Why do they quote the same references?
Hopefully Usama Hassan will take the courtesy to clear himself on this site. Below is a suprising talk that was held at the British Society for Secular Muslims:
http://www.rsa.org.uk/audio/rsathursday010508.mp3
I want to note some inaccurate references that are used by a motley crew of secularising trends, which Usama relays:
- That Ibn-Taymiah held it was sanctioned to have multiple Islamic states (this had already been answered on this site in the academic section). We request Usama Hassan to bring the references from the primary texts for this claim! Note he says that Ibn-Taymiah uses a reasoning that derives from the maqasid of the Shari’ah! A strange claim!
- That we should take the example of western countries i.e with regards to political secularism but We are not evidently “metaphysical secularists”. What he means by this is the rejection of a metaphysical aspect i.e. the existence of God and the noted metaphysical unseen truths in religion. Note he still thinks that Muslims should accept political secularism
- He considers Ibn-Khaldun “very secular” and that the secular project in Pakistan is called the Khaldunia! It seems that he is not just talking about minorities living in a secular society. Still I await further clarification.
Is Usama still a ‘Salafi’? I still await for his reply and hopefully we have misunderstood him.
I personally feel that many British Salafis have become too moderate! As a result this has left a big empty space for the violent extremists to fill. Sometimes satisfying the non-Muslims is actually counter-productive!
Ali Abdullah
May 10, 2008 at 2:21 pm
salams
one clarification in continuation with the discussion on maqsad- can maqasid qualify ahkam extracted from zanni texts? is it the case of fitting the ahkam which is from zanni texts into appropriate slots ie darurriyat, hajjiyat etc?
jk
ws
abdullah
May 17, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Daroorah in the sense of threat to life or limb can even make pork halal. Even Daroorah has it’s conditions and sphere of influence though.
In terms of the Hajiaat. The scholars are unanimous that it does not take the level Daroorah. The principle of Hajiaat at the level of “3ummum al Balwa” will further discussed in much more detail inshallah.
Tufi believed that it could quailfy or clarify (if you wish) the Dhunni texts. Here is was talking about the 5 Daroriiaat which is different to the notion of threat to life and limb. Here it is a Daroorah in the Usuli sense as opposed a Daroorah in the “fiqhi” sense or when taken as a rukhsa.
He does not allow the Hajiaat (I mean Tufi) to do this. He is clear on this as I will discuss in the next article.
The Maliki scholars allow the Hajiaat to outweigh evidences and in some case to qualify a very weak general text( in fact a general text that is disputed in its application to species that are said to be outside the set)
It is said that Imam Malik preferred the Masalih to Khabar Ahad if it is established in a Qati sense ( I think we are talking Darooriat again) but this view has no authentic transmission to him and maybe an exaggeration. This is as far as I know. He did seem to prefer the “Ijma” of Ahl Madina to Khabar Ahad.
There are no views of Imam Malik prefering Masaleh to a Mashur hadith. Remember a significant number of our hadiths are Mashur!
The article is taking me time as you can guess brother
. Inshallah be patient and we shall discuss these issues in much more detail.
traditionalislamism
May 18, 2008 at 10:50 am