When Jean-François Jodar was appointed Head Coach of the Mali national football team, he apparently had to battle against the ’superiority complex’ that hampered the Eagles’ progress. This reminds me of the battle to tackle the same – almost narcissistic – superiority complex of a great number of Muslims.
It is this delusional reminiscing over past Muslim glories that is the biggest obstacle to our progress. The achievements of our early predecessors are indeed great and should be celebrated. But the point here is that, it is their achievement – not ours. The sad truth is that our recent history (with minor exceptions) was not that great, to put it mildly. Disgraceful would probably be more apt - as Muslims surely disgraced Islam.
The Muslim countries and societies of today are among the most wretched, poor and corrupt in the world. Where we once had the likes of Umar al-Khattab, Ibn Sina and Abu Hanifa, our recent legacy is Ataturk, Salman Rushdie and Saddam Hussain. I’m sure you get the picture – Muslim names and famous for all the wrong reasons.
Though blindingly obvious, it’s important to remind ourselves that only if we identify a problem, can we begin to tackle it, and only then make progress. I don’t claim to have many answers, or to know the way ahead, but I know for sure that we have a problem. In short, all is not so rosy (or ruby for that matter).
My ‘reality complex’
I wrote a piece earlier this month in praise of democracy and the London Mayoral elections, for which I was accused of having an ‘inferiority complex’. Apparently I ‘judge everything through the prism of Western thought’. How anyone can claim to know that is an altogether separate discussion.
To be fair, to me, the most I can be accused of is a ‘reality complex’. I believe and know that Islam in many cases is not prescriptive – unlike the Hizb-ut-Tahrir and Al-Muhajiroon-esque mantras implying Islam provides detailed answers for everything. Remember the laughable claim that ‘parliament’ was forbidden because there was no mention of it in the Qur’an or Sunna?
Islam often only provides guidelines and boundaries. It is a basic Islamic concept that in worldly affairs – everything is allowed, unless specifically forbidden by Islam. This is not rocket science: some Muslims just need to wake up and smell the Qahwa.
In this particular context of politics, power and governance, the Qur’anic injunction of Shoora fits very neatly into the ‘best’ practices of Western democracy. It may not be perfect – but it’s a great deal better than what we find in ‘Muslim’ countries. For sure there are un-Islamic elements to Western democracy – in which case leave those bits out.
Adopting good ideas (that don’t conflict with Islamic injunctions) to enhance the private and public life of Muslims, is not a new concept- just think Umar and the diwan. This is judging through the prism of ‘Islamic thought’. Not only are we ‘allowed’ to, but I believe we have an ‘Islamic duty’ to adopt new ideas and ways of doing things that enhance our lives. It goes without saying that they shouldn’t conflict with Islam.
I must admit that I cannot think of the greats of our time but the individuals listed, i.e. Salman Rushdie, surely can’t be the best we have to offer. I just feel that this comparison is unfair if not inaccurate because it would appear the best of one era are compared to the worst of another.
This approval of new things and thinking into islam without conflicting and contradicting the deen that you speak about- surely this is the job of a mujtahid? If you agree with this- then you certainly haven’t mentioned it in your article. The Prophet SAW said Whosoever does an action that is not from our order, is rejected. Prescribing an adoption of ‘new ideas’ to Muslims is the job of those who know, so we go back to those who know- as this is ‘real’ way of finding out where the solution lies. To talk about democracy as the solution requires for our mujtahids to undertake ijtihad- and then come to a conclusion that this fits in with our deen.
Also, the suggestion that we adopt the lesser of two evils- well isn’t this a contracdiction for the one proclaims he is Muslim? If all that we have is from Allah, then all of Islam is Haq and without munkar. What you’re suggesting is incorporating munkar with Haq. Many quote Ibn Taymiyyah as having philophised about this Christian principle of lesser of two evils- but he spoke about this in the context of legislating in an ALREADY Islamic state- and the evil was never a munkar, or one that would lead one to be thrown into the hellfire, but rather the adoption that causes the least amount of trouble when faced with two dynamic situations.
To suggest that any Muslim has the right, or he is duty bound in your statement that we should adopt new ideas to enance our lives can be understood by many as leaving a 1250 year old method of ijtihad for the purpose of modernity. Ijtihad deals with modernity and not our discerning minds. It is easy to see nowadays why so many Muslims are calling for democracy as part of their manhaj for change, when the solution lies in imitating the sunnah. Though parliament may not have been mentioned in the Qur’am and Sunnah, I assume the brethen from the above mentioned groups were asking us to read ‘between the lines’ and see that actually there is no room for the establishment of Allah’s hukm through any means other than the Sunnah of the Prophet SAW.
And Allah knows best.
Whitechapel bro. Unlike Christianity – we don’t have a priest class. In this context we only judge people for what they know – so anyone can be a Mujtahid of what they know. In this era we have very few people who are well versed in many areas of Islam.
I do believe you need to read the post again. Remember in areas other than direct worship (Ibadah) – everything is permissable unless there is a specific injunction. This is an elementary principle of Islam. Hence, if we are confident that something is within the parameters of Islam – that is enough. The assumption is that this person has a basic level of knowledge, which is obligatory upon every Muslim.
If someone else – ’scholar’ or otherwise believes this person is in error they must prove it with evidence! That is the normal way, and the Islamic way. If you whitechapel bro are so deficient in Islamic knowledge that you need to ask a scholar for basic Islam than you need to study Islam more! It is not the Islamic adab to rely on a ’scholar’ for the basics of your deen.
About the lesser of two evils. Again this is a basic Islamic principle – it assumes that there are no ‘good’ options left! Eg a policeman may have to ‘kill’ a gunman to save the lives of those he threatens. Killing is an evil, but has to be done to prevent the bigger evil of the gunman killing many more people. In fact in this case, it could be argued that it becomes the policeman’s duty to do this.
So you see, not everything is black and white. I do seriously suggest you learn the deen. Before making such declarations as you did. And I thought you said we need to ask a Mujtahid? It seems you are doing a good job of declaring yourself a Mujtahid by making such declarations – without any reference to another scholar.
And then you mention democracy and parliament as a fatwa…. Is that your Ijtihad that it is haraam? I sure hope you have evidence for that?
It seems you’re of a HT or Muhajiroon mindset who believes in the (very) minority view that everthing new must have evidence. Whereas in reality you need evidence to prove something (new) is haraam. I’d suggest you read Qardawi’s halam and haraam in Islam. He is someone who knows!
Khayr- it goes without saying that I need to know my deen better. You will find that Ibn Taymiyyah and the Hanbali madhab restrict the above mentioned hadith to ibadaat. But in the Shafi’i school- this is enshrined in the ibadat and muamalat- the scholars say that the contratcs Rasulallah SAW used -are those which set the parameters for the contracts that we can enter- one such example is the contract he SAW signed in Medinah with the three Jewish tribes.
I concede that the issue of democracy is certainly not a black and white issue- as you have accused me of suggesting. Rather, it is one that is certainly controversial. I choose not to name the mashaikh who disagree with participation in a democratic system- however they number many. In fact I assume, that all those who are of knowledge and who are not with Ikhwan, nor associated with Ikhwan do not believe democracy to be the way forward. If I for one second came across arrogant or sounded like I was passing a fatwa- pls find it in you to forgive me. My point wasn’t that all actions need the go ahead from a mujtahid- but rather on this topic of revival and revolution- I question can you and I deduce with the basic Islamic knowledge that we have- that the actions that we do to attain the State is within shariah- especially in the context of democracy?
The example that you have given my brother-is an example which I think isn’t befitting of the principle of lesser of two evils- though you may disagree. In this situation- you will find that it is the job of the policeman to kill that person- in order to maintain order within society. It is not an evil. Killing is not innately evil. That is an assumption made by many, but if this was the case, what about fighting for the sake of Allah SWT? I don’t think you could say that that was evil. But you may choose to disaree.
And my brother, I didn’t pass a fatwa against parliament and democracy. I don’t have the capacity to do that. Make du’a that one day we are all of that calibre- that we learn this deen in order to strenthen this deen- only for the pleasure of Allah.
Lastly- I have read a few parts to al-halal wal haram- I thought the book was a bit controversial, because the jamhur seem to disagree with it on some issues. But that discussion is for a later time.
I understand it is a human desire to make oneself sound more knowledgable and intelligent – but in your quest to do so, you’re muddling many different things.
Let’s decontruct what you’ve just said. First you talk about a hadith restricted to Ibadaat? There is no hadith mentioned in the post or my comment. So what on earth are you talking about?
Then you talk about the Shafi’i school. Enshrined in the ibadaat and muamalaat? What has contracts got to do with ibadaat? For Ibadaat we just worship as the Prophet worshipped – nothing more or less. For Muamalaat – whatever the prophet did in his life, whether it be in the area of conttracts or something else – is his sunnah. From the sunnah, the scholars have deduced principles which we need to follow. It goes without saying if the Prophet forbade something – we don’t do it!
So for this simple point – you had to go around the bush, for what other than to make yourself sound knowledgable?
And then you choose not to mention mashaikh who disagree. Why? What nonsensical referencing in discourse is that? Unless one is a Mujtahid – who refers directly to the sources, one naturally refer to named people when making theological points!
As for that example I only gave it – not knowing who you are. To make things very very easy. Because they are lots of people who are deluded self-declared intellectuals.
And then you again say you’re not giving fatwas and then make the most stupidest comment: that you only ‘read a few parts’ of halal and haram by Qardawi – and from that ‘you deduced’ that it was controversial, because the jumhoor seem to disagree with it? What arrogance. Who are you to think the book is controversial? And on what evidence have you deduced that it jumhoor seem to disagree?
You ‘thinking’ something, does not make it jumhoor! Name us just three scholars who have said or written anything against that book!
What you have demonstrated is that beneath the politeness is still the same old HT – thikning you are a scholar, who are in a position to declare other Islamic giants like qardawi are wrong because ‘it seems’.
Name me anyone, from any school of thought, who thinks Qardawi is an amateur? You reading a ‘few parts’ of a book does not make you knowledgable – remember little knowledge is dangerous, because you end up with what you’re doing.
Akhi it seems like all you want to do is attack me. Argument for the sake of argument is forbidden in Islam, and accusing a brother ’showing off’ is exactly that.
As for the Shaykh Qaradawi- well here are some ‘ulema who disagree with him. Like I mentioned- I did not disagree with him- but the ‘ulema did.
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=445&CATE=29
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=2643&CATE=11
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=2145&CATE=119
I pray that Allah guides us all
Akhi it seems as though all you want to do is attack me. Argument for the sake of argument is not allowed in Islam- and I don’t think I should continue fuelling your attacks- in case we’re both in the wrong.
As for what you said about Shaykh Yusuf Qaradawi- well I didn’t say I thought he was wrong- but I have read many articles arguing the opposite of the shaykh. And Allah knows best. I also think it is sad how you hold a negative view of brothers who are from different groups- considering I am not studying with neither HT or Al-Muhajiroun. Whilst we’re at each others’ throats, the non-Muslims are getting away with murder.
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=7&ID=445&CATE=29
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=2643&CATE=11
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=2145&CATE=119
And these are only a few who disagree- and they have the right to whilst we only follow those we trust.
Abdullah ghareeb, i agree with the essence of your arguments. however, akhi, as a pice of naseeha: pls don’t take such a angry, accusative and defensive tone to your comments. it only seems as though you’re having a hot-headed rant and belittles the points you are making. I think we all need to escape from the hizbi mentality we’ve boxed ourselves into and talk calmly and purport rational arguments. wallahu a’lam.
Akhi it seems as though all you want to do is attack me. Argument for the sake of argument is not allowed in Islam- and I don’t think I should continue fuelling your attacks- in case we’re both in the wrong.
As for what you said about Shaykh Yusuf Qaradawi- well I didn’t say I thought he was wrong- but I have read many articles arguing the opposite of the shaykh. And Allah knows best. I also think it is sad how you hold a negative view of brothers who are from different groups- considering I am not studying with neither HT or Al-Muhajiroun. Whilst we’re at each others’ throats, the non-Muslims are getting away with murder.
All you have to do is visit sunnipath and find scholars refuting Shaykh Qaradawi.
Namlah- out of curiosity, what is the hizbi mentality? That only Islam is the answer? That democracy is not acceptable? If so, shouldn’t we all embrace this?
@ Whitechapel bro.
Is this a joke? I asked you to name just three scholars – instead you mention the same website 3 times of a ‘Sidi Faraz Rabbani’ who is the student of Nuh Ha Meem Keller!
And then you plead the victim of some agressive attack? Asking for sympathy from other people. This part is a very well-known HT trait. But now that you claim Sidis Rabbani and Keller as your guide, it’s highly unlikely you’re HT anyway.
Back to the main issue of Qardawi. Though you NOW deny you said you thought Qardawi is wrong, what you originally said above is clear for all to see: “I have read a few parts to al-halal wal haram – I thought the book was a bit controversial, because the jamhur seem to disagree with it on some issues”.
As for Sidi Faraz Rabbani – he says on his website, that he is a student of knowledge, and student of Sidi Keller. It is also clear where you get your style of argument, like you he makes very general points in refuting Qardawi:
“Traditional scholars caution against Sh. Qaradawi’s fiqh methodology, and especially his excessive leniency to the point of laxity”. Who are these traditional scholars? What is their evidence of his ‘laxity’?
“but he is noted by scholars to frequently diverge from sound Sunni scholarship.” Again what kind of lame refutation is that?
And finally“It is notable that base their fatwas on positions of the likes of Sh. Muhammad al-Ghazali (al-Azhari), Sh. Qaradawi, and Sh. Zarqa, who though major scholars (especially Sh. Zarqa) are all cautioned about by traditional scholars around the world as being lax beyond limits in their fatwas”.
There is no mention of who these great ‘tradtional’ scholars are. This is not the methodology of intellectual discourse. One explanation is that this Sidi Rabbani, as a ’student of knowledge’ has a long way to go to reach the level of Qardawi, who is considered to be a shaykh of shaykhs. Many widely respected scholars of our time consider Qardawi as their teacher and shaykh, this doesn’t mean that they don’t disagree with him on some issues.
And until Sidi Rabbani reaches the required level of scholarship, when he is widely considered to be a scholar – he should always name the scholars who disagreed with him and name the sources.
So I ask you again to stop dismissing great scholars using general remarks as you did. You now say you think you should stop fuelling my ‘attacks’ – but then continue… to argue. This time now claiming that you ‘have read many articles arguing the opposite’ of Qardawi.
Which articles are these? I hope they are not from Sidi Rabbani. Again pease stop making general statements like this. Either you name the articles and sources or don’t say it at all. That is the only way of discussion.
I am not attacking you – just refuting you on a point-by-point basis. And please don’t cry victim when you have your points strongly refuted. Just argue the points.
Bro, I suppose I was being unfair to you by not listing scholars and only listing those issues in which some had declared him to be controversial. Shaykh Faraz Rabbani doesn’t call himself shaykh for obvious reasons, but as far I know he has ijaaza from Shaykh Nuh in Amman who asked him to be in Canada to carry on the work. Here are two scholars from opposite ends of the spectrum discussing Qaradawi’s work:
From GF Haddad: “Accommodation Qaradawi later allowed for Muslim shop owners to sell alcoholic beverages “as long as most of the wares being sold are non-alcoholic” and “preferably through the handling of non-Muslim employees so the Muslims’ consciences will be clear” according to the second conference of the Dublin-based European Council for Fatwa and Research which he presides He explicitly gave the same permission “as long as the good [being sold] is more than the evil” and “let him get a Christian to sell it for him.” The Mufti of Egypt, Shaykh `Ali Jumu`a, gave the same fatwa (no. 4189) toward the end of 2005. These are all innovated provisions which make light of the Law and the Prophetic prohibition which explicitly curses, among ten types, “whoever sells alcohol” or “profits from its sale” in any way or proportion, as mentioned by all of the condemnations the fatwas drew. The same Council also declared it licit to eat food which contained pork “in a proportion less than 1%.”
and…
Sheikh Nasiruddin Albanee (ra) declared Qaradawi’s book “The Lawful and the Prohibited” to have far too many errors, and very many of Qaradawi’s fatwas and opinions conflict with those of the majority of the scholars.
There are others who disagree with Shaykh Qaradawi, but that should be enough. There are pitfalls to all scholars, and Qaradawi is certainly not free of them. I choose not to argue with you for a very simple reason. It’s because you seem to lack the basic adhab required of a Muslim in discourse, and I urge you to be more compassionate to your brothers as opposed to name-calling and labelling people though you don’t know them. I don’t want to be the guy who feeds your nafs as it seems like all you’re doing on this blog is point-scoring.
And the reason why Muslims tend to make generic statements is because they don’t want to bring disrepute to their brother, the Prophet said: ‘Whoever covers a Muslim, Allah will cover him on the Day.’ I hope and pray only good for you. And Allah knows best.
@ Whitechapel bro
Firstly, you were not being ‘unfair’ to me – it was just plain wrong to have made general negative comments dismissing a great scholar without references and sources.
Second, the reason Sidi Rabbani doesn not call himself a shaykh maybe because he really is a student of knowledge? An ijaza from Sidi Keller can hardly be a claim to scholarship. Yes maybe within the sufi circles he is – but to be known as a scholar, there must be wide recognition, including from those who disagree with them. So for example there are many who diagree with Qardawi – but none of them would say he is not a learned shaykh. It’s obvious that Sidi Rabbani is not an authority.
As for GF Haddad – that quote is not related to Qardawis book. And btw – you should see some of the comments the sufi brothers are making about him…. how he is inconsistent. This is just one comment from marifa.net:
“I agree, Shaykh Haddads views are sometimes very peculiar, not to say we dont respect him but certainly inconsistencies lie in his approach. Look at his unwarranted attack on Umar Ibrahim Vadhillo on his website. It seems Sidi Haddads answer is just plain name calling and things. Hardly actions of a scholar is it? On the other hand Sidi Vahillo has shown nothing but good manners and adhab.
Secondly, ready Shaykh Ninowys refutation of Shaykh Haddad regarding some of his incorrect statements about the Ghumari Shaykhs (may Allah have mercy on them). Ive never seen such better scholary work refuting someone. Pure adhab by Shaykh Ninowy, and again not a leg to stand on for Sidi Haddad.
Anyway point being take his things with a pinch of salt and you should be OK…”
The only serious/credible source you have provided is Al-Albani. So why didn’t you just say in the begining that you accept Al-Albani’s opinion that Qardawi’s book (halal/haram) is flawed. I would’ve respected that. So far – you’ve just established that Qardawi’s book is not universally accepted. Obviously you’re right. End of discussion.
Instead you said you only read parts of it – but were super clever enough to conlcude the book itself was controversial, because you think the jumhoor seem to disagree with it. When I pointed out this outrageous claim – you pleaded the victim of some agressive attack – and still continue to do so.
In your false victimhood, you now launch some veiled attacks yourself: “It’s because you seem to lack the basic adhab required of a Muslim in discourse, and I urge you to be more compassionate to your brothers as opposed to name-calling and labelling people though you don’t know them. I don’t want to be the guy who feeds your nafs as it seems like all you’re doing on this blog is point-scoring.”
And then you claim “the reason why Muslims tend to make generic statements is because they don’t want to bring disrepute to their brother”. What a self-serving cop-out! We are not in a private social occasion where we don’t want to offend each other… when claiming a established scholar is wrong on an issue or book, you don’t make generic statements to be polite!
Perhaps you need to open your horizons and not just rely on Sidi Rabbani, a student of knowledge who is a mureed of Sidi Keller. Or GF Haddad who apprently is known for making personal attacks on other scholars and groups without evidence.
I trust your intentions here are sincere. But your actions are certainly in error. And when pleading victimhood, try not to launch attacks yourself. And while some sufi scholars were certainly great scholars and contributed a lot to the deen, Islamic knowledge doesn’t start and end with ‘tradtional’ scholars (here meant from a tariqa). Try to widen your horizon and not just stick to the sufi circle for your knowledge and deen.
My brother, I understand that your type of polemics requires the use of a certain type of language, but I stick to my belief that in no way am I allowed to bring disrepute to my fellow Muslims. The Prophet PBUH said ‘None of you truly believes, until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself.’ As for my use of GF Haddad and Faraz Rabbani- let me be clear that I am not a Sufi. I brought them to this discussions to reveal the variety of scholars who disagreed with Qaradawi.
I enjoin upon you to leave behind your tactics in debate with Muslims.