WELCOME TO TRADITIONAL ISLAMISM

If anyone needs further clarification or more information then contact me at

ibnnadam@gmail.com

We would also be grateful for any further help as we expand this site to include the modernist movements.

Oh yeah if you want to vent any rage against me, or correct me in a civil way then fire away!

For every son of Adam makes mistakes

 It seems that Rashad has few friends. He loved Noddy, poor Rashad, so much so that he invented an invisible friend for Nahid Khan (Rashad) to talk with. In an amazing turn of events, Noddy agreed with everything that Nahid said. “Noddy seems to have grasped what I am saying clearly.” said Nahid. I think it is apt that his invisible friend is called Noddy because I quote from Wikipedia: “Noddy got his name because his head is on a spring and when he gets excited his head cannot stop nodding”

Nahid in this tit for tat play on the blogs, on the city circle forum, was then faced with an article by Abdullah Bin Bayyah. Rashad thought, what do we do? Abdullah Bin Bayyah is an Islamist! Noddy kept bouncing his head. Rashad was angry with Noddy for such a useless response, so he decided to fabricate a lot of the contents of the article in a summary form.

The article of Abdullah Bin Bayyah can be found here. Rashad’s summary (or shall we say those who support him) is here. See the last comment by Nahid Khan (aka Rashad).

The Supposed Audacity of Abdullah Bin Bayyah

We start with Rashad’s summary of the noted article. From the title and I mean literally, we have a twist of words. The title literally means “The relationship between Religion and State; An Islamic viewpoint.” In Arabic when someone says “Nathara” it literally means “he saw”. In other words, he viewed something. Of course, Rashad wants to make a mountain out of mole hill and impart a relative stance to the whole thing. He wants the Sheikh to imply something he clearly does not! So he says this:

An excellent article – And I advise everyone to read it – I am actually tempted to get someone competent to translate it – it is excellent. The article is entitled “the relationship between religion and state an Islamic perspective – as opposed to THE ISLAMIC VIEW.

So why does he have this phrase “THE ISLAMIC VIEW” in capital letters? Clearly he wants the Sheikh to mean that there are different Islamic perspectives rather than an Islamic view! Unfortunately for Rashad the Sheikh does not think this is the case, as we shall see later on. Anyway, the title does not point to anything. Rashad goes on….

It is authored as stated by the NOBLE SHAYKH there are two positions.

No need to shout Rashad, we understand you think he is a noble Sheikh! What a childish way to argue. I have no qualms with the qualifications of this man, but if you shout out from the top of a mountain that he is a noble sheikh, it really does not add weight to the argument.

From here it starts getting interesting. I quote:

Amongst the early Ulema e.g. Abdul-Rahman Ibn Kaysan, and the later, there were and are people who held the view that the appointment of a leader was not necessary or wajib. (He referenced this view through Imam al-Haramayn in Ghiyath ul-Umam – I mentioned earlier that this was also the view of Jahiz al-Balkhi based upon his interpretation of an Ijma (consensus) of the companions [Imam al-Ghazali explains that this is a tawil (interpretation) and is not kufr/outside the pale of legitimate interpretation in his faysal tafriqa) Shaykh Abdullah Bin Bayyah explains according to this Islamic view there would not even ve a need for the State at all!

Note how he tries to force a view, or just for you Rashad, a perspective on the Sheikh. He claims the Sheikh lists it as an Islamic Ijtihaad! We know this from phrases like:

Amongst the early Ulema…” then “Abdullah Bin Bayyah according to this Islamic view…” and later on “…bearing in mind his acknowledgment of the first view

Unfortunately the article mentions no such thing! The Sheikh only lists two views amongst the Muslims. When he mentions the first i.e. those who do not believe in the obligation of an Imam he says and I quote:

This is a position from very few among the earlier generations and from some of the modern era. From those of the earlier generations we have some of the M’utazilites like Abdul Rahman Ibn Kaysan …. that is according to the understanding of Imam al Haramain in “Al Ghiath”.

He goes on and says:

From the modern era we have Ali Abd Ar-Razzaq and I don’t see any objections in quoting some of their texts that testifies to the existence of a state but at the same refuses to acknowledge the existence of a notion of a “state” in the Islamic religion. For example Burhan Ghalioun says….

Abdullah Bin Bayyah then mentions how Burhan Ghalioun emphasises the spiritual role of the prophet. In other words we should never view the prophet in a leadership role, if you wish.

There is not one phrase in this section where the Sheikh says it is an Islamic view! He only mentions it as a view among Muslims! Now we have to remember the tradition of this Imam and it would seem reasonable that he views the Mutazilite “Abd Rahman Ibn Kaysan” in the same way that Imam Juwayni and Imam Ghazzali viewed him. (In fact he clearly does as we shall see later on in the article, or to be more accurate the “view” that is attributed to him)

First, who is Abd Rahman Ibn Kaysan? He is the Mutazilite Mutakalim whose full name is Abu Bakr Abd al Rahman Bin Kisaan Al ‘Assam. He was from the Mutazilites of Basrah who is the author of the Tafsir under his name. This short biography is available on this link

Now let us see what Imam Juwayni has to say about this position of Abd Rahman Ibn Kaysan. In his Ghiath Al-Umam he says:

It is narrated from Abd Rahman Ibn Kaysan that it is not obligatory (i.e. the Caliphate) and that it is allowed to leave people in their differences…with nothing to bind together the disparate views. This man has attacked the consensual agreement and has replaced the rights with the ability to infringe the rights …..and this cannot be considered anything but a violation of the obligatory obedience on our neck towards the consensus and an infringement of the Sunnah that is followed and this Ijma’a is preceded by an Ijma’a that sun has set on East and West with the agreement of the scholars in all continents …….and there is no need to waste a discussion after it has become so clear. The deterrence that Allah has given to the Sultan is greater than that he has given to the Qur’an.

After all that does it really seem that Imam Juwayni would consider this a legitimate Islamic opinion? Surely an opinion that goes against an Ijma’a that the Sun has set on both East and West is in the very least an innovation. Surely this is not an Islamic perspective that Abdullah Bin Bayah respects but disagrees with! When has any ‘alim in the history of our religion believed that you get one reward for violating the consensus of all the Muslims including the companions themselves? Do you have no shame in your fabrications Rashad? Interestingly the last phrase reads “The deterrence that Allah has given to the Sultan is greater than that he has given to the Quran” is actually a narration from the companions Umar and Uthman.

Now we must remember that Imam Ghazzali was the student of Imam Juwayni. So let us now see another fabrication of Rashad. I quote:

Imam al-Ghazali explains that this is a tawil (interpretation) and is not kufr/outside the pale of legitimate interpretation in his faysal tafriqa (italics is mine)

Does Ghazzali really think this position of Abd Rahman Ibn Kaysan to be a legitimate interpretation? Let us delve into the primary texts and find out what he really believed!

First, we have the famous book which has been translated by Sherman Jackson – “Faisaal At-Tafriqa bain Al-Islam wa Az-Zandaqa”

In the eight section of this book, Ghazali says:

Know that a mistake in the foundation of the Imama, in the methods to choose an Imam, in the conditions necessary for an Imam and those things that are linked to it; In any of these things we are not obligated to pronounce any Takfir(apostasy). For Ibn Kaysan rejected even the obligatory nature of the Imama and it is not deemed necessary to pronounce any apostasy on him….

Now does this imply that Ibn Kaysan had a legitimate interpretation? We must remember that Ghazali earlier on in describing the canon states:

The matters of Nadhariyaat are divided into two sections: A section that deals with foundations of our Creed and a section that deals with the branches. The foundations of Imam are belief in Allah and his Messengers and in the Day of Judgement. Anything else is considered a branch. You must also know that in principle there is no apostasy in the branches except in one matter alone, that is a rejection of religious edict that is established from the prophet by Tawatur, but in some matters one can be mistaken and in others one can innovate like certain mistakes that are linked to the Imamia and the states of the companions.

So clearly here we can see that there are certain things one can innovate in when it comes to the Imama. We must remember this not a good innovation but a bad one and Ghazzali also in this tract defines an innovation as anything that goes against what has been said by Companions and the Salaf. In effect something unheard of that goes against Islam. This would also be something that goes against the consensus of the companions.

Now what does he say with regards to the topic of Ijma’a (consensus)? Later on he goes on and says:

If he rejects something that is established by consensus then this is a matter that should be looked into further. This is because knowing that Ijma is an evidence that is definite can have some lack of clarity that those who have knowledge in the foundations of Islamic Jurisprudence would know. In fact Nadhaam (the Mutazilite) rejected Ijma as a source in itself. Because of this Ijma becomes a matter of dispute and it falls into the branches

Note that Ghazali does think that Ijma’a is a definite source! What he is saying here is that because it is a detailed issue we can’t in an immediate sense reject someone’s faith in Islam.

We have another primary text of Ghazali which clarifies his position towards Ibn Kaysan. Let’s see if he thinks it a matter of legitimate difference. In his book ‘Infamies of the Esoterics (Ismaili Shia) and the Renown of the Exoterics’, we find in Chapter Nine:

This is a serious attack on Law-based judgements and an explicit declaration of their inoperativeness and neglect, and it would call for the clear declaration of the invalidity of all the administrative posts and the unsoundness of the judging of the Qadis and the ruin of God’s rights and prescriptions and the invalidation of blood and wombs and property and the pronouncement of the invalidity of marriages issuing from the Qadis in all the regions of the earth and the remaining of the rights of God most high in the custody of his creatures. For all such things would be legal only if their fulfilment issued from the Qadis duly appointed by the Imam-which would be impossible if there was no imamate. So the exposure of the corruption of a doctrine calling for that is an important task and duty of religion, but not an easy one…

Now would a legitimate opinion be considered corrupt? If it was not corrupt, than how would Ghazali consider it as a duty of religion to expose its corruption? Further on he says:

What if the first premise is denied?” That is the premise of the obligatory nature of having a Caliph in the first place. His answer…..

“We reply that this is agreed upon by us and the Batinites and by all the Muslims. The principle is not questioned but only the specification of the individual-except for the man known as Abd al Rahman Ibn Kaysan.” Sorry Rashad it does not stop. He goes on to say

“All knowledgeable men agree on the falseness of the latter’s doctrine:two things to be pointed out to those seeking guidance on it…(1) The haste of the early companions, after Muhammad’s death to set about appointing an Imam…

(2) The defence and the championing of religion undoubtedly necessary and obligatory. To preserve order there must be someone to keep a watchful eye on men and to nip danger in the bud: otherwise anarchy.

The conflict of wills and passions would lead to neglect of the afterlife and the triumph of vice over virtue and of the lowly over the learned with the consequent dissolution of religious and “secular” checks. So it is clear that the Imam is an indispensible necessity for men”

It seems that I am reading Juwayni again and this is of no surprise anyway as Imam Juwayni considers the Imama in the branches as well even though in Ghiath al Umam he says that their are aspects that are Qati! All the Muslims except this Mutazilite Imam have agreed on the obligatory nature of the appointment of an Imam, according to Ghazali. This I think implies a consensus of the companions! After all, the companions were Muslims! Just because something is in the branches it does not follow that it cannot have a definite base. Rashad why dont you stop reading in an amateur way? For Allah’s sake at least see what the Ulema mean by these terms in the first place! Then we have this utterly shocking statement:

I mentioned earlier that this was also the view of Jahiz al-Balkhi based upon his interpretation of an Ijma (consensus) of the companions

It seems this scholar doesn’t just think it was not an obligation, he in fact thinks that there was an Ijma’a against any contrary position! I shall leave it to Rashad’s “keen logic” to reply to this preposterous statement. Remember when Rashad was asked to source Imam Shawkani’s statement about Al-Mawardi, what did he say? I quote in his “keen dialectic tone”

The author of the piece fails to recognise that the quotation whilst being in a secondary source is actually that of the great hadith master, Qadi and Usuli, Imam Shokani!

Well, shall we use the same argument Rashad, or shall we say another anonymous Quilliam cult member? In Nayl al Awtar Vol 8 page 256 under the section dealing with the obligation of the Imama he says:

…. and the majority have gone towards the conclusion that the Imama is obligatory but they differed: Is this obligation rational or religious? With the 3itra and the majority of the Mutazilites and Asharites it is obligated in a religious sense and with the Imamia it is obligated only rationally and with Al Jahiz and Al Balkhi and Al Hassan al Basri it is obligated both rationally and textually. With Al Darar, Al-Asam, Hisham Al-Futi and Al Najdat it is not obligatory

• Hisham Al-Futi is the Mutazilite Imam from the 3rd century after Hijra. He views that it is obligatory to have an Imam if he is just. However, if the Imam is corrupt then the Muslims are not obligated to have one.
• Ad-Darar as far as I know is Ad-Darar Ibn Umaru who is a shia Mutazilite Imam in the time of Haroon Rashid, but this needs confirmation
• Al-Najdat was from the Khawarij and believed that having an Imam was a fitnah. If there was no fitnah then having an Imam would be allowed
• A-Asam is the Mutazalite Imam of note that we are focusing on.

Note also how Rashad removes the conjunction from Al-Jahith and Al Balkhi and makes them one person! So what was the view of Jahith and Al-Balkhi? They considered it both an obligation textually and rationally! Come on now Rashad what is going on? He also fabricates the view of Hassan al Basri and claims that he only obligated it rationally (see his earlier comments on the citycircle blog as “Nahid Khan”). Imam Shokani’s view of the Imamia i.e. the Twelvers seems a bit simplistic. In fact the vast majority (if not all) of the Imamia i.e the twelvers think that the Imama of Imam Ali is definite textually! This though may need clarification to get to exactly what Imam Shokani meant. Anyway, I quote:The quotation whilst being in a secondary source is actually that of the great hadith master, Qadi and Usuli, Imam Shawkani! So who shall we trust Rashad?

We shall also quote Imam Qurtubi description (in his Tafsir) of the Mutazilite Imam’s view:

It is not obligatory in this religion and it is allowed to do so. Once this Ummah are able to establish their obligations and Jihad organising it between themselves, establishing the truth among themselves, distributed the Fai and Khan’im and the Sadaqat to its people, establishing the Huduud on those whom it was obligated to implement. They do not need to have an Imam to monitor over these duties.

So it seems even Kaysan is an Islamist! He also according to Imam Qurtubi in his Tafsir seems to make it conditional on the ability of the Muslim Ummah to organise things between themselves. Further on the Mutazilites disagree with this accusation in the first place and claim the opposite for the Imam!

Qadi Abd al Jabar in his Mughni Fi Abwab al Tawheed wal Adil Chapter 20 Section 1 page 28 quotes the Mutazilite Imam himself

This means that if the people are fair among themselves and oppression is lifted and it is not obligatory to implement the Huduud then the people can do without an Imam

Qadi Abd al Jabar says with regards to this statement that Kaysan was talking in hyperbole. In other words even if this is logically possible, it certainly is not realistic. In other words Kaysan was saying it is obvious this is never going to happen therefore having an Imam is wajib!

Interestingly the statement is also conditional. This why it seems that Abdullah Bin Bayah when mentioning this Imam says “at least according to the understanding of Juwayni”

Even though there is a lot more to say on this I shall go on with the summary of the article. Abdullah Bin Bayah then goes on and talks about the second position. Is the state essential for our religion? The word is essential Rashad! He does not just think it is ‘wajib’ but dururatan lil Deen i.e a necessary thing for our religion. He describes the adherent of the second group:

The largest group that includes the different madhahib of Islam has no hesitation in saying that the state is part of our religion i.e. it is a religious obligation

Clearly the term “no hesitation” and “necessary” makes you think that this Imam does not think the other view is just a legitimate Ijtihaad especially since he agrees with them! He then provides the proofs of this group and then he lists the different types of relations between State and Religion

The first level – Here we have a total dependence between state and religion. The systems of the state depend on religious texts and those that implement it are infallible and are appointed by Allah. This is what we is termed a Theocracy.

Let us see what is Rashad’s take on this. He says, to impart an illusion that a theocracy is a state that the ‘Islamists’ support :

b. A state should NOT BE THEOCRATIC” And he also says

“Importantly he states the state is not a religious state laisat Daulat deeniat baghd al-intiqaluhu alaihi salat wassalam ilaa rafeeq il-Alaa/it is possible to say that a state would not be a religious state after the passing away of the messenger (saw), although we may have said in the time of the prophet (saw) but not after.”

Does he Rashad? Does he think that a State should not be religious in the sense you think of? Also why the capital letters Rashad? I mean if you are arguing with the ‘Islamists’ what would be the point of the emphasis? Especially as they agree with you on this point! It is only the Shia that believe the Imam is infallible and is literally God’s vice-regent on Earth. Unfortunately for you this phrase refers to the first level — the Shia school of thought! I quote Abdullah Bin Bayyah who says in this same article

It is possible that we can say that the State in Islam is not religious in the sense of a theocracy understood by the west especially after the prophet left us and departed to meet the Highest friend i.e. (the creator)

Now compare this translation with Rashad’s paraphrasing. Note how he left out “in the sense of a theocracy understood by the west” Need I say more?

Abdullah Bin Bayyah then mentions the other levels:

The Second level – This is a state that depends on religious texts whose leaders are scholars of the religion but they have no divine edict to appoint them, nor are they infallible.

The Third level - A state that depends on religious texts but those in authority are not scholars. They also have no divine edict to appoint them nor are they infallible. They could be civil servants, leaders of armies, sometimes in the name of a family tree or for nationalistic bonds and sometimes they have authority by force.

The Fourth level - The state does not depend on religious texts for its systems but it identifies a religious source for the people and the nation. So the Shariah may apply in individual matters like marriage.

The Fifth level - A nation in a complete sense adopts a civil code independent of religion. Religion has no say either in individual matters or at a state level. This state does not object to individual adoptions of religion. This is what is called a “secular state”.

The Sixth level - A secular state that is also hostile to religion like the Communist regimes and the Kamalist Turkish State.

So what is Abdullah Bin Bayyah’s conclusion about the Islamic view on these levels? I quote:

The state is a mechanism among the mechanisms of this religion and it is not a theocratic state ( i.e. not the first level). Nor is is a civil state in a complete sense (here he is ruling out the fifth level and obviously the sixth level) …

Earlier on he talks about the how the third level despite its problems still referred to the Islamic texts for its systems of Government but he does agree that it reached levels of biting tyranny. It is only with the occupation of the Muslim lands and the collapse of the Caliphate that we got the fourth level which really adopted European civil codes almost wholesale.

He in the end says in principle the Islamic state should be based on a voluntary pledge and Shura and does not see a necessary link between the scholars of Islam and the rulers of the state. In other words in his eyes you can rule by Islam even though you are not a scholar.

Clearly Abdullah Bin Bayyah does not think the fourth level is ideal either! In fact in principle he sees a problem with it especially as he views that the religious edicts on the state are an essential mechanism for the state! Rashad goes on

The Shaykh explains then therefore that there are various types of ruling frameworks – which he rejects e.g. autocracy – where religious people rule. He does not accept that there is a direct correlation either between civil society and civil rule COMPLETELY (KAMILAN) in his view- like the Kemalist state!

Why do we have the capital letters again? It seems that Rashad yet again wants to impart an illusion that Islam is fine if we have an incomplete correlation between state and religion. In other words he wants to impart an illusion that Abdullah Bin Bayyah thinks Islam considers all the levels of correlations legitimate except for the Kemalist State! Clearly I have shown this is not the case.

In my next article I am going to touch on the other fabrications of Rashad and Majid, on the issue of multiple Islamic states. I will also go into the other quotes on the obligation of the Imamah which as usual are distorted! I love this quote:

I’m sure you can see that this difference becomes relevant when discussing whether it is simply haram to be an anarchist, or simply stupid, or both even though all we can say about Muslim anarchists who may do is that some Ulema may consider them ‘irrational’ but not sinful, yet others may consider them sinful but not irrational, and others still may consider them both irrational and sinful!

So in the eyes of Rashad, taking into account his warped understanding of Kaysan, we can possibly use a “legitimate interpretation” to say that Islam supports stupid and irrational verdicts!

It just reminds me of the wonderful days of flat earths and spherical planets that do not rotate! Of course, much more on that later.

And Allah knows best.

NB – Like I said I think it is Rashad but who knows?

In ‘The Islamist’ ‘Ed’ Mahbub Husain talks of his family Pir as a Sufi sage from Bangladesh, more importantly he is described as an apolitical spiritual guide, as opposed to Mawdudi who was an ardent ’Islamist’. An ‘Islamist’ who mixes religion with politics, whilst  corrupting the teaching of Islam from that of a personal and spiritual ethical guide, to a political ideology that seeks power on state level. Further, from Mahbub’s account, Mawdudi was condemned by this Pir and his followers for this corrupt deviation. Well is ‘Ed’s’ depiction of his family Pir accurate?

The family Pir is none other than the Allama Abdul Latif Chowdhury, better known as  ‘Allama Saheb Qiblah Fultali’, a well known Sufi religious leader in Bangladesh, whose differences with Mawdudi were more on theological grounds than political vision per se. Some Deobandi and Brelwi scholars would indeed condemn certain aspects of Mawdudi writings, more specifically his theological opinions relating to the companions of the prophet. An example of this critique can be viewed in Gabriel Haddad’s adaptation of Al-Binnuri’s Arabic introduction to Shaykh Zakariyya al-Kandihlavi writings on Mawdudi.

Further, Mawdudi was critical of populist Sufism, that centred many of its religious practices around the veneration of saints and shrines. One of the reasons for this was Mawdudi’s background, being influenced by the writings coming from the late Ottoman reformers such as Rasheed Rida. Vali Nasr observes  in his book ‘Mawdudi and the Making of Islamic Revivalism’:

The Jama’at’s schismatic relations with traditional Islam were at least in part a result of Mawdudi’s attitude towards Sufism. Like some Islamic reformers who preceded him, and true to the spirit of contemporary revivalist thought, Mawdudi and the Jama’at were disdainful of Sufism and the traditional institutions associated with it… True to his modernizing perspective, Mawdudi found Sufism to be incompatible with his scheme of things. Sufism was of great importance to the major ulama groups in Pakistan, the Deobandis and the Brelwis, and they found Mawdudi’s attack on Sufism just as his contentious as his exegisis on juridicial and theological matters. In Punjab and Sind, Sufism played an important role in the popular culture of the masses and eventually in their politics … In his correspondence with ‘Alau’ddin Shah, a Naqshbandi Pir in Punjab who was also a relative, Mawdudi accepted the truth of Sufism, though only as practiced  by the venerated Shaikh, not the popular Sufism of the Chishti and the Qadiri orders whose structures of authority were based on Sufi shrines and the festivals and rituals associated with them

It is this type of attitude that brought him and many of his followers in direct collision with many of the populist Sufi movements in the Indian subcontinent. Their difference was not on the issue of the applicability of Islamic law to social and political domains, but rather revolved around the legitimacy of Sufi practices and certain other theological views. It goes without saying that Mawdudi’s idea of direct political social action to bring about an Islamic social order, as opposed to the ideas that centre around the internal reforms of individuals (Islah An-Nufus), is another key difference.  This video is one of Allama Fultali ‘Bayat’ initiation ceremonies, and in the advice after the initiation he emphasizes the idea of ‘Islah An-Nafs’ or the reformation of the self.

Moreover, if you visit the archives of the website dedicated to the memory of Mahbub’s family Pir, (some of these texts have disappeared from the more recent vision of the website), you find:

He believes that the proper Islamic education can bring an intellectual renaissance in the country and through this enlightenment it is possible to establish Islamic Society and Islamic Order in the stately affairs, and that is why Saheb Quiblah has founded the ANJUMANE AL-ISLAH BANGLADESH.

For Allama Fultali revival was about spiritual renewal of individuals via education and charitable work, which would then form the germs or seeds for a greater enlightenment and more specifically an “Islamic Order in the stately affairs”. He may have not been a revolutionary thinker as Mawdudi, but to claim that the key difference between this traditionalist version of populist Sufism and Mawdudi, was on the issue of the application of religion in state affairs, holds no water. If anything, according to Mahbub’s criteria, Fultali was indeed an ‘Islamist’! This is why I argue that we cannot make distinct categories, as Mahbub and Majid would argue, between ‘Islamists’ and ‘traditional Islam’. This categorization does not stand, as many ‘traditional’ scholars were part of ‘Islamist’ groups e.g. Sheikh Abdul-Fattah Abu-Ghuddah from Aleppo (a leader of the Brotherhood)  was a famous Hadeeth master and Naqshbandi Sufi. Further, those who were not members of such groups did not differ with the idea that ‘traditional Islam’, as passed down in the writings of the classical scholars, does indeed have a vision for society and state affairs. The writings of Abdullah Ben Bayyah, which will be focused upon in the future, will attest to this fact.

‘Ed’ is co-opting, in a superficial manner, the apparent spiritual practices of many Sufis, to then claim they were simply concerned with personal ethics and a spiritual life. This cannot be furthest from the truth, it goes without saying that Mahbub’s reading is a projection of his New Labour commitments onto a social religious phenomenon, despite his projection being completely false. This projection is driven by his own political commitments to the Blairite New Labour project, and specifically figures such as Dennis MacShane, Ruth Kelly and Mark Bright of the New Stateman.

Mahbub’s witch hunt of ‘Islamists’ smells of political McCarthyism. His parroting of sound bites such as ‘monocultural ghettoes’, communal politics and separatism comes direct from the New Labour hymn book. The defeat of New Labour in East London by an alliance of Brotherhood inspired Muslims, elements of the left and George Galloway further spurned more animosity. His diatribes against these elements of the left, in his book, attests to that fact. In ‘The Islamist’ Mahbub states outright that he is a New Labour campaigner in East London and the sudden appearance of his memoirs alludes to some networking within the New Labour party apparatus and the national media, which are putting him forward, in a propaganda stunt, as some native informant or ‘poster boy’, a role Mahbub gladly complies with. This despite Mahbub holding no credentials whatsoever, other than a brief stint as a novice (and not member) with Hizb-ut-Tahrir when studying for his A-Levels, followed by attending some circles run by Brotherhood inpired organizations!

Some PR has been used to paint him as someone who was part of the ‘dark side’ and in the know, while anyone reading his memoirs knows how baseless this is, judging from the basic mistakes and inaccuracies that are rife in his book. In this sense, Majid was a God send for this man. Above all, we know from the case of Rowan Williams, the media does not do nuance. Hence, ‘Ed’ and the media can be described as a marriage made in heaven. All this leads to a conclusion: Is Mahbub’s compliance due to his own political aspirations? Will Mahbub please clarify, never mind…

Imam Ghazzali is well known in history for his passionate  defense of Islam against heretical innovations. I just so happened to be reading this book

 المستظهري: فضائح الباطنية وفضائل المستظهرية

Infamies of the Esoterics [Ismaili Shia'] and the Renown of the Exoterics

This was a tract defending the Abbasid Caliph Al-Mustathir, and the title is an ingenious play of words to contrast the baatini world of the Ismaili sect with the exoteric work of Sunni Islam.

The tract also been translated online. See this great site:

http://www.ghazali.org/site/oeuvre-t.htm

Interestingly, Ghazzali wrote this tract as a response to the propoganda tactics of the Baatini sect. Of course, they believe in a higher state many of the obligations of Islam can be overriden, when we consider the underlying spirit of the law, that is clarified by the Imams of the age. They would use certain tactics to show the apparent inconsistency of the revealed law. For example, how does it make sense that the urine of a baby boy is sprinked and the urine of a baby girl is washed, if it soaks a garment? Well he did not use this example exactly but still the tactics are similar.

I shall put it in a diplomatic way – Ghazali was not happy with this approach!  

Then I thought, is this Quilliam cult another version of the Baatini heretical Isma’ili sect? I mean they make similar claims!

Instead of the Imam of the age providing the inspiration for the  underying reasons of the “exoteric law, we have Shiekh Rashad Rambali giving us underlying esoteric reasons to nullify Islamic law.

I wonder could ‘Sheikh’ Rashad Rambali be related to the prophet through Fatima? Do we have an “Isma’ili Imam” in hiding?

Seriously though, what is the difference between this Quilliam cult and the Isma’ili sect, when it comes to this very same process of reasoning?

The Baatinia are back with a vengeance!

I think Ed Hussain and his groupies should build some large Castle in Surrey, next to their Neo-Conservative inspired middle class paranoid English country folk and then send out hit men to take out the Islamists.

I am now in the process of producing a wonderful article in response to ”Noddy” aka Rashad’s (or at least someone who writes in an identical fashion )  fabrications of the Maliki scholar Abdullah Bin Bayah (one of the sheukh of Hamza Yusuf). Interestingly the results are shocking for this group. They should leave this man as soon as possible before he labels them as heretics! lol!

 Imagine that? An “honorable shiekh” that considers there views i.e. of Majid in the city circle talk as a rejection of what is known by necessity in Islam!

Subhanallah quickly rush to Ed and tell him to report this man to MI5! Yallah dont dilly dally!

So what are the proofs for this?

1-That Islam borrowed from the Persian Systems to implement a “Mahkamat al Madhalaim” even though it was not introduced by the prophet

2-That one can leave ones stronger position when a Caliph orders you to for the sake of the Masaleh of the Muslims

3-Imam Mawardi, and Abu Yusuf held this position with the Haroon Rashid Incident

4-Certain Hadiths allow people to convert to Islam with clear cut conditions that contradict Islam. Hence one can leave clear cut texts for the sake of our Maqasid Shaytania. This is the position of Imam Shokani despite his greviances with the Zaydi Imam noted.

5-Imam Hadi al Murtada believes that one can abandon the clear cut Huduud for the “public interests” of the people

6-The prophet abandoned the Islamic punishment for those that insult prophets hence he too abandoned the Sharia for the Maqasid al Shaytania

7-Also TJ Winters quotes the scholars who did not deem apostasy to be a capital offence. He is a scholar from Cambridge mashallah!
etc etc etc…..

Courts of Unjust Acts

Sometimes I really get a headache trying to find a case for this person. Wallah I tried! I just don’t how reasoning like this will lead to the valued conclusion they desire.

The Muslims (according to Imam Mawardi) from the time of Abd al Malik appointed judges to deal with specific aspects of Islamic law

Therefore

We can drop what is known by necessity in Islam for the Maqasid al Shaytania!

I mean what in the world is this? It is like saying because a scholar has specialised in the rulings to do with Inheritance we can therefore consider the laws of Highway Robbery defunct. It is really laughable and it really shows that Rashad is just throwing any old thing at us. Of course we need the standard fabrication of Mawardi’s view.

He argues…’The court of mathalim was established by the Abbasids (Mawardi the Qadi and writer notes this was an imitation of the Persian system present at the time) to bring about justice and account the governors.’

So what did Imam Mawardi actually say and did he believe the mahkamat madhaalim was a copy and paste of the Persians or did he believe this was from the Sunnah? Other articles will deal with this issue in more detail but we will contend ourselves to just looking at Imam Mawardi.

In Al Ahkam as Sultaniyya, Chapter 7 ‘On the Redress of Wrongs’, he states, “If he is already in public office with the general powers of a minister or governor, for example, no special appointment is necessary for the redress of wrongs.” So in origin the obligation placed upon redressing the wrongs or settling any madhalam (oppressive act) rests upon those in authority with whom they have general powers. The important point to note here is that those in authority are obliged to perform justice and remove oppression even if this is against themselves. Thereby, they understood that no ruler stood above the law all were subject to and all could be accounted by it.

In support of this obligation of redressing the wrongs he the evidence from the sunnah, “The Messenger of God (saw) did personally attend to the settlement of a water-drawing dispute between Zubayr ibn al Awwam and an ansari. When he ordered Zubayr to draw the water first and then the ansari, the latter protested, “[That is because] He is your maternal cousin, Messenger of God.” Upset by this remark, the Messenger said, “Zubayr, make him crawl on his stomach until the water reaches up to his heels.” The crawling was an act of discipline for his rudeness,”

Therefore, the sunnah has clarified that an obligation has been placed to ensure the rulers and their policies must be accountable to the law. This in origin rests with those in authority and its source is firmly established in Islamic law.

Imam Mawardi then explains how the authority was delegated to a specific person/court, “No one was delegated to redress wrongs by the first four Caliphs because in those early days of profound faith the people were easily led by appeal to justice to acknowledge the truth, or were else caused by rebuke to desist from injustice… The early Caliphs thus limited themselves to the settlement of quarrels by means of court judges, since people readily obeyed the latter’s decisions. When Ali’s investment (ra) was delayed and the nation, in confusion over it, began to act unfairly, he needed additional ruthlessness in policy and greater alertness in determining obscure cases…It was Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan who first assigned a certain day to the consideration of such wrongs, reviewing complaints without holding a specific mandate for this purpose. In particularly problematic cases or when a legal verdict was needed, he consulted with his judge Abu Idris Al-Awdi, accepting the latters decision. As insolence of office and inequity of of the powerful grew, then could only be curbed by the clearest exercise of might and strictest enforcement of the law. The first to create and assume an office for the redress of such wrongs was Umar bin Abd al-Aziz (rh) who revived and upheld just practoses, and severely punished the Ummayads for their acts of oppression…. Later on this function was performed by a group of Abbasid Caliphs.”

So where do the Persians fit into this well Imam Mawardi then states, “This practise had, in fact, been considered by Persian kings to be one of the basic principles of equitable government, without the observance of which neither welfare nor fair dealing was possible. Even in pre-Islamic times when, with the proliferation of leaders and chiefs in Quraysh, disputes and fights got out of hand, a pact had to be concluded to put an end to injustice and avenge the oppressed.”

You see no matter how many times I read Mawardi I cannot understand where Rashad got his understanding of the copy or imitation of the Persians by the Muslims? Mawardi says that they had common principles. In fact he even mentions the Jahyliaah Arabs. Does it follow that Mawardi thought the Muslims copied this from them? Of course not! It is clear that Mawardi thought this was an internal Islamic system that had overlaps with other non Muslim  civilizations.

We can say therefore that Mawardi had the following conclusions

(1) We have general evidences of redressing wrongs. For example Mawardi provides proof from the Sunnah

(2) This was instituted at first by Abd Malik Bin Marwan and follows from the general evidences provided.

(3) This practice was also considered to a basic principle of equity by the Persian Kings and the Quraysh themselves pre Islamically!

Obviously this does not provide a proof for this conclusion

We can leave clear cut texts in Islam for our valued Maqasaid Shaytania

The Authority of the Caliph can override the Ijtihad of the Scholar

Rashad argues that and I quote

“That, in the opinion of Taqi al-Din al-Nabhani, it is allowed to adopt an opinion for the sake of calling the people to it and uniting them upon it if there is a Maslaha (interest) intended in this.The legislature, and even the Ijtihad of the people, will bind the Government”

In other word it seems even Taqi Deen Nabhani agrees we can drop the stronger Ijtihad and follow that of the Caliph to unite the people if we have a Maslaha. Well we all know the view of Taqi al Din Nabahani on Masaleh Mursalah  in Volume 3 of Shaksyia. He clearly does not consider the Maqasid to be specific I’llalal that can be used in analogy . He in fact does not consider Masaleh al Mursalah to be a source of Shariah in itself! Clearly this is a strange person to quote to support his views! Well Rashad will resort to any trick to survive as will be seen with Imam Shokani himself later on.

The scholars are generally in agreement that the Caliph’s Ijtihad overrides the personal views of the subjects of the states even if they view it to be stronger. This is not because of the general ilah of the Maqasid, even though many scholars may view it as one of the goals of this ruling but because of the specific evidence that is in the Quran and the Sunnah which has reached the level of tawatur.

Many times the prophet has said that we should obey our rulers even if they whip us and take our money. In fact we should ask Allah for our rights (if we feel we are within our rights) and obey the Caliph. If he shows clear sin then we disobey him. In other narrations of the prophet we have an Ijtihad that is mistaken getting a reward. So clearly the prophet viewed an Ijtihad as a view that could be wrong but was not a sin. Of course this begs the question of what is an Ijithad and what is a clear sin but that is beyond the remit of the topic at hand.

Just to add one more point. Taq deen Nabahani extends this to the political party. In other words one can follow the “weaker” Ijtihaad of the Amir for the sake of unity. Of course, I am not here to defend the party (as I am not studying nor am I a member of it) but does this help? Well no! It still has to be in Dhunni texts, and related to the particular goal of the group. For example if the Amir in Hizb Tahrir says that Salah is better this way, then of course none of its members need to be concerned (since it is not adopted). It also cannot be used for clear cut texts. So yet again, the “maqasadists” cannot use it because Taqi was using specific evidence and not relying on the warped understandings of modernists.

In the end we have the following conclusions

(1) We have many evidences from the Quran and Sunnah that we should obey our rulers in all matters relevant to the State as long as the imperative is not in sin.

(2) We also know that the prophet (saw) did not view an Ijithad as a sin

(3) Therefore the Ijtihad of the Caliph in the remit of his authority would be included in those matters that should be obeyed

This is how the vast majority of the scholars have seen it from the time of the Salaf onwards and no one in the history of our traditional scholarship viewed it as a support of this wretched conclusion i.e.

We can leave clear cut texts in Islam for our valued Maqasaid Shaytania

Yet again Imam Mawardi and that incident!

Rashad yet again mentions this incident between Haroon Rashid and Abu Yusuf. He hasn’t really responded to the point at hand so I will just refer the readers to the previous response. Imam Mawardi and I quote

“Opinions, therefore, that are not embraced by the society, though they may have a sound legal argument, are not to be enforced (remove comma) if there is a Maslaha in doing so”

Well no actually Imam Mawardi was commenting on Abu Yusuf’s action. What did he actually do? Well, he just revised the case and implemented the Islamic ruling on it. Imam Mawardi said that one can revise a case and look at a second time if it is a sensitive area.

Which opinion was not embraced by society? Well the Capital punishment of the Muslim. First it was not embraced. What does it mean to be embraced on this occasion? We had an individual who was making an incident out of it that was getting out of hand

Did the person have a sound argument? Well Abu Yusuf did not think so in line with the Hanafi position on the capital punishment of the Muslim who commits murder. So yet again this fails on reading the text

Finally does it lead to the fact that Islamic rulings “…are not to be enforced if there is a Maslaha in doing so”

Well no actually Abu Yusuf revised the case and saw that the plaintiff had no evidence. Clearly an Islamic ruling that is to be applied!

Imam Mawardi then commented on Aby Yusuf’s action and said this can be allowed in cases like this. What Islamic ruling was dropped then? Clearly none!

I repeat this one does not force us to the conclusion that

We can leave clear cut texts in Islam for our valued Maqasaid Shaytania

It clearly seems that he has not even bothered to answer our reply and just has repeated himself

Validating Invalid Conditions

It is of no surprise that we have these texts mentioned as another proof to nullify the Shariah for a Utilitarian paradigm. Interestingly Jamal al Banna has used this one very hadith to allow Muslims to pray two times a day! So I am not surprised that they have regurgitated this nonsense. Notice how Rashad uses this to show that Shokani at least supports his understanding of the Zaydi Imam .

Ok let’s deal with the hadiths.

The Narration pertaining to Salah

“It is reported on the authority of Asim al-Laythi that a man amongst them said verily he went to the prophet (may Allah bless and grant him peace) and agreed that he would embrace Islam on the condition that he would pray two prayers, and he (saw) accepted this from him “

This hadith has been narrated by Ibn Abi Shibah in his Musnad and in the Matalib Al 3ayliya (9/537) on the authority of Waki Bin Al Jara7. It has also been narrated by Ahmad in his Musnad (5/24) on the authority of Muhamad Bin Jafar (5/362) and on the authority of Waki and Ibn Abi Asim in the ahad and al mathani (no. 941). The Isnad following from Waki and Muhamad Bin Jafar then goes like this. Hadathana Shu’ba a’n Qatada a’n Nasir bin Asmi al-Laythi on the authority of a man among them that he came to the prophet and said he would accept Islam on the condition that he would only pray two salahs and the prophet accepted it from him. Another version has it that he would only pray once.

In terms of the Isnad we have this

(1) First it is narrated on the authority of Nasri Bin Asim al-Laythi and not Asim al Laythi as Rashad has mistranslated.

(2) The narration is mu’an an’a from Shu’ba to Nasir Bin Asim al Laythi

(3) The narration has an unknown narrator i.e. a man among them whom Nasir Bin Asim al Laythi narrates from.

(4) The narration has Itriaab, In one narration we have the person saying he would accept Islam and only pray once and in another narration we have him saying he will only pray twice. We have also another interesting version which is by Abu Nai’em al Asbahani in his Ma3rifat al Sahaba (no 7303). It finishes with the prophet saying “That it will be accepted from him but once he enters Islam then he is to be ordered to do the five obligatory prayers”. This Isnad goes from Muhamaad Bin Ahmad Bin Hassan Qala Hadathna Abdullah Bin Ahmad Ibn Hanbal Hadathana Ahmad Ibn Hanbal (i.e. the father of Abdullah) Hadathana Muhamaad Bin Jafar Hadathana Shubaa A3n Qatada ….. with this important addition.

(5) Qatada is narrating without saying Hadathana or Akhbarana and he is known for Tadlis. Shubaa was extra careful when narrating from Qatada and therefore it is said that when together the Shubha goes. Still it seems that to be sure it would have been better if the narration had Shuba narrating Qatada saying hadathana.

So taking into account the Tadlis of Qatada (which maybe overcome), the unknown companion and the Itriaab in Matn the hadith becomes questionable. Still a number of Ulema have categorised it as at least Hassan.

So how do we understand this hadtih? Well lets us deal with all the possible logical options.

1-They accepted Islam on the condition that only one or two salah are obligated on them from Allah and his prophet. In other words they are an exception to the rule

2-They accept Islam on the condition that they do not believe that the other three or four obligatory prayers are actually revealed to the prophet.

3-They accept Islam on the condition that they are not forced to do the other prayers even though they believe they are an obligation.

4-They accept Islam on the condition that their lack of adherence does not affect the fact that they are Muslims. In other words I accept Islam on the condition that my sins do not make me a non Muslim

This is the view point of those putting forward the conditions. The prophet’s response could have also been understood in a number of ways

1-He could have accepted their faith and knew that these invalid conditions would not nullify it i.e the core of the contract if you wish

2-He could have accepted this condition knowing that they would actually fulfil Islam’s obligations once they taste the sweetness of faith

3-He could have accepted this condition knowing that Muslims should not be forced to pray in public

4-He could have accepted this condition as a specific exception for this person or that tribe. In other words it is obligatory on all converts to do the basic duties except this person or this tribe.

5-He could have accepted this as a legal precedent to allow the Muslims to accept the faith of everyone on any condition except for Shirk (hey why not? Why cant we allow a qualified Shirk?). For example one could accept Islam on the condition that he can still deal in stolen cars or beat his wife.

Well it obvious that at least some of the possibilities can be taken out of the equation. The prophet would obviously not allow them condition number 2. It would clearly be a contradiction to say that I only partially believe in some of the things that are revealed to the prophet. I don’t think Rashad would want that now would he?

Condition number one seems also to be a bit of a problem taking into account the important addition in the works of Abu Na3im al Isbahani i.e.

“That it will be accepted from him but once he enters Islam then he is to be ordered to do the five obligatory prayers”

Now some think this addition is Shadh. That is difficult to uphold given the fact that the Isnad is as least as strong as the other variation, and that an addition even though it may be “shadh” (difficult to establish in this case what is the normative version) as long as it is not contradictory it can be accepted.

It also has a supporting practice from the narration of the prophet on Banu Thaqif (more on that later) where the prophet said. “If they accept Islam they shall do Jihad and they shall pay Sadaqah” and also in the more important phrase “there is no good in a religion without Ruku”.

Let us say that this is not accepted though. So we could say that the prophet in the early stages of Islam accepted these “fasid” conditions as valid on the condition that the exception was a revelation from his Creator. Clearly this would not help Majid and his cohorts because these narrations would be historically specific and could not be extended to modern times. I mean as far as I know Majid and Rashad have not claimed prophethood yet. Who knows? Maybe they will do it for the sake of the Maqasid! In other words the addition and the supporting practice in the Banu Thaqif incident could be predictions. I accept your condition knowing full well in the future that you would go against it! Clearly only a prophet can do that!

We are left with the other options. The prophet could have accepted that their Islam would be valid even though they are sinful. In other words he just ignored the conditions and accepted them into the fold.

 He may have accepted the fact that he would not force them to pray publically. In other words this hadith could be proof that Salah in congregation in a Masjid is not obligatory. It could also be proof that negligence in Salah does not lead one out of Islam (contrary to a view among some Hanbali scholars). This again does not help their case

So let us deal with the final possibility. This was a legal precedent to go ultra liberal with our religion. In fact this was a reading of that ultra liberal Jamal al Banna who rejected ahad hadith but accepted this questionable one to say that we can pray one or two times a day!

A number of problems if I may

1-The narrations talk about Salah. In order to extend it to other Islamic obligations we need some sort of analogy. Now Majid would have us believe that the Ibaadat do not fall under our analogies by Maqasid. In fact he clearly mentions this in his talk at the city circle. Yet here we are dropping even the Ibaadat for the Maqasid! Why not extend it further? Why don’t we say that people are allowed to become Muslims as long as they don’t believe the story of Soloman and Sheba in the Quran. At least according to this warped understanding of the Maqasid they have accepted most of Islam!

2-Now if there are an infinite number of conditions that we can come up with before we accept Islam, then how in the world would we make sense of the ayahs in the Quran which curse those who do not pray or for a matter of fact any obligation in Islam? I mean who would want to accept Islam and be cursed? Why not do away with the obligation in the first place? In fact how do we define the core that is not to be compromised? What criterion do we use? I mean imagine the extreme Irja you can get here. How in the world would we be able to identify a Muslim in public? Is Islam all in the heart literally? How about the condition that I can publically be a hypocrite and an apparent antagonist to Islam but in my heart I believe Islam to be true! Hey, we do need to get along in our society after all!

3- The prophet accepted their Islam on these invalid conditions. He did not comment on the validity of them. In fact he actually mentioned the opposite. In the version of Banu Thaqif he placed a conditional statement on them. Once they accept Islam they shall do Jihad and pay Sadaqah. This is why Khatabi says that his acceptance was time related. In other words in the immediate sense he would not call them for Jihad or ask them to pay Sadaqah. Similarly in this hadith the prophet said that once they accepted Islam they shall be obligated to pray. In the Banu Thaqif hadith he said that there is no good in a religion without Ruku.

4-By following this understanding we nullify the muttawatir narrations in the Hadith and many, many, many ayahs in the Quran that obligate all the converts to Islam to the do the obligations that are required of them. In other words this is how we understand them. The obligations are valid in Islam for those that only accept them as valid. Clearly an imperative from our creator which is not really an imperative can lead to problems of deconstructing texts. Wouldn’t it be better to bring the hadith in line with the norm that is mass transmitted rather then nullifying the mass transmissions for a questionable understanding of a questionable hadith?

5-As Rashad is so much “in love” with Ijma al Ummah, this understanding is rejected by the consensus of the scholars of the Muslim Ummah. For example see Majmu al Fatawa by Ibn Taymiaah (35/31-32), Ibn Rajab Jami al Ulum wa al Hukm (page 84),Majd al Deen Ibn Taymiaah’s Al Muntaqi (2/4164), Ibn Hajr’s Al Matalib Al Alia (9/537), See Nayl Al Awtar by Imam Shokani. They all see these hadiths as the acceptance of Islam on invalid conditions.

6-On a minimalist reading of the hadith we can say that they accepted Islam on the condition that they do not do certain acts. They did not say that they would accept Islam on the condition that they do not consider these as obligations in the first place. One has to do with acts the other has to do with beliefs. As the hadiths are silent on this the onus is on the other party to provide proof that they had this additional understanding. Simply put

I will accept Islam on the condition that I do not do pray all the time does not lead to the conclusion that I believe the prayer is not obligatory on me. The hadiths are silent on what they did or did not believe. They could after all have had the intention to enter into Islam “gradually”.

I have one more narration to bring forth. This is the narration in Nisai and the Musnad of of Ahmad. In the version of Nisa’i we have this Isnad

Akhbarana Ismail Bin Masood Qala hadathana Khalid a’n Shuba a’n Abi bashr who said that he heard Yusuf who is Ibn Mahhik narrating about Hakim who said that I gave my pledge to Islam on the condition that I do not fall expect while standing.

This narration again has some issues to do with the matn. The meaning of the hadith is very unclear! The following possible interpretations have been given

1-I do not fall i.e. do not die except while standing firmly on my religion.

2-That I do not fall into matters of my worldly affairs except if I have authority

3-Nisai has it in the section to with Salah. That I do not go into Sujud except from a standing position. In other words I would not do Rukuh before going into Sajdah.

See the Sharh of the Sunan of Nisai by Imam Suyuti and Imam Sundi. Also see Al Nihaya fi Gharib al Athar by Imam Ibn Jazri. and Gharib al Hadith by Ibn Salaam. (All references have online links that are available on request)

It would seem strange to place this as a condition for entering into Islam. If this had to do with Salah then maybe the companion had some difficulties (maybe medically?) going into Rukuh. Anyway the hadith is very unclear and again this interpretation goes in line with the normative one provided by the scholars. The acts of a person do not nullify his belief in Islam. In other words, someone can accept Islam if he is deficient in his religious obligations. It still would be difficult to see Rashad getting a clear understanding of this hadith in the first place!

The Narrations pertaining to Ban Thaqif

Ok we now pass on to the narrations to do with Bany Thaqif. Here is the narration as translated by Rashad.

Wahb is reported to have said: I asked Jabir regarding what transpired at Thaqeef when they gave the Bayah (pledge) and he said: they placed the condition (shart) on the Prophet (saw) that there would be no Sadaqa upon them, and no jihad. I heard from the Messenger (saw) himself say: They will give the sadaqa and the will fight Jihad! (Narrated by Abu Dawud, Hadith number 3210)

We have also another narration

Abu Dawud has also narrated the Hadith of al-Hasan al-Basri from Uthman bin Abi’ al-Aas that “when (the tribe of) Thaqif presented themselves to the Messenger, Allah bless him and grant him peace, he met them in the Mosque, so as to soften their hearts. They placed conditions on him that they should not be summoned, nor should their wealth be subject to the tenth, and that they would not lower their heads by bowing. So the Messenger, peace be upon him and his family, said: “It is granted, that you will not be summoned, and your tenth will not be taken, but there is no good in a religion without bowing (ruku’)”

Ok with regards to the Isnad of the Hadith in Ahmad.

Hadathana 3faaan Qala Hadthanaa Hammad Bin Salama a’n Hamid a’n Al-Hassan a’n Uthman Bin Abi al 3ass.

3faaan is Ibn Muslim al Safar Abu Uthmaan al Basri. Abu Hatim said that he is a trustworthy Imam, Al3jaali said :Trustworthy, a companion of the sunnah, Yaquub Bin Sadusi:A trustworthiness that has been established. With regards to Hammad Bin Salama Ibn Na’im said: He is even more trustworthy then Abi Na’im . Hammad Bin Salama’s narrations are in the six collections and Bukhari narrated from him. (see Sayr A’laam al Nubala (9/25-32)

Mundhari said that it has been said that Hassan never heard it directly from Uthman Bin Abi al 3ass. See 3Un al 3bood (8/268). Ibn Abd al Barr though narrates in Alsti3aab (3/153) as well as Imam Dhahabi in Sayr Al 3laam (4/40) that Hassan (Hassan al Basri) actually did meet Uthman and narrate from him. So it seems to claim that he did not in this case would need additional proof.

At any rate the hadith is at least Hassan according alot of the scholars of hadith. So how do we understand this hadtih? Well we can list similar options with regards to this hadith. A few particular points though I think could be mentioned

1-In last part of one of the versions the prophet said “ They shall pay sadaaqah and do Jihad” i.e. when they become Muslim. In principle we take the Amr even if it is in a future sense as an imperative to follow. Also if we follow the school of thought of Taqi the indication to show its wujub is with the subject matter being discussed.

2-The other hadiths talks about specific types of descriptions that are attached to these acts. With regards to the Sadaqah he did not mention the obligatory Zakah but talked about the “tenth” of the income to be collected which is recommended. He also did not give them the opportunity to reject Jihad completely but allowed them to fulfil the obligation as long as they are not collected together as a group to fulfil it. This could be part of the means and styles of Jihad and hence again it would not be an obligation that is absolved. If it is understood in this way, we can understand the last section mentioned in point one as a prediction.

3-Even if the prophet “absolved” them of obligatory duties, we could still take the last section as an imperative. Khatabi as quoted by Shokani used this to show that in the immediate sense this would not be an obligation unlike Salah.

4-Finally as mentioned before this could be proof that acts do not nullify the beliefs of Islam (well generally) and hence were invalid conditions

Anyway the possibilities are exhausted in the previous discussion on the hadith to do with Salah.

Let us quote Imam Ibn Rajib the Hanbali Imam who is the author of Jami al Ulum wal Hukm. On page 84 he says

“ It is know by necessity that the prophet (salahu alehi wa salaam) would accept anyone who wanted to enter Islam with the Shahaditain only and with this his blood would be protected and he would become Muslim. He (i.e. the prophet) objected to Usamah Bin Zayd when he killed someone who said there is not God but Allah when Usamah raised the sword against him …and the prophet did not place a condition that those who accepted Islam must be vigilant with regards to the prayers, and the Zakah. In fact it has been narrated that he accepted the Islam of those who placed the condition that they do not pay Zakah. In the Musnad of Ahmad on the authority of Jabir it is narrated that Thaqif placed the conditions on the prophet that they do not engage in Jihad and nor do they pay Zakah. It is also narrated in the Musnad that the prophet accepted the Islam of someone who said that he would only pray two prayers. With this Imam Ahmad derived the conclusion that one can accept Islam with invalid (corrupt) conditions and after that (i.e. after he becomes Muslim) he will be obligated to follow all the legal obligations of Islam …….”

Also Shiekh Majid Deen Ibn Taymiaah in the Al Muntaqi (2/4164) mentions these hadiths as proof that Islam can be accepted with invalid conditions and once the person accepts Islam then he shall be obligated to do all five prayers!

Shiekh Ibn Taymiaah in his Majmoo al Fatawaa (35/31-32) again uses this as an example of enjoying good and forbidding evil in a balanced way. The prophet accepted the Islam of these people even though the conditions had a mafsadaa (a corrupt aspect) but rejection of Islam would have been even worse. Simply put you don’t correct a wrong in a way which is worse in the Shariah sense. Another example would be the prevention of the playing of musical instruments by the killing of the musician (this example is mentioned as it was a common theme in the Hanbali correction of munkar). So clearly Ibn Taymiaah did not mean that we abandon the obligations of the Shariah for the Maqasid! Rather what he meant is that principles of correction should be in line with the Sharia.

Like I said before this is the traditional understanding of the hadith and this is the view of Imam Shokani himself who used this to show that Islam can be accepted even if someone places invalid conditions. Unfortunately Rashad has this to say about Imam Shokani

“Al-Shawkani accepts, from another perspective, the principle that political agreements with apparently ‘invalid’ conditions are permitted.” (italics added)

Well he clearly does not think they are apparently so. He as all the scholars of Islam do, think that they are genuine invalid conditions. Rashad also says

“Returning to the repealing of Hudood, though other jurists who comment on this text may ostensibly differ with Imam al-Murtada, such as the Qadi al-Imam Muhammad bin Ali al-Shawkani, they differ not with the substantive issue itself”

Yet another lie on the Shiekh! In Substance Imam Shawkani disagrees with the Illah al Mursalah! In his own work on Usul al Fiqh i.e. Irshaad al Fuhul fi Ilm al Usul he considers Qiyas in a very narrow sense. To him Qiyas in the legal sense is no different than “Fa7hu al kalam” or Mafhuum al Nass i.e. the ilaah has to be textualised in a clear manner! Also while discussing the different understandings of Istihsaan, he has very harsh things to say about leaving a stronger dhunni position for a weaker one. So imagine abandoning a clear text for some Maqasid mursalah! (See his secion on Istihsaan and the chapter on Qiyas in Irshaad al Fuhul).

Obviously as also previously shown in the previous article he has totally taken the Zaydi Imam out of the context of his own Usul and his own understanding of “maslaha” and he has not even touched on that refutation.

In conclusion he has twisted the views of the Zaydi Imam out of the context of the Zaydi understanding; he has ascribed fabricated views to Imam Shokani, and has understood the hadiths in a way that is impossible textually. It is also goes against the consensus of all the scholars who have commented on these hadiths.

Need I say more?

Apostasy yet again!

Rashad finally tries to refute our previous article on this subject by and I quote claiming that

“Regarding the issue of blasphemy itself the Islamist perspective is – unsurprisingly – the harshest stance possible..”

He also quotes TJ winters

“….. Prominent among them one may name al-Nakha’i (d.713), al-Thawri (d.772), al-Sarakhsi (d. 1090), al-Baji (d. 1081), and al-Sha’rani (d.1565). The debate triggered by the Ottoman reform was continued when al-Azhar University in Cairo, the supreme religious authority in the Arab world, delivered a formal fatwa (religious edict) in 1958, which confirmed the abolition of the classical law in this area.”

Isn’t this just wonderful? We go to the primary sources and have already shown that all of the scholars mentioned i.e. Nakha’i, Thawri, Al Sarkhasi,. Al-Baji and Al Sha’rani (See Haddad’s article in refutation of Kamali and the article on apostasy) view that the Capital offence does apply to the apostate (at least for the male on the Hanafi position). So he goes and quotes a tertiary referencing of a secondary source! This just has me in fits of laughter!

Oh yeah we must not forget Rashad’s keen logical skills.

He is a scholar from Cambridge Mashallah therefore his conclusions must be right!

I applaude you Rashad, I really do.

He then tries to muddy the waters between the rulings on apostasy and the rulings on insulting the prophet when it comes from a non muslim!.

Qadi Iyad in his Shifaa has a whole section on apostasy. In this section he discusses the difference of opinion of the scholars on the non muslim who insults the prophet. Does he deserve the capital punishment? Well, guess what? There is a difference of opinion. Abu Hanifa, Sufyan al Thawri and the Kufic school do not deem this as a capital offence while the majority of the other schools do. So there you go! We never discussed this but we brought up the issue of apostasy which is a whole different kettle of fish. A red herring if I ever saw one.

This last reference is interesting i.e.

“We find that the Hanbali Ulema endorsed this position too; Ala ul-Din Kharufah, an Alim of the Ibn Saud University explains in his book, ‘Hukm al-Islam fi-Jara’im Salman Rushdie’, that the Hudood such as the “rules of apostasy” are all based upon, and only implemented in, the interest of Muslims; “li-maslahat il-Islam…” and presents the true and wholesome nature of Islam (“dai’yah tayyibah l’il-Islam”).”

On reviewing this book the scholar did not deny the law of apostasy!

The rest was drivel that was totally irrelevant to the conclusions that he desired to achieve.

I just can’t wait for the next articles. I mean I have to give them credit for their ingenuity in fabricating. Actually I can’t, because even this is done in a sloppy obvious way!

All that is good is from Allah and may Allah forgive me for any errors on my behalf.