Group Dua

>> Monday, March 30, 2009

So recently I have been hearing great debate on group dua and how it has no evidence and that it is biddah. Now I am not a scholar so I do not have an opinion (that holds weight) as to what is the correct view (is it permissible or not.) however there is evidence supporting group dua. So if you are from those who believe its biddah, believe it is biddah but you will learn that the other side has evidence (from the Quran and Sunnah) and if you are from those who believe it is premissable you will learn from this fatwa that you cannot make it fard on people. Unfortunately I do not have permission to post the fatwa on my blog (I'm working on getting written permission from the copyright holder but I have provided a link.)

Fatwa on group dua

Click Here


Journal Entry for My Islam Class

>> Saturday, March 28, 2009


So in my Islam class we were discussing how modern Islamic scholars were reinterpreting the Quran and Sunnah to fit today's modern standard, as I argued before in my post entitled "reinterpretations," this is not true. If you want my past post on this subject click here. Also one thing you'll notice here is that I use MLA style citation. I usually do not do that but this teacher forced us to use MLA.

Here is What I Wrote

In his book Struggling to Surrender Jeffrey Lang says, "In my opinion, it seems that these scholars often limited the privileges of women as much as the texts would permit, while extending the rights of men as far as possible without blatantly contradicting the textual sources. Coming from a different viewpoint, one would expect – and this is currently happening – that today's Muslim thinkers would to some degree reverse this trend" (154). Meaning that modern scholars are reinterpreting the Islamic texts to be more in line with today's modern social views and Muslim scholars of the past traditionally limited the privileges of women. After reading this I decided to find out if the traditional and modern scholars differed and if they did then on what. I decided to read the different interpretations of Surah Nisa ayah three because it is the verse in the Quran that deals with polygamy.

I started off reading the interpretations of Aisha, the wife of the Prophet (pbuh), and Ibn Abbas, the Prophet's (pbuh) cousin and an expert in tafsir. I chose these two because they were from the first generation of Muslims and both related to the Prophet (pbuh). Aisha's opinion was that this Ayat was protecting the rights of women. She claimed that before Islam, men would marry an unlimited amount of orphan girls and then abuse the girls because they had no protectors. According to Aisha, the third ayah of Surah Nisa was not only limiting the amount of wives a man could have but also warning the man to not abuse his wives (qtd. In Tafheem). The Ayah allows for four wives but with qualifications. If the man abuses his wives like the men of the Jahiliyyah era did then he would be punished. In another relation, Ibn' Abbas tells us that in Jahiliyyah men would marry many women and would not be able to support them. Then the man would not give equal share of money to his wives, children and even other family members (qtd. in Tafheem). Neither Aisha nor Ibn Abbas were limiting the privilege of women rather, they understood the text to end the abuse of women by men.

Ibn Kathir is the next person to comment on Ayah 3 of Surah Nisa. Next person to comment about Surah Nisa Ayat three is Ibn Kathir. He was not from the first three generations of Muslims instead he was a medieval Muslim scholar and comments very little on this ayah. He does not limit the privilege of women nor does he interpret the ayah to benefit men. He only gives an example of a Muslim during the time of the Prophet (pbuh) who had more than four wives and was commanded to divorce his wives until he only had four (Tafsir ibn Kathir).

The next two scholars are Muhammed Abduh and Maududi. Both of these men lived in the twentieth century. Muhammed Abduh wrote eleven rulings, rooted in the Malikite School, on polygamy. All of the eleven rulings allowed the woman to divorce her husband even if she was the only wife if her husband could not provide for her. If the husband was sick, imprisoned or even away for an extended period of time and could not adequately support his wife then the wife could motion for a divorce (Amin 79). He did not forbid polygamy like some people today do instead he returned to the roots of Islam. Maududi in his tafsir claims that Ayah three of Surah Nisa allows men to marry up to four women if the men are financially stable and is able to treat them equally and kindly. If the man does not treat his wives with justice then it is as if he took a gift from God and was ungrateful for the gift. He further addresses the new interpretations of certain people who say that Islam really was banning polygamy. Maududi says,

"Such arguments only show the mental slavery to which these people have succumbed… Those who consider it an evil in itself may certainly denounce it in disregard of the Qur'an and may even argue for its abolition. But they have no right to attribute such a view to the Qur'an, for it has expressed its permission of polygamy in quite categorical terms. Indeed, there is not the slightest hint in the Qur'an that could justify the conclusion that it advocates abolition of polygamy" (Tafheem)

He further addresses ayah 129 and says,

"Some people point out that in this verse the Qur'an in one breath stipulates justice as the necessary condition for plurality of wives and in the other breath declares it to be impossible. On this ground they conclude that the Qur'an has itself revoked the permission to marry more than one wife. There is, however, absolutely no justification for such an inference. Such an inference would have been justified had the Qur'an merely said that 'You will not be able to treat your wives with (absolute) justice.' But this statement has been followed by the directive: ' ... do not allow yourselves to incline wholly to one, leaving the other in suspense.' This leaves no grounds at all for the blind followers of Christian Europe to force an interpretation of their liking on the verse." (Tafheem)

All the scholars presented were from different time periods, ranging from the time of the Prophet (pbuh) all the way to the 20th century. And all of them came up with the same conclusion: that a man can marry up to four wives but there are qualifications placed on the ruling. None of the scholars claim the Quran subtly forbids polygamy, however Lang could have been misled to believe that traditional scholars limited the privileges of women because today and in the past, women in the Muslim world have been abused and the abusers hide behind a perverted misinterpretation of the Quran. This perverted misinterpretation does not come from the ruling of scholars but rather they spawn from the abusers' evil.


My assignment Politics of Islamic Resurgence

>> Wednesday, March 25, 2009

So I am taking the class, "Politics of Islamic Resurgence" the 1st paper assignment was “The dramatic rise in Islamist movements over the past 30 years is primarily a response to economic distress. Had states in the Muslim world managed the process of economic development and distribution better, Islamic movements would have failed to find a mass constituency.” Agree? Disagree? Agree with qualifications? Take a position on this question and provide specific evidence to support your position from the two country cases (Iran and Egypt) we have studied so far. Unfortunately I was limited to the readings in the class!!

Here is what I wrote

The dramatic rise of Islamist movements over the last 30 years is not primarily a response to economic distress. Islamist movements would still find a mass constituency even if countries in the Muslim world managed the economy better. Many of the changes these Islamist movements were calling for had very little to do with economy. Some changes actually would have hindered the economy. Other Islamist movements had their followers live under harsh and cramped furnished flats.

One can be mislead into believing Islamic movements spawned from the unacceptable economic conditions of the countries in the Muslim world because the Islamic movements did alleviate some of the economic problems people were facing. For example the Ikhwan in Egypt helped university students’ access affordable textbooks and study aids. They even helped provide students with free revision classes. These services were provided since the 1970s and improved in quality in the following two decades. Not only did the Ikhwan improve services that already existed but also created new services. One of the new services introduced in 1984-85 was the Medical Family Project. The Medical Family Project provided free healthcare to students in the Faculty of Medicine. The care itself was from the teachers of the Faculty of Medicine[1].

Teachers were suffering just like their students. The teachers’ salaries were low and they had no healthcare. Furthermore they lacked decent affordable accommodations unless they inherited wealth. Young teachers were unable to marry because they had to face all these economic problems. In 1986 the Ikhwan convinced the government to provide cheap housing for junior members of the teaching staff. The government gave 208 flats to the junior teaching staff[2].

There is no denying that Islamic movements such as the ikhwan obtained some of their following from the people they helped. Furthermore there is no denying that Islamic movements such as the one in Iran obtained members from groups that were being treated unfairly by the government. One such group was the bazaaries. The bazaaries were under attack by the Shah in his plan to modernize his state. The Shah said, “The bazaaries are a fanatic lot highly resistant to change because of their locations afford a lucrative monopoly. I could not stop building supermarkets. I wanted a modern country. Moving against the bazaars was typical of the political and social risks I had to take in my drive for modernization.”[3] From the Shah’s statement we can conclude that the bazaaries who joined the Islamic movement in Iran were economically well off and gave funding to the movement. However it does not explain why they chose to support the Islamist movement and not the other movements. If they were against the Shah purely for economic reasons, then they could have joined and supported any movement that promised them the most economic prosperity. The Islamist movement in Iran as Ayatollah Khomeini put it, “We did not create the revolution to lower the price of melon.” And as Ali Akbar Mohtashemi said, “ultimately Islam will become the supreme power.”[4] It is clear that Islamist movements did address economic distress but the movement was not caused by economic distress nor was fixing the economic problems of the people the main goal for Islamist movements. In fact many Islamist movements had an anti-western rhetoric and if these movements were caused by economic problems then solving these economic problems would end the movement and the Muslim state will be more accepting of the West. However two nations that have witnessed economic growth have had opposite relations with the West. In the case of Algeria, relations with the West improved while in Saudi Arabia, relations with the West have gotten worse.[5]

If economy was the driving force for Islamic movements then how come these movements have flourished in nations economically well off? Kuwait has a good economy and people live a luxurious and westernized life style. But Islamists generally win the most seats in the parliament. The Islamic movements started in the 1970s, the same decade the oil-exporting nations were seeing economic growth. Furthermore Tunisia, Morocco and Jordan all did financially well in the 1990s but their Islamist movements still gained momentum those years. Poor Muslim countries such as Bangladesh, Yemen and Niger had no Islamist movement. [6] If economic distress was the primary reason the Islamist movements rose in the last 30 years then we should have seen major Islamic movements in Bangladesh, Yemen and Niger.

Furthermore there are multiple Islamist movements. Most of them are divided and the divisions are not on economical differences. One main division amongst the Islamist movement in Egypt was the interpretation of Sayyid Qutb’s Signposts. The Islamists had to decide whether to spiritually separate themselves from society or literally excommunicate themselves from the rest of society.[7] The Society of Muslims led by Shukri Mustafa was one of the Islamist groups that interpreted Sayyid Qutb’s words literally. The Society of Muslims lived in a tiny community. They took residence in small furnished apartments often having to share with other members. Furthermore the community grew its own food and abandoned state employment. Most of the wealth this group obtained was from overseas members. And unlike the Ikhwan they supported illiteracy and encouraged people not to go to school.[8] If the Islamic movements were based primarily on economics then why did these Islamists live in cramped apartments with strangers? These individuals could have lived in the same conditions with family members they knew and instead of getting economic help from overseas Society members they could moonlight for their family members and borrow money from their family members too. Furthermore the claim that students have economic problems and become members of Islamist movements because they gain financial aid from the Islamist group does not hold up. Many young people joined Shukri’s group and they received no financial aid for schooling, rather they were encouraged not to go. Also Shukri and his group had problems with other Muslims. Some of these other Muslims were, Mahmud Shaltut who was the sheikh of Al-Azhar and gave a fatwa declaring that banking interest was permissible and Sheikh Sha’rawi who claimed that Treasury bonds did not contravene divine laws.[9] Both these fatwas would economically help people and the nation as a whole. However Islamists such as Shukri were against it.

Hassan Al-Banna the founder of the Ikhwan focused mostly on religious social reform rather than economic reform. He did address economic reform but only at the very end. He first addressed military and government reforms. He placed more emphasis on Muslim unity than on economic prosperity. Furthermore the bulk of his reforms are religious. He calls for the confiscation of provocative books and stories, a uniform mode of dress (which we can conclude means an Islamic way of dressing which is loose and covers the entire body), closure of dance-halls, banning of alcohol, the segregation of men and women etc.[10] Most of these social reforms have nothing to do with economic prosperity. In fact Hassan al-Banna calls to close down potential businesses that make a lot of money such as liquor stores and dance clubs. In addition to closing down profitable businesses, his economic reforms call for the outlawing of usury or interest which can help a nation in economic distress.

There is no denying Islamist movements have helped individuals with economic welfare and in turn because of the aid provided, the individual later joined the movement. However the causes for these movements to rise are not because of economic distress. Rather they rise because of the goal they are trying to accomplish and that is to create an Islamic state. The first steps Hassan Al-Banna calls for are to strengthen the military and for a diffusion of the Islamic spirit to unite all of the Muslim lands.[11] A clear example of what a state needs in this anarchic international structure, sovereignty amongst its people and security. Wajdi Ghunayim claimed that wealth was not the end but a means to an end, power. Mustafa Mashhur said, “The slogan “God is Great” will reverberate until Islam spreads throughout the world.”[12] Islamic movements were not interested in creating luxurious lifestyles for people. Rather they were interested in creating a state and having unity and justice.

Works Cited

Daniel Pipes, “God and Mammon: Does Poverty Cause Militant Islam?” The National Interest Number 2 (Winter 2001): 14-21

Giles Keppel, Muslim Extremism in Egypt (Berkeley, University of California Press 1985) p. 26-171; 191-240

Hassan al-Banna, Majmuat Rasail, trans. Charles Wendell (Berkeley, 1978): 1-10; 103-132

Hesham Al-Awali, “Mubarak and the Islamists: Why Did the Honeymoon End?” Middle East Journal 59:1 (Winter 2005): 62-80

Mohsen Milani, The Making of Iran’s Islamic Revolution (Boulder: Westview, 1994): 23-72; 93-104

[1] Al-Awali Hesham, “Mubarak and the Islamists: Why Did the Honeymoon End?” Middle East Journal 59:1 (Winter 2005):64

[2] Ibid., 65.

[3] Milani Mohsen, The Making of Iran’s Islamic Revolution (Boulder: Westview, 1994): 63

[4] Pipes Daniel, “God and Mammon: Does Poverty Cause Militant Islam?” The National Interest Number 2 (Winter 2001): 20-21

[5] Ibid., 19

[6] Ibid., 17-18

[7] Keppel Giles, Muslim Extremism in Egypt (Berkeley, University of California Press 1985) p. 74

[8] Ibid., 88-89

[9] Ibid., 80

[10] Al-Banna Hassan, Majmuat Rasail, trans. Charles Wendell (Berkeley, 1978): 125-131

[11] Ibid., 126

[12] Pipes Daniel, “God and Mammon: Does Poverty Cause Militant Islam?” The National Interest Number 2 (Winter 2001): 20-21



>> Thursday, March 19, 2009

This story was given to me by a good friend of mine. This story is VERY important to me because it speaks to me.

In the Words of My Friend

There once was a little boy who had a bad temper. His Father gave him a bag of nails and told him that every time he lost his temper, he must hammer a nail into the back of the fence.The first day the boy had driven 37 nails into the fence. Over the next few weeks, as he learned to control his anger, the number of nails hammered daily gradually dwindled down.

He discovered it was easier to hold his temper than to drive those nails into the fence….

Finally the day came when the boy didn't lose his temper at all. He told his father about it and the father suggested that the boy now pull out one nail for each day that he was able to hold his temper. The day passed and the young boy was finally able to tell his father that all the nails were gone.

The father took his son by the hand and led him to the fence. He said, "You have done well, my son, but look at the holes in the fence.

The fence will never be the same. When you say things in anger, they leave a scar just like this one. You can put a knife in a man and draw it out. It won't matter how many times you say I'm sorry, the wound is still there."


‘Letter from Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd to Rabee bin Hadee al-Madkhali’

>> Tuesday, March 10, 2009

This is a Letter by Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd to Imam Rabee. Now what I want to accomplish by posting this is not to defend Sayyid Qutb but to show people other opinions and HOW one should disagree. Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd has amazing adhab when disareeing.

‘Letter from Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd to Rabee bin Hadee al-Madkhali’

Assalamu Alaikum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh…
I draw your attention to your request from me to read the book attached: “Adwa’
Islamiyyah ‘Ala ‘Aqeedat Sayyid Qutb Wa Fiqrih.” (Islamic lights on the Aqeedah
& Ideas of Sayyid Qutub)… Are there any notes against it? And whether these notes
mean that this project should be disregarded and never be narrated again? Or is it
considered from which that can be edited and qualified to be printed and distributed to
serve as a reward for you in the Day of Judgment, and as a guidance to those whom
Allah wills from his servants?
[Answer] Thus I say the following:
1- I looked into the first page where the index of topics are listed, and I found topics
against Sayyid Qutb, may Allah have mercy on him, that collects the basics of kufr,
atheism, heresy, belief in Wahdat Al-Wujood, the saying that the Quran is created, the
saying that it is permissible for other than Allah to legislate, the exaggeration in
glorifying the attributes of Allah, not accepting the Mutawatir Ahadeeth, doubts in
matters of Aqeedah that one must be certain about it, making takfeer on communities
…etc from such topics that makes the believer’s hair stand on end.
I felt sorry for the Muslim scholars around the world who did not pay attention to such
destructive matters. Then I wondered why with such destructive matters, we find the
spread of the books of Qutb on the horizon like the spread of the sun, the common
people benefit from them, and even you (Rabee Al-Madkhali) in some of your writings.
Therefore, I started comparing the topics with the contents. I found that the contents
prove the opposite of other contents; and these topics, in general, are some provocative
topics to withdraw the attention of the regular reader to bash Sayyid (Qutb), may Allah
have mercy on him. I hate for you, me and all of the Muslims (to fall into) the zones of
sin…It is from deception when a person talks about the good in front of whom he
2- I looked, and found that this book (Rabee al-Madkhalee’s) lacks: the basis of the
scholarly research, the Manhaj (methodology) of criticism, the trust of quoting (from
others sources), the trust of knowledge, (and) not transgressing on others. Regarding the etiquette of dialogue, the goodness of the approach, and the strength of
introducing the material, then the above have nothing to do with this book by any
mean… the proofs are:
First, I saw that you depended in quoting old editions of the books of Sayyid Qutb, like
the books: Fee Thilaal Al-Qur’an, Al’Adalah Al Ejtima’eyyah, while knowing, as in the
margin of page 29 and other (places), that there are some revised editions that came
afterwards. It is obligatory according to the basics of criticism and the trust of
knowledge to criticize - if it was about the contents of the last edition of any book
because the changes in it (i.e. the last edition) abrogate the previous ones. This thing,
InshAllah (God-willing), is not hidden from your basic information, but it is probably a
mistake of a student who prepared this information for you who was not aware of that.
It is well known that there are many similar situations for the people of knowledge, for
example the book, Al Rooh, of Ibn Qayyim, when many scholars looked into it they
said: it is probably issued during his early life. This also happened in many cases. The
book (of Sayyid Qutb) Al’Adalah Al Ejtima’yah was the first (book) that he (Sayyid
Qutb) authored about Islamic issues.
Second, the topic in the index of this book: Sayyid Qutb allows other than Allah to
legislate, made my hair stand on end. I rushed to this topic before anything else. What I
found out is just a single quote from lots of lines in his book, Al’Adalah AlEjtima’yah.
His sayings do not confirm this provocative topic. Let us suppose that there is a general
or vague sentence, why do we turn it into a takfeeri (blasphemy) matter against him to
destroy what Sayyid Qutb based his life upon and what he dedicated his pen for: the
Da’wah towards Tawheed (monotheism) of Allah Almighty “in ruling and legislating,”
rejecting the man made laws, and confronting those who committed that (legislating
and ruling by other than Allah’s rule). Allah Almighty loves justices and fairness in
every thing; and I do not see InshaAllah except that you are about to go back to justice
and fairness.
Third: One of the provocative topics is your topic: Sayyid Qutb believes in Wahdat Al-
Wujood. Verily, Sayyid Qutb, may Allah have mercy on him, said something not clear
(that might make the reader think that he believes in Wahdat Al-Wujood) using the
style (of literature) in commenting on Surat Al-Hadeed, and Surat Al-Ekhlaas, and
based upon it the accusation that he believes in Wahdat Al-Wujood was made. You did
something good when you quoted his saying in commenting on Surat Al-Baqarah, and
his (Sayyid Qutb) clear rejection to the idea of Wahdat Al-Wujood. From these quotes
(Sayyid Qutb wrote): “and from here we find that there is nothing in the true Islamic ideology called the idea of Wahdat Al-Wujood.” To add, in his (Qutb) book: "Muqawwimat At-Tasawwur Al-Islami” there is a clear response to those who belief in Wahdat Al-Wujood. Therefore,
we say may Allah forgive Sayyid Qutb for these vague statements that he expanded
upon using his literal style; and what is vague does not overcome the clear cut
statements from his saying.
Thus, I wish that you rush into deleting this hidden takfeer (pronouncement of apostasy)
of Sayyid Qutb, and I feel sorry for you.
Fourth, I say clearly to you with all respect, that under these topics: the contrary of
what Sayyid Qutb commented on the meaning of La Ilaha Illah Allah, to the scholars
and the people of language; and that he (Qutb) is not clear about (tawheed) Ar-
Ruboobiyah and Al-Uloohiyyah. I say to you, my beloved, that you have destroyed,
without making sure, all of what Sayyid (Qutb), may Allah have mercy on him,
confirmed from the aspects of Tawheed and what it necessitates and confirms, which
occupied the major aspect of the long life of Sayyid Qutb.
All what you (Rabee Al-Madkhali) said is nullified by one word: that the monotheism of
Allah in legislation and ruling is from the necessities of the word of Tawheed. Sayyid,
May Allah have mercy on him, emphasized on this a lot when he saw the corrupted
courage to dismantle the legislations of Allah from courts and other places, and
replacing it with man-made laws. Without a doubt, this is a great courage (the courage
of changing the rules of Allah) that the Ummah never experienced before 1342 Hijri.
Fifth: from the topics of the index: “Sayyid Qutb confirms the belief that the Quran is
created, and that the speech of Allah is just the will”… When I went back to the pages
that talk about that, I did not find a single letter where Sayyid Qutub, may Allah have
mercy on him, declared this saying: “The Quran is created.” How do you easily accuse
with these takfeeri matters? The only sentence that I noticed is his (Qutb) saying: “They
cannot author from it—the Muqat’ah letters—a book similar to this book because this book is created
by Allah and not by the humans”… There is no doubt that this sentence is wrong, but does
this sentence make us rule that Sayyid Qutb confirms the disbelief saying that the
Quran is created?
O Allah I cannot tolerate the burden of this! This reminded me of a similar saying of
Shaykh Muhammad ‘Abdulkhaliq ‘Atheemah, may Allah have mercy on him, in his
book’s introduction: Studies on the style of the Noble Quran, that is printed by the Islamic
University of Imam Muhammed bin Sa’ud. Do we accuse all people by the saying that
the Quran is created? O Allah No. What we mentioned so far is sufficient in talking
about the subjective perspectives, and this is the important matter.
Talking about other perspectives:
1- The original copy of this book lies in 161 pages written by hand. These
writings are different. I do not know of a single page written by you as usual,
unless your handwriting differed from usual, or I missed up something, or you
gave the job about Sayyid Qutb to some of the students, and each student
wrote what he found under your supervision, or by your dictation. Therefore,
I cannot confirm that this book belongs to you except by what you wrote on it that it is authored by you, and that is enough in considering it to belong to
2- Even though there are differences in the handwritings, there is a common
trend, This book has the common trend of the disturbing manner, the
continuous anger, the same jump on the sentence to generate huge mistakes,
rushing into conclusions where there is a possibility to prove otherwise, and
depending on the vague sentences and leaving the clear ones, which is a solid
rule that do not accept any argument about it….This is considered as
betraying (violating) the Manhaj of criticism (named): Al’Haydah Al’Elmiyah.
3- Regarding the style of literature, if we were to compare it with the style of
Sayyid Qutb, then this style is of descending style. The style of Sayyid (Qutb)
is high. If we considered it as your (Rabee’s) style, then it is very elementary,
and does not suit a student of knowledge who has great degrees. So there
should be a balance between the literal taste, the ability of using the language
and clearly presenting the matter, and the beauty of presenting; or otherwise
the pen should be broken ( i.e. otherwise do not bother writing it).
4- The common trend was the trend of anger and frightening which overtook
the scientific Manhaj of criticism, thus your response lacked the etiquettes of
5- This book from its beginning tells the end has an offensive trend and narrowness in mind and lack of patience in the sentences… why?
6- This book creates a new hizbiyah that establishes the trend of making tahreem here, and nullifying it there; and to call this a bid’ah and that person a Mubtadi’ (Innovator) to call this deviancy and that person a deviant… without enough proofs. This also generates ghuroor (i.e. deception) of being religious, being proud to the extent that when one of them does that he (thinks that he) gets rid of a huge burden from his back; and that he is saving the Ummah from falling from an edge; that he is considered of a high example of Wara’ (fearing Allah) and gheerah (jealousy) on the rulings of Shari’ah. This (Judging) without making sure, is a way of destruction, even if it is considered as a high constructed building, its destiny is destruction and disappearance with the winds.
These are six aspects that this book enjoys, which made it not enjoyable. This is what I see regarding what you requested. I apologize for being late to respond to you, but I used not to read the books of this man (Sayyid Qutb), even though it is popular amongst the people. However, the dangerous remarks that you talked about made me do lots of readings into his books, and I found in his books many good things, a great faith, clear truth, exposing the plans of the enemies of Islam, and some mistakes in the contents and saying some things that I wish he never said. He nullifies lots of these things in other places, and to be perfect is hard. This man was a great writer and a great criticizer, and then he moved towards serving Islam through the great Quran, the noble Sunnah, and the beautiful Seerah. This shaped his attitude regarding the issues of his time. He insisted on his attitude (to continue what he is doing) for the sake of Allah. He also clarified the issues about his past. It was requested from him to write some words of apology, and he said his faithful and famous word, that "I will not use the finger which I raise for shahadah (i.e. calling to Tawheed) to write something against Tawheed…" or a word close to this.
Therefore, the obligation of everyone is to make du’a for him that Allah forgive his
sins, to benefit from his knowledge, to clarify his mistakes, and that his mistakes do not
make us not benefit from his knowledge, or to abandon his books. Consider, may Allah
protect you, his situation like the situation of those of the salaf like Isma’eel Al-Harawi
and Al-Jilaani, and how Shaykh-ul-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah defended them, even though
they fell into many awful mistakes, because the basis of their approach was to defend
Islam and the Sunnah. Look to the (book), “Manazil Alsa’ereen”, and you will find
strange things that cannot be accepted; however, you find Ibn Al-Qayyim, may Allah
have mercy on him, making excuses for him and not accusing him, as he clarified it in
the book “Madarij As-Saalikeen". I also expanded on this matter in the book “Classifying
the people between doubts and certainty,” and I put some rules regarding it.
In conclusion, I advise the brother in Allah, not to print this book “Adwa’ Islamiyyah..”.
It is not permissible for this book to be distributed or printed because of what it has of
the exaggeration, and the training of the youth of the Ummah to slander the Ulama’
(scholars), and to put down and disregard their virtues. Forgive me, may Allah bless
you, if I was harsh in my sentences, but it is because of what I saw from your
exaggeration, because I want the good for you, and because your eagerness to know
what I have about him. This is what my pen wrote, and may Allah correct the way of all
of us.
Wa assalamu alaykum wa rahmatullahi Wa barakatahu
(Shaykh) Bakr Abu Zayd


Fatwah (legal verdict) regarding Sayyid Qutb

>> Monday, March 2, 2009

I'm sorry I have not posted. I was in North Carolina for my brother's wedding MashAllah and just got hoem and the first thing I did was update Alhamdulliah.
This is the second post of the series defending Sayyid Qutb. This is a fatwa given by Shaykh Ibn Jibreen who was also a member of the council of senior scholars. I particularly want my salafiyyah brothers to note that Shaykh Ibn Baz (if you claim to be salafiyyah then you should know who he is) tried to save Sayyid Qutb.

In the Words of Shaykh Ibn Jibreen

Question: Some youth call Shaykh Sayyid Qutb a heretic and prohibit the reading of his books, and they say a similar statement regarding Imam Hasan al-Banna, as they also say regarding some of the scholars that they are Khawarij. Their argument is that [they do this] in order to 'expose the errors [of these men] to the people,' even though [these youth] are until now [only] students [of knowledge]. I hope for a response so that doubt may be removed from us and others, [and] so that this [phenomenon] will not spread.
Response: All praise belongs to Allah alone. To proceed: It is impermissible to
[unjustly] call the Muslims heretics or wicked as is evidenced by the statement of the Prophet T “Whoever says to his brother 'O enemy of Allah,' and he is not such but that it returns back to him.” While in [another] hadith “Whoever calls a Muslim an infidel it returns back to one of them.' While in another hadith: "A man passed by another while he was doing a sin and he said to him, 'By Allah, Allah will not forgive you.' So [Allah] said: 'Who is he who can pass judgment on my behalf that I will not forgive so and so? I have forgiven him and have nullified your deeds.’ With this I say, Sayyid Qutb and Imam Hasan al-Banna are among the scholars of the Muslims and among the people of Da'wa. Allah has brought benefit by them and through them He has guided many people. They both have efforts [for Islam] which should not be denied. For this reason Shaykh Abdul-Aziz ibn Baz interceded on behalf of Sayyid Qutb when the order for his execution was given. [Ibn Baz] was gentle in his intercession, but President Gamal [Abdel Nasser] did not accept [Ibn Baz's] intercession, may Allah send upon him [i.e. Abdel Nasser] what he deserves. When both men [i.e Imam Hasan al-Banna & Sayyid Qutb] were killed, each was referred to as a Shaheed (Martyr), as each was killed unjustly. This is borne witness to by those close [to them] as well as by the general public - as it was widely spread in the papers and books without anyone ever objecting. Moreover, the scholars have received their books [with acceptance]. No one has attacked them for more than the [last] twenty years. If some [heresy proceeded] from them, then [these mistakes] are similar to an-Nawawi, as-Suyuti, Ibn al-Jawzi, Ibn 'Atiyah, al-Khatabi, al-Qastalani and the likes of many of them. I have read what... Rabee al-Madkhali has written in his refutation of Sayyid Qutb and I found that he has placed statements where they do not exist. For this reason Shaykh Bakr Abu Zaid, may Allah preserve him, refuted him. Likewise, [al-Madkhali's] unjust attacks of Shaykh' Abdur-Rahman ['Abdul-Khaaliq] and his [twisting 'Abdur-Rahman 'Abdul-Khaaliq's words] in order to find errors which would make ['Abdur-Rahman 'Abdul-Khaaliq appear] misguided, even though [al-Madkhali] befriended him for a lengthy period of time and he never found any such errors [in the past]. And the eye of pleasure sees every fault insignificant, But the eye of hatred always finds fault.
Dictated by
Abdullah ibn Abdur-Rahman ibn Jibreen
26/2/1417 AH
Office of the Presidency of Islamic Research and Legal Verdicts