InshaAllah this reaches everyone in good health. By the grace of Allah (swt) many active and sincerely devoted youth have begun to connect with each other from all across the country. Through mediums such as email list servs, conferences, face book, and online forums these youth have demonstrated incredible understanding of Islam's revolutionary ideology. Often times because of their unadulterated view of Islamic tradition, they end up feeling isolated within their own communities and resort to finding young adults through other means. In the last couple of years we have begun to exchange ideas about the future of Islam in America and the necessary steps that need to be taken by communities and their respective leaders. After noticing that many of our communities are facing the same problems, and feeling that the majority have neglected to address them properly, we have decided to take our issues directly to our scholars across the board.

One of these preeminent issues is regarding race relations, and ethnocentricity. The reality of the matter is that racism exists down to the roots of many Islamic centers, pervading even up to the mouths of some religious leaders. The Caucasian, Black and African American, and Latino growing Shia communities are feeling more and more isolated as they continue to search for avenues to practice their new found faith. The masjids are increasingly becoming deficient for our new converts and reverts by failing to provide adequate resources. Often times they naturally bring with them their old styles of dress, hair, and slang. Unfortunately out of lack of insight and patience, many centers stuck in their own cultural ignorance tend to shun and look down upon such 'foreign' behaviors. Countless numbers of reverts have turned back from Islam because of this type of attitude.

Full article: www.insight-info.com

First, I want to make it clear that my issue is not with hijab.  I choose not to wear hijab.  I have researched the matter and my reasons for not wearing it are feminist, some may say political, but they are also religious.  I will only submit to Allah.  By the same token there are women out there that choose to wear hijab, their reasons are for submitting to the will of Allah and there are plenty of Muslim feminists out there that choose to wear hijab.  I not only respect, admire and love women who wear hijab for these reasons but I'll stand up for them. 

That being said, this post is not about whether or not hijab is a requirement, so please do not take it there, I will not take the bait into debate about this on this thread.  This post is about the sheer ignorance of this rap ilahija and quite honestly I look at it as a piece of propoganda.

Watch and read:

That scarf which you wear
You must pride yourself with it
Like that my dear sister
You only bring good with it
And that good circles all around you
You are a savior not just for yourself but for others
Don’t you preoccupy yourself with those that give you strange looks.
Who don’t wish to truthfully submit themselves to God
When some sisters pass they act as though some darkness has overcome them
Don’t you fret that you have covered your head in that way, you that have received the mercy of your god
Everyone that thinks that western culture is the answer is devastatingly fooling themselves
Western life is nothing other than disrespecting oneself
Only Islam gives savior, gives the right solution
What kind of system is that where a woman equals a little bit of money?
Where a woman happily deceives her husband? 
Would someone like to try that kind of life where a woman is nothing but a disposable object. 
In the west’s system prostitution reigns, there are less marriages and morals, everything revolves around money. 
Today is a dangerous time. 
Every girl who wants safety, let her put a scarf on, that is her best protection.
Truthfully, a woman holds a special place in Islam. 
Don’t let doubt take over you in regards to that. 
Don’t fall trap to empty stories that women in Islam sit within four walls, truthfully women in Islam have worth. 
Those that say that, I swear on Allah, they lie because those are the ones that suffocate themselves with prostitution, drugs, and criminal activity; they are those that destroy everything of worth. 
That’s their jealousy which has to grow every day. 
That’s why they attack Islam’s honor. 
Sister wake your soul and advise others to cover their head. 
Don’t you see how others around you suffer and they will until they truthfully return themselves to god.

Okay, honestly, I do take issue that this rapper is claiming that women who do not cover their hair are not truthfully submitting themselves to Allah.  I take offense that any person would claim to know how Allah sees our intentions.

However, my biggest issue with this rap is that it is an Islam, as a religion, versus The West, as a society.  You can not compare the two.  Yes, Islam does treat women as equals and respects women but in reality we can not say the same of Muslim society.  By the same token, democracy, as a system, by today's standards, respects and treats women as equals but we can not by default say the same of society.

Furthermore, statements that prostitution, drugs and criminal behaviour are elements exclusive of western society is a false statement (links above are search to related word and middle east).  But what's worse than those statements is the claim that the veil/scarf are a weapon to protect women from such elements.

The ills of society can not be cured through a veil.  This is the reality:

Backstage, the manager sits in his leather chair, doing business. A Saudi client is quoted $500 for one of the girls. Eventually he beats it down to $300. Next door, in a dimly lit room, the next shift of girls arrives, taking off the black all-covering abayas they wear outside and putting on lipstick and mascara.

************

There are more than a million Iraqi refugees in Syria, many are women whose husbands or fathers have been killed. Banned from working legally, they have few options outside the sex trade. No one knows how many end up as prostitutes, but Hana Ibrahim, founder of the Iraqi women's group Women's Will, puts the figure at 50,000.

I met Fatima in a block of flats operating informally as a brothel in Saida Zainab, a run-down area with a large Iraqi population. Millions of Shias go there every year, because of the shrine of the prophet Mohamed's granddaughter. "I came to Syria after my husband was killed, leaving me with two children," Fatima tells me. "My aunt asked me to join her here, and my brothers pressured me to go." She didn't realise the work her aunt did, and she would be forced to take up, until she arrived.

Fatima is in her mid-20s, but campaigners say the number of Iraqi children working as prostitutes is high. Bassam al-Kadi of Syrian Women Observatory says: "Some have been sexually abused in Iraq, but others are being prostituted by fathers and uncles who bring them here under the pretext of protecting them. They are virgins, and they are brought here like an investment and exploited in a very ugly way."

This, this, this and this are all problems that Muslim societies face.  Forced divorces, women not being able to drive, women not allowed to work, lashings or death sentences passed out for rape victims, honor killings - they are all ills and not of Islam but of Muslim societies.  These are the things that are happening to veiled women in societies where the veil is not "our freedom, our choice, our right" but where the veil is "the law".  Shouldn't we also as Muslim women have the right to freedom of choice?  The way I see it, and I sit here in the west, there is nothing more Islamic that exists on this planet than where I sit today.  I have the freedom to be a practicing Muslim and the freedom to choose and the right to wear that veil/scarf.  I have the ability to partake in my political system through voting, lobbying, and running for office if I so choose.  I am more protected as a woman through the justice system here than through any so-called "Islamic State". 

I simply couldn't let this one go.  It angers me to see such lyrics in Bosnian and I can't fathom this having some sort of influence on anyone.

Oh, and by the way .. shouldn't this guy be avoiding rapping?  Isn't that a western influence?  I mean, me gosh, isn't rap associated with so many un-Islamic things?  Isn't his rapping basically endorsing all rap?

For those of you that think this is something typical in Bosnia - it's not.  See my post titled The Halqas and a Whirling Dervish which covers a zikir event with Bosnia's Sulejman Bugari whose apparences require use of microphones (often from the minaret) as the audience spills beyond the interior walls and into the streets.

Excerpt:

On proper hijab (question posted by a husband on behalf of his absent wife)

Suleyman Bugari would make an excellent politician as he liked answering our questions with questions.  “How many people do you know that hang a tespih in their car but never use one?”  We all smiled and nodded.

“Never talk to a woman about covering herself.  Talk to her about the pillars of faith.  Let her find it for herself.  Let her do it because it came to her on its own.”

He went on to tell us about a sixth grader in Bosnia whose parents made her cover.  When asked why she covered by classmates that had been ridiculing her she replied “because my father makes me”.  It became a fiasco.  The story was all over the media and debates had ensued.

“It’s really not pretty when a woman can not explain why she covers her hair.  How do you feel when we see a woman who doesn’t know or unconvincingly says “it’s my identity” as opposed to a woman who with all of her heart knows and radiates her reasons through the words that flow from her heart?

I just wanted to quickly jot down a few points for your consideration.....

Could you not shake your sister's hand?

Could you not see your sister's hair?

Could you not watch your sister eat her meal?

Could you not look your sister in the eye?

Could you deny your sister the same hapiness, contentment, disappointment and struggle of a self-determined life?

Have you spoken to me with the same consideration, the same patience that you would have with your own sister.

How could the same womb would have provided us both with equal love, equal nutrition, equal life and yet you tell me "we are equal but we are different...".

Please, call me sister but, as you do, ask yourself if you've earned to be looked upon as my brother.

Sincerely,

Your Sister Samaha

P.S - Thank you to the brothers that have always made me feel like their sister!  Special thanks to brother Irving who most often comments to me as his sister.

Dear  Samaha,

I am writing in the mere hope that someone out there will be able to understand me.

I compared your entries to some of those on my blog and see what I need. I need to be able to look at religion from a different perspective. This will not happen as long as I live in this country – Egypt.

Many people think that Muslims in the ME should have no issues with religion since there are educational institutions that can educate people and guide them. Hundreds of students graduate every year from Al Azhar University after having studied all major branches of Islam. Yet, the situation here is a three-ring circus. Not to blame this mess on educational institutions merely, I have to tell you that I don't know how many other factors are out there.

All my life I had known that religious matters are taken for granted and that our deen is unquestionable. I kept having my issues with various matters and pushed them away. Once I got in contact with non-Arabs I thought to myself that I was not dealing with this matter properly and that the best thing to do was to read about whatever came to my mind, try to understand, and ,therefore, have a more solid faith.

I started reading about hijab. After ten months here are some questions on my mind:

- How is ijma' (consensus) defined? And who defines it?

-  Can I decide to take a single scholar's opinion even if it's against consensus? In that case, I can decide to take off hijab, get married to a Christian, and God only knows what else.

-  Can scholars base a ruling to kill someone on a hadith? Who said that if someone decides to leave Islam they should be killed? What effect can they have on deen if they decide to leave? Nothing. Can't the rest of their lives be a chance for them to learn and maybe come back to Islam?

-  In Islam if a man or a woman commits fornication and they both sincerely repent to God, insha'allah He forgives them. They don't have to tell their future spouse about their past. I can see this possible for the man. In the ME it's impossible for the woman. What solution does religion offer this woman when she wants to start a life and protect herself against sins?

- "Take it all or leave it all" , " You can' t pick and choose from Quran" , "Don't question things. This is a test from God to know if you believe or not." These are some of the things I heard from Sheikhs when I said I don't want my husband to get a second wife or discipline me as advised in Quran.

- Who do I trust?

I kept researching all these matters, asked many scholars both in and outside Egypt. Although I'm known to be a strong person, once I decided to face the fact that there were no answers, I cried for a week in a late response to the shock.

Why am I telling you all this? Because when I talked to my family about the possibility that veil may not be mandatory, they thought I was at a 'dangerous stage' and that I should 'stop reading!!' I am telling you all this because I am starting to lose the beauty of religion and I don't know why. I am not even sure what kind of lifestyle will suit me. I don't know what to do, where to go, who to ask.

I have a successful social and professional life(alhamdulellah) and have many plans that don't allow me to spend hours everyday checking if a hadith is authentic or not and why a scholar used it when it is weak.   My life turned into hell since my religion, my solid comfort resort, turned out to be full of unanswered questions.

I keep trying to find people like yourself in an attempt to find answers one day. I hope I could find them soon. I haven't slept in months.

Thank you for reading this ...

I watch it and say: "Estaghfirullah!" (God Protect me from this evil)

172!

"They had reached an advance stage of readiness and what remained only was to set the zero hour for their attacks," Interior Ministry spokesman Brig. Mansour al-Turki told the Associated Press in a phone call. "They had the personnel, the money, the arms. Almost all the elements for terror attacks were complete except for setting the zero hour for the attacks."

The ministry did not say the militants would fly aircraft into oil refineries, as the Sept. 11, 2001 hijackers flew planes into buildings in New York and Washington, but its statement said some detainees had been "sent to other countries to study flying in preparation for using them to carry out terrorist attacks inside the kingdom."

Why did they want to blow up oil facilities?  Well, they'd like to hurt the kingdom's economy and the west because the US pays too little for oil.  Okay, so that is no news.  They hate the US enough that they're fine and dandy with hurting their own to do the job.  There's more too it than that, but I won't get into the research to handing you over the links, not for a while with that. 

It's just that the irony of all of this to me is the label of "Islamic militants".  I mean, we are hearing this from a country who couldn't be as a government more Islamically millitant.  A country that twists and pervades my religion, Allah, and the prophet Muhammed to justify abuses and treating women like property.  I would not be at all surprised to find out that cattle have greater rights within the kingdom than women do.

Women in Saudi Arabia are not allowed to vote, drive, travel abroad without a male relative.  Niqab and segregation are law.  With the permission of a male relative, a woman is allowed to work, but jobs are limited.  Still there is much controversy over where women can work:

To be sure, there are backward steps. Labor Minister Ghazi al-Ghusaibi issued a regulation last year requiring women, and not men, to work in lingerie shops. He couched the proposal in terms that would appeal to the religious hierarchy, arguing that salesmen holding up and discussing lacy undergarments with women was more likely to lead to sexual temptation than allowing women to work. But many Saudis say that his ultimate intention was to open up most retail jobs to women.

"The clerics knew this was the thin end of the wedge and defeated him," says one Saudi businessman in Riyadh, the capital. "They know that all these symbolic issues – women driving, working with men – will erode the foundations of their control." The Saudi Grand Mufti Abdul Aziz al-Ashaikh described allowing women to work as leading to "hellfire" and Mr. Ghusaibi received a personal death threat from Osama bin Laden for his trouble.

Yes, their are great implications of two working parents.  I realize that many of these women are happy being mothers and not having to work.  Sure, having one parent at home is a great benefit to the children.  The implication that two working parents being the norm has a great economic significance and makes it all the harder to be a stay at home mom, but the implications of absolutely not being allowed to work or have that severely hampered is far greater.

Beyond enabling abuse of women by handicapping them financially, these women are the mother to children.  They are the ones spending quality time with the child.  If these children are taught within their own schools that women are different from men and then the government posseses control over women, hence unequal and unIslamic, how can the male children have respect for their mother?  Because the Quran tells them to respect their mother?  The Quran also says that men and women are equal.

I know the argument that women are emotional and we can even get into the scientific studies of women using different parts of their brains, but that does not make men and women unequal.  It most certainly does not mean that a man is more qualified than a woman to vote, drive, work and travel.  It does not make women property.  As I said, we can get into the scientific studies of the brain but then we can also get into the studies of how toys aid in the development of the brain and the benefit of such toys such as cars influencing using logical parts of the brain as opposed to dolls which influence emotional parts of the brain.  The brain can be trained, influenced and manipulated through various means, including social.  I strongly believe that when the Quran establishes over and over that men and women are created equal that their brains are equal, science will stand behind that statement.

Let me even go so far as to argue that dismissing women and punishing them for "being emotional creatures" is in and of itself a great injustice.  It is a statement that being emotional and having emotions is a bad thing.  It helps raise males that fight emotions.  If one must not be emotional how does one love?  How does one forgive?  How does one have guilt?

I can't help but wonder if these 172 men were raised by women that society and government viewed as equals if they would have turned out different.  Afterall, in the Quran it says that Heaven lies beneath the mother's feet.

Let me also refer you to this article which gives some hope on the future of SA.

A REFUTATION OF BILAL PHILIPS

AND HIS SLANDERS AGAINST

AHLU-S-SUNNAH

By Muhammad Zubair Qamar

In the name of Allah, the Merciful to the Muslims in the World and the HereAfter, and Merciful to the unbelievers only in this World.

BILAL PHILIP'S ACCUSES AHL AL-SUNNA SCHOLAR OF SHIRK AT MADISON SQUARE GARDEN FUND RAISING EVENT

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

In the recent fund raising event at Madison Square Garden, Bilal Philips, a follower of wahhabi (=also called "salafi") ideologies accused a reputable orthodox Sunni (Shafi'i) Shaykh, Nuh Ha Mim Keller, of shirk. The exact words of Bilal Philips, who spoke over a telephone to the large audience, were:

"We also have a distorted view coming from certain religious innovations, most of which could be attributed back to the principles of mysticism, Sufism which has appeared in the Muslim ummah, which though they attribute it back to Prophet (sall-Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam), though the form which we cited [?] in half the countries have nothing to do with the Prophet's (sall-Allahu 'alayhi wa sallam) teachings at all...."

Bial Philips continues to say:

"And perhaps the greatest evil which came out of it is the principle of calling upon others beside Allah, where human beings are set up as intermediaries between man and God. And so we find people today, under the guise of Sufism etc., calling for such things. PEOPLE LIKE NUH HA MIM KELLER, IN HIS BOOK "THE RELIANCE OF THE TRAVELLER", HE SPENDS A GREAT DEAL OF EFFORT AND TIME IN THE APPENDIX OF THE BOOK JUSTIFYING PRAYING TO PROPHET MUHAMMAD (Caps mine)..."

As you clearly see, Bial Philips accused a Muslim scholar of justifying praying to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh), and when I checked the book, "The Reliance of the Traveller" thoroughly, there was absolutely no indication that Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller was supporting shirk. Rather, Nuh Ha Mim Keller's book had a whole section on "TAWASSUL," which is to ASK ALLAH FOR SOMETHING USING AN INTERMEDIARY. Using someone as an intermediary is not the same as actually "worshipping" the intermediary. This is a slander by Abu Aminah Bilal Philips against Ahl al-Sunna wa'al Jama'a who have supported "Tawassul" for over a thousand years. Tawassul was done by the Prophet (pbuh) himself, and was practiced by great Companions (like Bilal ibn al-Harith; may Allah bless him), and others of the pious salaf us-salih (Imam Shafi'i did tawassul by means of Imam Abu Hanifah).

So in actuality, Bilal Philips is slandering not just Nuh Keller, but the Prophet (pbuh), the Companions, and the others of the salaf us-salih, and the ulema of the khalaf who followed their footsteps.

It is not new that Bilal Philips has called "tawassul," which is a permissible Islamic practice, to be unIslamic. He says the same in his books.

BILAL PHILIPS' STATEMENT IN HIS BOOK THAT TAWASSUL IS "UNISLAMIC", AND HIS REVEALING HIMSELF AS A WAHHABI

----------------------------------

Bilal Philips, in his "Evolution of Fiqh," page 130, says:

"Furthermore, in opposing tawassul...the twentieth century descendants and followers of Ibn 'Abdul-Wahhaab WERE ATTACKING UNISLAMIC PRACTICES (caps mine)."

The above statement from Bilal Philips tells the readers two things about him. First, he acknowledges to be a supporter of wahhabees and hence becomes an innovator himself. By showing respect to Muhammad ibn 'Abdl-Wahhab, the biggest innovator of the modern era, he contributes to the efforts of those who wish to destroy Islam. Ibrahim ibn Maisara reported Allah's Messenger (Salla-Allahu-'alayhi-wasallam) as saying: "He who showed respect to an innovator he in fact aided in the demolishing of Islam (narrated by Baihaqi)."

Second, Bilal Philips claims that tawassul is an "unIslamic practice" (which is why he accused Nuh Ha Mim Keller of shirk in the Madison Square Garden fundraising dinner). The false claims of Bilal Philips opposes the perspectives of Ahl al-Sunna wa'al Jama'ah (=scholars and followers of the Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, and Hanbali madhahib, of which 99% of Muslims have been part of). Tawassul is in fact permissible and even recommended by the Sunni ulema and plenty of evidence in the Qur'an and Sunna exists for it. Tawassul (or asking Allah for something by means of an intermediary after the latter's death -- one of the ways of the legal ways of tawassul) is only rejected by the wahhabis today.

WAHHABIS DEVIANCE AND THEIR REFUTATIONS; AL-ALBANI, TAMIMI, AND IBN BAAZ SHARE BILAL PHILIPS' DEVIANCE AND SPEAK AGAINST TAWASSUL

--------------------------------------------------------

To read a refutation of the wahhabee movement, one can read plenty of books by Ahl al-Sunna scholars. "Al-Fitnatul-Wahhabiyya," by the Mufti of Mecca, Ahmad ibn Zayni Dahlan ash-Shafi'i and "The Beacon of Humanity and the Clarification of Ignorance," by the great Shaykh Ibn Alawi Al-Haddad.

There are hundreds of other books written by other ulema although the aforementioned refutations are sufficient to expose wahhabee deviance. For your reference, here are a few more sources of refutation against the wahhabees: Shaykh Muhammad Sa`id Ramadan Al-Buti's "Al-salafiyyatu marhalatun zamaniyyatun mubarakatun la madhhabun islami" ["The Salafiyya is a blessed historical period not an Islamic school of law"], Al-muhaddith Muhammad al-Hasan ibn `Alawi Al-Maliki al-Husayni's "Mafahimu yajibu an tusahhah" ["Notions that should be corrected"], and al-Sayyid Mustafa ibn Ahmad ibn Hasan Al-Shatti al-Athari al-Hanbali's "al-Nuqul al-shar'iyyah fi al-radd 'ala al-Wahhabiyya" ["The Legal Proofs in Answering the Wahhabis"]. One will have ample evidence from these sources to prove that Bilal Philips' defense of wahhabees is tantamount to defending ignorance and reprehensible innovations.

Claims that seeking an intermediary between Allah and man is unIslamic are also made by other wahhabee "scholars." For example: Muhammad bin Suleiman At-Tamimi, in his article, "What Negates One's Islam," states:

"WHOEVER SETS UP AN INERMEDIARY BETWEEN HIMSELF AND ALLAH, whom he prays to, SEEKS INTERCESSION FROM and puts his reliance in, has BLASPHEMED according to the consensus of the scholars."

Al-Tamimi is lying in behalf of the majority of scholars because you will read below that the majority of scholars have considered setting up an intermediary between oneself and Allah and seeking intercession a permissible and meritorious act (provided that one believes that Allah is granting the wish and not the intermediary, which is clearly stated in Nuh Keller's "Reliance of the Traveller."

Furthermore, a similar statement is made by the so-called Mufti of Saudi Arabia, Abdl-Aziz ibnn Abdullah Ibn Baaz. Ibn Baaz, in his article "Ten Things Which Nullify One's Islam," says:

"SETTING UP INTERMEDIARIES BETWEEN ONESELF AND ALLAAH, making supplication to them, ASKING THEIR INTERCESSION WITH ALLAH, and placing ones trust in them IS UNBELIEF (KUFR)."

What Bilal Philips, Ibn Baaz, and al-Tamimi call kufr, i.e. setting up intermediaries when asking Allah, is in fact a practice of the noble Sahaba and their pious followers. This will be explained in more detail below.

THE DEFINITION OF TAWASSUL

---------------------------

According to the "Reliance of the Traveller" (the book which Bilal Philips accuses of shirk), the defintion of Tawassul is: Supplicating Allahu Ta'ala by means of an intermediary, whether it be a living person, dead person, a good deed, or a name or attribute of Allahu Ta'ala. Tawassul is a "means" Muslims seek, using an intermediary, when asking Allahu Ta'ala for something."

One of the many verses in the noble Qur'an which permit Tawassul is:

"Allah the Blessed and the Exalted said: "O ye who believe, fear Allah and seek ye the means to Him" (Sura al-ma'ida, verse34, juz' 4)

AHL AL-SUNNA SHAYKH YUSUF RIFA'I APPROVES OF TAWASSUL AND PRESENTS THE EVIDENCE

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Shaykh ul-Islam Yusuf ibn al-Sayyid Hashim al-Rifa'i, a Shafi'i scholar, former minister of state, educator, Sufi, and author explains the issue of tawassul very clearly in his "Adilla Ahl al-Sunna wa al-Jama'ah." The following is a translation of part of this book by Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller, who added this as a section in his translation of "Al-'Umdat al-salik" (The Reliance of the Traveller) by Shaykh Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, a student of the famous Shafi'i mujtahid Taqi al-Din al-Subki.

Shaykh Yusuf al-Rifa'i says:

"I here want to convey the position, attested to by compelling legal evidence, of the orthodox majority of Sunni Muslims on the subject of supplicating Allah through an intermediary (tawassul), and so I say (and Allah alone gives success) that since there is no disagreement among scholars that supplicating Allah through an intermediary is in principle legally valid, the discussion of its details merely concerns derived rulings that involve interschool differences, unrelated to questions of belief or unbelief, monotheism or associating partners with Allah (shirk);"

"the sphere of the question being limited to permissibility or impermissibility, and its ruling being that it is either lawful or unlawful. There is no difference among groups of Muslims in their consensus on the permissibility of three types of supplicating Allah through an intermediary (tawassul):

(1) TAWASSUL through a living righteous person to Allah Most High, as in the hadith of the blind man with the Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) as we shall explain;

(2) The TAWASSUL of a living person to Allah Most High through his own good deeds, as in the hadith of the three people trapped in a cave by a great stone, a hadith related by Imam Bukhari in his "Sahih;"

(3) And the TAWASSUL of a person to Allah Most High through His entity (dhat), names, attributes, and so forth.

Since the legality of these types is agreed upon, there is no reason to set forth the evidence for them. The only area of disagreement is supplicating Allah (tawassul) through a righteous dead person. The majority of the orthodox Sunni Community hold that it is lawful, and have supporting hadith evidence..."

Shaykh Yusuf al-Rifa'i goes on to present the dalail (proof) of the hadeeth of the blind man, who asked the Prophet (Salla-Allahu-'alayhi-wasallam) to ask Allah to restore his eyesight afterwhich the Prophet ('alayhi salatu wassalam) taught him a du'a and instructed him to say it after completing ablution (wudu) and two rak'as of prayer:

"Oh Allah, I ask You and turn to You through my Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of mercy; O Muhammad (Ya Muhammad), I seek your intercession with my Lord for the return of my eyesight [and in another version: "for my need, that it may be fulfilled. O Allah, grant him intercession for me"]."

The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) added, "And if there is some need, do the same." (Related by Tirmidhi and 15 other ahadeeth masters and classified as rigorously authentic (sahih))

Shaykh Yusuf al-Rifa'i continues: "Scholars of Sacred Law infer from this hadith the recommended character of the "prayer of need," in which someone in need of something from Allah Most High performs such a prayer and then turns to Allah with this supplication together with other suitable supplications, traditional or otherwise, according to the need and how the person feels."

"The express content of the hadith proves the legal validity of "tawassul" through a living person (as the Prophet - peace be upon him - was alive at that time). It implicitly proves the validity of tawassul through a deceased one as well, since tawassul through a living or dead person is not through a physical body or through a life or death, but rather through the positive meaning (ma'na tayyib) attached to the person in both life and death. The body is but the vehicle that carries that significance, which requires that the person be respected whether dead or alive; for the words "O Muhammad" are an address to someone physically absent - in which state the living and dead are alike - an address to the meaning, dear to Allah, that is connected with his spirit, a meaning that is the ground of "tawassul," be it through a living or dead person."

So now it is known that Bilal Philips has not only accused Bilal Philips of shirk, but also Shaykh Yusuf Rif'ai (and the plenty of shuyukh who revised and approved of Shaykh Nuh Keller's translation of "The Reliance of the Traveller").

It must be noted that plenty of other ahadeeth exist to prove the validity of Tawassul through an alive or dead person. Shaykh Muhammad al-Hamid, a Hanafi scholar says (as quoted in "The Reliance of the Traveller"): "Those who call on them [the intermediaries] cannot be blamed. As for someone who believes that those called upon can cause effects, benefit, or harm, which they create or cause to exist as Allah does, such a person is an idolator who has left Islam -- Allah be our refuge!"

By the Shaykh's words, it is understood that Allah fulfills the du'as whether Allahu Ta'ala is asked directly or asked using an intermediary -- dead or alive. The wahhabees claim that it is only permissible to do tawassul while the intermediary is present and alive, but not when the intermediary is in his grave. Ibn Taymiya said that doing tawassul using an intermediary who is living in the life of barzakh is haraam (which is against the understanding of the Muslim majority), while Muhammad ibn Abdl-Wahhab said that it is "Shirk ul-Akbar" -- the "major shirk" which makes one a "mushrik" or polytheist. Bilal Philips, Tamimi, Ibn Baaz, and other wahhabees like Nasirudin Al-Albani, are simply following what Muhammad ibn Abdl-Wahhab said about tawassul, and they are ignoring what the other thousands of ulema said regarding its permissibility.

The wahhabees oppose the consensus of the Ahl al-Sunna majority, and Muhammad ibn Abdl-Wahhab accuses the majority of the Sunni ulema to be mushrikeen. That's why Bilal Philips accused Nuh Keller of shirk. This is one of many examples of how the Wahhabees revive the creed of the Kharijites who lived at the time of the noble Sahaba.

The Kharijites believed they were the only Muslims while everyone else, including Ali and Mu'awiya (Allah bless them), were Kuffar. The Wahhabees believe that for more than a thousand years Muslims were attributing partners to Allah and were kuffar because they did tawassul.

By such satanic thinking, Ibn 'Abdl-Wahhab made the blood of countless Muslims halal, and commanded his followers to butcher them in the name of Islam.

Imam Muhammad Amin Ibn Abidin, a Hanafi scholar who passed away in 1836 CE, said in his "Hashiyya radd al-Mukhtar," volume 3, page 309:

"In our time Ibn Abdl-Wahhab (Najdi) appeared, and attacked the two noble sanctuaries (Makkah and Madinah). He claimed to be a Hanbali, but his thinking was such that only he alone was a Muslim, and everyone else was a polytheist! Under this guise, he said that killing the Ahl al-Sunna was permissible..."

Another hadeeth to prove the legitimacy of tawassul, even after the intermediary is dead is the hadeeth of the man in need. Shaykh Yusuf al-Rifa'i states:

"Moreover, Tabarani, in his "al-Mu'jam al saghir," reports a hadith from 'Uthman ibn Hunayf that a man repeatedly visited Uthman ibn Affan (Allah be pleased with him) concerning something he needed, but Uthman paid no attention to him or his need. The man met Ibn Hunayf and complained to him about the matter - this being after the death (wisal) of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) and after the caliphates of Abu Bakr and Umar - so Uthman ibn Hunayf, who was one of the Companions who collected hadiths and was learned in the religion of Allah, said: "Go to the place of ablution and perform ablution (wudu), then come to the mosque, perform two rak'as of prayer therein, and say:

'O Allah, I ask You and turn to You through our Prophet Muhammad, the Prophet of mercy; O Muhammad (Ya Muhammad), I turn through you to my Lord, that He may fulfill my need,' and mention your need. Then come so that I can go with you [to the caliph Uthman]."

So the man left and did as he had been told, then went to the door of Uthman ibn Affan (Allah be pleased with him), and the doorman came, took him by the hand, brought him to Uthman ibn Affan, and seated him next to him on a cushion. 'Uthman asked, "What do you need?" and the man mentioned what he wanted, and Uthman accomplished it for him, then he said, "I hadn't remembered your need until just now," adding, "Whenever you need something, just mention it." Then, the man departed, met Uthman ibn Hunayf, and said to him, "May Allah reward you! He didn't see to my need or pay any attention to me until you spoke with him." Uthman ibn Hunayf replied:

"By Allah, I didn't speak to him, but I have seen a blind man come to the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) and complain to him of the loss of his eyesight. The Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace said, "Can you not bear it?' and the man replied, 'O Messenger of Allah, I do not have anyone to lead me around, and it is a great hardship for me.' The Prophet (Allah bless him and grant him peace) told him, 'Go to the place of ablution and perform ablution (wudu), then pray two rak'as of prayer and make the supplications.'" Ibn Hunayf went on, "By Allah, we didn't part company or speak long before the man returned to us as if nothing had ever been wrong with him."

This is an explicit, unequivocal text from a prophetic Companion proving the legal validity of tawassul through the dead. The account has been classified as rigously authenticated (SAHIH) by the famous Huffaz Baihaqi, Mundhiri, and Haythami.

It is sufficient to accept the hadeeth of the blind man and the hadeeth of the man in need to justify that tawassul by the dead or alive is permissible. This is agreed upon by the majority of the Sunni ulema.

It must be noted that Muhammad Nasirudin Al-Albani, a wahhabi and so-called muhaddith, wrote a book titled "Tawassul" trying to disprove this practice after the intermediary is in his grave. His interpretations are of no significance since he opposes the interpretations of the majority of huffaz of Ahl al Sunna wa'al Jama'ah.

The hadeeth of Ibn Mas'ud, related by Imam Ahmad in his "Musnad," states: "Whatever the majority of Muslims see as right, then that is good to Allah, and whatever the majority of Muslims see as wrong, it is wrong to Allah." By this dalil, Al-Albani becomes among the stray and lost sheep because his opinions oppose that of the scholarly Sunni majority.

Al-Albani's and Bilal Philips' opinions only represent the wahhabee minority. It is also a fact that Al-Albani is "self-taught" and that he never had a Shaykh to teach him the knowledge of hadeeth. He does not possess a continuous chain of knowledge that goes back to the Prophet (Salla Allahu 'alayhi wasallam) as the other true Sunni huffaz, like Imams Nawawi, Baihaqi, Bukhari, Muslim, Ibn Majah, Tirmidhi, Nisa'i, and Ibn Hajar do. Hence, Al-Albani's interpretations and understanding that "tawassul done by an intermediary who is in his grave is Islamically unlawful" is false and meaningless.

BILAL PHILIPS IN ACTUALITY ACCUSES A COMPANION OF SHIRK

--------------------------------------------------------

In "The Fundamentals of Tawheed," Bilal Philips says:

"If someone prays to the Prophet (saws), to so-called saints, Jinns or angels asking for help or asking them to request help from Allaah for them, they have also committed Shirk."

This statement has both truth and falsehood in it. The truth is that whoever prays to other than Allah is undoubtedly a polytheist.

Therefore, praying to the Prophet, saints, jinns, and angels is indeed shirk because such people are mushrikeen who attribute partners to Allahu Ta'ala in worship. Only Allah is to be worshipped. Only Allah Azza Wajal creates the fulfillment of a supplication, as those who do tawassul by the alive or dead are very well aware of.

However, the last part of Bilal Philips' statement, "OR ASKING THEM TO REQUEST HELP FROM ALLAAH FOR THEM, THEY HAVE ALSO COMMITTED SHIRK" is an ugly accusation against the Sahaba that they committed shirk! May Allah protect us from falling into the abyss of ignorance as Bilal Philips has.

It is well known that a companion of the Prophet (Salla Allahu 'alayhi wasallam), Bilal ibn al-Harith, went to the grave of the Prophet (Salla Allahu 'alayhi wasallam) when there was a drought, and said:

"O Messenger of Allah, ask Allah to give rain to your Ummah; they are close to perish..."

It is correct to call what he did tawassul and istighathah (seeking or asking for help), because he went to the grave of the Messenger (Salla Allahu 'alayhi wasallam) asking him to save them from the calamity that hit them by him asking Allahu Ta'ala to give them rain. The Huffaz Al-Baihaqi, and Ibn Kathir (in his "Tarikh") said that this hadeeth is SAHIH. In the issue of tawassul, Ibn Kathir adhered to the majority of Sunni ulema and agreed to the permissibility of tawassul. It is now obvious that Bilal Philips and other wahhabees are also then accusing Hafiz Ibn Kathir of shirk. May Allah protect us from wahhabi deviance.

Al-Albani said that the above hadeeth is unreliable, but his words are meaningless because the real and qualified huffaz of Ahl al-Sunna have classified it has SAHIH. Furthermore, Hafiz Ibn Abi Shayba ranks the hadeeth as SAHIH in his "MuSannaf," and Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani in his "Fath al-Barri" said its chain of transmission is sound (isnaaduhu Sahih).

One can clearly see that Bilal Philips has actually accused Bilal ibn al-Harith (may Allah bless him), a companion of the Prophet (Salla Allahu 'alayhi wasallam), of being a mushrik. We seek refuge with Allah from such innovators and we should shun them as much as possible. These are the people who stab the heart of the Ummah of Prophet Muhammad (Salla Allahu 'alayhi wasallam). They stab the heart of the Ummah repeatedly because they do not refrain from such false accusations even after they are given the dalail (proof) by the pious sunni ulema (like Ibn Kathir) of Ahl al-Sunna wa'al Jama'ah.

HAFIZ IBN HAJAR AL-`ASQALANI AND HIS SHAKYH ZAYN UD-DIN AL-`IRAQI DO TAWASSUL; UNVEILING THE DECEPTION OF NASIRUDEEN AL-ALBANI

---------------------------------------------------------

Ahl al-Sunna scholars have been doing tawassul after the death of the Prophet (Salla Allahu 'alayhi wasallam). For example, Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani performed tawassul by the Prophet (Salla Allahu 'alayhi wasallam) in his poems known as "an-Nayyirat-us-Sab," as did his shaykh Zayn-ud-Din al-'Iraqi at the end of his poem in "Tafsiru Mufradat-il-Qur'an." According to Bilal Philips' statements, these scholars would be "unIslamic." There has never been a scholar who has called Hafiz Ibn Hajar or Hafiz al-'Iraqi "unIslamic." Bilal Philips should correct his false accusations and make tawba to Allah.

As for Al-Albani, he quotes Hafiz Ibn Hajar as a reliable source of information in his book, "Tawassul." For instance, on page 5 of this book, Al-Albani says: "Al-Haafidh Ibn Hajr, rahimahullaah..." However, Al-Albani's deception and hypocrisy is now evident because we know that Hafiz Ibn Hajar did tawassul after the death of the Prophet (Salla Allahu 'alayhi wasallam) in his poem, "an-Nayyirat-us-Sab!" This is an explicit example of how wahhabees choose statements from a scholar which suit their views, but fail to acknowledge the statements made by the same scholar against them! Ibn Hajar al-'Asqalani would definitely refute and testify against Al-Albani for this deception and mockery against Muslims.

What does Al-Albani have to say about this? Does he want Muslims to accept his claims "blindly?"

Moreover, Al-Albani, in his "Tawassul," page 16 says:

"...such a call for aid (ISTIGHAATHA) IS NOTHING BUT MAJOR SHIRK."

By saying that istighaatha is major shirk, he now joins Bilal Philips in accusing the Companion Bilal ibn al-Harith (and Hafiz Ibn Kathir, Shaykh Yusuf Rif'ai, and Shaykh Nuh Keller) of "Shirk ul-Akbar" because it has been proven by sahih dalil that he did istighaatha. In addition, to Al-Albani's surprise (?), Hafiz Ibn Hajar states the following hadeeth as HASSAN in his "al-'Amali:"

"Ibn Abbas related that the Prophet (Salla Allahu 'alayhi wasallam), said:'....IF ANY OF YOU FELL IN A CALAMITY IN A DESERT LET HIM CALL: OH SLAVES OF ALLAH, HELP."

This is without a doubt "istighaatha" (seeking help) so it is now evident that Al-Albani is also accusing the Prophet (Salla Allahu 'alayhi wasallam) of committing "major shirk" since the Prophet (Salla Allahu 'alayhi wasallam) taught "istighaatha" to the to the Sahaba. Ibn Hajar is in compliance with the Prophet's (Salla Allahu 'alayhi wasallam) words because he accepts "istighaatha" to be valid.

Al-Albani, Bilal Philips, and their deceptive followers can only wish that Ibn Hajar supported their innovative perspectives. Ahl al-Sunna will never be a partner to innovators like Al-Albani. May Allah protect us from the ignorance of Al-Albani and his blind followers. Ameen.

BILAL PHILIPS WRONGLY QUOTES AYAT IN QUR'AN WHICH REFER TO THE MUSHRIKEEN TO REFER TO THE MUSLIMS (AS THE KHAWARIJ DID).

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Bilal Philips, in his "Fundamentals of Tawheed," says:

"According to the Qur'aan, when the Makkans were questioned about directing their prayers to their idols, they answered, "We only worship them so that they may bring us closer to Allaah."

"The idols were only used as intermediaries yet Allaah called them pagans for their practice. Those among Muslims who insist on praying to other than Allaah would do well to reflect on this fact (end quote)."

This is an explicit example of how the Wahhabees revive a practice of the Kharijites who lived at the time of the noble Sahaba. Imam Bukhari has recorded Ibn 'Umar as saying in his Sahih [vol.9,page 50; English edition]:

"These people (the Khawarij and heretics) took some verses that had been revealed concerning the disbelievers and interpreted them as describing the believers."

The Ahl al-Sunna wa'al Jama'ah have warned Muslims from this Kharijite practice which the Wahhabees uphold today in the name of "Tawheed." By their lack of adherence and knowledge to the path of Ahl al-Sunna, they misinterpret verses from the noble Qur'an and make idol-worshippers equal in belief to the pious Muslims who are of the Ahl al-Sunna, and commit "takfeer." The above verse, stated by Bilal Philips in an attempt to invalidate the permissibility of Tawassul, is in fact refering to the idol-worshippers -- not Muslims.

The Iraqi scholar, Jamil Effendi al-Zahawi, says in his "al-Fajr al-sadiq fi al-radd `ala munkiri al-tawassul wa al-khawariq" [The True Dawn: A Refutation of Those Who Deny The Validity of Using Means to God and the Miracles of Saints"]:

"The Wahhabis say: the defense of those who practice tawassul is the same apology the idolaters of the Arabs offered as the Qur'an says describing the way the idolaters defended their worship of idols: "We only worship them in order that they may bring us nearer" (39:3)." "Hence, the idolaters do not believe that the idols create anything. Rather, they believe that the Creator is God, the Exalted, by evidence of the following verse:

"If thou ask them, Who created them, they will certainly say, God" (43:87) and: "If indeed thou ask them who is that created the heavens and the earth, they would be sure to say, God" (39:38). God has only judged against them for their disbelief because they say "We only worship them in order that they may bring us nearer."

"The Wahhabis say: Thus, do people who implore God by prophets and the pious use the phrase of the idolaters: "In order to bring us nearer" in the same sense."

Shaykh Jamil al-Zahawi, in the section of his book "Refutation of That False Comparison," continues to say:

"The answer [to the false claims of the wahhabees] contains several points:

(1) The idolaters of the Arabs make idols gods; while the Muslims only believe in one God. In their view, prophets are prophets: awliya are awliya only. They do not adopt them as gods like the idolaters.

(2) The idolaters believe these gods deserve worship contrary to what Muslims believe. Muslims do not believe that anyone by whom they implore God deserves the least amount of worship. The only one entitled to worship in their view is God alone, May He be Exalted.

(3) The idolaters actually worship these gods as God relates: "We only worship them..." Muslims do not worship prophets and pious persons by the act of imploring God by means of them.

(4) The idolaters intend by their worship of their idols to draw near God just as He relates concerning them. As for the Muslims, they do not intend by imploring God by means of prophets and saints to draw close to God, which is only by worship. For that reason, God said in relating about the idolaters: "... in order that they bring us nearer." However, Muslims only intend blessings (tabarruk) and intercession (shafa`a) by them. Being blessed by a thing is obviously different from drawing near to God by it.

(5) Since the idolaters believe that God is a body in the sky, they mean by "to bring us near" a literal bringing near. What indicates this is its being stressed by their use of the word zulfa -- nearness to power -- inasmuch as emphasizing something by its own same meaning indicates for the most part that what is intended by it is the literal meaning and not the metaphorical. For when we say: "He slew him murderously" (qatalahu qatlan) a literal killing rushes to the understanding, not that of "a hard blow" in counterdistinction to what we mean when we just say: "He slew him"; for that might mean only a hard blow. The Muslims do not believe that God is a body in the sky remote enough from them to see a literal proximity to Him by imploring God through a prophet. The ruling of Shari`a contained in the verse does not apply to them, whereas since the Wahhabis believe that God is a body who sits on his throne, they do not discover a meaning of blessing which the Muslims intend by their imploring God by prophets and awliya, but only that of drawing near which belongs to bodies. For that reason, these verses are applicable to them, not to Ahl al-Sunna." (end of quote)

ANOTHER HADEETH WHICH PROVES THE LEGITIMACY OF TAWASSUL

--------------------------------------------------------

"Whoever says when he goes out to the masjid (mosque): Oh Allah, I ask You by the right of the askers upon You and by the right of this walking of mine, because I did not go out dicontentedly, or to be praised or for fame; I went out to avoid Your anger and seeking Your acceptance. I ask You to save me from Hellfire, and to forgive my sins; no one forgives the sins except You. Allah accepts his du'a and 70,000 angels ask Allah to forgive him."

The hadeeth is related by Ibn Majah. Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani and Hafiz Abul-Hassan al-Maqdissi said: it is HASSAN. (We do not listen to Al-Albani's tad'if (ruling that a hadeeth is da'if) of the hadeeth after these Hafizan said it is authentic).

MUJTAHID MUTLAQ AHMAD IBN HANBAL APPROVES OF TAWASSUL

-----------------------------------------------------

Last but not least, one of the greatest scholars in the history of Islam, the mujtahid mutlaq Ahmad ibn Hanbal, approved the practice of tawassul by the Prophet (Salla-Allahu-'alayhi-wasallam) -- during his lifetime and after his death. This was narrated by one of the greatest students of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, Abu Bakr al-Marwazi. This scholar, in copying the saying of Imam Ahmad, said that it is liked during drought to ask Allah for rain by the Prophet (Salla-Allahu-'alayhi-wasallam).

Imam Ahmad told about one of the great followers of the Companions, Safwan Ibn Sulaym, who was a pious, humble, and very knowledgeable Muslim, that just by mentioning his name, a person would hope the rain would come down as a sign of Allah's Mercy to the people. The meaning is if the people mention the name of Safwan Ibn Sulaym in their session, it is because of his great status, and as a blessing from Allah, the rain would start falling. This was narrated by al-Hafiz al-Mizzi, al-Hafiz al-'Ala'i, and Zabidi.

Imam Ahmad was also asked about touching and kissing the minbar of the Prophet (Salla-Allahu 'alayhi wasallam) for the blessing and about seeking the blessing by visiting the grave of the Prophet (Salla-Allahu 'alayhi wasallam). He responded by saying: "This matter is not prohibited," as was narrated by 'Abdullah, the son of Imam Ahmad, in his book titled "Al-'Ilal wa Ma'rifat ur-Rijal.

This is far from what the wahhabees believe, who say that it is shirk al-akbar to do tawassul by the Prophet (Salla-Allahu-'alayhi-wasallam) or the awliya after their death. Muhammad ibn 'Abdl-Wahhab, and his ignorant followers (Bilal Philips, Albani, Ibn Baaz, etc) are in a completely different direction from the methodology of Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal, the pious member of the praised Salaf who narrated more ahadeeth than any other Muslim.

Do Ibn 'Abdl-Wahhab, Al-Albani, Bilal Philips, and Ibn Baaz claim to be more knowledgeable than Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal? None of these innovators have lived in the time period of the praised Salaf us-Salih as Imam Ahmad Ibn Hanbal and his students have. We cling to the practices of the Salaf -- not the so-called "salafi" or wahhabee innovators.

CONCLUSION

-----------

By the aforestated evidence from Qur'an, Sunna, and sayings of the noble ulema, it is clear that tawassul is valid, whether the intermediary is in his grave living the life of barzakh, or living the life of the world.

Bilal Philips, Al-Albani, Tamimi, Ibn Baaz -- and others who followed Muhammad ibn Abdl-Wahhab's deviant methodology -- oppose the practices of the majority of Sunni Muslims who belong to either the Hanafi, Shafi'i, Maliki, or Hanbali madhahib. It is also clear that the wahhabis, although they claim to follow the madhab of Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal, are in complete contradiction to it. Also, plenty of ulema like Imam Yusuf Rifa'i, Nuh Keller, Ibn Kathir, and plenty of others like Taqi al-Din Subki, Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri, Nuh Sulayman Ali, Imam Nawawi, Imam Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani, and countless other ulema agree to the permissibility of tawassul. The wahhabees are contradicting the statements and interpretations of these noble Sunni ulema. Last but not least, after quoting extensively from Nuh Ha Mim Keller's "Reliance of the Traveller," there is absolutely no indication that Nuh Keller is supporting "worshipping Prophet Muhammad" as Bilal Philips falsely alleges.

May Allah protect us from the wahhabi deviance and keep us in the fold of the Muslim majority who follow the footsteps of the pious Salaf us-salih.

Ameen.

P.S.

Bilal Philips criticized sufism, and called them innovators. However, it is well known that famous ulema have either been sufis or supported sufis.

Some prominent ulema are: Imam Nawawi, Imam Abdl-Qadir Jeelani, Imam Abu Hamid Ghazzali, Imam Izz ibn Abdl Salaam, Ibn Daqiq al-Eid, Badr Din ibn Jama'a, Abdl Ghani Nubulsi, Imam Qurtubi, Imam Ibn Hajar Haythami, Imam Jalal ud-Din Suyooti, Taqi al-Din Subki, Taj al-Din Subki, Ahmad Rifa'i, etc. Can any sane Muslim call any one of these intellectual giants "innovators?"

May Allahu Ta'ala protect us from the Ahl al-bid'a wal Ahwa and their heresy. Ameen.

source :http://village.flashnet.it/users/fn034463/philips.html

A little bit of background on the post.  Over the past week or so we have been discussing Irshad Manji (from her role at the Secular Summit to her Project Ijtihad) and a post titled Firestorm by Jinnzaman has created quite an uproar in which both discussions have taken a turn at some point to the discussion of Takfir (declaring someone an apostate - which in some views carries a death sentence).  All of these discussion in some way or another relate to Shari'a in which my views and opinions have been changing - so this is my update since "My Shari'a Question" post.

I can’t think of any other word that is called upon so often, that evokes so many varied emotions ranging from pride and obligation to fear and loathing.  I can’t think of any other word that is brought up so often by Muslims and non-Muslims alike yet its very meaning, its very essence is elusive, misunderstood by Muslim and non-Muslim.

A word so clearly defined that oppressive regimes are based upon it, yet a word so obscure that democracies can be built upon it.  A word which inspired articulate systems of reason yet a word which inspired the destruction of the very same articulate system.  A word that would unite yet a word that divides.

Shari’a

A couple of months back I was questioning the realities of a “just” Shari’a based system and while I still do have concerns these days in regards to shari’a, I am starting to realize that under the right circumstances such system could very well come to exist.  Now, I am not that well read on the subject but a book here and there, a few essays, some posts and very many comments have opened new trains of thought.  I’ll have to say that the biggest contribution to my change in opinion was the book that I am still reading (stopped to read Ramadan Tariq’s latest for a book club that I can’t even attend now L )

Based on  Abou El Fadl’s The Great Theft as I understand it: shari’a is the divine law that is within Allah’s mind, the perfect law in the “divine realm” (1) an ideal that we strive to achieve through “fiqh”.  Fiqh being the human law and “therefore subject to error, alterable and contingent.”(2)   Distinguishing divine from human and the acknowledgement of human error as a basis for this system.

Over the past few days we have seen much discussion in regards to the loss of traditional Islam (while I am speaking of jurisprudence I am going to leave this out for now).  Somehow the combination of words “traditional Islam” made me think “conservative” but in reality it is not that.  Islam had a rich tradition of jurisprudence which not only included studying the Quran and Sunnah (complicated enough) but through analogies using past precedence and principles which often included public interest, thereby allowing laws to be “responsive to changing times and conditions” (3)   Practicing jurisprudence required endless education and research within the field of Islamic jurisprudence having first to receive many ijazas (licenses) from their mentors/teachers  before one would be qualified to be known as a jurist.  These points most of us I assume would agree on.

I’m sure that most of us would also agree that with the onset of Western colonialism and the decline of the traditional Islamic system came a reform movement which has played its role in securing the halt to this complicated traditional Islamic system and replaced it with a very literalist interpretation of Quran and Sunnah and rubber stamped a big “Shari’a” across it.

Where I think I differ is that I have always assumed that knowledge and reason was something that was demanded of me as a Muslim and therefore I needed to obtain knowledge to make reasonable and rational decisions of what is “Islamic” regardless of ijma (consensus) and whether or not I was a jurist - it was still my responsibility of being informed.  The difference between me and the very movement that spurred “individual” thought and the literalist interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah is that I do not deny the necessity of traditional Islamic jurisprudence nor the necessity to return to the traditional methodologies of fiqh if shari’a is going to be practiced.  Instead, it is through these very methodologies that we would be able to see a democratic form of fiqh.  One in which key word being “qualified” jurists would reason, research, analyze and form legislation and laws and where we would through our informed opinion be able to pass such laws through voting.  Not much different than what we have here in the US.  A shari’a based on democracy or a democracy based on shari’a is the only shari’a that I would be able to support.  In addition, I have only considered shari’a to be something adaptable in majority Muslim countries and something that Muslims could use as moral reference in matters of conscious outside of Muslim countries.

Now, while I have found this to be a light at the end of the tunnel, I still have an issue with shari’a and that being that the tunnel is too long.  In the wake of the demise of traditional Islam, we are left with a gaping wound; a void of precedence and practice of this very complicated science of Islamic jurisprudence.  We are left with Islamic schools within the Middle East that were once council to state that have now become council of state.  In other words, politics have entered Islam; to be more precise politics have developed the curriculum for these schools.  When it is stated that Islam and politics are not separable I concur but politics have played a greater role on Islam than Islam has on politics as of late.  What the Middle East has been left with is a society void of social growth, stuck in a realm of oppression and injustice and bringing back the traditional Islamic system is going to take hard work and a very long time all the while more and more suffering.

In light of that, I have recently been thinking that Ijtihad has created this state of confusion that we are now living in,  and after considering the many comments of Ijtihad being to blame for the very demise of traditional Islamic jurisprudence, I still believe that it still may take another Ijtihad to return it to what it once was.  As it stands we are living with literalists controlling what is Islamic and what is not and in order to fight that ideology, we have to use that ideology to prove our very point.  We have to use those very tools to inspire the masses to reform. 

However, another major obstacle exists and that is that the void of jurisprudence has to be filled as well and that is where the challenge lies; without this we will only be throwing ourselves into the ways of the 1800’s.  In reality this is the biggest challenge of shari’a and what would happen in the meantime? 
1.  Abou El Fadl’s The Great Theft  page 150
2. Abou El Fadl’s The Great Theft  page 150
3. Abou El Fadl’s The Great Theft  page 147

(An excerpt from Vol. XVIII No. 2 (1995) Hamdard Islamicus)
by Talip Kücükcan
(University of Warwick in England, U.K.)

Introduction

The Muslim World witnessed the appearance of several intellectual and religious movements which emanated from different Islamic territories in the 18th and 19th centuries. A number of social, political and religious causes provided motivation for these multifaced movements. Decline of the Ottoman Empire and diminishing authority of the Caliph, growing political and cultural influence of Western powers throughout the Muslim World, moral laxity and superstitious accretions prevalent among believers for long, rising wave of nationalist trends to establish regional and nation states, all of these aforementioned factors and some others inspired new ideas and orientations that occurred in the Muslim World. Among these movements, the Wahhabiyah is of considerable importance as it has long-lasting influence on the other revivalist and puritan movements. The Wahhabi doctrine prompted some of these who had been trying for new reforms which might solve the problems of [the] Muslim World and provide a new understanding of religion.

The Wahhabi Movement

The title Wahhabi was given to the followers of Shaykh Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab by his Muslim opponents. People to whom the Wahhabi name was applied have rejected this opprobrious label. [1] Instead, the Wahhabis called themselves ahl al-tawhid (People of Unity or Muwahhidun), those who profess the doctrine of the Unity of God. [It is not that any section of Islam claims not to be a Mauwahhid (i.e., believer in the Unity/Oneness of God), but merely that the Wahhabis have appropriated to themselves this title.] - Editor

The founder, Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab, was born in Uyayna in Najd in 1703. His father and grandfather were Hanbalite qadis, thus he was brought up and educated in this tradition. He studied in famous learning centres - Medina, Basra, Baghdad, Hamadan, etc. - spending many years in travel during which he perused philosophy and Sufism. After having completed his studies, Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab returned to Uyayna where he publicly preached his doctrines and met both success and opposition. The governor of Uyayna was asked to expel Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab as a consequence of disputes caused by his teachings. [2]

Implications of Ibn Taymiyyah's Views
For Wahhabi Thought

Before examining the doctrines of Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab, I would like to analyse the influence of Ibn Taymiyyah on Wahhabi thought. This analysis will throw light on the development of the Wahhabi movement and its doctrinal relation with the teachings of Ibn Taymiyyah who seems to me as a prototype for Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab.

The originator of the Wahhabiyah movement had been a Sufi adept in his youth, but later came under the influence of Ibn Taymiyyah's writings. Ibn Taymiyyah's teachings had three main implications for Wahhabi doctrines:

1. Concerning State and Religion: According to Ibn Taymiyyah, the 'ulama' are responsible for the protection of the Divine Law. A government is regarded as Islamic by virtue of the support it gives to Islam and to the 'ulama'. One can accept the rule of anyone who follows the Shariah. This understanding had an important effect on the Wahhabi ideology that accepted al-Sa'ud's dynasty as a legitimate and hereditary Islamic government after taking refuge in Dariyya, a territory controlled by [the] al-Sa'ud family.

2. Concerning the Sources of True Islam: Ibn Taymiyyah strives for the pure form of Islam in his enduring pursuit of Divine reality like Ibn Hanbal. Ibn Taymiyyah turns to the Qur'an and the Sunnah as the basis of the Divine law, refusing any accretions of later developments after the initial pristine years of the salaf, the first three generations of Islam. He insists on eliminating all the foreign elements which do not reflect the authentic core of Islam and the purity of Islamic teachings. The idea of going back to the Qur'an and the authentic Sunnah with a puritanical attitude ignoring later fiqh schools was adopted and applied by Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab as against the majority of medieval scholars and rejecting ijtihad based on the qiyas (analogy or logical reasoning).

3. Concerning Sufi Doctrines and Practices: In the light of recent scholarly works, Ibn Tayymiyyah is said to have been a Sufi of the Qadiriyyah Order. But he regards the idea of mystical unity with God and ecstatic aspects of Sufism as un-Islamic; therefore he rejects these teachings. It should be noted that he did not reject Sufism itself but denounced intercession, saint veneration and grave cults. [3] Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab, inspired from the above notion, developed his doctrine to such an extent that the Wahhabis are said to have opened the Prophet's mausoleum and sold or distributed its relics and jewels. [4]

Nature of Wahhabi Doctrines

Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab wrote on various Islamic subjects such as theology, exegesis, jurisprudence and on the life of Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). His works were collected and published in twelve volumes under the title of Mu'allafat al-shaykh al-Imam Muhammad 'Abd al-Wahhab by the Islamic University of Imam Muhammad Ibn Sa'ud.

In his works, Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab denounced a number of beliefs and practices prevailing among the Muslim society. He begins his discourse by stressing the unity of God. He underlines the doctrine of tawhid, God's uniqueness as omnipotent Lord of creation. He stresses the unity of God in deserving worship and absolute devotion of the servants. He regards the associations of persons or things with the Lord as a violation of the doctrine of God's Oneness. Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab condemns the intercession, tawassul, which was applied and practised by a large number of Muslims during their prayer to God. He warns the believers against showing excessive devotion to saints and against the use of saints' graves as places of worship for tawassul. He considers these external elements polytheism, shirk. He seeks to purify the Muslim community from any such kind of external elements by returning to the ways of the Prophet (pbuh) and the first generations of pious Muslims. Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab states that the true Islam is that of the first generations (al-Salaf al-Salih) and protests against all those later innovations as superstitious accretions which brought what he calls 'new gods' into Islam. As a result of this attitude to Sufi tradition, the Wahhabis felt that it was an obligation upon them to destroy all the existing alien components. Accordingly, they attacked the graves of the Companions of the Prophet (pbuh), tombs of saints, or anything associated with popular veneration like trees or stones. An obvious example of this zealous hatred was seen when the Wahhabis plundered Karbala, a Shi'ia holy city, and destroyed Husayn's tomb. [5]

Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab rejected all kinds of innovations, defined by him as any doctrine or action not based on the Qur'an, Sunnah or on the authority of the Companions. Among the innovations are practices such as celebrating the Prophet's birth, the use of rosary, adding minarets and ornaments to mosques, etc. Following practices may lead the believer to shirk according to the Wahhabis:

1. To visit the tombs of saints to gain God's favour.

2. To introduce a name of a prophet, of a saint or of an angel into prayer.

3. Seeking intercession from any being but God.

4. Interpretation of the Qur'an by ta'wil.

According to Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab's system, attendance at public prayer is obligatory, smoking of tobacco is forbidden and subject to punishment, shaving the beard and the use of abusive language are also to be punished.

With regard to fundamental basis of Islam, Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab places a great emphasis on the Qur'an and the Sunnah. He attacks the blind acceptance of authority in religious matters in general, thus comes to oppose the earlier 'uluma' who lack independent thinking. He finds it essential to go beyond the medieval authorities to the Sunnah of early generations. Rejecting qiyas, he recognizes only two major authorities: the Qur'an and the Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) along with the precedents and the ijma' of the Companions. In Wahhabi mentality, a number of concepts were given a prior importance such as tawhid, shirk and bid'at (innovation) mentioned above.

Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab distinguishes between dar al-Islam and dar al-harb extending the scope of dar al-harb to some other Muslim countries which he regards as having 'unlawful' societies. Therefore those who live in dar al-harb where there is no freedom have to perform hijrah, emigrating from every country in which shirk and kufr are apparent. Another usage of hijrah appears in Wahhabi texts as a spiritual understanding which necessitates keeping away from all sinful things, forbidden by God and Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) (Helm, p. 87).

Any kind of political division of the ummah and civil war were regarded as fitnah, social disturbance. The first fitnah appeared under 'Ali's Caliphate when the Kharijites left him. Wherever a fitnah occurs, it must be abolished by declaring a jihad, holy war. The followers of Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab had been indoctrinated to believe that the opponents of the Wahhabi cause were enemies of Islam who should be fought against (Yessini, p. 64).

Involvement of the Wahhabis into Politics:
Religion and State

The modern history of Saudi Arabia began in the eighteenth century with the alliance between Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab, the founder of the Wahhabi movement, and Muhammad Ibn al-Sa'ud, Amir of Dariyya, son of the founder of the Saudi dynasty. When Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab was forced to leave Uyayna, he went to Dariyya where he was received by the chieftain, Muhammad Ibn al-Sa'ud, in 1745. Muhammad Ibn Al-Sa'ud accepted Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab's doctrine and undertook its defence and propagation after having agreed to the conditions that the political sovereignty should rest with Ibn al-Sa'ud, whereas religious authority should belong to Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab. The Saudi-Wahhabi alliance was further cemented by an intermarriage between the two families (Troeller, p. 13).

The Saudi-Wahhabi alliance seems to be a turning point through which the Wahhabi movement gained an official acceptance and confirmation from a strong dynasty that used religious authority of the Wahhabi doctrines as a binding force among the Arab tribes.

One of the significant aspects of this alliance in the formation of Saudi Arabian history was the fact that it led to an effective union of political-military organization and religious ideology which carried out Saudi-Wahhabi expansion. As 'Abd al-Aziz b. al-Rahman states, all the desert tribes came under the control of [the] al-Sa'ud family obeying their orders and instructions. The Wahhabi doctrines and socio-political teachings of religion enabled [the] al-Sa'ud dynasty to hold their political authority firmly for ruling the nomad tribes successfully.

The Wahhabi 'ulama' gave explicit support and approval to the hereditary rule of the al-Sa'ud family, and the Wahhabi shaykhs utilized the concept of equality as a political tool to control the Bedouin tribes by eliminating tribal particularism (Helm, pp. 77-79, 84).

It was principally through the Wahhabi movement that 'Abd al-'Aziz and the previous Saudi rulers had been able to transcend tribal and urban loyalties while still using their social structure as a basis for political manipulation. Membership of an Islamic community theoretically served to equalize social differentials and as the tribes embraced the Wahhabi doctrine, they came to accept the imamete of al-Sa'ud as leader of a legitimate state validated by Islam (Ibid., p. 113).

As a far reaching effect of this cooperation, the Saudi dynasty firmly established its control in the political arena assuming certain titles indicating temporal power such as amir, haakim and malik, king.

Relations Between the Ottoman Rule
and the Saudi-Wahhabi Dynasty

Muhammad b. 'Abd al-Wahhab declared that Islam protected by the Ottoman Sultan was not the true Islam, implying that the sultan was not the legitimate leader of the ummah. The Wahhabis held that the Arabs were worthier than the Turks with regard to imamete or leadership. Thus the authority of the Ottoman rule was rejected and challenged. When the rapid expansion of the Wahhabi movement was reported to Istanbul, the Ottoman Caliph, Sultan Mahmud II, urged Muhammad 'Ali Pasha, the governor of Egypt, to drive the Wahhabis out of the holy cities. Under the Caliphal instruction, Muhammad 'Ali Pasha launched a series of military attacks on Wahhabi-controlled territories. In 1818, he reached Dariyya and captured the capital of the Wahhabi-Saudi alliance (Troeller, p. 14).

Although the Wahhabi movement was put down, its expansion did not fade away. After the recovery and restoration of the Saudi dynasty, 'Abd al-'Aziz, Son of 'Abd al-Rahman, entered Riyadh in 1901 and the Saudi dynasty regained authority while regions of Najd, Hijaz, Makkah, Madina, and Jeddah were all also occupied. After an international recognition of hereditary authority or kingship of the Saudi family, new developments in the political arena facilitated the consolidation of the Saudi-Wahhabi alliance as a nation state.

Later Developments in the Wahhabi World

The Wahhabi world could not remain aloof from the changing nature of world events and patterns of international relations in the modern era. New developments in different spheres of life rapidly occurred. Today the Wahhabi doctrine is supported by the political power of the state as the official form of Islam in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, as it has been from the outset of the Wahhabi-Saudi alliance. The members of the royal family seem to be advocates of the Wahhabi ideology. The mufti and the chief qadi come from the House of Shaykhs. The courts are largely Wahhabi in character. The spread of education and the improvement of communication systems have made it easier to transmit the Wahhabi doctrines to different segments of [the] population.

Under the influence of new developments and toleration of less-strict rulers, the Wahhabis of Saudi Arabia have shown a growing openness towards not only non-Wahhabi Muslims, but also non-Muslims. The Shi'ites of the Eastern regions used to be unwelcome residents in the eyes of the governments, but gradually they have seen their situation improve and the Wahhabi King has been an honoured guest at official functions in Shi'ite towns.

The spirit of tolerance has been extended to Christian persons and powers as well. A large number of Christians have been employed in recent years by the government. The armed forces of Arabia have been trained in the past, first by an English military mission and more recently by one from the U.S.A.

Until recently illustrations showing human face or form were taboo among the Wahhabis, though the Qur'an itself contains no sweeping prohibition of representational art. The press in Saudi Arabia is now allowed to publish photographs and drawings. The attitude toward tobacco is also changing, smoking is no longer regarded as a moral laxity deserving punishment.

The organization of formal education and introduction of secular subjects into education took place in 1925. When 'Abd al-'Aziz ordered the creation of the Directorate General of Education, the 'ulama' were opposed to the introduction of secular education, fearing that it may damage the fabric of the Wahhabi society. Nevertheless 'Abd al-'Aziz insisted on the establishment of a new educational system and carried out his plan. In the course of time scientific and technical subjects and foreign languages were included in the curriculum. Girls were allowed to have access to public education in 1959. None of these elements could have been accepted during the early period of the Wahhabi movement.

The acquisition of wealth during the past twenty or thirty years posed a serious problem for the Wahhabi society. Particularly under the period of Sa'ud's rules, the extravagance and ostentation of a very un-Wahhabi-like character tainted the atmosphere of the Saudi Court. Those who claimed that the Saudi family departed from Islam with its wealth, occupied the Grand Mosque at Mecca in 1979, but their revolt was put down by the Saudi rule.

1. George Renz, "The Wahhabis" in A.J. Arberry (ed.), Religion in the Middle East, Vol. II (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 270-285.2. Encyclopedia of Islam (first edition), articles on the Wahhabiyah and Sanusiyah movements, Vol. IV, p. 1087.

3. Christine Moss Helm, The Cohesion of Saudi Arabia (London, 1981), p. 81-82.

4. Gary Troeller, The Birth of Saudi Arabia (London, 1976), p. 14 - footnote: "The statement appears to be based on hearsay." Ibn Sa'd (Tabaqat, Eng. T.S. Moinal Haq, Karachi, 1972, Vol. II, pp. 392-98) reports that: "The Apostle of Allah (pbuh) left at the time of his death no dirham, no dinar, no slave, no handmaid and nothing except his white mule, arms and a piece of land which he left as sadaqah. His coat of mail had been mortgaged [pawned] for thirty saa's of barley with a Jew. His debts were paid by Ali b. Talib. The question of leaving behind any jewels does not arise, neither any Muslim dared to add or place something inside his mausoleum."

5. Ayman Al-Yassini, "Saudi Arabia the Kingdom of Islam" in Carlo Calarola (ed.), Religion and Societies, 1982, p. 64; Troeller, 1976, p. 14.

6. Albert Hourani, Arabic Thought in the Liberal Age (Cambridge, 1983), p. 38.

Radical Salafism: Osama's ideologyBy Bernard Haykel

Radical Salafism is the ideology of Osama bin Laden's al-Qaeda organization. Its particular world view can be understood by looking at the roots of this ideology in Islamic intellectual history and by realizing that its teachings have been marginal to and opposed by mainstream Islamic thought.

Muslims in the modern period are either Sunni (90%) or Shi'iah (10%). The distinction pertains to a dispute over the spiritual and political leadership of the Muslim community after the death of Prophet Mohammad (PBUH). In matters of politics, two principles are strongly identified with the Sunnis:

1) they are loath to declare fellow Muslims infidels, a practice called takfir;

2) they prohibit war against Muslim rulers, however tyrannical these may be, so long as Islam remains the religion of state and Islamic law is enforced. Sunnis argue that adherence to these two principles is crucial in order to maintain social order and to avoid warfare amongst Muslims which might lead to the demise of Islam itself.

Osama bin Laden and his followers are Sunni Muslims of the Salafi branch. Salafism is a minoritarian tendency within Islam that dates back to the 9th century - under the name of Ahl al-Hadith - and whose central features were crystallized in the teachings of a 14th century Islamic scholar, Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyya (d. 1328). Ibn Taymiyya's importance lies in that he was willing to hereticize fellow Muslims who did not share his views and, more important, he declared permissible war against Muslims rulers who did not apply the Shari'ah (he advocated war against the Mongols who had declared themselves to be Muslims but did not apply Islamic law).

Salafism's hallmark is a call to modern Muslims to revert to the pure Islam of the Prophet Muhammad's generation and the two generations that followed his. Muslims of this early period are referred to as al-Salaf al-Salih (the pious forefathers) whence the name Salafi. Salafism's message is utopian, its adherents seeking to transform completely the Muslim community and to ensure that Islam, as a system of belief and governance, should eventually dominate the globe.

Salafis are not against technological progress nor its fruits; they do, however, abhor all innovations in belief and practice that are not anchored in their conception of the pristine Islamic age. They refer to such reprehensible innovations as Bid'a, a term of deligitimization in Islamic law or the Shari'ah.

According to the Salafis, Muslims can only be certain that they are not practising reprehensible innovations if they adhere to a strictly literal interpretation of the sources of revelation, and those are the Qur'an and the Sunna (the Sunna is the practice of Prophet Mohammad and can be found exclusively in the canonical collections of accounts of his sayings and doings (hadith)). Salafis claim to be the only Muslims capable of providing this literal interpretation; all other Muslims would therefore be - to a lesser or greater extent - deviant innovators.

Another salient feature of Salafism is an obsession with God's oneness while condemning all forms of polytheism (shirk) and unbelief (kufr). Certain Sufi practices (Sufis are mystics of Islam), such as visiting the graves of great Sufi masters, are condemned by the Salafis as diminishing true belief in Allah. The world, according to the Salafis, is unequivocally divided between the domains of belief (iman) and unbelief, and it is incumbent on Muslims to be certain that they remain in the domain of belief.

This they can do only if they are Salafis. Nothing less than eternal salvation is at stake. The Salafi world view is rigid and Manichaean. In its radical form Salafism leads to the practice of takfir. This is exactly what Osama bin Laden did in his November 4 statement: Muslims who are not with him are, by definition, infidels.

The mantle of Ibn Taymiyya's teachings was most famously taken up by a movement in central Arabia in the 18th century. Known to its enemies as the Wahhabi movement, whose adherents called themselves the Muwahhidun (The believers in the oneness of God). The Wahhabi's had a powerful reformist message and were able to galvanize the tribes of central Arabia into a powerful military period.

So great was their zeal to focus all the belief and religious practices of fellow Muslims on God alone, that the Wahhabis destroyed in 1805 tombs in Medina, including a failed attempt at destroying the cupola over the tomb of Prophet Muhammad.

Such excesses, including the declaration of fellow Muslims to be infidels whose blood could be shed, horrified the wider Muslim world leading the Ottoman Sultan to send an Egyptian military force and destroy the fledgling Wahhabi state. This was accomplished in 1818. The example the Wahhabi sect, however, left an indelible mark on the world of Islam and the like-minded would look to their experience as a model to be emulated.

King Abd al-Aziz ibn Sa'ud, commonly known as Ibn Sa'ud, the founder of the present Saudi kingdom, based his rule and conquests on Salafi doctrine, and this remains the ideology of Saudi Arabia today. But Ibn Sa'ud realized quickly that embedded in this ideology was the potential for radical extremism and he vanquished militarily his own radicals, otherwise known as the Ikhwan, in 1930.

The radical Salafis raised their heads again in November 1979 when one of their leaders, Juhayman al-Utaybi, led a revolt in Makkah that seized control of the Great Mosque for two weeks. As they had done in 1930, the Saudi authorities attacked al-Utaybi and his followers, killing every last one in a bloody battle in the Makkan sanctuary.

However, it is important to know two features that distinguish the official Salafism of the Saudi kingdom from the teachings of these radical Salafis. The Saudis believe that: 1) war against an Islamic ruler is not permitted, and 2) declaring fellow Muslims to be infidels is also not permitted. For this reason, the Saudi minister of Islamic Affairs stated on October 19, in the aftermath of the WTC attacks, that "obedience to Islamic rulers is obligatory for Muslims."

A principal reason radical Salafis like Osama bin Laden advocate violence against the Saudi state and the United States relates to the presence of US troops on Saudi soil. By permitting this, Osama says the Saudis are no longer adhering to Islamic law and consequently war against them is permissible. Osama bin Laden bases his claim about the illegality of the presence of US troops on a statement of Prophet Mohammad in which the Prophet says: "Expel the polytheists from the Arabian peninsula."

Literally understood, the injunction is clear. Non-Salafis, i.e., the vast majority of Muslims, disagree with Osama's judgement. The non-Salafis counter with another statement of the Prophet in which he says: "Expel the Jews of Hijaz from the peninsula of the Arabs." The reference to the Jews is to be read as a synecdoche (for non-Muslims: Hijaz is a region of Arabia and this second Prophetic statement narrows the more general first statement. In other words, non-Muslims are permitted to reside in Arabia, but not in Hijaz, the region of the twin sanctuaries of Makkah and Medina.)

Such differences in abstruse legal opinions, however, do not explain Osama bin Laden's massive appeal among Muslims today. It is his genius at manipulating images and symbols, as well as his ability to tap into a wellspring of legitimate Muslim and Arab resentment of US foreign policies, that explains his success. Muslims live under the yoke of authoritarian regimes - regimes that have succeeded in destroying the fabric of traditional Muslim education and networks of knowledge and socialization.

Most Muslims therefore do not appreciate or understand legal arguments like the one stated above. What Muslims react to enthusiastically is Osama's role as a leader and symbol of Muslim resistance to domestic and western oppression. This reaction is fuelled by a century of arguments promoted by the Arab regimes that all the problems of the Arab and Muslim worlds are due to foreign intrigue, and are not because of any policies or actions of the Arab and Muslim leaders themselves. This reasoning explains, for example, the eagerness with which so many Arabs and Muslims have accepted the conspiratorial theories that the attacks of September 11 were the work of Jews and Zionists.

Thus far, moderate Sunni Muslims have been reluctant to condemn Osama bin Laden in light of the events of September 11. This is a consequence of the quiescent political culture Sunnis subscribe to: pointing fingers at fellow believers might lead to a state of chaotic disorder they fear most. Moreover, the present conflict involves unbelievers and Muslims prefer not to air their differences in public. Another reason for this conspicuous silence is that moderates feel the evidence Osama bin Laden in the attacks has not been provided by the US government.

Finally, the fear of violent retaliation by the radical Salafis has kept many silent. Moderate Muslims, many of whom have been and continue to be oppressed by Arab and Muslim governments, do exist and must be encouraged to take centre stage. We can take heart from the fact that most Muslims have not heeded Osama's call to kill innocent Americans wherever and whenever they find them.

In short, the battle being waged today is at heart an internal Islamic one and may take a very long time to end. It is part of a larger battle about the very nature of Islamic society and politics, and one in which there are many sides (moderate Muslims, state-sponsored Muslims, radical and moderate Salafis, secular nationalists, and Shi'ah

The writer teaches Islamic law at New York University

Copyright NoticeThis article is copyright 2001 DAWN, and may be redistributed provided that the article remains intact, with this copyright message clearly visible. This article may not under any circumstances be resold or redistributed for compensation of any kind without prior written permission from DAWN. If you have any questions about these terms, or would like information about licensing materials from DAWN, please contact us via telephone: +92 (21) 111-444-777, +92 (21) 567-0001 or email: webmaster@dawn.com

DAWN is located on the World Wide Web at http://dawn.com

This entire Website including all its contents, graphical images and other elements are the intellectual property of the Pakistan Herald Publications Ltd. (P.H.P.L.) - publishers of the DAWN newspaper.

This site is for use by individuals and may not be used for any commercial purposes. No part of this site may be redistributed or otherwise published without written consent of P.H.P.L.

Manichaen: a believer in religious or philosophical dualismthe vast majority: i.e. of the entire Muslim population, Salafi's comprise less than 1% of them

synecdoche: a figure of speech by which a part is put for the whole (as fifty sail for fifty ships), the whole for a part (as society for high society), the species for the genus (as cutthroat for assassin), the genus for the species (as a creature for a man), or the name of the material for the thing made (as boards for stage)

"massive" (sic). We hardly think bin Laden has "massive" appeal. We disagree with the author here.

"With my kangaroo mind, jumping from one subject to another, I wonder if the perceived subjugation of women within Muslim society through the use of Koranic authority is of a similar nature. FGM being justified in some parts of the world and not others through the pronouncements of the Imams, the Saudi experience where women are required to wear the totally black burka in a climate where white would be much more comfortable, the Afghanistan Mujahadeen rulings that women were not permitted to leave their abode even to get food. The list goes on.

Will the move away from their tribal origins lead to the Islamic Authorities to relax their differing interpretations of a woman’s place in society?"

Archie's question is quite interesting in many aspects, but I'd just like to make one thing clear first and that is that FGM is a tribal ritual that has passed into some Islamic cultures, but it is not something that has come into culture or religion through Quranic interpretation.  As far as I know (and I am going by memory here) things which are not discussed in the Quran but were/are cultural traditions could be allowed as a practice as long as it is/was not harmful.

In the case of FGM, there is one hadith (saying of the prophet Muhamed) from which fatwas and indulgence of the practice stem.  That hadith is:

"woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. [Muhammad] said to her, 'Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.'"[19]

Let me just recap what wiki will tell you - the majority of scholars agree that this hadith does not require anyone to perform or undergo circumcision.  Additionally, some scholars go even further to state that it is prohibited as that in the "game of chance" (gambling/risk is not allowed in Islam) as there is an inherent risk of the cut beeing to deep.  Only one school out of the four schools of jurisprudence/law order a "slight trimming of the hood", the clitoris which is intended to enhance sexual pleasure.  In regards to that school of thought, I believe with all of the research being done on the practice that even that school would have to reevaluate its position.

Regardless, in 2005 Al-Azhar Universitie's Ahmend Talib, the Dean of the Faculty of Sharia stated:

"All practices of female circumcision and mutilation are crimes and have no relationship with Islam. Whether it involves the removal of the skin or the cutting of the flesh of the female genital organs...it is not an obligation in Islam."

In addition:

Many Muslim scholars believe FGC is practiced as a result of ignorance and misconceived religious fervor rather than for reasons of true religious doctrine. A recent conference at the Al-Azhar University in Cairo (December, 2006) attempted to bring prominent Muslim clergy to denounce the practice as not being necessary under the umbrella of Islam.[26] Although there was some reluctance amongst some of the clergy, who preferred to handball the issue to doctors, making the FGC a medical decision, rather than a religious one, the Grand Mufti Ali Jumaa of Egypt, signed a resolution denouncing the practice.

That being said, yes, FGM still exists within the Muslim community even though it is not, nor was it ever practiced by the majority of Muslims.  FGM is a practice that is still practiced today by Muslims, Christians and Jews (yes, even Israel turns a blind eye to the bedouin and Jewish Ethiopian custom of FGM).  No blind eye should be turned to this mutilation and I hope to see more outrage in regards to this tradition from the Muslim community.

All that said and done, Archie asks one simple question which I think we need to elaborate, more to the point we need to clarify a misconception.  Archie asks:

"Will the move away from their tribal origins lead to the Islamic Authorities to relax their differing interpretations of a woman’s place in society?"

Unfortunately, Archie, it was the unfortunate events of replacing many tribes and their schools for one tribal way that lead to the demise of the equal status that Islam afforded its women.  Unfortunately, Archie, it was the rise of Al-Wahab and the demise of all of the other groups within this region and their various schools of thought that led to the demise of the quite complicated and rather sophisticated method of Islamic jurisprudence.

I highly recomend reading Khaled Abou El Fadl's The Great Theft, Wrestling Islam from the Extremists.  I'm in the middle of it now, it is an easy read rich in historical facts in how politics and power have shaped today's Islam.

Refutation of the "Salafi" refutation of the Encyclopedia of Islamic Doctrine

Bismillah al-Rahman al-Rahim

Quotations from troid.org site as of March 2003. See also the chapter "More tamperings of Salafis" above and < Ibn Taymiyya, a survey >

(1) "Salafi" refutation of Imam Ahmad's Ta'wil.... [Interpretation of the "coming of Allah" as the coming of his order (amr) or that of his reward (thawab).] (Ibn Hazm, al-Fisal (2:173). Al-Kawthari in his edition of al-Bayhaqis al-Asma wal-Sifat (p. 448 cf. p. 292) states that Abu Yala also narrates it from Ahmad. See also Ibn al-Jawzis Daf Shubah al-Tashbih (Saqqaf ed. p. 110 and 141).

The "Salafis" said:
This presentation of Imaam Ahmads view is rejected for a number of reasons: i. The chain of transmission of the narration which al-Bayhaqee mentions from Haakim from Aboo Amr ibn as-Sammaak is weak. Adh-Dhahabee said in his Talkhees of al- Haakims al-Mustadrak (1/539) that Aboo Amr ibn as-Sammaak is unknown.

Look at the ignorance of those people who take bladders for lanterns. Abu `Amr ibn al-Sammak is one of the great Hadith Masters, the Shaykh of al-Hakim and al-Daraqutni over whom there is no doubt. Al-Dhahabi called him "the Shaykh, the Imam, the abundant Muhaddith, the truthful, the Musnid of Iraq, `Uthman ibn Ahmad ibn `Abd Allah..." (Siyar) and he mentions him in Tadhkirat al-Huffaz also.

The one referred to in Talkhis al-Mustadrak is a different person. How ignorant to confuse the two! Here is the chain in question: Haddathana Ibn al-Sammak, haddathana Muhammad ibn `Isa al-Mada'ini, haddathana Shu`ayb ibn Harb, haddathana jaarun lana yukanna Aba `Amr = one of our neighbors called Abu `Amr narrated to us. The latter is the unknown, not Ibn al-Sammak.

The "Salafis" said:
ii. What is authentically related from Imaam Ahmad is that which al-Qaadee Aboo Yalaa narrates in his book Ikhtilaaf ur-Riwaayatain (1/250) and also ibn al-Qayyim in Mukhtasar us-Sawaaiq (p.386): "Hanbal said: I said to Aboo Abdullaah (Imaam Ahmad): Allaah - the Mighty and Magnificent - descends to the lowest heaven? He said: Yes. I said: Is His descent by His Knowledge or what? He said to me: Be quiet about this, and he became very angry and said: Pass on the hadeeth as it has come". And Abdullaah bin Ahmad said in his book as-Sunnah: "I asked my father: Allaah descends to the lowest heaven. How is his descending, is it His knowledge or not? He said: Be quiet or severe punishment shall afflict you! Then he said: Pass on the hadeeth as it has come."

The above is false on many levels. First, the narration from Ahmad under discussion is his ta'wil of the "coming" and "arrival" - maji' and ityan - of Allah Most High in the Qur'anic verses to that effect, NOT the hadith of Nuzul.

Second, Abu Ya`la is considered unreliable by the Hanbalis themselves in matters of `Aqida and he is notorious for being a Mujassim; as is Ibn al-Qayyim without doubt, not to mention the centuries between him and Imam Ahmad in the first place - where are their isnads to begin?!

Third, the book named al-Sunna and attributed to `Abd Allah ibn Ahmad contains things like "Is istiwa' any other than sitting??" and contains MOSTLY FORGERIES according to Shaykh Shu`ayb al-Arna'ut.

Fourth, a few lines below these people adduce that same man's - Ibn al-Qayyim - claim that Hanbal ibn Ishaq is supposedly unreliable in relating matters from Ahmad. Consider how they produce him when it suits them and reject him when it suits them!

The "Salafis" said:
iii. Ibn Taymiyyah said: "There is no doubt that that which is reported in mutawaatir form from Ahmad opposes this narration (in which Imaam Ahmad is supposed to have resorted to taweel) and makes it clear that he does not say: The Lord comes (meaning) His command comes and descends, rather he rejects the one who says that." (ibn Taymiyyah, Sharh Hadeeth an-Nuzool, p.202)

Note that the above is a purely conjectural argument because he is unable to weaken the report outwardly. So he resorts to zann i.e. "He couldn't have said so." It is typical of Ibn Taymiyya to use grand terms such as the attribution of tawatur and so forth to defend his views. The fact is, he is notorious for his unreliable manner in quoting the Salaf.

For example, in Majmu` al-Fatawa (4:319) you find:
"The view that the Prophets were protected from the major sins but not from the minor sins is that of the majority of the Ulema of Islam and all the groups. It is even the view of most of the people of Kalam; as mentioned by Abu al-Hasan al- Amidi, this is the view of most of the Ash`aris. It is also the view of most of the people of Tafsir and Hadith and the Fuqaha'. In fact, nothing was reported from the Salaf, the Imams, the Companions, the Tabi`in, and their successors except what conforms to this view...."

The above is a thoroughly inaccurate statement. Qadi `Iyad in al-Shifa' said that the Jumhur of the Fuqaha' from the schools of Malik, al-Shafi`i, and Abu Hanifa, agree that the Prophets are protected from all minor sins because one is required to follow them in the minutest matters. It is even reported from Malik that this is obligatory to believe.

As for the report from al-Amidi it is inaccurate. He actually said in al-Ihkam (1:171) that all but the Khawarij concur Prophets are protected from the minor sins if the latter bear on their character. If, however, it comes to a rare word spoken out of anger, then the majority of the Ash`aris and Mu`tazilis allow it. So the issue is not by any means as clearcut as the words attributed to Ibn Taymiyya would lead one to believe. Ibn Taymiyya often relies on tahweel - verbal intimidation - with phrases such as "the Book, the Sunna, the Companions, the Tabi`in, their successors, and the Imams all support what I am saying." This impressed the public in his time as it continues to do in ours and there is no power save by Allah.

The "Salafis" said:
iv. Ibn al-Qayyim wrote: "As for the narration reported from Imaam Ahmad - then his companions are divided into three groups regarding it. The first: That this is mistakenly attributed to him since the only one who spoke about it is Hanbal and he is one who has many opinions/reports which are in opposition to what is well known from the madhhab of Ahmad... However, what is correct is that it is a rejected narration (shaadh) which opposes the essence of his madhhab."

This is among the typical high-handed statements of Ibn al-Qayyim and his teacher. Ibn Abi Ya`la in Tabaqat al-Hanabila narrated that al-Khallal - the principal compiler of the early Hanbali Madhhab - said of Hanbal that his narrations from Ahmad were so good that "I might compare them to those of al- Athram in excellence, thoroughness, and perfection"! It is no use to attempt ta`til of his reliability. More importantly, note tha