic retreat. You have been arguing no jihad - not do jihad and one can use strategic retreats! Most disingenuous example and turn of argument!
No you did not - you brought in pictures trying to argue multiple caliphates and in fact showed multiple governors and not mulitple caliphates. Your whole argument was flawed as I am discussing the Islamic concepts of Calipate and they cannot be refuted by historical practices - good or bad. They have to be refuted by evidences from Quran and Sunnah as that is where the normative concepts of Caliphate originate.
Implicit bayas do not exist - this is a misunderstanding/fabrication of yours as I have never advocated the same - direct or indirect (through delegation) bayahs can be given.
Democracy is not a technological progression but a totally different belief system - it is a category error by conflating it with tehnological.
You did not decide to check one of the references - you said that is the point that caught your eye - and I replied, respond to the arguments! You can find Ghazali's views in Ihyah - which I would have expected you to have already been familiar with.
Now maybe you can respond to the actual arguments rather than jumping all over the place - that is the problem I have noticed with you - you never follow a discussion through to its sincere conclusion!
Don't just do something! Stand there.
Did/do you study Philosophy at A-Level/Degree?
#Before you look at the thorns of the rose , look at it's beauty. Before you complain about the heat of the sun , enjoy it's light. Before you complain about the blackness of the night, think of it's peace and quiet... #
@anon1 - now you are being disingenious.
This topic it seems has been successfully derailed by you now from one of fitrah where you could not back up what you said.
More, you are conveniently forgetting the pretty pictures I showed you. that was not different "governates", but different caliphates all existing at the same time in parallel. Some were even at war with each other whre Salahuddin Ayyubi was actively trying to conquer one of the cities and had been repelled multiple times.
More, implicit bay'ah was not something I had suggested, but something YOU had! just because it is now imconcenient you choose to forget all about it.
So I think you are being massively disingenious.
Lets leave this topic to discuss fitrah. If you can provide any Islamic evidence to back up your view (as opposed to western secular sociologists [my, think of the irony!]), I am all ears/eyes.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Nope you attempted to derail it, after I refuted your experiments YOU cited undertaken by KUFFAR you picked.
I raised the question then which you avoided, and I raise it again - prove all the regions you showed had different Caliphates! Lots of Caliphates is a lie - Salahadin removed teh Fatimid Caliphate in Egypt and was loyal to the Abassid Caliphate in Baghdad - thus Egypt was never a separate Caliphate.
Please provide the link where I said bayah was implicit as you understand it. Bayah has to be given by everyone or delegated to people/representatives to be given. It is NEVER accepted as implicit, as it is a positive process, however it can be given on their behalf - you are confusing the two issues and then justifying Kufr systems like democracy with this confusion.
Is this a matter of ethics, supernatural or nature? If it is the former two, Islamic evidence is needed - if it is the latter, rational evidence is needed. You do not even appear to understand where Islamic evidence is necessary and where it is not relevant. Next you'll ask me for the ISLAMIC EVIDENCE for determining the depth to drill for oil!!!
And read history - Ghazali was not a secular sociologist and Piaget and Locke were not even sociologists! Your understanding and reading are totally lacking - no wonder the discussions get nowhere - Imam Ali once remarked I can convince the most knowledgable of people, but I cannot convince the ignorant! You have regularly proven you ignorance - refused to accept it - and continue arguing for arguments sake. No doubt you will argue Ghazali was a secular sociologist!
The argument had reached the point of your two evidences, someone's article and an experiment have been refuted by me - unless you have any response to my refutiations or want me to reproduce them, given your habit of responding to only "that which catches your eye", please respond and stop playing politics.
Nope - it was Masters.
Pages