Around 10 years ago, I asked Dr Tariq Ramadan for help with an essay on Nietzsche, the German philosopher. I knew he was a lecturer in philosophy, so who better to help with one of the most difficult texts (political thought) for undergraduates?
Admired by his supporters, dismissed by his critics - I can confirm and declare that Tariq Ramadan is no Übermensch (superman).
Though undoubtedly a gifted intellectual who is fluent in many languages including Arabic, English, French and German – I have no idea whether he read Nietzsche in its original German. This isn’t yet another post on Tariq Ramadan, but bear with me.
Nietzsche and his concept of Übermensch is much misunderstood, and was even misappropriated by the Nazis to provide the basis for their ‘Master Race’. This is despite Nietzsche’s apparent intolerance for anti-semitism. Like his subject matter Nietzsche, Tariq Ramadan too is often misunderstood: Ed Husain (Quilliam Foundation) claimed Dr Ramadan supported abolishing hudood (capitaland corporal) punishments, which is clearly a misrepresentation.
Another misrepresented famous Egyptian intellectual is Syed Qutb. A prisoner of an authoritarian regime, and thus a man of his time, the strong and often harsh tone of his writings have been used by takfiris to provide the intellectual basis for their grave misdeeds. In its murderous consequences, perhaps Qutb’s position is more like that of Nietzsche? But that’s a digression too far…
I mention this here and now, because while it’s understandable that intellectuals are by their nature ‘vague’ or in the words of Dr Ramadan “nuanced rather than categorical” – I find it difficult to believe that Hasan al-Banna can be misunderstood. Unlike the intellectuals, Hasan al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, was a man of the people who wrote his Messages (Majmu’at al-Rasail) in simple speech-like language.
It is quite astonishing therefore to find people from different and distinct camps claiming to represent what Hasan al-Banna stood for. In a rather heated ‘discussion’ on another post on this blog, I was quite puzzled to discover commenters claiming to be a part of the ‘Islamic Movement’, praising Hasan al-Banna, yet making statements that are a world apart from his thinking and what the Islamic Movement represents.
This is a new and disturbing trend (my Jim Fitzpatrick moment!). Imam al-Banna and his Ikhwan al-Muslimeen (Muslim Brotherhood) represented a new and attractive kind of thinking, which appealed to many people from all walks of life. However, not everyone who became a member was happy with its outlook and way of doing things.
Members like Taqi al-Deen al-Nabahani left to form Hizbut Tahrir (to establish the Khilafa within 13 years like the Prophet). Other more radical groups included Gama’a Islamiya (which is now part of al-Qa’eda) and Takfir wal-Hijra formed by Shukri Mustafa on release from prison and torture. What is certainly clear is that all of these groups and people disassociated themselves from the Muslim Brotherhood, they left because they disagreed with it, or felt it had failed, or wasn’t Islamic enough for them.
Hasan al-Banna and indeed the whole Islamic Movement was clear in that theirs was a movement which tolerated difference of opinion. In his book ‘Our Message‘ Al-Banna makes it clear that on issues other than Aqīda (fundamentals/creed) differences are ‘absolutely unavoidable’ and ‘impossible for all of us to be united on these matters, opinions and fiqh..’.
This toleration of different opinions is often termed as the belief in ’multiple correct answers’. Al-Banna uses the famous example of the Prophet’s Companions disagreeing on the Asr (afternoon) prayer on the way to Banu Quraiza, to demonstrate that principle.
This point is of fundamental importance to the Islamic Movement: an ideology which believes in collective effort (Jama’ah) must tolerate difference of opinion. Essentially this is the Islamic philosophy and tradition of the great predecessors that ‘I think I am right, but I could be wrong – and I think you are wrong, but you could be right’.
This toleration of differences of opinion in a Jama’a is essential, without it an organisation cannot function. Sometimes two contradictory opinions will exist on a key issue and the leadership will have to choose one, the opposing faction cannot think the leadership’s position is ’shameful’, ‘un-Islamic’ or just ‘batil’ (falsehood)! They must have the attitude of accepting it as ‘a different, but correct opinion’. If they cannot do that, the only option is to leave the organisation, as others have done in the past.
I say this in reference to this specific comment on a previous post, and the attitude it represents:
“Do you brothers not feel shame, when EVERY SINGLE ARGUMENT you presented in support of the mistake that tariq ramadan has made (along with all his other mistakes), everyone on this blog including ulamaa and leaders from across the globe have refuted him?
Please brothers, if your hearts and minds are closed to the inevitable/irresistable truth, then close your mouths also as it will not utter any truth neither. …” [sic]
This comment clearly shows a total contradiction to the message of Hasan al-Banna and the Islamic Movement. One cannot have those beliefs and attitudes and also be a part of the Islamic Movement. [That is, if they are a member of the Islamic Movement at all.]
There also seems to be some confusion on what the ‘Islamic Movement’ is, and what it represents. Simply put the Islamic Movement is the organisations Ikhwan of Al-Banna and Jamaat of Mawdudi, their branches, successor organisations and those organisations that were inspired by them and maintain their ethos. To be a part of the Islamic Movement one really needs to be a member of an Islamic Movement organisation, or if there is a reason why they cannot physically sign up, they at least need to believe in and uphold its ethos.
The ethos of the Islamic Movement is essentially belief in a comprehensive Islam, that includes social welfare work, political activeness and/or interest in the community around us, toleration of different opinions, and a collective effort.
So while organisations like the peaceful Al-Nahda movement in Tunisia, and the resistance (violent) movement in Palestine (Hamas) are both part of the ‘Islamic Movement’, groups like Gama’a Islamiya, Tabligh Jamaat, Hizbut Tahrir, Sufi Tariqas, etc, are by definition not part of the ‘Islamic Movement’. That doesn’t mean we do takfir on them, as Hasan al-Banna said “we excuse those who differ with us”.
A final comment on this issue of different opinions. The incident related by Al-Banna about the Prophet’s Companions on the journey to Banu Quraiza is very critical to the Islamic Movement attitude, a group of the Companions prayed on the way because it was time for Asr prayer, even though the Prophet specifically ordered them to ’pray at Banu Quraiza’. They judged that the Prophet meant they should hurry to arrive at Banu Quraiza in time for Asr prayer, and not that the Prophet was ordering them to delay the prayer (against the established norm). The other group of course insisted on prayer at Banu Quraiza, even though they delayed the prayer.
What is key is that the Prophet, on learning of this, approved both actions. Surely, he knew himself exactly what he meant? So why did he not say which group was right? This was a real situation with only one possible correct answer, yet the Prophet did not condemn or even correct the wrong action. Similarly Allah does know what He meant by the texts of His revelation, and yes two contradictory interpretations cannot be both right at the same time. But since we are not prophets, we shouldn’t wait for wahy (revelation) to tell us the correct answer.
Instead we should follow the example of the Prophet and his Companions, who taught us that even when there is one correct answer – human beings can produce two solutions, and both are accepted as valid. That’s just how it is, the alternative is destructive chaos, and if you add takfir – you get the likes of the Islamic Armed Group of Algeria.
Even in the science of facts and figures and definitive answers, mathematics – sometimes there are two possible answers, and they are both correct. If that is so, is it not inevitable for multiple answers in the science of words and language as Hasan al-Banna said?
I don’t think I will be too far off when I say you are abdalla. If not, just let us know and we’re done.
And yes, the person is sometimes important as well as his ideas.
Please forgive me for saying this, but I cannot also overlook the likelihood that you have been posing as Abdalla br Amin (the arguments and wording are identical – e.g. ‘multiple correct answers’, ‘I think I am right, but I could be wrong – and I think you are wrong, but you could be right’…). If so, then it is a shame and an embarrassment – especially given Abdalla’s lack of Islamic adab and name-calling (’moron’ seemed to be a favourite). And it doesn’t help the arguments and point syou are making here, which are a lot about personalities by the way, so I agree with Abdullah above that the person is important as well as his ideas.
But of course, if I am incorrect, please (politely) let everyone know you have not posed as Abdalla and we can have a tidy and genuine discussion (and let’s be honest). Otherwise, the hurt of dealing with someone who is not-so-genuine will linger always in the background.
As for your points, then I would like to focus on two of them (while there are many ). Your main argument goes as follows: IM bleieves in allowing for differences of opinion (something which is actually not exclusive to IM by the way), and that therefore, TR’s arguments for a moratorium on hudood should be accepted as a matter of ikhtilaaf and a difference of opinion where no one group censors the other, i.e. they believe that – as you say – ”I think I am right, but I could be wrong – and I think you are wrong, but you could be right’). This argument you/Abdalla have been making all along in the previous thread about TR.
But where is the line drawn for this claim? Scholars have laid down foundations for accepting differences of opinion, one of which is clearly that the ‘difference’ has to based upon Islamic and juristic evidences on both sides, and that fatawaa creating such differences have to be issued from a credible source (the conditions for someone to issue fatawaa and be a mujtahid are outlined in our classical scholarship as well as contemporary – see Sh Salman Al-Awdah’s treatise ‘Who has the right to ijtihaad?’).
So for example, with the issue of Niqab, the differences and two conflicting opinions exist based upon textual evidence and opinions, understandings and practices of the salaf. And as rightfully highlighted in another article on this blog quoting from Sh Qaradawi, there is an adab to approach this type of ikhtilaaf:
““the controversy will remain AS LONG AS THE TEXTS THEMSELVES — FROM WHICH RULINGS ARE DERVIED — are amenable to disagreement with respect to their authenticity and meaning. [They will remain] as long as the minds of men are of varying strength in deriving rulings [FROM THE TEXTS], and [differ as to] the extent to which TEXTS are to be taken literally, or in their general tenor, or whether one should adopt a more stringent position or a more lenient one, or a cautious position or an easier one.
“The controversy will remain as long as there are those who adopt the rigorous stances of Ibn ʿUmar, and those who adopt the dispensations of Ibn ʿAbbās…”
So clearly rulings are derived from texts. Even the Banu Quraizah example shows how the Sahaba strove to implement the text, and based their opinions on evidence.
So on all of this, everyone is agreed. Let us pray behind a Shafi’ee even if you are Maalik, let us take a Maliki opinion if the need arises even if you are Shafi’ee etc.
However, your application of this concept to TR’s call for a moratorium is flawed. One of the distinctive features of his call was, as Islamonline put it, as follows:
“A notable feature of Ramadan’s call is the absence of any juristic opinions to support his views. Ramadan refers to “the majority of the `ulamaa’s [religious scholars]” without specifying names or citing juristic proofs. ”
To claim some credibility, he put forward a false application of Qiyaas upon the case of Umar (r) in famine, which everyone so far has denied as a correct qiyaas or a proof and justification for his call (if you are indeed Abdalla you will be aware of this from the previous discussion).
What remains is for us to look at whether the conditions for implementing hudood are present or not, and only when it has been clearly proven that the conditions for implementing hudood are absent in the ENTIRE penal system can we suspend the ENTIRE penal system. Again, TR has failed to provide such proof, neither juristic nor statistical.
So an ‘opinion’ which is not substantiated with sufficient evidence cannot qualify for the ‘adab of ikhtilaaf’ and cannot automatically come under the umbrella of ‘I am right and you may be wrong’. Until TR can provide credible evidences, both juristic and statistical, showing that the ENTIRE penal system in Middle Eastern countries do not meet the required conditions for applying hudood, we will have to deny his call for suspending the ENTIRE penal system in Middle Eastern countries. And after that of course remains the discussion of what will replace it and should he have called for a correct application of the entire hudood and entire shariah in general rather than simply cut-off at calling for a suspension…
This denial of opinions is also evident amongst the sahaba themselves. The line has to be drawn, otherwise, what do we say regarding (as you mentioned I think earlier and were asked about earlier) Amina Waddod’s and Ziauddin Sardar’s ‘fatawaa’? Are they not eligible for making ‘fiqhi’ arguments and are we not bound to allow for this ‘difference of opinion’? A woman leading a man in prayer is not necessarily from the aqidah or fundamentals, it is a fiqhi matter, but it is rejected? If we are to allow for unsubstantiated calls as TR’s, why not allow for other unsubstantiated calls as Amina Wadood’s?
So in general theory, your point about adab of ikhtilaaf is a classical and correct one. However, your application of this to TR’s call for a suspension of hudood is not.
Salam.
br amin, your article is laughable. previously, you wrote an entire article based on 1 comment on this blog and you falsely claimed that the comment was racist. i.e. to refer to nasty violent racists in the panorama programe as ’spiteful disbelievers’ was a statement of racism itself!
now, you take another single comment, out of context and write another article dedicated to that? is this what ‘between the lines’ is about? I don’t think other popular bloggers on this site would agree…
most importantly, it appears that in your blind support of a non ikhwani i.e. TR (even though he has been refuted by even notable figures in the movement, the shaykh that gave him ‘ijaaza’ for ijtihaad, even though TR himself criticizes and dissociates himslef from the movement), it is actually YOU who disagrees with the concepts/ ideas, vales and method of the movement. So, my advice to you is (unlike your advice to fellow movement supporters/members), STAY in the movement if you believe in the ethos/founding principles of the movement.
btw, if you support non ikhwanis like TR, why then do you not support non ikhwanis such as nabhani? shah dehlawi? shaykh yunus? shk uthaymeen or albani, al awlaki? If you don’t, then the contradiction is clear for all to see. (this point has been made in another post before)
what about members of the movement who have been criticised the way TR has been criticesed? qutb, suroor, abdullaah azzaam, gulam azam etc etc? Why do you not defend them the way you defend TR if there are ‘multiple correct answers’?
so please stop telling people to leave the movement, i don’t think you are the one who decides that!
OK Said: “So an ‘opinion’ which is not substantiated with sufficient evidence cannot qualify for the ‘adab of ikhtilaaf’ and cannot automatically come under the umbrella of ‘I am right and you may be wrong’. ”
and
” The line has to be drawn, otherwise, what do we say regarding (as you mentioned I think earlier and were asked about earlier) Amina Waddod’s and Ziauddin Sardar’s ‘fatawaa’? Are they not eligible for making ‘fiqhi’ arguments and are we not bound to allow for this ‘difference of opinion’? A woman leading a man in prayer is not necessarily from the aqidah or fundamentals, it is a fiqhi matter, but it is rejected? If we are to allow for unsubstantiated calls as TR’s, why not allow for other unsubstantiated calls as Amina Wadood’s?”
Jezek’Allahu Kahir brother, you took the words right out of my mind!
As’Salaamu Alaikum,
May Allah have mercy upon us, this new thread is soo poorly written that Wallahi i will be making 70+ excuses for the author, i advise that no one responds as i view it clearly as a waste of time & energy.
la hawla wa la quwwata illa billah
May Allah have mercy upon us all.
Wa’Salaam
Correct me if i am wrong ikhwah, but didn’t br Amin also write an article here about abandoning niqaab so as to help nonmuslims be more tolerant of us?!
Also, the example of the ‘asr prayer was not used by shaheed Banna to let Amina Wadood and Ziauddin Sardar or the shee’ah to claim that their opinions are one of the ‘multiple correct answers’ acceptable as ikhtilaaf, subhaanallaah.
Please study the ussol of deen, usool of fiqh and other subjects such as seerah and sharee’ah.
The example of the ‘asr prayer is proof that the sahaabah only followed the command of the blessed prophet saws. They were allowed only to blindly follow the prophet and the commands of Allaah as evidence indicates in the quraan. Had the sahaabah prayed late because one of the other companions ordered it from his own intellect, that group of sahaabah would have been mistaken. Rest assured, the sahaabah wouln’t have made that mistake as they are the first ones who know that it can’t be justified as ikhtilaaf! Therefpre, the sahaabah in the example of the ‘asr prayer WERE both right! It appears that it is YOU br amin who thinks that correct conflicting opinions don’t exist in acceptable ikhtilaaf based upon the texts…
Please br amin, stop misquoting things or get a job with rupert murdoch.
Brothers abdullah and OK, why don’t you just cut it out.
We should learn from the previous example of people naming and shaming people, and then they get egg on their face beccause they were wrong. and what purpose does it serve?
If you are so interested in knowing who posters really are, why don’t you start with yourself and tell us who you are?
“Multiple Correct Answers” was taken from this website http://www.jannah.org/articles/tenprinciples.html
@Amin
You mention that like Nietzsche’s concept of Ubermensch Tariq Ramadan is misunderstood; to which I can agree. The problem with the words of Tariq Ramadan is that he too vague and he is neither here nor there. A good example is his call for the suspension of hudood he has gone half way on the issue, to the Muslims his call is moving the hudood towards abolishment and to the kuffar his call has fallen short to what they want (total abolishment) so this causes animosity from both sides. And I agree with the similarities drawn between Tariq Ramadan and Nietzsche; to those who do not know the concept of Ubermensch and how the Nazis used this concept to provide a basis for their methodology, an extract is below on the concept,
“I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? … All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood, and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is ape to man? A laughing stock or painful embarrassment. And man shall be that to overman: a laughingstock or painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape.… The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth.… Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman—a rope over an abyss … what is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end.” Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Prologue, §§3–4)
As you all can see the words are open to interpretation and exploitation by the Nazis. But what i absolutely disagree with you is that Syed Qutb’s words were vague and that because of the harsh times he lived in his words were misconstrued. And i would disagree that Qutb’s words are more like that of Nietzsche as said by you “Perhaps Qutb’s position is more like that of Nietzsche”
You are reading into his words too much and deriving a conclusion which actually is not there. You mentioned about Syed Qutb “A prisoner of an authoritarian regime, and thus this a man of his time, the strong and often harsh tone of his writings have been used by takfiris to provide the intellectual basis for their grave misdeeds”
The difference between Qutb and Ramadan is that the former was precise in his words and the latter is extremely vague and tries to please everyone.
Amin you quote a post by one of the bloggers which was in relation to the issue of suspension of hudood. This was a concept raised by Tariq Ramadan who by your standards is not Islamic Movement. You have mentioned “To be a part of the Islamic Movement one really needs to be a member of an Islamic Movement organisation, or if there is a reason why they cannot physically sign up, they at least need to believe in and uphold its ethos”
Tariq Ramadan is not part of an Islamic Movement Organisation and he has openly said he does not agree with his grandfathers opinions and Muslim Brotherhood, and we know when someone does not agree and criticises what he should do – “What is certainly clear is that all of these groups and people disassociated themselves form the Muslim Brotherhood, they left because they disagreed with it, or felt it has failed, or wasn’t Islamic enough for them” and you said “Sometimes two contradictory opinions will exist on a key issue and the leadership will have to choose one, the opposing faction cannot think the leadership’s position is ’shameful’, ‘un-Islamic’ or just ‘batil’ (falsehood)! They must have the attitude of accepting it as ‘a different, but correct opinion’. If they cannot do that, the only option is to leave the organisation, as others have done in the past.”
So the ikhtilaf is not between Islamic Movement workers or ideas but the issue was about a extremely controversial issued raised by an extremely controversial person who is not part of the Islamic Movement. So your argument is flawed and very contradict.
Another point is the definition of Islamic Movement where you say “Simply put the Islamic Movement is the organisations Ikhwan of Al-Banna and Jamaat of Mawdudi, their branches, successor organisations and those organisations that were inspired by them and maintain their ethos” So upholding the principles of these organisations is what Islamic Movement is. The earlier discussion on Tariq Ramadan was so debatable because he contradicts the principles of Hassan Al-Banna.
I also agree with you on the adab of ikhtilaf and that people will always have difference of opinions of fiqhi opinions, but what I feel is the main areas of contention is on issue of aqida and manhaj. The issues that have arisen are Iqamat ad-deen, establishment of Khalifah, implementation of Shariah and implementation of Hudood. These are issues of aqida and manhaj the same manhaj of the prophet. As mentioned by Imam Shahid Hassan Al-Banna in his writing The Message of the Teachings under the section of Action point 6.
“Rebuilding the international prominence of the Islamic umma by liberating its lands, reviving its glorious past, bringing close the cultures of its regions and rallying under one word. Until once again the long awaited unity and lost Khalifah is returned”
These are the words of Islamic Movement (as defined by you amin) but yet we have debate about the establishment of khalifah/deen?
So those who do not accept these concepts are not from the correct manhaj and are not part of the Islamic Movement and so what do we say to those who reject these principles, “They must have the attitude of accepting it as ‘a different, but correct opinion’. If they cannot do that, the only option is to leave the organisation, as others have done in the past” (As said by Amin)
[Deleted]
BLOG EDITOR: We have asked you repeatedly to stop making accusations against some perceived bias against you, yet you continue to persist.
We have warned you before that if you make such obviously false allegations, we may publish your comments in full and unedited. This will only serve to humiliate you.
You have done this before with your false and childish allegations, and we have published it in full.
We have no control over people posing as others, just as we have no control over what you say. If you have any queries or complaints, please feel free to email the blog editor – as it states in the User Guidelines.
This is your final warning, if you persist in breaking the terms of participation (User Guidelines) – you will be asked not to comment here again (banned).
I would just like to echo Hussain Shefaar – who some people previously claimed was Abdullah or Abdalla. They were so certain they did an exposé.
Like Hussain, I write in my own name, my views and opinions are very clear for all to see. I have not, do not, and have no need to masquerade as anyone else, as I can (and do) say whatever I feel in my own name. My real name IS ‘Muhammad Amin’, and not a nom de guerre. Apart from being known to most of the other authors on this blog, I may also be known to some commenters,
I hope that clears things up for some people. And just in case anyone is thinking of accusing me of being ‘Abu Muhammad’ as well – I am not.
I remind people of two points Hussain Shefaar made earlier:
“1. Debate and question IDEAS, not the person. Come up with better IDEAS not better insults at the person you are debating with.
2. What is the purpose of guessing who the person is? Those who are writing these comments know who I am and may even meet me personally – if you want to confirm names and this will help you to understand my ideas better – then you know where to find me. We should avoid naming individuals which serves no other purpose other than character assassinations.”
However, it seems some people are still adamant that the ‘person’ is also important, in which case I would urge everyone to use their real names. Especially those individuals who are keen to know others’ real identities, it is quite ironic to use pseudonyms, and then ask others to reveal their true identities.
Please feel free to critique my blog, that is the purpose and function of the comment section. Say what you agree or disagree with, and if there are any factual errors – please do point it out.
I don’t personally like to comment, and also unfortunately don’t have the time to engage directly in long discussions. So please do not ask questions directed at me, as I cannot guarantee a reply. If I have an opinion or find a discussion interesting or problematic, I just write a blog on it – as I have done here.
NB: I have given the reference of the heated discussion on a previous blog post as the inspiration for this particular post. Many of the points I made here were mentioned by several commenters in that post. Naturally, I only selected those points and examples I agreed with, or those I chose to criticise. I apologise for any offence caused by the lack of detailed referencing for every specific point and example used by others.
@abdullah you have taken my name. i was using Abdalla before before you even came along dude.
if you want to know who i am, get ready for a real surprise. you might be soo surprised if you discovered my family name.
theres a name for people like you and OK, hypocricy comes to mind dudes. you use fake names and then ask everyone else who you disagree with to out themselves.
abdullah and OK you tell me who you are and ill tell you who i am; or if your wimps keep those traps shut. im getting bored of this forum only a few narrow minded wannnabe jihadis come and hog the show and thres no real debate just their hypocricy of wanting to expose kuffar lovers but dont wanna say who they are.
@Abdalla
This is the second time you mentioned Jihadi, the first time was salafi-jihadi. Please tell me how you have come to the conclusion that the individualks you have named are jihadi? Secondly please explain to me what the term salafi-jihadi means and again how you came to the conclusion certain individuals are “salafi-jihadi”?
Lastly what is wrong with Jihad that you are branding individuals aas jihadi? is it not part of our religion?
@Amin
You have many contradictions in your blog which i have hilighted, i wonder if you will answer my post since before (on the issue of niqab) you always ignored my posts.
Some interesting passages from Sh Salam Al-Awdah’s book on ijtihaad mentioned earlier, with relevance to some of the topics raised:
“So the matter isn’t restricted with some people to simply speaking about Shari’ah, but rather some of them claim they have the right to do ijtihaad and that they are mujtahids, and that they have the right to do ijtihaad.
In Reality, we are not from those who close the door to ijtihaad, as it said, “So-and-so has closed the door to ijtihaad,” or, “You are restricting the minds of the people,” No, never. Rather we say – as did some contemporary writers, “The door of ijtihaad is open but it has been broken,” meaning that it became so widely open that everyone entered through it; those who are fit for ijtihaad and those who are not. In fact many have sneaked through this door who are not fit for this matter, and have claimed they are mujtahids, and that they are rewarded and excused whether they they are correct or mistaken. These are the ones which speak about Allah without knowledge.”
He goes on:
“And if some of these people are opposed in their view [by telling them that Ijtihaad is restricted to only the highly qualified and certified], they say, “O brother, do not confine something which is vast. Did not the prophet (saw) say in an agreed hadith narrated by Amr ibn Al-Aas and also by Abu Hurayrah, “If a judge makes a judgement and does ijtihaad and gets it right then he has two rewards, and if he does ijtihaad and gets it wrong he has one reward”? I do not miss anything, either one reward or two rewards, so why are you so disturbed? And why do you oppose the fact that I speak and deliver verdicts according to my knowledge of the legal issues, and write whatever important researches I can conduct in this field?!”
But the reality is that this hadith, “If a judge makes a judgement and does ijtihaad and gets it right then he has two rewards…” is only for those who meet two criteria:
1. That he is fully fit to do ijtihaad, fit for it with deep knowledge, and sufficient studying as well experience.
2. That he has dedicated his utmost effort in regards to the issue which has been presented to him, so that he does not suffice with simply being well-known for example, but rather adds to that by turning the issue around on all its facets, and deep contemplation and inspection in it. If it requires research then the research is carried out. If it requires that he has to ask then he asks. Until he arrives at the truth and then proclaims it. If he does this then there is no sin on him, rather he is rewarded in both circumstances; if he is correct he gets two rewards, and if he is mistaken he gets one reward.
As for the one who spoke without knowledge then he is a sinner, even if he gets it right. If he gets it right – if this were to somehow occur – then it would have been as a coincidence rather than based on the requirements of the way of the Shariah. For this he is sinning in both circumstances. As it has come in the hadith, “Whoever says about the Quran with his own opinion and gets it right then he has surely erred.” So if this hadith is authentic, then it serves the topic about which we speak. But in any case, we have an authentic hadith narrated by Ibn Majah and Imam Ahmad and others, that the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said, “Whosoever is given a verdict which is not sound, then the sin is not on anyone but the one who delivered the verdict.”
Therefore, this mufti that speaks without knowledge and without firmness nor legal evidences, he carries his own sin’s weight and the sin’s weight of the one he has misguided.
Allah says: “Then who does more wrong than one who invents a lie against Allâh, to lead mankind astray without knowledge. Certainly Allâh guides not the people who are Zâlimûn” (6:144). So whoever speaks about a matter in the deen without knowledge then he is from the most oppressive of the oppressors/zalimun; he is a zalim towards himself, zalim to others, zalim to the umnmah, zalim to the society, and his sin is upon him as well as the sin of others. Allah says, “They will bear their own burdens in full on the Day of Resurrection, and also of the burdens of those whom they misled without knowledge. Evil indeed is that which they shall bear!” (16:25).
Imam Ibn Al-Qayyim said, “Whoever delivers a verdict while he is not deserving of delivering verdicts, then he is a disobedient sinner. Whoever affirms him from among the people in authority, then they are also sinners.”
Ibn Al-Jawzi said, “The one in authority must prevent them as did Banu Umayyah. These are of the same rank as those who guide travellers while they do not know the way, or of those who direct towards the qiblah while being blind, or of those who treat the people while they do not know medicine. Rather he is worse than all of them…”
And the hanafi jurists have spoken about a mufti they called ‘Al-Mufti Al-Majin’. Imam Abu Hanifah has said with regards to this mufti, “We must restrict this Al-Majin…because he plays with fatwa. He delivers verdicts while he is not fit for fatwa.”"
@OK
Very intresting jazakallahukahir for the information it is very benefitial
It is amazing how any criticism of Amin gets deleted, becvasue there are question which he has refused to answer. The issue raised by the bloggers in this post is not the first time this has happened.
[Deleted]
We all know Amin is the main blog editor as i have been told by many senior IFE members, so obviosuly any thing that “EXPOSES” amin as the main creater of mischeif is deleted. The trechory that has been deployed by amin goes to sereve my point right that he has the characteristics of the munafiqueen.
Amin (acting as the blog editor) had “EXPOSED” submission hold and alpha as being the same person and saying that the only reason for this was because submission hold wants to create mischieif.
So amin why are you creating mischief? And the fact you have been “EXPOSED” as the true 2 faced foul mouthed liar on the blog does not serve you well.
I wonder what other memebrs of IFE, Senior members and shurah will think of your behaviour?
This is what happens to people who behave in a manner like the munafiqueen eventually they get exposed for their fake nature and batil opinions. Because allah is with the truth and he will always preserve it. For once have you ever thought that if the prophet was alive today what would he do? Be khusty with the kuffar or make his deen supreme again as this is his way!
No more hiding my friend the word is out!
BLOG EDITOR: Now that you have got that off your chest. Please read the User Guidelines, this kind of behaviour you have displayed in this comment will not be tolerated. You have broken points 1, 2, 3 and 8 of the User Guidelines.
You also seem to be living in a parallel universe when you accuse us of ‘deleting critical comments’ – there are 12 comments on this post so far, with around 7 critical of this post and NONE in support of it. If you want the opportunity to attack the author himself and other commenters (which is against point 1 of User Guidelines), you should start by telling everyone your real name. That way they can also have the opportunity to attack you.
If the only purpose of your participation is to ‘expose’ those who disagree with you, then you have come to the wrong blog. As we have warned another commenter before, if you cannot stick to the subject of discussion – please do not comment here.
If you really have a need to know the ‘real names’ of commenters, please start by telling everyone who you are. Without people knowing your real name, your claims to know ‘IFE members’ and its ‘Senior Members’ will be seen as lies. For your information, BtL is the official blog of IFE, it is read by many Senior Members and leaders of IFE. As for ‘exposing’ the Chief Editor as ‘Amin’, that ’secret’ is mentioned in many places on the blog.
We understand that you may get frustrated if you cannot debate the ideas and people who disagree with you. However using such un-Islamic and foul language and trying to ‘expose’ people by naming people you accuse as having ‘batil opinions’ (your words) is not the solution.
By the language you used in this comment, and despite the repeated requests to only discuss the topics, you have demonstrated that you are exactly what you accuse others of being and doing: using pseudonyms to launch foul-fouthed tirades against people who they think are wrong.
This is your final warning.
@Hanif
BTW unfortunatley I could not find any such phrase “Multiple correct answers” in the link you provided. Colud you please clarify?
@Hanif
Apologies i have found it.
Correction “Multiple Correct Answers” IS in the link under point number 6.
@Abu Zayd This place is very intimidating, there seems to be a vandetta against certain people. Some brothers – almost all comments are from brothers – just seem to have blind hatred of certain people. First it was Tariq Ramadan and now this author Amin. There’s too much testosterone here.
Apologies but I don’t understand this one, can you explain why it’s a waste of time and what exactly you have a problem with? Is it just the poor English you have problem with? Because writing poorly isn’t a sin you know.
I’m sure women would be offended if men walked into a discussion full of females and referred to it as ‘girl bickering’ – not sure what gender has to do with it but since you mention it, I should thank you for bringing some estrogen to this ‘testosterone-filled’ discussion. Just to remind you by the way that women also have testosterone, and your fighting spirit proves it well.
It’s always a little amusing and disappointing when the latecomer strolls into the discussion with all these pre conceived ideas and gets it all wrong. Please read all the comments above and the previous thread on tr like other readers did, those involved and not involved, to understand why people agree/disagree rather than ‘blindly’ accusing people of blind hatred.
peace.
OK has posted a very beneficial piece above quoting Shiekh Salman Al Ouda. We should all read it and reflect upon that.
Dear brother Ahmed
My comment and question was for Abu Zayd. So if you are not him please do not reply back. I’m sorry I touched a raw nerve but please do not patronise me. The only people who seem to be bickering like girls are the brothers here. I do not need a lesson in hormones, I already have an MSc in Chemistry.
I didn’t know I ‘walked’ into a discussion or that I was a ‘latecomer strolling in’ I honestly did not know it was a private party for the boys only or that there was a time limit for comments and I was late, my apologies again brother.
I was just being a silly girl thinking that this was a blog where anyone can comment. If I had known I need your permission I would’ve asked first.
My comment and question is for Abu Zayd so unless you are him please don’t reply on his behalf. Us little girls like things to be very simple if we ask for a brother or sister to reply, we expect them to reply.
Jazakallah for the Islamic hospitality I really felt welcomed by you into this private party.
@Muslimah
Please stop this bikering and lets get back to the discussion. There have been may good points raised by bloggers but we are side tracking from the discussion.
@Muslimah
Your apologies are accepted.
Dear brother Shaykh Wiki
If I didn’t want brother Ahmed to reply to my question to brother Abu Zayd, why would I expect you to reply? I also didn’t know that you were the judge and mediator on this blog, really sorry brother. If I had known that I would have ask you to intervene and save me.
I’m sorry to have also side tracked you with my question to Aby Zayd. I didn’t know you were his protector. You will make an excellent judge, when two people are ‘bikering’ you intervene and only ask me to stop ‘bikering’. How noble of you masha’allah that must be way of our prophet Muhammad (SAW). I was silly to think that people should be fair and tell off both sides.
Sorry brother I am not into the group thing of ‘lets get back to the discussion’. This girl is a 1-2-1 girl.
@ Brother Ahmed
So pleased to see that you are very brave and smart. With brothers like you the Ummah is safe Alhamdulillah.
This question is only for you brother Shaykh Wiki. Which good points were raised by bloggers? I checked the names of the bloggers on the page ‘Bloggers’ and none of the bloggers have commented on this post.
@Muslimah
By the term blogger i mean anyone who comments is a blogger. Although this may not be the actual meaning this is what i meant. As mentioned before please read all the posts from this dicsussion and previous disscussion.
@Amin
Brother why don’t you just say commentor or commenter if that’s what you mean, then we can all understand what you mean. Otherwise we will all get confused when you start renaming things.
I haven’t got the time to read all the posts [maybe you mean 'comments', there you go again renaming things and confusing us sisters] of the previous discussion. I got my family and life to deal with. Maybe we should just take one discussion at a time, keep the comments relevant to this post. That will be more simple for everyone, and it does say that on the ‘user guidelines’ page. I read that before I started to comment.
@Shaykh Wiki My brother Shaykh Wiki, if by good points of the bloggers you just meant your own points, why didn’t you just say? I could’ve then asked you directly, you could’ve saved me a lot of time.
I read your comment, you seem very knowledgable about Nietzsche, can you explain what you mean by “As you all can see the words are open to interpretation and exploitation by the Nazis.” How did the Nazis wrongly interpret Nietzsche?
You also said “And i would disagree that Qutb’s words are more like that of Nietzsche as said by you “Perhaps Qutb’s position is more like that of Nietzsche”
You are reading into his words too much and deriving a conclusion which actually is not there.”
Do you mean that no takfiris ever took inspiration from Syed Qutb (ra)? But what about those takfiri groups that claim to be inspired by his books like Milestones? If they say they got their ideas from Syed Qutb, you can’t really tell me they didn’t can you?
You are such a knowledgable brother, dedicated to the Haq that I know you will have a good answer. All the other points you mention are not relevant to this post is it, they are from previous discussions and posts.
Brother try to keep your reply short and only answer my two questions, I don’t have a lot of time as you know to read things about past discussions.
@Muslimah
My comment and question was for Amin. So if you are not him please do not reply back.
As you have mentioned you are busy so you might want to go back to your family and life which you have to deal with. I am sorry i could not share my knowledge with you i pray that allah can give you the same if not more knowledge than me
Brother Shaykh Wiki, I didn’t mean to offend you, so please don’t patronise me like brother Ahmed. Just because I don’t have time to read long comments and previous discussions isn’t a reason for you to tell me not to bother. I just said I wanted short and brief comments.
I know your comment was for brother Amin, but you also made some statements which I have only two questions about. Please brother I’m sure someone of your level of knowledge would know that a discussion is a two way thing. You have to also ‘answer’ questions, you can’t just ask them. If you make statements you have to be able to answer questions on them and defend them, you should already know that brother.
Everyone here is asking each other questions, comments and questions are not only for the author otherwise it would be called ‘ask the author’. So please my brother Shaykh Wiki just answer my two questions to you:
1) Can you explain what you mean by “As you all can see the words are open to interpretation and exploitation by the Nazis.” How did the Nazis wrongly interpret Nietzsche?
2) You also said ‘And i would disagree that Qutb’s words are more like that of Nietzsche as said by you “Perhaps Qutb’s position is more like that of Nietzsche” You are reading into his words too much and deriving a conclusion which actually is not there.’
Do you mean that no takfiris ever took inspiration from Syed Qutb (ra)? But what about those takfiri groups that claim to be inspired by his books like Milestones? If they say they got their ideas from Syed Qutb, you can’t really tell me they didn’t can you?
Jazakallah brother, I’m sure you have the answer to my questions.
Intresting post taken from another blog which i feel is of benefit to this discussion.
“The story Imam Al-Shatibi narrates in his monumental work Al-I’tisam. The story is about Imam Ibn Batta, a scholar amongst the ‘Ulama al-’Amilin’, who faced huge criticism due to the comprehensive nature and source of his knowledge. Shaykh Zarabozo also cites this in his excellent work, ‘The authority and importance of the Sunnah’ (pp 251-256). He writes:
“That is, there is no scholar or virtuous person who adheres to the Sunnah except that he has to put up with this kind of onslaught from those who are not truly following the Qur’an and Sunnah. This is because others are actually following personal desires and likes and they are ignorant of what is best and true.”
As you said, you have family to attend to and have no time for reading, so I will leave you to do that. The comment was for Amin so hope you will practice your own advice of not answering on someone else’s behalf.
I know you regard me as ‘such a knowledgeable brother’, but I am afraid I cannot share my knowledge with you so you will have to find another teacher. But don’t worry, you will inshallah reach a high level of knowledge one day too – have patience. I hope this reply is short enough for you.
Brother Shaykh Wiki, that is such a disappointment. You come on here so often and make so many comments and long comments too, but when I ask you a simple question about what you said, you refuse to answer?
It’s not because you don’t have the time, because you obviously do, you’re on here all the time. Maybe you just don’t know? And you just found and copied that bit about Nietzsche from another website, but you don’t really know anything aout him. I’ve taken your advice to read the other discussions and you’ve done this before haven’t you? Last time you copied something from a website criticising Tariq Ramadan, but you didn’t realise it was a sufi website promoting Tariqas.
I’ve very disappointed in you brother, you come here just pretending to be knowledgeable and a big man. But you don’t really know what you’re talking about do you? Cutting and pasting bits from other websites and just copying what other people say isn’t knowledge.
I may be a simple girl but I’m not stupid to fall for your tricks. I prefer brother Captain, at least when he doesn’t know something he admits it. As he said some people on here just have a blind hatred for others like Tariq Ramadan (others also blindly follow him).
You have too much time on your hands, you should get married.
“Do you mean that no takfiris ever took inspiration from Syed Qutb (ra)? But what about those takfiri groups that claim to be inspired by his books like Milestones? If they say they got their ideas from Syed Qutb, you can’t really tell me they didn’t can you?”
br amin, do you agree with this statement?
are suggesting that theres something intrinsically wrong with the Quran just because people such as the shiah, deviant sufis, secularists and others misuse the text of the Quran to justify their evil?
The evil of people is their own… you can’t suggest that jesus, shah jalal, a q jilani and others were blameworthy for the actions of the christians, the people of bid’ah and shirk?
It was a rhetorical question, please try to look beyond the literal.
what you should do is criminalise these peoples, the ahlul bid’ah, the mushrikeen, not the noble scriptures or the noble personalities they attributed their beliefs to.
Ofcourse, nobody, not jesus, nor qutb categorically ordered their audiences to practice those evils.
What happened brother Shaykh Wiki? You were so keen to get back to the discussion before, but when I ask you two simple questions on the discussion that you were part of, you go very very silent?
What happened, do you only like to criticise others? Pick and choose quotes that suit your agenda to attack people blindly, but when someone asks you about something you said, you go silent.
I’m very very disappointed in you, as I’ve said before in my first comment on this thread, some brothers like you have blind hatred of others. You should be ashamed of yourself brother. This is not Islam, that is called thuggery, testosterone filled thuggery of people behaving is if they’re in a gang.
Take this nasiha from your sister in Islam, [Deleted]
@Amin
You mention that like Nietzsche’s concept of Ubermensch Tariq Ramadan is misunderstood; to which I can agree. The problem with the words of Tariq Ramadan is that he too vague and he is neither here nor there. A good example is his call for the suspension of hudood he has gone half way on the issue, to the Muslims his call is moving the hudood towards abolishment and to the kuffar his call has fallen short to what they want (total abolishment) so this causes animosity from both sides. And I agree with the similarities drawn between Tariq Ramadan and Nietzsche; to those who do not know the concept of Ubermensch and how the Nazis used this concept to provide a basis for their methodology, an extract is below on the concept,
“I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? … All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood, and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is ape to man? A laughing stock or painful embarrassment. And man shall be that to overman: a laughingstock or painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape.… The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth.… Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman—a rope over an abyss … what is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end.” Thus Spoke Zarathustra (Prologue, §§3–4)
As you all can see the words are open to interpretation and exploitation by the Nazis. But what i absolutely disagree with you is that Syed Qutb’s words were vague and that because of the harsh times he lived in his words were misconstrued. And i would disagree that Qutb’s words are more like that of Nietzsche as said by you “Perhaps Qutb’s position is more like that of Nietzsche”
You are reading into his words too much and deriving a conclusion which actually is not there. You mentioned about Syed Qutb “A prisoner of an authoritarian regime, and thus this a man of his time, the strong and often harsh tone of his writings have been used by takfiris to provide the intellectual basis for their grave misdeeds”
The difference between Qutb and Ramadan is that the former was precise in his words and the latter is extremely vague and tries to please everyone.
Amin you quote a post by one of the bloggers which was in relation to the issue of suspension of hudood. This was a concept raised by Tariq Ramadan who by your standards is not Islamic Movement. You have mentioned “To be a part of the Islamic Movement one really needs to be a member of an Islamic Movement organisation, or if there is a reason why they cannot physically sign up, they at least need to believe in and uphold its ethos”
Tariq Ramadan is not part of an Islamic Movement Organisation and he has openly said he does not agree with his grandfathers opinions and Muslim Brotherhood, and we know when someone does not agree and criticises what he should do – “What is certainly clear is that all of these groups and people disassociated themselves form the Muslim Brotherhood, they left because they disagreed with it, or felt it has failed, or wasn’t Islamic enough for them” and you said “Sometimes two contradictory opinions will exist on a key issue and the leadership will have to choose one, the opposing faction cannot think the leadership’s position is ’shameful’, ‘un-Islamic’ or just ‘batil’ (falsehood)! They must have the attitude of accepting it as ‘a different, but correct opinion’. If they cannot do that, the only option is to leave the organisation, as others have done in the past.”
So the ikhtilaf is not between Islamic Movement workers or ideas but the issue was about a extremely controversial issued raised by an extremely controversial person who is not part of the Islamic Movement. So your argument is flawed and very contradict.
Another point is the definition of Islamic Movement where you say “Simply put the Islamic Movement is the organisations Ikhwan of Al-Banna and Jamaat of Mawdudi, their branches, successor organisations and those organisations that were inspired by them and maintain their ethos” So upholding the principles of these organisations is what Islamic Movement is. The earlier discussion on Tariq Ramadan was so debatable because he contradicts the principles of Hassan Al-Banna.
I also agree with you on the adab of ikhtilaf and that people will always have difference of opinions of fiqhi opinions, but what I feel is the main areas of contention is on issue of aqida and manhaj. The issues that have arisen are Iqamat ad-deen, establishment of Khalifah, implementation of Shariah and implementation of Hudood. These are issues of aqida and manhaj the same manhaj of the prophet. As mentioned by Imam Shahid Hassan Al-Banna in his writing The Message of the Teachings under the section of Action point 6.
“Rebuilding the international prominence of the Islamic umma by liberating its lands, reviving its glorious past, bringing close the cultures of its regions and rallying under one word. Until once again the long awaited unity and lost Khalifah is returned”
These are the words of Islamic Movement (as defined by you amin) but yet we have debate about the establishment of khalifah/deen?
So those who do not accept these concepts are not from the correct manhaj and are not part of the Islamic Movement and so what do we say to those who reject these principles, “They must have the attitude of accepting it as ‘a different, but correct opinion’. If they cannot do that, THE ONLY OPTION IS TO LEVAE THE ORGANISATION, AS OTHERS HAVE DONE IN THE PAST” (As said by Amin)
Brother you are being a hypocrite, you are doing exactly what you accuse others of doing. You seemed to be upset that the author brother Amin was not replying to your comment (comment 13). And then you accused him of behaving like the munafiqueen and used some horrible language (comment 16).
But brother Shaykh Wiki you are not replying to my questions to you? Why do you not reply? If you don’t bother replying to direct simple questions to you, why do you have a problem when others don’t reply to your very long and mostly irrelevant comments? Shame on you brother, [Deleted]
Instead of replying to questions, you repeat your long rambling comment, what are you some kind of robot or parrot? You need some help brother. Sometimes you try to sound clever and knowledgable, other times you use horrible language and make accusations without evidence which is very unislamic, and when asked direct questions you refuse to answer. My brother who is a psychiatrist would say those are the symptoms of schizophrenia.
Please answer my two simple questions, you don’t look like a very big man now when you don’t have your boys hanging around you egging you on, do you? You act like the big man from home in front of your computer and pick on people, but when a simple sister like me ask you two direct questions you show your true colours, a tiny little boy who has too much testosterone for his own good and not enough neurons.
[Deleted]
I am glad you are disappointed in me; hopefully your obsession with me will
die out soon and your testosterone levels will go back to normal. This is
not the place to make proposals – I am sure you will have better luck
elsewhere maybe muslimmatch. If you feel lonely, please do not stalk people on the blog. And if you are not Amin, please do not reply back.
Salam.
Shaykh Wiki :
How dare you brother! Do you not have any shame? I am a married sister with children. Is that your only method, to accuse everyone who ask you questions of being brother Amin.
You have no shame brother. I have no intention of stalking an insulting thug like you. All I did was asked you two simple questions and in return you make this shameful accusation of stalking you for marriage. I won’t go into why you think everyone who disagrees with you is brother Amin, you are the one who seems to have an obsession with him.
Don’t worry I wont be asking you those two questions again. You won’t be asnwering because you don’t have a clue about the asnwers. [Deleted]
@Muslimah
Salam
Alhamdulillah I can only assume that amin agrees with my point in regards to his article hence why he has remained silent on the issue. Now we all know what the Islamic Movement is and who are considered members of the movement. Also we have clarified that TR is not a member of Islamic Movement. Finally those who reject or refuse to accept the principles of the Islamic Movement have not option but to leave the movement/jammah as others have done in the past.
These are excellent points but citing solutions based on other movements are not helpful for me. What i mean is, how do we deal with ideological differences between two groups using the example of the prophet and or the sahabah\’s? do you have examples of that?
Please do not get me wrong. The examples of these movements are helpful in understanding my role in an islamic organization. However when presenting the facts to someone outside my IO does not exactly sell.
Finally, is their a book that anyone can reccomend that is a movement oriented version of the life of hte sahabah\’s? what i mean is that is there a book that is written similarly like Muhammad Al-Ghazzali\’s fiqh of Seerah but with the khulifah ar rashideen?