Channel 4’s Shari’ah TV was once again on our screens; the fifth series was broadcast from New York. As usual the nature of these types of programmes is to a create some sort of controversy and debate, and many of the questions posed during the course of the discussions did generate just that.
As someone who has interfaith discussions and dialogue with the local vicar, I was particularly interested in the third programme, ‘Pluralism and Interfaith dialogue’.
There were three experts on the panel. Imam Yahya Hendi from Georgetown University, the first American university to hire a full-time Muslim chaplain, is apparently a sought after international speaker on interfaith issues.
Then there was Daisy Khan, co-founder of the American society for Muslim advancement. She lectures on religious pluralism across the United States and around the world, and is one of many pseudo-experts on Islam after 9/11. This is the Rumi version of Islam: all religions are truth, they are like rivers leading to the Ocean (leading to the same God). The final one was ‘Imam’ [brother] Ajmal Masroor, whom we all know fairly well.
Both Yahya Hendi and Daisy Khan, in my estimation at least, belong to the category of the new batch of secularised Muslims trying to reconcile Islam, democracy and other religions, while compromising many well established principles.
Ajmal Masroor was the only panelist who represented the mainstream Muslim voice and I was reasonably satisfied with his defence of Sunni Islam. Until, he responded to a questioner asking, ‘‘Isn’t there a contradiction between the Hadith that talks of killing Jews and the idea that Muslims and people of other religions can live in harmony, and isn’t this Hadith used by some as a justification for attacking Jews?’’
Imam Yahya was quick to proclaim that the Hadith [The Hour [the Day of Judgement] will not begin until the Muslims fight the Jews and kill them. A Jew will hide behind a rock or a tree, and the rock or tree will say, “O Muslim, O slave of Allah! There is a Jewbehind me, come and kill him!” – except for the gharqad (box thorn), for it is one of the trees of the Jews] was not authentic.
I was expecting Ajmal Masroor to respond to this waffling and put Imam Yahya straight. However, to my amazement, he also seemed to concur with his ignorance with regards the Hadith.
Might be useful to point out that both Imam Bukhari and Imam Muslim record the aforementioned Hadith in their collections, which are (by scholarly consensus) the two most authentic books after the Qur’an. Therefore to deny the authenticity of this tradition is clear ignorance.
The Hadith is referring to one of the prophecies which will happen near the Day of Judgement. It is not prophesying perpetual fighting and warfare. The Hadith, Allah knows best, is alluding to a wartime context and situation in a particular time and location. Hence, there is no contradiction with the Qur’anic injunctions of cooperation and respect.
In the biased media of the age, conveying the true message of Islam and being political correct, without seeming condescending to people of different persuasions can be an arduous task. One that will bring immense reward if it is carried out with the appropriate knowledge and without compromising one’s beliefs and principles to appease others.
Therefore, those who are well versed in the traditions of Islam and are sufficiently acquainted with other views should be given the platform to express themselves.
Presenting oneself as an ambassador of Islam and then not possessing the adequate knowledge to defend basic principles of Islam will have severe consequences. The perception people have about Islam in the wider community is one, and also open the door to errors and misjudgments on the individual level. We must be sincere in our efforts and know our limitations especially when religious guidance is concerned.
Ajmal Masroor – when did he become an ‘Imam’. This guy is just another guy who has not studied Islam, does not speak Arabic (or read!). Sure he’s not Jo Muslim, but he isn’t an Islamic scholar either.
So how did he become an Islamic Scholar (as he was dubbed on that programme)? He, through his media contacts, became a consultant to the programme and then suddenly – lo behold – he is an Imam and an Islamic Scholar.
At most he can be described as a Muslim (lay) preacher. To be described as a scholar or Imam, one needs to be an authority on the Quran, Hadith and access them using Arabic. People don’t have to be another Al-Albani or Qardawi to be called an Imam or scholar – but surely Ajmal Masoor’s level is a joke!
He accepting that title on the programme (remember he isn’t just an invited guest) shows how a little fame gets to people’s heads.
Jazakallahu Khairan for your fantastic post. May Allah Bless You Akhi…Amin.
Let’s resume the infighting…
Assalamu Alaikum,
Bilal, jazzakAllah kahir for your comment. I agree with you that if your not an authority in Islam you shouldn’t allow people to address you as one. I enjoy br Ajmal’s interviews on tv, and he does a very good job most of the time, a lot better than many of the ‘Imams’. Its just the issue of him being portrayed a scholar I have a problem, when he is clearly not.
Muji, Indeed, lets resume the infighting [debate] in establishing the sahih fron the saqim!
Wassalam
salam alaikum
A couple of points on what has been mentioned -
1. As far as I am aware, people mentioned that on previous series Masroor used the title sheikh or scholar, and so I imagine out of the advice he got from other people he downgraded to Imam. As he does lead jum’a in various mosques, technically speaking (from a linguistic point of view) he can therefore justify the use of the honorific title imam
2. The question of the hadith – the way the narration was narrated on TV by the person was wrong, and so “technically” it was not wrong of Masroor to claim no such narration exists, since it clearly does not exist in the form that the person was narrating. Though I do not agree with such a technicality being used, it could be argued that given the nature of the hadith it was better to sidestep the issue. Obviously Masroors argument was also evidence of apologism and appeasement
Now, the real issues of this program, which I will not call Shariah TV since it has no relation with the shariah from near or far
A side note on some of the guests – the claim that all religions lead to the truth is kufr, and those who say so with awareness are disbelievers
The main issue of this program is that the media only want to portray 2 groups of muslims
The first group would smile at the TV and say that there is no program to rob old grannies in the UK because it is dar-al-harb
The second group would smile at the TV and say they would have no problem with their daughter becoming a jew since she is free to do what she wants
The first group is there as a caricature to show the evil extremism that supposedly exists, and the second group are the liberal “practising” muslims that the government wants us all to become on the way to becoming disbelievers (because even if you sell out your deen they will not be happy with you until you follow theirs)
What gets me is that the liberal muslims for all their good intentions seem to be blinded to the slippery slope they are well on the way down
The most obvious example – when someone argues against the use of the rule necessity permits the forbidden to allow muslim women to marry non-muslim men
Did they also argue against the use of the rule when it applied to mortgages?
If not why not? Both fatawa were given by scholars
And yet several people accept/ remain silent on the second fatwa but will stand up against the first….why?
These are not issues that a student of knowledge, let alone a scholar, can do taqleed to others with the excuse that, for example, those giving the fatawa are more knowledgeable
And neither are they issues that someone can just remain upon since it is an issue of clear haram (interest) and clear misapplication of the rule
And yet we see Masroor on the show fully rejecting (and rightly so) the misapplication of the rule in respect to women, but as Allah is my witness who knows what will happen in the next 5-10 years and what fatawa will be given and what we will accept
This show had so many issues – i heard that one gave the impression that dating is allowed. Though no doubt there will be some “technicality” to explain this away, the fact that people get that impression from the show is a clear warning
Sadly – the media does not want to give any opportunity to those who would explain the truth in an articulate, clear manner not afraid of the blame of the blamers and yet able to speak with hikma
wasalam
Dear Abu Abdullah
If I recall correctly, Ajmal Masoor was entitled ‘British Islamic Scholar’ on this new series.
Wassalam,
JazzakAllah khair brother Abu Abdullah for your comments,
I initially wanted to write on the other issues you cited on your comments such as the issue of women marrying non-Muslim men, the issue of dating etc, but thought that they are clear-cut and would not need any clarification.
I totally agree with you in regards to the misuse of the ‘darura’ principle. Daisy Khan is clearly no scholar to understand the intellectual and academic contours of this Qaidah let alone apply it in various situations. By the way, are there any scholars [Ahlus Sunnah] who said that Muslim women are allowed to marry non-Muslim men? I have not heard of any.
As far as the issue of mortgage is concerned, although in my understanding the principle has been misused or misapplied by many people [Wallahu ‘alam], this issue and the issue of marrying Muslim men are two different matters. There are situations where I personally know that a brother or sister had to purchase a house with mortgage. That was the last resort. There will be always, Insha’Allah, Muslim men for our sisters to marry!
Wassalam
salam alaikum,
The sister claimed she had consulted and got fatawa from a few shuyukh in the middle east on the matter. Sadly, though I do not know who these are I do not find it that difficult to believe. “Sheikh” Abou el Fadl of the US states it is “makruh” in his opinion (worse he claims that the evidence against it is not “convincing”)
Re. mortgage issue – i don’t really want to get into it (again :) ) – this is not the place for it.
Enough to state that the fatwa given was a general ruling that permitted people to buy houses with mortgage under the condition that it was going to be their place of abode, and that they did not have enough money to buy one outright, and that he did not own another house.
This fatwa ignored/ rejected the fact that people could rent, and yet relied upon the principle of the necessity permitting the forbidden as its primary source of evidence.
Though I cannot understand a situation where it may become necessary for someone (acc. to the shariah) to do such a thing, you claim to know someone and I will defer to your opinion. But that is far cry from a general fatwa that permits anyone and everyone to do it as long as the three conditions i stated above are met.
In fact, if you ask some of the authors of this fatwa – what about renting, i am able to rent – their reply is “but you won’t end up with ownership of the house if you rent”. Is this a shar’i justification?
As such, I don’t believe it is too much of a jump to see the day when such a reasoning can be used WITHOUT REJECTION with the issue of marriage, especially if we consider the current “philosophy of law” approach to maqasid whereby the general “maqasid” as understood by those proposing these ideas as being able to overrule specific rulings.
Please forgive me for this post here, i don’t think this forum is the place for such discussions, and I really do appreciate the initial post and I am happy that people felt the need to reject this show
A final note – I think we should recognise that until now, alhamdullilah, people/ shows like this have very little credibility amongst Muslims. We need to strengthen our community so they are immunised to such things, and also educate them so that they are able to carry the dawa to the non-muslims directly
And Allah knows best
wasalam
Again – in a short form – I really agree with the central point of this blog entry.
The rejection of the hadith on a “technicality” (benefit of the doubt) showed a weakness that permeated the whole show.
When asked “would you be upset if your daughter became a jew” – why could he just not answer “Yes. I cannot stop her doing so here in the West, but I would be upset because I believe in Islam” Is there no shame in saying such a thing? Is it not the truth?
But the desire to appear “liberal” in front the audience overcame him and I do not believe any muslim would be happy if such a thing happened to them, let alone an “Imam”
wasalam
Wassalam,
JazzakAllah khair brother for your comments,
I am tempted to comment regarding the mortgage issue however, you are right this is not the platform for it. I would point out one thing though, we must not conflate the issue or those scholars who permit buying a house with mortgage with the issue or concern that we have of some elements trying to subvert some of the principles of Islam and liberalise the Muslims. We may disagree with the fatwa, and we know that in the Shari’ah a scholar is rewarded even if his Ijtihad is wrong but we should not place these scholars and those who are clearly out there to subvert Islam ij one basket. This is something that I have observed which we must avoid doing Insha’Allah.
As I have mentioned I have seen people who have purchased a house with mortgage and it was the last resort. This is was a situation where it was not possible for them to rent [for some reason], they were not able to apply for a house from the council, and so they had to rent. Again akhi, we are not scholars and this is not the platform to discuss this issue in detail.
My intention by posting the article here was not to attack our brother Ajmal Masroor. I have high respect for him and what he is doing, but the concern remains that he is not a scholar in the Islamic tradition and when you do not have the adequate knowledge of the Shari’ah, you should do your best not portray yourself as one.
I think he could have dealt with certain better but he was put in a spot!
Wassalam
by the way, I dont know who Daisy Khan was referring to when she said she consulted scholars regarding the marriage issue but I am sure it wont be a credible scholar. I cant comment on Abu Fadl as I do not know him or what he stands for.
Wallahu ‘Alam
wslm
Salam alaikum akhi,
I fully agree that we should not place the scholars in the same basket as those who wish to pervert the deen.
I think also a lot of people share your concern, as evidenced by Bilal’s comments above. Maybe you should speak to him and advise him on the issue personally if possible.
ws
Wassalam,
JazzakAllah khair. We’ll try to do that Insha’Allah.
wslm
“This is the Rumi version of Islam: all religions are truth, they are like rivers leading to the Ocean (leading to the same God).”
subhanAllah you clearly know nothing of Rumi if you make statements like that. Beware showing emnity to the friends of Allah. Beware.
Was Rumi an orthodox Muslim or a universal mystic beyond the rigid confines of orthodoxy?
http://qa.sunnipath.com/issue_view.asp?HD=1&ID=3269&CATE=91
http://www.livingislam.org/fiqhi/sp2-gfh_e.html#19