A Call to Shaykh Babikr Ahmed Babikr to dissociate himself from the Quilliam Foundation
April 27, 2008
I do not know Shaykh Babikr Ahmed Babikr personally nor have I attended any of his gatherings of knowledge. The only acquaintance I have with him is hearing good things about the Shaykh from certain brothers; they informed me that he is a man of knowledge and Taqwa, so to read his name as one of the advisors of the notorious Quilliam foundation was a shocking surprise, to say the least.
Is the Shaykh in congruence with these secular ‘Islamists’? Is he fully aware of their background? Has he been informed of their heretical views on Islam? If not, I would suggest to those around him to notify and update the Shaykh about these extremists and how they desire to subvert the traditional Islam and Muslims. Does anyone think that it is befitting for a noble Scholar such as Shaykh Babikr Ahmed Babikr to be seen allying with these radical neo-con ‘Islamists’ who consider the actions of the beloved ‘barbaric’? May Allah give the courage and iman to speak the truth and save us from disobedience.
Below are some statements of these extremists assembled by some readers: Source: Click Here
Ed on the Today Show 28/11/07
“and therefore Muslims should go far as to say that the other modes of reaching the noble aims of the Shari’ah in other words protection of life, property, reason, religion and so on, then why do we need to that barbaric, inhumane and outdated mode of stonging and flogging“
Ed in his article “The Gender Agenda” 23/10/07
“I don’t want Camilla’s generation to suffer the indignities of the scripturally justified attitudes of domestic violence, or her testimony to be worth half that of a Muslim man in court, or her legal inheritance in a Muslim country to be one-third of a man’s”
Ed in his article “There is more to Islam than a Teddy” 2/12/07
“Just as in Leviticus we find references to stoning sinners, in Muslim scripture there are some unpalatable references“
Rashad in his article “Addressing Islamist Grumblings”
“We can relieve ourselves of ancient and outmoded punishments, such as “flogging” and “stoning” as not being consistent with the actualizing of the Maqasid”
Maajid in his talk on the citycircle forum entitled “In and out of Islamism”
“Islamism is an ideology that believes sovereignty belongs to God, that legislation belongs to God…Those notions are alien to Islam“
“I dont think that in the realm of politics, we should be defining our political policies using scripture, because it is unhelpful“
“I dont think God revealed Islam to tell me how to run a state”
“Notions such as sovereignty belongs to God, or notions such as this state is Islamic and this state is not Islamic, are notions alien to Islam”
Ed the Islamist
“Religions are not for governments or states, they are for individuals. The state can assist individuals’ religious responsibilities, but governments cannot, should not, profess faith”
These and other statements made by these extremists and their general stance against the Muslim community by allying themselves with the neo-cons not only marginalise them from the traditional orthodox Muslims, they are to a certain degree dividing the Muslim community and obstructing community cohesion at large. Therefore, we do not think it will be at his [Shaykh Babikr Ahmed Babikr] interest for the purpose of unity and integrity to remain on their website as an official advisor.
Allah knows best
April 27, 2008 at 8:14 pm
A shaykh once said that maqasid is the most dangerous of the islamic sciences. When people say that the objectives of the shariah are this and that then why as rashad says do we need stoning when we can have a ‘less palatable’ form of punishment to reach the same objective?
April 27, 2008 at 9:04 pm
Assalamu Alaikum,
May Allah reward you brother/sister for the comment.
I too agree with the ‘Shaykh’s’ statement that Maqasid is [can be] one of the dangerous sciences but brother/sister don’t you think that Aqidah, Tafsir etc, can be equally dangerous when uneducated and ill-equipped individuals proceed to issue judgments about the Shari’ah? The hadd punishments in the Shari’ah are prescribed in the Qur’an and the Sunnah and cannot be changed or altered by anyone. The verse pertaining to stoning ‘’A married man and woman, if they commit adultery, stone them to death,’’ is abrogated in wording, however, the ruling is still there by the Sunnah and the consensus of the Companions.
I do not want to go into the philosophical aspect of Maqasid and stoning in the Shari’ah, I hope that the short lines above will be sufficient for you to understand and if you require further clarification then I suggest you ask a Scholar in your local area Insha’Allah.
You see brother/sister, these secular ‘Islamists’ want to subvert the traditional Islam and want to propagate their profane version of Islam which will conform to their secular world and neo-con masters in which they are drowning in and aspiring to please. Rashad Ali and others like him have no credibility or intellectual veracity to speak on behalf of the Shari’ah. I advise you to follow the articles on the following site: http://www.traditionalislamism.wordpress.com, the brothers Insha’Allah will update it and they will answer these and other questions by these secular ‘Islamists’.
Finally, how is your comment linked to the post regarding Shaykh Babikr Ahmed Babikr? Do you have contact with the Shaykh? If you do, why not pose these questions to him and reply to us Insha’Allah?
Wassalam
April 28, 2008 at 12:39 pm
Asalamu alaykum,
It should be noted that, although a unnamed sheikh said that the “Maqasid are a dangerous science.” It is well noted that all of the major scholars of Islamic law stated that a sound jurist cannot do with out them. In fact, the great scholar Sheikh al-Islam Muhammad Tahir Ibn Ashur, in his masterpiece on the subject, noted 5 reasons why a faqih cannot survive with out them. The same can also be said for extreme taqlid and tasawwuf. No scholar allowed people to delve into the science of tasawwuf with out fiqh as al-Sh’arani stated, “There is an Ijm’a that one who has not mastered the outer, cannot be followed in the inner.” As far as Aqidah, as stated by al-Ghazzali, the Aqidah for the layman is the aqidah of the salaf. It is strange that non-of our sheikhs ever state this, but instead push an extreme variant from the variant forms of the Ashari creed [there are around five different versions with al-Razi, as noted by al-Syuti adding 13 siffa to the famous 20] on the masses, creating hatred for the athari brethren, confusing the latter with the neo-salafis and attacking any who stand in their way.
altranslators
April 28, 2008 at 3:36 pm
Salam,
It is said that ghazali retracted from some of his positions on creed. Can anyone clarify? The way of the salaf is the safest and most knowledgeable. Many have returned to the way of the salaf such as imam asha’ri, juwayni and others, and yes ibn taymia is a scholar of ahlus sunnah.
wslm
April 28, 2008 at 4:28 pm
Asalamu alaykum,
Those statements were made in the last book he wrote “Bridling the Masses from ‘Ilm al-kalam” he [may Allah sanctify his soul] died 2 to 5 days latter.
April 28, 2008 at 6:24 pm
jazakallah brothers,
Is it something that is accepted among the Ulema that he retracted from some of his views? Could you list some books/articles I could refer to?
Shukran for your help
wasslam
April 28, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Asalamu alaykum,
In all fairness to al-Ghazzali he did not denounce Kalam and considered it vital for defending Islam. However, his position was that the way of the salaf tawid al-mutlaq was the way for the masses and that they had no business studying kalam. He says some very beautiful things about faith and quran in that epistle and I hope that it will be translated [without cutting out things] soon.
wa alaykum al-salam
April 28, 2008 at 8:52 pm
ASA
Skeikh Babikar is my brother in law and I spoke to him today about this very matter, Ed hussain approached the sheikh a matter of months ago to ask him to become an advisor to their group. The sheikh having no knowledge of Ed hussain or his group said he would consider it but only after researching their agenda.
The sheikh was extremely shocked when I informed him that his name appears on hussain’s site and he is now taking steps to having it removed.
May Allah strengthen our resolve to expose hussain and his cronies for all they are worth.
April 29, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Asalamu alaykum,
This is great news. The sheikh is a wonderful persona and we are all praying for him.
April 29, 2008 at 9:07 pm
I think this article is fantastic on your website
May 10, 2008 at 6:51 am
AS
Abdullah let us face it we have a generation of people commenting on and speaking for and about Islam with no legitimate education in Islamic sciences. In fact, these folk who are in truth illiterate in Islam and its sciences have found they can make a career and have a voice by speaking about Islam in the post 9-11 world.
THE LIBERAL CRITIQUE AND THE MARKET PLACE OF IDEAS: CRITIQUE FOR PROFIT AND POLICY
In short, the “liberal critic of Islam” and the quasi-Muslim postmodernists from the academic to talk show guest to political commentator has found that in the market place of ideas he or she can make a living as an ideologue. Disseminating critiques of Islam and Muslims in the name of freedom, ethics, and liberal democracy is a massive industry that supports various political policies.
REMARKS WITHOUT EXPERTISE OR SCHOLARSHIP:WESTERN MEDIA TAKING THE IGNORANT AS SCHOLARS, AND AUTHORITIES
What is of interest regarding Ed Hussain is that he fails to address his claims to scholars of Islamic learning neither in the West nor in the East. Many like Ed say nothing about the prison industrial complex nor about the death penalty which can execute a person which one faulty witness nor do they show much interest in the criminalization of whole generations in the West.
Frankly they seem not to be concerned about societal breakdown rather they invest in speaking about matter they are neither qualified to speak upon or matters which are not related to life in the West.
MAQASID ASH-SHAR’IAH, ISLAMIC SCHOLARSHIP AND THE CRIMINAL LAW OF ISLAM
Let us be honest the criminal law of Islam is not being applied in a post colonial world wherein Muslims have no sovereignty. So what is the purpose of discussing a reality that has no widespread practice? Is the goal to attack Saudi, a sovereign state? I fail to understand the “objectives” of this new rhetoric which calls upon maqasid ash shar’iah for justification. It is strange that this new discourse draws upon the works of Islamic scholars such as Imam Shatibi (r) and others like Imam Ghazali (r) and Ez ad Deen Abdus Salaam (r) but rejects the law from which they drew and distorts the texts of which they invoked. This new discourse is confused and far from scholarly although we can give the benefit of the doubt to say that it may be well “intended” but it is not well founded and neither is it grounded. In fact, it is a distortion of what the discourse of the objectives of the shar’iah entails. The UK has seen misrepresentations of Islam before and what we see today is the fall out of positions held by some who claimed to call to shar’iah.
Upon examination it is clear that the ideological positions of the likes of Ed Hussain and others have nothing to do with Islam they are twisted liberal discourses taken out of context and “aimed” at reinterpreting Islam.
THE PHILOSOPHICAL FOUNDATION FOR THE LIBERAL READING OF ISLAMIC TEXTS: THE LIBERAL HERMENEUTIC, TEXTUAL SURGERY AND THE UNFOUNDED INTERPRETATION
These would be scholars of the liberal discourse surgically play with the texts of Islam. What they do is remove the meaning from a collection of textual references, bankrupt the texts and implant another set of meanings to enact a new reading of the texts. There are various texts that they focus on mostly those pertaining to political sovereignty, marriage and women and the criminal code of Shar’iah to say the least. The poverty of their approach is that they have failed to define what Shar’iah is so they limit discourse of Shar’iah to criminal code or hold Shar’iah to be Islamic Law then they hold that Islamic Law is in essence Roman Law etc. The aim is to deconstruct the idea of Islam and bankrupt it by making a claim that there is no Islam but rather there are Islams and these are a matter of interpretation. So the sovereignty of Islamic texts is undermined and exploded. The end result of this practice if allowed to continue unchallenged is a coming crisis of authority and the dawn of new sects.
THE NEED FOR SPECIALISTS
We really should ask for credentials here to forth of those who speak for Islam. It is clear that anyone can speak for Islam in the the U.K. The media is plagued by folk who rattle off a grammatically correct rhetoric without devoid of expertise or merit.
Is it possible that an average Ed or Charles could speak for British law and about British law without expertise. Freedom of opinion does not equate with expertise this is where there seems to be some confusion. The reason for such a parody of Islamic scholarship and pitiful state is because many of the Ulema in the West have not entered the discourse and those who the intellectual acumen are caught in sectarian squabbles. In the end, one is free to hold an opinion of choice but once a non expert ascends to the public space to speak for a religion or science without due merit then they are subject to be exposed for malpractice and misrepresentation. This stage of da’wah requires the emergence of scholarship (ilm and fikr).
Allahu Al’am Wa Bihi at Taufeeq
May 10, 2008 at 2:37 pm
jazzakAllah khair Ustadh Abul Hussain. I am in complete agreement with you on the above words. I think time will make clear to us the true intentions of the QF. It is unfortunate that some who seem to have associated with them one way or another are failing to realise the damage these people are doing to the Muslims here in Britrain. MayAllah guide them.
wslm