[Britiobby]

I had noticed on my return the thread on Murabitun closed, I would like if acceptable to the Moderators to respond to Brother Abdassamad Clarke and hopefully continue the dialogue as a seperate matter to the murabitun thread while in the spirit of Muhabet.

AS. Shayban ibn Farukh narrated to us: Jarir narrated to us (meaning Ibn Hazim): Ghaylan ibn Jarir narrated to us from Abu Qays ibn Riyah from Abu Hurayrah from the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, "Whoever goes out from obedience and separates himself from the jama'ah and dies, dies a jahiliyyah death."

From your standing I was expecting a hadith unequivocally stating as precedence that an Amir is to be followed before following a Shaykh. The Hadith you have quoted is concerned with homogeneity and i note several significant names and occurrence namely: Hasret Abu Hurayrah, al-Harrah and Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah rahimahullâh. This I believe will need to be considered before interpreting or deducing, without this in mind the conclusion promulgated maybe somewhat misconstrued as political activism.

The Hadith inexorably means that by not abiding to the rules and regulations on which one is incumbent, whether one is a ruler or not, one then becomes disobedient, thereby separate from the incumbent community and ostracised, incarcerated or deposed by their peers.

As can be inferred from the following chapter and verse from the Holy Quran:

49:9 And if two parties of believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them. And if one party of them doeth wrong to the other, fight ye that which doeth wrong till it return unto the ordinance of Allah; then, if it return, make peace between them justly, and act equitably. Lo! Allah loveth the equitable.

However, from my understanding, what you have seemed to deduce is support for a heterogeneous and indiscriminate grouping outside the law each with its own figure head all having the authority to wage a holy war.

AS. The pledge of allegiance of Islam is to the ruler, whether a king, sultan, amir, caliph. In reality all of these things have happened, and the Muslims have always lived in obedience to someone in authority. The contract with the shaykh of Tasawwuf can only happen within the context of a Muslim society. It is not a pledge of allegiance.

What is the purpose of Bayath then? Had giving Bayath necessarily meant an authority to be followed in a struggle in arms to you?

AS. You mix things up terribly. If the family of Saud are the political rulers of a country and of a people then quite correctly they take the pledge of allegiance. The ulama reportedly asked Ibn Saud to take the pledge of allegiance as caliph but he refused.

It may be be-cause he wasn’t from the tribe of Quraish, an accusation thrown against the Ottoman Sultanate to muster support for sedition.

AS. But yet it has a lesser standing in the aqidah. None of the standard aqidahs that I have found mention the Mahdi.

It will not have the same standing as the Amentu Billah, but still according to the consensus a crime punishable as heresy for any claimant, of sound mind, of being the Mahdi when contradictory to the consensus. I can see the very first Hadith you quoted about Homogeneity being applicable in such circumstances. I believe it is more of a Fiqh issue than one of Itiqad.

AS. Read Ibn Khaldun. His work is an education on history and the nature of society.

Is it an hypothesis for a social condition, it would be strange if it seems remarkably the same situation from which the Mahdi is to emerge.

AS. But you are living in fantasy. If the Mahdi comes in two hundred years, then you will have wasted your life dreaming about him.

Now this is the reason why i had to respond, this comment of yours had irked me so much that it wouldn’t settle until I responded. What you are confusing my friend is that somehow there is this same mindset for people who believe in Hasret Mahdi with those who wait for Judgement day and not in positive light either, but from their procrastination in doing good works or achieving good works because of a belief in having such a divine occurrence in support and all without having any substance for it. How further from the truth can that be and how frightfully derogatory of fellow Muslims? Is this what you think?

AS. He is not a specialist in hadith if that is what you mean. But he was an active aliim, and taught all the sciences in Cairo and was appointed Qadi a number of times. To be a muhaddith is a specialist activity that usually means that scholar does little else. It doesn't mean that other ulama do not understand something about hadith.

Why then is the consensus of Muhadith and other Alims on Imam Mahdi completely ignored for a deluded stance for rejection based only on Ibn Khalduns treatise? Had Ibn Khaldun rejected Hadith on Imam Mahdi, in fact had he rejected the appearance of Imam Mahdi altogether?

AS. The people who proclaimed themselves Mahdi were either victorious, like Ibn Tumart who founded the Muwahhidun dynasty or they were unsuccessful and died in battle.

Are you referring to Wahabism or the Druze's? , nevertheless both were branded heretical by the ulama and were illegal organisation to be disbanded by decree of the administrations of the time.

…Hafidh Ibn Hajar said, “The unqualified truth is that all of the Muwatta' is sound without any exception. (My own translations)

have you honestly understood it being that the sahih hadith excluded from the Muwatta was not to be considered as unqualified truth?

AS. Wrong. Unqualifiedly sahih as the hadith scholars said.

Yes the Hadith used in the Muwatta is the unqualified truth, however, this does not negate the unqualified truth of the many Sahih hadith that had been excluded for not meeting Hasret Maliks criteria for selection; of traditions from within a social normative, subjected to location. The criterion for soundness of a tradition as restricted by the criteria of Imam Malik is not in the same way as the criterion for soundness of a Hadith as restricted by the criteria of Sahih Bukhari. Imam Bukhari had selected hadith based on it meeting his criteria of being Sahih, being the basis for the methodology of sahih hadith as understood by the muhadiths. For example we can see mursal hadiths in Muwatta where-as in Sahih Bukhari there are none because mursal hadith even though being sound were not considered to meet his criteria for a sahih hadith. This in no way negates the unqualified truth of Imam Malik. It is a statement of fact that every hadith whether mursal or not in the Muwatta is the unqualified truth just like it is a statement of fact the every hadith in Sahih Bukhari is considered by consensus to have met the criterion for it being Sahih. The criterion used by Hasret Malik for a sahih hadith on a tradition of our Beloved Prophet is not considered as the criterion to use as a methodology to ascertain a validity for a sahih hadith as understood by Muhadith, that is why the Muwatta is not listed as one of the six books of Hadith by the ulema and that is why Sahih Bukhari is considered the epitome for sahih hadith by the ulema.

…AS. Indeed, and so there is no zakat.

Is that what is meant when stating zakat is the fallen pillar? My friend Zakat is not subject to an ordinance from a Caliph

…AS. It is fallen then, in your view until he restores it in ten years, a hundred years or a thousand, and you are going to wait that long? What excuse have you before Allah?

My friend Zakat is not subject to its validity from it being institutionalised by the government of the Land:

98:5 And they have been commanded no more than this: To worship Allah, offering Him sincere devotion, being true (in faith); to establish regular prayer; and to practise regular charity; and that is the Religion Right and Straight.

We can be Muslims under the governance from distant lands or under secular adminstrations, zakat would still be incumbent on us as a religious duty. I think you may have confused Zakat with BaitulMal.

[Britiobby]

Brother, you may have missed this.

[Irravepem]

I had noticed on my return the thread on Murabitun closed, I would like if acceptable to the Moderators to respond to Brother Abdassamad Clarke and hopefully continue the dialogue as a seperate matter to the murabitun thread while in the spirit of Muhabet.



From your standing I was expecting a hadith unequivocally stating as precedence that an Amir is to be followed before following a Shaykh.

In the name of Allah the All-Merciful the Most Merciful, and may Allah bless our master His slave Muhammad and his family and companions and grant them peace.

Sorry to have responded so late to your post. I received no notification of it, and am pretty sure that I gave up on this thread when the moderators closed it down.


All the shaykhs in history took it for granted that they lived in Muslim polities in which their fuqara had pledged allegiance to the ruler. It was so much the norm, like breathing air, that there is no need to mention it. Anyone else was a deviant or a rebel.



The Hadith you have quoted is concerned with homogeneity Not so. They are concerned with remaining in obedience to the legal amir, no matter how apparently terrible the circumstances seemed.

and i note several significant names and occurrence namely: Hasret Abu Hurayrah, al-Harrah and Yazid ibn Mu'awiyah rahimahullâh. This I believe will need to be considered before interpreting or deducing, without this in mind the conclusion promulgated maybe somewhat misconstrued as political activism. But am not talking about 'political activism', but about establishing the deen in our lives and in our streets and in our homes (and I am not talking about bizarre acts such as making a point of carrying out hudud punishments, which some people seem terribly eager to have to do).

The Hadith inexorably means that by not abiding to the rules and regulations on which one is incumbent, whether one is a ruler or not, one then becomes disobedient, thereby separate from the incumbent community and ostracised, incarcerated or deposed by their peers.

As can be inferred from the following chapter and verse from the Holy Quran:

49:9 And if two parties of believers fall to fighting, then make peace between them. And if one party of them doeth wrong to the other, fight ye that which doeth wrong till it return unto the ordinance of Allah; then, if it return, make peace between them justly, and act equitably. Lo! Allah loveth the equitable.

However, from my understanding, what you have seemed to deduce is support for a heterogeneous and indiscriminate grouping outside the law each with its own figure head all having the authority to wage a holy war.
Much of what you write is not very clear to me, so I will write only to that which is clear.

The point of the hadith you cite, is that obedience to the amir is obligatory no matter what (short of his kufr).

You deduce something from what I write which is nowhere in anything I have ever said or written, to my knowledge. 'Heterogeneous and indiscriminate grouping outside the law'!! Apart from the fact that I do not really know what you mean here, I feel pretty confident that if I did understand it, it would not represent what I meant. Certainly not the matter of 'authority to wage holy war'. Certainly, the authority to establish the deen, by establishing the prayer, appointing mu'adhdhins and imams, appointing imams for the jumu'ah, taking the decision about the beginning and ending of Ramadan, and collecting and distributing the zakat, etc. Then there are subsidiary matters such as minting gold and silver coins for the purposes of zakat and other matters. There are very important central matters such as the establishment of a marketplace, something which is obligatory on the person in authority.



What is the purpose of Bayath then? Had giving Bayath necessarily meant an authority to be followed in a struggle in arms to you? Clearly not. Everyone has gone for their weapons too early. The real issue is the establishment of the deen. The fighters have by and large failed us, because they do not understand the age in which we live. Thus they have brought destruction down on the heads of the women and children and the civilian population. Shame on them. How much care the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, took not to let the fighting get into Madinah. How much care of the women and children.

The fighters have not understood the nature of capitalism and the state. They are fighting romantic battles of another age. You cannot understand capitalism and the state unless you know something about European history and a number of other matters, and that is as true in the hills of Afhganistan as on the streets of London. Similarly, the ulama are not equipped to understand banking without understanding some of these same matters, and they cannot possibly learn that knowledge in institutions which have been visible extensions of the banking system, such as modern universities.


It may be be-cause he wasn’t from the tribe of Quraish, an accusation thrown against the Ottoman Sultanate to muster support for sedition. You have lost me here. Who wasn't from the tribe of Quraish?



It will not have the same standing as the Amentu Billah, but still according to the consensus a crime punishable as heresy for any claimant, of sound mind, of being the Mahdi when contradictory to the consensus. What consensus?
I can see the very first Hadith you quoted about Homogeneity being applicable in such circumstances. I believe it is more of a Fiqh issue than one of Itiqad.
Again, you have lost me.

Is it an hypothesis for a social condition, it would be strange if it seems remarkably the same situation from which the Mahdi is to emerge. Ibn Khaldun is very interesting to us. He lived at the time the Mongols had destroyed the caliphate in Baghdad. He actually met Tamerlane. The Islamic civilisation in Andalus was almost totally extinguished. The Maghrib was in turmoil. Perpetual fighting and overthrow of this king and that king. Ibn Khaldun lived through it all, often on the back of a horse close to the fighting. If anyone would have had a right to consider himself to be living in apocalyptic times it was him. If anyone had a right to fervently hope for the Mahdi to deliver him, it was Ibn Khaldun. But make no mistake; he did not deny the Mahdi. He just did not expect the Mahdi to come down out of heaven and rescue the Muslims. He said the Mahdi would emerge according to historical processes at whatever time Allah, exalted is He, had determined.


Now this is the reason why i had to respond, this comment of yours had irked me so much that it wouldn’t settle until I responded. What you are confusing my friend is that somehow there is this same mindset for people who believe in Hasret Mahdi with those who wait for Judgement day and not in positive light either, but from their procrastination in doing good works or achieving good works because of a belief in having such a divine occurrence in support and all without having any substance for it. How further from the truth can that be and how frightfully derogatory of fellow Muslims? Is this what you think ?

Again your expression is somewhat unclear to me. I await further clarification.



Why then is the consensus of Muhadith and other Alims on Imam Mahdi completely ignored for a deluded stance for rejection based only on Ibn Khalduns treatise? Had Ibn Khaldun rejected Hadith on Imam Mahdi, in fact had he rejected the appearance of Imam Mahdi altogether? Ibn Khaldun did not reject the Mahdi. He demonstrated clearly that most of the narrations have some weakness in them but, as the hadith scholars say, the sheer weight of hadith, even with some weakness, then gives them strength.

However, a man with intellect must ask himself why it is that Imam Malik lived in Madinah with the generations of those whose grandparents had been Companions, knowing huge numbers of hadith, far more than he published in his Muwatta, and yet he did not include a single reference to the Mahdi.

Knowing what we know about him, it is likely that he knew the hadith but saw no good in narrating them. Malik, may Allah be merciful to him, often refrained from narrating hadith that he knew well, because he knew the use that might be made of them.

If it is conceivable that he might have lived in Madinah with the exalted people who lived there, and that none of them had ever heard a hadith about the Mahdi, then that is an astonishing concept. It can only then have been something that the Prophet, may Allah bless him and grant him peace, told to a few, and they did not see the siginificance of repeating to others, i.e. it had no great centrality to the deen and to the aqidah. Either way, there is some weighty reason why Malik does not include a single hadith on the Mahdi.

Equally, Imam Abu Hanifah in his Kitab al-athar has not a single hadith or athar on the Mahdi.

Imam an-Nawawi collected forty (really forty-two) hadith which he felt incorporated key things that the Muslims needed to know for their deen, and included nothing about the Mahdi.

Are we also to believe that Imam al-Bukhari travelled from one side of the lands of Islam to another in search of authentic hadith, and knowingly failed to include a sahih hadith on the Mahdi? This is inconceivable, particularly if the Mahdi is central to the aqidah of Islam.

Are we to believe that Imam at-Tahawi and Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani and a large number of others who wrote works on the aqidah knowingly left out something of central importance in the deen, or forgot it? Both are inconceivable. And neither mention the Mahdi. Many of the great aqidahs do not mention the Mahdi, whereas, in common with the great sahih works of hadith they do mention the Dajjal and the return of Isa, peace be upon him.


Are you referring to Wahabism or the Druze's? , nevertheless both were branded heretical by the ulama and were illegal organisation to be disbanded by decree of the administrations of the time. Have no idea where this came from, nor where you are going with it.

have you honestly understood it being that the sahih hadith excluded from the Muwatta was not to be considered as unqualified truth? Certainly not. No one hadith scholar has the exclusive claim on authenticity. However, you cannot understand the Muwatta and its hadith by coming from al-Bukhari, Muslim, at-Tirmidhi et al. You can understand the other great hadith collections if you proceed from an understanding of the Muwatta. Muwatta means 'repeatedly agreed upon' and 'the well-trodden path'. No one equals Malik in his rigour regarding narrators.

Yes the Hadith used in the Muwatta is the unqualified truth, however, this does not negate the unqualified truth of the many Sahih hadith that had been excluded for not meeting Hasret Maliks criteria for selection;
But Malik had other criteria for excluding or omitting hadith; for example if he saw that the hadith might mislead people or confuse them or lead to bid'ah through some misunderstanding. of traditions from within a social normative, subjected to location. The criterion for soundness of a tradition as restricted by the criteria of Imam Malik is not in the same way as the criterion for soundness of a Hadith as restricted by the criteria of Sahih Bukhari. Imam Bukhari had selected hadith based on it meeting his criteria of being Sahih, being the basis for the methodology of sahih hadith as understood by the muhadiths. For example we can see mursal hadiths in Muwatta where-as in Sahih Bukhari there are none because mursal hadith even though being sound were not considered to meet his criteria for a sahih hadith. This in no way negates the unqualified truth of Imam Malik. It is a statement of fact that every hadith whether mursal or not in the Muwatta is the unqualified truth just like it is a statement of fact the every hadith in Sahih Bukhari is considered by consensus to have met the criterion for it being Sahih. The criterion used by Hasret Malik for a sahih hadith on a tradition of our Beloved Prophet is not considered as the criterion to use as a methodology to ascertain a validity for a sahih hadith as understood by Muhadith, that is why the Muwatta is not listed as one of the six books of Hadith by the ulema and that is why Sahih Bukhari is considered the epitome for sahih hadith by the ulema. Yes and no. The Muwatta is not devoted exclusively to prophetic hadith and thus is not included any longer among the books devoted exclusively to prophetic hadith. But in its narrations it is unequalled in terms of its authenticity. And then there are Malik's own explanations, and his narrations from other people and his accounts of the 'amal of Madinah. But both Malik and al-Bukhari agree on not narrating anything about the Mahdi.

Is that what is meant when stating zakat is the fallen pillar? My friend Zakat is not subject to an ordinance from a Caliph



My friend Zakat is not subject to its validity from it being institutionalised by the government of the Land: Clearly if the ruler is unjust, i.e. he puts zakat funds to wrong purposes such as buying concubines or painting the palace, then one does not pay one's zakat to him, but rather pays it directly, if one is able. However, if the ruler is just, then he appoints zakat collectors, and it is our duty to pay the zakat to them and for them to distribute it, particularly in the cases of crops and cattle.

But we are in neither camp: we do not have unjust amirs wrongfully spending the zakat on inappropriate matters, nor do we have just amirs who can be trusted. It is incumbent on us to take ourselves to amirs and live in obedience to them, and I am not talking about insurgent guerrillas in the hills, waging unwinnable wars; I am talking about amirs establishing the deen and calling to the way of Allah with wisdom.

98:5 And they have been commanded no more than this: To worship Allah, offering Him sincere devotion, being true (in faith); to establish regular prayer; and to practise regular charity; and that is the Religion Right and Straight. You might be content with that translation, but the ayah confirms what I am saying, because they (we) are ordered to pay the zakat, and a part of its payment is to pay it to the amir. Ibn Juzayy said:
"The zakah is fard and one of the fundamental matters of Islam, such that whoever denies that it is obligatory is a kafir, and whoever refuses [to pay it] then it is to be taken from him by force, and if he refuses then he is to be fought until he pays it."

In the case of voluntary charity, who is there who is going to take it by force if the person does not pay it, or who will fight the person who refuses to pay it? Clearly there has to be a ruler.

Simply put, no Muslim possessed of intellect can fail to see that for a people to be united and clearly visible as a community, they must have chosen those in authority over them.

Living as many, if not most of us in this forum, do in non-Muslim lands, then it must be made absolutely clear that we are not talking about organising the Muslims militarily nor about subversion of existing governmental structures of these lands. Far be it from that. We are talking about a leadership that allows us to fulfil the basic obligations of our deen.

We can be Muslims under the governance from distant lands or under secular adminstrations, zakat would still be incumbent on us as a religious duty. I think you may have confused Zakat with BaitulMal. Zakat is incumbent on us, whatever our circumstances. But obedience to those in authority from among us, the Muminin, is also incumbent by the clear ayat of Qur'an.

Now clearly, it is no accident that in this discussion between me and you, we have paired amirate and the Mahdi. That is because the people who have abandoned the obligation to obey an amir, turn then to hoping for a deliverer, whereas the people who are obedient to an amir, hope earnestly that if the Mahdi comes he will find them active in establishing the deen and ready to support him, but if he does not come they will still be no less busy in establishing the deen. The unseen belongs to Allah, and we have no idea if the Mahdi is here already, or is coming in a hundred years.

But there does not have to be any contradiction here, for the obligation to obey the amir is right now. Even if the Mahdi is coming next month or next year, still that does not absolve us of the obligation to obey an amir RIGHT NOW. And the Mahdi is not going to take my allegiance directly, since I am just one of almost a billion and a half Muslims. No he will take the allegiance of rulers who already command the allegiance of large numbers of Muslims, so if you are not in obedience to an amir when the Mahdi comes you will find yourself in the wrong place at the wrong time.

The simplest approach to this is that Allah, exalted is He, says that which means: "O you who have iman, obey Allah and obey the Messenger and those in command among you." How can we obey this ayah without us having 'people in command among us'? He, exalted is He, also says: "Do not obey the kafirun and the munafiqun." What can be simpler than these two ayat?

And Allah knows best.

As-salamu alaikum,



Abdassamad Clarke

[FoetAgerhot46]

Asalam o Alaikum, Brother are you the same Abdassamad Clarke who translated The History of the Khalifas Who took the Right way of Jalaludin Suyuti?

[FoetAgerhot46]

Can some one guide me if this translation is correct. Jazak Allah khair.

[Irravepem]

As-salamu alaikum,

Yes, Omer, I am the translator of the book of as-Suyuti, may Allah have mercy on him. What can I do for you?

Abdasamad

[FoetAgerhot46]

As-salamu alaikum,

Yes, Omer, I am the translator of the book of as-Suyuti, may Allah have mercy on him. What can I do for you?

Abdasamad

Wa Alaikum Musalam. No Sir, I just wanted to confirm that it is authentic or not. I believe that your translation is reliable since you are also the member of this forum. Jazak Allah Khair.

[Irravepem]

All I can say Omer is that I worked hard to try and understand the book and to translate it as carefully as I could.

Abdassamad

[Nfxutkpa]

May Allah reward you and enable you to translate many more works.

[Irravepem]

Amin, UmHasan, and may He reward you for your du'a.

[Efksqhyu]

Asalam o Alaikum, Brother are you the same Abdassamad Clarke who translated The History of the Khalifas Who took the Right way of Jalaludin Suyuti?

Do you mean this book in the following link ?

http://www.amazon.co.uk/History-Khal.../dp/1842000985

There is no review for this book on amazon website !!

[Efksqhyu]

Amin, UmHasan, and may He reward you for your du'a.

Do you know where I can find Arabic and German translations of the book " The book of strangers " ?