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.