On the Direction of Ibn Taymiyya

A few days ago I posted a new animated banner to the top right of this blog, and I hope that all of my readers noticed. It, as well as this post, was meant to serve as my contribution to promoting Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad's latest book, The Refutation of Him (Ibn Taymiyya) Who Attributes Direction to Allah. This is the most recent effort by not only Shaykh Gibril, but many other scholars as well, who are striving to stem the contemporary tide of theological anthropomorphism that self-proclaimed "Salafis", backed by petrodollars, are actively spreading.

In light of the fact that these well-funded activists, craftily hiding under the guise of their deceptively false claim of being the true Ahl al-Sunnah, are having a negative impact on Muslim communities throughout the globe, a translation of this key tract is very timely. Just as it was necessary for a scholar who was a contemporary of Ibn Taymiyya to pen a response to his glaring errors, having a translation of this key work available for those wanting to avoid the errors of those who take their 'aqidah from Pharaoh is of paramount importance in well.

The book in question is a translation of a "short theological tract, Fi Nafi al-Jiha, or On Denying Direction to God, by the Ashari theologian and celebrated Shafi’i jurist, Qadi Ibn Jahbal (d. 733/1333), is a clinical rebuttal of the controversial fatwa, the Aqida Hamawiyya, penned by his legendary contemporary, Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328). It is considered, rightly, a classic manifesto of anti-literalism, which will be an indispensable reference for advanced students of Islamic theology, other professional theologians, and modern academics needing primary source materials in English or a source book on the controversies surrounding Ibn Taymiyya’s theology." The Forward to The Refutation of Him (Ibn Taymiyya) Who Attributes Direction to Allah is written by the honorable Shaykh Muhammad Afifi Al-Akiti and the Table of Contents has been made available on-line as well.

While on the subject of Ibn Taymiyya, I'll mention that I'm currently reading, and very much enjoying, the newly released Cambridge Companion to Classical Islamic Theology. Unsurprisingly, the editor Tim Winter (a.k.a. Abdal-Hakim Murad) has something to say about Ibn Taymiyya in this fascinating intellectual and theological history. After recognizing (on page 7) that "the three great Sunnî theological schools"—yes, that's three and not two—consist of "Ash'arism, Mâturidism and Hanbalism" and mentioning (on page 9) that "extremist Hanbalites" might not necessarily be representative of this theological school as a whole, the noble Shaykh later (page 10) goes on to mention the most well-known proponent of this "extremist" view, Ibn Taymiyya:

"Certainly, it is intriguing that the Hanbalî alternative in most places represented no more than a small fringe, just as the Hanbalî definition of Sharî'a remained the smallest of the rites of law. The iconic hard-line champion of this school, Ibn Taymiyya…is not conspicuous in the catalogues of Islamic manuscript libraries; his current renown is a recent phenomenon. Ibn Taymiyya was, indeed, imprisoned for heresy, a relatively unusual occurrence, and it would be hard to imagine Muslim society, or its rulers or scholars, punishing more philosophical thinkers like Ghazâlî, or Razî, or Taftâzânî, in the same way. 'Hard' Hanbalism offered a simple literalism to troubled urban masses, and occasionally won their violent, riotous support, but the consensus of Muslims passed it by."

This criticism of the "simple literalism" and "corporealism" of the "extremist Hanbalites" needs to be understood in the context of maintaining the "original collective spirit of sancta simplicitas" (page 8), and one also needs to recognize that "Monotheism, however, is never as simple as most of its advocates would wish" (page 6). For anyone familiar with the editor's Contentions 8, his description of "false Salafism" as "an unsuccessful flight from complexity" might well be brought to mind!

I was excited to see that a forthcoming title, edited by Mohammed S. Ahmed and Yosef Rapoport, entitled Ibn Taymiyya and His Times (Oxford University Press, 2008) was referenced...so we'll be looking forward to that, insha'llah.

Those wanting a brief discussion of the theological issue that Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad's new book addresses in detail, please see Allah Exists Without Place or Direction at Sunni Answers...an invaluable resource for responses to the neo-Salafi heresy.

Deen on...

Ibn Taymiyya and Logic

Earlier this month, the Al-Kashif Al-Saghir blog launched an excellent seven part series ([1][2][3][4][5][6][7]) entitled Critiquing a Critique: Shaykh Sa’id Fawda on Ibn Taymiyya and Logic. However, in contrast to this somewhat piecemeal (although very welcomed) effort, Marifah.net has posted a well-crafted 10-page (100 KB) Adobe Acrobat document of the same essay which can be downloaded here. I recommened reading Critiquing a Critique: Shaykh Sa'id Foudah on Ibn Taymiyya and Logic for those wanting to better understand Ibn Taymiyya's somewhat tortured relationship with Aristotelean logic. Those desiring to read even more about this topic, including a translation of some of Ibn Taymiyya's thoughts on Greek logic, should obtain a copy of Ibn Taymiyya Against the Greek Logicians, by Wael B. Hallaq.

Deen on...

Al-Albani - More Wahhabi than the Wahhabis?

A big kufi-tip to MR for posting the text of Al-Albani’s Revolutionary Approach to Hadith (and I purposefully specified "text" since I sure didn't need that picture). This article serves as just another piece of documentation showing that the late Nasr al-Deen al-Albani felt that the overwhelming majority of Muslim scholars since the time of the Salaf—indeed very close to all of them—had gotten Islam all wrong. Due to this, he abandoned not only the traditional methodologies—lock, stock and barrel, but the jama'ah and consensus of the scholars as well...and then he naysayed anyone who disagreed with him. His claim to be "more faithful to the spirit of Wahhabism than ‘Abd al-Wahhab himself" should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with his outlook, since he seemingly believed that almost every Muslim in the Ummah was mixed up and that it was his duty...since he was the one person in 1,300+ years to finally understand Islam correctly...to fix them all.

Needless to say, not only is this approach extraordinarily arrogant (which is just another sign that he didn't study under traditional shuyukh), but incredibly dangerous as well. For those who don't understand why, please start off by reading The Superiority of Fiqh Over Hadith, by Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad, which explains why simply having a knowledge of hadith just doesn't cut it—never has, never will. After that, you should read Shaykh Abdal-Hakim Murad's Understanding The Four Madhhabs: The Problem with Anti-Madhhabism, since it exposes the flawed thinking of those who are against following a proper school of thought (i.e. madhhab). Finally, those wanting more information about al-Albani, should take a look at Al-Albani - Concise Guide to the Chief Innovator of Our Time, since it contains considerable details. For those wanting to know even more, consider purchasing a copy of Albani and His Friends: A Concise Guide to the Salafi Movement, also by Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad.

Deen on...

Anti-Salafi Resources

Over the past few weeks, some noteworthy blog postings have been springing up which are dedicated to exposing the "Salafi" heresy for what it is. Foremost among these, at least as far as newcomers go, is Sunni Answers - Challenging Heresy Head On!, which has been putting out a steady stream of quality content for about a month now, so be sure to check out their Refutations and Q&A sections.

Besides this blog, everyone should be aware of landmark websites like Mas'ud Ahmed Khan's and Living Islam, both of which are chock full of quality writings that not only expose and refute the "Protestant Islam" (a.k.a. "Do-It-Yourself Islam") that we come in contact with so often today, but show the profound wisdom and spiritual depth of traditional Sunni Islam as well.

In addition to these more established and well-known sites, there are up-and-comers like Marifah.net and Seeking Ilm (Knowledge) which continue to produce an amazing amount of quality material. The Aqidah, Fiqh, Qur'an, Hadith and Tasawwuf sections on Marifah.net are all full of interesting content, much of which directly addresses "Wahhabi" and "Salafi" beliefs. Likwise, Seeking Ilm (Knowledge) has an outstanding Heteredoxy section with some very pointed and well-argued articles, including Did Musa Tell Fir’awn (Pharaoh) that Allah was “Up”? I happened to come across this article yesterday, and posted a somewhat lengthy comment on it. As I mention in my comment, it is indeed amazing that some "Salafis" are willing to resort to the ‘aqidah of Pharaoh in order prove their anthropomorphic monotheism.

Another site very worthy if mention is Ustadh Abdullah ibn Hamid Ali's LampPost Productions, which contains a lot of his writings on various subjects. These include Minhaj of the Salaf Regarding the Authentic Sunna, The Absolute Truth About Sunna & Bid'a and Abu Hanifa, Salafis, Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar, and The Truth.

Keep in mind that the above-mentioned websites and weblogs certainly are not meant to represent an exhaustive list, since there are plenty of other authentic Ahl al-Sunnah sites out there with quality anti-"Salafi" material on them.

In this day and age, every Muslim should know the straightforward rule for identifying a heretical sect or cult: They think that they're right and everyone else is wrong. So if you're in a group that has established a separate masjid because mainstream Muslims in your community just aren't "Qur'an and Sunnah" enough, don't care that they're not "on the minhaj", don't foot-jam when they pray and have 'aqeedah [sic] that is all messed up because they don't believe that Allah is "in the sky"...well then you've most likely been duped by an Islamic cult.

Please realize that just because a group claims to be the Ahl al-Sunnah, that doesn't make it so. Indeed, in order for "neo-Salafi" claims to be true, one would have to admit not only that the overwhelming majority of Muslims, but the the overwhelming majority of Muslim scholars as well, were astray for about 1,200 years of Islamic history...and this should disturb any right-thinking Muslim with a sound heart. However, this seemingly doesn't bother many self-proclaimed "Salafees" [sic]. It's well-known that they believe luminous and illustrious sages like Imam al-Nawawi, Imam al-Ghazali and Hafiz Ibn Hajar al-Asqalani didn't even understand the basics of Islamic monotheism...and may Almighty God save us from being among those who backbite the scholars on such a grand scale! Likewise, please save us from being amongst those who think that fourteen centuries of Muslim scholarship never really figured out how to pray in the "authentic" Prophetic manner until the autodidact and non-traditionally trained hadith "scholar" Nasr al-Din al-Albani wrote his Sifat Salat al-Nabi—salla Allahu `alayhi wa salam!

Deen On...

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...

Be in the Know...With Marifah.net

The other day I came across a hot new traditional Islamic site which promises to rank right up there with Masud.co.uk and Living Islam due to its excellent collection of articles exposing the errors of the so-called "Salafis". The site is called Marifah.net, and they have sections covering Aqidah, Fiqh, Hadith and Tasawwuf.

I've already printed and read most of the articles on the site, and while in some cases similar content can be found elsewhere, quite a few of the articles are original translations previously unavailable in English (at least as far as I know). I especially enjoyed Assessment of the Division of Tawhid into Uluhiyya and Rububiyya since it very effectively deconstructs and exposes the errors of both Ibn Taymiyyah and Muhammad Ibn 'Abd al-Wahhab (from whose name the "Wahhabi" eponym is derived).

Insha'llah, this article will be of great value to those Muslims who have been duped by the "Salafi" misuse and abuse of Qur'anic verses relating to the beliefs of the pagan Arabs and other idolaters. This is especially because, to the uninformed, the "Salafi" explanation of these verses often seems to make sense, as does their applying these same Qur'anic verses to the practices of Muslims who (allegedly) "worship saints and tombs." Unfortunately for the "Salafis" there's another view that all thinking Muslims need to consider, and that's the view of the Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah...which is exactly what the article in question sheds some light on. So all the Muslims out there, especially converts in the West, who have concluded that the "Salafi" 'aqîdah, including their three types of tawhîd, is beyond reproach...well stand by for a shock.

As Assessment of the Division of Tawhid into Uluhiyya and Rububiyya ably shows, there are plenty of Qur'anic verses that simply do not fit into the narrow interpretations of the "Salafis"—who are ironically adhering to an understanding that came about long after the time of the true Salaf, as the article makes clear:

"Their view that tawhîd divides into uluhiyya and rububiyya was unheard of before Ibn Taymiyya and is unimaginable as you shall soon learn. The Messenger of Allah—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—did not say to anyone who accepted Islam ‘there are two tawhîds, and unless you single out Allah in uluhiyya you are not a Muslim’ and neither did he demonstrate this in a single discourse and this was not heard from a single member of the salaf who they [the followers of Ibn Taymiyya and Ibn `Abdul Wahhab] boast of following in everything."

This erudite exposé goes on to demonstrate that, as always, the understanding of the Ahl al-Sunnah agrees with all of the textual evidence, not just a few conveniently selected Qur'anic verses which are subjected to hermeneutical distortion.

Not only that—and possibly more importantly—the article addresses head-on the "Salafi" (i.e. Wahhabi) claim that the pagan Arabs were monotheists in tawhid al-Rubuiyya, since they had only "one Lord", but polytheists in tawhid al-Uluhiyya’ since they worshipped idols. I encourage anyone who has bought into, or been bamboozled by, this "Salafi" distortion of the Qur'anic text to read and reflect on the proofs in this article, since they clearly demonstrate that the "Salafi" construct is haphazard and untenable. This is of utmost importance in these trying times when the Muslim Ummah, already under external attack from all sides, is being internally poisoned by a narrow, divisive and intolerant brand of Islam that not only imprudently brands large numbers of Muslims as disbelievers, but implies that the overwhelming majority of Muslim scholars were misguided for the overwhelming majority of Islamic history. Once this is realized and understood, it's easy to see why the Salafi-Wahhabi movement has been labeled Neo-Khawarij, since those who adhere to this heresy "took (Qur'anic) verses which were revealed about the disbelievers and applied them to the believers” [related in Sahih al-Bukhari]...so reflect on that.

Insha'llah, there will be a lot more to come from Marifah.net...

The Attributes of God - New from Amal Press

Since I've had it posted as my Book-of-the-Month for some time now, I was determined to write something about The Attributes of God: Ibn al-Jawzi's Daf' Shubah al-Tashbih bi-Akaff al-Tanzih, which has recently been published by Amal Press, before yet another month rolls around. I've been excited about the publication of this book ever since receiving an advanced copy of it to review early in 2006, so I want to do what I can to ensure it gets wider recognition.

This book is much needed in our age and should serve as a treasure for those contemporary Muslims who have been confused by "Salafi"/Wahhabi propaganda efforts. The intent behind the original Daf' Shubah al-Tashbih bi-Akaff al-Tanzih, written by Ibn al-Jawzi roughly eight hundred years ago, was to show the tenuousness (if not outright ridiculousness) of the anthropomorphic 'aqidah that some (but not all!) of his Hanbali contemporaries had fallen into. Insha'llah, this excellent English translation by Ustadh Abdullah bin Hamid Ali will fulfill this same purpose in our age. I just hope that enough copies of this finely presented book find their way into the right hands, since I sincerely feel that there are plenty of truth-seeking minds and honest hearts out there in our communities that have simply been duped by the Saudi-backed calls of "returning to the creed of the Salaf" when in reality they're spending their petrodollars in an attempt to get Muslims to adhere to a creed, spread by a small but vocal group of Hanbalis, which was rejected by the large majority of Muslims scholars. Here's one of my favorite excerpts from The Attributes of God (pages 89-90):

The Twenty-Fourth Hadith

Bukhari and Muslim related in the two Sahihs that Ibn Mas'ud said that, "A Jewish scholar came to the Prophet—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—and then said, 'O Muhammad! Surely God will hold the Heavens on the Day of Resurrection on a finger, the Earth's on a finger, the mountains and the trees on a finger […]' In another narration the wording is "[...] and the water and the soil on a finger. Then He will shake them." So the Messenger of God—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—smiled and then he said: “And they have not considered God according to His true worth (Qur'an 39: 67).”

I would answer this by stating that the apparent reason for the Prophet's smile—salla Allahu 'alayhi wa salam—is [to show his] disapproval [of the Jew's statement]. The Jews liken God to His Creation, and the revelation of the verse is proof of the Messenger's condemnation of such beliefs. Similar in meaning to this hadith is his saying, "Verily the hearts of the children of Adam are between two of the fingers of the All-Merciful One. He turns them about however He pleases." Since the heart between two fingers is tractable and subdued, this indicates that the one who turns them about subjugates hearts. But, Qadi [Abu Ya'la] said, “It is not wrong to hold and understand the report according to its outward meaning in affirming fingers as Attributes that refer back to the Divine Essence, since we do not affirm fingers that are limbs and parts.”

This is the statement of a confused person, because he is either to affirm limbs or he is to interpret it. As for understanding and holding them on their outward meanings, their outward meanings are limbs. Then he says, “But they are not parts.” So this is the statement of one who stands while sitting down. So the comments of whoever states this are spoiled.

Yes, this is the statement of “one who stands while sitting down” indeed, so hopefully reading and reflecting on this text will help some of our contemporary Muslim brothers and sisters—those who have bought into the so-called "Salafi" claims without ever hearing the view of the mainstream Ahl al-Sunnah wa al-Jama'ah—see through the misinformation and confusion.

The biography of Ibn al-Jawzi, the author of the Arabic original, is given as follows: "Ibn al-Jawzi al-Qurashi al-Taymi al-Bakri al-Baghdadi al-Hanbali (509/510-597) was, with Shaykh 'Abd al-Qadir al-Gilani, the Imam of H.anbalis and foremost orator of kings and commoners in his time, whose gatherings reportedly reached one hundred thousand, a hadith Master, philologist, commentator of Qur'an, expert jurist, physician, and historian of superb character and exquisite manners." The text in question, Daf' Shubah al-Tashbih bi-Akaff al-Tanzih, is actually a shorter version of his much more detailed Kitab Akhbar As-Sifat, which has also been translated into English and published as: A Medieval Critique of Anthropomorphism: Ibn Al-Jawzi's Kitab Akhbar As-Sifat. However, as with most texts published by Brill Academic Press, this book is prohibitively expensive since it lists at $169! For the sake of accuracy, please be aware that it is actually 446 pages in length, not 2229 as shown on Amazon.com—which I know since my local university library has a copy.

I should also mention that Ustadh Abdullah bin Hamid Ali has an outstanding lecture which discusses and critiques the flawed methodology of contemporary so-called "Salafis", especially in regards to their approach to fiqh (jurisprudence) , which is now available on CD from his Lamppost Productions website. I encourage anyone who is unaware of the methodological shortcomings of "Reformist" and "Do-It-Yourself" Islamic movements to purchase a copy of this reasonably-priced CD.

Deen On...

Some Valuable Answers from Shaykh Gibril Haddad

I recently obtained a portion of a dialogue in which Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad responded to a series of questions put to him by a concerned Muslim in the United Kingdom. The questioner was seeking clarification to some statements that he'd came across by one of the U.K.'s extremist neo-Khawarij groups. I've posted portions of this valuable exchange below and, for our reader's benefit, I've spruced it up a bit—which included correcting some spelling errors, coloring the text of Shaykh Gibril's responses maroon and inserting parenthetical translations of some of the Arabic terminology.

---

Questioner:
(1) Concerning the Muslim rulers: can so-and-so be
called kaffir (i.e. disbeliever) based on his non-implementation of shari`a (i.e. Islamic Law) and his allowing of riba (i.e. interest) and other anti-Islamic laws?

Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad:
Yazid drank wine and killed dozens of sahaba; he was not called a disbeliever but dissolute and depraved, i.e. fasiq.

Questioner:
(2) "So-and-so's non-implementation of shari`a goes to show that whilst he has the ability to implement this law, he is denying it by not implementing it in the holy lands of Hijaz." Is this a valid statement?

Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad:
No, it is invalid both logically and legally.

Questioner:
(3) Where do we stand with regards to voting in a government which is responsible for the bombing of Islamic nations such as Iraq, Afghanistan and others? Does voting in itself constitute shirk (i.e. idolatry) or kufr (i.e. disbelief) for we are voting in a man-made system and "kufr laws"?

Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad:
Voting in a man-made system and kufr laws no more constitutes shirk or kufr than obeying man-made traffic laws in the same system. More than that, if voting empowers one to promote the lesser of two evils then it is an obligatory act according to the Shari`a.

Questioner:
(4) Where do we stand with regard to court hearings and arbitration and judgement according to "kufr law"?

Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad:
The same place we stand with regard to righteously and lawfully promoting right and truth everywhere inasmuch as we can.

Questioner:
(5) "Following the law of the land" - to what extent do we obey such a statement?

Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad:
To the extent countenanced by the Shari`a, which recognizes: [1] the validity of non-Muslim laws, especially those which are based on heavenly Scriptures; and [2] the fact that "the law of the land" is motivated by the protection of populations from inequity and crime.

Questioner:
(6) Are we living in Dar al-Harb?

Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad:
Shaykh Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti confirmed to me the view that at the present time there is nowhere on the face of the earth a declared state of war between any two respectively Muslim and non-Muslim states.

Questioner:
(7) The hadith, "one who dies without pledging alliegence to the khaleef dies a death of ignorance," is presented by these groups to show that the Muslim masses are in a state of jahiliyya (i.e. pre-Islamic ignorance) for they do not giving bay'ah (i.e. oath of allegience) to their khaleef (i.e. Caliph - the legitimate Muslim ruler). What is the tafsir (i.e. commentary) on this from a scholarly perspective?

Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad:
The meaning of this hadith according to the Salaf and the 'Ulama is "one who dies without recognizing the caliph to whom the Jama`a of the Muslims have pledged their loyalty", such as in the case of the Khulafa al-Rashidin, the Jama`a being defined as the Sawad al-'Azam (i.e. the masses of the Muslims). There is neither such a Caliph, nor such a jama`a, in our time.

Questioner:
These ideas, as extreme as they appear, have a significant hold on people. So much so that stealing from non-Muslims has been declared as halal (i.e. lawful) under the concept that the lands of UK and US are Dar ul-Harb (i.e. a land generally at war with Muslims), and fraudulent transactions have been legalised under their law in the name of "Islam".

Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad:
Such are thieves who are passible of the full brunt of the law, as well as depraved innovators if not kuffar for misrepresenting the haram as halal and vice-versa.

Questioner:
Somebody needs to stand up and defend the pure and pristine
deen (i.e. religion) brought to us by Sayyidina Muhammad ('alahimus salam), but how is this possible with the lack of scholarship in these lands?

Shaykh Gibril F. Haddad:
"Somebody"? Rather, every person of sound mind and belief. It is just another false notion that one needs to be a scholar to stand for what is right, while the rest scratch their heads before sheepishly joining the line that ends at the slaughtering-block.

Moreover, a Muslim in a non-Muslim state, in the eyes of the Shari`a, is never more than a guest even if he is a voting, tax-paying, and even a born citizen in the eyes of that state.

Since before the fall of the Ottoman Sultanate, politicized Muslims, across the spectrum from modernists to purists, have consistently preferred to adopt un-Islamic strategies of power politics rather than what the Shari`a commanded. Any call to a return to Khilafa (i.e. rule of all Muslim lands by a single Caliph) by the very products of those philosophies is a masterpiece of hypocrisy.

---

Since, based on what I've seen, some of the above mentioned ideas are rather widespread amongst various portions of our Ummah, I pray that posting these insightful responses will be of some use, insha'llah. Indeed, I pray that "every person of sound mind and belief" takes these answers to heart and avoids "sheepishly joining the line that ends at the slaughtering-block".

Deen On...

Saleel.com — Exposing the Heresy of Our Age

I recently came across a nice website called Saleel.com which contains quite a few articles related to taqlid (i.e. trusting in the opinions of qualified scholars), following a madhhab (i.e. school of Islamic law) and various errors of the so-called "Salafis". Although the site contains some of the well-known articles on these subjects from the Masud Khan and other websites, quite a few of the articles are not so well-known.

Indeed, I don't recall ever seeing close to a dozen of the articles which Saleel.com has under the category of "Salafis"—or if I have seen them previously, it's been awhile. So in order to share this wealth of useful knowledge, I'll let my readers know that the titles to some of the articles that I found most interesting include Taqleed, The Legal Status of Following a Madhab, Taqleed or Following an Imam in the Matters of Shari‘ah, Salafiyya, The Feet In Salaat - The Salafi Error, The Deception of the Devious Salafis, A Note on the Absurd Fatwa of al-Albani Regarding Palestine, Al-Albani - A Concise Guide to the Chief Innovator of Our Time, Verdict on Taqleed and the exquisitely titled Asking for "Evidences" is a Clear Daleel of Your Ignorance.

Enjoy and Deen On...

The Salafis and Their Kalam, Kalam, Kalam....

Sidi Abdullah bin Hamid Ali has posted two very worthwhile 'aqida-related articles on the Lamppost Productions website. One is entitled The Speech and Word of Allah (Kalam): In Light of Traditional Discussions, and it discusses the issue of Kalam Allah and the uncreatedness of the Qur'an. Of special interest in this article is the inclusion of some statements by a couple of noted "Salafi" scholars in which they speculate about Kalam Allah and it's relationship to His essence, attributes, and actions—thus ironically engaging in the kalam (a.k.a. speculative theology) that they so often condemn in rather absolute terms.

The other new text is Abu Hanifa, Salafis, Al-Fiqh Al-Akbar, and The Truth, and in this one Sidi Abdullah takes on the "Salafis" head-on and demonstrates that in some cases, they're conveniently trying to have their cake and eat it too. Not only do the "Salafis" adhere to some convenient double-standards when it comes to the question of the attributive authority of al-Fiqh al-Akbar and Abu al-Hasan al-Ash'ari's al-Ibaanah, but they add words to the words of the Salaf in order to impose their own anthropomorphic views on them...and may Almighty God save us from all that.

In my mind, all of this just confirms what Shaykh Abdal-Hakim Murad asserts in Contentions 8, which is that Salafism is "an unsuccessful flight from complexity". Ouch!

It was a pleasure finding both of these articles, and I've taken the liberty to convert The Speech and Word of Allah article to Adobe Acrobat format, since downloading Microsoft Word files usually makes me a bit nervous.

Deen On...

The Fitna of Takfir and Kharijism

The following, which is an excerpt from Shaykh Gibril Haddad's New Kharijism, is well worth reading:

---

Since the fall of the Ottoman Caliphate in 1924, the only manifestation of Kharijism to remain is the declaring of Muslims apostate. The exercise of takfîr and tashrîk are therefore the chief marks by which neo-Kharijis can be recognized in our time. They are those who address the Muslims with the shouts and libels of kâfir! mushrik! kufr! bid`a! shirk! harâm! ("apostate," "polytheist," "unbelief," "innovation," "idolatry," "forbidden") without proof nor justification other than their own vain lusts - and without solution other than exclusionism and violence against anyone that disagrees with them.

They satisfy their consciences that such charges may carry capital punishment in Islam and so make light of the sanctity of life and the honor of their brethren. As Shaykh al-Islam said: "Extremists are fanatic zealots who exceed bounds in words and deeds" and "bigots" [Imam Al-Nawawi, Sharh Sahih Muslim (16:220 and 7:214)].

So, to perpetrate takfîr of the Muslims today makes one a Khariji, regardless whether one calls oneself Sunni, "Salafi," Ash`ari, Shi`i, Sufi, or Ibadi.

The chief brand of New Kharijism distinguishes itself by three main principles which we may call their Usul al-Thalatha `inda al-Khawarij al-Jadida:

1.) Tajsîm al-Ma'bûd: Attributing a body to the object of Islamic worship, i.e. anthropomorphism of the Deity.

2.) Adhâ al-Mustafâ: Harming the Prophet through disrespect of his noble person, Mosque, grave, vestiges, Family and Companions, those who visit, love, and praise him; and disparaging or disdaining his intercessor-status.

3.) Tafkîk Madhâhib al-A'imma: Dismantlement of the Schools and methods of the Sunni Imams of the Muslims past and present including:

(a) The Imams of Sunni doctrine ('aqîda): al-Ash`ari and al-Maturidi, and their Schools. (b) The Imams of Sunni jurisprudence (fiqh): Abu Hanifa, Malik, al-Shafi'i, Ahmad, and their Schools or madhâhib, sing. madhhab. (c) The Imams of Sunni morals (akhlâq) known as the Poles (aqtâb, sing. qutb) of the science of soul-purification (tasawwuf): al-Junayd, al-Gilani, al-Shadhili, al-Rifa`i, al-Jishti, al-Suhrawardi, Shah Naqshband, al-Tijani, and their Schools, known as Paths (turuq, sing. tarîqa).

Since all sincere Muslims are "People Who Hold That Allah is Transcendent" (Ahl al-Tanzîh) and are people who love their Prophet , it follows that this third principle - dismantlement of Sunni Schools - is by far the most harmful tenet of New Kharijism in our time and its most devastating achievement.

This dismantlement has polluted pure belief with nagging doubts in our pious Muslim Predecessors (al-Salaf al-Sâlih) and a general arrogant rejection of Islamic authority resulting in libeling whoever follows a madhhab a "blind follower" (muqallid a'mâ), whoever adheres to the Sunni Ash`ari creed a "Jahmi nullifier of the Divine Attributes" (mu'attil), and whoever follows a Sufi path, a "shaykh-worshipping grave-lover" (turuqî qubûrî)!

These despicable labels are all the more ironic in light of the fact that it is usually those who apply them who are more aptly characterized by what they pretend to blame. Thus, they accuse us of blind-following but are themselves immersed up to their necks in the blind-following of innovators such as al-Albani who confessed not having memorized the Book of Allah nor a single book of hadith; Ibn Baz the mufti of flip-flops, al-Jaza'iri who decided who goes to Paradise and who goes to Hell, and countless others of those the Prophet warned us about in the hadith of "the minor scoundrels"!

---

The rest of this important article can be read here.

BOOK: Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad

Today, when doing some searches on Amazon.com, a book entitled Wahhabi Islam: From Revival and Reform to Global Jihad happened to catch my eye. Based on the use of the word "Wahhabi" in the title, which is usually perceived to be a derogatory appellation, I first expected the book to be an anti-Wahhabi tract from the same genre as Wahhabism: A Critical Essay, by Hamid Algar—which is currently the Mere Islam Book-of-the-Month. However, after reading two ([1][2]) fairly lengthy and detailed reviews of this relatively new (June 2004) book, I realized that it is nothing but Saudi-funded propaganda masquerading as scholarship.

Indeed, the real value in finding this book on Amazon.com was finding the two scathing reviews of it, both of which were submitted by critics who certainly seem to know their stuff. This is especially true of Zubair Qamar's review, in which he calls Natana Delong-Bas' bluff in a very pointed way.

After initially labeling the book as a work of "Pseudo-scholarship", Zubair Qamar moves on to ask, "Could the portrayal of Wahhabism as intolerant and fanatical by hundreds, maybe thousands, of Muslim and non-Muslim scholars, authors, activists, students, etc. in 200+ years past be flawed? Should their positions be construed merely as a load of sophisticated/polemical gobbledygook?" These are key questions in this debate, so in spite of them being somewhat obvious, it shouldn't surprise us that they need to be asked. This is because Natana J. Delong-Bas' desire to sidestep and avoid the weighty voice of hundreds of years of diverse criticism of Wahhabism is no less outrageous than Muhammad Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's own break with well over a thousand years of Sunni Muslim scholarship—thinking he was right and the overwhelming majority of Sunni scholars for most of Islamic history were wrong.

Zubair Qamar's review moves on to disassemble and expose the flawed methodology of Delong-Bas' Wahhabi Islam, including its illogical reliance on pro-Wahhabi sources. Of this absurdity, he rightly asks: "But what makes the sources of two Wahhabi supporters more accurate than the works of Wahhabi opponents? While the former are closer in time to Ibn Abd al-Wahhab, they are his biased supporters. The latter, however, though further away in time from the Wahhabi founder's period of existence, may - and indeed, do - have accurate information, especially on how Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's teachings contradicted the teachings that orthodox Sunni Muslims had been following for over 1,000 years."

It's this final point, already touched on above, that is really the key characteristic and flaw of the nascent Wahhabi movement. Yes, the Wahhabis (a.k.a. "Salafis"), in spite of their puerile claims that they are following a purified form of Sunni Islam which is based on the Qur'an and Sunnah, have certainly broken with "the teachings that orthodox Sunni Muslims had been following for over 1,000 years". It's unfortunate in the extreme that more Muslims are not aware of this and are unable to see through the devious Wahhabi smoke screen of slogans and methodological gimmicks that not only breaks with normative Sunni belief and practice, but by implication slanders the upstanding and rightly-guided majority of Sunni scholarship from our intellectually rich past.

Seemingly in the interest of providing some concrete examples, Zubair Qamar includes the following description of both how the Wahhabis differ from mainstream Sunni Islam and a succinct but valuable insight into their flawed reasoning: "For example, Delong-Bas provides Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's interpretations of intercession (tawassul) in his "Kitab al-Tawhid" without stating that he contradicted many verses of the Qur'an, hadeeth, and interpretations provided by Sunni orthodox scholars (ulema) throughout the history of Islam (except Ibn Taymiyah and his followers who were the first to deviate from mainstream Sunni Islam on the issue). With an unorthodox interpretation of a genuinely valid Islamic practice, Ibn Abd al-Wahhab accuses the vast lot of Muslims who do 'tawassul' of committing polytheism (shirk) -- the only unforgivable sin in Islam. He then allows his followers to massacre them, believing that they are doing a very noble deed and following the footsteps of the Prophet Muhammad when, in fact, they are doing exactly the opposite." Exactly the opposite indeed, thus not much else needs to be said here other than restating that I wish more Muslims were aware of these facts.

In concluding his review, Zubair Qamar asks: "How, then, can Ibn Abd al-Wahhab's biography, as presented in Delong Bas's book, be taken seriously by any objective scholar? It cannot." So based on that, don't waste your money on this piece of Saudi propaganda, but pick up a copy of Hamid Algar's Wahhabism: A Critical Essay instead.

Deen On...

Wahhabis Shouldn't Be Allowed To Own Bulldozers

Perhaps I should warn you that the excerpts below are very painful to read, if not outright enraging. They all come from the following article, which was originally published in The Independent (UK), which you can read by clicking on the title below:

The Destruction of Mecca
Saudi hardliners are wiping out their own heritage
by Daniel Howden
August 6th, 2005 -- The Independent (UK)

Here are some of the more relevent and disturbing portions of the article -- and all of the ones containing double quotation marks are statements of Dr. Sami Angawi. Read them and -- quite literally -- weep:

---

"Historic Mecca, the cradle of Islam, is being buried in an unprecedented onslaught by religious zealots."

"Almost all of the rich and multi-layered history of the holy city is gone."

"...95 per cent of millennium-old buildings have been demolished in the past two decades."

"...as few as 20 structures are left that date back to the lifetime of the Prophet 1,400 years ago and those that remain could be bulldozed at any time."

"'What we are witnessing are the last days of Mecca and Medina.'"

"The motive behind the destruction is the Wahhabists' fanatical fear that places of historical and religious interest could give rise to idolatry..."

"'At the root of the problem is Wahhabism...They have a big complex about idolatry and anything that relates to the Prophet.'"

"The Wahhabists now have the birthplace of the Prophet in their sights."

"Most of the buildings have suffered the same fate as the house of...the grandson of the Prophet...After its discovery, King Fahd ordered that it be bulldozed before it could become a pilgrimage site."

"On the tailcoats of the religious zealots have come commercial developers keen to fill the historic void left by demolitions with lucrative high-rises."

"'They are removing any historical landmark that is not Saudi-Wahhabi, and using the prime location to make money.'"

"'Mecca should be the reflection of the multicultural Muslim world, not a concrete parking lot.'"

"Whereas proposals for high-rise developments in Jerusalem have prompted a worldwide outcry and the Taliban's demolition of the Bamiyan buddhas was condemned by Unicef, Mecca's busy bulldozers have barely raised a whisper of protest."

"'The house where the Prophet received the word of God is gone and nobody cares,' says Dr Angawi. 'I don't want trouble. I just want this to stop.'"

---

All Muslims should want this to stop.

This is the second blog entry on this subject in the past several months, the first one being Historic Sites in Makkah Threatened. Please take the time during Ramadan to make some du'a that these idiotic crimes come to an end!

Deen On...

"Monkey See, Monkey Do" - Not An Islamic Ideal

The other day, a friend mentioned that a fellow Muslim had declared that we should be careful about condemning the recent massacre of innocent schoolchildren in Russia by so-called "Islamic militants" because "some scholars" have issued "fatwas" (non-binding legal opinions) that such operations are sometimes acceptable under Islamic Law. They then referenced part of a Qur'anic verse which basically means, "… then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him." (Qur'an 2:194). Essentially, this is the age old "an eye for an eye" legal maxim that dates back to not just the Old Testament, but to the Code of Hammurabi as well. While this maxim might be rightfully employed in individual cases of justice, using it to justify mass murder and collective punishment is quite a stretch. Being informed that a Muslim in my community adhered to such shoddy logic rather shocked and disgusted me even though I'm well aware of the half-baked and ethically shallow justifications of suicide bombing espoused by some Muslims. In spite of that, being ambivalent about the massacre of inn