Hawza Studies by Habib Mazahir
Riyāḍah, or spiritual exercising, is commonly used in the texts of 'irfān and is not specific to ... more Riyāḍah, or spiritual exercising, is commonly used in the texts of 'irfān and is not specific to the Islamic heritage. This paper serves to firstly highlight the possible evidences that may be presented to substantiate the claim that Riyāḍah is not only permissible, but something highly encouraged in Islam. However, it is important to know the limits or boundaries of what is expected from us by Allah (swt). Thus, several narrations will be analyzed whereby the infallibles rebuked the Sufis of their time and an attempt will be made to synthesize a list of principles or norms that must be adhered to when practicing Riyāḍah. Lastly, a brief overview will be given about Ibn Sina's methods of Riyāḍah in his famous work, al-ishārāt wa al-tanbīhāt.
The question of divine justice with regards to the punishment of the hereafter is one that has be... more The question of divine justice with regards to the punishment of the hereafter is one that has been debated for decades. It has always been a question as to how eternal or perpetual punishment can be justified for a sin that only took a limited span of time. It is known that man lives in this world for several years, a duration that is incomparable to the everlasting abode in the hereafter. Within this short period, he carries out certain acts that, based on divine justice, necessitate punishment and retribution. However, upon exploring the narrations and verses of the Qur’ān, it seems the quantity of the punishment is not proportionate with the disobedience of the servant in this world. For example, by committing a sin here for one hour it is possible to be thrown into the hell fire for eternity. Furthermore, the torture and pain in hellfire is of a degree that man cannot even fathom. In this essay I outline 3 different answers given by different scholars who come from different backgrounds. I allude to the views of Ibn Arabī, Qaysarī, Sheikh Muhammad Jawād Mughniya, Shaheed Mutaharrī, Syed Kamal al-Hayderī, Ayatullah Jāffer Subhāni, Allāmah Tabataba’i, Mulla Sadrā and Jalāl al-dīn Āshtiyāni. Different approaches have answered this problem in different ways, and I conclude by siding with the approach of Allāmah Tabataba’i, Mulla Sadrā and Jalāl al-dīn Āshtiyāni.
Burhan al-Fitri or the Argument from innate nature is one of the proofs for the existence of God ... more Burhan al-Fitri or the Argument from innate nature is one of the proofs for the existence of God espoused in the Qu'ran. it is claimed that every human has an innate nature that pulls man towards belief in One God. This paper aims to highlight key studies in child psychology that explicate this argument using clinical studies.
Mu’tazila thought has been well studied in western academia and their history and views is one of... more Mu’tazila thought has been well studied in western academia and their history and views is one of the most well documented areas in Islamic studies. The current mainstream understanding of the relationship between Mu’tazila thought and Imami theology is that Imami theology is one which has gradually developed by directly being influenced by Mu’tazili rationalism such that the major tenets of Imami theology such as Tawheed (Divine unity) and Adl (Justice of God) have been directly taken from the Mu’tazilites. This paper will aim to explicate this view by analyzing the works of 2 scholars in Western Academia who have written extensively on this subject: Wilfred Madelung and Sabine Schmidtke. Thereafter, problems with this mainstream understanding will be elucidated before giving a summary of the other theories that have been put forward concerning the relationship between Mu’tazila thought and Imami theology with their major proponents.
A critique of the views of Richard Dawkins who says accepting Darwinian evolution is concomitant ... more A critique of the views of Richard Dawkins who says accepting Darwinian evolution is concomitant to atheism and is an argument for the non existence of God
This paper gives a brief overview about the different opinions on the exact definition, scope and... more This paper gives a brief overview about the different opinions on the exact definition, scope and understandings of the concept of Abrogation (Naskh) in the Quran
A brief overview of the differing Shi'i opinions on the auspiciousness and inauspiciousness of da... more A brief overview of the differing Shi'i opinions on the auspiciousness and inauspiciousness of days as mentioned in the Quran
This brief paper looks at the differing views particularly among the Shi'i scholars regarding the... more This brief paper looks at the differing views particularly among the Shi'i scholars regarding the definition and scope of Uloom al Quran (the Quranic sciences)
Teaching Documents by Habib Mazahir
A presentation made for the 'Methods and Perspectives in Islamic Studies' MA module at The Islami... more A presentation made for the 'Methods and Perspectives in Islamic Studies' MA module at The Islamic College for Advanced Studies (ICAS).
The presentation seeks to elucidate the unique view of Allama Tabataba'i regarding the Mutashābih verses in the Qur’an and their relation to the concept of Ta’weel.
The Mutashābih verses have been a major topic in the Quranic sciences with some authors listing more than 20 differing opinions as to what these verses actually are. The view of Allama Tabataba'i will be looked at through the understanding of Syed Kamal al-Hayderi, a prominent jurist in Qum who has explicated the views of Allama while trying to build further upon it.
I also take a brief look at verse 72 and 73 of Sura Aal-Imran, which is a verse whose interpretation has been heavily debated and i try to show that based on the view of Allama, this should also be considered as one of the Mutashābih verses.
Philosophy, Politics and Economics of Health by Habib Mazahir
Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change in general is considered as one of the greatest chall... more Greenhouse gas emissions and climate change in general is considered as one of the greatest challenges facing humanity today. The public intellectual, Yuval Noah Harari, has termed this challenge an ‘existential threat’ that can lead to ‘ecological collapse.’
While we are not 100% certain of how the future will look like based on our current behaviors, we do know that the risks are extremely high. The scientific consensus is apparent that human activities, especially those that lead to greenhouse gas emissions, are causing changes in the climate at an alarming rate. The result is not simply that we will experience minor heatwaves or have longer periods of sun tanning at the beach. Rather, there will be cataclysmic effects on our environment as well an increase in societal problems.
To deal with a global problem such as climate change, different methods and frameworks have been proposed. In this essay I aim to analyze an important framework that is based on the language of human rights. It is commonly thought that unborn future generations have some kind of right or claim on the environment and this imposes a duty on the current generation to act in an ecofriendly manner. It is taken for granted that such rights exist and therefore the only discussion is about to how to balance and prioritize those rights with the rights of current generations.
To answer the question of whether governments should prioritize the rights of unborn future generations over the rights of its own citizens when tackling climate change, I aim to first demonstrate some of the pragmatic benefits of adopting a rights-based approach. I will then unpack a major presupposition that this question is based on and which must be accepted before such a discussion can be considered valid: the whole concept of human rights. Thereafter, I will look at some of the challenges in extending rights to unborn future generations and challenge some of its normative basis and suggest that perhaps the framework of rights is not the most efficient way to tackle climate change.
Various literary theories have been put forward by different scholars in the postmodern epoch and... more Various literary theories have been put forward by different scholars in the postmodern epoch and because they generally represent an underlying postmodern philosophy, much controversy surrounds them, not the least of which is to do with their relativistic nature. In this essay, I aim to explicate a recently formulated theory based on the philosophical school of Critical Rationalism (CR). While being similar in some respects to postmodern theories, a literary theory based on CR overcomes many of the weaknesses inherent in postmodernism. I begin by articulating the major epistemological debates that surround postmodernism and modernism. Within this context, I show how CR approached these debates and enlivened the discussion with a new paradigm. I then briefly discuss Gadamer and Bakhtin’s literary theories as a sample of what postmodernism has to offer literature before explicating how CR can be used as a literary theory based on the formulations of Ali Paya (2018) and Thomas Trzyna (2017). I conclude with some of the benefits of using a CR approach that postmodernism cannot offer.
A recent trend has seen a shift in the discourse of universal health care towards a rightsoriente... more A recent trend has seen a shift in the discourse of universal health care towards a rightsoriented approach. A contentious philosophical claim is made that all human beings have a right to good health. Once such a claim is asserted, it is no longer a matter of philosophical debate but has tangible political ramifications. At a prima facie level, it seems such an approach would be the most effective. It gives the government an impetus to create strategies for extending health coverage nationally. However, there are certain problems with such a rights approach and this paper briefly summarises the major issues.
Obesity is a global problem which, apart from having a severe financial impact, increases the ris... more Obesity is a global problem which, apart from having a severe financial impact, increases the risk of hypertension, type 2 diabetes, coronary heart disease, stroke, all-cause mortality, sleep apnoea, mental illness and some cancers (Keaver et al., 2018). From an economic perspective, despite having a prevalence rate from 1.8% to 6.6%, morbid obesity accounts for between 24% and 35% of all obesity-related costs (Keaver et al., 2018). In comparison with healthy adults, morbidly obese patients have an 81% greater per capita healthcare expenditure (Arterburn et al., 2005). Statistically, the odds for the future appear grim. By 2035, the prevalence rate in England is expected to increase from 3% to 8%.
While the obesity epidemic continues to grow, the good news is that a viable treatment option is available – Bariatric surgery. This is an operative treatment of the stomach and upper gastrointestinal tract to facilitate weight loss.
While currently the NHS offers its patients free bariatric surgery, there exists heated debate as to whether this should continue. It has been proposed that a group of obese patients can be considered ‘self-inflicted’, meaning that they can be held responsible for becoming morbidly obese, for example due to unhealthy lifestyles, and as such they should bear the costs of bariatric surgery themselves. In this essay, the chief postulation I hold is that before any policy is implemented, all aspects of the policy should be analyzed: moral, philosophical, political, epistemological, economical and pragmatic. My contention is that a policy should only be implemented if the policy is satisfactory under most aspects. Therefore, if a policy is justifiable on moral grounds but is problematic from a philosophical, political, epistemological, economical and pragmatic aspects, as is the case with obesity and bariatric surgery, I argue, then such a policy should not be implemented. It should be noted that this debate is taking place under the pretext that the NHS has a limited budget and thus difficult rationing choices must be made.
The debate about how to approach obesity when thought of as a self-inflicted disease is a manifestation of a much broader debate that has been going on regarding the role of individual responsibility and its potential use as a rationing criterion. Limitations to health resources is a global phenomenon. Whether it be limited availability of organs for donation, or limited number of healthcare equipment, or more generally, limited healthcare budgets, these are ubiquitous problems faced by all healthcare providers. For the near future it does not seem like these limitations are going away and therefore, healthcare providers must make critical decisions of how they are going to ration these limited resources.
The case of obesity can be thought of in similar terms. Bariatric surgery, while being a viable treatment option, siphons funding from the NHS. However, since the NHS has a limited budget and there are possibly an infinite number of other procedures that also need to be funded, using personal responsibility as a criterion would mean allowing the NHS to shift funds to other procedures and thus obese patients would have to personally finance their bariatric surgery because the assumption is that their personal choices were the main cause for their condition.
A provocative question that persisted in my mind after reading Rosaldo’s (2014), Grief and a Head... more A provocative question that persisted in my mind after reading Rosaldo’s (2014), Grief and a Headhunter's Rage, was regarding the moral responsibilities of anthropologists when studying a community. In this essay, Rosaldo explicates his ethnographical study of the Ilongot community in Philippines, who distinctively react to an internal rage after the death of a beloved one by beheading a fellow human. Decapitating an innocent person as a response to one’s personal grief is surely something most people would find immoral. So how could Rosaldo justify watching these actions and remain silent? As John Stuart Mill held, ‘a person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury’ (Mill 2002[1859]:32).
The aim of this essay is to chart out a theoretical framework developed within social theory which leads to normative and epistemological moral relativism, disguised as a form of cultural relativism which justifies the anthropologist’s silence, and consider some implications of such a relativist framework.
Submitted for assessment as part of coursework (Introduction to Social Theory module at UCL for MA in Philosophy, Politics and Economics of Health)
Drafts by Habib Mazahir
A Brief overview of the debate surrounding whether Shariah law originating in 7th Century Arabia ... more A Brief overview of the debate surrounding whether Shariah law originating in 7th Century Arabia can be applied globally in the 21st century. After briefly offering the answers given by traditional scholars, I explore the views of AbdolKarim Soroush and Mohammed Mojtahed Shabestari who argue that such a Sharia is no longer viable and we must do away with it.
This document was meant as a teaching aid in explicating the views of reformist scholars and is by no means an endorsment of any of the views presented therein.
Uploads
Hawza Studies by Habib Mazahir
Teaching Documents by Habib Mazahir
The presentation seeks to elucidate the unique view of Allama Tabataba'i regarding the Mutashābih verses in the Qur’an and their relation to the concept of Ta’weel.
The Mutashābih verses have been a major topic in the Quranic sciences with some authors listing more than 20 differing opinions as to what these verses actually are. The view of Allama Tabataba'i will be looked at through the understanding of Syed Kamal al-Hayderi, a prominent jurist in Qum who has explicated the views of Allama while trying to build further upon it.
I also take a brief look at verse 72 and 73 of Sura Aal-Imran, which is a verse whose interpretation has been heavily debated and i try to show that based on the view of Allama, this should also be considered as one of the Mutashābih verses.
Philosophy, Politics and Economics of Health by Habib Mazahir
While we are not 100% certain of how the future will look like based on our current behaviors, we do know that the risks are extremely high. The scientific consensus is apparent that human activities, especially those that lead to greenhouse gas emissions, are causing changes in the climate at an alarming rate. The result is not simply that we will experience minor heatwaves or have longer periods of sun tanning at the beach. Rather, there will be cataclysmic effects on our environment as well an increase in societal problems.
To deal with a global problem such as climate change, different methods and frameworks have been proposed. In this essay I aim to analyze an important framework that is based on the language of human rights. It is commonly thought that unborn future generations have some kind of right or claim on the environment and this imposes a duty on the current generation to act in an ecofriendly manner. It is taken for granted that such rights exist and therefore the only discussion is about to how to balance and prioritize those rights with the rights of current generations.
To answer the question of whether governments should prioritize the rights of unborn future generations over the rights of its own citizens when tackling climate change, I aim to first demonstrate some of the pragmatic benefits of adopting a rights-based approach. I will then unpack a major presupposition that this question is based on and which must be accepted before such a discussion can be considered valid: the whole concept of human rights. Thereafter, I will look at some of the challenges in extending rights to unborn future generations and challenge some of its normative basis and suggest that perhaps the framework of rights is not the most efficient way to tackle climate change.
While the obesity epidemic continues to grow, the good news is that a viable treatment option is available – Bariatric surgery. This is an operative treatment of the stomach and upper gastrointestinal tract to facilitate weight loss.
While currently the NHS offers its patients free bariatric surgery, there exists heated debate as to whether this should continue. It has been proposed that a group of obese patients can be considered ‘self-inflicted’, meaning that they can be held responsible for becoming morbidly obese, for example due to unhealthy lifestyles, and as such they should bear the costs of bariatric surgery themselves. In this essay, the chief postulation I hold is that before any policy is implemented, all aspects of the policy should be analyzed: moral, philosophical, political, epistemological, economical and pragmatic. My contention is that a policy should only be implemented if the policy is satisfactory under most aspects. Therefore, if a policy is justifiable on moral grounds but is problematic from a philosophical, political, epistemological, economical and pragmatic aspects, as is the case with obesity and bariatric surgery, I argue, then such a policy should not be implemented. It should be noted that this debate is taking place under the pretext that the NHS has a limited budget and thus difficult rationing choices must be made.
The debate about how to approach obesity when thought of as a self-inflicted disease is a manifestation of a much broader debate that has been going on regarding the role of individual responsibility and its potential use as a rationing criterion. Limitations to health resources is a global phenomenon. Whether it be limited availability of organs for donation, or limited number of healthcare equipment, or more generally, limited healthcare budgets, these are ubiquitous problems faced by all healthcare providers. For the near future it does not seem like these limitations are going away and therefore, healthcare providers must make critical decisions of how they are going to ration these limited resources.
The case of obesity can be thought of in similar terms. Bariatric surgery, while being a viable treatment option, siphons funding from the NHS. However, since the NHS has a limited budget and there are possibly an infinite number of other procedures that also need to be funded, using personal responsibility as a criterion would mean allowing the NHS to shift funds to other procedures and thus obese patients would have to personally finance their bariatric surgery because the assumption is that their personal choices were the main cause for their condition.
The aim of this essay is to chart out a theoretical framework developed within social theory which leads to normative and epistemological moral relativism, disguised as a form of cultural relativism which justifies the anthropologist’s silence, and consider some implications of such a relativist framework.
Submitted for assessment as part of coursework (Introduction to Social Theory module at UCL for MA in Philosophy, Politics and Economics of Health)
Drafts by Habib Mazahir
This document was meant as a teaching aid in explicating the views of reformist scholars and is by no means an endorsment of any of the views presented therein.
The presentation seeks to elucidate the unique view of Allama Tabataba'i regarding the Mutashābih verses in the Qur’an and their relation to the concept of Ta’weel.
The Mutashābih verses have been a major topic in the Quranic sciences with some authors listing more than 20 differing opinions as to what these verses actually are. The view of Allama Tabataba'i will be looked at through the understanding of Syed Kamal al-Hayderi, a prominent jurist in Qum who has explicated the views of Allama while trying to build further upon it.
I also take a brief look at verse 72 and 73 of Sura Aal-Imran, which is a verse whose interpretation has been heavily debated and i try to show that based on the view of Allama, this should also be considered as one of the Mutashābih verses.
While we are not 100% certain of how the future will look like based on our current behaviors, we do know that the risks are extremely high. The scientific consensus is apparent that human activities, especially those that lead to greenhouse gas emissions, are causing changes in the climate at an alarming rate. The result is not simply that we will experience minor heatwaves or have longer periods of sun tanning at the beach. Rather, there will be cataclysmic effects on our environment as well an increase in societal problems.
To deal with a global problem such as climate change, different methods and frameworks have been proposed. In this essay I aim to analyze an important framework that is based on the language of human rights. It is commonly thought that unborn future generations have some kind of right or claim on the environment and this imposes a duty on the current generation to act in an ecofriendly manner. It is taken for granted that such rights exist and therefore the only discussion is about to how to balance and prioritize those rights with the rights of current generations.
To answer the question of whether governments should prioritize the rights of unborn future generations over the rights of its own citizens when tackling climate change, I aim to first demonstrate some of the pragmatic benefits of adopting a rights-based approach. I will then unpack a major presupposition that this question is based on and which must be accepted before such a discussion can be considered valid: the whole concept of human rights. Thereafter, I will look at some of the challenges in extending rights to unborn future generations and challenge some of its normative basis and suggest that perhaps the framework of rights is not the most efficient way to tackle climate change.
While the obesity epidemic continues to grow, the good news is that a viable treatment option is available – Bariatric surgery. This is an operative treatment of the stomach and upper gastrointestinal tract to facilitate weight loss.
While currently the NHS offers its patients free bariatric surgery, there exists heated debate as to whether this should continue. It has been proposed that a group of obese patients can be considered ‘self-inflicted’, meaning that they can be held responsible for becoming morbidly obese, for example due to unhealthy lifestyles, and as such they should bear the costs of bariatric surgery themselves. In this essay, the chief postulation I hold is that before any policy is implemented, all aspects of the policy should be analyzed: moral, philosophical, political, epistemological, economical and pragmatic. My contention is that a policy should only be implemented if the policy is satisfactory under most aspects. Therefore, if a policy is justifiable on moral grounds but is problematic from a philosophical, political, epistemological, economical and pragmatic aspects, as is the case with obesity and bariatric surgery, I argue, then such a policy should not be implemented. It should be noted that this debate is taking place under the pretext that the NHS has a limited budget and thus difficult rationing choices must be made.
The debate about how to approach obesity when thought of as a self-inflicted disease is a manifestation of a much broader debate that has been going on regarding the role of individual responsibility and its potential use as a rationing criterion. Limitations to health resources is a global phenomenon. Whether it be limited availability of organs for donation, or limited number of healthcare equipment, or more generally, limited healthcare budgets, these are ubiquitous problems faced by all healthcare providers. For the near future it does not seem like these limitations are going away and therefore, healthcare providers must make critical decisions of how they are going to ration these limited resources.
The case of obesity can be thought of in similar terms. Bariatric surgery, while being a viable treatment option, siphons funding from the NHS. However, since the NHS has a limited budget and there are possibly an infinite number of other procedures that also need to be funded, using personal responsibility as a criterion would mean allowing the NHS to shift funds to other procedures and thus obese patients would have to personally finance their bariatric surgery because the assumption is that their personal choices were the main cause for their condition.
The aim of this essay is to chart out a theoretical framework developed within social theory which leads to normative and epistemological moral relativism, disguised as a form of cultural relativism which justifies the anthropologist’s silence, and consider some implications of such a relativist framework.
Submitted for assessment as part of coursework (Introduction to Social Theory module at UCL for MA in Philosophy, Politics and Economics of Health)
This document was meant as a teaching aid in explicating the views of reformist scholars and is by no means an endorsment of any of the views presented therein.