WELCOME TO TRADITIONAL ISLAMISM

 

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 (the relationship of a Muslim to these regimes has been dealt with, simply put we agree on the good and leave the bad). 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)”

 

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.

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.

 

 

 

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!

 

 

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.

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!

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?

We have received a response from Usama Hassan to the open letter we had published earlier.

The original letter can be found here   

We encourage all readers to re-read the original and the reply, and welcome any comments below.

To be clear, I did not write the letter. Rather, it was sent to me by a brother in an anonymous fashion and I decided to put it up on the blog and also send it directly to Usama by email so that he was made aware that I had done so.

As for the reasons of the public nature of the letter, the original states “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”

Usama’s reply

“Dear “ibn Adam”

wa ‘alaykum as-salam. Who are you? Are you the same person who writes an open letter to me and circulates it in public yet does not have the courage to sign his real name?

If you are, you are guilty of serious bad adab (especially in writing anonymous nonsense), su’ al-zann and misquotation, may Allah forgive me and you. If you are sincere, let’s meet up after mid-June (I have urgent work deadlines until then) and discuss these matters in person.

I never saw your original letter, until an ill-mannered young man thrust it in my face at a public meeting on Sunday. Did you bother to request a read receipt to any email that you might have sent? I have hundreds of unread email in my inbox, so you can’t just assume things.

On secularism: My view is based on Ibn Khaldun, my own grandfather’s commentary on the cross-pollination, and the statement of Dr. Mustafa Ceric at the Lancaster House conference in 2007, “Muslims have no problem with political secularism. But we reject a metaphysical secularism that says or pretends that God does not exist.” It is an Islamic *political* secularism that I’m talking about.

And I, of course, support a just Caliphate based on the Prophetic model, and I mentioned that in my BBC Hard Talk interview – please watch that, if you haven’t done so already, before wasting your time and my time and that of potentially thousands of others in negative nonsense and fitnah. Therefore, your charge that I reject the Caliphate is a lie and slander, may Allah preserve us.

If you have a sense of justice, please post this note at the websites and blogs where you put your “Open Letter.”

And your actions are only strengthening the extremists such as HT and al-Muhajiroun, if only you’d understand.

May Allah bless us all with understanding and wisdom, was-salam.
—”

We have also sent the response to the brother Abdullah bin Abdullah in the meantime.

Today we concentrate on another adviser of this wretched foundation. His name is Shaikh Dr Abdul Hameed al-Ansari and he is a favourite of the notorious MEMRITV ( a Zionist site run by Ex Mossad agents) . I wonder why ? You will find this fascinating!

http://www.memritv.org/clip/en/1450.htm

Here the adviser of this wretched foundation has some nice things to say to the Muslim Ummah. Maajid will be pleased!

Firstly he thinks that it allowed in the Shariah sense to have Americans troops occupying Iraq. Maybe Maajid has been teaching him one or two things about the Maqasid. Who knows? Then he has a classic I tell ya!

This “Shiekh” is faced with a moral dilema. I have a choice between an Egyptian film actress by the name of Yusra and the Egyptian Shiekh Qardawi. Who shall sit next to me on a plane ?  Of course we must consider the Hajaa al Shari3iah here! So I quote from the Surat al Mudahthir.

إِنَّهُ فَكَّرَ وَقَدَّرَ } * { فَقُتِلَ كَيْفَ قَدَّرَ } * { ثُمَّ قُتِلَ كَيْفَ قَدَّرَ } * { ثُمَّ نَظَرَ } * { ثُمَّ عَبَسَ وَبَسَرَ }

Indeed, this “Sheikh” thought and pondered, frowned, and in despair at this deep ethical dilema came up with the challenging conclusion. You guessed it, he prefers the Egyptian actress Yusra! Now, why does he prefer an Egyptian actress? Well he tells us later on that he feels more free next to this Egyptian actress and probably feels stifled and claustraphobic around that “Islamist” Qardawi, of course he ends “With all my respect for this Shiekh” !

See this link, which is confirmed by the clip on the Memri site.

http://www.alwatanvoice.com/arabic/content-87578.html

It is bleedingly obvious what the angle of Shaikh Dr Abdul Hameed al-Ansari is – who was also a former “Dean” of the Shariah Faculty in Qatar ! I wonder, did he become the Dean because of his profound knowledge? Is he another Abdullah Bin Bayyah? Maybe our next Ibn Taymiaah? Readers, I will leave it to you to decide. Oh yeah one more wonderful quote from the ex-dean

“The religious scholar has a specific role, from which he should not deviate. He should not interfere in political matters or in the areas of expertise of others. Today, you see religious scholars issuing fatwas on economic matters – with regard to banks, the stock exchange, insurance, or medicine, for example.”

Here is the letter again and here is the link to his to his talk at the launch of the British Muslims for Secular Democracy to contextualize it

http://www.rsa.org.uk/audio/index.asp - select the audio file of the lecture entitled “RSA Thursday The Secular State – the best option for British Muslims?”

OPEN LETTER TO BROTHER USAMA HASAN

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

الحمد لله الذي كرم هذه الأمة بالشريعة السمحة الطاهرة وأيدها بالحجج الباهرة القاهرة ووطدها بالقواعد المتظاهرة المتناثرة ونورها بالأوضاع المتناسبة المتازرة

أحمده على نعمه الباطنة والظاهرة وأصلي على رسوله محمد وسائر النبيين والصالحين وأسلم صلاة وتسليما متواصلي الصلات في الدنيا والآخرة آمين

Dear Brother Usama,

We pray that this message arrives with you under the Shade of Allah’s Rahma, and we ask Allah to accept from us our good deeds, to overlook the evil we have done and will do, to strengthen us in the face of the enmity against Islam and the Muslims today, and to keep our hearts fixed upon the deen of Islam.

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. Even though you have sullied your own reputation by aligning yourself as public advisor to various unsavoury people (claiming that you were, in your own words, “very happy to be associated with the Quilliam Foundation”), and have even gone as far as promoting them publicly, and have rejected classical law in issues such as apostasy and hijab openly, even after all this there may still be one or two from amongst the sincere people of this umma who listen to what you have to say, perhaps out of respect for your father or for your own background. And for these reasons we have decided to give you this naseeha publicly for the sake of Allah and the protection of this umma, as far as we are able and May Allah forgive us our shortcomings and mistakes.

At the opening of this dishonourable foundation – which is well known to be run by people of ill-repute and questionable motives – you mentioned in a brief address that you had read ‘ibn Khuldoon’s muqaddima previously, and you interpreted his comments as supporting what you called “Islamic secularism”. You mentioned the narration of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم “you are more knowledgeable in your worldly affairs”, and explained how the scholars had said that the Prophets had not come to “to teach us medicine and agriculture and the crafts” and so on, and were sent for spiritual enlightenment. You then further repeated your assertion that the Prophets had not come to instruct us in the matters of the world, within which you included “government, administration, how we organise our schools” and so on, since these are “secular” or “worldly” matters.

This narration you quoted was mentioned by ‘ibn Khuldoon in the 26^th section of the second volume of his muqaddima, entitled Knowledge of Medicine or Medical Science, which came after some sections on logic, engineering etc., and just before a section regarding farming.

In fact the whole discussion of ‘ibn Khuldoon here was around the issue of tib al-nabawwi (Prophetic medicine) – since the Arabs of the time had much knowledge of medical issues, and so he argues that any medical issues narrated in the “shar’iyyaat”, meaning in this context the sunna and athaar, were from this angle, and he states that they are not from the revelation. Rather, they were narrated as part of the heritage and culture of the Arabs and were said in that context. (Please note – the issue of Prophetic medicine is one which is disputed between ulama, and it is not our intention to support any particular point of view within this discussion)

He then argues that RasoolAllah صلى الله عليه وسلم was sent only to teach the shara’i, and was not sent to teach medicine or any other issue from the ’aadiyaat (customary actions), and it is this context he mentioned the narration regarding the pollination of date trees that was mentioned.

“أنتم أعلم بامر دنياكم”

You are more knowledgable in your worldly affairs.

As can be recognised from the context, ibn Khuldoon was talking about issues such as the methods used in medicine, engineering, agriculture and so on, but does “government” fall under these categories? (And this is aside from the issue that in Islaam there is a difference between the hukm of an issue, and the wasaa’il used for the issue, and that Islaam came to explain the ahkaam and left open the wasaa’il).

The answer to anyone who has a small taste of Islamic knowledge is that they would reject such a position as you have articulated, that government is left completely open for man to decide as he please. And anyone who has read ibn Khuldoon’s muqaddima, would immediately recognise that this is a clear perversion and misrepresentation of his views.

In the 26^th section of the first volume of the book, entitled “the differences of the umma regarding the ruling of this position (the Khilafa or Imaama) and its criteria”, ‘ibn Khuldoon makes his position regarding ruling and government very clear.

ثم إن نصب اللإمام واجب قد عرف وجوبه في الشرع بإجماع الصحابة و التابعين — و استقر ذالك إجماعا دالا علي وجوب نصب الإمام

The appointment of the Imaam is obligatory, its obligation known in the shar’ by the ‘ijmaa (consensus) of the companions and the taabi’een … and the settling of that consensually/ upon consensus indicates the obligation of appointing the Imaam

What about the opinion that you alluded to, brother, that the government is open and left to the people to decide its form according to what they think is best, and Islam has nothing to say about it since it is from the “worldly” affairs? ‘ibn Khuldoon mentions those who fell into this – and they were some of the khawaarij and one of the mu’tazila scholars, who claimed that appointing an Imaam was not obligatory. And suffice it to say that ‘ibn Khuldoon rejects their views outright since they contradict the well known consensus. And even they did not deny that Islam demands the imposition of its rules and laws, in what you have called “worldly” or “secular” affairs, as Islam has rules regarding the mu’aamalaat and this is well known. Rather, in spite of their deviancies, they claimed that the obligation in their opinion was not the appointment of a leader, but rather the ensuring that the Islamic laws were implemented in whichever way.

What have other scholars said regarding this narration of our beloved Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم ? Suffice it for us to mention to you the words of Imaam Nawawi in his explanation of Muslim

The first issue to notice is the title of the section –

باب وجوب امتثال ما قاله شرعا دون ما ذكره صلى الله عليه وسلم من معايش الدنيا على سبيل الرأي

the obligation to follow whatever the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم has said shar’an as opposed to what he has mentioned as his opinion regarding the livelihood/ living within the dunya.

And the first narration which is mentioned, 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 but if I speak to you from Allah about an issue then take it from me”

The second narration

اذا امرتكم بشئ من دينكم فخذوا به واذا امرتكم بشئ من رأى فانما انا بشر

“If I ordered you by something from your deen then accept it, and if I ordered you by something from my opinion then I am only a man”

And the final narration mentioned

أنتم أعلم بامر دنياكم

“You are more knowledgeable in the issue of your dunya”

So what have the scholars said regarding this narration according to Nawawi?

قال العلماء قوله صلى الله عليه وسلم من رأيي اي في امر الدنيا ومعايشها لا على التشريع فأما ما قاله باجتهاده صلى الله عليه وسلم ورآه شرعا يجب العمل به وليس آبار النخل من هذا النوع

The ulama have said that the words of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم “from my opinion” means in the issue of the dunya and livelihood in it, and not regarding tashree’ – legislation. Rather in issues of legislation and what he صلى الله عليه وسلم has said from his ijtihaad and his shar’i opinion, it is obligatory to take from him, and pollination of date trees is not from this category. And I hope it is not necessary here to mention the opinion of Imaam Nawawi regarding Islamic governance, the obligation of the Caliphate, and so on, since it is well known that there is a consensus on these obligations according to the opinions of all the scholars of ahlul-sunna.

(*Side note – dear brother – haven’t your companions from the foundation you support previously claimed that the word tashree’ meaning legislation is a modern innovation ‘invented’ by Islamists? What do you say regarding our great Imaam Nawawi and the opinions of the scholars he has related?)

So if the use of the narration of our blessed Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم was not used in the way you have claimed by ‘ibn Khuldoon, nor by Imaam Nawawi nor others from the classical ulama, is there no-one from the ulama of the past to back up the claim of you and the foundation you support that this narration does in fact mean that we as Muslims are free to liberate themselves from the obligation of the Caliphate, and can rule themselves as they please, by any laws they please?

Happily for you – the answer is yes. Sadly for you – the ‘scholar’ who did so was not ‘ibn Khuldoon, but rather Ali Abdul Raziq, who made the same claim that you and your companions made in his book “Islam and the Fundamentals of Ruling” back in 1925. For his troubles, his ijaaza was removed, he was thrown out of the circle of scholarship, and his book was deemed heretical by ulama all over the world.

Indeed, when the Council of Grand ulama of al-Alzhar, composed of 24 shuyukh, summarised their judgement against Abdul Raziq, they paid particular attention to the misuse of the narration, and stated unequivocally –

(The hadith was) “narrated regarding pollination of date trees, and is applied in those situations which are similar from matters of agriculture and others which are in matters that the shari’a did not come to teach, rather it (shari’a) came to explain its rules from the permitted and prohibited, the valid and invalid, and such things, which is known to the one who has a connection with the Book of Allah and the sunna of His Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم ” (In other words, the shari’a came to explain the ahkaam not the various wasaa’il which can change according to technology, place etc.)

Many ulama also authored detailed refutations of Abdul Raziq, and mentioned the misuse of this narration, amongst them Sheikh ‘ibn ‘Aashoor, Sheikh-al-Azhar Muhammad Khidr Husain and Sheikh-al-Azhar Muhammad Bakhit al-Mutee’i.

Usama- Is it not enough for you, that ulama of all schools of thought, from the Muhaddith Ahmed Shaker, to Sheikh-ul-Islam Mustafa Sabri, to Imaam Kawthari, to Imaam Qaradawi, to Sheikh Shinqeeti, have all claimed that this secularism that you are alluding to, whatever name you call it, is nothing less than clear heresy? This claim of “Islamic Secularism” is nothing short of an “Islamic Judaism” or an “Islamic Christianity” or other such nonsensical statements.

What are the “worldy” issues that Islam does not deal with? According to ‘ibn Khuldoon, the Islamic law, courts, punishments, jihad, are all linked to Islamic governance under the Imaam. And he makes the difference between “rational politics” based upon legislation coming from the mind of the thinkers of society, and “siyyassa deeniyya”, the politics of the deen where the legislation is based upon what Allah has confirmed and legislated.

It can only be, that perhaps you read only part of the book, or left reading it for so long that you had forgotten what was in the earlier section, , or perhaps your tongue has overcome your head in these public events you are attending, or maybe you are unable to clearly articulate your true opinions. And there are many other excuses we will give you, dear brother, as is necessitated by the sunna of our beloved Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم .

This deen is advice, and enjoining the good, and forbidding the wrong, so please permit us to mention some recommendations as to your next steps after you read this

• Return from your newly adopted “reformist” ideas that you have displayed openly recently, reject secularism and the bid’a of rejecting the obligation of the Caliphate, and return back from the opinions which are beyond that of even the khawarij to the opinions of ahlul-Sunna
• Disassociate yourself completely and openly from the companions of the foundation you support, and remove yourself from your position of advisor with them, since it is well known that they are deviants who are comfortable in places of ill-repute and partake in many haraam activities openly, and who attack the deen of our beloved Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم through their words.
• Remove yourself from public activity for a period of time, dear brother, and seek solace with Allah, revise what you know from the Qur’an and sunna with a deeper look, and answer to yourself very clearly – exactly what is your purpose in this life, and where your loyalties should lie.

And forgive us if what we have said causes you distress or discomfort, and know that we have done so in the best of intentions, and these issues are from amongst those which confront and challenge the whole of our umma and so we could not remain silent on them for fear of greater harm that it may cause.

Wasalaam,

Your brother in Islam,

’abdulAllah bin ’abdulAllah

My own notes on this letter

1-This is a letter that has excellent content but I may think that it is a tad too harsh (giving Usama the benefit of the doubt)

2-Personally I am of the view, at the moment, that Usama is not a secularist but is playing with words in a very liberal manner. I certainly need clarification from him on the issue of apostasy and much more importantly on the issue of the Khimar in the Quran. It would be very worrying indeed if really believed that the Hijab was not an obligation

3-Since Usama has gone public with many confusing matters we will be forced to expose the inaccurate references and misrepresentations of Islam that he is making in public.

4-Just for you Usama, I may even have an article on souls and robots. I make no claim here of course though I am sure you will find it fascinating.