Agreements and Pledges

In light of agreements, pledges, and all sorts of unity calls being promoted past and present, this athar from Mutarraf ibn Abdullah ibn Shikhir, one of the more prominent of the Tabi’in (died 95) comes to mind.

He said:

 

We used to go to Zayd ibn SuHan, he would admonish us saying “Oh servants of God, Be kind and kindred; the servants means to God are found in only two things: Fear and Hope.

 

Mutarraf - may God show him his mercy - said: I went to him one day and found the people had written a document, something similar to the following format: “God is our Lord, Muhammad is our Prophet, the Quran is our leader, who ever is with us then we are… (etc., etc.) and whoever differs then we are against him, and we are… (etc., etc.)”

 

Mutarraf said: They then presented this document to everyone, one by one, asking “Do you agree, oh so-and-so?” until they reached me. They said “Do you agree young man?”

I said: “No”

Zayd ibn SuHan said: “Don’t show haste with the young man. What is it that you have to say, Oh young man?”

I said: “God Almighty has certainly taken from me a covenant in his book, as such I will not create another separate from that which he himself took from me.”

The people then retracted, not one of them agreeing, and they were around thirty people.

[See Hilyat al-Awliya (2/204) and Al-Siyar (4/192)]

 

 

قال مطرف –رحمه الله- :

كنا نأتي زيد بن صوحان ، فكان يقول: يا عباد الله! أكْرِموا وأجْمِلوا ، فإنما وسيلة العباد إلى الله بخصلتين : الخوف ، والطمع.
قال مطرف –رحمه الله- : فأتيته ذات يوم وقد كتبوا كتاباً فنَسَقُوا كلاماً من هذا النحو : إن الله ربُّنا ، ومحمد نبيُّنا ، والقرآن إمامنا ، ومن كان معنا كنَّا وكنَّا ، ومن خالفَنَا كانت يدنا عليه ، وكنَّا وكنَّا .
قال مطرف –رحمه الله- : فجعل يَعْرِض الكتاب عليهم رجلاً رجلاً فيقولون: أقْرَرْتَ يا فلان ؟
حتى أنتهوا إليَّ فقالوا : أقررت يا غلام ؟ قلت : لا . قال زيد بن صوحان : لاتعجلوا على الغلام ، ما تقول يا غلام ؟
قلت: إن الله قد أخذ عليَّ عهداً في كتابه فلن أُحْدِثَ عهداً سوى العهد الذي أخذه عليَّ.
فرجع القوم من عند آخرهم ما أقرَّ منهم أحدٌ ، وكانوا زُهاء ثلاثين نفساً.

[انظر: حلية الأولياء(2/204) والسير(4/192)].

Never Forget - Denouncing terror & the 9/11 attacks

As a Muslim American, one of the most constant abuses that I face is the insinuation that absolutely no Muslim leader, layman, or organization has condemned terrorism, the 9/11 attacks, or those that perpetrate them.

As a Muslim and an American, I personally condemn all acts of terror regardless of who commits them. Here are a few sites that contain a large number of links to Muslims (individuals and organizations) denouncing extremism and terrorism (including some from my alma mater, the Islamic University of Madinah):

• Statement of the Grand Mufti of Saudi Arabia 09/15/2001 (Four days after the attack)
• “Crush Terror Mercilessly” - Grand Mufti Feb. 2004 (other fatwas here)
• Islam against Terrorism (containing statements from Islamic University of Medina Professors)
• Domestic Terrorism in the Islamic Legal Tradition - Dr. S. Jackson
• Organization of the Islamic Conference statement on International Terrorism
• PUBLIC STATEMENTS BY SENIOR SAUDI OFFICIALS AND
  RELIGIOUS SCHOLARS CONDEMNING EXTREMISM AND PROMOTING MODERATION (PDF)
• Muslim voices against extremism and terrorism
• Muslims Condemn Terrorist Attacks
• How American Muslims Really Responded to September 11
• “To this day - to this day - no major Muslim cleric or religious body has ever issued a fatwa condemning Osama bin Laden.”

I’ll conclude with an interesting quote by former Secretary of State Colin Powell:

“What is the greatest threat facing us now? People will say it’s terrorism. But are there any terrorists in the world who can change the American way of life or our political system? No. Can they knock down a building? Yes. Can they kill somebody? Yes. But can they change us? No. Only we can change ourselves. So what is the great threat we are facing?”

God Bless America

Linked: Blood from a stone II (Homegrown, or Hydroponic?)

While reading on the NYPD Report on “Homegrown terrorists”, I came across this post @ “Robert’s Stochastic Thoughts“:

Blood from a Stone II

TPMmuckraker informs

As previewed by ABC News, the report warns of over two dozen population “clusters” in the northeastern U.S. “on a path” to terrorism.

In a report to be made public today, New York City Police Commissioner Ray Kelly concludes the 9/ll attacks were an “anomaly” and the most serious terror threat to the country comes from clusters of “unremarkable” individuals who are on a path that could lead to homegrown terror.

The report by the NYPD intelligence division, “Radicalization in the West and the Homegrown Threat,” plots “the trajectory of radicalization” and tracks the path of a non-radicalized individual to an individual with the willingness to commit an act of terror, multiple sources say.

“The threat is real; this is not some bogey man we are creating here. There are individuals who are proselytizing, inciting angry young men to go down this path,” said [Rand Corporation terrorism expert Brian] Jenkins, who reviewed and contributed to the NYPD report.

It’s not entirely clear what a “cluster” means here. ABC reports that the NYPD identifies specific “mosques, bookstores, cafes, prisons and flop houses” as incubators of jihadism, but the 90-page report seems to attempt to craft a psychological and sociological understanding of the conditions that may set American Muslims on a radical path.

my bold.

Tehre is a basic statistical problem here. The NYPD is attempting to analyze the phenomenon of USA grown Islamic terror with essentially no data on USA grown Islamic terror. This is like the NSA “data mining” effort to determine patterns of electronic communication typical of Islamic terrorists in the USA with essentially no data on Islamic terrorists in the USA (hence the II in my title).

This is really very simple — no statistical technique can enable you to understand a phenomenon without data on the phenomenon. A huge pile of other data which you guess might be related is as useful as your guess. Data analysis can’t add anything to the original guess. The fact that computers crunch numbers according to sophisticated algorithms can’t make data on terrorist appear without data on terrorism.

A few USA grown Islamic radicals have fantasized about acts of terror. It is not easy to draw reliable inference from such a small sample. Also they were all comically inept. The USA may be incubating competent Islamic terrorists but there is no information whatsoever on their characteristics or experiences.

I think that people are irrationally impressed by analysis and especially analysis of massive amount of data by a computer. If the data do not include the variable of interest — US based or US bred Islamic terrorists, the analysis can not add to the uniformed guesses behind the algorithms.

update:

Spencer Ackerman read the report so I don’t have to. He finds that “Contrary to its billing, the report doesn’t identify actual Muslim population clusters in the U.S. that incline toward terrorism.” and that “NYPD intelligence analysts Arvin Bhatt and Mitch Silber try to construct a model, based on prominent European Muslim and U.S. Muslim terrorists and would-be terrorists, that isolates patterns indicating radicalization.” That is to say that Bhatt and Silber looked for patterns in the tiny amount of relevant data. Unsurprisingly they found nothing useful and concede

There is no useful profile to assist law enforcement or intelligence to predict who will follow this trajectory of radicalization. Rather, the individuals who take this course will begin as “unremarkable” from various walks of life.

Which shows that they are admirably honest. Given the size of their data set there is no way Bhatt and Silber could have obtained results worth a Baht.

Not only is the data that Silber and Bhatt use irrelevant to the American context, but based on its irrelevant database it is, necessarily then, grossly inaccurate in its characterization of the terms “Salafi” and “Jihadi”.

The European usage of those words will carry more “Algerian” or “Moroccan” overtones than say the NE American usage of those terms which will probably be more Egyptian. Mid-Western and Western American Usages will probably have more Saudi and Levant overtones; all variant usages of one or two words, they are all understood in vastly different ways by different groups based on differences in their variant geographical, ethnic, and ideological backgrounds; much in the way the word “Sufi” carries connotations ranging from that of piety, to mild invariance to society, and even to deviance with some; all based upon the same variance caused by geographical, ethnic, and ideological backgrounds. Yes cookie cutter solutions are for kindergarten.

The paper’s conclusion as quoted above…

“There is no useful profile to assist law enforcement or intelligence to predict who will follow this trajectory of radicalization. Rather, the individuals who take this course will begin as “unremarkable” from various walks of life.”

TMPMuckraker astutely notes:

Each step adequately describes the road taken by the extremists profiled by Bhatt and Silber. But that’s largely because the process is itself a generic description of the process of joining any identity-oriented group.

The Arabs say:

كأننا والماء من حولنا ، قوم جلوس حولنا الماء

It’s as if, while there was water around us, we were a people sitting with water around us!

So after 90 pages we now know that unless we get put some pre-cogs in a wading pool and wire plasma screen HDTV’s with DVR to their heads (no need for someone as cool as Tom Cruise to operate it though), there will be no way we can know/guess/guestimate which person will be the next homegrown terrorist, and we will have then the difficult duty of acting like human beings and not prejudicially condemning people based on race, ethnicity, or religious affiliation.

 

“In this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.”

George Washington

Linked: The Psychology of Religious Conversion

A somewhat interesting presentation on the psychology of religious conversion by Lewis Rambo, San Francisco Theological Seminary; delivered at the International Coalition for Religious Freedom Conference on Religious Freedom and the New Millenium” Berlin, Germany, May 29-31, 1998

I know nothing about the presenter nor the conference at hand, but some of his statements are very interesting. Here are a few excerpts:

Unfortunately, the psychology of religion has probably been influenced too much by the Protestant—and perhaps to some extent the Catholic—ethos which emphasizes the priority of belief. Many social scientists are saying that, in many cases, it is belief that follows practice, and not practice that follows belief. There’s always a debate about the sequence, but I think one could argue that, in many groups, learning to behave in certain ways, and to affiliate in certain ways, often takes priority over some sort of belief system. The belief system is often something that people acquire much later, at least in its more sophisticated terms.

and…

More and more people who are studying the actual religious movements in question are coming to the realization that most people who become involved are in fact active agents, and not passive victims….What I’m arguing for is an approach to these issues that is fair and honest to both sides, and has the courage to say that there are some methods that we as religious people need to debate among ourselves. Are they legitimate? Do they respect the sacred status of an individual, or a human being who should not be manipulated?

as well as…

Psychologists have been working on what are the roots of human motivation, or the springs of action that drive us. The motivational structures to experience pleasure and pain, to have conceptual systems, to enhance self-esteem, and to establish and maintain relationships, are fundamental human needs. I stress this because, when people ask me why people convert, my response is, “Let me count the ways.” There is usually no single motivation that drives people

Question: What changes when a person converts?

People ask me, “What it is that changes when a person converts?” I’ve struggled with that over the years. Drawing upon my own observations, as well as the literature, I’ve tried to put together four major things that happen in a conversion process.

…changing to a new religious orientation takes place through what the sociologists call kinship and friendship networks … people who convert or change religions usually do so through personal contact, and not through impersonal methods of communication, although that happens sometimes.

Secondly, what is very clear is that virtually all religious groups emphasize the importance of relationships with the leader of the group, and with members of the group….

…we have denigrated the role of ritual. …what we do has a powerful impact on what we believe, and what we experience. These things just don’t drop from heaven, but rather are engaged in actively. I use a term, which I take very seriously, that rituals are the “choreography of the soul.” It seems to me that they invite people into a new way of being. [emphasis added]

The third thing that happens when people become converts, is that the way in which they interpret life—their rhetoric—changes….When a person converts, their whole strategy of attribution has changed.

The fourth thing that changes is the notion of role. … it’s really in some ways rather a mystery. For example, if I were sitting in this audience as an auditor, the likelihood of me asking a question in this group is probably one in a thousand. Because my role is to be a presenter, I get nervous about it, but I can do it, and I would probably talk too long. Role is very powerful in shaping peoples’ perceptions and behaviors. When people become a member of a new religious movement, or when they become a passionate Roman Catholic, they have a new perception of themselves that often empowers them to do things, to believe things, and to feel things that they have not have been able to prior to that time. [emphasis added]

and…

But, I also want to argue in terms of what I’ve been pushing for, and that is honesty. There are some conversions in which one could argue that the convert has psychologically regressed. Now, in some cases, converts temporarily regress, psychologically speaking, but as they are involved in a group over a longer period of time, through the structure of the group, through new disciplines, through new behaviors and so forth, they shape a new personhood. So, it has a lot to do with when the person is evaluated, and how far they’ve come from where they were before.

The uphill battle of … accumulation

As I was checking out Google Reader today, I came across a post on one blog that I enjoy to read at times, Greg Mankiw’s Blog. Even though I am not an economist, today’s post was overly attractive: “How to become Rich“.

The interesting thing about this post was not the issue of getting rich per se, but instead the last statement in the post:

The neoclassical theory of distribution teaches us that a person’s earnings depend on his or her productivity. But earnings are not the same as wealth. The accumulation of wealth is mostly about the ability to exert self-control.

and then a commenter remarked:

It also depends on a sort of commonweal. A person with an established family will not need to support the housing, education, and infrastructural needs of his or her family members, enabling a greater amount of wealth faster and more efficiently. Those rising into the middle class from lower rungs often have greater demands on them than those who began there.

Now disregarding the whole IQ=Wealth debate that the commenters are having over there, think about what Mankiw is saying in his last paragraph and contrast that with the comment pasted above.

While many people can exert self control, still many have per-decided factors working against them. And thus we see many very intelligent people in lower SES brackets, but this doesn’t allow them to “break through” because of unequal playing fields, ignorance of opportunities, and social inhibitions. Even when those pre-decided factors are overcome, there remains the social infrastructure that a person operates in which will try to inhibit him from reaching his goals.

Anyone trying to do better for themselves better be ready to invest a lot in themselves and their families, and divest (if necessary) in their former ‘running grounds’ if they do plan to get over. Only after being removed from negative influences (think: hadith of the man that killed 99 men) can a person take time to develop on a personal level.

An endeavor like this, whether in education, wealth accumulation, or personal good, will first and foremost demand a greater amount of trust in God, purity of intention, and planning. Only when we correct ourselves can we expect to correct others and have a lasting effect on our future: families, communities, and nations.

In short, to maximize the positive effects of self-control, one must also diminish the negative effects of society at large, while attempting to build an alternate infrastructure to the one that either never existed for him (and his progeny) or went against him.

For many (especially converts) the up-hill battle can be too much for them, and so the vicious cycle continues.

PSA (6): Mercy in the marital relationship

Previously in this series:

- Public Service Announcement: The Wali in Islam (1)

- PSA (2): Why the Wali?

- PSA (3): Why the Wali (continued)?

- PSA (4): What does a Wali look for? (Main objectives of Islam)

- PSA (5): the Wali’s role in ensuring comfort, affection, and mercy

Mercy in the Marital relationship

When speaking on mercy in the marital relationship, everyone must realize that even though some people appear merciful, they are anything but. Therefore its important for anyone entering or advising someone to enter a relationship to keep in mind those things that bring about healthy relationships in which mercy is manifest. Many of these ingredients, even though we must strive for them after marriage, can be somewhat inferred before marriage through knowledge of that person, their parent’s relationship, their overall family structure, and many aspects of their socio-economic status.

To identify the relationship ingredients necessary to achieve marital satisfaction, six categories of behaviors which can lead a couple to marital satisfaction or bust are mentioned below. Many of these points are taken from here, and relevent Islamic texts and advice of scholars was added. Remember “Wisdom is the lost object of the believer; wherever he finds it it becomes his” and even though this is not a hadith of the Messenger, many scholars of the past affirmed its truth and examples of its application can be found in many narrations.

Expression of Affection

Affection in a relationship is expressed through both words and actions.

It is reported that the Messenger once said to Aishah “I know when you are pleased with me and I know when you are mad.” She said “And when is that?” He said “When you are pleased you say ‘By the Lord of Muhammad’ and when you are mad you say ‘By the Lord of Abraham.” She replied “True, but the only thing I leave off is your name.”[Bukhari 5228]

Affection in new relationships might seem to come easy, but the real trick is to develop and sustain a genuine level of affection over time. In the above we see that a firm relationship between two people stays that way, even when communication breaks down. The Prophet’s knowledge of his wife’s tone and usage in indicative of not just his hearing his wife’s words, but also of the importance he gave to her change in mood and the fact that he listened to (not just heard) her and contemplated her statements. Aishah’s reply to the Prophet shows us that emotions, like clouds, can block out the light. The sun however continues to shine and the skies eventually clear.

A Wali (guardian) who is considering a person for marriage should look to see if this type of insightfulness is found in the person seeking marriage. Does he/she look for the little things that matter to the person in my care? Does this person seem thoughtful? Are these characteristics found in their parents or those that they befriend? Many of these questions can not be answered in a day and night, which shows the importance of community interaction. By knowing others with children/siblings who may be peers (or close to it) to those in your care, a concerned Wali can take time in considering a suitable suitors.

Early on in many of our relationships, we usually pay a great deal of attention to each other and behave thoughtfully in a variety of ways. No doubt, this is a major selling point in attraction to a relationship. However, much of that attention will never be known if one key element is absent before and after the commencement of a relationship: Communication.

Neither Violence Nor Peace Is An Absolute Value in Islam

From Sherman Jackson’s On Faith Blog:

The fact is that Islam holds neither violence nor peace to be absolute values. Both are conditioned by geopolitical reality and the Muslim assessment of which is most consistent with a dignified existence. Many in the West have been misled to believe that this “dignified existence” can only obtain when the world is emptied of all non-Muslims. This makes for good fear-mongering and sells lots of books. But we should remind ourselves that at the height of Muslim power — with no United Nations and no Amnesty International! – Jews thrived in Morocco, Christians in Cairo and even Zoroastrians in Shiraz. Meanwhile, one could not be a Muslim in Paris, London or the Chesapeake Bay before the 19th century!

In the interest of honest communication and meaningful global dialogue, I think that all of us should abandon our hypocritical claims to passivism and honestly lay out the circumstances under which we will sanction violence and those under which we will accept peace. At the very least, this could provide us with an opportunity to recognize our respective contributions to peace and violence in the world, instead of always seeing our violence as noble and justified and our enemy’s violence as gratuitous and barbaric.

and

And yet violence — senseless, gratuitous, mean-spirited violence — continues to haunt us, in the East and in the West. Perhaps it is time we expand our investigation beyond Islam and ask if there is something about Modernity that pushes so many of us to seek redemption in publicly directed violence. (emphasis added)

Thoughts on Insurance and Islamic Law

Classically, scholars categorized contracts as being from one of three types.

1. Commutative exchange (Mu’awaDat معاوضات) - Involving the voluntary exchange of good, services, and/or both for the purpose of trade. Includes: cash sales, bartering, and currency exchange.
2. Charitable exchange (Tabaru’at تبرعات) - Involving the voluntary not-for-profit exchange of good, services, and/or both out of the goodwill of the giver. Includes: monetary loans, material loans, gifts, and will & testament etc.
3. Contracts of record/certification (Tawthiqat توثيقات) - The recording of a right or claim of one party against another. Includes: Liens, pawn certificates, debt records, Kafala, etc

When the question of insurance started to proliferate throughout the Muslim world, scholars generally took the position that commercial insurance (insuring with a stock insurance company) was Haram (prohibited). They based their ruling on the perceived Gharar and gambling (muqamarah) involved in the transaction. A small minority differed with this verdict, permitting all forms of insurance; the opinion of this minority is becoming much more popular these days.

On the other hand, they allowed mutual insurance. Mutual companies are owned by the policyholders, while stockholders (who may or may not own policies) own stock insurance companies. A mutual company is, in the simplest terms, where all parties are members of an insurance ‘guild’ contributing to the ‘pot’. These contributions are charitable in nature and are seen as the the collective right of the guild, in which everyone agrees that if one member is faced with adversity or some loss that the money collected will be used to offset that loss.

Now for the problem

When scholars speak on the permissibility of insurance, they usually do so from the viewpoint of the end-use, i.e. the insured. Hardly ever do you hear of criticism of the insurance industry as a whole, and the pricing schemes involved. We are told that commercial insurance is Haram, and that we should all go out and get mutual insurance.

This one-sided solution to the problem of insurance, if not obligated by the authorities, leaves many people high and dry with regards to protecting their personal and business interests.

As a quick side note, in classical Islamic legal discussions, compensation for losses accrued by the individual or a group of investors through natural disasters and unforeseen events beyond their control were usually compensated for by the institution known as “Bayt al Mal” or the state treasury, if not they were taken up by the persons tribal allegiances. The state had the responsibility to ensure the livelihood of its citizens, in that it is the authority which collects zakat, ghana’im, and is entrusted with the natural resources of the state and the revenue received from them.

Going back to the issue of contracts, scholars said that mutual insurance fell under the second type, being charitable in nature. Commercial insurance was of the first type. However when we look practically at insurance practices, if in fact insurance of any type was a commutative exchange, then if we canceled or insurance we should have the option to received back that money that was ‘invested’ into the deal. As far as I know, you can not do this for most insurance packages. If this is the case, then you are essentially giving away a portion of you wealth in hopes to receive compensation in the face of future losses without expecting the principle contribution back; exactly what you are doing in the case of Mutual insurance.

If this truly is the case with insurance, then there would seem to be no difference between entering into a commercial or mutual insurance contract; in both you will end up receiving the same compensation and in both you will pay a similar amount. What does seem to be of consequence is the use of that money by the insurance company, their ability to cancel the policies of their clients, and their secondary investment of that money for their own profit.

Essentially the permissibility of insurance lies in the regulation of the insurance industry itself, and not in the character of the end-user agreement.

Here’s an example that should bring it a little closer to home:

In the contract called “MuDarabah” or the silent partnership, partners are to share equally in the profit and loss of the partnership. If say, the silent partner specifies for himself some form of profit to the exclusion of the other (who here is performing the ‘work’ involved), then scholars held to opinions as to how the profits should be distributed in the face of this invalid condition (calling this MuDarabah Fasidah مضاربة فاسدة). Some said that this partner should be given the salary commensurate to his work. Others said that he should receive the profit commensurate to that which a partner similar to him would receive.

The point here is that the second party involved in the MuDarabah contract receives compensation for that which he entered the contract for initially, whether is be profit or salary.

In essence then, the contract is being invalidated from one side only, not both. Therefore, the main issue with such a contract is that which pertains to regulating the contract and the distribution of the money involved, similar to our insurance example above.

It is then an issue of regulation, and not one pertaining to the permissibility of the end-user entering into such as agreement.

If this truly is the case, then for the end-user it should not matter as to what type of insurance he buys, to what extent he insures his property, and to what extent he receives compensation for his losses. In the end of the day it is all the same, he will receive compensation commensurate to his losses.

The key issue here would then seem to be state regulation of the insurance industry, and their guaranteeing fair business practices, just as they would guarantee fair compensation in classical legal literature.

Any thoughts?

linked: Does a convert have to leave her non-Muslim husband?

Does a convert have to leave her non-Muslim husband?

Covers the issue as presented by the European Council for Fatwa and Research.

The english link to the original article doesn’t work. The Arabic can be found here.

Signs you might be in a cult

Signs you might be in a cult

 

Tariq Nelson has a post in which he lists some of the “Signs you might be in a cult”

What I thought I would do is present some statements from the scholars of the past that reiterate and substantiate the points that he mentioned, in hopes that brothers and sisters that have that mind set might come to the realization that this is not just “unbeneficial speech” from some “non-specialist” or “someone not in contact with the scholars”.

This against my normal methodology in post quotes, in the past I usually refrained from posting the references so as prevent “cut & paste” Ijtihad from those that have never read a book much less attempted to learn the language that the books were written in. However here I felt that mentioning the references would be of more benefit than harm.

To be fair, and so that no one can try to use this post to declare “WE are not a cult!”; I have tried to quote a pertinent verse, hadith, or statement of one of the Sahabah, then mention quotes from a different scholars from the past. I do hope that the message here rings through, and not the names of the people quoted.

After some of the quotes I mention The Bottom Line so as to make it a little easier to understand.

Sign #1: Isolation from society

A hadith:

The Messenger of Allah said :
“The believer who mixes with the people and has patience in spite of their annoyances is better that he that doesn’t mix with them and doesn’t have patience in spite of their annoyances.”

Narrated by Ahmad and Ibn Majah

He also said:
“The believer is cordial; there is no good in one who is neither cordial nor sociable.” Narrated by Ahmad.

Ibn Taymiyah says (24/170):
The scholars from the Sahabah and the Tabi’in and those after them followed the command of Allah and his Messenger … They would debate in issues in a sincere and consultative manner, although they may differ in an issue in application and knowledge, the love and sanctity of brotherhood remains. Differences in rulings are more numerous than can be counted.
If every time two Muslims disagreed on something they abandoned each other (made Hajr of each other) there would be no sanctity or brotherhood left amongst the Muslims.

He also says (16/313-317):
The Messenger was sent with guidance as a mercy for all creation… He teaches them, guides them and mends the hearts, showing them what is best for them in this life and the next, not taking payment for this. This is the description of all the Messengers … and this is the path of those that follow him.

He also says (3/158):

He orders them with patience in the face of adversity, thankfulness with prosperity, pleasure in divine decree, and calls them to the best of character and the best of actions.
They believe in his statement “The best of believers is the best of them in character”
They encourage each other to connect with those that cut them off, give those that prevent them, and forgive those that do them wrong. They command filial piety, keeping family relations, being a good neighbor, and doing good to orphans and the poor…
They forbid pompousness, pride, transgression, and self-importance over others (whether they have the right to or not).
They command the best of character, and forbid the worst of it.
All that they do in this regards or in other than it, they follow the Book of Allah and the Sunnah in doing so.

The Bottom line
Muslims are a community. They come together in obedience and separate with disobedience. Matters of valid disagreement are debated kindly and left as is. If not there would be no community left in the end.
You will know those that follow the Prophet by their fruits.

Sign #2: Absolutism/Literalism

A Hadith:

The Prophet said:
“None of you should pray Asr except in the area of Bani Qurayzah” The time for Asr came in while they were on the way there so some of them prayed. Others said: We won’t pray until we get there. Others said he didn’t want that from us, we are praying now. This was later mentioned to the Prophet and he did not act harshly to any of them.
Narrated by al-Bukhari (3810)

Ibn Hajar relates in Fath al-Bari (1/182):

Al-Qurtubi said: From this hadith we see … that one group did not act harshly against the other while there was room for Ijtihad and their objectives were good…

Ibn Taymiyah (Majmu 28/P.429) says:

“The reason that the Khawarij appeared was due to the actions of Amir al-Mu’minin Uthman and Ali and those with them; those actions which involved various types of interpretation. They could not handle this, so they made issues of Ijtihad, even good deeds, they made them out to be sins. They made sins out to be disbelief. For this reason they did not appear in the time of Abu Bakr and Umar, due to those those which involved various types of interpretation not having appeared yet.”

The bottom line:

A group of Muslims went astray because they could not comprehend legitimate and valid Ijtihad made by scholars. They then not only declared them to be sinful or disbelievers, but all those that follow them as well.
A person should not discount valid Ijtihad. If he does not know if it is valid or not, he should stay quiet and not declare others sinful for following what they believe to be valid ijtihad.

Sign #3: Loaded Language

An Athar:

It was narrated from Ali:
The truth is not known through men. Know the truth; you will recognize its people.

Ibn Taymiyah says (28/227-229):

It is not for anyone to dictate love or hatred, praise or dispraise, enmity or affability, prayer or curses, based on names other than those that Allah himself gave. Such names are those like tribal names, names of cities, Madhahib, and Turuq of different shayks and imams, in addition to all other names that are used to distinguish oneself. He who is a believer then he is treated with love and respect regardless of the group he is from… and the one who is both believing and sinning at the same time is shown the same love and respect in accordance with his faith and disdain in accordance with his sinfulness….

He also says (20/163-164):

People are not distinguished between by anything other than Revealed texts. When the go back to their presumptions then each one of them will take what he presumes. From here it is known that the misguidance of those that innovated a path or belief thinking that one’s faith is not complete except through it, while knowing that the Messenger did not mention this and it is indifference to the texts, then this is an innovation according to all Muslims.
…Because of this you find people that love some people and hate others according to their desires, not knowing the meaning of their actions nor having evidence for them. They show love and hate according to these unrestricted terms that were not related from the Messenger or the Salaf authentically, without understanding their meanings, nor having knowledge of their correlations and implications….
It is not permissible then for anyone to place a person on a pedestal calling to his path, loving and hating according to that, nor it is permissible for them to do so according to some form of speech loving and hating according to that, unless it is the speech of Allah and his Messenger which the Ummah is agreed upon. These [previous] actions are the actions of the People of innovation (Ahl al Bida’), those that prop up a person or form of speech and divide the Ummah according to it, loving according to it or their ascription to it and hating similarly…

The Bottom line
Just what Ali said above.

Sign #4: “Confession”

A verse:

Allah says

“Verily those that divided their religion and were partisans you are not from them in the least…” (anfal:109)

Ibn Taymiyah (Majmu al-Fatawa 28/7-19) says:

“It is not for any person to take an oath or agreement from anyone that he will agree with him in everything he wants, supports him and those that he supports, and be an enemy to his enemies. Whoever does this then he is like Genghis Khan and those like him who make those that agree with them protected friends and those that disagree transgressing enemies; Instead they are to give their allegiance to Allah and his messenger to obey Allah and his messenger and do what Allah and his messenger have ordered …
… this is the basis that they should stick to, and then there is no need for their division and partisanship Allah says “Verily those that divided their religion and were partisans you are not from them in the least…” (anfal:109)
…therefore it is not for any teacher to take oaths from his students for this, nor for anyone else for that matter to take anyone from his students so as to attribute himself to him in an innovated manner (ala al-wajh al-Bidi’), neither to start with or for some benefit…”

 

Sign #5: Exaggerated claims

A verse:

({لاَ تَحْسَبَنَّ الَّذِينَ يَفْرَحُونَ بِمَا أَتَواْ وَّيُحِبُّونَ أَن يُحْمَدُواْ بِمَا لَمْ يَفْعَلُواْ فَلاَ تَحْسَبَنَّهُمْ بِمَفَازَةٍ مِّنَ الْعَذَابِ وَلَهُمْ عَذَابٌ أَلِيمٌ }آل عمران188)

“Don’t think that those that are joyous about what they have, and love to be praised for things they didn’t do, don’t think that they are saved from punishment; for them is a painful punishment” Al Imran: 188

A hadith:

“He who seeks knowledge so as to argue with the ignorant, compete with the scholars, and cause people to turn their sight towards him, then beware of the fire, the fire!” Narrated by Ibn Majah

Ibn Taymiyah says (35/69-70):

As for the Siddiqun, al-Shuhada, and the Salihin (righteous) then they are not infallible. This is affirmed in the issue of sins. As for those things in which there is Ijtihad, then at times they are correct and at times they make mistakes. So if they make ijtihad and are correct they are rewarded twice; if they are mistaken then they receive one reward for their ijtihad, and their mistake is forgiven.
People of Misguidance make mistakes and sins to be correlated; you will find them at times going to extremes about people saying that they are infallible. At other times they are despondent about the same people and say that they are transgressing through their mistakes.
The people of knowledge and faith do not claim for some infallibility nor do they brand others as sinners.
From this issue many of the deviant and innovated sects formed.

 

Sign #6: Groupthink

A verse:

(فَاتَّقُواْ اللّهَ وَأَصْلِحُواْ ذَاتَ بِيْنِكُمْ)

“Fear Allah and mend affairs amongst yourselves…” al-Anfal:01

A hadith

Bukhari and Muslim narrate from Jabir that once during a battle one of the Muhajirum pushed one of the Ansar.
So the Ansari called “O Ansar!”, so the Muhajiri then called out “O Muhajirun!”
The Messenger of God heard this and said:

“What is it with this call of Jahiliyyah (Ignorance)?
… Leave it, for it is rotten!”

So even though these titles were bestowed on the companions of the Messenger by God himself, they became blameworthy when they were used for dividing the Muslims and causing dissension.

Ibn Taymiyah says (3/414):

It is obligatory for people to give up argumentation in these issues …and stop testing the Muslims with them. This is an innovation which is indifferent to the way of Ahl al Sunnah wa Jama’ah.
Causing division in the Ummah and testing it is something that Allah and his Messenger did not order, such as saying to a person “Are you a shakili or Qarfandi?” These are invalid names with Allah has not revealed any authority for, they are not found in the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of his Messenger nor in the known narrations from the Salaf…
It is obligatory for a Muslim when he is asked about that to say: I am neither [this nor that], I am a Muslim that follows the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of his messenger…”

Sign #7: Abuse

(كَبُرَ مَقْتاً عِندَ اللَّهِ أَن تَقُولُوا مَا لَا تَفْعَلُون * يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آَمَنُوا لِمَ تَقُولُونَ مَا لَا تَفْعَلُون َ)

“Oh you who believe, why do you say that which you don’t do? Despised by Allah is that you say that which you don’t do.” Al-Saff: 2-3

A group of people came to al-Imam AbdulQadir al-Taghlabi asking him to narrate to them and teach them fiqh. He refused to do so, and when he was asked why he said: “Those types of people use knowledge to gain the Dunya, and learn the issues of disagreement to take what they want according to their desires.”
Because of this many of the scholars would say: A person that takes weak opinions and rules by them according to his desires then he is a person of misguidance.
Knowledge is like a sword, give it is pious person and he will fight with it in Allah’s path. Give to a wretched person however, and he’ll commit highway robbery and harm the people.
(From Ghidha al-albab Sharh ManZumat al-Adab)

Sign #8: Denial of Problems

A verse

Allah says:

(يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ كُونُواْ قَوَّامِينَ بِالْقِسْطِ شُهَدَاء لِلّهِ وَلَوْ عَلَى أَنفُسِكُمْ)

“Oh you who believe: Be diligent in justice, witnesses for Allah, even if against yourselves…” al-Nisaa:135

The Imam Abdul-Rahman Ibn Mahdi, from the greatest Imams of the Salaf (died 135) said:

“The people of knowledge mention that which is for them and that which is against them. The people of Innovation only mention that which is for them.”

Ibn Taymiyah mentions the above statement, saying before this (al-Jawab al-Sahih 6/343):

“…they accept those things that are true even if they are troubling and could be used by those that differ with them against them…”