Those who split up their Religion are Shi'ites (Surah 6:159)

 

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

الصلاة والسلام عليك يا رسول الله

Allah سبحانه وتعالى says:

اِنَّ الَّذِیۡنَ فَرَّقُوۡا دِیۡنَہُمۡ وَکَانُوۡا شِیَعًا لَّسۡتَ مِنۡہُمۡ فِیۡ شَیۡءٍ ؕ اِنَّمَاۤ اَمۡرُہُمۡ اِلَی اللّٰہِ ثُمَّ یُنَبِّئُہُمۡ بِمَا کَانُوۡا یَفۡعَلُوۡنَ

Those who split up their Religion and are Shiya’a, you [O My Apostle] have nothing to do with them. Surely, there case goes to Allah, then He will inform them of what they used to do

(Surah 6, Ayah 159)

مُنِیۡبِیۡنَ اِلَیۡہِ وَاتَّقُوۡہُ وَاَقِیۡمُوا الصَّلٰوۃَ وَلَا تَکُوۡنُوۡا مِنَ الۡمُشۡرِکِیۡنَ

مِنَ الَّذِیۡنَ فَرَّقُوۡا دِیۡنَہُمۡ وَکَانُوۡا شِیَعًا ؕ کُلُّ حِزۡبٍۭ بِمَا لَدَیۡہِمۡ فَرِحُوۡنَ

Turning to Him [Allah], fear Him, establish the Salah, and be not of the polytheists

Of those who split up their Religion and are Shiya’a. Every party rejoicing in what is with them

(Surah 30, Ayah 31 & 32)

Why have I chosen to leave the word شيعا untranslated as it occurs in these Verses of the Quran? I believe that Allah, Holy and Exalted is He, deliberately used this word to clearly identify the well-known denomination of Shi’ism; a manifest warning against and condemnation of the Shi’ah sects. The linguistic meaning of شيعة which is the singular of شيعا is: “people of like persuasion, conviction or opinion, sect, party” (Arabic-English Dictionary of Qur’anic Usage, p.505). So while in a purely linguistic sense the word shi’ah doesn’t necessarily refer to the well-known sect of Shi’ism but may describe any sect or party in general, because this word has become so strongly associated with Shi’ism, a particular religious persuasion among the Muslims, there is a divine wisdom in Allah Most High using this word to condemn those who “split up their Religion”. For that is the description of the Shi’ah who primarily go by this name and term; they are a schismatic bunch who divided and separated themselves from the main body of the Muslims. And I believe Allah, Most High, referred to them with the plural of Shi’ah, which is Shiya’a, to denote their endless factionalism and constant dividing into more and more sects among themselves. The main branches of Shi’ism were the Kaysaniyyah, the Zaydiyyah, the Isma’iliyyah, the Ithna Ashariyyah and the Ghullat, and each of these split up into numerous sub-sects, many of which still persist till this day.

Heresy of Female Imamate

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على رسوله الكريم

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

In 2005, the heretic Amina Wadud pulled a publicity stunt by leading a congregation in Salah at Manhattan, New York. Another woman, Jamitha Beevi of Malappuram, Kerala, made headlines by similarly leading a mixed gender congregation in Salah. She later openly renounced Islam and describes herself as “an ex-Muslim rationalist, atheist, public speaker, feminist, social worker”. Today there are several satanic places of worship in North America which claim to be “mosques” that associate themselves with the LGBTQ movement and organize Friday prayers with mixed gender rows behind a female “imam”. It would be more apt to describe these buildings as Masajid ad-Dirar, for they are places of dissension and sedition against God.

The doctrine of mainstream, normative Islam on this matter is that the Imamate is reserved for male Believers. There is Ijma (consensus) on this point. A mixed gender congregation led by a woman in Salah is invalid, and it is a corruption, an evil innovation. Those who demand an explicit text from either the Quran or Hadith to substantiate our view fail to realize that this is established through Amal at-Tawatur; the continuous, unbroken mass practice of the Muslims, generation after generation going back to the time of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him. And that which is established through Amal at-Tawatur is weightier on the scales for evidence than solitary reports or narrations. So those who cite the Hadith of Umm Waraqah, which they in fact misinterpret, have no leg to stand on. Not only is the Hadith misinterpreted by them to mean that the adult males of her household offered the Salah behind her, but in fact the authenticity of the Hadith itself is not strongly established. Nevertheless, another narration reported by ad-Daraqutuni clarifies that only women of her household offered Salah in congregation with her leading:

عَنْ ‌أُمِّ ‌وَرَقَةَ أَنَّ رَسُولَ اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَذِنَ لَهَا أَنْ يُؤَذَّنَ لَهَا وَيُقَامَ وَتَؤُمَّ نِسَاءَهَا

Umm Waraqah narrates that the Messenger of Allah, sall Allahu alaihi wasallam, permitted for her that the Adhan and Iqamah be made for her to lead her women (Sunan ad-Daraqutuni; v.2, p.21, #1084)

*In our Hanafi school, it is considered makruh tahrimi or prohibitively disliked for women to form an all-female congregation for Salah even though the Salah will be valid. In such an instance, even then the woman leading the Salah does not stand alone in front of the entire congregation, as in the case of a congregational Salah led by a man. Rather, she stands in the middle of the first row.

The first reported instance in the history of this Ummah when a woman led men in Salah, to my knowledge, was when the heretical Shabibiyyah of the Khawarij had a woman named Ghazalah appointed as their “imam”:

فجاء حتى دخل الكوفة ومعه ‌غزالة وقد كانت نذرت أن تصلي في مسجد الكوفة ركعتين تقرأ فيهما البقرة وآل عمران قال ففعلت

So he [Shabib bin Yazid ash-Shaybani] came and entered Kufah with Ghazalah, who had vowed to pray two rak’ah in the Kufah mosque, in which she would recite Al-Baqarah and Al Imran. So she did (Tarikh at-Tabari; v.6, p.273)

أَنه مَعَ أَتْبَاعه أَجَازُوا إِمَامَة الْمَرْأَة مِنْهُم اذا قَامَت بأمورهم وَخرجت على مخالفيهم وَزَعَمُوا أَن غزالة أم شبيب كَانَت الإِمَام بعد قتل شبيب الى أَن قتلت وَاسْتَدَلُّوا على ذَلِك بِأَن شبيبا لما دخل الْكُوفَة أَقَامَ أمه على مِنْبَر الْكُوفَة حَتَّى خطبت

He [Shabib bin Yazid ash-Shaybani] and his followers permitted the imamate of a woman among them if she took care of their affairs and rebelled against their opponents, and they claimed that Ghazalah, mother of Shabib, was the imam after the killing of Shabib until she herself was killed. They inferred this from when Shabib entered Kufah he had his mother preach upon the pulpit. (Al-Farq bain al-Firaq; p.101)

So we see that this belief that a woman can be made an imam is a heresy that originates with the radical Kharijites and it has been inherited by the radical reformist groups of our time that are inclined toward feminism and validation of the LGBTQ degeneracy.

Apostasy of Gaddafi and His Heresies

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على رسوله الكريم

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

Concerning the religious beliefs of the disgraced dictator Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, Ronald Bruce St. John wrote: “He rejects formal interpretation of the Koran (except his own) as blasphemy and sin, contending that the Koran was written in Arabic so that every Arab could read it and apply it without the help of others. In a similar vein, Qadhdhafi has specifically criticized the hadith, the collected traditions or ‘sayings’ of the Prophet Muhammad as received through oral transmission, on the grounds that the Koran is the only real source of God’s word. He has also been very critical of the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence, such as the Hanafi, Maliki, and Hanbali, charging that they are the product of a struggle for political power and unconnected with either Islam or the Koran. The reformist elements of Qadhdhafi’s approach—such as a progressive role for Islam, the rejection of hadith, the transcendence of God, and the purely human role of the Prophet—are a deliberate attempt to reduce the role of the ulama and to bring Islam under the control of the revolution. When Libya's religious leadership increasingly criticized his policies, Qadhdhafi purged them in mid-1978, emphasizing that mosques were meant to be places of worship and not arenas to discuss economic, social, or political questions. As in the case of Nasir, Qadhdhafi's denial of political influence to the ulama is not really secularism because this denial extends to every elite or popular body that might reduce the regime's power. Moreover, the ulama and religious bodies are denied not only political influence but even autonomy in religion itself. Secularism means the separation of church and state with the latter being supreme, but it does not call for the state's control of the details of religious teaching or the harnessing of religion to the purpose of the state. In Libya, Qadhdhafi has sought to make Islam a domestic and international instrument in support of the revolution.” (St John, R. B. (1983). The Ideology of Muammar al-Qadhdhafi: Theory and Practice. International Journal of Middle East Studies, 15(4), 471–490)

Now there is no question that Gaddafi was an apostate from Islam and he justly deserved the fate that befell him in October 2011. He was apparently sodomized by a sharp weapon then his half naked body put in an ambulance and carried off to Misrata where he was pronounced dead.

The heresies of that murtad, taghut are too numerous and extreme. Perhaps his worst kufr was his deliberate attempt to diminish the status and rank of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. He in fact rejected the invocation of Salat and Salam upon the Prophet, sall Allahu alaihi wasallam, and negated belief in his role as the Intercessor on Judgment Day (the doctrine of Shafa’h). Gaddafi taught that the institution of Khilafah has no connection to Islam, as it is something that appeared after the Prophet, peace be upon him, and anything that came after him is necessarily separate from the Religion. He also apparently criticized the practices of polygamy and veiling.

Now these matters are typical for Hadith—rejecters like Gaddafi. They consider orthodox Sunni Muslims guilty of idolizing the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, because of our special reverence for him. They harshly attack the practices of polygamy and veiling, though ironically these matters are established quite clearly from the Text of the Holy Quran. Likewise, they bear extreme enmity to our Ulama, a sentiment which is shared by virtually all heretical individuals and sects that broke away from mainstream, Sunni Islam.

Gaddafi introduced his own variant of socialism, and one often finds that the socialists and other leftists in this Ummah are strongly inclined to radically reform Islam. They are extremely critical of the conservative Ulama and those who are attached to them, whom they dub “reactionary”. By Allah, socialism is a dangerous fitnah that appeared in this Ummah in the previous century, which caused nothing but mayhem, fragmentation and turning away from the Religion. Along with ethnic nationalism and liberalism it forms part of a trinity of evil that continues to be a sickness in this Ummah, and indeed the world at large.

Limited Vigilantism in Islam

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على رسوله الكريم

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

The question of vigilantism in Islam requires elucidation. Some people mistakenly believe that there is absolutely no room for vigilantism or taking the law into one’s own hands as per the Shari’ah. They say that only the Islamic government is authorized to implement the Law. But Allah, Holy and Exalted is He, says:

وَلۡتَکُنۡ مِّنۡکُمۡ اُمَّۃٌ یَّدۡعُوۡنَ اِلَی الۡخَیۡرِ وَیَاۡمُرُوۡنَ بِالۡمَعۡرُوۡفِ وَیَنۡہَوۡنَ عَنِ الۡمُنۡکَرِ ؕ وَاُولٰٓئِکَ ہُمُ الۡمُفۡلِحُوۡنَ

And let there be among you a nation inviting to goodness; enjoining virtue and prohibiting evil. And it is they who shall prosper

(Surah 3, Ayah 104)

کُنۡتُمۡ خَیۡرَ اُمَّۃٍ اُخۡرِجَتۡ لِلنَّاسِ تَاۡمُرُوۡنَ بِالۡمَعۡرُوۡفِ وَتَنۡہَوۡنَ عَنِ الۡمُنۡکَرِ وَتُؤۡمِنُوۡنَ بِاللّٰہِ

You are the best nation taken out for mankind; you enjoin virtue, prohibit vice and believe in Allah

(Surah 3, Ayah 110)

In these and other Verses of the Holy Quran the institution of Amr bil-Ma’ruf wa Nahi anil-Munkar (enjoining of good and prohibition of vice) has been established. And it is not a duty that is restricted to the Muslim rulers and their authorized deputies, rather it is the responsibility of the entire Ummah. Hence, the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, said:

مَنْ رَأَى مِنْكُمْ مُنْكَرًا فَلْيُغَيِّرْهُ بِيَدِهِ فَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ فَبِلِسَانِهِ فَإِنْ لَمْ يَسْتَطِعْ فَبِقَلْبِهِ وَذَلِكَ أَضْعَفُ الإِيمَانِ

Whoever among you sees an evil should change it with his hand, but if he is unable then with his tongue, and if even that he is unable to do then [hate it] in his heart, but that is the weakest form of Faith (Sahih Muslim)

In this blessed Hadith the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, has licensed every Believer to change an evil he sees with his own hand. Only if one does not have the capacity to do this is he then given a concession to merely speak out against that evil with his tongue, and even if that is not possible then at the very least one must hate the evil in one’s heart, though that is the weakest level of Faith. However, for a Muslim who is not authorized by the government, his changing of an evil with his own hand may not involve violence or bloodshed. Violence is the monopoly of the State. Therefore, it would be accurate to say that there is space for non-violent vigilantism in Islam. For instance, vandalizing signs and billboards displaying something that is forbidden, demolishing a statue or sculpture depicting a living being, smashing up a liqor store, breaking musical instruments, breaking up a music concert without lethal violence and the like.

However, in this matter wisdom and due caution should be observed. This is especially true in our time when even non-violent vigilantism is perceived as challenging the writ of the State. Tragically, most of the Muslim governments today are mostly if not entirely secular. They have legislated admissibility for many activities that are forbidden according to the divine Shari’ah. If a Believer is reasonably sure he can escape detection and being caught by the authorities in committing an act of non-violent vigilantism against that which is evil then it is fine. However, if one fears that the consequences of this kind of vigilantism will be greater harm, such as imprisonment, torture or some other extreme hardship, then it would be better to merely speak against that evil rather than attempt to change it with one’s own hands. And Allah and His Apostle know best!

Tafdili Controversy

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على رسوله الكريم

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

One of the controversies raging in religious Sunni circles of India and Pakistan is the issue of Tafdil, the question of who is superior among mankind. The orthodox and mainstream Sunni doctrine is that the Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, is the most superior of the Creation, followed by the other Prophets. This is in contrast to the Mu’tazili heresy that the Angels are superior to the Prophets. Likewise, consider the heresy of the Imamiyah Shi’ah who believe that the Twelve Imams and Fatimah al-Zahra are superior to all the Prophets except the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. With us Sunnis the office of Nubuwwah or Prophesy necessarily elevates its holder above anyone from the Creation who is not a Prophet, whether he is an Angel, an Imam or a Saint. In other words, the rank of Nubuwwah is higher than Imamah and Wilayah, contrary to the conception of the heretical Imamiyah and the pseudo-Sufis.

But in this context, the controversy of Tafdil is specifically concerning the question of whether Mawla Ali, may Allah honor his face, is superior to the three Caliphs who preceded him, namely, Abu Bakr, Umar and Uthman, may Allah be pleased with them all. The dominant view among us Sunnis, which is also my personal belief, is that Abu Bakr al-Siddiq is the best mortal human after the Prophets, followed by Umar al-Faruq, regarding whom the Prophet, peace be upon him, said: “If there is a Prophet after me it is Umar”. The belief that Mawla Ali, may Allah honor his face, is superior to the third Caliph Uthman is less controversial among Sunnis, due to the fact that the virtues narrated from the Prophet concerning Mawla Ali are more numerable than those narrated for sayyiduna Uthman bin Affan. Nevertheless, I accept the dominant view held by us Sunni Muslims that the chronological sequence of the four Rightly-Guided Successors corresponds to the sequence of superiority. But differing in this matter of Tafdil in the specific context of who is superior after the Prophets is not from the fundamentals of the Religion and therefore shouldn’t be viewed as heresy. Mufakkir-i-Islam, Dr. Pir Sayyid Abd ul-Qadir Jilani, from Rawalpindi, Pakistan, wrote an incredible book titled Zubdat ut-Tahqiq on this controversy. While his personal belief is that Abu Bakr al-Siddiq, may Allah be pleased with him, is the best of mortals after the Prophets, he mentioned the views and proofs of those who believe this rank belongs to Mawla Ali instead. Qadi Abd ul-Jabbar of the Mu’tazilah argued that based on strong but speculative argumentation Mawla Ali, may Allah honor his face, is superior:

وأما الكلام في الفضل فلا دليل نقطع به على أيّهم الأفضل وإن قوي في الظن فعلي عليه السلام

As for merit, there is no definite evidence we can use to determine which of them is superior, but was is strong from that which is speculative is that it is Ali, peace be upon him (Usul al-Khamsa, p.98)

But let us instead turn to the views of the illustrious Sahabah concerning the matter of Tafdil. Abu Hurairah, may Allah be pleased with him, said:

مَا احْتَذَى النِّعَالَ وَلَا انْتَعَلَ وَلَا رَكِبَ المَطَايَا ‌وَلَا ‌رَكِبَ ‌الْكُورَ ‌بَعْدَ ‌رَسُولِ ‌اللَّهِ صَلَّى اللَّهُ عَلَيْهِ وَسَلَّمَ أَفْضَلُ مِنْ جَعْفَرِ

No one has worn sandals, put on shoes, ridden mounts or ridden a camel after the Messenger of Allah, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, who is better than Ja’far (Jami’ al-Tirmidhi)

Here we receive the opinion that the most superior of this Ummah, after the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, is none other than his noble cousin Ja’far al-Tayyar, may Allah be pleased with him.

It has been reported that our mother A’ishah, may Allah be pleased with her, said:

مَا رَأَيْتُ ‌أَفْضَلَ ‌مِنْ ‌فَاطِمَةَ ‌غَيْرَ ‌أَبِيهَا

I have not seen anyone superior to Fatimah other than her father (Mu’jam al-Awsat; v.3, p.137, #2721)

Now we have received another opinion that the most superior of this Ummah, after the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, is none other than his favorite daughter Fatimah al-Zahra, may Allah be pleased with her.

Al-Khatib al-Baghdadi mentions the opinion of the Prophet’s youngest paternal uncle and one his companions, namely, al-Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him:

أما الْعَبَّاسُ فَمَاتَ ‌وعليُّ ‌عِنْده ‌أفضل ‌الصَّحَابَة

As for al-Abbas, he died and according to him Ali was the most superior among the Sahabah (Tarikh Baghdad; v.10, p.398)

According to Ibn Hazm:

‌كَانَ ‌عمار ‌بن ‌يَاسر وَالْحسن ابْن عَليّ يفضلان عَليّ بن أبي طَالب على أبي بكر الصّديق وَعمر

Ammar bin Yasir and al-Hasan ibn Ali (may Allah be pleased with them) used to give superiority to Ali bin Abi Talib over Abu Bakr al-Siddiq and Umar (al-Fisl; v.4, p.106)

About Abu at-Tufail Amir bin Wathilah, may Allah be pleased with him, Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani mentions a report in which it is said:

كَانَ ‌يَعْتَرِفُ ‌بِفَضْلِ ‌أَبِي ‌بَكْرٍ ‌وَعُمَرَلَكِنَّهُ يُقَدِّمُ عَلِيًّا

He acknowledged the merit of Abu Bakr and Umar, but prioritized Ali over them (al-Isabah; v.7, p.193)

Therefore, the view that Mawla Ali, may Allah honor his face and grant him peace, is the best of the Sahabah was certainly held by at least some individuals among them. It is incorrect to consider this view as contrary to the consensus of the Sunnis, as has been demonstrated no such consensus exists. Nor it is right to expel someone from Ahl us-Sunnah wal-Jama’ah merely on the basis of the Tafdil controversy, that is, the problem of who is superior after the Prophets. Therefore, the view of the Tafdilis that Mawla Ali is the most superior after the Prophets is by no means blasphemy or heresy. If the Tafdilis among Ahl us-Sunnah are free of the heresy of Rifd, that is having enmity to any of the Prophet’s Companions, then there is no blame on them. And Allah and His Apostle know best!

Critique of Tariq Ramadan's "Radical Reform" (Part 1)

 بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

والصلاة والسلام على رسوله الكريم

In the Name of Allah, the Rahman, the Merciful

The call to reform is one that seeks the destruction of the Religion that Allah, Holy and Exalted is He, vouchsafed to His final Apostle, the Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him. It is a challenge to the divine wisdom of an omniscient God and the perfection of Islam:

اَلۡیَوۡمَ اَکۡمَلۡتُ لَکُمۡ دِیۡنَکُمۡ وَاَتۡمَمۡتُ عَلَیۡکُمۡ نِعۡمَتِیۡ وَرَضِیۡتُ لَکُمُ الۡاِسۡلَامَ دِیۡنًا

Today have I perfected for you your Religion, and completed upon you My favor, and am pleased with Islam for you as a Religion

(Surah 5, Ayah 3)

The present call to reform emanating from the liberal circles within our Ummah and our supposed non-Muslim “well-wishers” is not like the activity of Tajdid of the orthodox Reformers (Mujaddids), or the activity of Islah of the pious Saints and learned Ulama. Its aim is not to cleanse the Muslims of the corruptions of syncretism and permissiveness, or to reinvigorate zeal for Allah and His Apostle and strictness of compliance with the Shari’ah. Rather, the aim of the liberal reformists is to effect greater assimilation of the Muslims into the dominant world order and culture. The very narrative of liberal reform clashes with the orthodox Sunni understanding that in the Latter Days when the forces of unbelief achieve a temporary ascendancy the Believer is meant to cling to his Faith as much as possible rather than take the course of conformity to the World. Such has always been the teaching of our ancient, great Prophets and Saints. Preservation of the Faith takes precedence over material and worldly progress. Sentiments of harmony, cooperation, dialogue and reconciliation with the world of unbelief are entirely contrary to the Message of Islam. In essence, the Islamic narrative is a conservative one; conserve and preserve as much of the Tradition as humanly possible, passionately resist the direction the World wants you to take. We look to our Elders and Predecessors, meaning the Salaf, the Awliya, the orthodox Mujaddids and the conservative Sunni Ulama who keep alive their legacy for direction.

Tariq Ramadan, an Egyptian who styles himself a “radical reformist”, based in Switzerland, has been attempting to spread his wayward thought among particularly the Muslim minorities here in the West for several decades now. He is currently embroiled in serious legal troubles and criminal cases against him in the form of several accusations of rape, for which he has even been found guilty of at least one in a court of law. Therefore, while we are glad and hopeful that this will likely end his career and public activity, much of the damage has already been done. He has written many books, published many articles and been invited to countless events to deliver lectures where his direct audience are the Muslims. I am obviously not in a position to comment on the truthfulness of the allegations of a sexual nature against the man. But I can say that he is certainly responsible for having put himself in a position where such damaging allegations leading to criminal charges could be made against him. As is typical with the liberal segment of our Community, they are quite permissive with regard to the issue of ikhtilat or intermingling of the sexes, something the Shari’ah strictly forbids. And now one sees the wisdom of such a prohibition, or at least Tariq Ramadan should see it clearly now unless he is blind. This is especially so as the man has spent his entire career calling for the liberalization of the Shari’ strictures particularly with regard to women and gender segregation.

The term radical reform, which features in Tariq Ramadan’s book Radical Reform: Islamic Ethics and Liberation, is a call for a shift away from the accepted authoritative paradigm of this Religion. In orthodox, Sunni Islam, it is not only the Scripture (the Quran – the Word of Allah) and the Tradition of the Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, which are divinely authoritative, but authority is also delegated to the consensus of the qualified scholastic circles. Here I am referring to the Muslim judges and jurists. They collectively sit in the Prophet’s Seat and are authorized to interpret this Religion, particularly its rules and regulations. This principle of Sunni orthodoxy is what sets us apart from all the heretical and schismatic groups and individuals which profess Islam. As has preceded, the consensus of the scholastic authorities being authoritative for Muslims is delegated meaning derived from Allah’s Words:

فَسۡـَٔلُوۡۤا اَہۡلَ الذِّکۡرِ اِنۡ کُنۡتُمۡ لَا تَعۡلَمُوۡنَ

So ask the people of the Reminder if you know not

(Surah 16, Ayah 43 & Surah 21, Ayah 7)

فَلَوۡلَا نَفَرَ مِنۡ کُلِّ فِرۡقَۃٍ مِّنۡہُمۡ طَآئِفَۃٌ لِّیَتَفَقَّہُوۡا فِی الدِّیۡنِ وَلِیُنۡذِرُوۡا قَوۡمَہُمۡ اِذَا رَجَعُوۡۤا اِلَیۡہِمۡ لَعَلَّہُمۡ یَحۡذَرُوۡنَ

Why, then, does not a party from every section of them go forth that they may become well versed in the Religion, and that they may warn their people when they return to them, so that they may guard

(Surah 9, Ayah 122)

The Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, said:

وَإِنَّ الْعُلَمَاءَ وَرَثَةُ الأَنْبِيَاءِ

Surely, the Ulama are the heirs of the Prophets

So it is Allah Himself Who has authorized the establishment of an institution of judges and learned scholars of the Religion. And the Prophet, peace be upon him, practically appointed learned and pious individuals from among His Companions to act as judges in lands outside of Medina, others to acts as his envoys and teach the newly converted tribesmen about the Faith and its Laws. This system of individuals and bodies representing the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, continues till this day as long as they have isnad or a connected chain of transmission that returns back to the Prophet. And we know that a similar setup existed for the Children of Israel during the Mosaic dispensation. The Prophet Moses was instructed to appoint seventy elders (Surah 7, Ayah 155). According to the Orthodox interpretation of the Torah and the Mosaic Law the seventy elders formed the first Beit Din or great court that came to be known as the Sanhedrin, of seventy-one judges, with one being the Nasi or Prince who stood in for Moses himself. This Court was considered authoritative for the Israelites and Jews in interpreting the Law. The rulings of this Court form the basis for what is called Rabbinic or Talmudic tradition, and set the Orthodox Jews (the Pharisees) apart from the schismatic factions, some of which survive today, like the Karaites, Samaritans and others who disregarded the authority of the Beit Din in favor of a strictly textualist and literalist approach. The key difference between the judicial authority in the Mosaic dispensation and the scholastic authority in this Ummah is that in the Mosaic dispensation the phenomenon of Prophesy had not yet ceased and so the authority of the true Prophet of God superseded that of the Court and the Priesthood. In theory and in practice the true Prophet could abrogate or amend some of the original laws and practices that were originally given to Moses at Mount Sinai. But in this Ummah, with the Finality of Prophesy, the Shari’ah of Islam is perfect and complete, and may not be amended in the least until the Resurrection. Another difference is that while in the Mosaic dispensation the Beit Din or Sanhedrin was a formalized body of precisely seventy-one judges, the scholastic authority in this Ummah is not an organized, formal body or council. It is the general consensus of the qualified scholars, judges and jurists in every age. Thus it spans a large number of individuals. Yet the Religion in its rulings and interpretation has been made manifest in the precedents of the early scholastic judgments of the time of the Salaf, particularly in the codification of Islamic law of the Four Imams and their Schools.

Having elucidated the nature of the authority in this Religion, I now return to the discussion of Tariq Ramadan’s “radical reform”. The basic premise of the reformist viewpoint is that the world is constantly changing and so a static tradition is not only unrealistic but impossible. But the Prophetic Tradition is unique in that it centers around a Prophet, defined as one who prophesies. The Holy Prophet Muhammad, peace be upon him, not only gave us a tradition but predicted how over time radical changes would occur in society and in the world. Happily we have clear teachings from the Tradition about how to engage these radical changes, whether they are social, cultural, political, geopolitical, civilizational, technological, economic, scientific or even medical. Did not the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, say:

يَأْتِي عَلَى النَّاسِ زَمَانٌ الصَّابِرُ فِيهِمْ عَلَى دِينِهِ كَالْقَابِضِ عَلَى الْجَمْرِ

A time will come upon the people in which the one who is patient upon his Religion will be like one holding on to a burning ember

Examples of “Radical Reform” from Tariq Ramadan

Now let us examine what exactly are some of the matters Tariq Ramadan has in mind with regard to his call for a radical reform. Concerning abortion (a mere euphemism for infanticide that is surely an abomination in the sight of Allah), this reformist heretic says: “there is no formal, undisputed prohibition of abortion as most Muslims or Islamic studies researchers seem to believe” (Radical Reform: Islamic Ethics and Liberation, p.172).

Concerning the un-Islamic activity of social workers who distribute clean needles and condoms to the filth of society engaged in drug use and prostitution, he says: “Controlled needle exchanges (among injecting drug users) or taking into account the actual sexual behavior of individuals (in drug addicts, prostitution, or in general mores) are necessities of our time.” (ibid, p.181)

Concerning the Islamic lifestyle that is based on the practice of the early Muslims in the most sacred geography, he says: “This tendency has emerged in the contemporary salafi literalist trend or in some traditionalist trends—such as tablighi movements—and has gained an audience the world over, despite representing a minority. The methodology that those trends have always used in relating to texts—assimilating religious practice to its (supposedly) original cultural expression—paradoxically, but after all quite logically, enables them to face the challenge of the West’s cultural domination by promoting the return to an original culture that is also perceived as universal. To them, therefore, the aim should be not only to respect the principles of religious practice, but to live, dress, and interact with the human and social environment as we suppose the inhabitants of Mecca and Medina must have done in the light of the texts that have come down to us. This globalization exportation of a very local culture is fundamentally questionable” (ibid, p.186).

The subject of the role of women is perhaps that which provokes the greatest passion and indignity of the liberal reformist. A sure sign of heresy and radical departure from normative, orthodox Islam is the call for a significant change to the traditional role of women. The earliest and most radical heresies in the history of this Ummah, namely those associated with the Khawarij, were characterized by this egalitarian spirit whose logical conclusion was to challenge normative morality, patriarchal norms sanctioned by Islam and the traditional gender roles. A Kharijite faction known as the Shabibiyyah, associated with Shabib bin Yazid al-Shaybani, was led by a woman named Ghazalah. She was either Shabib’s wife or his mother, and was given the leadership of the sect when Shabib was killed. When she and her followers briefly captured Kufah, she entered its Mosque and led them in prayer! Tariq Ramadan and other liberal reformists follow in the footsteps of the Shabibiyyah when he says: “the recognition, as we have seen, of their right to sexual pleasure, of their choices regarding marriage, divorce, contraception, and abortion, both in practice and in the purposes of the Islamic message, the groundwork of elaborate discourse about women as beings, their status, their autonomy, and their legitimate aspirations” (ibid, p.212). He further claims: “keeping women illiterate and forbidding them work, reach financial autonomy, or play a social and economic role, as well as such practices as female genital mutilation, forced marriages, the denial of divorce, or restraint against domestic violence, are absolutely contrary to Islam’s message” (ibid, p.214). Tariq Ramadan goes further in shedding light on what exactly he intends by “radical reform” when he challenges even the agreed upon understanding of the divine Texts: “Such issues as the right to work, polygamy, divorce, or inheritance cannot be approached only through the study of what the texts allow or do not allow.” (ibid) Tariq Ramadan therefore makes it plain that the agenda of “radical reform” is intimately tied to feminism and so-called “progressive” sentiments regarding women. Tariq Ramadan says that in the past the scholastic authorities in Islam approached the subject of women in a restrictive way, relegating women to their relation with men, as either a mother, daughter, sister or wife. Yet this is not merely the approach of the scholastic authorities, but of the Holy Prophet, peace be upon him, himself, who reportedly said:

إِذَا صَلَّتِ الْمَرْأَةُ خَمْسَهَا وَصَامَتْ شَهْرَهَا وَحَفِظَتْ فَرْجَهَا وَأَطَاعَتْ ‌بَعْلَهَا ‌فَلْتَدْخُلْ ‌مِنْ ‌أَيِّ ‌أَبْوَابِ ‌الْجَنَّةِ ‌شَاءَتْ

When a woman offers her five prayers, fasts in the month of Ramadan, guards her chastity and obeys her husband, then she will enter Paradise from whichever gate she wishes (al-Mu’jam al-Awsat; v.8, pp.339-340, #8805)

So the Islam of women is in fact much more simplistic than that of men. It is merely to fulfill the most basic religious obligations, especially the five daily prayers and fasting in Ramadan and to guard her chastity, which would require a greater emphasis on modesty. Other than that, a woman’s salvation essentially lies in strict obedience and subservience to her husband. It is not necessary for her to focus too much on religious studies and supererogatory worship. Those would actually be discouraged for her if they are hindering with her domestic responsibilities and attentiveness to her husband. The call for women’s liberation is one that totally opposes Islam and the Message of its Prophets. It is a call towards destruction, one that animates virtually every heretical and deviated movement that has broken off from normative, traditional and orthodox Sunni Islam. Issues like abortion, polygamy, divorce, segregation, veiling, intermingling of the sexes, and sexual morality itself are all raised and become controversial as a very consequence of women’s liberation. It is a fundamental breach of the Islamic ethics which Tariq Ramadan ironically claims to uphold as his guiding principle in navigating the issue of reform. Tariq Ramadan makes his feelings clear about the issue of veiling when he says: “They [women] must struggle against all formalist dictatorships, both that which imposes the headscarf without belief in the practice coming from the heart” (Radical Reform: Islamic Ethics and Liberation, p.221). Tariq Ramadan likewise challenges the normative situation that exists in the Mosque, saying: “Mosques today are essentially men’s places, and this does not correspond to the higher objectives of Islam’s message.” (ibid, p.222) This despite him admitting in the very next sentence: “Indeed, some Prophetic traditions (ahadith) express the idea that it is preferable for women to pray at home” (ibid). Now it should be clear to any sincere Muslim that there is a pattern to Tariq Ramadan’s call for radical reform targets everything that is right and good with the Muslims today, as opposed to the reformative work of the Mujaddids and pious Ulama who restrict their lamentations to the normalization of corruption.

To be continued إن شاء الله