M A Q A S I D - مقاصد

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

الحمد لله وصلى الله على سيدنا محمد وآله وصحبه وسلم

We were made aware of Usama’s reply from multiple sources, and it is with great sadness we realised that he did not engage in any of the issues raised. It can be imagined from his response that perhaps he wrote it while angry, and did not reflect carefully over what was written within. Rather than reflecting on the message, the attention seemed to be on the offence caused by those whom we would like to think – though we do not know them – had the best intentions in mind in delivering it.

We stress that we had written several excuses within the text for his aberrations, yet he seemed to merely lash out in return. It can only be thought that this is out of anger for his treatment on certain mailing lists, and it should be a cause of concern to him that many of those who are closest to him hold these opinions.

We could address each accusation he had hastily made, but it will be left to those who read both letters to make their own judgement.

Rather than reacting in this manner – the points raised in the letter were more than valid and necessitated a clear response based upon evidence rather than what was received.

To reiterate the initial statement made to Usama –

“Your recent comments have compelled us to write this short letter of advice to you, as our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم mentioned that our deen is naseeha. We have made this letter open, since your opinions and comments have been made openly, and are available via various media”

Indeed, while the comments he had previously made were in front of the mass media, supporting and bringing up contentions and issues which should be dealt with within our community instead of in front of the whole of the British society, and which only cause detriment to the average Muslim living here, in contrast to all this the open letter was intended for only within the Muslim community.

He opined that such a message is only “strengthening the extremists such as HT and al-Muhajiroon” (adopting the language of ‘moderate’ and ‘extreme’ is in itself part of the anti-Islamic narrative), yet he seems not to have considered who his open support of an organisation such as the Quilliam Foundation is strengthening.

This is an organisation that describes the Caliphate, which he purports to “support” without clarifying further – (though we had actually asked him about its obligation, agreed upon by ijmaa’) – as a “theocratic, expansionist dictatorship”. In fact, the very scholar he mentioned in his response, Dr. Ceric, was labelled as a radical and extremist by their members for even mentioning the Caliphate during his visit to London. Ironically – even after publicly attacking this scholar, as well as other guests who were in an event which Usama actually participated in – he still sees fit to associate with them. Does he not remember the words of our blessed Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم that a Believer does not get stung from the same hole twice?

They talk about the “invalidity of notions of Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam”, which are subscribed to (with differences in detail) by almost every scholar they mention on their website, let alone the masses of the ulama.

Their manifesto reads like any McCarthyist manual, suggesting that other Muslims be monitored in university, that wearing particular clothing be considered isolationist or confrontational, to restrict the access of Muslim activists such as Azzam Tamimi to the media (since he is an active supporter of the liberation of al-Quds, like every other sincere Muslim) and so on.

They subscribe to secularism, which is clear disbelief and there is no dispute over it.

They call for the promotion of “Muslim academics” like Abdul Wahab el-Effendi, who denies some of the sunna for the sake of expediency, speaks disparagingly about the Companions of our Prophet, and has no knowledge of Islam or its sciences. This promotion is done while at the same time blacklisting notable activists from our history, (and in fact even labelling them as the intellectual roots of terrorism), such as Hasan al-Banna, Qutb, Maududi, Nabahani, and the contemporary Dr. Qaradawi, who were/ are all concerned with the independence and unity of the Muslims, whatever our disputes with them.

They decry what they call the “media game” of good Muslim, bad Muslim, while it is apparent they would prefer the game of “good heretic, bad heretic” as evidenced by the so-called “debate” between one of their members and Hersi Ali, in which the two were largely in agreement.

It is clear in their narrative that they are trying to connect Islam, and belief in Islam in its entirety, to violence and terrorism. This position fits in completely with those who would like to blame Islam for the current malaise across the Middle East and beyond, while at the same time exonerating the brutal terrorism of those governments whose hands are drenched in the blood of Muslims, and who, by their contemporary and past actions, have opened up the doors of fitna and strife in Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine and beyond.

As for this talk of “Islamism” – it is only a cover to attack the Islam brought to us by our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم under the guise of Political Correctness using those within our own community to do so.

This foundation, and those similar to it, are being used to intimidate, oppress, silence and secularise the Muslim community here in Britain - if only Usama would understand.

While Usama did not respond to any of the points raised regarding the cross-pollination narration other than to restate his claim to follow the opinion of ‘ibn Khuldoon - it was previously shown in the first letter that what he is calling an “Islamic *political* secularisation”(?) is in fact a complete distortion of ‘ibn Khuldoon’s views.

To reiterate – this narration was mentioned to do with the cross-pollination of date trees, which our Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said “ما اظن يغني ذلك شيئا” – “I don’t think that would benefit anything”. In other words – it was only a suggestion from the Messenger صلى الله عليه وسلم in the first place, and not an issue of takleef (commandment).

This is once again confirmed by the first narration in Sahih Muslim – that the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم said

انما ظننت ظنا فلا تؤاخذوني بالظن ولكن اذا حدثتكم عن الله شيئا فخذوا به

“Rather it was only an idea that I had thought, so do not take from me in doubt/ supposition but if I speak to you from Allah about an issue then take it from me”

In fact – the narration which ‘ibn Khuldoon mentioned – that you are more knowledgeable in your worldly affairs – only comes as a shahed to the original and is not of the same strength.

As mentioned in the previous letter, the use of this narration to justify secularism has been comprehensively rejected by all the ulama.

The Sheikh al-Azhar, Muhammad al-Khidr Husain, mentioned in rejection of this misuse –

و أما الحديث “أنتم أعلم بأمور دنياكم” فإنه وارد في واقعة تأبير النخل فيحمل على هذا المعنى و ما شاكله من فنون الزراعة و الصنائع و غيرها من وسائل العمران المادية

And as for the hadith “You are more knowledgable in your worldly affairs” – it is mentioned in the incidence of pollination of date trees, so it is understood in that meaning and what is similar to it from the sciences of agriculture and industry and other issues from the means of material civilisation”

The Muhaddith Ahmed Shaker mentioned in his commentary on this hadith, how it had been misappropriated by Egyptian secularists and those who were “enslaved” to the ideas of Orientalists. In his refutation of this deviancy he stated that –

والحديث صريح ، لا يعارض نصا ، و لا يدل على عدم الاحتجاج بالسنة في كل شأن ، لأن رسول الله ـ صلى الله عليه وسلم ـ لا ينطق عن الهوى ، فكل ما جاء عنه فهو شرع و تشريع : ( وإن تطيعوه تهتدوا ) ، وإنما كان في قصة تلقيح النخل ، أن قال لهم ( ما أظن ذلك يغني شيئا ) ، فهو لم يأمر ولم ينه

And the hadith is clear, and does not contradict any text, and it does not indicate the lack of need to seek (the evidence) from the sunna in every issue, because the Messenger of Allah, does not speak from desires, so everything that came from him is law and legislation “and if you obey him you will be upon guidance” – and (the narration) was only about the story of the cross-pollination of date trees, when he said to them “I don’t think that benefit anything”, so he did not order nor prohibit it

So what is this “Islamic *political* secularism” other than a contradiction of what has been understood from this hadith? And what is this “Islamic *political* secularism” other than a separation of the state from Islam, or by another expression, the separation of the deen from the dowla? And how many scholars from the Umma of our Blessed Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم stated that this separation is nothing short of clear kufr, that takes one out of the deen?

May Allah Protect us, Forgive us, Guide us, and Fortify us upon the Straight Path.

‘abdulAllah bin ‘abdulAllah

Note -

And in addition to all this, in another open e-mail Usama also states that the opinion that the khimar is not wajib is actually a valid one to hold – and yet even self confessed liberal ’Ali Juma’ has previously stated that such an opinion is not considered.

That Sayyed Ahmed Khan was actually used as a reference is perhaps indicative of the state of mind of the author, since Khan’s history, position vis-a-vis the British occupation of India and level of knowledge are well known and do not merit expanding upon. Khan’s words “without flattering the English, I can truly say that the natives of India, high and low, merchants and petty shopkeepers, educated and illiterate, when contrasted with the English in education, manners, and uprightness, are like a dirty animal is to an able and handsome man” are enough proof of such a person’s state of mind, May Allah Protect us.

Original letter can be found here - with the initial response here

Taken from: www.traditionalislamism.wordpress.com