Reply to Usama Hassan
Original letter can be found here – with the initial response here
بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم
الحمد لله وصلى الله على سيدنا محمد وآله وصحبه وسلم
We were made aware of Usama’s reply from multiple sources, and it is with great sadness we realised that he did not engage in any of the issues raised. It can be imagined from his response that perhaps he wrote it while angry, and did not reflect carefully over what was written within. Rather than reflecting on the message, the attention seemed to be on the offence caused by those whom we would like to think – though we do not know them – had the best intentions in mind in delivering it.
We stress that we had written several excuses within the text for his aberrations, yet he seemed to merely lash out in return. It can only be thought that this is out of anger for his treatment on certain mailing lists, and it should be a cause of concern to him that many of those who are closest to him hold these opinions.
We could address each accusation he had hastily made, but it will be left to those who read both letters to make their own judgement.
Rather than reacting in this manner – the points raised in the letter were more than valid and necessitated a clear response based upon evidence rather than what was received.
To reiterate the initial statement made to Usama –
“Your recent comments have compelled us to write this short letter of advice to you, as our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم mentioned that our deen is naseeha. We have made this letter open, since your opinions and comments have been made openly, and are available via various media”
Indeed, while the comments he had previously made were in front of the mass media, supporting and bringing up contentions and issues which should be dealt with within our community instead of in front of the whole of the British society, and which only cause detriment to the average Muslim living here, in contrast to all this the open letter was intended for only within the Muslim community.
He opined that such a message is only “strengthening the extremists such as HT and al-Muhajiroon” (adopting the language of ‘moderate’ and ‘extreme’ is in itself part of the anti-Islamic narrative), yet he seems not to have considered who his open support of an organisation such as the Quilliam Foundation is strengthening.
This is an organisation that describes the Caliphate, which he purports to “support” without clarifying further – (though we had actually asked him about its obligation, agreed upon by ijmaa’) – as a “theocratic, expansionist dictatorship”. In fact, the very scholar he mentioned in his response, Dr. Ceric, was labelled as a radical and extremist by their members for even mentioning the Caliphate during his visit to London. Ironically – even after publicly attacking this scholar, as well as other guests who were in an event which Usama actually participated in – he still sees fit to associate with them. Does he not remember the words of our blessed Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم that a Believer does not get stung from the same hole twice?
They talk about the “invalidity of notions of Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam”, which are subscribed to (with differences in detail) by almost every scholar they mention on their website, let alone the masses of the ulama.
Their manifesto reads like any McCarthyist manual, suggesting that other Muslims be monitored in university, that wearing particular clothing be considered isolationist or confrontational, to restrict the access of Muslim activists such as Azzam Tamimi to the media (since he is an active supporter of the liberation of al-Quds, like every other sincere Muslim) and so on.
They subscribe to secularism, which is clear disbelief and there is no dispute over it.
They call for the promotion of “Muslim academics” like Abdul Wahab el-Effendi, who denies some of the sunna for the sake of expediency, speaks disparagingly about the Companions of our Prophet, and has no knowledge of Islam or its sciences. This promotion is done while at the same time blacklisting notable activists from our history, (and in fact even labelling them as the intellectual roots of terrorism), such as Hasan al-Banna, Qutb, Maududi, Nabahani, and the contemporary Dr. Qaradawi, who were/ are all concerned with the independence and unity of the Muslims, whatever our disputes with them.
They decry what they call the “media game” of good Muslim, bad Muslim, while it is apparent they would prefer the game of “good heretic, bad heretic” as evidenced by the so-called “debate” between one of their members and Hersi Ali, in which the two were largely in agreement.
It is clear in their narrative that they are trying to connect Islam, and belief in Islam in its entirety, to violence and terrorism. This position fits in completely with those who would like to blame Islam for the current malaise across the Middle East and beyond, while at the same time exonerating the brutal terrorism of those governments whose hands are drenched in the blood of Muslims, and who, by their contemporary and past actions, have opened up the doors of fitna and strife in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and beyond.
As for this talk of “Islamism” – it is only a cover to attack the Islam brought to us by our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم under the guise of Political Correctness using those within our own community to do so.
This foundation, and those similar to it, are being used to intimidate, oppress, silence and secularise the Muslim community here in Britain – if only Usama would understand.
While Usama did not respond to any of the points raised regarding the cross-pollination narration other than to restate his claim to follow the opinion of ‘ibn Khuldoon – it was previously shown in the first letter that what he is calling an “Islamic *political* secularisation”(?) is in fact a complete distortion of ‘ibn Khuldoon’s views.
To reiterate – this narration was mentioned to do with the cross-pollination of date trees, which our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said “ما اظن يغني ذلك شيئا” – “I don’t think that would benefit anything”. In other words – it was only a suggestion from the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم in the first place, and not an issue of takleef (commandment).
This is once again confirmed by the first narration in Sahih Muslim – that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said
انما ظننت ظنا فلا تؤاخذوني بالظن ولكن اذا حدثتكم عن الله شيئا فخذوا به
“Rather it was only an idea that I had thought, so do not take from me in doubt/ supposition but if I speak to you from Allah about an issue then take it from me”
In fact – the narration which ‘ibn Khuldoon mentioned – that you are more knowledgeable in your worldly affairs – only comes as a shahed to the original and is not of the same strength.
As mentioned in the previous letter, the use of this narration to justify secularism has been comprehensively rejected by all the ulama.
The Sheikh al-Azhar, Muhammad al-Khidr Husain, mentioned in rejection of this misuse –
و أما الحديث “أنتم أعلم بأمور دنياكم” فإنه وارد في واقعة تأبير النخل فيحمل على هذا المعنى و ما شاكله من فنون الزراعة و الصنائع و غيرها من وسائل العمران المادية
And as for the hadith “You are more knowledgable in your worldly affairs” – it is mentioned in the incidence of pollination of date trees, so it is understood in that meaning and what is similar to it from the sciences of agriculture and industry and other issues from the means of material civilisation”
The Muhaddith Ahmed Shaker mentioned in his commentary on this hadith, how it had been misappropriated by Egyptian secularists and those who were “enslaved” to the ideas of Orientalists. In his refutation of this deviancy he stated that –
والحديث صريح ، لا يعارض نصا ، و لا يدل على عدم الاحتجاج بالسنة في كل شأن ، لأن رسول الله ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ لا ينطق عن الهوى ، فكل ما جاء عنه فهو شرع و تشريع : ( وإن تطيعوه تهتدوا ) ، وإنما كان في قصة تلقيح النخل ، أن قال لهم ( ما أظن ذلك يغني شيئا ) ، فهو لم يأمر ولم ينه
And the hadith is clear, and does not contradict any text, and it does not indicate the lack of need to seek (the evidence) from the sunna in every issue, because the Messenger of Allah, does not speak from desires, so everything that came from him is law and legislation “and if you obey him you will be upon guidance” – and (the narration) was only about the story of the cross-pollination of date trees, when he said to them “I don’t think that benefit anything”, so he did not order nor prohibit it
So what is this “Islamic *political* secularism” other than a contradiction of what has been understood from this hadith? And what is this “Islamic *political* secularism” other than a separation of the state from Islam, or by another expression, the separation of the deen from the dowla? And how many scholars from the Umma of our Blessed Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم stated that this separation is nothing short of clear kufr, that takes one out of the deen?
May Allah Protect us, Forgive us, Guide us, and Fortify us upon the Straight Path.
‘abdulAllah bin ‘abdulAllah
Note –
And in addition to all this, in another open e-mail Usama also states that the opinion that the khimar is not wajib is actually a valid one to hold – and yet even self confessed liberal ’Ali Juma’ has previously stated that such an opinion is not considered.
That Sayyed Ahmed Khan was actually used as a reference is perhaps indicative of the state of mind of the author, since Khan’s history, position vis-a-vis the British occupation of India and level of knowledge are well known and do not merit expanding upon. Khan’s words “without flattering the English, I can truly say that the natives of India, high and low, merchants and petty shopkeepers, educated and illiterate, when contrasted with the English in education, manners, and uprightness, are like a dirty animal is to an able and handsome man” are enough proof of such a person’s state of mind, May Allah Protect us.
I don’t know what kind of ‘advice’ Br. Usama has been giving the QF as Ed and co seem to be very confused people! This is reflected in the fact that it is named after Abdullah Quilliam, appointed Shaykh al-Islam of the British Isles by the Caliph! But they say (as mentioned above):
‘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”.’
Therefore Abdullah Quilliam was a supporter of a “theocratic, expansionist dictatorship”!!
Ali Abdullah
May 16, 2008 at 6:56 am
Usama talks about people having su’ al-zann with respect to him just because someone wrote a very measured and restrained letter but he has no compunction in calling other Muslims ‘extremists’ and supporting a foundation whose co-director, Ed husain, not long ago called for the criminalization/proscription of those who carry the da’wah. What happened to the husn al-zann here Usama?
Abu Omar
May 16, 2008 at 9:36 am
If you had any notion of sincere naseeha to give to Dr Usama, you would approach him privately, instead of publicly lambasting/debating/arguing him. You call this sincere naseeha? It’s all well to lambast a brother which a standing in society, a family and a reputation, but you hide behind a veil, why not unveil yourself. Sincere naseeha has no hijaab.
traditionalislamism replies –
Since the letters I have posted – I believe – have not crossed any boundaries as far as Adab is concerned, then I find there is no problem if they are anonymous. The problem would be if they were devoid of evidence, and insulting, in which case whether they were anonymous or not I would not have posted them.
Secondly – I am well aware that many people have given naseeha to Usama Hassan privately, so it could well be that the author considered this as a last resort.
As far as sincere naseeha is concerned – naseeha should be accepted if it is correct from whatever source it comes from, and it is not a condition for the person to be known
Finally – Usama Hassan has openly, in front of the media, actively supported and propagated the QF, as well as his ideas of “Islamic Secularism” amongst other things, and so it is not wrong that these be rebutted publicly
Mureed'un
May 16, 2008 at 10:25 am
[...] from: http://www.traditionalislamism.wordpress.com Posted in Responses [...]
Reply to Dr Usama Hasan « M A Q A S I D - مقاصد
May 16, 2008 at 11:10 am
The prophetic model was established in the 7th century and part of this governed the sense of morality that we adopt and the rules for social interaction. Comteporary changes such as technological and strategical advancements have no bearing on these issues which have remained fixed since the time of the prophet. The secular call that Usama is supporting argues that the 7th century notions of morality and social interaction is primitive and not suitable for the modern world and therefore the prophetic model is such
Abunuha
May 16, 2008 at 11:59 am
@ Mureedun,
When the act is done publicly then the Nasiha should be public too. Why does it bother you that it is public? Usama didn’t bother to speak to his brothers in private and announce that he ‘agrees’ with the likes of Ed that ‘we’ are extremists Islamists!
Bit rich of you to play the “Humble” card!
Daroon
May 16, 2008 at 9:21 pm
Jazak Allah khayr for your good work bro.
That’s from one ‘Islamist’ to another
thewahhabimisanthrope
May 16, 2008 at 10:01 pm
This article on the QF is good
http://www.islam21c.com/british-affairs/strangers-in-our-midst.html#jc_writeComment
Abu Abdullah
May 18, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I came across this: The Obscurantism of Dr Usama Hasan: http://salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_UsamaHasan.pdf
Abdullah
May 21, 2008 at 7:09 am
^ The above piece is worth a read, with a number of points in it that are probably irrelevant to this particular discussion (i.e. Sh. Shuaib Hasan’s opinions, Sh. Hamza Yusuf etc.) and we don’t want to mix everyone up together. I think Dr. Usama has been singled out because of his open support for the QF and no other reason.
I would also simply suggest that though niqab is differed over, (ie. face being from the awra or not) – the hair is not, so while the piece stresses over the wujoob of the niqab this is probably a side issue, but khair anyway
I especially like the fact that it makes the link that this particular school of thinking leans towards pushing Muslims away from the Sunnah, and focusing purely on the Qur’an.
This is indeed true of the revisionist thinking, since the Sunna came to explain/ as a bayan for the Qur’an and so by taking away that explanation they are more free to put forward their own deviancies.
jzk for this effort
Abu Abdullah
May 21, 2008 at 11:10 am
Two very good articles! They really should be made better known!
Ali Abdullah
May 21, 2008 at 11:13 am
jazakallahu khairan for your fantastic letter to usama hassan
ﻭﺭﺿﻭﻦ
May 21, 2008 at 4:06 pm
salams
jk for the articles- the modernists claim that islamic rulings need to change as circumstances differ today, they give examples ie, the use of stones to clean oneselves at the time of the prophet but today one uses toilet paper etc, the issue of nafaqah in past one probaly gave ones wife a loaf of bread and garment (hanabali fiqh) but today one wldnt do that, one wld give money etc- is this sanctioned in shariah as long as one refers to traditonal scholarship and principles , unlike the modernist usools existent today ie masalah and maqasid?
some thoughts on this welcomed
ws
abdullah
May 21, 2008 at 5:57 pm
There will be a good opportunity to confront him at the JIMAS conference in August:
http://www.jimas.org/conf08/conf08.htm
Ali Abdullah
May 24, 2008 at 11:29 am
Salaam,
Having had the privilege of knowing personally, travelling with, and benefitting from Ustadh Usama Hasan for on-and-off for the past five years, I feel compelled to respond to what has been said.
1. The original letter unfortunately (though predictably) lacks adab.
2. Nevertheless, I appreciate his more recent comments can be misconstrued, in which case clarification should really be sought directly rather than through an open letter (back to the adab thing).
3. I believe Ustadh Usama may be referring to ‘rational politics’ (as you describe it) when using the term secularism, not ’siyaasa deeniyya’. He “of course, supports a just Caliphate”.
4. Given the evidences provided by Ustadh Usama, it appears the issue of hadd with regards apostasy is an area of kilaaf, and therefore not something we should concern ourselves with.
5. Ditto music
6. Ustadh Usama’s own stance re. headscarf is not stated in the letter (or on BBC HardTalk from what I remember). In both instances, he seems simply to be stating a clear observation.
7. He hopes to be a good influence on QF. His affiliation with the organisation as an advisor does not imply he holds exactly the same views as its founders, nor that he is in agreement with all things related to it. I’m glad he’s there to advise them!
8. As ‘awwam, we could all benefit from the advice in his letter re. unity, avoiding backbiting, increasing in dhikr, Quranic recitation and seeking knowledge with humility. That is what I have gained most for this unsavoury exchange.
May Allah grant us all tawfiq.
Ameen
Ameen
June 5, 2008 at 12:06 am
Salaam Alekuum Ameen.
Unfortunately with all due respect I cannot see how you have clarified the situation. Inshallah I will reply point by point
1-Adab seems to thrown around in a very easy manner. In the Shariah sense we have many evidences from the Shariah that qualify the issue of “slander” and “adab” when it comes to the protection of the community in public. Like you said “predictably” when someone misrepresents Islam (as in the issue of Khimar and apostasy), and more dangerously when someone protects and supports a clearly heretical sect in public then he is to be addressed in public.
2-As for the support of Usama for a “just Caliphate”. That again is very vague. Ed claimed the exact same thing on his deenport discussion! Yet we very well know what Ed means by it.
Initially because of the Hard Talk discussion I thought Usama was playing around. Since then though, new facts have come to light
A-He supported the Universal moratorim of Tariq Ramadhan on the Huduud (which is pushing it)
B-More seriously he does not consider the views of Maajid and Ed of the Quilliam foundation to be heretical. Even worse he thought that Allah had supported Ed in his debate with Hirsa Ali wa 3athu Bil Lah! Subhan Allah, what does it take for Usama make a view heretical?
Hence this idea of a “Caliphate” that is supported by Usama is in serious need of a clarification!
3-In terms of the apostasty the evidences given by Usama are very weak tawils and all the scholars in the past that supposedly supported his position had actually held the opposing view. I repeat there is no one from the Salaf who held the views of Usama (at least in an authentic manner).
4-You misrepresented the views of Usama ont he headscarf. He was not stating a clear observation but providing a so called “Ijithaad” to say that the hair is not awrah! Is this a diffderence of opinion too? Hey I may have misunderstood him
5-With regards to his support and influence on the QF, it has clearly taken a U turn. They seem to have influenced him to such an extent that he was quoting fabricated references that are commonly spouted out by this vision of Satan (for example that Ibn Taymiaah supported the possiblity of mulitple Caliphates!)
As Awwam we could all benefit from knowing more about our deen and we shouldnt let the exaggerated sense of “humility” and “brotherhood” prevent us from protecting our deen.
Allah knows best
Wa Salaaam Alekuum
Ibn adam
traditionalislamism
June 6, 2008 at 6:57 am
Thank you for your response brother Ibn Adam (should you not use your real name?),
I reiterate, as awwam should we not (1) leave refutation to the scholars i.e. those qualified to do so, and (2) seek clarification directly rather than through public letters?
Nevertheless, I do feel that the QF can be inflammatory in their statements (e.g. explanation for removal of advisors names from website, amongst other things).
This, together with their exclusiveness, does not aid their quest to ‘deradicalise’ members of certain groups.
They can appear contradictory, and I question how much support they have from the muslim community.
I hope to highlight some of these issues at least when I next meet Ustadh.
Do remember us in your du’a.
Barak Allahu feekum,
Ameen
Ameen
June 6, 2008 at 3:38 pm
Salaam Alekuum Ameen.
I do not think the anonymous nature of my name is really of much concern. How does that relate to adab? What is the evidence from the shariah for this?
As for your reiterations, well they are standard ways of deflecting away from the basic obligation of enjoying good and forbidding evil. Along with humility, adab and brotherhood, we have the exaggerated use of a “lack of qualification”. Firstly what makes you assume that this site does not have scholars behind it from different backgrounds? We have our “advisors” too and they are qualified enough wal hamidullah!
In fact they are from the different groups but have been managed to be united because of this new Batani sect.
One more important thing. We do not need the permission of the scholars with regards to issues that are known by necessity. This foundation has rejected what is known by necessity and in fact are clear secularists (though they hide behind pseudo-scholarship claiming otherwise). You can see the heretical counter on this site as well as our refutations in the academic section to get a flavour of what they are really like.
As for seeking clarification, well what makes you think that brothers in the past have not done so? Yet we know that Usama was insistent on supporting this foundation and considered anyone who considered them heretical to be liars! Subhan Allah, is this the knowledge we expect from a Hafith of the Quran especially when it comes to matters that are known by necessity?
Inshallah borther you do highlight certain issues with Usama and remember us in your Dua’as as well.
Wa Salaam Alekuum
Ibn Adam
traditionalislamism
June 6, 2008 at 6:12 pm
A couple of points I’d like to make – a geopolitical analysis is important to understand the context of what is going on – ie what the nature of the real war is and QF’s role in it as well as clarifying the intellectual constructs (brs. Ibn Adam and Abu Ibrahim have done well to analyse the legislative (shara’) constructs). A detailed and comprehensive analysis has been done on:
http://islamic-considerations.blogspot.com/
Secondly, the topic of adab and backbiting keeps coming up strangely enough – even though the seerah gives many examples of how Allah and his Messenger critiqued those who publicly propagated falsehood or endangered Muslims and the community – the following should help clarify this issue I hope.
The rule of ghibah (backbiting) prohibits stating something negative (that which would not be liked) about another Muslim in their absence, despite it being true, with no Sharah permissable reason – there are a number of exceptions to this rule which the poster has omitted.
For instance, there is no backbiting when:
- seeking one’s right and resolve from oppression,
On the authority of `A’ishah : Hind, the wife of Abu Sufyan, said to the Prophet (pbuh), “Abu Sufyan is a miserly man, and he is not giving me what would suffice me and my child, unless I take from him without his knowing.” He said, “Take what suffices you and your child according to common usage.” [Bukhari, Muslim]
“Allah does not like that the evil should be uttered in public except by him to whom injustice has been done.”
The prophet (S.A.W.) said, “Not paying a loan back, when able to do so, allows a person, the loaner to mention it publicly, and the lender be punished.” (Bukhari)
- when the issue of marriage and such like requires a character witness
On the authority of Fatimah bint Qays : she said, “I came to the Prophet (pbuh) and told him, “Abu Jahm and Mu`awiyah have [both] proposed to me.” He said, “As for Mu`awiyah, he is a poor man with no money, and as for Abu Jahm, his stick never leaves his shoulder (ie he is a harsh man).” [Bukhari, Muslim, Malik]
- when someone is propagating or doing sin openly, spreading corruption or committing treachery and treason – their case
“There can be no backbiting of one who casts off the mantle of modesty.” [Suyuti, Al-Jami` As-Saghir, 2/519, from Bayhaqi.]
From Zayd ibn Arqam (RA) who said: We set out on a journey with the Prophet(pbuh), in which we faced many hardships. ‘Abdullah ibn Ubayy (the hypocrite) said to his friends: “Do not give what you have in your possession to those who are with the Prophet(pbuh) until they desert him. And in this case, when we return to Madinah, the honourable will dive out the meaner therefrom.” I came to the Prophet(pbuh) and told him about this. He sent someone to ‘Abdullah ibn Ubayy and he asked him whether he had said that or not. He swore an oath to the effect that he had not done that, and said that it was Zayd who had lied to the Prophet(pbuh). Zayd said: I was very disturbed on account of this until this Ayah was revealed attesting that I had spoken the truth: “When the Hypocrites come to you…” [al-Munafiqun 63:1]. The Messenger of Allah (SAAS) then called them in order to seek forgiveness for them, but they turned their heads away…”
With regard to this, Imamal-Shawkani (may Allah have mercy on him) said: The clear evidence concerning that is the Hadith which was reported concerning al-Nasihah (sincerity) to Allah, to His Book, to His Messenger, to the leaders of the Muslims, to their common folk and to their elites. Exposing lies and liars is one of the greatest forms of Nasihah which is obligatory towards Allah (SWT), His Messengers and all the Muslims. He also said: Likewise, exposing a person who has given false witness with regard to property, blood or honour, is also a form of the Nasihah which Allah (SWT) has made obligatory on us.
From ‘A’Ishah (RA): A man asked permission to see the Prophet (SAAS) who said: “Let him enter! What a bad member of the tribe he is!” Al-Bukhari concluded from this Hadith that it is permissible to speak about wrongdoers and those about whom one has misgivings in their absence.
From ‘A’ishah who said: The Prophet(pbuh) said: “I don’t think so-and-so and so-and-so know anything about our religion. AI-Layth said: They were two men of the Munafiqin (Hypocrites).
These and other exceptions are well known and documented amongst the jurists (e.g., Nawawi in his Riyadh al-Saliheen on the chapter of Backbiting)
abdallah
June 25, 2008 at 10:36 am