Now They Speak in Paradoxes!

The Quilliam foundation has now been reduced to giving lectures to groups like CIVITAS because most Muslims would rather be deboweled then be associated with this cult! Here is a link to an interesting article

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/jul/02/islam.religion1

My concern is with this idiotic statement of Majid (assuming that he said it and I think it can be quite possible)

“anything can be interpreted in any way”,

He was referring to our rich Islamic tradition! Ok Majid if that is the case and you really believe in naive relativism can I ask you a question? Can I interpret that statement of yours in anyway possible? This is an obvious paradox and really it makes you wonder whether these people have even bothered to get there philosophy sorted out! At least challenge us with the more subtle variations of relativism. The funny thing is this. What did the the author of the article say?

though undoubtedly true, doesn’t exactly help to convince people that your own interpretation is the correct one.

Derrida would be happy. Hey maybe the essential paradoxical nature of reality is the means to our ultimate Nirvana. Oh no! Has Maajid become a Dialectic Buddhist?

Excellent Link

Please link onto this excellent article that deals with the Quilliam foundation from a political angle

http://islamic-considerations.blogspot.com/

 

Frequently Evaded Questions

 

The Quilliam foundation has added another interesting section to the site here

No doubt on feeling the heat and with the funds being pulled out they had to make some pathetic effort to present their case. This small piece will try to decipher the propaganda of this ideological cult

What is your definition of Islamism?

The modernist attempt to claim that political sovereignty belongs to God, that the Shari’ah equates to state law, and it is a religious duty on all Muslims to create a political entity that reflects the above. Islamists are of varying shades, and differ in exactly how to bring about this utopia. Most are socially modern yet politically extreme. Islamists usually hold some contempt for Muslim scholars and sages; disdain for most normal Muslims, and a hatred of the West. In short, Islamism is the belief that Islam is a political ideology.

Read as Muslims! In other words, anyone who holds onto orthodox Muslim beliefs like “political sovereignty belongs to God” and “the Shariah equates to State law” with the “political entity” being a “religious duty” should be seen as a virtual enemy that is on par with Nazis as Ed so famously said.

Are all politically active Muslims Islamists?

No. Many Muslim democrats are involved in politics without sharing the above ideology. Instead, they follow their conscience in choosing their political allegiances. We encourage Muslims to engage in politics as citizens - who happen to be of a certain faith - representing all fellow citizens, not as ideologues with a Muslim-centric approach.

Read as Muslims who reject what is known by necessity in Islam and only engage in a political role that has no religious allegiance.  In fact it is the only real political role that is not “alien” to Islam!

Are all Islamists terrorists?

No, but in the context of Islamist terrorism, most violence emanates from those who aspire to an Islamist agenda. Please see bbc news article. 

 Read as orthodox Islam in the very least provides a context for terrorism! Subhan Allah!

 

Are all conservative Muslims Islamists?

No. Despite their raising a host of other social questions, most conservative Muslims oppose Islamism. In juxtaposition to Islamists, the same anti-modernity that informs the conservatives’ opposition to modern Islamism is also reflected in their social conservativism

Well Ed clarified what he meant by the opposition to “Islamism” . For example Tablighi Jama3ah are actually closet “Islamists” who just so happen to be concentrating on other spiritual aspects. Read therefore that Muslims are “anti modern”.  Wa I3thau Bil lah!

 

It has been said you have no grassroots support – how do you respond?

We are a think tank, we do not aspire to being a representative body and do not actively seek mass support. Our aspiration is to inspire new thought-trends for existing grassroots bodies.

 Despite this, our activities have been supported bravely by mainstream Muslim institutions and scholars, despite extremist intimidation.  And in coming months, greater co-operation with normal Muslims at grassroots level will become apparent. The vast amount of supportive correspondence we receive bears out this fact.

Read as, we tried in the beginning to get Muslim support but have now been totally alienated. We still wait for the ”mainstream” scholars and “mainstream Muslim institutions”. “Shiekh” Abdul Aziz Bukhari (more on him later) has a certain fondness for Karimov of Uzbekistan, “Shiekh” Abdul Hamid Ansari has a fondness for Egyptian female film stars when flying on planes and we must not forget Usama Hassan! We all know about his beliefs. What a scholarly academy! Ahhh we also can’t forget that the majority of the scholars in this country who were initially advisors pulled out because of the beliefs of this cult.

Ed Husain, one of your co-founders, is a neocon. What do you say?

Ed in his speeches (e.g RSA lecture, 1 May 2008 ) has spoken out against neoconservative supremacist tendencies and called for Muslim contributions to Western history to be recognised. He does not believe in the supremacy of the West (or the East for that matter) and has argued for the best aspects of all cultures to be preserved. That flies in the face of neoconservative tendencies that assume Western superiority over other cultures.

 Read as Ed is a “neo Labour” opportunist who is just as ideologically an extremist as any Neo Con group in this country when it comes to Muslims. We just introduce red herrings to avoid this issue.

Why is Conservative MP Michael Gove one of your advisors?

Michael has defended Islam and Muslims at places that are beyond the remit for most British Muslims. He is a vociferous critic of Islamism, not Islam. ……. The Quilliam Foundation is politically non-aligned and we are therefore proud of all our advisors.

NO COMMENT!

Who funds the Quilliam Foundation? The UK Government?

In fact, no. We started the foundation with generous donations from Muslim individuals in Kuwait, Egypt, and Britain.  We remain grateful to them for their support. Their kindness contributed to the impact of our launch. However, some of our donors have been the victims of our success. Just as our Muslim advisors and their family members have been harassed and intimidated by radical Islamists in Britain, their counterparts in the Arab world have threatened business interests of our donors and their extended families.

 Moreover, our vocal criticism in Qatar of Shaikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi’s stance on suicide bombings, and our condemnation of extreme Saudi Wahhabism resulted in our funding being stopped from our Gulf resources.

Read as, Ed put his foot in it again!  Ed, like your side kick advised you “Please do not mention names”!  Harassment means that Muslims go and tell certain “supporters” that the views of this foundation are heretical. Well, well I mean that really has me shaking in my boots.

Now Ed is making up for his political blunders and is rushing around to the powers that be for pity and money.  Oh yeah he got a small piece in the Evening Standard. Well done Ed !

Did you ask permission from Muslim scholars before publicising their names as advisors?

Yes, all of our advisors were asked by our directors in person. Many spoke at our launch. Their ongoing support and advice remains a source of inspiration for us

Read as, we asked them but in many cases did not tell them about our beliefs or even got permission! It is easy to ask people.

In summary Muslim orthodox belief that has a consensus across the different madhaahib is a Nazi like belief that is alien to the western way of life and is a breeding ground for terrorism.

My question then is this. What is the difference between this foundation and the BNP in the way they view Islam? They certainly share the extreme streak in demonising this religion

 

 

 

Desperate Measures for not so Desperate Times.

 

This is part II of the original article that was written in response to this wretched vision of Satan, the Quilliam Foundation!  The first part can be found here

I quote Rashad in his email correspondence. This is a correspondence that Rashad is more than happy to confirm.

“because they don’t implement all the shariah but only some aspects based on the permissibility of gradualism in imposing the shariah based on its legitimacy following Imam al-Izz ibn Abdus Salam in his book qawaid ul-Kubra based on the sunnah of Muhammad (saw) allowing the people of thaqeef to not pay zakat not fight jihad, stating tehat they will eventually adopt the whole of Islam (as narrated with a hasan sanad according to Shaykh Ata abu rishta the Amir of Hizb ut-Tahrir in the sunan of abu daud!) – such an opinion is a classical position – or the permissibility of abandoning the general isamic hukm due to a widespread (haja) or daroora (necessity) an Islamic opinion held by most of classical jurists e.g. Imam Juwayni, Imam Ghazali and Ibn Abdus Salam, who states that if the interests and needs of the muslims could not be met without permitting forbidden transactions then this would be necessary and permitted not just according to necessity but more than this and enough to make them strong enough to overcome their enemies – again in his book Qawaid al-Kubra, and supported by moderns scholars such as Ibn Ashur”

Well… I don’t think he really now disagrees with this especially when he thinks that certain people on accepting Islam can pray two times a day! See this link

http://traditionalislamism.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/addressing-rashads-ramblings/

 Interesting paragraph though (despite its obvious distortions) but what conclusion is he trying to reach? I quote

 “You and I may disagree with these opinions but they are classical positions which necessitate their acceptance and therefore there is at least a shubhat dalil permitting their point of view and the current regimes, which the majority of the ulema state are legitimate authorities and rebellion against them is haram.”

 Now Rashad wants us to believe that the current secular regimes’ are valid because they follow an ijtihaad! Remember we are talking about secular regimes that are not antagonistic to the individual personal matters of worship. What are the proofs for this?

 

1-They follow Izz Deen Abd al Salaam in his understanding of the Banu Thaqeef incident and are gradually implementing Islam

 

2-More importantly they can hold onto the permissibility of abandoning a general Islamic Hukm for matters that are in the Hajiaat (things that are needed for life but not necessary) and the Darooriat (things that are necessary for life). In this case I assume this gives weight to abandoning the Huduud that implement flogging and stoning in this “modern” era.

 The hadiths that are related to Banu Thaqeef have been tackled here

http://traditionalislamism.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/addressing-rashads-ramblings/

So I will not bother to go into this. I doubt very much that Izz a Deen Abd al Salaam had any view that is outside the norm in understanding  these hadiths.  So I will concentrate on the second aspect. Can we use the principles that are clarified by the likes of “Izz Al Deen Abd Al Salaam”, Imam Juwayni and Imam Ghazzali to abandon the Shariah in this modern era? Can we abandon “outmoded” “unpalatable” references in the Shariah and view the Secular Arab states as a product of an Ijtihaad? Before I go on, the issues that are related to rebellion have also been dealt with here.

http://traditionalislamism.wordpress.com/2007/12/30/the-art-of-evading-shubhat-part-2/

Certainly, even the most passive of scholars would not view this form of reasoning as legitimate.

Al Duririaat.

We must be careful here when we talk about the principle of “necessity “. Indeed when we talk about it we must differentiate between the Dururi as a Rukhsa i.e the “fiqhi” version of necessity and the Durooriat of the maqasid i.e. the Usuli version, if you wish. For the”fiqhi” version we have the expediency for a particular individual in particular situation to consume forbidden things of the “highest” order. With regards to the Usuli version, we are talking about the typical 5 maqasid that are well known. Just to confuse matters more though it sometimes used to mean the general need of a population in matters like accommodation, and selling (see the Muafhiq fi taj wal Al’Kleel Bi Hamish al 7taab 4/365).

Our concern is with the fiqhi version obviously. I will list just a few of the classical ulema

Imam al Razi Al Jassas al Hanafi says in his Ahkam al Quran vol 1/159

“Here the meaning of necessity purports the fear for life and limb when someone avoids foods (that are in essence forbidden) …..”

Ibn Qudamah al Maqdasi al Hanabli in his Al Mughni says (9/331)

“If it has become established, then the necessity that is expedient is the type that leads to starvation if the food is left”

He continues to say

“……..The reason for the allowance of is the need to preserve the self from destruction because this Maslah is more beneficial than the benefit of avoiding the impure….”

Imam Abu Hamid Al Ghazzali Al Shafi says in his Wasit (7/168 )

“As for necessity we imply the state that probably will lead to the person’s destruction, If, for example he does not eat and similarly if he fears that an illness would lead to death…..”

 Imam Ibn Juzi al Maliki says 

“…As for necessity it is the fear of death and it is not conditional that someone is patient to such an extent that he witnesses his own death”  (Al Quanin al Fiqhia p116)

Clearly then we are talking about an acute scenario that is particular. Even this has certain constraints according to many of the Ulema.

(1)    That there is no other means to remove this overbearing situation

 

 

(2)    That this does not affect the rights of others. In other words we try to look for an exit that does not affect others. At least in principle. This is an interesting discussion. To such an extent that a number of Ulema forbid Muslims to eat dead human flesh in matters of starvation because this affects the rights of others i.e. those of the dead. Another very common example is the sinking ship scenario. What if we are going to sink because of the excessive weight of the passengers, do we throw a few overboard to their doom to save the majority? The vast majority refuse this scenario of Utilitarianism in Duruoora.  Another example is the Muslim prisoner shield that is put up in defence of a non Muslim army. This example is typically allowed for as a Duroorah on a state level but more importantly because there are textual indications that allow collateral damage if it cannot be avoided. Some scholars understand this point as a Duroorah Kulia i.e. an all encompassing Duroorah ( It applies to the Muslims as a whole rather than some at the expense of others)

 

 

(3)    Uttering Kufr by force is a Rukhsa and it is better when forced on pains of torture and death to avoid it.

 

Imam Suytui in Ashbah wal Nadhair page 63 says 

“Eating the flesh of the dead in times of necessity takes precedence over taking someone else’s money (to purchase food)”

 

The scholars also differed on whether you can take drink alcohol when you are dying from thirst. Imam Shafi thought that alcohol makes the thirst even worse. Others also differed on whether one can take medication that has forbidden elements in it. Finally even some scholars did not consider it a sin if someone refused to take anything forbidden at all. (See MAjmu3at al Bu7uth al Fiqhea by Dr Abdul Karim Zaydan pages 141-214)

 

Anyway all four schools of thought and in fact the consensus agree that Duroorah in the fiqhi sense makes things that are forbidden allowed in an acute scenario. Remember this is not a norm but a very particular severe situation. It cannot be made a law. It is also much more subtle then Rashad would like to think.

Certainly it cannot lead to a normal rule for an entire population. What is more amazing is this shear idiotic logic in extending this scenario to make secularism allowed and even nullify the huduud in modern times. He even dares to call this an Ijtihaad! Also what in the world does this have to do with gradualism? How does this make gradualism allowed?

What is also incredible is the “ivory tower” like discussion. When did certain secular Arab leaders even bother to bring an establishment scholar to the fore and cry out secularism is allowed because of Daroorah?  

 

Al Hajiyaat

The term Hajah is a term that is identified in the Quran and Sunnah.  In ayah 80 of Surah Al Ghafir

وَلَكُمْ فِيهَا مَنَافِعُ وَلِتَـبْلُغُواْ عَلَيْهَا حَاجَةً فِي صُدُورِكُمْ وَعَلَيْهَا وَعَلَى ٱلْفُلْكِ تُحْمَلُونَ

 

 

Here the term means according to Thalab: the desire to transport things on animals. It also means when applied to the self a need for something lacking.  Shiekh Abu Hilal al Askari says: The Hajah refers to the absence of an attribute for something that requires a certain level. For example my shirt needs (ta7taj) buttons. There is a difference between need and absence though. The first refers to an attribute that is needed for completion while the later can be missing and may or may not play a part in completing the whole. Haja is more specific then the absence of something.

In the Shariah sense the Hajjiyaat can be understood in the Usuli sense, as a generalised Fiqhi rule of thumb and even as a Rukhsa on par in an analogical sense with the Duroori Rukhsa.  Sometimes the definitions can have overlapping areas of concern. In the Usuli sense we are typically talking of a maqasid like approach. In other words the Shariah fulfils the needs of shelter, a vibrant economy and domestic issues like marriage.  Before I go on let us recap on Rashad’s understanding

“….such an opinion is a classical position – or the permissibility of abandoning the general isamic hukm due to a widespread (haja) or daroora (necessity) an Islamic opinion held by most of classical jurists e.g. Imam Juwayni, Imam Ghazali and Ibn Abdus Salam, who states that if the interests and needs of the muslims could not be met without permitting forbidden transactions then this would be necessary and permitted not just according to necessity but more than this and enough to make them strong enough to overcome their enemies – again in his book Qawaid al-Kubra, and supported by moderns scholars such as Ibn Ashur”

So we see that Rashad equates widespread haja with Daroora in that it makes forbidden transactions allowed according to necessity. His references are Imam Juwayni, Ghazali and Ibn Abdus Salam. You can see the typical shoddy referencing on his part. He thinks that by flooding the opposing camp with arguments, people would drown before they could even hope to swim to the shores of accuracy. 

Now what does he mean by “widespread Haja”? Well it seems that he is referring to the well known principle in the books on the principles of fiqh (i.e qawaid al Fiqhiea). I shall reiterate it

“Need when it is of widespread concern among the Muslims as a general population falls into the same category as Daroora i.e. necessity be it general or specific”

الحاجة تنزل منزلة الضرورة عامة كانت أو خاصة

 

This principle has been attested to by Imam Juwayni in his Burhan (page 924)

“…The second category is related to the general need of the population but at the same time does not reach the acute level of daroorah. Examples (from the Sharia) include the ability to rent which is built on the need for residence. This is despite the fact that one does not own the property ….but the essential category (Jins) of the Hajah (i.e. in this case the need for accommodation) can reach the level of Daroorah for one person. This is in the sense that if everyone was forbidden from this need that is made apparent by this essential category then it is beyond doubt that at least some would fall into extreme hardship i.e. Darrar”

He goes on and says

“We also see that it is important to bring to attention an issue before we clarify our position and that is in things like renting it has become allowed outside the field of analogy…..in the sense that it is a provision of a service that is not present for a property that is present…..and we have mentioned that need when it is of widespread concern falls into the same category as Daroora i.e. necessity”

Imam Ghazzali also confirms this principle of law in his book Shifa al alel fi Biyan Al shubha wal Makhil wa Masalik al Talil (page 246)

“The general Hajaa i.e. need that is within the right of the whole of humanity falls into the same category as the specific Daroorah that is applicable to even one individual”

I think these statements need to be clarified. What do these Ulema mean? Well, we have Imam Juwayni clearly differentiating between two types of need. The first type does not fall into the category of necessity. The example given is renting. Even though it seems to violate an analogy, the Shariah has allowed to for the need of the people.  It seems this type does not have the power of necessity and hence does not make something proscribed allowed in any specific or general scenario. It is also a general ruling as opposed to the rukhsa (exceptional circumstance) of Daroora. The second type falls into the category of Daroora i.e. necessity.  This is for example the right to live in shelter (i.e. being homeless can lead to hardship in a necessary sense). Note we are now talking about general maqasid in the Hajiaat sense. Here the Shariah allows this because if it was forbidden then people would be in dire straits.

In other words Juwayni is saying the principle is only attested to in the true sense when it is vouched for by Kuliaat i.e. general Jins that is based on the Sharia. The other type as a tool can be used to override Qiyas if it is based on this Jins. Juwayni in other words is telling us that this principle is not of the same level as a Daroora! This is contrary to what Rashad would like us to believe.  What about Ghazzali? Well he does not consider the Hajiaat a source of law in itself! (Like his master) Ghazzali in the same book noted says ( this is also confirmed in his Mustasfa)

“If it occurs (i.e. benefit) at the level of the Hajaa..then it is not considered and if it occurs at the level of Daroora then it is allowed for a Mujtahid to use it as a source of Ijtihaad on the condition that it is a definite general source as we mentioned before”

So as is clear from Imam Juwayni and his students they do not take the Hajaa as an Illah Mursalah (a essential cause based on the general maqasid) and only apply the principle we are talking about in the Daroori sense. This is only when it leads to a total annulment of the Jins i.e. the general hajjaa that is attested to by the text. We must remember in the eyes of Juwayni and Ghazzali the Shariah is the goal to attain the “jins” of the Hajiyat. In other words by following the nass we fulfil the needs of the people i.e. in terms of shelter, buying and selling, marriage etc. It really is bizarre to think that Juwayni would believe that by following the nass we abandon the maqasid. 

It gets worse for Rashad. Izz Deen Abdul Salaam has this to say in his book Qawaid al Ahkam (page 372-374)

“Section- The Mashaaq (hardships) that are obligated to ease the edicts of the Sharia”

“The Mashaaq are of two types. The first, the servants cannot disconnect themselves from. This is the hardship of Wudu and Ghusl in the difficult times of travelling and the hardship in the establishment of salah in times of heat and cold ,during fajr……Also the hardship in the stoning of the adulterer and the establishment of the Hudud…and the Prophet saw said that if Fatima the daughter of Muhammad stole she would have had her hand cut off…..So all these types of hardship have no effect on the abandonment of the matters of worship and obligations nor in the easing of them because if this did happen then the interests of the people in these matters would fail in most if not all the circumstances…”

Here he is saying the exact opposite to what Rashad claims. Hardship has no affect on the nass! Does this not remind you of Majid’s handling of Tufi?

Let us now also concentrate on a certain phrase that Rashad mentions

Imam Juwayni, Imam Ghazali and Ibn Abdus Salam, who states that if the interests and needs of the muslims could not be met without permitting forbidden transactions then this would be necessary and permitted not just according to necessity but more than this and enough to make them strong enough to overcome their enemies – again in his book Qawaid al-Kubra, and supported by moderns scholars such as Ibn Ashur

He is relying on this quotation from Ibn Ashur in his book on the Maqasid al Sharia. Ibn Ashur quotes Izz deen Abd Salaam 

” if the unlawful overwhelms the world to the extend that nothing lawful can be found, it is permissible to use of it what will satisfy people’s needs. That rukhsa however must not be restricted to the level of necessity, for this would lead to the weakening of the Muslims and the domination of infidels and rebellious people over the lands of Islam. It would also cause the collapse of crafts (hiraf) and business and business (sana’a) indispensable to people’s welfare.. However people must not indulge in the use of unlawful money in the way they would with what is lawful they must rather limit themselves to what is really needed…”

Note the essential phrase that Rashad omits

if the unlawful overwhelms the world to the extend that nothing lawful can be found, it is permissible to use of it what will satisfy people’s needs

In other words Izz Deen Abd Salaam is repeating the same theme as Juwayni. When the Jins is nullified to such an extent that it becomes “widespread” then it reaches the level of Daroorah i.e. it is impossible to do a lawful act to fulfil the needs of a society. Clearly this is a situation which is acute and is hypothetical. So how in the world does this principle make secularism allowed? How does this quotation make the legality of secular states depend on this “gradualist” approach. Yet again, Rashad leaves out crucial phrases! It would be interesting if Shiekh Rashad Rambali could provide a historical incident where the lawful could not be found! Subhhan Allah.

 Another famous reference used (in this case not by Rashad) is the Ashbah wa Nadhair of Imam Suyuti and Imam Ibn Najim (A book of the same title with different authors).

Imam Suyuti says

“Need falls into the same category as necessity be it general or specific. From this first principle we have the allowance for renting, payment for manual labour, and the transfer of debt and things of similar types that have been allowed (in the shariah sense) despite an opposing analogy. With regards to the first it is a contract based on benefits that do not exist at the time of the contract, with the second you have an unknown attribute (i.e. no time need be given to manufacture a product for a wage) and with the third it is selling a debt for a debt. There is for a general need for contracts like this. If this need is generalised then it falls into the same category as necessity. Typical examples also include the guarantee on items that are produced. This has been allowed against an analogy i.e. the person who sells a commodity does not receive a fee that is a form of debt (in other words the fee can be withdrawn if the commodity is deficient)…..”

Note that Imam Suyuti uses the same contrast for a Hajah that in the eyes of Juwayni has not reached the level of Daroorah. In other words this type of Hajaah can oppose an analogy in the same way that Daroorah makes something that is proscribed allowed.  In other words the principle here is analogous and not literally taken at the same level. What makes this even clearer are the words of Imam Suyuti himself

“Al Hajaa (i.e. need) is like the person who is craving food. If he does not eat then he will not be affected mortally but will be under hardship. This level does not allow things that are forbidden”

Also from the previous quote he even has restrictions on Daroora i.e.

“Eating the flesh of the dead in times of necessity takes precedence over taking someone else’s money (to purchase food)”

In other words if Daroora is only allowed as a Rukhsa how in the world can a Haja in an Usuli sense make something halal ? It would be a contradiction to think that Hajah would have a stronger force then a Daroora in an acute sense.

Ibn Najim the Hanafi scholar of the same titled book also says

“According to Abu Hanifa there is no concern for a need that is widespread when a nass is present”

In other words the widespread nature of the Hajaa makes no difference in the presence of the nass!

Interestingly all the examples mentioned have sources in the text themselves. Here is the link that discusses the evidences

http://www.alokab.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=26282

So it is clear that that Rashad has chosen his references very unwisely. Of all the madhahib he had to choose he went for the Shafi one!

This also is an understanding across the board.

From the Hanbali madhab would you believe it? We have Najm Deen Tufi in his Sharh la Mukhtasar al Rawdah

“It is not allowed for the Mujtahid everytime he has a Maslahah Tas7seena or Hajiaa that he considers it and establishes upon it an Islamic Hukm until he finds a corresponding witness (in the texts) to its Jins”

Ibn Qudammah al Maqdasi says in his Rawdah Al Nathir  (1/413)

“For these two categories (i.e. the Hajiyat and Tah7senat) we do not know any difference of opinion that allows one to hold onto them without a foundation in the Islamic sources. If this was allowed then it would introduce into the Shariah opinions devoid of intervention and we would have not needed messengers to be sent”  

From the Maliki Madhab this is also the position of Imam Qurafi, and Shatibi as well (see Al Itisaam 2/129 and Al Faruq 2/33).  Ibn Qayyim and Ibn Taymiaah also discuss this issue in detail and confirm the norm on this subject. (Ilaam Al Mawki3an 2/107 and Fatwa 29/320)

It is clearly seen that Rashad has not understood the subject or has deliberately distorted it.  Now I am going to add the gem to this article. You see a lot of my references, reasoning, and understanding of the position of the scholars is based on a paper written by a scholar who I quote is a “NOBLE SHAYKH”.  Yes, you guessed Abdullah Bin Bayyah himself! Rashad does this bring back memories of Noddy and Nahid? . From here on I shall now clarify further the Maliki position and the position of Abdullah Bin Bayyah himself.

Abdullah Bin Bayyah and the Maliki School

The 50 page study on the difference between the effect of the Hajiyaat and the Durooriat on the Islamic text can be found here

 http://www.binbayyah.net/Pages/research/Projects/the%20diffrent%20bettween%20aldarorah%20and%20alhajah.pdf

A few interesting quotes from Abdullah bin Bayyah. On discussing the reference of Imam Suyuti in his Ashbaa wal Nadhair he says

“Some of the Fuquha like Ibn Najim and Suyuti changed the understanding of Hajaah from its Usuli sense to a legalistic principle without (apparently) providing any restrictions. This has lead to some modern researchers thinking (without any basis) that every time there is even the whiff of hardship or there is a presentation of a need one is to proclaim an allowance. It is as if he i.e. the modern researcher relies on a Qati principle that indicates a Hukm without the need for any means. As a result, there becomes no difference between the Daroora al Fiqhea in its more specific meaning and this. “

He goes on to say when discussing the phrase “Need (in the general sense) falls into the category of Daroorah”

“I say that the Hajaah cannot in any way be considered to be of the same level as the Daroorah in an unrestricted sense when legalizing something forbidden. In fact, in principle, the Daroorah on its own can only legalize what is forbidden and this ruling cannot be extended to the Hajaah”

We must remember that Abdullah Bin Bayyah is talking about the “widespread” Hajaah and this principle that Rashad is depending on, let alone the Hajaah on an individual level.  On discussing the Maliki School, especially the later ones, he does allow the widespread Hajaah on an analogical sense to have some power. These include the following

(1)    It can override a Qiyas,

(2)    It can affect the means to a forbidden act but not the entity itself. For example it cannot allow things that are forbidden because of their essence like alcohol, and pork

(3)    It can restrict a general text that is disputed in its application

(4)    It can be used as a principle to outweigh opinions at least according to some later Maliki scholars. This has conditions. It firstly leads to a Daraar. Secondly it is not an opinion that is very weak and finally it is attributed to a scholar that is well known in piety and knowledge.

Finally on discussing modern applications of this principle he does object to its use by a certain European foundation to make Ribawi transactions allowed for people that need to buy a first home. He says this principle alone cannot be used.

Unfortunately, with all due respect to the Shiekh, he did become inconsistent in the rest of his commentary on this fatwa. This fatwa has, anyway, been harshly criticized by many of the Ulema. I shall give just one link below.

http://www.al-razi.net/website/pages/ma2.htm

So it is clear that Rashad has yet again twisted and distorted the views of the Ulema. So on the understanding of the Ulema he quoted and on the understanding of Abdullah Bin Bayah himself (who understands them in the exact same way) how can the Hajjah make gradualism allowed? How can it make the Hudud “outmoded”? How can it make secularism allowed?

Need I say more?

May Allah protect us from this mischief and Allah knows best.

Update

New reference added to the article “The Art of Evading Shubahat part 2″

It turns out that the majority of the Ulema do not consider the Caliph and his Governers to be immune from the application of the Hudud. In other words if the Caliph steals his hand is to be cut off and so on. The Hanafi school (well most) considers the Caliph immune. There is consensus that the Amirs that are not Caliphs will have the Huduud applied to them.

See Majmuu Bu7uth al Fiqhia by Dr Abdul Karim Zaydan page 395.

 

 

Job Advertisment

 

If anyone wants to sell their deen, become a “Judas”, and I assume have at least 4 weeks holiday a year on minimum wage, then please respond to the following advertisment

“The Quilliam Foundation is currently undergoing expansion and relocating its offices. Our directors, Maajid Nawaz and Ed Husain, are welcoming CVs and applications from researchers, trainers, and operations managers. In coming weeks, we will unveil our new teams prior to rolling out activities.
 
If you are interested in applying for an internship or possible employment with Quilliam, please email your CV with a covering letter to information@quilliamfoundation.org “

I think Shiekh Rashad Rambali has run out of references and they need new pseudo shiekhs to talk about the Maqasad of Hip Hop  

 I have sent my CV. I dont think I will get a response somehow.

I love this world. It is amazing!

 

 

Reply to Usama Hassan

Original letter can be found here - with the initial response here  

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

الحمد لله وصلى الله على سيدنا محمد وآله وصحبه وسلم

 We were made aware of Usama’s reply from multiple sources, and it is with great sadness we realised that he did not engage in any of the issues raised. It can be imagined from his response that perhaps he wrote it while angry, and did not reflect carefully over what was written within. Rather than reflecting on the message, the attention seemed to be on the offence caused by those whom we would like to think – though we do not know them – had the best intentions in mind in delivering it.

We stress that we had written several excuses within the text for his aberrations, yet he seemed to merely lash out in return. It can only be thought that this is out of anger for his treatment on certain mailing lists, and it should be a cause of concern to him that many of those who are closest to him hold these opinions.

We could address each accusation he had hastily made, but it will be left to those who read both  letters to make their own judgement.

Rather than reacting in this manner – the points raised in the letter were more than valid and necessitated a clear response based upon evidence rather than what was received.

To reiterate the initial statement made to Usama –

“Your recent comments have compelled us to write this short letter of advice to you, as our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم  mentioned that our deen is naseeha. We have made this letter open, since your opinions and comments have been made openly, and are available via various media”

Indeed, while the comments he had previously made were in front of the mass media, supporting and bringing up contentions and issues which should be dealt with within our community instead of in front of the whole of the British society, and which only cause detriment to the average Muslim living here, in contrast to all this the open letter was intended for only within the Muslim community.

He opined that such a message is only “strengthening the extremists such as HT and al-Muhajiroon” (adopting the language of ‘moderate’ and ‘extreme’ is in itself part of the anti-Islamic narrative), yet he seems not to have considered who his open support of an organisation such as the Quilliam Foundation is strengthening.

This is an organisation that describes the Caliphate, which he purports to “support” without clarifying further – (though we had actually asked him about its obligation, agreed upon by ijmaa’) – as a “theocratic, expansionist dictatorship”.  In fact, the very scholar he mentioned in his response, Dr. Ceric, was labelled as a radical and extremist by their members for even mentioning the Caliphate during his visit to London. Ironically – even after publicly attacking this scholar, as well as other guests who were in an event which Usama actually participated in – he still sees fit to associate with them. Does he not remember the words of our blessed Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم  that a Believer does not get stung from the same hole twice?

They talk about the “invalidity of notions of Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam”, which are subscribed to (with differences in detail) by almost every scholar they mention on their website, let alone the masses of the ulama. 

Their manifesto reads like any McCarthyist manual, suggesting that other Muslims be monitored in university, that wearing particular clothing be considered isolationist or confrontational, to restrict the access of Muslim activists such as Azzam Tamimi to the media (since he is an active supporter of the liberation of al-Quds, like every other sincere Muslim) and so on.

They subscribe to secularism, which is clear disbelief and there is no dispute over it.

They call for the promotion of “Muslim academics” like Abdul Wahab el-Effendi, who denies some of the sunna for the sake of expediency, speaks disparagingly about the Companions of our Prophet, and has no knowledge of Islam or its sciences. This promotion is done while at the same time blacklisting notable activists from our history, (and in fact even labelling them as the intellectual roots of terrorism), such as Hasan al-Banna, Qutb, Maududi, Nabahani, and the contemporary Dr. Qaradawi, who were/ are all concerned with the independence and unity of the Muslims, whatever our disputes with them. 

They decry what they call the “media game” of good Muslim, bad Muslim, while it is apparent they would prefer the game of “good heretic, bad heretic” as evidenced by the so-called “debate” between one of their members and Hersi Ali, in which the two were largely in agreement.

It is clear in their narrative that they are trying to connect Islam, and belief in Islam in its entirety, to violence and terrorism. This position fits in completely with those who would like to blame Islam for the current malaise across the Middle East and beyond, while at the same time exonerating the brutal terrorism of those governments whose hands are drenched in the blood of Muslims, and who, by their contemporary and past actions, have opened up the doors of fitna and strife in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and beyond.

As for this talk of “Islamism” – it is only a cover to attack the Islam brought to us by our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم  under the guise of Political Correctness using those within our own community to do so.

This foundation, and those similar to it, are being used to intimidate, oppress, silence and secularise the Muslim community here in Britain - if only Usama would understand.

While Usama did not respond to any of the points raised regarding the cross-pollination narration other than to restate his claim to follow the opinion of ‘ibn Khuldoon - it was previously shown in the first letter that what he is calling an “Islamic *political* secularisation”(?) is in fact a complete distortion of ‘ibn Khuldoon’s views.

To reiterate – this narration was mentioned to do with the cross-pollination of date trees, which our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم  said “ما اظن يغني ذلك شيئا” – “I don’t think that would benefit anything”. In other words – it was only a suggestion from the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم  in the first place, and not an issue of takleef (commandment).

This is once again confirmed by the first narration in Sahih Muslim – that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم  said

انما ظننت ظنا فلا تؤاخذوني بالظن ولكن اذا حدثتكم عن الله شيئا فخذوا به

“Rather it was only an idea that I had thought, so do not take from me in doubt/ supposition but if I speak to you from Allah about an issue then take it from me”

In fact – the narration which ‘ibn Khuldoon mentioned – that you are more knowledgeable in your worldly affairs – only comes as a shahed to the original and is not of the same strength.

As mentioned in the previous letter, the use of this narration to justify secularism has been comprehensively rejected by all the ulama.

The Sheikh al-Azhar, Muhammad al-Khidr Husain, mentioned in rejection of this misuse –

و أما الحديث “أنتم أعلم بأمور دنياكم” فإنه وارد في واقعة تأبير النخل فيحمل على هذا المعنى و ما شاكله من فنون الزراعة و الصنائع و غيرها من وسائل العمران المادية

And as for the hadith “You are more knowledgable in your worldly affairs” – it is mentioned in the incidence of pollination of date trees, so it is understood in that meaning and what is similar to it from the sciences of agriculture and industry and other issues from the means of material civilisation”

The Muhaddith Ahmed Shaker mentioned in his commentary on this hadith, how it had been misappropriated by Egyptian secularists and those who were “enslaved” to the ideas of Orientalists. In his refutation of this deviancy he stated that –

والحديث صريح ، لا يعارض نصا ، و لا يدل على عدم الاحتجاج بالسنة في كل شأن ، لأن رسول الله ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ لا ينطق عن الهوى ، فكل ما جاء عنه فهو شرع و تشريع : ( وإن تطيعوه تهتدوا ) ، وإنما كان في قصة تلقيح النخل ، أن قال لهم ( ما أظن ذلك يغني شيئا ) ، فهو لم يأمر ولم ينه

And the hadith is clear, and does not contradict any text, and it does not indicate the lack of need to seek (the evidence) from the sunna in every issue, because the Messenger of Allah, does not speak from desires, so everything that came from him is law and legislation “and if you obey him you will be upon guidance” – and (the narration) was only about the story of the cross-pollination of date trees, when he said to them “I don’t think that benefit anything”, so he did not order nor prohibit it

So what is this “Islamic *political* secularism” other than a contradiction of what has been understood from this hadith? And what is this “Islamic *political* secularism” other than a separation of the state from Islam, or by another expression, the separation of the deen from the dowla? And how many scholars from the Umma of our Blessed Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم  stated that this separation is nothing short of clear kufr, that takes one out of the deen?

 

May Allah Protect us, Forgive us, Guide us, and Fortify us upon the Straight Path.

‘abdulAllah bin ‘abdulAllah

 

 

Note -

And in addition to all this, in another open e-mail Usama also states that the opinion that the khimar is not wajib is actually a valid one to hold – and yet even self confessed liberal ’Ali Juma’ has previously stated that such an opinion is not considered.

That Sayyed Ahmed Khan was actually used as a reference is perhaps indicative of the state of mind of the author, since Khan’s history, position vis-a-vis the British occupation of India and level of knowledge are well known and do not merit expanding upon. Khan’s words “without flattering the English, I can truly say that the natives of India, high and low, merchants and petty shopkeepers, educated and illiterate, when contrasted with the English in education, manners, and uprightness, are like a dirty animal is to an able and handsome man” are enough proof of such a person’s state of mind, May Allah Protect us.

How Islam views Secularism (is there such a thing as Islamic Secularism?)

(Taken from Abdullah al-Hasan)

”Islam is a comprehensive system dealing with all spheres of life; it is a state and a religion, or government and a nation; it is a morality and power, or mercy and justice; it is a culture and a law or knowledge and jurisprudence; it is material and wealth, or gain and prosperity; it is Jihad and a call, or army and a cause and finally, it is true belief and worship”.

 It is unfortunate that many people fail to grasp this simple yet integral principle in Islam. Islam is a ‘way of life’, which seeks to guide people in every aspect of their life. The decline of the Muslim Ummah stemmed from failing to implement the Shari’ah of the Legislator in their political, economical, personal and social life.

The definitions of secularism clearly convey to the reader that it is incompatible to Islam, “The belief that religion and ecclesiastical affairs should not enter into the function of the state especially into public education.” Clearly this is against Islam, is it not? I know people like our dear brother Usama Hasan do not necessarily intend this, however, people and especially the non-Muslims may understand this concept by its common usage which clearly goes against the Qur’an, Sunnah and the consensus of the classical Scholars.

 Many problems arise when people use unclear lingo, we learn that It is from the Sunnah to use clear and concise language when educating people and not to use obscure and vague rhetoric.

Below is an article from our Imam and Scholar Dr al-‘Allamah al-Qaradawi on the issue of secularism followed by comments from Ibn Khaldun’s Muqaddimah on the issue:

”Secularism may be accepted in a Christian society but it can never enjoy a general acceptance in an Islamic society. Christianity is devoid of a shari`ah or a comprehensive system of life to which its adherents should be committed. The New Testament itself divides life into two parts: one for God, or religion, the other for Caesar, or the state: “Render unto Caesar things which belong to Caesar, and render unto God things which belong to God” (Matthew 22:21).

As such, a Christian could accept secularism without any qualms of conscience. Furthermore, Westerners, especially Christians, have good reasons to prefer a secular regime to a religious one. Their experience with “religious regimes” - as they knew them - meant the rule of the clergy, the despotic authority of the Church, and the resulting decrees of excommunication and the deeds of forgiveness, i.e. letters of indulgence.

For Muslim societies, the acceptance of secularism means something totally different; i.e. as Islam is a comprehensive system of worship (`ibadah) and legislation (Shari`ah), the acceptance of secularism means abandonment of Shari`ah, a denial of the divine guidance and a rejection of Allah’s injunctions; It is indeed a false claim that Shariah is not proper to the requirements of the present age. The acceptance of a legislation formulated by humans means a preference of the humans’ limited knowledge and experiences to the divine guidance: “Say! Do you know better than Allah?” (2:140).

For this reason, the call for secularism among Muslims is atheism and a rejection of Islam. Its acceptance as a basis for rule in place of Shari`ah is downright riddah. The silence of the masses in the Muslim world about this deviation has been a major transgression and a clear-cut instance of disobedience which have produces a sense of guilt, remorse, and inward resentment, all of which have generated discontent, insecurity, and hatred among committed Muslims because such deviation lacks legality.

Secularism is compatible with the Western concept of God which maintains that after God had created the world, He left it to look after itself. In this sense, God’s relationship with the world is like that of a watchmaker with a watch: he makes it then leaves it to function without any need for him.

This concept is inherited from Greek philosophy, especially that of Aristotle who argued that God neither controls nor knows anything about this world. This is a helpless God as described by Will Durant. There is no wonder that such a God leaves people to look after their own affairs. How can He legislate for them when He is ignorant of their affairs?

This concept is totally different from that of Muslims. We Muslims believe that Allah (SWT) is the sole Creator and Sustainer of the Worlds. One Who “…takes account of every single thing) (72:28); that He is omnipotent and omniscient; that His mercy and bounties encompasses everyone and suffice for all. In that capacity, Allah (SWT) revealed His divine guidance to humanity, made certain things permissible and others prohibited, commanded people observe His injunctions and to judge according to them. If they do not do so, then they commit kufr, aggression, and transgression.”

Taken from: How the Imported Solutions Disastrously Affected Our Muslim Nation [al-Hulul al Mustawradah wa kayfa ja’at ‘ala Ummatinah] pp 133-4.

Al Muqaddimah, Chapter 3, Section 23 ‘The meaning of caliphate and imamate’, and three paragraphs from Section 24 ‘The difference of Muslim opinion concerning the laws and conditions governing the caliphate’ originally published in 1967 by Routledge and Kegan Paul Ltd, translated by Franz Rosenthal:

“Royal authority implies a form of organisation necessary to mankind. It requires superiority and force, which express the wrathfulness and animality (of human nature). The decisions of the ruler will therefore, as a rule, deviate from what is right. They will be ruinous to the worldly affairs of the people under his control, since, as a rule, he forces them to execute his intentions and desires, and this may be beyond their ability. This situation will differ according to the intentions to be found in the different generations. It is for this reason difficult to be obedient to the ruler. Disobedience makes itself noticeable and leads to trouble and bloodshed.

Therefore, it is necessary to have reference to ordained political norms, which are accepted by the mass, and to whose laws it submits. The Persians and other nations had such norms. The dynasty that does not have a policy based on such (norms) cannot fully succeed in establishing the supremacy of its rule.

If these norms are ordained by the intelligent and leading personalities and the minds of the dynasty, the result will be a political (institution) with an intellectual basis. If they are ordained by God through a lawgiver who establishes them as (religious) laws, the result will be a political (institution) with a religious basis, which will be useful for life in both this and the other world.

This is because the purpose of human beings is not only their worldly welfare. This entire world is trifling and futile. It ends in death and annihilation. The purpose (of human beings) is their religion, which leads them to happiness in the other world. Therefore, religious laws have as their purpose to cause (them) to follow such a course in all their dealings with God and their fellow men. This (situation) also applies to royal authority, which is natural in human social organisation. (The religious laws) guide it along the path of religion, so that everything will be under the supervision of the religious law. Anything (done by royal authority) that is dictated by force, superiority or the free play of the power of the wrathfulness, is tyranny and injustice and considered reprehensible by (the religious law), as it is also considered reprehensible by the requirements of political wisdom. Likewise, anything (done by royal authority) that is dictated by considerations of policy or political decisions without supervision of the religious law, is also reprehensible, because it is vision lacking the divine light. At the resurrection, the actions of human beings, whether they had to do with royal authority or anything else, will all come back to them.

Political laws consider only worldly interests. On the other hand, the intention the Lawgiver has concerning mankind is the welfare in the other world. Therefore, it is necessary, as required by religious laws, to cause the mass to act in accordance with the religious laws in all their affairs touching both this world and the other world. The authority to do so was possessed by the representatives of the religious law, the prophets; then by those who took their place, the caliphs.

This makes it clear what the caliphate means. (To exercise) natural royal authority means to cause the masses to act as required by purpose and desire. (To exercise) political (royal authority) means to cause the masses to act as required by intellectual (rational) insight into the means of furthering their worldly interests and avoiding anything that is harmful in that respect. (To exercise) the caliphate means to cause the masses to act as required by religious insight into their interests in the other world as well as in this world. (Worldly interests) have bearing upon (the interests in the other world), since according to Muhammad (saw) all worldly conditions are to be considered in their relation to their value for the other world. Thus, (the caliphate) in reality is a substitute for Muhammad (saw) inasmuch as it serves, like him to protect the religion and to exercise leadership of the world.

Section 24.

We have explained the real meaning of the (caliphate). It is a substitute for Muhammad (saw) inasmuch as it serves, like him, to preserve the religion and to exercise (political) leadership of the world. (The institution) is called ‘the caliphate’ or ‘the imamate’. The person in charge of it is called ‘the caliph’ or ‘the imam’.

In later times, he has been called ‘the sultan’, when there were numerous (claimants to the position) or when, in view of the distances (separating the different regions) and in disregard of the conditions governing the institution , people were forced to render the oath of allegiance to anybody who seized power…

The position of imam is a necessary one. The consensus of the men around Muhammad (saw) and the men of the second generation shows that (the imamate) is necessary according to the religious law. At the death of the Prophet (saw), the men around him proceeded to render the oath of allegiance to Abu Bakr and to entrust him with the supervision of their affairs. And so it was at all subsequent periods. In no period were the people left in a state of anarchy. This was so by general consensus, which proves that the position of imam is a necessary one.”

May the Peace and blessings of Allah be upon the Beloved, Muhammad son of Abdullah.

The “Martyr” Usama

Isnt it amazing how people can twist blatant and obvious truths? Here is the “official” excuse of Ed and his side kick Majid

….In the meantime, we have decided to respect our advisors’ wishes that they continue to advise us in private so as to save them the indignity of constant Islamist-Wahhabite harrassment. We have therefore decided to no longer publicise their names. In coming months, we will continue to work with our advisors by drawing on their expertise as we build our units.

The majority of the advisers of the Quillam foundation in this country pulled out because of the heretical and extreme views of this foundation. Dont we remember Mufti Abu Laith, Yahya Michot, Shiekh Abu Subhaan and Shiekh Babikar ? I promise you this, it had nothing to do with and I quote “constant Islamist-Wahhabite harassment”. These advisers are known and anyone can easily contact them and find the real reasons why they wanted to have their names removed from the list! Of course faced with the embarrassment they used the case of Usama (who was a genuine supporter, no doubt) to cry foul play! It helped cover up the extreme isolation they are now feeling in the Muslim community.

Interestingly Quilliam foundation, you dont worry about your “hidden” advisers, we have more information then you think! I suggest you check out who your friends are.

We are now dealing with a “secretive” “cell like structured” organisation which wants to cause a “coup” in Islamic thought! What a joke!

Ed. gets Divine Intervention!

Usama has responded to me in person, so I feel that I have a right to reply. Here is the email in question

Dear “Ibn Adam,”

as-salamu ‘alaykum.

I just wanted to say: Ed Husain and Maajid Nawaz are *not* “enemies of Islam and Muslims,” or heretics, as one brother alleged, another lie and slander. Even Ed’s critics admit that he does a good job of defending Islam and Muslims on the media. Listen to his debate online with the vicious ex-Muslim Ayaan Hirsi Ali, where he defends Islam against her ridiculous attacks. This debate was chaired by the neo-con Douglas Murray, attended by 200 people: media, politicians, academics, British intelligentsia. Do you think Allah helped Ed to win that debate, or not? Maajid spent four years in prison in Egypt, including being tortured. He knows what he’s doing. But it’s easy being an armchair critic, isn’t it?

Personally I am just shocked by this. I mean what in the world does it take for Usama to make a statement heretical ? What I find particularly fascinating though is this quote

Do you think Allah helped Ed to win that debate, or not?

Wow! I am impressed. Now it seems that Ed gets Karamat like the Awliya! I assume this is a rhetorical question and the obvious answer is well, NO!

What is more shocking is that we have an outright heresy that is uttered in the same debate with Ayan Hirsa Ali! I quote

Feminism this is a really interesting question to raise within western Islam. It is something I had on my mind since I had a baby daughter four months ago because all of this suddenly means alot more. Do I want her to grow up in a world which she is twenty.. twenty one, somehow someone will tell her, her testemoniy in court is only worth half that a mans or that if she inherits whatever wealth I have she will only inherit one third of that of a son that I might have. I am sorry but that sort of reasoning doesnt sit with me and I cant accept that and those of you who have conservative tendencies in the audience if you want to sort of go and make remarks on my not being muslim anymore go ahead and do so but I think that the prophet Muhammad came in a world which women, young daughters were being buried alive. Women were considered to be chattles. Stepmothers were inherited by there sons as sexual objects. In that world of women not even having human status he gave women full human status. He went as far as he could in those circumstances but for us in the west today in 2007 it is for us to move in the full spirit of the prophet which is to recognise women as full human beings and to give them their full rights

He finished with a little anecdote on a plane. He was discussing with a woman about the testamonial witness of a female in the Quran. She said well don’t we menstruate? Ed replied , pleading for the case of full equality ( I assume in a fake upper class accent)

“Tell the Judge darling you will back in 6 days time”

You can also see this on the video below in the beginning of the section. See this link

http://youtube.com/watch?v=nXFMHlJMTs0&feature=related

Ed got the facts wrong. The daughter gets half the inheritence of the son, but that is not his concern as he pushing for full equality. He also knew this was the orthodox position because I quote

and those of you who have conservative tendencies in the audience if you want to sort of go and make remarks on my not being muslim anymore go ahead and do so

By consensus and by Qati Dalalah and Qati Thabuut the daughter gets half the inheritence of the son in principal yet here Ed. is telling us that this is outdated and in fact he is telling us that if you want to call me a non muslim because of this then so be it!

Now have the angels found Ed’s session of Dhikr defending Islam and the Muslims? May Allah protect us from this heretical view. Brothers and sisters who is lying and slandering now?