Imam Zaid Shakir - Answer to a “Salafi” Brother

Below is a link to an exciting "must read" article which was (originally) posted on Imam Zaid Shakir's New Islamic Directions site:

Answer to a “Salafi” Brother
by Imam Zaid Shakir

In this article, Imam Zaid answers four questions that were posed to him by a so-called "Salafi" brother that "hounded" him at a recent event. The questions are: What do you say about Ibn Taymiyya?, What does Tariqa mean?, What is your position of the Hadith of the Seventy-three sects?, and What do you say about the Ash’aris?

It's in answering this final question that Imam Zaid drops a huge bomb—a proof so sound and profound that "Salafism" is simply crushed under the formidable weight of it. For the benefit of my readers, here's the key paragraph:

Are the Ash’aris to be considered “deviants?” I think the best answer to that question is provided by the Prophet, peace upon him, himself. He said, “Constantinople will be conquered—what an excellent army is that conquering army! And what an excellent commander is its commander!” This hadith is related by Imam Hakim in al-Mustadrak and is affirmed by Imam adh-Dhahabi, which is a clear indication of its soundness (I am aware of al-Albani’s rejection of this hadith. However, his rejection does not negate Imam ad-Dhahabi’s affirmation). This hadith is understood by the scholars to be a reference to Muhammad al-Fatih, the great Turkish general. Hence, the Prophet is praising an individual who is Ash’ari in creed, a Qadiri Sufi, and an adherent to the Hanafi School of jurisprudence, along with his army, most of whom had the same affiliations. There can be no higher mark of approval for the acceptability of Ash’arism, Tasawwuf (that is consistent with the divine law), and adhering to a Madhhab. Surely, Allah knows best.

Case closed. That's it. If "Salafism" was ever exposed as being Islamically and intellectually untenable in one quick proof, there you have it.

Please take note that at the beginning of the article Imam Zaid says, "I am traveling and answering from my head so a few minor mistakes might appear, please forgive me for those"...and this is a good thing, since he did make one minor and inconsequential slip. This is the fact that Muhammad al-Fatih, the conquerer of Constantinople, was a Maturidi in 'aqidah, not an Ash'ari. However, this doesn't undermine the point being made, since not only are both of the Orthodox Sunni schools of Islamic creed nearly identical with one another, but they are both condemned as heretical by so-called "Salafis". Unfortunately for them, a great Muslim leader who adhered to one of these schools has been Prophetically (and thus Divinely) endorsed! Khalas. Done deal. C'est fini.

Deen on...

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-Qaradawi
by G.F. Haddad - Sha`ban 1428 (August 2007)
http://www.livingislam.org/k/yq_e.html

Personally, 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.

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...

Ninety Years Since Balfour...

Media Monitors has an interesting, although somewhat disjointed and sarcastic, article which provides some great background information for the upcoming Middle East Peace conference scheduled to begin shortly in Annapolis, Maryland...a conference that was seemingly (?) scheduled to roughly coincide with the 90th anniversary of the Balfour Declaration of 1917. Some of the quotations in the article are real eye-openers, so it's certainly worth a read.

Annapolis, November 27, 2007:
Only Fools Believing in Miracles Rush In Land
for Peace or Land--Piece by Piece by Piece

This reminds me that I once heard that (and this was years ago), upon being asked whether they would formally recognize the State of Israel, Palestinian negotiators replied: "Define the State of Israel"—which obviously put the Zionists in the precarious position of having to answer the one question that is now at the heart of this conflict: What are the borders of the Zionist state? If they had said it includes the West Bank and Gaza, well they would have defied the U.N., almost every country in the world...thus the Palestinians could have just walked away and gained at least a moral and diplomatic victory (assuming that media coverage was fair...which it never is). However, if the Israelis said that the State of Israel constitutes only its pre-1967 borders, and thus promised to adhere to United Nations Security Council Resolution 242, then the Palestinians would have won the justice that they've so long been denied! So whether this story is apocryphal or not, the point behind it is quite solid: Demand that Israel define its borders before asking to be recognized. This will be one giant step towards ending the confusion and the conflict...but don't hold your breath.

Deen on...

Yet Another Gem by Sherman Jackson

Professor Sherman A. Jackson (Professor of Arabic and Islamic Studies, Visiting Professor of Law, The University of Michigan. Ph.D., University of Pennsylvania; M.A. University of Pennsylvania; B.A., University of Pennsylvania) has produced yet another piece of intellectual fruit to be savored:

Literalism, Empiricism, And Induction:
Apprehending And Concretizing Islamic Law’s
Maqâsid Al-Sharî’ah In The Modern World
by Sherman A. Jackson

Just like the introduction to his translation of Imam al-Ghazali's Faysal al Tafriqa, entitled On the Boundaries of Theological Tolerance in Islam in English, and his rebuttal to Khaled Abou El Fadl in his essay entitled Islam(s) East and West: Pluralism between No-Frills and Designer Fundamentalism (published in September 11 in History: A Watershed Moment?), this short paper is also chock-full of wisdom. As usual, the synthesis is amazing, as is the light that he sheds, from an Islamic perspective, on oft-overlooked points.

For those who haven't read On the Boundaries of Theological Tolerance in Islam, well please know that the world would be a much better place if every Muslim read and reflected upon this small tome. Likewise, if you're looking for a vision on where Islam in America should be going and how to fix some of the major problems that Muslims face in this country, look no further than Dr. Jackson's Islam and the Blackamerican: Looking toward the Third Resurrection...but don't forget to read the article. Although the latter book discusses the history and dynamics of "Blackamerican" religion, the advice Professor Jackson gives very much applies to Muslims of all backgrounds.

Enjoy...

O'Reilly Shamefully Ignorant of the Bible

It should come as no surprise that Islamophobe and Fox News commentator Bill O'Reilly recently made it obvious that he is painfully ignorant of the Bible. Not only is this brand of scriptural ignorance par for the course for many Catholics, but it also is a warning sign for those who think it's worthwhile to listen to the patently ignorant opinions of bigoted "talking heads" in the mainstream media. As Thomas Jefferson said, "The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers"—thus watching television news must be even worse.

The details of O'Reilly's recent case of foot-in-mouth disease are discussed in "Culture Warrior" O'Reilly, who chided Dean over Book of Job misidentification, says Revelation "was written—what? Five thousand years ago?"—which is just another very worthwhile contribution by the Media Matters for America website. Keep in mind that Bill O'Reilly really looks like a hypocrite on this one since, as the previous title mentions, he once belittled Democratic presidential candidate Howard Dean for being ignorant of the Bible!

Yes, it seems that O'Reilly did not have any idea that the Book of Revelation (a.k.a. the Apocalypse of John), which is the last canonical book in the Christian New Testament, was written only in the first century of the Common Era. One would think that someone with a degree in history, as O'Reilly does, as well as a mere schoolboy's knowledge of the Bible, would be able to do some quick math and determine that Revelation was written about 1,900 years ago, not 5,000 (i.e. it's now the year 2007 and the book was written 60 to 100 years after Jesus). However, the fact that O'Reilly said, "Five thousand years ago" just shows how painfully ignorant he is. After reading this, I think I need to start a new blog category called Biblical Ignorance, which will include this posting as well as English in Jesus' Time?—A Glaring Anachronism.

The other aspect of O'Reilly's statement on this matter that I found disturbing, although unsurprising, was his simplistic and uncritical acceptance of the claim that the Book of Revelation discusses, if not predicts, the current events in the Middle East...which O'Reilly calls "interesting" (and if you want to read a scathing and critical rebuttal to the claims of Biblical prophecy, read this). Personally, what I find both "interesting" and disturbing is that books and authors who are critical of this Bible-based apocalyptic outlook do not get more air time. As I mentioned in Forcing God's Hand With Three Sixes, which also discusses some textual problems related to the Book of Revelation, I continue to be fascinated by the fact "that otherwise intelligent people are still being duped by the shallow and simple-minded proofs of Biblical prophecy." Yes, the uncritical acceptance of half-baked theology fascinates me, but the fact that for a long time now these views, held my millions of uncritical pew-warmers in the United States, are having a profound impact on not only U.S. foreign policy, but on domestic policies (including freedom of religion) within this country, really disturbs me. On that note, those who are interested should take a look at Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, by Michelle Goldberg (a long review can be found here), On the Road to Armageddon: How Evangelicals Became Israels Best Friend, by Timothy P. Weber, Christian Zionism: Road-Map to Armageddon?, by Stephen R. Sizer, and the already mentioned Forcing God's Hand: Why Millions Pray for a Quick Rapture—and Destruction of Planet Earth, by Grace Halsell (with an off-site review here).

Remember, as Norman O. Brown wrote when discussing the power apocalyptic and eschatological imagery of the Qur'an, "eschatology can break out at any moment"...

Interview with Norman Finkelstein

Below is a link to a recent Islamica Magazine interview with Norman Finkelstein, a "prolific scholar and outstanding teacher", who was recently denied tenure and put on administrative leave by DePaul University after scandalous, and ultimately successful, efforts initiated by Professor Alan Dershowitz not only brought about a grave injustice, but undermined academic freedom as well. As I touched upon in a previous blog posting, reading in detail about the anti-Finkelstein antics of Dershowitz is well worth the time invested. Not only is the fact that Alan Dershowitz got away with bringing Professor Finkelstein down totally outrageous, but the fact that a Harvard Law professor wrote a book that is "a mixture of plagiarism, shoddy research, and poor scholarship" (as Wahajat Ali puts in in the interview) but still manages to keep his job (although possibly not a very stellar reputation) is mind-boggling. Here's the link to the interview:

Interview with Norman Finkelstein [PDF]
On Islamo-Fascism and Other Vacuous Epithets
By Wajahat Ali - November 20, 2007
http://www.IslamicaMagazine.com/

Information on Dr. Finkelstein's book Beyond Chutzpah: On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and the Abuse of History, in which he exposes the shoddy scholarship of Alan Dershowitz's book The Case for Israel, can be found here. As always, it's eye-opening to read the 1-star reviews of Finkelstein's book on Amazon.com just to get a taste of the myopic criticism that is normally thrown his way, including all of the banal accusations of anti-Semitism (keeping in mind that Norman Finkelstein is himself Jewish and his parents were survivors of Nazi concentration camps during the Holocaust). To fully understand just how misplaced this criticism is, I strongly recommend watching the videos of a lecture given by Dr. Finkelstein entitled Is Criticism of Israel Anti-Semitic?, which can be found here.

For more information related to the Dershowitz-Finkelstein scandal, check out these links ([1], [2], [3]) and well as our previous postings ([1], [2], [3]) related to Norman Finkelstein...as well as this.

Enjoy...