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...

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...

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...

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 innocent schoolchildren seemed to expose a moral depravity that's sunk to all new levels. It's not that this simple-minded and morally confused Muslim was a rabid militant; far from it. What scared me was the fact that they would so quickly and uncritically surrender their morality—indeed their basic human dignity—simply because of the existence of a "fatwa" by some unnamed "scholar".

I'd like to take this opportunity to announce to the ladies and gentlemen of the Muslim Ummah, just in case they haven't heard: We've got a moral and spiritual crisis on our hands. No, it's not a conspiracy theory, a Zionist-Crusader plot or atrocities being carried out by Mossad agents dressed up like Muslims. There's no real need for elaborate conspiracies, since if they want to bomb us, murder us and rape us, the past few decades have shown that they can do this with near impunity in full view of the entire world community. In spite of some grave historical injustices, Muslims must take most, if not all, of the blame for the current crisis and only Muslims can provide a long-term and viable solution to this problem within our house. The time for finger pointing is over. Like it or not, we have militant extremists within our midst who are out there committing the most horrendous acts of barbarity in the name of Islam — and we have far too many Muslims living right under our noses who aren't even sure if such acts are wrong. Indeed, some of them have been bamboozled into thinking such criminal acts are Islamically sanctioned. It's high time that we, as an Ummah, snap out of this Freudian denial stage and start dealing with this problem ourselves. If we don't, somebody is going to do it for us — and it ain't gonna be pretty. Actually, it's gotten ugly already — and a quick look at the headlines being generated by the so-called "War on Terror" should be enough to confirm this.

Let's all take a moment to recognize that being patient with ignorance, humble in the face of stupidity and tolerant of legitimate scholarly differences of opinion are one thing, but endorsing complete moral depravity is quite another. Yes, believe it or not, the mass murder of innocent schoolchildren is completely unlawful in Islam; nothing justifies it. The fact that this even needs to be explained to members of our Ummah speaks volumes about the state we're in. This shouldn't be taken to mean that I'm unaware of the genocide that Russia has been carrying out in Chechnya. Indeed, they've killed far more innocent women and children than Islamic militants ever have. However, the Russians are not our teachers and it's not their example that Muslims are supposed to follow. Our methodology is not "monkey see, monkey do", but rather the unassailable moral high ground of our noble Prophet — may God bless him and grant him peace.

On that note, a discussion of the classical understanding of Qur'an 2:194 is in order, since this is one of the verses that the extremists use to justify their murder and mayhem. No doubt, the first thing we should do when we come across someone using a Qur'anic verse as a blunt instrument is turn to the classical exegesis of the verse and see how qualified Islamic scholars have understood it in the past. It should come as no surprise that neither al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, nor al-Qurtubi, who are three of the greatest scholars of our rich hermeneutical tradition, mention anything in these verses that could be used to justify the acts that were recently committed in Russia. Even a cursory look at Qur'an 2:194 reveals that it essentially provided a dispensation for fighting in the sacred months, months in which fighting was normally forbidden. This verse in no way opens up the door for going to extremes — which is also strongly condemned in Islamic Law — and ignoring God's limits.

It's reckless to assume that a dispensation for fighting under certain conditions negates all of the other Islamically mandated rules of warfare, but this is seemingly what the extremists believe. A much more coherent understanding of this dispensation to fight is that if attacked, one can fight during the sacred months but only in an Islamically lawful way (i.e. no killing of non-combatants, women, children, etc.) Indeed, the Qur'an is quite clear that there are limits that are not to be transgressed (Qur'an 2:190 and 5:87), and these limits are made quite clear in the noble Sunnah. A useful analogy can perhaps be drawn using the verse which allows Muslims to eat the food of the People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians). Upon hearing this Qur'anic ruling, do we assume that all other previously mandated dietary prohibitions are thereby suspended in regards to the food of the People of the Book, so that we can drink their wine and eat their pork? Certainly not. However, this is essentially what the militant Jihadis are doing with Qur'an 2:194.

Not only is their logic flawed, but they seem to lack even a basic understanding of the Prophetic way, which is to be patient while enduring injustice, gentle in the face of harshness and merciful whenever possible. If our methodology in life is just to return the harm of whoever harms us, we're no better than a bunch of animals. Instead of striving to be the "best (religious) community raised up for mankind" (Qur'an 3:110), these days Muslims seem to be struggling to avoid being one of the worst. What happened to the spiritual state (hal) of the Companions, the mere site of whom would cause people to embrace Islam? What happened to the noble chivalry (futuwwa) of Saladin that earned the respect of the Crusaders? What happened to the magnanimity shown upon the conquest of Mecca? If contemporary Muslim Jihadists conquered a disbelieving city, does anyone think for a moment that they'd even consider showing a drop of the mercy that the Prophet — may God bless him and grant him peace — so graciously employed in such abundance? Recent events have clearly demonstrated otherwise. If bloody revenge was ever justified, it was when the young Muslim community was first being established in al-Madinah and the very existence of Islam was at stake. So if barbarity and the killing of non-combatants wasn't justified back then, on what basis could one sincerely believe that it's justified now? Reflect on that…

So what are the limits if this Pandora's Box is opened that says we can do to "them" whatever they do to "us"? If they rape, kill and mutilate our little girls are we going to do the same to theirs? To me it's shocking and despicable that we even have to explain such things to seemingly God-fearing Muslims. We seem to be plagued by a tendency to rip a single Qur'anic verse out of context and then build an entire methodology upon it — complete with simplistic understandings and shallow interpretations. In regards to massacring Russian schoolchildren, ostensibly in revenge for crimes that the Russian government and army have undeniably committed, the Jihadi militants seem to conveniently forget about Qur'an 53:38. This verse establishes a moral principle that is well known in Islam, which is that "no bearer of a burden shall bear the burden of another". Take that into consideration before someone dupes you into thinking that killing innocent people, much less children, can somehow be justified as an act of revenge. Unfortunately, we also have Neanderthal pundits, commentators and non-Muslim religious leaders here in America that endorse the one-sided and baseless Qur'anic interpretations of these Muslim extremists. They want to convince the world, or at least the American people, that such extremist interpretations are inherent to Islam. Once a monolithic Islam is identified as the problem, rather than an aberrant interpretation of it, they can justify their bloody campaigns against a largely innocent Muslim community. Ironically, in adopting the same heretical school of Qur'anic interpretation as Osama Bin Laden, they seek to justify the very atrocities that they claim to abhor—but that's a topic for another day.

No doubt, Muslims are facing a deep spiritual crisis. Islam has been hijacked and turned into an ideology in pursuit of worldly success instead of a religion meant to purify the soul and focus one's life on Almighty God. That's really the jist of it, I feel. The key to winning the so-called "War on Terror" is winning the war on ignorance. By equivocating the "War on Terror" label, I hope it's obvious, based on what's already been stated, that I don't deny that there are "Muslim terrorists" out there. Rather, like many people, I'm rather cynical about the conduct of what so far has been a rather selective war on terrorism. Indeed, a blind-eye is being turned to other great atrocities in the world and problems that cost far more human lives are being ignored. In the hands of ideologues who seemingly believe that military force can solve many of the world's complex problems, the "War on Terror" has been expanded to include not only countries that are seemingly uninvolved, but carried out in gross violation of the very international laws that the terrorists are guilty of violating. Unfortunately, we live in an age where well-intentioned criticism is often considered un-patriotic—especially when coming from a Muslim. Being a good citizenship these days seems to mean shutting up and climbing on the bandwagon. Critical thinking and moral courage seem to be in short supply. Finding a semblance of them is as tough as finding an honest man in Congress. We only hope that our attempts to understand the motives for a crime are never understood to be endorsements of it. In order to develop reasonable, coherent and viable solutions to the plague of ignorance and extremism that we're facing, we need to study the sources, context and motives behind the crimes. Simple solutions are bogus solutions, and most of the tough problems facing the human race can't be solved by using military force.

As a God-fearing and morally upright community, we've got to join together and bring our resources to bear in order to refute with a vengeance these extremist "Protestant Muslims" and their flaky "Do-It-Yourself" religion that has cast aside over 1,400 years of peerless scholarly tradition. In this undertaking, it's crucial that we stay balanced, moderate and true to our blessed tradition. We don't want to come across sounding like a bunch of limp-wristed peaceniks that condemn violence in all forms and preach that Islam only teaches peace. Rather, we need to explain the high moral standards of our faith; that it is a religion that primarily emphasizes not only the infinite mercy of God but encourages mercy between all human beings. Indeed, Islam condemns terrorism, murder, hijacking, kidnapping, taking the law into your own hands and so on. None of this is compromised by the fact that we also have a "Just War" theory which is extremely similiar to the ones advocated not only by various churches, but by international law as well. Our beloved Prophet was sent as a mercy to the worlds (Qur'an 21:107), so we have to save Islam from the reckless few that have made a large part of humanity feel that it's a scourge rather than a blessing.

Pray hard…

The Grammar of 'Aqidah

I can't tell you how happy I was when I came across this entry by the publishers of the Oxford English Dictionary:

Are there words that contain the letter 'q' without a 'u' following it?

The answer is a resounding "Yes!" The reason I mention this is that a few years ago I noticed that several Muslim authors, book publishers and websites (mainly, if not exclusively, of the "Salafi" persuasion) had dispensed with the widely accepted spelling of 'aqidah (i.e. creed / doctrine / dogma) and instead were spelling it 'aqueedah. I was both dumbfounded, embarrassed and frustrated—because now I had even more books that I had to hide from non-Muslims! Keep in mind that the issue here is not their use of the double "e" (which can have its benefits in pronunciation in spite of the fact that it's rather unsightly), nor the use of the terminal "h" to represent a taa marbutah (which I personally prefer simply for distinction's sake). Rather, the issue is their use of "qu" in lieu of a lone "q" to ostensibly represent the Arabic letter qaf.

It seems to me that anyone familiar with the basic rules of English pronunciation would immediately see the flaw in this newfangled spelling of 'aqueedah. Indeed, spelling the word this way renders a pronunciation of akwïda - which comes nowhere near the original Arabic pronunciation. This is due to the fact that when the letters "qu" are used in English (a spelling and pronunciation inherited from Latin), they almost always produce the "kw" sound. A few obvious examples are quick (kwik), quit (kwit) and quart (kwôrt). The only exception to the "kw" pronunciation of "qu" that I'm aware of is the word "queue" (kyü). However, this is a rare exception and only proves what I mention below: that almost all rules of grammar are subject to exceptions.

I recall reading an article on a "Salafi" website, which I am now unable to locate, in which the author did his level best to explain why the letter "q" can only be used with a "u" immediately following. My guess is that some over zealous "Salafi" (who seem to have a knack for learning about a rule—real or alleged, understanding it simplistically, taking it absolutely and then trying to force it on others) was sitting in his English Grammar 101 course when the professor happened to mention that in the English language the letter "q" is never used unless followed by a "u". This well-intentioned "Grammar Wahabi", in his self-righteous zeal, then decided to take it upon himself to demonstrate that everyone else was wrong, while he—armed with his newly found knowledge—was right. How many times have we seen this before?

Yes, it is true that in the English language the letter "q" is usually followed by a "u". However, this is a general rule which, like most general rules, has a few exceptions. Indeed, the mistake of the anonymous "Grammar Wahabi" who started using 'aqueedah was in assuming that there are no exceptions to the aforementioned rule of grammar. A wise man once said, "Assumption - The Mother of All Screw Ups." One of the most common exceptions to this rule of spelling is when foreign words are incorporated into the English language. According to the most authoritative sources (including the Oxford English Dictionary and the Encyclopedia Britannica) there are words in the English language in which a "u" does not follow a "q", all but one of these words having reached English from another language (mainly Arabic and Chinese). Actually, my first thought when reading the article which tried to justify the use of the 'aqueedah spelling was to surmise that the general rules of spelling simply don't apply when incorporating foreign words into the English language, since Qatar, qadi and Qinq can be found in any decent English dictionary or encyclopedia—thus I was relieved to learn that my initial gut-feeling was confirmed by the above mentioned answer on the Oxford English Dictionary website.

So it seems that our proverbial "Grammar Wahabi", after learning a rule of grammar, could no longer see the forest because of the trees. If he understood basic English pronunciation and had realized that the sine qua non of transliteration is to make a word written in a foreign script or language pronounceable in the English language, then he probably would not have fallen into this 'aqueedah error. Well at least he's not just another Wahabi with 'aqueedah problems, since this time they're of a different sort!