Yusuf Al-Qaradawi Exposed
I owe my readers an apology, since I meant to post this back in August when it was originally written, but somehow it slipped through the cracks. I fully expect that many of my readers will be offended by this exposé of Yusuf Al-Qaradawi...but sometimes what we need is a strong dose of the painful truth:
Yusuf Al-QaradawiPersonally, as someone who has never been comfortable with the Muslim Brotherhood and their brand of politicized Islam, I read this lengthy article with great relish. And that's not because I enjoy seeing the scholarly efforts of someone being thoroughly deconstructed, but because I'm relieved to know that more Muslims will now become aware of the antics of Shaykh Yusuf Al-Qaradawi and his ideological counterparts. Thus I'll warn my readers that if they're into blindly defending spokesmen for the Muslim Brotherhood, then please prepare to be offended (but be careful, since you might actually learn something). However, if the truth is what you're after, then please enjoy the information that the article presents.
by G.F. Haddad - Sha`ban 1428 (August 2007)
http://www.livingislam.org/k/yq_e.html
Indeed, it's hard for me to shed even a crocodile tear for any piece of polemical writing that undermines the efforts of the so-called Ikhwan al-Muslimin. This is not because there aren't good, honest, pious and dedicated Muslims amongst them—and let there be no doubt about that—but because the ideology (in the Marxist sense of the word) which they follow is a clear modernist corruption of Islam that has caused more harm to this Ummah than any other "Islamic ideology" that the colonial experience produced. After studying this movement and listening to the rhetoric of quite a few of its "activist" members, I still cannot dispel from my mind the well-argued view that at the heart of this movement is a huge inferiority complex vis-à-vis the West, mixed with a half-baked "pick and choose" modernist approach to religion that's actually borrowed from the West. Not only that, but in a lot of Muslim countries they're now being led by disenfranchised and frustrated former Marxists who decided make Islam into another "ideology" after their first one failed. Yikes!
One thing that always bothered me about the Ikhwan is their chameleon-like qualities. Yes, indeed, they are men of many masks...which some might view as in inescapable aspect of politics. I would not be surprised to hear that "Tell the people what they want to hear?" is their de facto slogan. That's because...and those of you who have been around them know this is true...if they meet with "Salafis", they act like "Salafis". If they meet with Sufis, they put up a Sufi front. If they meet with a group of patriotic Americans, they'll wave the American flag. If they attend a protest in another country, they'll burn the American flag. In short, in their efforts to unite Muslims and present a face that has some appeal to everyone, they are very, very disingenuous. While there's no doubt that we need Muslims to be more active, this particular movement has fallen into the trap of destroying Islam in order to save it. And by this I mean: If they feel the need to make so many compromises and throw so many Islamic rulings overboard...then what actually are they saving? What will be left when they're all done? Yes, question begging at its best...
Soon after I embraced Islam back in 1992, I had my first encounter with this "La Madhhab" and "Do-It-Yourself" brand of Islam when I was given a copy of Yusuf Al-Qaradawi's The Lawful and the Prohibited in Islam (the English translation of al-Halal wal-Haram fil-Islam). Even as a new Muslim, albeit a relatively well-read one, I was taken aback by some of the very liberal fiqhi positions that this book espoused. It wasn't much later that I first heard the book called al-Halal wal-Halal fil-Islam...insinuating, in a tongue-in-cheek way, that the book makes everything Halal (i.e. Islamically lawful). Although this is no doubt an exaggeration, there's also no doubt that the book goes beyond the bounds that most scholars would accept in quite a few areas—and Shaykh Gibril makes this clear in the article...so please give it a read. It's a bit lengthy, but well worth the time and effort.
And you've got to hand it to whoever came up with the "al-Halal wal-Halal" quip, since it gets a good laugh out of about everyone who ever hears it! Ouch!
Enjoy...
Labels: Gibril F. Haddad, Islamic Law, Salafism, Traditional Islam
posted by @ 1:02 AM
Comment Guidelines
10 comments
10 Comments:
As-salamu 'alaykum,
Below is a rather long rant that I posted on DeenPort.com in response to an opinion which stated that DeenPort.com "should not be allowed to promote the disgusting article about Shk Qaradawi." Not only did the poster try to employ a medieval methodology in order to avoid addressing the real issue (i.e. banning what I had to say), but he used "such words" as "disgusting" against the writings of a scholar—namely Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad. Anyway, here is my long comment (slightly modified from the original):
----------------------------------
As-salamu 'alaykum,
One thing that continues to frustrate and disgust me...yes, DISGUST me...about Muslim discourse is how easily Muslims are side-tracked from the real issues at hand and how they almost always avoid dealing with the issues head-on. Even Shaykh Hamza Yusuf regularly mentions the sad state of intellectual life in our Ummah...and it is quite sad. Yes, it is quite sad that most Muslims not only couldn't logically debate their way out of a wet paper bag, but they also tend to react emotionally —rather than intellectually—to issues, which allows the media (and thus the governments who pull the strings of the media) to play them like a flute. Not only is this Islamically unacceptable, it's just plain embarrassing. I think anyone who has been a Muslim for at least the past few years and lived through the various media debacles will know what I'm talking about.
On top of all this, I can't tell you how many times I've posted articles written by some of our well-known and respected English-speaking scholars, like Sherman A. Jackson and Gibril F. Haddad, hoping to have a balanced, insightful and intellectual (even if heated) discussion (Yes, I know, I must be in a dream world!!!), only to have someone become angry and get offended by the mere fact that an article on a subject that they find troublesome, controversial or disturbing was posted to a forum or newsgroup. Typically, they try to get the posting removed and stop everyone on the list to refrain from discussing it further. Wimpy, wimpy, wimpy! If this is the intellectual state of our Ummah, we're in big, big trouble. Intellectual cowardice is running rampant among us and our enemies are rejoicing in it! Feel free to call Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad harsh...and that's fine, since our scholars agree that sometimes harshness is called for...but I dare say that no one could honestly accuse him of intellectual cowardice. And that's what makes him such a devastating and valuable polemicist for the sake of Sunni Islam—he doesn't shy away from dealing with the issues head-on. He calls a spade a spade, and dispenses with the niceties when things have already turned ugly. In this day and age, such a scholar is worth his weight in gold.
In order to avoid a longer tirade (or maybe not), I'll just say that this medieval mentality that I come across so often these days, even though we live in the Internet Age, that you're somehow going to keep people from hearing certain things or learning certain facts is not only idiotic, but it's embarrassing to any decent, honest and thinking person. Sorry folks, but burying your head in the sand just doesn't work anymore. Need I explain that such efforts to ban books and ideas almost always backfire? Sure it might work for particular individuals, but it cannot and will not work for a world religion such as Islam as a whole. Either Muslims need to engage with anti-Islamic and non-Islamic ideas of our day—as our scholars have always done—or they should be prepared to have their Deen assigned to the dust bin of history. Certainly we're required to believe that this will not happen, but we need to translate that belief into ACTION. My desire is that more Muslims would take this aphorism to heart: "If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen"...and I'll throw in another "wimpy, wimpy, wimpy" for good measure (and for those of you in the UK, I'm not referring to hamburgers). Yes, if you don't like such discussions, that's fine. Go bury your head in the sand and stop pestering people who want to engage in intellectual discourse.
That having been said, let me explain it this way: The only issue with the article in question is whether or not the points that Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad has made are TRUE. If they are, then the harshness is very, very much justified. If they're not, then logically and textually demonstrate that they're not...and then a harsh tone will be justified as well. Also, keep in mind that if the allegations are true, then such a harsh tone is certainly not unheard of in the realm of Sunni scholastic discourse. If you doubt this, read about how Imam Al-Ghazali dealt with the Batinis, who were the scourge of his age...and such examples are legion in our Deen's intellectual history. Please realize that what is at stake here is one's eternal salvation, so if there was ever a subject that justified harshness is refuting false beliefs, it's this one.
It would also be good to keep in mind, or at least realize, that this refutation of Yusuf Al-Qaradawi is just that—a refutation. It's not an ad hominem attack, since it deals with the well-known and documented positions of Shaykh Al-Qaradawi, not any personal foibles that he might have. So although the tone of the article might justifiably be called "harsh", I hope no one tries to pass it off as some sort of ad hominem attack...since it's not. Such a logically flawed approach would attack the man's inconsequential personal flaws, not his arguments and scholarly opinions. However, any honest reader—and I doubt many of the detractors have even read all of it—should be able to see that the article very much focuses on Yusuf Al-Qaradawi's views, fatwas and opinions...thus it's not ad hominem.
Just like the Mu'tazilah were the scourge of a certain age in Islamic history, the ideology as formulated by Sayyid Qutb et al is the intellectual disease of our time (especially when it's mixed with its intellectual cousin Wahhabism...and both ideologies fit under the umbrella of so-called "Salafism"). Many, if not most, of our scholars realize this, but since the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood and their off-shoots is essentially ubiquitous these days, many of them refrain from attacking them outright since they don't want to rock the boat and cause divisions within the community (and I concede that there's certainly wisdom in that at the local level). However, I personally disagree with this approach on the global level since I don't think this is the way that the 'ulama of the past would have handled the situation. In reality, it's clearly not how they handled very analogous situations. Indeed, I think that history has shown that accommodating heresy (and I use that word to mean incorrect belief, not disbelief), whether within the context of Judaism, Christianity or Islam, has always backfired...especially in the long run. It's as if we're giving incorrect beliefs a tacit approval that they most certainly do not deserve, which ends up being rather confusing to the Muslim community at large. Rather, not only should their fatwas, views, errors and opinions be put under the utmost scholarly scrutiny, but the ideological roots of their "movement" needs to be exposed as well.
Yes, Muslims should be well-mannered in their behavior to fellow Muslims, even those who belong to sects and factions, but that doesn't mean that incorrect creeds and false ideologies should not be exposed and refuted with a vengeance by our noble scholars.
So getting back to the real question...Is what Shaykh Gibril says about Yusuf Al-Qaradawi in the article true?
Allah Bless you, Ameen.
Sadly such forums are controlled by former chaperons turned self-styled academics, CEOs and governmental think thanks.
The ‘chaperon’ has now widened the net thanks to generous funding and propagates the scourge of our time as being part of ‘the tradition’ and Sunni Islam. Sadly those who refuse to toe the party line are seen as the scourge by these enlightened souls.
Thus, the Ostrich seems a viable career option for many!
May Allah make the much awaited second edition of ‘Albani and His Friends’ a means of victory over the baatil and its chaperons, Ameen.
As-Salamu `alaikum,
Masha Allaah, I received the same book, Al-Halal wa-l Haram Fi-l Islam, when I converted in 1994. It seemed to be part of a "welcome package" given to new muslims back then, along with a nice poster which showed one how to make wudu and salah. Seems some modern muslims think thats all a new muslim needs. I think I still have both. Jazakum Allaahu khayr. Good article from Shaykh Gibril. May Allaah `aza wa jal continue to bless this Ummah with Shuyukh who are willing to stand up and separate truth from falsehood.
Assalamu alaikum
Just out of curiosity, what evidence do you have that Ikhwan is Modernist? Are there any explicit statements of its thinkers that support this assertion?
masalama
Wa 'alaykumu as-salam,
You're joking, right? Anyone who took just a few minutes to study the Ikhwan al-Muslimin will see that they not only came about as a reaction to modernism, but they adopted modernist positions due to their belief that Islam needed to be reformed. Keep in mind that this was during the time that Europeans had colonized virtually all of the Muslim World and had virtually the entire world dazzled by their science and so-called progress.
Hassan al-Banna, the founder of the Ikhwan, and Sayyid Qutb, their most influential writer, were just following in the footsteps of earlier modernists like Muhammad Abduh, Rashid Rida and Jamal al-Din al-Afghani. Later on, the movement picked up some Marxist ideas and even some Liberation Theology...and all of their current lingo is often a dead giveaway of that.
Assalamu alaikum, I started reading the G. F. Haddad article you posted, and I think I'm going to have to read it in parts, it's just really hard to get thorugh.
Assalamu alaikum
Assalamu alaikum
May this reach you in the best state of health and iman. Ameen.
I asked this question because its my personal theory that Hassan al-Banna was strongly influenced by the modernist-Salafis such as al-Afghani, Abduh, and Rida. However, I was just curious if there was any particular text or speech or indication of a direct link to modernists. What textual evidence is there of any such links?
masalama\
Assalamu Alaikum
I was given the same Qaradawi book when I accepted Islam and the masjid gave me my "Starter kit." Honestly, my reaction to it was one of fear and confusion, and I skipped on down a path of do-it-yourself Islam for years. I am still trying to get on track, and MAN have my eyes been opened since trying to learn about Traditional Islam. Alhamdulillah.
This was not my original comment, brother, but I can't recall what was. Thank you for your insightful post.
Salaam Alaikum,
Brother, you can count me as one of the dismayed.
I do not consider having concern for adab and adherence to the hadith that one must make seventy excuses for their fellow Muslim as wimpy. Muslims should not be harsh in speech, this is not the Sunnah.
As for dimissing the Ikhwani as Modernist, you are missing the point as regarding the context that they were formulated in.
Many Ikhawani in the Middle East have suffered in a manner which I pray Allah swt spares us all from, just for the right to practice the basic elements of their deen.
Above all, this post just comes across as "Nah-Nah, my sheikh is better then yours". Especially with your categorisation of "wimpy" for those who disagree.
Finally, I would like to conclude with the fact it that the men in the post are both brothers in Islam.
Insha Allah, 5 times a day they prostrate to Allah swt, just as a we do. In world controlled by those who do not know the light and beauty of submitting to Allah swt, why waste time insulting and attacking those who do.
Wa 'alaykumku as-salam,
>I do not consider having concern for adab and adherence to the hadith that one must make seventy excuses for their fellow Muslim as wimpy. Muslims should not be harsh in speech, this is not the Sunnah.
Your point is well taken, but please realize that we're having an on-line discussion here about a public figure who has popularized a brand of Islam that has been deemed flawed and incorrect by a huge number of scholars. If we, much less scholars, were to "make seventy excuses" for every misguided thing that a Muslim said, intellectual discussion would be stifled.
>As for dimissing the Ikhwani as Modernist, you are missing the point as regarding the context that they were formulated in.
>Many Ikhawani in the Middle East have suffered in a manner which I pray Allah swt spares us all from, just for the right to practice the basic elements of their deen.
I'm well aware of the origins of the Ikhwan. However, the suffering that some of them might have gone through was certainly less severe, and less threatening to Islam as a whole, than what the first generation of Muslims went through...and many other generations of Muslims, for that matter. However, and this is a key point, please realize that such suffering is no excuse for adopting unacceptable scholarly positions. Sure, depending on circumstances, some things my necessarily have to be overlooked or some laxity permitted, but to portray some of these very liberal views as Islamically correct is the problem.
>Above all, this post just comes across as "Nah-Nah, my sheikh is better then yours". Especially with your categorisation of "wimpy" for those who disagree.
Well I'll borrow your accusation here and say that "you are missing the point", since the point here is that the overwhelming majority of the scholars of Ahl al-Sunnah are right and, where another Shaykh disagrees with them, he is wrong. We judge the man by the Sunnah, not the Sunnah by the man.
>Finally, I would like to conclude with the fact it that the men in the post are both brothers in Islam.
Absolutely. And I'm sure both of them are aware of that. I certainly don't doubt this fact.
>Insha Allah, 5 times a day they prostrate to Allah swt, just as a we do. In world controlled by those who do not know the light and beauty of submitting to Allah swt, why waste time insulting and attacking those who do.
So are you implying that scholars who have struggled their whole lives to defend the correct beliefs of Islam were wasting their time? Although you may not realize it, Muslim scholars have been engaged in pointing out, addressing and correcting incorrect beliefs since the very beginning of Islam. It you find all of this distasteful, feel free to stay out of it. That's certainly a wise course of action in some ways. However, please don't try to misconstrue what's going on here until you're really informed about what's going on. However, your advice about having better adab is well taken, so thanks for that.
Wasalam,
Abdurrahman R. Squires
Post a Comment
<< Home