[MondayBlues]

http://sandala.org/blog/2012/10/06/s...ally-hurts-us/


Sticks and Stones May Break Our Bones, but Fitna Really Hurts Us 06/10/12
By Hamza Yusuf.

“Whenever someone calls his brother Muslim a kafir, one of them must be a kafir [either the one being accurately being called a kafir, or the one who falls into kufr, by inaccurately accusing his brother of being a kafir].”
– Prophet Muhammad, God’s peace and blessings be upon him

“Fitna[1] is asleep; may God curse the one who awakens it.”
– Prophet Muhammad, God’s peace and blessings be upon him

“Takfir should be reserved for one who clearly falls into apostasy, states it openly, chooses it as his din, rejects the testimony of faith, and leaves the religion of Islam altogether.”
– Taqi al-Din al-Subki

“To deem a thousand disbelievers Muslim is safer with God than to deem one Muslim a disbeliever.”
– Imam Abu Hanifah

What is apostasy, and how does it differ from simple error? When a Muslim suspects a fellow Muslim of apostasy, how should he or she act? Recently, certain Muslims have been attempting to “expose” me as a deviant Muslim by highlighting mistakes I have made in my talks that are on the Internet. Some of these attempts[2] have been so ridiculous that I will not waste time refuting them. Nevertheless, they raise some important issues that I want to address: What is a proper response to error? And what should a Muslim do when accused of apostasy? In this essay, I will explain how I fell into one error, and I will apologize for it. I will also review the larger issues of kufr, takfir, and fitna, and their interrelations.

An Error and a Retraction

The error I wish to clear up concerns a statement I made some years ago while commenting on Imam al-Tahawi’s creed. In dealing with the section on the “seal” of prophecy in that text, I brought up the false interpretation of that concept used by the false prophet, Mirza Ghulam Ahmad. In retrospect, perhaps I should have refrained from providing a detailed explanation. Instead, I ventured into a thorny area, based upon my understanding of the key figures of the Ahmadiyya movement, and in doing so, I made some statements that I am obliged to retract.

My error was in differentiating between the status of the two groups – the Lahoris and the Qadianis – of the Ahmadiyya movement, and stating that the Lahoris are not outside the fold of Islam. My understanding of this issue came from people I trust, not to mention Al-Azhar University’s approval of Muhammad Ali’s[3] Religion of Islam as well as his insistence in the introduction to his Qur’an translation that he was a Muslim who accepted the finality of the Prophet Muhammad, God’s peace and blessings be upon him. Though I clearly stated that Mirza Ghulam Ahmad was a false prophet and is considered outside the fold of Islam, as are his followers, and I warned people about reading Muhammad Ali’s books, I inappropriately commended his English translation of the Qur’an. I am certainly not the first Muslim to have done so, as some well-known scholars of the past have acknowledged the merit of Muhammad Ali’s translation, and some translators, including Yusuf Ali and Marmaduke Pickthall, not only relied heavily on it but also praised it. Regrettably, I was in error by doing so. Adherence to the sound principles of our Prophet, God’s peace and blessings be upon him, is our only salvation from error. According to a hadith, to praise deviants and innovators is to aid in the destruction of Islam. I seek refuge in God from that and ask forgiveness for anything done unwittingly to that disastrous end.

When the issue concerning the difference between the Lahoris and Qadianis was brought to my attention, I made several calls to scholars I know and trust, and received different opinions about the religious category under which the Lahoris fall. One prominent and well-known Pakistani scholar informed me that while there is a nuanced difference between the two groups, both, however, are equally anathematized in Pakistan. Another well-known American scholar of Islam informed me that he was under the same assumption as I based upon Al-Azhar’s certification of Muhammad Ali’s Religion of Islam. He stated that Al-Azhar would never certify an apostate’s work on Islam. Nevertheless, since that time, several fatwas and statements of various scholars I trust stating the contrary opinion have come to my attention and convinced me of my error.

Al-Azhar has ruled that both sects are outside of Islam, and I accept the ruling of the former rector and mufti, Shaykh Al-Azhar, Gad al-Haqq, may God have mercy on him. I am very cautious of takfir, but if a body as meticulous as Al-Azhar issues an official position about a group, we are obliged to concede to them. I have great respect for the balance and moderate tradition that Al-Azhar represents and know that they do not take takfir lightly. Hence, I defer such judgment to them, and retract my previous statement. As the saying goes, “The people of Mecca are more familiar with their mountain trails.”

For all these reasons, I request that my statements about the Lahoris be removed from the Internet, as I am not qualified to have an opinion about the matter and cannot make takfir of a group or individual on my own, as that is a judicial responsibility in Islam.

Why Does This Matter?

Many modern Muslims are probably unfamiliar with the great loss of life this particular fitna caused in the past. In 1953, Pakistan was shaken by protests aimed at removing the Qadiani minister, Zafar Allah Khan. The protests succeeded, but over ten thousand Pakistanis lost their lives in the process. I hope that the few Muslims who have seized upon my mistakes will refrain from reawakening a fitna that has had such frightful consequences in the past. A hadith says, “Fitna is asleep; may God curse the one who awakens it.” The use of fitna as a method for social disruption is increasing in our communities. Muslims must be more vigilant about those within and without us who wittingly or unwittingly cause strife and conflict, which increasingly is leading to loss of life and limb. The Internet has become the number one source and weapon for this phenomenon, which may herald the introduction of what the Prophet, God’s peace and blessings be upon him, referred to as “the age of fitna.”

In refutation to those accusing me of disbelief or questioning my faith, I would like to clarify something that is obvious to most people who know me: I am an orthodox Muslim. I follow the Maliki school of law; I believe in and accept the creeds of Imam al-Tahawi, Imam al-Ash’ari, and Imam al-Maturidi as all being valid understandings of the Divine in our faith and sources for sound dogmatic theology; and I am also a believer in the agreed-upon path of Imam al-Junaid and of those who are rightly-guided among the Sufis, such as Abu Talib al-Makki, Imam al-Qushayri, Imam al-Ghazali, Sidi Ahmad Zarruq, and countless others. I am not a Perennialist and never have been. I believe Islam abrogated previous dispensations, as asserted in the major creeds of Islam, but I do agree with Imam al-Ghazali’s position of the possibility of salvation outside of the faith of Islam and am not exclusivist in that manner. When I said, “I don’t believe in exclusivist religion” I was referring to that position and was not attributing Divine sanction after the advent of God’s final dispensation, Islam, to any other faith tradition.[4]

I sincerely thank those who defended my honor in the light of these attacks and made excuses for me, as that, according to the Prophet, God’s peace and blessings be upon him, is a hallmark of the believer, whereas seeking out mistakes is a quality attributed to hypocrisy. I was asked by several people to clarify this issue due to an apparent obsession that a few people seem to have with exposing my mistakes on the Internet, as opposed to writing to me privately and edifying me that I might correct them, especially at a time when Muslims are so disunited and fragmented. Their claims to have contacted me are bewildering, as I received nothing to that effect.

Our community is currently dealing with many grave matters: suicide bombings, sectarianism, civil wars, our great scholars of the past having their bodies dug up from their graves and desecrated, mentally challenged adolescent girls accused of blasphemy, embassies destroyed and ambassadors killed or under threat, … the list continues. As a result of the madness in our community, increasingly, for the first time since I became Muslim thirty-five years ago, I am hearing pleas such as, “Help my son – he has left Islam; help my daughter – she is having a crisis of faith.” I now receive letters and emails requesting that I talk to Muslim youth who no longer identify with our faith. Sadly, harsh-hearted haters among our community are driving people from the mosques and making the most beautiful teaching in the world appear ugly.

What Is Apostasy, and How Should We Respond to It?

A concerned brother from England, asking me to address the Lahori statement, pointed out that some brothers have declared me a kafir based upon the argument “one who does not make takfir of a kafir is also a kafir.” Their reasoning is this: Lahori Ahmadiyyas are kafirs; Hamza Yusuf did not call them kafirs; therefore, Hamza Yusuf is a kafir. To edify those seeking clarification on the issue of declaring Muslims kafirs, I have provided the explanation that follows.

The precept articulated is related to a precept known as “lazim al-madhhab madhhab,” which is not as simple as some would have it. Regarding apostasy, Sidi ‘Abd Allah Ould al-Hajj Ibrahim, the great usuli scholar, states: “Anyone who demeans the sanctity of God, His prophets, or His angels leaves Islam. The condition of intended apostasy when demeaning is a disregarded position.”

What he means is that anyone who diminishes the exalted station of God or any of His prophets, angels, or symbols (such as by spitting on the Ka’ba or throwing a copy of the Qur’an into the trash) is an apostate, whether that person intended to leave Islam or not. There is an opinion that the intention of apostasy must precede the act in order for it to be considered apostasy, but that is a weak opinion.

Sidi ‘Abd Allah then says, “The scholars are harsh on a mufti who says that one is not a kafir who is a kafir. Indeed, disbelief is feared for one doing so.”

“Disbelief is feared for one doing so” is the precept that the young man from England was referring to when he said, “one who does not make takfir of a kafir is also a kafir.” However, note how Sidi ‘Abd Allah articulates it. He refers to a “mufti” who does not deem as disbelief that which scholars have concluded is disbelief, whether in word or in deed. The scholars censure such a person severely, as a mufti’s implication that he accepts those proscribed words or deeds as permissible can lead to the disbelief of others.

Another aspect of this is contained in the related maxim, “What is implied or inheres in a statement is also a statement” (lazim al-qawl yu’addu qawlan). In other words, if a person does not declare to be kufr something that is considered kufr by a consensus of the scholars, then that disregard for the consensus of the scholars on that issue is, in effect, kufr. That is, if one does not deem kufr to be kufr, it follows that one accepts the kufr. However, implied in this principle is that one is pleased with the kufr or at least views it as acceptable for another person. In that case, the acceptance of the kufr is indeed kufr. In the case of grey areas, however, when possible, one should attempt to interpret the offending word or deed in such a way whereby implications of disbelief are overlooked.

To illustrate the nuances mentioned here, let us look at the problem of anthropomorphism. Someone who attributes to God qualities of His creation may not understand the inherent problems that such a position engenders. Some scholars declare such people outside of the faith, while others do not. Shaykh Abu al-Qasim al-Tawati says, quoting al-Takmil, “This is based upon the principle that ‘what is implied or inheres in a school is also a school’ (lazim al-madhhab madhhab). But this is a matter of difference among scholars.”

Shaykh al-Tawati continues, “Does the derived meaning of a statement function as the same statement or not? Many have been considered disbelievers based upon this, like the one who asserts rulings and attributes and yet denies them also – what innovation! [He is referring to the Mu’tazilites and others.] This includes also the Anthropomorphists. It follows that what they worship is other than what Muslims worship.”

His argument is that to attribute to God literally those things that are attributes of His creation, is, in essence, idolatry. That is because those who do so, while not worshiping anything physical, have conceptualized in their object of worship qualities that imply physicality, such as limbs and direction. Hence, some scholars have deemed them idolaters given that their literalism declares a deity who exists in space, is physically located on something, etc., all of which delimits the limitless true God of Islam.

On the other hand, a more lenient scholarly opinion holds that while such an understanding of God is erroneous, it does not render such people idolaters because they are merely asserting what God states in the Qur’an but are mistaking it as literal, failing to understand that such an interpretation results in profound theological problems. In his commentary on Ibn ‘Ashir’s poem, Ibn Hamdun says about this strain of Hanbali Anthropomorophists (Mujassimah), “Their faith (iman) is accepted only if their intellects cannot grasp the subtle distinction [between their conceptualization and its attendant problems].”

Hence, in a desire to avoid takfir, some scholars have rejected the principle, “What can be deduced from a statement is also a statement” (Lazim al-qawl yu’addu qawlan), given that it does not account for the person’s intention or heedlessness to the implications of their words or subsequent conceptualizations. This is a more merciful approach and one taken by the greatest scholars of Islam.

Sidi ‘Abd Allah then states, “[Charging] apostasy should be avoided if another interpretation can be found [to the act or statement].” This approach invokes the virtue of mercy, of being generous and charitable, if there is doubt in how we may be interpreting someone’s words or deeds, or if there is doubt regarding that person’s intention.

Shaykh al-Tawati comments, “If a statement implies disbelief or something else, one should not deem it apostasy but rather use an alternate interpretation, if it bears that, in order to prevent bloodshed.”

Sidi ‘Abd Allah then quotes a statement attributed to Imam Abu Hanifah: “To deem a thousand disbelievers Muslim is safer with God than to deem one Muslim a disbeliever.” Quoting Waking up the Sleeper (Iqadh al-wasnan), Shaykh al-Tawati states,

It was said to Malik, “Are the heretics (ahlu al-ahwa) apostates?”

He replied, “On the contrary: their heresies were an attempt to flee from disbelief.”

For example, in the case of the Anthropomorphists, they took their position of literalness out of fear of denying the Book of God or God’s attributes. Hence, they were indeed attempting to flee from disbelief, not fall into it.

In the same book, Taqi al-Din al-Subki was once asked if one should declare extreme innovators disbelievers (takfir ghulat al-mubtadi’ah), to which he replied:

Absolutely not! Know this, questioner! Anyone who fears God, the Exalted, will deem it an enormity to accuse someone who says, “La ilaha illa Allah, Muhammad rasulullah” of being a disbeliever. Indeed, this is an affair most grave and dangerous, because the one who calls another [Muslim] a kafir is really saying, “I know he will be forever in the hellfire; his blood and wealth are permitted in this world [apostasy was a capital offense according to most pre-modern scholars in the three Abrahamic religions];[5] he cannot be married to a Muslim woman [his marriage would be nullified]; and the rules of Islam do not apply to him, either in his life or after death.” Indeed, to mistake a thousand disbelievers [as believers] is better than to make a mistake that causes blood to flow from a Muslim. And a hadith states, “That a ruler should mistakenly forgive a criminal is dearer to God than that he should punish an innocent man.” So takfir should be reserved for one who clearly falls into apostasy, states it openly, chooses it as his din, rejects the testimony of faith, and leaves the religion of Islam altogether.

Conclusion: Sectarianism and Fitna

Some modern Muslims have become so sectarian that they are “quick on the [apostasy] draw,” ready to gun down anyone who disagrees with them – at times not just figuratively. Due to this misuse of learning, many Muslims have lost faith in the scholastic community, dismayed by the pettiness with which some half-baked imams and mullahs too often use their “knowledge.” As Allama Muhammad Iqbal so cogently and eloquently stated, “Neem hakim khatra-e jaan; neem mullah khatra-e iman.”[6] And, in the wise words of Shaykh Abdallah bin Bayyah, referring to these same “scholars”: “Ta’rifuna ma qala rabbukum, wa la ta’rifuna lima qala rabbukum.”[7]

The seriousness that our earlier scholars applied to this issue is clear. Imam al-Ghazali begins his opus, Revival of the Religious Sciences (Ihya ‘ulum al-din), with a powerful indictment of the scholastic community whom he refers to as “formalists,” people who have become so trapped in the trappings of religion that they have forgotten its true essence. Echoing the Qur’an, Imam al-Ghazali pointed out that most people follow what they were born into and taught by their parents and elders. Moreover, it is the originators of false creeds and ideologies who are the real transgressors, not the unfortunate people who have unknowingly imbibed false teachings from early childhood, which makes discovery of truth much harder for them. These same people, after years of indoctrination, in turn indoctrinate their own children, unwittingly perpetuating the cycles of falsehood that the Qur’an came to end. God says, “Oppose the leaders of disbelief” (9:12), given that they are the ones who disseminate error and thus mislead the trusting masses. But as for their misguided followers, we should have compassion for them and help them see the truth. That is only achieved through mercy.

It is not in my nature to hate people. I actually desire good for all people, including Hindus, Jews, Buddhists, Christians, Atheists, Agnostics, and certainly my brother and sister Muslims. I would hope to see humanity guided as opposed to misguided. The Prophet, God’s peace and blessings be upon him, said, “That a person should be guided at your hand is better than the world and what the sun sets upon.”

The Qur’an says to the Prophet Muhammad, God’s peace and blessings be upon him, “It is a mercy from your Lord that you are so gentle toward them. If you had been harsh and hard-hearted, people would have fled from your presence” (3:159). It is indeed the harshness and obstinacy of some overly zealous Muslims today, combined with the absence of mercy in their hearts, which is driving people out of Islam and deterring others from considering or even respecting it. They are conducting themselves based upon some misguided adherence to their understanding of Islam. They are uncertain in themselves, and so they feel threatened by anyone who might differ with them; through fanaticism, they attempt to protect themselves from doubt but result in only obscuring their view. Fanatics are blinded by the light of God as opposed to guided by it. The Prophet, God’s peace and blessings be upon him, warned of these people when he said, “Perish they who go to extremes.” We should try our utmost not to be one of them.

Ibn Qayyim said, “Forgiveness is more beloved to God than vengeance; mercy is more beloved to Him than punishment; acceptance is more beloved to Him than wrath; and grace is more beloved to Him than justice.”

I sincerely thank those many people who defended my honor as well as those who, with courtesy, brought this mistake to my attention that I might redress it. The Prophet, God’s peace and blessings be upon him, said, “All of you make mistakes, and the best of those who do so are those who repent from them.” Thank you for pointing out my mistakes that I might repent from and correct them. I am deeply sorry for any confusion they may have indirectly caused by allowing those who seized upon them to awaken a sleeping fitna.

When a woman chastised the caliph Omar for his claim that dowries should have limits, Omar, may God be pleased with him, said, “All of you are more learned than Omar” (Kullukum afqahu min ‘Umar).[8]



[1] Fitna (Arabic: fitnah): “Sedition, dissention, discord.” The word’s root is related to “enticement,” “allure,” “intrigue,” and “temptation.” Fattan means “fascinating,” “captivating,” “enchanting”; “tempter,” “seducer”; “denunciator,” “informer,” “slanderer” (Hans Wehr Arabic-English Dictionary). The close relationship of these words indicates that fitna can be seductive and enticing to some. When fitna broke out, the Salaf would often quote these lines of poetry: “War, when it first appears, is as a beautiful woman to every young ignoramus.” Under normal circumstances, such people do little or nothing but when exposed to a fitna suddenly become filled with zeal and actively engaged in “righteously” setting something right, often under the guise of duty and loyalty to the faith. This enticement is something from which we must guard our hearts.

[2] For example, I gave a talk to a group of Christian theologians, ministers, and students about the ill effects of usury, in which I argued that Christians had abandoned their prohibition of usury that had lasted for almost two thousand years. I used Dante Alighieri’s Inferno as a frame for the discussion. During the talk, I pointed out that Dante viewed the Prophet, God’s peace and blessings be upon him, as a schismatic Christian as opposed to a false prophet, as I wanted them to reflect on Dante’s subtle acknowledgement of the doctrine of Islam, as argued by the Catholic priest and scholar, Miguel Asin Palacios. Hence I told them that I wanted to “defend Dante a little bit.” These Muslims seized upon my use of the word “defend,” by which I meant, “explain,” which is a synonym of “defend.” On this basis, they argued that I “defended” Dante for insulting the Prophet, God’s peace and blessings be upon him – a claim so patently false and unfair, not to mention absurd, that I won’t even entertain refuting it.

[3] Muhammad Ali (1874–1951) was the most prolific student of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad and split with the Qadianis in 1914 over the issues of the succession and the claim to prophecy of Ghulam Ahmad, which Muhammad Ali argued was an addition by his son Bashiruddin and not part of the original teachings of Ghulam Ahmad. Muhammad Ali is considered the founder of the Lahori branch of the Ahmadiyyas.

[4] For a more detailed explanation of Imam al-Ghazali’s view on what makes a person a disbeliever, see my article in Seasons Journal, “Who are the Disbelievers?” Also, my article “Generous Tolerance in Islam and Its Effects on the Life of a Muslim” explains the noble character Muslims should have. Both articles can be found here: http://sandala.org/multimedia/articles/

[5] Punishment in this world for apostasy is not mentioned in the Qur’an; however, some sound hadiths indicate that it is a capital offense. These are not absolutely certain (mutawatir) traditions, and some scholars, such as al-Nakhi’ and others, argued against it. Imam Abu Hanifah’s school does not mandate capital punishment for a female apostate due to the mutawatir tradition prohibiting killing women or children, which he saw as limiting the singular hadiths enjoining capital punishment on apostates. Today, it could be strongly argued that the aim (maqsad) of considering apostasy a capital offense, which was to protect the faith, is lost in application, given that modern people suffer a crisis of faith due to such applications.

[6] A half-baked doctor is a danger to the body; but a half-baked religious scholar is dangerous to the soul (lit. faith).

[7] You know what your Lord says, but you do not know why He said it.

[8] According to one narration, Omar, may God be pleased with him, says, “The woman is more learned than Omar,” but in another he states that everyone is more learned.

[SHaEFU0i]

Good that Shaykh Hamza Yusuf has come out with this piece. I would request SF moderators to accede to Shaykh Hamza Yusuf's general request to have his statement removed from the internet. Please do so by deleting the thread where this issue was discussed earlier on the forrum.

Assalaam'aaleykum

[makemoneyonli]

I think it is a shame that some Muslims out there didn't have one second of husn al dhunn for a Sheikh Hamza(a scholar). Good that the Sheikh is man enough to apologize.

[Loolasant]

I hope SF is not the prime mover of these movements to straighten out visible scholars.

[SHaEFU0i]

I hope SF is not the prime mover of these movements to straighten out visible scholars.

I think, dr. ati once claimed to have written an email to Shaykh Hamza Yusuf about this issue.

[VanDerSmok]

I respect Hamza Yusuf's willingness to admit that his statement was not necessarily correct. However:

[5] Punishment in this world for apostasy is not mentioned in the Qur’an; however, some sound hadiths indicate that it is a capital offense. These are not absolutely certain (mutawatir) traditions, and some scholars, such as al-Nakhi’ and others, argued against it. Imam Abu Hanifah’s school does not mandate capital punishment for a female apostate due to the mutawatir tradition prohibiting killing women or children, which he saw as limiting the singular hadiths enjoining capital punishment on apostates. Today, it could be strongly argued that the aim (maqsad) of considering apostasy a capital offense, which was to protect the faith, is lost in application, given that modern people suffer a crisis of faith due to such applications. Nobody else has an issue with this footnote and logic? Especially the bolded part? Frankly, this is worse than his statement about the Lahoris, because that was made out of a lack of understanding of the precise situation, and this appears to be part of his credo along with Abdul-Hakim Murad, Suhaib Webb, et al. Since when do Sunnis let the maqasid over-ride the nass? Have we all turned into Shi'a overnight?

[freeringtonesioo]

Jadeed, why be on sunniforum when you should be teaching usool to ulema?

[VanDerSmok]

Jadeed, why be on sunniforum when you should be teaching usool to ulema?

So this logic is ok?

What other nusus should we toss out the window because the 'maqasid over-rides them?' Or because 'modern people suffer a crisis of faith due to such applications?'

How about the penalty for rajm? Sodomy? Hamza already argued that offensive struggle is over-ridden in his Tahawiyyah translation.

How is this 'traditionalism?' Can you answer any of these questions, or is all you have to offer more one-liners?

[freeringtonesioo]

I'm just saying clearly you know more than Shaykh Hamza and you should start a dars and scholars far and wide should come sit at your feet so you can enlighten them.

[Loolasant]

So this logic is ok?

What other nusus should we toss out the window because the 'maqasid over-rides them?' Or because 'modern people suffer a crisis of faith due to such applications?'

How about the penalty for rajm? Sodomy? Hamza already argued that offensive struggle is over-ridden in his Tahawiyyah translation.

How is this 'traditionalism?' Can you answer any of these questions, or is all you have to offer more one-liners?

Even I thought that brother maaz was only complementing.

[VanDerSmok]

I'm just saying clearly you know more than Shaykh Hamza and you should start a dars and scholars far and wide should come sit at your feet so you can enlighten them.

If Hamza Yusuf said we should all walk off a cliff, would you respond in a similar fashion?

I don't need to start a dars. Send the following question to any reputable scholar in the world, they'll give you the same answer until the wind takes away the believers: "Can the maqasid of the Shari'a override the nass?" The answer will be "No." To say "Yes," is Modernism 101, it's Muhammad 'Abduh and early Muhammad Rashid Rida and Sayyid Ahmed Khan and Jamaluddin Afghani.

Ask Mufti Ebrahim Desi, or Mufti Ahmed Sadek Desai (actually, don't ask him, because we know what he'll say). Ask Mufti Zar Wali Khan, or Mufti Taqi Usmani, or Dr. Khalid Mahmud, or anyone. None of them will endorse this idea, because it's repugnant.

[freeringtonesioo]

Thank you jadeed. You are a blessed soul. You have taught us wisdom and prevented us from error. You are a hidden jem of Allah's servants whom even scholars can come to be rectified. Don't remain hidden for too long, the world needs you. You must spread your knowledge in order to give thanks for it.

[VanDerSmok]

Not my words!

GF Haddad said:

Al-Jawhari [4th c.] in Nawadir al-Ijma` said there is ijma` among the Sahaba that the punishment of apostasy by death is meant by the verse of al-Ma'ida 33: {The only reward of those who make war upon Allah and His messenger and strive after corruption in the land will be that they will be killed or crucified, or have their hands and feet on alternate sides cut off, or will be expelled out of the land. Such will be their degradation in the world, and in the Hereafter theirs will be an awful doom}. This is mentioned in Ibn Qattan's encyclopedia of Ijma`.

See also the Tafsirs for the verses:

3:56: As for those who committed apostasy, then Allah shall torment them with a terrible torment both in the world and in the next life.

9:61 [...] Those who vex the messenger of Allah, for them there is a painful doom.

33:57 Lo! those who malign Allah and His messenger, Allah hath cursed them in the world and the Hereafter, and hath prepared for them the doom of the disdained.

88:22-24 : You are not at all a ward over them except those who turn back and commit apostasy, after which Allah shall punish them with the greatest punishment. Hamza Yusuf's fans will now denigrate me and accuse me of saying that I know more than him, even though I'm just agreeing with the ijmaa' of the Sahabah. You know, there are other ijmaa' of the Sahabah beyond 20 rak'at of taraweeh. Whenever a Salafi talks about 8 rak'at of taraweeh, everyone jumps him for breaking the ijmaa' of the Sahabah. Whatever happened to the defense of the Sahabah? Either be consistent and accuse Hamza Yusuf or breaking it, or admit that you don't actually care about the Sahabah's ijmaa' except where you can use it to score cheap points against a group of Muslims that you define yourself in opposition to. Consistency is the brother of truth and it demands homage.

and he said:

The hadith "Whoever changes his religion, kill him" is narrated in al- Bukhari, the Four Sunan, and the Musnad, and the hadith "The blood of a Muslim is sacrosanct except for three types: the murderer, the married adulterer, and the apostate" is narrated in the Six Books and the Musnad, so whoever finds weakness in such hadiths necessarily finds weakness in the bulk of the Law, which rests on such evidence in the majority of rulings pertaining to worship and transactions.

There is agreement on the binding force of this ruling among the Imams of the Four Schools except on two things: [1] gender, Imam Abu Hanifa sparing women from execution and jailing them for life instead, due to the Prophetic command not to kill the women of enemy combatants in time of war, and it is an "a fortiori" proof; and [2] timing before the ruling of exectution is enforced.

The Prophet, upon him peace, spelled out the condition for killing the apostate: that he be a muharib i.e. a vocal or active enemy of Islam:

"The blood of a Muslim is illicit to shed except for one of three reasons: a married adulterer must be stoned; one who wilfully commits murder must be put to death; and a man who comes out of Islam and fights Allah and His Prophet must be put to death or crucified or banished from the earth."

It is narrated with transmission chains of trustworthy narrators from `A'isha by al-Nasa'i and Abu Dawud in their Sunan and al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra. This hadith explicitly makes "fighting Allah and His Prophet," i.e. fighting Islam and Muslims, a condition sine qua non for punishability by death. For then the murtadd becomes the same as an enemy soldier in wartime (muharab), i.e. an enemy of Islam on the battlefield.

An even stronger proof than non-mutawatir hadiths is the Consensus of the Sahaba:

"Whoever reverts from Islam, men and women, it is obligatory to kill him due to the Prophet's saying: "Whoever changes his religion, kill him." The scholars have reached consensus on the obligation to kill apostates. This has been narrated from Abu Bakr, `Umar, `Uthman, `Ali, Mu`adh, Abu Musa, Ibn `Abbas, and Khalid, and it has not been opposed (by a single companion), therefore it constitutes consensus."

Baha' al-Din `Abd al-Rahman al-Maqdisi (d. 624) "al-`Udda sharh al-`Umda fi fiqh Imam al-Sunna Ahmad ibn Hanbal al-Shaybani" (The outfit: commentary on Muwaffaq al-Din Ibn Qudama's [d. 620] "The Reliance" in the jurisprudence of the Imam of the Sunna, Ahmad ibn Hanbal), Book of Punishments, first words of the Chapter on the Ruling Concerning the Apostate (Beirut: Dar al-arqam, n.d.) p. 531. And he said:

This is a misreading of al-Nakha`i's statement: "The murtadd is summoned to repent indefinitely" (al-murtaddu yustatabu abadan) [`Abd al-Razzaq 10:166, Mughni 8:125] which does not mean that the hadd is not applied, for that would violate the Sunna and Consensus, but rather that if the murtadd re-enters Islam then recants a second time he is summoned to repent a second time, and if he recants again after his second repentence he is summoned a third time, and so on indefinitely; however, if he refuses to repent he is killed, as al- Nakha`i himself said: "The male murtadd is summoned to repent, and if he repents he is left alone, otherwise he is put to death" [Abu Yusuf, kharaj no. 180, Mughni 8:123-124], and "The female murtadda 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, `Abd al-Razzaq 10:176, Ibn Abi Shayba 2:137]. Hamza's assertion of an-Nakha'i's position is probably based on the same misreading. It's likely that he has not come across these aathar. Someone should let him know.

And he said:

And this is the position of all the Four Schools over which there is unchanging agreement, and Allah knows best. I thought Hamza Yusuf was a traditionalist defender of the Four Schools! What happened?

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

Not my words!

[freeringtonesioo]

You are very skilled at refuting footnotes, mashallah. Your research and understanding of usool and logic has left me speechless. Surely your usooli teachers would be proud of you.

[VanDerSmok]

You are very skilled at refuting footnotes, mashallah. Your research and understanding of usool and logic has left me speechless. Surely your teachers would be proud of you.

I'm not going to attribute to you anything you didn't say, but you should probably answer the questions, or you should stop posting two-sentence nonsense mockery when I'm just posting articles on the incumbency of a ruling that is the ijmaa' of the Sahabah, which Hamza Yusuf wants to throw out of the window because it conflicts with the maqasid. Do you care about the ijmaa' of the Sahabah or not?

Your attitude is disgusting. Hamza Yusuf says something, so he is automatically speaking from the depth of his perfect traditional scholarship, therefore all dissenting opinions are to be discarded and criticism of him is criticism that is out of its league.

[freeringtonesioo]

Jadeed, I humbly am unqualified to answer. I am merely a student who wishes to learn. Far be it for me comment on a topic that I haven't been taught nor my teachers have given me permission to comment on. It's obvious your teachers thought very highly of you, and affirmed their trust in your understanding to allow you to comment on these matters. Your posts only raise your state and display your ability nay! expertise in the matters of usool.

[duceswild]

The footnote is too little to make any conclusion. It only mentions a factual point that the aim is no longer achieved. It does not go beyond that to say "therefore the ruling is over ridden. ". Someone should go question it on his website as to what he intended, rather than draw conclusions here.

[VanDerSmok]

The footnote is too little to make any conclusion. It only mentions a factual point that the aim is no longer achieved. It does not go beyond that to say "therefore the ruling is over ridden. ". Someone should go question it on his website as to what he intended, rather than draw conclusions here.

Except the 'aim' here is not obvious from the text. Who knows what the aim is? Maybe it's ta'abuddi.

What's more, two of Hamza Yusuf's associates - Abdul-Hakim Murad and Abdullah ibn Hamid Ali, both argue against the hadd for riddah.

Then in this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=naEj915VU20


Hamza Yusuf said (5:20): "The Prophet never... nobody during his lifetime was killed for apostasy. And there are apostasy laws, just like in Catholicism [...] there's one hadith that they base this on, but there are other hadiths, and they weren't in agreement on this. One of the greatest scholars of Islam (inaudible) did not believe there should be a capital punishment for this."

And he said (7:21) "The other thing that's very problematic in Islamic tradition, and I have to say this, you know, full disclosure - Islamic tradition is not as amenable as other traditions are to reformation. Because the Islamic tradition sees itself as a reformation [...] there are many verses saying 'Don't change your religion.' As Muslims, it's much more difficult for us. We have to find the dissenting opinions. Those dissenting opinions are there, and they need to be brought to the fore-front, because right now they are in the background. [...] And this is what I try to do."

A lot of people accuse Salafis of bringing ancient, abandoned opinions to the fore-front. Where's the consistency? Accuse everyone who does it or keep silent.

[Rchzygnc]

I think, dr. ati once claimed to have written an email to Shaykh Hamza Yusuf about this issue.

I did sent him a mail regarding it. The explanation that he has come up with now is just a set of diplomatic statements regarding his stance on the Lahori Qayanis. I am sure that if someone translates his various speeches and sent them to the Dar Ul Iftaa of any deobandi madrassah , they will straight away deem him a deviant and a caller towards deviance.

[Rchzygnc]

Jadeed, why be on sunniforum when you should be teaching usool to ulema?

This has become the state of your affairs , as prophecised by Sayyidna Muhammad SWS that you shall follow the foot steps of bani israel.
Allah the exalted says: They have taken as lords beside Allah their rabbis and their monks and the Messiah son of Mary, when they were bidden to worship only one Allah. There is no Allah save Him. Be He Glorified from all that they ascribe as partner (unto Him)!

(Surah Taubah, ayah 31)

In this ayah Allah declares that the Jews and Christians had taken the following people as their lords (Rab) besides Allah:

1. Their rabbis and monks.

2. Messiah son of Maryam (Alaihi salaam)

Their worship of Messiah is well known, but how did they take their rabbis and monks as their lords? This is explained in the following hadith:

Prophet Muhammad (SallAllah-u-Alaihi-wa-Sallam) said: They didn't worship them but (the worship was in the sense) whatever they made halaal for them, they considered it halaal, whatever they made haraam for them, they considered it haraam.

(Tirmidhi Book of Tafseer-Surah Taubah, declared Hasan by Imam Tirmidhi)