By Mohammed Ali Musawi, Quilliam,
2009
(www.quilliamfoundation.org)
A NOTE ON
TRANSLATION:
A
Selected Translation of the LIFG Recantation Document is a translation of
passages from the preface and introduction of the ‘Corrective Studies’ document
which explain the authors’ intentions in writing the document and gives it much
needed context. It also contains a translation of the authors’ summaries, which
appear in the original Arabic at the end of each chapter to summarize the main
points of the chapter, which we have included in full. Further, we have added
footnotes where appropriate to explain religious concepts and ideas and comment
on the salient themes of the passages. Finally, It is important to note that
the authors have written the summaries in the form of short passages which we
have not changed.
Translator’s
Introduction:
In
September 2009, the imprisoned leadership of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group
(LIFG), a prominent jihadist group allied with al-Qaeda wrote and released a
revision document over 400 pages long, in which they renounce the ‘use of
violence to change political situations’. The revisions are the result of a
reported two years of consultations with the Libyan government represented by
the Gaddafi International Charity and Development Foundation and headed by Saif
al-Islam al-Gaddafi.1 These consultations have facilitated the release of the
document named Corrective Studies in Understanding Jihad, Accountability and
the Judgment of People, which is comprised of nine chapters dealing with
varying issues including jihad, religious extremism and the judgment of
people’s beliefs. The authors of the revisions are six of the most senior
members of the LIFG in jail, namely: ‘Abd al-7akim Bal8aj a.k.a Abū ‘Abd
Allah al-9ādiq (Emir of the LIFG), Abū al-Mundher al-Sā’īdī (Spiritual leader
of the LIFG), ‘Abd al-Wahhāb al-Qāyed (The elder brother of Abū Ya8yā al-Lībī a
leading member of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb), Khālid al-Sharif, Miftā8
al-Dūwdī and Mu:;afā Qanaifid. Their revisions are potentially important
because the LIFG has not only been a key regional ally for al-Qaeda but also
because of the strong organizational ties between the two groups and the direct
connections some of the revisions’ authors have to al-Qaeda’s leadership. For
example, Abū al-Mundher al-Sā’īdī has been praised on several occasions by
Ayman al-`awāhirī, most recently in a recording released in August 2009 while
another senior LIFG member, ‘Abd al-Wahhāb al-Qāyed, is the elder brother of
Abū Ya\yā al-Lībī, the public face of al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and one
of al-Qaeda’s most active ideologues. Previously, the most notable such
revisions by a former jihadist was written by Dr. Fa[l, a former leading member
of Egyptian Islamic Jihad, who launched a highly-personal attack on Ayman
al-`awāhirī in 2007. However al-`awāhirī responded to this by accusing Fa[l of
jumping “directly on the alleged mistakes in jihad without explaining the
circumstances surrounding these mistakes” and using “an unscientific approach”
in “presenting Islamic jurisprudence” among other criticisms about the personal
nature of the attacks made by Dr. Fa[l. However, it seems that the LIFG
leadership have taken `awāhirī’s criticism into account while writing their own
revisions, making sure to put their own past actions into the context of
ignorance and other circumstances they claim to be the reason for their errors.
The LIFG also spent a considerable amount of time and exerted a great deal of
effort in producing this highly detailed and methodically sound jurisprudential
study which cannot be accused of having “an unscientific approach.” In
addition, the LIFG have successfully avoided personalising the issue and do not
mention another Jihadist group or personality by name in over 400 pages, making
their revision document a considerable advance on Dr. Fa[l’s effort in some
respects. However, it has been suggested that the document is “a very sweeping
repudiation not just of salafi jihadism but of all forms of revolutionary
Islamism in general”. This would seem to be an over-optimistic reading of the
document. The LIFG’s refutation singularly fails to address many key
theological issues which underpin salafi jihadist methods and tactics. For
instance, while it rejects ‘the use of violence in changing political
situations’ in Muslim majority countries whose leader is a Muslim, the document
does not define the key factors, the nawāqidh al-Islam, which negate a person’s
Islam and make him a disbeliever. In other words, the LIFG have not
definitively tackled the concept of takfir which is the main theological
trigger for attacks against other Muslims by salafi-jihadists. For example,
al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula recently justified their attempted assassination
of Saudi deputy interior minister Prince Mu\ammad Bin Nayef by accusing the
Saudi royal family of apostasy for ‘aiding the west and the enemies of Muslims
against Muslims.’4 Among the nawāqidh, or signifiers of disbelief, that are
typically cited by salafi-jihadists to legitimize such violence against
governments in Muslim majority countries are:
•
Ruling with something other than what Allah has revealed
•
Replacing the sharī’a with other law
•
Implementing the rules of ‘kufr’ and obeying the ‘kuffār’ in their
legislation
•
Taking the ‘kuffār’ as allies against Muslims.
Unfortunately,
none of these issues have been mentioned either in the jihad chapter or the
chapter dealing with the judgment of people’s beliefs, especially given that
salafi-jihadists believe that these issues are grounds for legitimizing jihad
against innocents and were the very grounds on which the LIFG was itself
formed. Finally, any renouncement of violence by Jihadists and Islamists is a
welcome first step, but unless the aforementioned points are answered in future
‘Corrective Studies’, counter terrorism specialists and Muslim communities
should view this
revision
with some scepticism.
LIFG
Recantation Summary
PREFACE:
Allah
has sent messengers over the centuries to humanity to preach and to warn,
guiding the way and explaining humanity’s existence in this world; that they
were not created frivolously and were not left without a guide. Every prophet
told his people: “O my people! Worship God alone: you have no deity other than Him”
(Q 7:59). Allah guided people through the messengers and others were miserable
for their disbelief, and Allah wished to seal his messages to humanity with
Mu\ammad bin ‘Abdullah who was sent to the whole of humanity, unlike the
prophets and messengers before him who were sent to certain peoples.
Thereafter, a clear sharī’a 1was sent to Mu\ammad so that people may be guided
by it, and Allah said he would not accept any other religion from people:
“Whoso desires another religion than Islam; it shall not be accepted of him” (Q
3:85). It was therefore natural that this religion that Allah revealed as a
mercy to humanity would encompass everything that would benefit them in their
affairs, in this life and the afterlife. The salaf 2 appreciated and firmly held
on to this great religion, and spared no effort in spreading it with mercy and
sympathy for people as they saw them lost in the darkness and manipulated by
whims. Then the Muslim generations inherited this religion, holding on to it
without doubt of its validity in every time and place, and through this
religion they were elevated to the highest peaks, and when they carried its
weight they became the leaders of people and guides to the world. Muslim
progress continued throughout the ages until they changed themselves and
neglected the orders of their Lord, so Allah changed their affairs and
circumstances. The fate of this ummah in
its latter generations was that they be subject to the plots of their enemies
from Christians and Jews and others who discovered the real strength of this
ummah, so its lands were occupied and its wealth was plundered and its sacred
symbols were desecrated in order for the ummah to remain subject in all its
affairs. Further, the enemies of the ummah sowed the seeds of division and denied
the ummah the tools to progress and imposed bounds and blockades, however none
of these things would have affected the ummah were it firmly holding on to its
religion and truly relied on God. But the forts of the Muslims were threatened
from within due to ignorance of their religion and neglect of the orders of
their Lord, in addition to their disunity and fragmentation therefore it was
natural that this be their state today. Muslims today agree that salvation from
their weakness will not be possible without the same thing that advanced their
forefathers who liberated the hearts of people before liberating countries.
Every Muslim who observes the weakness and relapse of the ummah will no doubt
be weighed down with grief and sorrow and will try to raise his ummah,
therefore many people who are zealous and enthusiastic have tried to contribute
in one way or another to serve the religion and elevate their ummah, and
because their endeavours were human, it was inevitable that they be tainted by
error and imperfection. This was for many reasons, most notably a lack of
religious guidance and inexperience among other reasons mentioned in this
study. As a result, it was imperative upon the individual who discovers those
errors and shortcomings either in himself or in others to fix and reform what
he can, seeking the pleasure of Allah, and fearing his questioning on the Day
of Judgement, and out of concern for the people of the community who might not
have realised what he has. And it is for this reason and so that Allah may
excuse us, and our desire to advise the ummah based on our personal
experiences, we have written these jurisprudential studies that are directed at
whoever might benefit from them. We have written it for every zealous Muslim
who has been pained by the state of his battered ummah, who has seen how daring
other nations have become with the ummah, who has heard the screams of its
people as their lands have been plundered and their blood has been spilt in
many countries from Palestine to Iraq to Afghanistan. We have written this for
every Muslim who sees the disparity between what he recites in the Holy Book of
Allah alongside his knowledge of the greats among his ummah, and the disturbing
images he sees of some Muslims today. We have written it for every youth who
has observed his religion and held on to it and wants to serve it and assist
its progression without having the means to do so in the right place or in the
most beneficial way for the ummah. We wrote it for every student of religious knowledge
or dā’ī [propagator of religion] concerned with the guidance of people. We
wrote it to every mujāhid concerned with the progression of his ummah, standing
up against the plots of non-Muslims with his pen or tongue or wealth or weapon
or prayer. We wrote it for anyone who we might have once had organisational or
brotherly ties with and who wants to find out the summary of our experience and
our convictions. We wrote it for every fair person who does not follow our
religion and hears the distorted descriptions of our ummah and our religion.
INTRODUCTION:
It
is no secret that those who have written these studies [Corrective Studies]
have themselves previously written, papers and articles opposite in content to
what is in the studies today, and that those who yesterday encouraged the
taking up of arms to change political situations are today reminding people of
its impermissibility and advising whomever takes their advice against it. How
could this be possible? It is important that we answer this question for these
studies to be understood in their correct context and for the studies to
achieve their desired objectives. Change is undoubtedly a human trait, and it
could be a sign of power or weakness depending on the nature of the change, its
place, and reasons. Can this be the same for the change of religious
understanding and conviction? The importance of this question lies in the
identities of those who have written these studies (the members of the Libyan
Islamic Fighting Group in jail) who were not motivated by personal or material
interests when they embarked on their journey. They were never bandits who took
up arms for wealth or pleasure, nor did they do what they did out of ambitions
of power or dominance, rather their premises were based on religious objectives
and convictions reached by their personal ijtihād believing that their religion had demanded
those actions of them. Regardless of whether their beliefs were right or wrong,
they firmly believed in them and the need to implement them on the ground,
which they did and they sacrificed their time and youth in doing so. They saw
the disparity between the state of Muslims today, people and their governments,
and the ideal picture of Muslims, people and their governments in the ages of
Muslim prosperity and elevation in the time of the Prophet and the Rightly
Guided Caliphs. They saw that the nations of the East and the West were
assaulting Muslim lands, and the ummah was weak and divided and they realised
that this is because the ummah is distant from Allah’s religion, the religion
that was the reason for the ummah’s initial progress.
Further, they believed
that there were religious obligations upon them, most importantly to seek to
raise the ummah from the darkness of ignorance and the blackness of sin and the
bleakness of perversion. And because reality is different to imagination and
action is different to theorization, their path took a different direction.
Their efforts could have been exerted in calling to Allah with wisdom and good
advice, and they could have guided many. That would have been possible if their
circumstances were different. However, that was not the case; reality had its
role to play. The absence of ‘ulamā’ [scholars of religion] and adequate
methods to spread religious knowledge and a scarcity of guides had a role to
play in making the wrong choices, as did the lack of opportunities to serve the
religion, to the extent that in some cases there was no room to do anything,
narrowing down the possibility of choices. It is no surprise that the outcome
of those circumstances was what indeed took place, and as for what should have
happened; these studies have been written for exactly that. Islamic scholars
past and present are agreed that a person should return to the truth whenever
it appears to him and that returning to the truth is far better than insisting on
falsehood. Given that our previous intentions were to seek the pleasure of
Allah even though we might have strayed from the truth, can we now hesitate in
holding onto the truth that has appeared to us? We took a path in the past
knowing its difficulty and its strangeness in the eyes of people, and we did
not listen to the critics and objectors at the time, so now that we see truth
in a path other than that which we originally followed, is that path not more
worthy of following? A person’s knowledge increases day after day, be it
religious knowledge or life experience; a person’s circumstances dramatically
change from one day to another and it is known among scholars that religious
ijtihād is based on the knowledge of both religion and reality. Through our
religious studies in addition to close scrutiny of our experiences over the
years as well as our observations of our circumstances, we have reached the
convictions which we have placed in these studies. By writing them we wanted to
place clear guidelines for anyone who wants to take a path toward serving his
religion and ummah. We wrote these studies in the knowledge that the premises
our actions were based upon are latent in the hearts and minds of many in the
Islamic resurgence today, and the circumstances that led to the actions carried
out by us, might exist for them.
The
summary of our experience is:
•
The people of the resurgence will be in a good position so long as
they refer to the trusted ‘ulamā’ in their affairs and actions, especially
those matters that relate to the public interest of their country and ummah.
•
The path to the ummah’s progression is long and requires a great
deal of
patience
and perseverance, and time and effort because the ummah did not get to its
present retreat overnight, but it was due to many factors which
cannot
be solved by hasty solutions or emotional outbursts.
•
The ummah has major interests that we must recognise and protect
like the unity of Muslims, their prestige, their stability, their security, the
reputation of Islam etc. So if protecting these interests conflicts with
interests of lesser importance then we should forego the latter.
•
There are some religious duties which have the status of
‘objectives’ like the guidance of people and the spread of Islam, and some
which have the status of ‘means’ which fulfil the objectives like enjoining
good, forbidding evil, and jihad. Therefore we should not make the means
objectives in themselves, or give them precedence over the objectives if they
conflict.
CHAPTER 1 -
THE COVENANT OF ISLAM AND HOW IT IS AFFIRMED
Islam
is the final message and the Prophet of Islam, the seal of the prophets, has been
sent to all peoples, and his ummah has been ordered to carry this message to
others after him. Islam means surrender and compliance and the word is used for
two denotations:
a
To assign worship for Allah alone; this is the religion of all the
prophets.
b
The final religion that was brought by our prophet Mu\ammad. Islam
is the greatest of Allah’s bounties upon Muslims, and the greatest gratitude
is
for Muslims to convey it to others. Some ‘ulamā’ are of the opinion that Islam
and īmān [belief] are the same thing, and others are of the opinion that they
are different. Further, if one was mentioned the other would be included in its
meaning, and the ‘ulamā’ added: the person who commits a major sin leaves īmān
and remains within Islam, and does not become an unbeliever as the Kharijites
claim.This disagreement about the relationship between Islam and īmān is
accepted ijtihād that does not result in major effects, and, with either
opinion, a Muslim who wants salvation on the Day of Judgement has to come with
both Islam and īmān. Islam is affirmed for whoever has one or more of these
three traits:
a
To bear witness that there is no god but Allah and that Mu\ammad
is the messenger
of Allah, or something that takes its place like saying “I have become
a Muslim” or “I am Muslim”.
b
Denotation: which is every utterance or action or symbol that is
specific to Muslims
and distinguishes them from others, like prayer especially if a man was
leading the prayer, or the athān [the call to prayer] as the abode of Islam is
distinguished by it from the abode of polytheism, or the dress that is
specific to Muslims and so on.
c
Subjection to Muslim parents or one Muslim parent: the principle
is that anyone
born to two Muslim parents or one Muslim parent is Muslim, or the subjection
to the abode of Islam for someone whose situation is unknown. It is incorrect
to impose conditions that Allah has not permitted in accepting the Islam of
someone who has one of the traits mentioned, like imposing learning the
evidences of the mutakallimūn [scholastic theologians], or detailed knowledge in
the meanings of taw\īd [the concept of monotheism in Islam], or the requirements
of ‘la ilaha illallah’.16 Further, it is not permitted to inspect people’s beliefs
and their conditions but we have to accept people at face value and Allah will
deal with their intentions. Among the reasons of error in the above is
confusing the roles of da’wah [propagation] and the judiciary or iftā’ [issuing
religious edicts] and taking jurisprudential rulings from guidance sermons, or
propagation articles, as well as the oversight of the fundamental differences
between evidence [jurisprudential evidence from Qur’ān and \adīth] and reality,
like comparing Muslim societies today to the jāhilī [pre-Islamic] society in
Makkah at the advent of Islam. The importance of knowing the traits, which
affirm Islam for the person who has them, lies in that knowing them protects a
person from squandering the rights of his Muslim brethren. Further, that he
does not take any matter relating to their wealth or honour lightly, and not
knowing what affirms someone’s Islam might sometimes lead to shedding their
blood, these are rights that have been made clear by the Qur’ān and the
Prophet.
CHAPTER 2 -
KNOWLEDGE BETWEEN THEORISATION AND IMPLEMENTATION
Allah
has assigned a great status and an elevated rank for knowledge and
‘ulamā’.Religious knowledge like other great matters cannot be attained without
effort, hardship and patience and it is for that reason that the ‘ulamā’ used
to suffer hardships in order to attain it, and their stories and biographies
testify to this, so whoever wants to attain knowledge without pain and
tiredness has taken a different path to that of knowledge. Islam has ordered
the veneration and respect of ‘ulamā’ and has forbidden their disrespect
as they are the bearers of this religion and the conveyers of the religion of
God. The reverence and respect of ‘ulamā’ does not mean the belief that they
are not prone to error or intolerant to opinions other than theirs, as they
themselves do not claim that. The Muslim ummah is unanimous that there is no
one who is infallible after the Prophet, and that infallibility is for the
entirety of the ummah, as for its individuals, they are prone to err in theory
and practice. Reverence of ‘ulamā’ does not mean following them in their
errors, as truth is more deserving to be followed, and by following truth alone
the religion is protected from error, all the while the ‘ulamā’ preserve their
status and rank even if they were to err from time to time. The ‘ulamā’ have
agreed to the impermissibility of following an ‘ālim [single of ‘ulamā’] to
whomever the error of the ‘ālim becomes evident. Not everyone who thinks that
an ‘ālim has erred is to refute what he thinks is an error, and it is only for
someone who is qualified, like another ‘ālim to do so.
Numerous
have been the things that unlearned people thought were errors of ‘ulamā’ when
they were not. Speaking in the name of the religion of God without knowledge is
forbidden in sharī’a and is a major sin, and many great tribulations and
perversions occur as a result, and Allah has warned against this in His Book
and through his Prophet The ‘ulamā’ have placed conditions upon people who
speak in the name of religion whether by practising ijtihād or issuing fatwas,
and it is not permissible for whoever does not meet the conditions to deduce
religious rulings from their sources. The sharī’a has given sincere ‘ulamā’
many attributes which distinguish them from others, so ‘ulamā’ must typify those
attributes so that they and their work may have an effect on people. A great
duty is upon the ‘ulama’ of the ummah in guiding the people of the ummah and
spreading knowledge amongst them and lighting the path for them, and they are
required to preserve its identity more than anyone else, much more than its people,
and spread virtues and forbid evils and to nurture the ummah to be charitable
and pious. We finally say:
The
lack of religious knowledge whether it was a result of an absence of ‘ulamā’,or
the neglect of people in receiving it and attaining it, or due to the absence
of its sources, is the biggest cause of errors and religious violations. These
violations can be apparent sins which take place due to a lack of knowledge and
education or the dominance of desires or the scarcity of guidance and
admonition, or they can be religious errors that people commit due to a lack of
knowledge, thinking that they are doing things that sharī’a has commanded them
to do. So if a split between the ‘ulamā’ and the observant youth, or an
exchange of accusations or an absence of reverence for ‘ulamā’ or an error from
‘ulamā’ in embracing the youth
occurs, it will only make matters worse.
CHAPTER 3 –
da’wah [CALLING TO ALLAH]
Da’wah
is the function of messengers and their followers and it is one of the greatest
actions which brings proximity to Allah. Da’wah is fard kifāyah upon the general ummah and it is required of
every Muslim according to his circumstances, and it is not specific to a group
excluding another or an individual excluding another, and every Muslim is
required to convey what he knows to people. The purpose of da’wah is to
announce the religion of Allah to people, and establish the proof upon them,
and teach them the tenants of their religion and elevate them educationally and
spiritually and increase goodness and vitality in the ummah. The means of
da’wah are many and sophisticated according to time and place. The means to
da’wah are also various, as there are actions that an individual can carry out
and those that a group of people carry out like organizations, institutions and
bodies and there are those that governments carry out. There are ethics and
morals that a dā’ī [propagator who carries out da’wah] to Allah must observe.
Aside from the fact that they are among the ethics and morals that Islam has
encouraged and commanded that people abide by, they are the means to the
acceptance of the da’wah and not avoidance of it. There is a big difference
between the function of a dā’ī and that of a mufti or a judge, and not
distinguishing between a function and another results in many negative effects.
Most of the concepts mentioned are known theoretically, but many errors occur in
their implementation, and the flaws occur due to the absence of the precise concepts
of the jurisprudence of da’wah, whether in terms of arranging priorities or
consideration to the circumstances of people or not gradually educating people about
the teaching of Islam or other things.
CHAPTER 4 –
JIHAD FOR THE SAKE OF ALLAH
Jihad
[the term] when used denotes exertion of capacity in fighting for the sake of
Allah directly or indirectly. However, its grades are a lot wider than that, as
it has thirteen grades, among which are the jihad of the self and the shay_an
[devil] and the non-belivers and the hypocrites, and included in that is the
jihad via the word written or spoken. The reduction of jihad to fighting with
the sword is an error and shortcoming. Jihad [in all its forms] is the peak of
Islam’s summit, and the people of jihad are the most glorious in this life and
the afterlife, but that is dependent upon being confined to the rules and
ethics of jihad. Jihad is fard kifāyah, and if carried out by a sufficient
amount of people, does not remain obligatory on the rest. It is an obligation
in certain places for example where non-believers invade a Muslim country then
it is upon the people of that country to push back the enemies and expel them
from their land, and if they are unable to do so, it is upon the people who
neighbour them. Palestine, Iraq and Afghanistan are amongst the places of jihad
today. It is not permissible to leave for jihad that is fard kifāyah without
the permission of the parents and the lender [someone you owe money to], as
well as it being impermissible to insult those who have not left for it. There
are ethics and morals to jihad, among which are: that the jihad is for the sake
of Allah, and the proscription of killing women, children, the elderly, monks, wage
earners (employees), messengers (ambassadors), merchants and the like. Also
among the ethics and morals of jihad is the proscription of treachery, the obligation
to keep promises, the obligation of kindness to prisoners of war, the proscription
of the mutilation of the dead and the proscription of hiding spoils from the
leader. Adherence to these ethics is what distinguishes the jihad of Muslims
from the wars of other nations that do not give any weight to ethics
The
opinion of the ‘ulamā’ of Ahlul Sunnah [Sunni] has settled upon the impermissibility
of resorting to arms in order to change political situations (khūrūj) after the
old disagreement in the matter, once they witnessed its harms and recounted its
proscription in the books of jurisprudence and belief. Fighting because of
sectarianism or tribalism or social position and fighting for the dunya
[worldly matters] or power falls under the fighting of fitna. It is obligatory
in every fight that erupts between Muslims in addition to not participating in
it to endeavour to mediate between the fighting parties, in application of the
verse: ‘Hence, if two groups of believers fall to fighting, make peace between
them’ (Q 49:9).
The
legitimate alternatives to using violence for reform and change are enjoining good
and forbidding evil and da’wah. We note that the fighting that takes place in
Muslim lands is of three kinds:
a
Fighting the foreign colonialist if he invades one of the Muslim
countries.
b
The fighting of fitna.
c
To fight against the rulers to change political situations or
reform, and we have
mentioned our opinion in this matter that it is religiously impermissible to
use violence for reform or change in Muslim countries, and we explained on
many occasions in this study this ruling with its evidences and they can be
summarized in:
a
The religious texts and evidences that indicate fighting against
the governors and rulers to be forbidden, and we have mentioned the statements
and interpretations of the salaf.
b
The historical examples which Ahlul Sunnah have agreed upon: the impermissibility
of fighting rulers and governors, and their agreement that patience and calling
to Allah and enjoining good and forbidding evil is the correct way.
c
The restrictions on forbidding evil: which we clarified to a
larger extent in
the (enjoining good) section, in which we mentioned the clear sayings of
the scholars which state the proscription of using violence to forbid evil
and that it is only for the ruler or whoever he appoints, and it is not permissible
for individual citizens.
CHAPTER 5 -
fiqh al-khilāf [RULES OF DISAGREEMENT], ITS FORMS AND ādāb [ETHICS]
There
is ijmā’ [consensus among ‘ulamā’] that the sharī’a forbids disunion,
conflicts
and schisms, and it calls for unity and coalition. Further, the unity of Muslims
is one of the general objectives of sharī’a which Muslims must consider. Religious
khilāf [disagreement] amongst Muslims is a reality that has existed since the
age of the Prophet and will continue to exist as long as Allah wills it. Some
of these differences are permitted and others are not. The Islamic sharī’a has
laid down precise guidelines to distinguish unacceptable khilāf from permitted
khilāf, and it has also laid down guidelines to deal with those who adopt both
kinds of khilāf. In matters of ijtihād there is no disapproval of a divergence
in opinion, as the sharī’a did not anticipate resolving this type of khilāf,
and the ‘ulamā’ continue to disagree on many matters since the time of the
Companions [the first generation of Muslims] yet they do not disapprove of one
another. Khilāf in ijtihād should not prevent the unity of the hearts and
cohesion in the ranks of Muslims, but rather the variance of ijtihād should be
a factor of expansion and strength for the Muslims and not weakness and
fragmentation. Ignorance of adāb al-khilāf and in distinguishing between when
khilāf is permitted and when it is not can cause [the ignorant person] to limit
himself and others, lead to arguments and result in distorting the image of
da’wah and repel people from it. An absence of this understanding might make a
dā’ī or a student to wrong someone or diminish their value whether they be a
scholar or someone else, like another dā’ī or student. There is no doubt that
oppression and fragmentation are among the greatest reasons for disappointment
and lack of tawfīq [success granted by Allah] and it brings the anger of Allah.
The salaf did not have a habit of following irregular matters and stirring disagreements.
Jurisprudential khilāf was never a reason to stir strife in Muslim communities
in the time of the salaf. ‘Ulamā’ (‘ulamā’ of every age) are the ones
responsible for the management of every khilāf and they have to guide the lay
people. The methods of Ahlul Sunnah in dealing with someone with an opposing
opinion should be spread. The objective is to learn how to disagree in all of
these cases whilst maintaining affection and unity as the Companions did. An
observer of the reality of life for Muslims today does not need lots of
reasoning to see the importance of understanding ādāb al-khilāf. The reality of
Muslims and their fragmentation is clear and apparent, and there have been many
disagreements that originated from a matter of ijtihād that the salaf had the capacity
to understand whilst maintaining the spiritual bond between each other. We
wrote this section with an eye to the aversion and indifference between uslims
that occurs because of an absence of ādāb al-khilāf.
The
absence of understanding the ādāb al-khilāf has many adverse effects including:
•
Sectarian, ideological, methodical and jurisprudential fanaticism
and narrow mindedness in accepting other opinions and accusing others of
deviation and error and maybe innovation or debauchery or apostasy.
•
The appearance of psychological barriers and sensitivities between
dā’īs and their followers and between other lay Muslims.
•
The abstinence of youth from acquiring knowledge from ‘ulamā’ due
to differing with them in some matters of ijtihād. We will mention a great deal
more in detail in the section of extremism in religion. Knowing ādāb al-khilāf
in our opinion is a big factor in the cohesion of Muslim societies and a
strength in building unity amongst its people, as well as it being a reason for
enriching the sphere of jurisprudence with variety, regeneration and development.
This makes Islamic jurisprudence encompassing of all developments in any one
country or the whole of the ummah, which is the opposite of what happens if the
propagators and students of religious knowledge do not accept other opinions
and forbid them.
CHAPTER 6 -
EXTREMISM IN RELIGION
Extremism
in religion is exceeding the permitted limits with the addition or ejection
of religious acts and beliefs, and it is reprehensible in sharī’a and contrary to
the nature of this religion, which based its rules on ease to alleviate the difficulties
of life. Extremism is a reality existing amongst all nations [Muslim and
non-Muslim] and is not specific to one nation. Some of the reasons for
extremism are: the prevalence of sins in Muslim societies, an absence of a
correct understanding of religion and reality, emotional reactions, unqualified
people taking the lead and the absence of comprehensive education among others.
Some of the manifestations of extremism are severity upon self and others, severity
in objecting to taqlīd [emulation which is the opposite of ijtihād], wronging those
who have a differing opinion, aversion toward ‘ulamā’ and insulting them amongst
others. Curing extremism on an individual level or the general level is easily
accomplished because many of those who fall into extremism of a certain kind
have a genuine intention and desire for good but have taken a wrong path, the
remedy of this is very easy if the correct methods were followed which are
looking at the causes and solving them.
CHAPTER 7 -
al-ma^āli\ [THE INTERESTS] AND al-mafāsid [CAUSES OF HARM]
The
‘ulamā’ have agreed that the Islamic sharī’a has general objectives that are intended
to achieve the best interests of people and to protect them from harm. It is
also known that consideration for the objectives of sharī’a, and the ma^āli\ and
the mafāsid has a solid connection to the juristic ruling whether it be in the deduction,
legislation or application of the ruling. The objectives of sharī’a and the ma^āli\
are not the same, but differ according to scriptural evidence. The sharī’a is
dedicated to achieving interests and preventing harm as much as possible, which
is why the discipline of balancing the interests and the harms is needed if
they conflict. ‘Ulamā’
have laid down many principles that regulate rulings relating to the objectives
of sharī’a and the ma^āli\ and mafāsid, the absence of which would result in
many violations.
CHAPTER 8 -
ENJOINING GOOD AND FORBIDDING EVIL
Enjoining
good and forbidding evil is one of the greatest characteristics of this ummah
that is blessed with the mercy of Allah, and the reason for it being the best amongst
nations, as well as it being the fort that protects the ummah from deviations.
Enjoining good and forbidding evil is also the reason this ummah has avoided
the anger of Allah, and as long as it enjoins good and forbids evil it is protected
from being included in Allah’s punishment. Enjoining good and forbidding evil
is fard kifāya upon the ummah. If some undertake it, the obligation is removed
from the others except for certain occasions. Renouncing evil with the heart
[to hate the evil act] is an obligation upon whoever sees it, as for by word
and deed, it is dependent on ability and the benefit that it incurs. The merit
of enjoining good and forbidding evil is very great and the reward for the
person that undertakes it is great as well, which is why the salaf used to compete
in undertaking it. There are conditions and ethics that guide a Muslim who
enjoins good and forbids evil, like doing what he orders others to do, being
friendly in his orders, and considering the outcomes of his orders. The ‘ulamā’
have placed conditions for evil that should be changed which we have mentioned,
the most prominent of which are that there is no renouncement of matters of
ijtihād and the evil must be apparent and present to be changed. Enjoining good
and forbidding evil is like good food for the body, whenever it is possible to
increase it with its conditions it would be good to do so, because it brings
about welfare and develops kindness and spreads virtues. Forbidding evil is
like a medicine which a person only uses enough to treat the defect and resolve
the problem, so what can be treated by the word does not require the intervention
of the deed and so on.
CHAPTER 9 -
THE JUDGMENT OF PEOPLE’S BELIEFS
The
discussion of religious rulings concerning the judgment of people as innovators
or depraved or unbelievers is considered very dangerous, which is why many
Prophetic \adīths forbid haste in the matter. Further, the ‘ulamā’ clearly warned
of hastily issuing judgments due to the great effects it has upon the public and
private lives of Muslims, and ignorance of this results in erroneous practices which
are far from sharī’a. The judgment of a person as being an apostate is not due
to a whim or opinion or reasoning or a result of enmity and so on. It is a
religious matter that is subject to controls and conditions, and it is not
permitted to make such a judgment with the absence of those conditions. The
errors that take place when judging the mukallaf are many. They are the result of a lack of
religious knowledge or of people not qualified to take charge of the affairs of
Muslims. Among the reasons for these errors:
•
Inference of ruling for some Muslims from what was intended for
original
non-believers.
•
Not differentiating between minor and major disbelief.
•
Not differentiating between the disbelief of a form or genus and
the disbelief of a specific individual.
•
Ignorance of the conditions and deterrents of issuing judgments
and subsequently issuing judgments without consideration of the conditions and
the
deterrents.
•
Mixing religious roles and not distinguishing between the role of
propagators and the roles of judges and scholars
www.quilliamfoundation.org
No comments:
Post a Comment