Saturday 29 September 2007

Majid misquotes again!

In his reliance on revisionist scholarship he has fallen foul again. Majid when will you stop misquoting?

Here is the passages of concern

"A number of Islamic scholars from past centuries, such as the two Tabi'in (followers of the companions) Ibrahim al-Naka’i and Sufyan al-Thawri and also Abul Walid al-Baji are all reported to have held that apostasy is a serious sin, but not one that requires the death penalty. It is narrated by Sufyan al-Thawri that Ibrahim al-Nakhai'i was of the view that the apostate is not killed, rather his repentance is continuously sought. Sufyan al-Thawri then said, “This is the view that we take” (al-San'ani, abd al-Raziq, 'al-Mussannaf' vol. 10, page 166). "

Subhanallah al3a al jahal al murakab! This is what we actually have. In the same reference we have the words " al-murtadu yustatabu abadan" which means that the apostate gets an indefinite number of chances to repent. What is the position of Ibrahim Al Nakha'i on someone who refuses to repent? Here let me quote him

" The male murtadd is summoned to repent and if he repents he is left alone, otherwise he is put to death" (Abu Yusuf Kitab al Kharaj, number 180) and again in the Musnaaff of Abdul Razzaq 10:176

" The female murtada is summoned to re-embrace Islam and if she surrenders she is left alone, but if she refuses she is put to death" (Abu Yusuf. Aathaar no 161, and also Ibn Abi shayba 2:137)

Bil Lahi Aleek Ya Majid I am starting to feel sorry for you now! No fresh chapter here just a rehash of revisionist scholarship in the garb of "traditionalism".

Sufyan al Thawri in ths sources of note has an even stricter position. He only allows the apostate to repent three times.

The same follows for all the other scholars quoted including Ibn Hazm and Al-Baji. Really I couldnt be bothered. For the position of Ibn Hazm, I will be more then happy to provide references. It is not in Hadaad's article but I promise you he does not hold the position that Majid claims he does

Here is Hadaad's refutation. I have also at home other standard works which confirm the readings that Hadaad has mentioned. Hadaad again makes mistakes occasionally but generally I have found him to be accurate

http://www.livingislam.org/k/cfei_e.html

Wednesday 26 September 2007

A Few Interesting Points

Before I go into the details of my next article on the logical possibilities of the word "appearance", a quick comment on his reply to "Abu Hassan". His reply to me in the end was a personal objection to my style. I really do not have anything to comment about.

Yes Majid you can speak to me (and yes you can meet me in public) but I first want you to write the rest of the articles. We can have a more fruitful discussion then.

Ok his replies to Abu Hassan

"He mentioned the word "Zuhur" in the Arabic. That means "appearance". Appearance of "every ruling of Islam" can occur in any way (as it is unrestricted), and it doesn't have to occur on the state level as law (why have you restricted it to this?)."

Well the restriction is on your part . It does not say the appearance of some of the ahkaam of Islam, it says the appearance of the ahkam of Islam.

What do you understand by this phrase of the Shafi Imam? ( you have not even answered that)

ويراد بظهور أحكام الإسلام: كلّ حكم من أحكامه،

Some of the scholars of Islam also have another condition, the "appearance of the ahkam of Kufr". Now what do you understand by the term "appearance" here? Go on Majid give us your best shot.

"why is it when he mentiones 'appearance of the every one of the rulings of Islam (ahkam al-Islam)" you automatically read this as "implementation on state level the state laws of Islam"."

Well it makes sense that way, at least when applied to Abu Yusuf, Qadi Abu Y'ala and Imam Shaybani (among others). It cannot make sense otherwise if you do not include the state level as well. Tell us Majid what does the word Hukm mean? Oh yeah did you also know that Imam Sarkhasi quotes Abu Yusuf and Shaybani as saying that the terms refers to the soverignty of state and not to the people themselves. Do you want a reference for that? I will gladly oblige!

"you are reading the words Ahkam al-Islam (rulings of Islam) as "state laws of Islam", and you are interpreting the word "laws" in its modern (post nation state) concept of state laws applied on a national level"

Now I really want a clarification of what is meant here. Can I ask Majid, when one is asked to cut the hand of the thief off is that a Hukm Shari? Is it upto the individual? So again your last comment is a red herring that cannot conflate the Qati view that we have Ahkaam that can only be implemented by the State.

"This is because they didn't have states that had statutes and legislation until the later period. Rather, they ruled by the orders of the Imam."

Now this is just getting stupid! It is amazing how Majid is now clutching for straws.

"This is the 'innovation' I was talking about in HT's thinking, and what I meant by the word innovation was it's linguistic meaning of something new"

A clarification if you may then Majid. In your annoymous title "toppled pyramid" you used this word and connected it to the idea that it is a position that has no support from the Quran or Hadith. Could you clarify further? Anyway even the "neutral" option is a misquotation and a twist on facts. There was no such consensus on your part and this is even admited by the scholars you quoted!

Oh yeah where did I say that you had only one understanding of "innovation"?Are you misquoting again?

Monday 24 September 2007

More "innovators"!

Alhamidullah the lentil soup was good ( for su7hur) but before I go to sleep another scholar that is considered an "innovator". A scholar that he uses himself in his article i.e. Shiekh Muhammad Abu Zahrah

Now the Shiekh had made mistakes before (but really who has not? I mean if we look for perfection in people we will never find knowledge) but he has an interesting thing to say about this issue.

In his book Al Jariemma wal al3quba fi fiqh al Islami ( Al Jarimaa p 343), he has this to say

".........and with the application of the criteria of Abu Yusuf and Muhammad and those who follow them from the fuquha, the Islamic nations? ( I need to find a better word here for aqaleem) no longer become Dar Islam but Dar Harb because the Islamic laws do not appear and are not applied. "

He does hold onto a different position. He still thinks that there are a section of scholars that hold onto the position of that "innovator" Taqi Deen Al Nabahani. Abu Zaharah must be an "innovator" too. How dare he? lol!

Ok I am off to sleep now.

Necessary and Sufficent Conditions

A phrase the is quite common in "analytical" philosophy. It has overlapping common ground with what the Usuli term "Jam3i Man3i" i.e. a term that is defined in a totally inclusive and exhaustive way. We have to be careful and this entry in the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy helps understand the "modest" nature of this enterprise.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/necessary-sufficient/

It still does help. Ok why all this? Well it seems ( and this is where I have disagreements with both Abu Ibrahim and Maajid) that the exhaustive nature of the term "appearance" (i.e. in relation to islamic law) is a necessary and insufficent condition for the term Dar Islam in some schools and at the same time in other schools it is not. We know this when we look at the dynamic changes from Dar Islam to Dar Kufr. Some schools cite the "appearance" of Kufr as a necessary and sufficient condition for the collapse of the definition and others do not. This will help inshallah with an article that I am going to write that will go through all the possiblities of the term "appearance" ( in relation to the Ahkam) for both Dar Islam and Dar Kufr

It is clear that the scholars differ (and I find this as an irrelevant point for the party anyway, when it comes to dealing with its method for change) but banners of "innovation" always leave me a bit skeptical

Truth in most cases is more nuanced.

Shifting the Tide

One of the weakest ways to argue a case is to shift your premises from time to time without recourse to a qualification. In his latest response Maajid just does that

He responds by saying this

"It seems that you cannot come to terms with the fact that the definitions are disputed. It is a fact. Please just accept it."

Did he even bother to read my article? Definitions are disputed no doubt but surely that is not what Maajid was implying . Here is the quote again

“The Party definition of the land being “governed by the laws of Islam” is an innovation

I was refuting that premise and not the point that he was making. The case of misquotation still stands!

"However, I invite you to consider that the "appearance" of all of the Islamic rulings in society is not the same as their "implementation on state level as law"."

Maajid reads Arabic doesnt he ? Well then how does he account for this possible view?

ويراد بظهور أحكام الإسلام: كلّ حكم من أحكامه،

Has he even read the scholars that he quoted? Was it a cut and paste job? Do we have an "Alan Dershowitz" attitude that claims originality at the expense of shoddy work? (cf "The Case for Israel" and his terrible "borrowings" that were claimed to be original, a "new chapter" if you like lol!)

More on Imam Bujayrimi

More to ponder about the disasters of twisting texts.

I want to get back to Imam Bujayrimi. In the first part of his "definition" he has the crucial phrase "every law" to clarify things. He either believes all are possible which is a manifest contradiction. (I mean you can't have a definition that allows some application and one that is universal in application) or he is just listing a series of possibilites and not supporting any. If the latter is the case then Maajid is again misquoting by claiming that one of the possibilities is his position.

It just gets worse for Maajid doesn't it?

Oh my God Innovators Everywhere!

Maajid and his co of "progressive" "traditionalists" may have more work on there hands to purge this world from innovating islamists!

I have an interesting book in my collection by a certain Professor Abdul Karim Zaydaan who was a Professor of Islamic studies at Baghdad University. In his book Ahkaam Al'Dhimien wal Musta'maneen Fi Dar Al Islam on page 18. he is kind enough to go through the definitions of Dar Islam. After quoting people like Imam Sarkhasi and the late Abdul Wahaab Khalaaf on the differing definitions of Dar Al Islam, he has an interesting "innovating" comment.

"In reality there is no difference between the two definitions because the lands that are in the hands of the muslims will have the Ahkham of Islam applied because the muslims would not rule by any other law, and like wise for the second definition even though it is not clearly mentioned that the Dar is under the authority of muslims ( in other words the definition is talking about legislative issues, my clarification) it will be know intuitively....."

He does go later on and talk about the differences in Dar Islam becoming Dar Harb. In his eyes if the muslim lands is occupied it is still Dar Islam as long as some of the laws are applied. He does admit that view is differed on. In other words he takes the exhaustive view for Shaybani and Abu Yusuf. This is further clarified in his book Mujm3at bu7uth faqh'hea page 50-51

........and Dar Islam becomes Dar Harb with the manifestation of the rulings of Kufr i.e. the implementation of legislation (Ahkaam) that are not islamic. This is what Abu Yusuf , Muhammad bin hassan Al Shaybani and the Zaydi scholars have stated.

Sunday 23 September 2007

An Afterthought

An interesting point just popped up in my head. If the word "appearance" in relation to the rulings of Islam applies to only some laws, say three, would the "appearance" of the laws of Kufr apply to at least one law to satisfy its definition? Why the dichotomy?

I ask this question because in a funny way their has to be a dichotomy ( at least for scholars like Shaybani) but not in the way that Maajid wants! This will be a wonderful article later on that will go through all the possibilites of the term "appearance" when it applies to both exclusive sets "Dar Islam" and "Dar kufr"
Evaluating a theologically confused stance

Before venturing on to espousing the wonderful formal, let alone substantive, errors in the article of note a small biography on my part. Forgive me and be patient. I had to endure “exaggerated” grandiose attempts “to open up a new chapter in the mindset of politically active Muslims” so maybe a few confessions would not be off the mark. Anyway, I studied with the Hizb for a while and left it because of what to me seemed unnecessary bureaucracy. I am still happy to say though that the Hizb isn’t that bad and I certainly do not think it is a cult, nor a potential regurgetator of genocidal maniacs.

A cry of an innovation that is an innovation.

“The Party definition of the land being “governed by the laws of Islam” is an innovation”

An innovation?

Such strong words. I assume that the author is implying here a new fangled thought that cries out in the face of traditionalism. Not that “good bidaah” that Shiekh Gibreel Hadaad would have us talking about but that innovation....well I hope it is not so. Is there a third category in Maajids nomenclature? How about a neutral innovation. Pray tell, before the use of such strong words would it not be wise to define this innovative definition of innovation?

So what has the party innovated here? Well it is in this definition of Dar Islam that I quote from the paper

“a) The land must be “governed by the laws of Islām.”b) “Security (Amān ) is maintained by the security of Islām ie: by the authority and protection of Muslims inside and outside the land, even if the majority of its inhabitants are non-Muslims”.”

It seems that no scholar in the history of Islam adopts this view but yet in the very same paper we have these quotes

“The land is considered Dār al-Islām by the appearance (Zuhūr) of the rulings (Ahkām) of Islām therein even if the majority of its people where disbelievers, and it is considered Dār al-Kufr for the appearance of the rulings (Ahkām) of Kufr therein even if the majority of its people were Muslims”

Shaybani follows in the same vein. Hold on yet another

“Dār al-Islām is the land upon where Muslims descended and upon where the rulings of Islām were executed. Any land upon where the rulings of Islām were not executed was not Dār al- Islām”

Could the latter be an innovative proto- wahabite? ( a term which makes me squirm in its inaccurate simplicity). Then finally this

“2) Dār al-Islām becomes Dār al-Kufr by the appearance of Kufr therein or by its occupation by disbelievers (Kuffār). This is the view of al-Qādi Abū Yūsuf and al-Imām Muhammad al-Shaybāni (Abū hanifah's two disciples), the Hanbali's and some of the Zaydi's and Mutazilites”

Maybe we are not talking about that. It just is the static definition of Dar Islam that is an innovation. If it is dynamic then it is fine. Probably not. Now are my eyes deceiving me or are those definitions very similar? But no says the author Kasani understood Abu Yusuf and Shaybani better than those Hizbi rabble. It is not applying to the introduction of, say, one secular law but to that general gist i.e. security. So he quotes Kasani as saying

“Prefixing the word 'Islām' to a land, and likewise the word 'Kufr', isn't actually intending Islām itself nor Kufr itself, but rather it is a matter of security and fear. This means that if there is absolute safety for Muslims it is Dār al-Islām… and if there is absolute fear for Muslims and absolute safety for non-Muslims then it is Dār al-harb.

In fact, Abū hanifa maintains that countries that have treaties with Muslim lands automatically become Dār al-Islām due to the safety ensuing therefrom

Consequently, it is clear that what the hanafi's meant by “the appearance of the rulings of Islam” was exactly that, their “appearance” in the practice of individuals throughout society, with the general safety and security provided to practice Islamic rituals, and not state laws per se.” (bold italics are mine)

Well well, those consequences abound in his paper I promise you! On reading the words of Abu Yusuf we have a general phrase and it seems for now that Kasani has qualified it (1). Where per say is the proof? Oh yeah he is a latter Hanafi! There you go “traditionalism” at its best! In fact Kasani was also clarifying the view of Abu Hanifa which is important to know!

There are no logical consequences for an equivocal fallacy let alone a harsh cry of innovation. Isn’t it strange we have a possible interpretation of a possible view of Kasani that leads to a certain conclusion? So when did an ad hoc particularisation of a scholar lead to Bidaah? Of course we are not talking in an Islamic sense of jurisprudence. Then maybe he is. He does not clarify!

Finally it would be nice if we have a primary sourcing to Abu Hanifa’s quote. It seems the author has provided a secondary understanding of it. That is what the footnote shows anyway. That is an academic nicety I admit.

A “Dhaahri” misunderstanding of Ijtihaad.

The author then goes on to engage us in the logical disasters of this cultish genocidal party that wants the destruction of Israel (Allah help us, I am already shaking here)

Here are his premises

“If it can be demonstrated that the Party’s theory is nothing but a legal opinion (Ijtihād), then the argument that opposing views are based on Kufr becomes unsustainable”
And this definition of Dar Kufr and Dar Islam is an innovation, let alone an ijithaad therefore

“Consequently, using an opinion (Ijtihād) to enforce a conclusion of Kufr upon others by force is a contradiction in terms within Islamic jurisprudence, not to mention Party ideology. At best it is Wahhabite, and at worst it is the cynical use of Islām to justify what is essentially a political ideology”

Not just that the party even admits it

“Similarly there is no disagreement that the land of Islām (Dār al-Islām) is the land that submits to the rule of Islām and is ruled by Muslims...however they differed as to what changes Dār al- Islām into Dār al-Kufr. Some jurists (Mujtahidin) said that Dār al-Islām does not become a Dār al-Kufr except by three conditions: firstly, the appearance of the rules of Kufr in it. Secondly, that it is bordering Dār al-Kufr. Thirdly, that there does not remain in it any Muslim or non- Muslim under a covenant (Zimmi) secured by the first security (Amān) which is the security of Muslims.”

So now he shouts out

“.....astonishingly, the Party explicitly accepts that these terms are subject to valid legal differences (Ikhtilāf Shari'i) in the very area that the Party was founded to redress, i.e.: concerning how Dār al-Islām becomes Dār al-Kufr,”

We have a hubris that needs an urgent course in logic.

Interestingly we can’t have it both ways! We can’t have the party and I quote having an “argument that opposing views are based on Kufr....” and at the same time “...the Party explicitly accepts that these terms are subject to valid legal differences”. A contradiction if I ever saw one! Anyway does the party argue like this?

I define Dar Kufr and Dar Islam such, you fall under my definition therefore you have shown Kufr.

You see the argument really should be like this.

I have seen you say I am secular therefore you have shown Kufr.

I have defined that state as Dar Kufr therefore you are in that state.

Has he got the horse before the cart? Has he mixed the consequences with the premises?

The description of that state can be Dhanni. Providing proof that someone has shown Kufr has to be Qatii (does it?).

So where is the proof for this? The very same quotes that the author uses!

“So these texts indicate that to rule with anything other than the laws of Allāh is a matter which makes it obligatory upon Muslims to declare war against the ruler, and it is an evidence which indicates that implementing Islām is a condition for having Dār al-Islām, otherwise the ruler must be fought against.”

The texts are not just texts that define the conditions for Dar Islam and Dar Kufr but are also proofs that when a ruler shows Kufr his authority becomes untenable (more on this later from what I expect is a routine refutation in his second part. I will leave him to spill the beans though). So the party is saying that the shariah is a condition for Dar Islam and not that the definition of Dar Islam proves that Kufr occurred! Then again

“The aim in the current situation is not to change a ruler who rules by Kufr in Dār al-Islām; the aim is rather to change the whole of Dār al-Kufr, including its thoughts and systems...If in Dār al-Islām, which is ruled according to the revelation of Allāh (swt), its ruler ruled with clear Kufr then the Muslims must forbid it, so that he reverts back to ruling according to Islām. In case he doesn't repent, it becomes imperative upon the Muslims to take up arms against him to force him to revert to ruling with the revelation of Allāh (swt).”

Why would the party say this? It is clear that we have a complicated system. We have legislative, executive and judicial branches to a government, among many other things. Killing a ruler will not really change things now will it? Why is that? Because I quote “the Party” is “seeking to access the military in order to take the authority.””. After this the military would be capable of establishing the authority of Islām”.

The party, wisely I think, is saying this. We can’t think that an establishment that is Islamic in character with an occasional maverick ruler is the same situation as an establishment that is uni-polar in authority. The latter needs a different method to change the situation. We need the support of the people (hence the intellectual endeavour) and the support of those in authority (the military etc). Going out in Jihaadi style solves nothing.

So the shades of gray on what the definitions of Dar Islam and Dar Kufr really are cannot conflate the two situations above. Finally the party does not use the definition of Dar Islam and Dar Kufr as proof for taking authority by military means. That has other evidence.

In the end we have an objection to the Dhanni description of states. Well then let the use of Waajib, Fard, Haraam, Halaal, Makroooh, and all the other definitions the scholars use to clarify things then be thrown in the bin! A Dhahrri objection if I ever saw one.

Finally this

“For the Party to continue upon its path of insisting that even the more representative of Muslim regimes, such as Turkey or Iran, must be removed by force in a military coup de etat is not sustainable by their own theological tenets.”

That is just funny! Long live Secularism and Kamal Attaturk eh? Oh yeah all that is a misapplication of the shariah. Now here is a problem of definitions!

I shall leave a certain misunderstanding of Imam Juwayni, the proofs of the Caliphate and the texts that talk about authority in general to his second part. I just can’t wait.

(1)The cry of misquotation that “Abu Ibrahim” put forward still stands I think. Maajid clearly has used these quotes to put forward a certain consensus towards the view that Dar Islam is the land where the muslims just inhabit and indiviudally practice with security. After all he does the use the word innovation. For example he quotes Imam Kasani as saying

“Prefixing the word 'Islām' to a land, and likewise the word 'Kufr', isn't actually intending Islām itself nor Kufr itself, but rather it is a matter of security and fear. This means that if there is absolute safety for Muslims it is Dār al-Islām… and if there is absolute fear for Muslims and absolute safety for non-Muslims then it is Dār al-harb.”

This is used to clarify what is meant. He still though misses out the crucial phrase in the end

“and the ahkam depend on the safety and anxiety and not on Islam and kufr so it was considered safety and anxiety foremost.”

So Imam Kasani may think that that security is foremost but he clearly thinks that the condition of the “ahkam” remains. There are later Hanafi’s who do hold onto the a more laxed version but that does not remove the general implication of Abu Yusuf. This is clarified even more surprisingly by the next misquotation of Maajid.

“al-Imām al-Bujayrimi, a reliable (Mu'tamad) source of Shāfi’i jurisprudence (Fiqh) maintains that Dār al-Islām is a place where Muslims reside even if there are non-Muslims present”

Now Maajid went off onto a tangent about how Abu Ibrahim didn’t understand the word “or”. Abu Ibrahim may have had a point. After all if that is the case then does this Imam think that a land in which all the muslims are forced out is still Dar Islam? Wouldn’t that fly in the face of what he deems the consensus? Isn’t the Imam talking about authority(or at least the right to authority)? Still I admit it is vague and it could be read as a series of possibilities. This does not help Maajid’s case of innovation though. For the Imam clearly understood a prevalent position that is in line with the party. This is the crucial quote

"Dar al-Islam is the entire land where the Islamic laws (ahkam al-Islam) appear and it is intended by the phrase "appearance of the Islamic laws" "every law from its laws,…”

It would be very strange to think that the Imam anticipated innovating Islamists in the future. Strangely enough I have here in my library modern scholars from the middle east who have understood this very position in the same way that the Hizb has. I am talking about modern traditional scholars. I can provide references for this if people wish. Maajid does misquote. He may have placed the full quote in the comment section but it seems to be an afterthought that cries out amateurish research.

NB-He has now edited the article to include the quotes noted. Still, he has not commented on the first part of the Shafi option which is crucial to the point that he is making.