Dear Members, Yesterday,I posted the above articles to the list.One of the authors (Brother Sanusi)has kindly asked me to forward the additional information enclosed to the list which I am now doing.There are three attachments which I have cheched for viruses,I can certify that they are free of viruses when they left my computer.The Shariah debate is going to drag on,so it is better to be well-informed aboutit,especially the enormous implications for the vast continent of Africa. Have a nice weekend. brother Musa. >From: "Sanusi Lamido" <[log in to unmask]> >To: [log in to unmask] >Subject: Re: In the eye of the storm:Critiquing the Critics of The >Adulteress' Diary. >Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 11:34:54 +0000 > > > >Salam alaikum, > >Thank you for copying this to me I hope you will forward the following >additional info to your readers. > >"The Diary" received a number of responses. What I see in this mail is >actually Brother Bashir's- not my response to him. >I am attaching for you "In the eye of the storm", "The refutation of >Rushdification" and "The "True Believers". > >These exemplify my response to critics from epistemological, >jurisprudential and ideological perspectives. > >On the problematic issue of rajm please note the following. > >The arguments put up by the Khawarij have been fully articulated by Fakhrul >Din Razi in his tafsir-even though he critiqued them. >In short they based their argument on 3 key points. > >First, Allah SWT in the Qur'an took more time discussing and specifying >rules around adultery and fornication than any other sin-including sorcery, >riba, murder and even unbelief. > >First He declared it haram, second He promised a grievous punishment in the >hereafter for it like other sins, third He stated a punishment of 100 >lashes for its convicts, fourth He specifies that a group of believers must >be in witness, fifth He commands us not to show pity to the whipped,sixth >he specifies 4 witnesses to the act for conviction, seventh He prescribes >80 lashes for any one who slanders a Muslim by alleging adultery( but no >lashes for alleging unbelief or sorcery which a more serious), eighth,He >prescribes a tough oath that results in His anger or curse for a husband >alleging his wife committed adultery etc. > >They say: In view of Allah's attention to the minutest details of zina in >the Qur'an is it conceivable that the most outstanding element, stoning to >death can be left out? >It is to be noted here that as far back as the days of Umar-Before the >emergence of Kharijites, some Muslims had raised this question which is why >in some reports Umar said : "Some people have started saying rajm is not in >the Qur'an. Were it not for fear of ppl saying Umar added to the Qur'an I >would have reinstated the verses". >As for all the reports on the verse of rajm being in the Qur'an but >abrogated, the problematic nature is known to all students of usul. The key >question is whether the Qur'an can be established based on individual >reports (ahad). Since the Qur'an is accepted based on tawatur (a very large >number of reports) and the claims of the verse of rajm are from maybe three >companions or so, the certainty of the verse is not established. Whence >comes abrogation of that whose existence is unestablished by the standards >set for establishment? Also is it possible for a text to be abrogated while >its verdict remains? This is a known matter of dispute among usuliyyun. > >The second argument of the khawarij dealt with the internal inconsistency >of rajm with the instruction to give a slave guilty of zina "half the >punishment of the muhsanat". This is what I referred to in the Diary and >Bashir's response is entirely based on Ibn Qutaiba's arguments in "ta'weel >mukhtalif al-Hadith". I read the book and the arguments and I admire Ibn >Qutaiba's linguistic turns but the arguments are not too convincing. Indeed >a better argument is the one which simply says this was BEFORE rajm. Since >in usul sunni schools allow for takhsees (exceptions) and naskh >(abrogation) of the qur'an by authentic sunnah, rajm is established as the >law based on the actions of the Prophet where muhsanat are concerned. This >is why I said that the Sunni and Shhite schools affirm rajm based on >sunnah. > >The third argument of the khawarij is a matter of dispute in usul. Can the >Qur'an or Sunnah mutawatira be abrogated by something weaker, like ahad >hadiths? Most sunni Islam accepts that is sunnah is authentic a single >hadith can abrogate or amend a Verse of the Qur'an. The khawarij reject >this. However, on this third point the khawarij have a weak position. This >is because there is a case for arguing that the hadiths on the sunnah of >rajm (as opposed to the claims of an ayah on rajm) have come down from so >many sahabah that rajm can be considered a sunnah mutawatirah. If they >accept that the sunnah mutawatirah can amend a Verse then they have no >case, unless they argue that the sunnah preceded the revelation on >whipping. > >Why have I gone into this? Because Muslims these days do not read. If you >read Fazlur Rahman's "Islam and Modernity"(p 30) you will find that he says >that Izzuddeen Ibn Abdulsalam (who was a great Sunni jurist known for his >knowledge as Sultanul Ulama) "rejected stoning to death as punishment for >adultery and roundly declared the entire traditional material on the issue >to be utterly unreliable". >My purpose is not to reopen this debate. I was more interested in the >matter of convicting a woman for zina based on pregnancy as you will see in >"the refutation", a matter which my brother Bashir did not address. > >Have a happy reading of the articles. >Incidentally Bashir Aliyu is a good friend and brother so the disagreement >notwithstanding pls note that I have nothing but love and respect for him. > >Your brother >Sanusi >>From: "Musa Amadu Pembo" <[log in to unmask]> >>To: [log in to unmask] >>CC: [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], >>[log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], >>[log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], >>[log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], >>[log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], >>[log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], >>[log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], [log in to unmask], >>[log in to unmask] >>Subject: In the eye of the storm:Critiquing the Critics of The Adulteress' >>Diary. >>Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2002 09:49:27 +0000 >> >>Dear Brothers & Sisters -In-Islam, >>Al-salaamu alaykum wa rahmat-Allaahi wa barakaatuhu (Peace be upon you, >>and the mercy of Allaah and His blessings). >>Last weekend I forwarded to the list,the "Adulteress Diary" by >>S.L.Sanusi,today,In the interest of fairplay,I am forwarding a critical >>essay on the diary by Bahir Aliyu Umar for you to get both sides of the >>argument/debate on Sharia Law,and then a right of reply by the author of >>the diary.The implications are enormous for the whole continent as the old >>saying goes when America sneezes,the rest of the world catches >>pneumonia,the same can be said of Nigeria.So be my guest and read on. No >>matter what side of the argument win your vote you will end up wiser and >>better informed. Have a nice weekend. >> >>Still on that “Adulteress’ Diary” >> >>By >> >>Bashir Aliyu Umar >> >>[Islamic University of Madina, Saudi Arabia] >> >>Although it may appear belated, I feel it is essential to still go ahead >>and make this contribution, even if to assist clearing possible confusion >>that might have been caused by the ‘Adulteress’ diary’ written by Sanusi >>Lamido. >> >>The original article, even if given the benefit of the doubt that it was >>not an attempt to ridicule the Islamic Shari’ah, it has nevertheless >>succeeded in ridiculing the fuqaha, the expounders of the Islamic >>Shari’ah, and the torch-bearers and repositories of the Islamic >>intellectual, moral and spiritual tradition throughout the history of the >>Islamic nation. Lamido himself has conceded that he wrote the article to >>ridicule the implementation of the Shari’ah in Nigeria. There is no doubt >>that the implementation of the Shari’ah, being the actions of mortals >>lends itself t o criticism; but its connection to Allah and His Messenger, >>peace be on him does not allow a Muslim to ridicule it. As Muslims who >>believe that we will be held to account by Allah for our deeds, we have to >>observe an ethical code in our writings. If a person is bent on showing a >>literary prowess by his ability to use satire, then let him look for >>themes other than those connected with the religion of Allah or Muslims as >>individuals if indeed he believes in Allah and the Hereafter. This is the >>secret behind many verses of the Qur’an ending with the phrase: ‘if indeed >>you believe in Allah and the Last Day’. It shows that as Muslims we are >>constrained to observe a code of behaviour in our words and actions, by >>virtue of our Iman in Allah and the Last Day. Ibn Qutaibah, himself an >>outstanding literati, when refuting the works of the famous literary >>Mu’tazili Al-Jahiz, who in his literary acrobatics and exploits would >>among other things mention a saying of the Prophet, peace be o n him, side >>by side with the vulgar statements of such godless people as Al-Jammaz and >>Isma’il bin Ghazwan; and who would mention the arguments of the Christian >>polemics against the Muslims, and when he comes to refute them the >>refutation would be so mild and empty that it is as though he was only out >>to point out to the Christians what they did not know, and create doubts >>in the hearts of feeble-minded Muslims; Ibn Qutaibah said to him: if a >>person knew that his statements are indeed counted among his actions, he >>would only say what will be of benefit to him…and then he mentioned the >>famous ode of Al-Rayyashi: do not put into writing anything except what >>you will be happy to see in the Hereafter. See Ta’wil Mukhtafil Hadith (p >>58). Mockery is in itself haram, but ridiculing the Ulama (the malamai as >>he calls them) and portraying them as being insincere in their narrations >>of the Prophet’s sayings, making a picture of them as people out to >>administer doses of the people’s opium to the oppressed in order to sedate >>them from reacting against the oppression of the powerful and the >>bourgeoisie and the male chauvinists (this itself is a remnant of a >>Marxist influence whose ghost has been pursuing Lamido, and it is high >>time for him to shake it off as a Muslim especially one who writes about >>issues pertaining to Islam), that is more serious, let alone using terms >>as ‘fanatics’ and what have you to describe people engaged in a work >>commanded by Allah and His Messenger, peace be on him, as he did for the >>people of the Hisba corps. A person would be everything the kuffar wanted >>him to be when he starts using these appellations on Muslims, or is at >>pains to create by all means a ‘Brother Jero’ theme out of the Ulama (i.e. >>Scholars) or institutions of Islam. Allah says in the Qur’an: “O you who >>believe Let not some men among you mock others; it may be that the >>(latter) are better than the (former); nor let some women mock others: it >>may be that the (latter) are better than the (former). Do not defame, nor >>be sarcastic to each other, nor call each other by (offensive) nicknames. >>How bad it is to use a name connoting evil on one after he has believed >>And those who do not desist are indeed the wrong-doers, the unjust” >>(Suratul Hujurat 49:11). And the Prophet, peace be on him, said: ‘A Muslim >>is sanctified and inviolable to another Muslim in terms of his life, >>property and honour’. The Ulama are especially inviolable as Ibn Asakir, a >>famous hadith scholar of the sixth Hijra century said: ‘Know that the >>flesh of the Ulama is deadly poison, and the custom of Allah in debasing >>the one who seeks to degrade them is well-known…’ >> >>Secondly there are a number of themes that recur consistently in several >>of Lamido’s articles on issues pertaining to Islam. The first is what I >>observed to be a very negative attitude towards the early Ulama, the Imams >>of Ijtihad, especially when they take judicial positions contrary to what >>he feels are the right ones. They are at once in his sight concocting a >>law and saying that it is a law of Allah, or they are to him men living in >>some foreign land, and their statements are so undemocratic and so male >>chauvinistic as not to include the voice of women, or that they are so >>bourgeoisie as to carefully extricate their fellow bourgeois from the >>crime of theft and let only the unfortunate poor and oppressed bear the >>brunt of the law, or ‘they are men, who hide behind the lie of being >>loyal to the past to perpetuate the crimes of our present and escape’ this >>last he says regarding our scholars, whoever he means by that. First of >>all, we are all agreed on the fact that there is no theocracy in Islam; >>there is no clergy that holds ecumenical councils to decide what the law >>of Allah is. In Islam the law of Allah is not made by men, contrary to >>what obtains in Christianity, as the Qur’an itself clearly asserts >>regarding the people of the Book: ‘they take their rabbis and their >>priests as lords beside Allah, and the Messiah son of Mary; while they >>were commanded to worship Allah alone, there is no deity worthy of being >>worshipped but He’. When Adiy bin Hatim on hearing this verse protested to >>the Prophet, peace be on him, that the Christians do not worship their >>priests as asserted by the Qur’an, he, the Prophet, peace be on him said: >>‘do they not make permissible for them what is prohibited, and prohibit >>for them what is permissible?’ Adiy replied in the affirmative, and the >>Prophet, peace be on him, said: ‘this is their worship to them’. In Islam >>the law of Allah is preserved in the Book of Allah (The Qur’an) and the >>life practice and sayings of His Prophet, peace be on him (The Hadith). >>The Ulama simply expound the law of Allah as contained in the Qur’an and >>the Sunnah, and apply it to situations on the basis of analogical >>reasoning and other patterns of reasoning firmly established in the >>principles of Islamic jurisprudence, and in this exercise, they are most >>worthy of holding to the admonishment of Allah: ‘And do not say concerning >>what your tongues falsely put forth: ‘this is lawful and this is unlawful’ >>so as to invent lies against Allah. Surely, those who invent lies against >>Allah will never prosper’. >> >>The Ulama nor matter their position of knowledge and fear of God are not >>infallible, and we do not sanctify them from errors in their judgements, >>contrary to the twelver Shi’ites. But the Ulama, the Imams of Ijtihad are >>certainly sanctified from following their vain desires in expounding the >>law of Allah, because that is the very basis of Ijtihad. Ijtihad is >>exerting one’s utmost in knowing the judgements of the law of Allah, and >>among its most important pre-requisites is justice that precludes >>following one’s desires. Another is knowledge of the fundamental >>objectives of the law of Allah, the Maqasid al Shari’ah. These fundamental >>objectives, which the law of Allah is always set to achieve are: >>protection of the deen, life, wealth, intellect and progeny. These are >>absolute necessities, and whatever will establish them firmly and procure >>them is regarded as benefit that must be procured, and whatever will >>negate them or impair them is regarded as harm that must be removed. The >>other aspects of these objectives are what are regarded as the removal of >>difficulty and bringing about ease, the so-called Hajiyyaat; and what are >>regarded as the attainment of excellent patterns of behaviour, and leaving >>what all sound intellects regard as improper behaviour, the so-called >>Tahsiniyyat or Kamaliyyat. There are several other details regarding the >>fundamental objectives of the Shari’ah that constitute a whole field of >>study to which several books have been devoted. The legal positions of >>the outstanding scholars of the various schools of Islamic fiqh must be >>seen within this context in order to understand the law of Allah within >>its proper context. Lamido is well aware of some of these fundamental >>objectives; he even made mention of them in some of his writings. However >>he has refused to see the legal positions of the early fuqaha within that >>context. Instead he chose to see their positions sometimes from a leftist >>perspective, in which case they are to him what would tantamount to be >>bourgeoisie or their agents; and sometimes from a feminist perspective, in >>which case they are to him male chauvinists oppressing the feeble women >>folk as his statements in this recent article show. This is what is called >>zulm, injustice: putting things in their wrong positions. Among the fuqaha >>there were some who took a position that was absolutely wrong. That >>position despite the fact that it was not regarded as a different opinion, >>thereby giving it the sanction of being worthy of being followed, >>nevertheless the said scholar was not attributed to following his desires, >>he was simply said to have erred. As an example I can think of none other >>than that of Ibn Abbas, the Prophet’s paternal cousin and a scholar with >>an encyclopaedic knowledge of the deen to the extent that he was >>nicknamed: the ocean, because of his vast knowledge. It is well known that >>he alone among the companions of the Prophet, peace be on him, regarded >>temporary marriage as being lawful, in contrast to the position held by >>the rest of the companions that its lawfulness was abrogated. The position >>of Ibn Abbas is not cited as a different opinion in the matter, because it >>was wrong; as the Prophet, peace be on him, is confirmed to have abrogated >>the lawfulness of temporary marriage in several confirmed traditions. >>However, no one described Ibn Abbas as being subscribing to a view that >>regarded women as mere chattels. Another example is that of the same Ibn >>Abbas, may Allah be pleased with him, regarding ribal fadl, a form of >>usury prohibited by the Prophet, peace be on him. Ibn Abbas regarded it as >>lawful. The opinion of Ibn Abbas is not counted as a different opinion, >>but rather a wrong one, because it went against a confirmed saying of the >>Prophet, peace be on him. Nevertheless, who but a die-hard Marxist would >>regard Ibn Abbas as one striving to protect the interest of the >>economically powerful class by this juristic position of his . >> >>The argument that Lamido has launched on the position of the Maliki school >>of fiqh, which regards pregnancy in a woman who does not have a husband as >>a reason for inflicting the punishment of zina on her unless she >>establishes the basis of the pregnancy not being from zina, or proof of >>rape, is so clouded by feminist sensationalism as to render it to say the >>least non-scholarly. This same type of feminist sensationalism was used to >>reject a confirmed Prophetic hadith reported in the two Sahih collections. >>Writings of such eminent ‘Muslim’ female feminists were cited; I mean by >>that Fatima Mernissi, who as a Moroccan could be claimed to have some >>knowledge of the deen. But the reality is that going by what the review of >>one of her books which I read in the internet says, she is no doubt an >>apostate if what was said in the said review was indeed her statement, >>because of the terrible and derogatory remarks she made concerning the >>very person of the Prophet, peace be on him, which I cannot permit myself >>to quote under any circumstances. >> >>I wonder why these feminists only find an arena of their activism in >>freeing women from what they regard as oppression in the name of Islam. >>Where are they from the oppression of women by the sex industry? I read an >>interview in the website of CNN with a porno star, and it was pathetic how >>these poor women are oppressed and virtually enslaved by the gurus of this >>terrible industry. The American economy spent 14 billion dollars in 1997 >>on pornography. I bet going by that interview the total of what these >>unfortunate sluts made did not amount to a millionth of that amount. Where >>are these feminists from the plight of young girls in our universities >>that are being constantly harassed sexually by their lecturers? I heard >>the plight of one young fresh year girl who would not flirt around with >>her lecturers, and was bent on maintaining her chastity. She was so >>frustrated that she considered dropping out of the university, till she >>was guided to a trick of giving the irresponsible lecturers gifts in order >>to leave her alone to pursue her studies successfully. I remember a bunch >>of rogues in Samaru campus (ABU Zaria) in the early eighties, who were >>always present during the summer term when new intakes into the SBS were >>coming into the universities. They were purported to be engaged in >>targeting innocent young female freshers to beguile them into a life of >>sexual pleasures and loss of their chastity. May be the protection of the >>chastity of women is not in the agenda of feminist activism. >> >>The second theme that consistently recurs in Lamido’s writings is what I >>see as an attempt to obscure the fact that there is an absolute and >>transcendental truth in Islam. The western world view which out of its >>fanatical and fundamentalist belief in relativity extends it to all >>spheres of universal phenomena, both physical and non-physical, do not see >>anything as absolute, and regards everything as relative. This has >>influenced Lamido, and as such you see him when faced with texts from the >>Qur’an and Sunnah, at once citing the issue of contextualization, to >>pounce against the absolute proofs contained in those texts. At other >>times, he cites the differences of opinions to show that the whole matter >>is relative to the way one sees it as though he is saying: well, others >>have differed before, so since there are differences of opinions every one >>is thus entitled to his own opinion. He does this even where the contrary >>opinion cited is a wrong opinion and not a different one, because there is >>a lot of difference in Usul from an opinion that is wrong and one that is >>a different point of view as I will soon point out. The most surprising of >>these tendencies is when he discriminates between the proofs cited in the >>Qur’an and those cited in the Sunnah, as though there are things that >>could only be established by the Qur’an and not the Sunnah. >> >>Before examining these tendencies, let me first briefly make this >>preamble. There is truth and it is for real, and the realisation of its >>existence is an innate human quality. That is why even without revelation >>human beings quest after the truth as is evident from the quest of the >>philosophers of Jahiliyya to reach it. This is as far as human experience >>is concerned. In the Qur’an Allah says: “Mankind was one single nation >>(then they differed), and Allah sent Messengers as bearers of glad tidings >>and warners; and with them He sent The Book in truth to judge between >>people in matters wherein they differed…” (Baqarah 2:213). This shows that >>mankind throughout their history differ in their quest after the truth, >>and the thing that would take them to the truth is the Book that Allah >>revealed to the Messengers. If the Book were to lead them to further >>difference’s, we would have ended up with a vicious circle. >> >>Also Allah says: “In whatsoever you differ, the judgement thereof is with >>Allah”(42:10). And He says: “And if you differ in anything among >>yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if you do believe in >>Allah and the Last Day”(4:59). These verses show that the truth is one, >>and whenever there are differences, referring them to the Book of Allah >>and the Sunnah of His Prophet, peace be on him, which is the meaning of >>referring to Allah and His Messenger, will lead to the truth and end >>differences. If the truth were relative, this would not be the case. >>Therefore, the existence of different opinions in a matter does not show >>that there is no absolute truth in the matter; it only shows that people >>do differ and will differ in their efforts to arrive at the truth. Neither >>does it give a follower the choice of following whatever opinion he likes >>based on his desires, because that will negate the essence of religion, >>which is to prevent the individual from following mere whims and desires. >>What is obligatory on a person is to strive to arrive at the truth based >>on established evidence, and if he is not able to do that, to ask whom in >>his opinion is most knowledgeable and God-fearing. When Malik and Laith >>bin Sa’ad were asked about the differences of opinions of the Prophet’s >>companions they both said: ‘It is not as people say: there is ease in this >>or that and one could follow whichever one likes; but in fact there is a >>right opinion and there is a wrong one, therefore one has to strive to >>arrive at what is right’. In another narration Malik said: ‘A person would >>not be safe until he conforms to the right judgement: two opposite >>opinions cannot both be correct; Truth can only be one’. The ease that is >>there in the differences of opinions of the great scholars is that there >>is ease in striving one’s utmost to use his opinion in order to arrive at >>the truth based on evidence from the Book, the Sunnah, the Concensus of >>the Muslim scholars and correct analogical reasoning based on facts, if he >>can do ijtihad. If the truth is not clear to him, then he should abstain >>from telling people what the judgement of Allah is based on mere >>conjecture or choice without reason. He could on his own follow what he >>feels is the truth because as the Prophet, peace be on him said: ‘the >>right action is what puts your heart at rest, and a wrong action is what >>worries you in your heart’ and he said: ‘leave what you are in doubt, and >>act with what you are not in doubt’. >> >>So it can be seen that simply citing the existence of differences of >>opinions is no licence for a person to do what he likes. This is the case >>for those opinions that are based on proper ijtihad. But opinions that are >>not based on proper ijtihad are not even worthy of mention, let alone >>worthy of consideration as different opinions, because they are wrong from >>the onset. This is the case for all opinions that go against a manifest >>ruling of the Qur’an or Sunnah, or the consensus of the Muslim scholars, >>as the famous adage of the Fuqaha says: there is no ijtihad when there is >>a manifest ruling from a text of the Qur’an or Sunnah, and another that >>says: any analogical reasoning that contradicts a text from the Qur’an or >>Sunnah is unworthy of consideration. Based on this, there is no scholarly >>basis of Lamido’s citation of what he called the view of some early >>jurists particularly among the Kharijites who reject the ruling of stoning >>an adulterer, and see the distinction between fornication and adultery as >>baseless innovation, although he failed to mention even one among those >>jurists. This is nothing but sensationalism. It is as though he is saying: >>you see, there are dissident views, by no less than the politically >>radical Kharijites who reject the mainstream ‘orthodox’ view subscribed to >>by the majority. This type of assertion and argument would have some >>basis, if there were orthodoxy in Islam. It would have some basis if the >>truth in Islam were decided by ecumenical councils that convene to decide >>what orthodoxy is and what heresy is, as is done in Christianity or other >>religions. Then it would be quite possible to say that this being the >>decision of mere mortals, it is possible that the dissenters are the ones >>on the right path, just as we do postulate that it is quite possible that >>the gospels of the Arians and Donatists or other Unitarian Christians that >>are lumped together among the apocrypha are the real and true gospels, >>rather than the canonical ones accepted by the Nicene Council. In Islam >>the truth is not decided by men, it is the record of what was brought and >>practiced by the Prophet, peace be on him, and what he left his community >>on. You do not have to gather men to decide what that is. That is why you >>find a scholar following the Sunnah in the eastern-most part of Khorasan >>saying the same thing regarding Islamic belief and practice as another in >>the western-most part of Andalusia, and they may never have met, or they >>may even be separated by centuries. This is what Abul Muzaffar Al-Sam’ani >>said describing the Ahl Al Sunnah. This is why our scholars speak of those >>that deviate (I do not want to use the word ‘sect’ because of its peculiar >>Christian connotation), that is they deviate from the Prophetic legacy, >>and the Prophet, peace be on him informed us about them. The Kharijites >>are one of those because they deviated from the Prophetic legacy by >>regarding anyone who commits a wrong action that does not amount to >>rejecting the faith as an apostate, and they see it as perfectly justified >>to wage war on the Muslim community, because according to them they are >>guilty of apostasy. As a result of this they rejected a large amount of >>the Prophetic Sunnah because they regarded its narrators as apostates, and >>in its place they put in authority their opinions without any >>illuminations from revelation. Therefore, citing the position of the >>Kharijites as a different opinion worthy of consideration on a matter in >>which it goes clearly against what is established by the Prophetic Sunnah >>is telling us to accept deviation as something worthy of consideration. >>This is despite the fact that when the Prophet, peace be on him, issued a >>verdict of stoning on an adulteress he said clearly: By Allah I will judge >>between you by the Book of Allah. This was reported in the two Sahih >>collections. When a young hired shepherd committed zina with the wife of >>his employer, and the father of the boy reached an agreement with the >>employer that the boy was to pay the sum of a hundred heads of sheep to >>the employer, people of knowledge told him that that was not the judgement >>of Allah, so he went to the Prophet, peace be on him and asked him to >>judge between them with the Book of Allah. The Prophet, peace be on him >>said: By Allah! I will surely judge between you by the Book of Allah: the >>heads of sheep are to be returned to you, and the boy is to be given a >>hundred lashes and banished away from home for one year, and then he said >>to a man named Unais: go to the wife of this man (the employer) if she >>confesses (to committing adultery) stone her to death. So you can see that >>the Prophet, peace be on him has declared that stoning to death is a >>judgement by the Book of Allah. If it is said: how come this is a >>judgement by the Book of Allah, while we recite the Book of Allah and this >>is not mentioned in it? The answer is one of two things or both: this >>judgement is in the Book of Allah in reality, but its recitation has been >>abrogated with the ruling entailed by it still maintained, as was reported >>on the authority of Umar, and there is nothing problematic in it to entail >>its being discounted as Lamido inferred, because this type of thing has >>its authority from the Qur’an. The second thing is that it is in the Book >>of Allah by inference, because the Prophet, peace be on him judged by it, >>and there is no distinction between the Prophet’s judgement as recorded in >>the Sunnah, and a judgement pronounced by the Qur’an. A similar thing is >>when Abdullah bin Mas’ud cursed the women who joined their hair with >>artificial hair for beauty, and he was asked why, he said: why should I >>not curse the one cursed by the Messenger of Allah peace and blessings of >>Allah be on him, while he is at the same time accursed in the Book of >>Allah? His wife said: I have read the Qur’an from cover to cover, and this >>is something I cannot find in it. He said to her: If indeed you have read >>the Qur’an then you have found it, and he recited the verse: ‘whatever the >>Prophet gives you take it, and whatever he forbids you, refrain from >>it’(59:7). This shows that the companions of the Prophet, peace be on him, >>never made any distinction between what is established in the Book of >>Allah and what is established by the practice of the Prophet, peace be on >>him, and they regard both to be from Allah. In fact the Prophet, peace be >>on him warned against making such a distinction in a prophecy he >>prophesised, which we are now seeing its realisation: he said: “let not >>one of you, lying down after filling his belly, be informed of an affair >>with which I have commanded or prohibited, say: I do not know this, what >>we find in the Book of Allah that is what we will follow”. This is the >>hadith of Abu Rafi. In the hadith of Miqdam, the Prophet, peace be on him >>said: “Soon will one of you be informed of a hadith from me, while he is >>lying down relaxing, and he will say: the Book of Allah is between us and >>you, whatever we find in it lawful that is what we will regard as lawful, >>and whatever we find in it unlawful, that is what we will regard as >>unlawful. But listen! Whatever the Messenger of Allah makes unlawful is >>just like what Allah makes unlawful”. Tirmizi and some other narrators >>narrated both hadiths, and they are both confirmed hadiths. He, peace and >>blessings of Allah be on him, also said: “I have been given the Qur’an and >>with it a similar authority”. >> >>So we can see from this that the argument that stoning to death is not >>mentioned in the Qur’an is no proof against this ruling, since it is >>mentioned in the Sunnah, and any one who makes a distinction between what >>is in the Qur’an and what is in the Sunnah has gone against the above >>mentioned hadith, and has followed a way that is typical only of the >>erring and deviated groups. >> >>Now coming to the ayah of Suratul Nisa which says: “When they are taken in >>wedlock (slave women who are believers), if they commit indecency their >>punishment is half that for ‘Muhsanat” (4:25). The Khawarij as Lamido >>claims say that ‘Muhsanat’ are married women, and if their punishment were >>stoning to death, how could stoning be halved for slave women? This is >>what Lamido believes gave our scholars a lot of trouble, and as he claims >>even one of our best brains raised more questions than answers in his >>attempt to redress the problem. But far from it; all that it did was to >>show the Khawarij and their likes that deviated from the Prophetic way in >>their true colours. The impeccable ninth-Hijra century scholar Al-Shatibi >>has shown that one of the principal reasons for the deviation of the >>innovators in the Islamic community is their ignorance of the Arabic >>language. This particular case is a glaring illustration of Shatibi’s >>point. In fact were it not for Lamido’s insinuations of a cover-up and >>rejection of a view that he regards as substantial, I would not go into >>any details regarding the meaning of this verse, and it would have >>sufficed me to simply mention that this erstwhile substantial view goes >>against a confirmed Prophetic hadith as well as the ijma (consensus) of >>the Prophet’s companions, and that is enough to discredit it. But his >>hinting that our scholars take a unilateral position and make it on their >>own the law of Allah, in utter disregard of dissenting opinions which they >>castigate as opinions of a lost sect that carries no weight, makes it >>imperative to show that he has indeed misunderstood the basic principles >>of Islamic law, and that the debate that he claims could not be revived, >>could indeed be revived, and when it is revived it will only demonstrate >>vividly why the views of the so-called lost sects carry no weight with our >>scholars. >> >>The root of the problem in this case for this people is in the meaning of >>‘Muhsanat’, which they take as meaning ‘married women’, failing to realise >>that this word is ‘mushtarak’ that is having several different meanings. >>There are three different meanings to this word, and they are all in the >>Qur’an, but the woeful failure of this people to know this simple secret >>of the Arabic language, and their zealousness to prove the invalidity of >>the concept of the ijma (consensus) of Muslim scholars, led them to make >>this awful blunder. As I said there are three meanings to this word, and >>they are all in the Qur’an: the first is ‘married women’ which is the >>meaning in the verse that says: “(Also unlawful to you in marriage) are >>those women that are already married (muhsanat minan nisa) except what >>your right hands possess” (Nisa: 4:24). The second meaning is free women >>as opposed to slaves, and it is what is referred to in the verse: “If any >>of you have not the means to marry free women (muhsanat) who are >>believers, they may marry believing girls from among those whom your right >>hands possess” (Nisa, 4:25). The fact that it is mentioned as a direct >>opposite of female slaves shows that its meaning here is free women. If >>the meaning of ‘muhsanat’ in this verse were the same as in the previous >>verse, there would be obvious contradiction, and those who are bent on >>showing the existence of contradictions in the Qur’an could quickly jump >>to such a conclusion because it will be as though the first is saying: >>‘marrying women that are already married is unlawful to you’ and this one >>would seem to be saying: ‘if any of you have not the means to marry women >>that are already married”, so how could it be unlawful to marry this class >>of women and another reference is made to show that marrying them is >>permissible? This type of understanding is borne out of ignorance of the >>Arabic language. However, those who know the language of the Qur’an and at >>the same time refer to the opinions of those who witnessed the revelation >>of the Qur’an in order to understand it, give every verse its proper >>meaning. Another verse with this meaning in the Qur’an is: “This day are >>all things good and pure made lawful unto you. The food of the people of >>the Book is lawful unto you, and yours is lawful unto them. And lawful >>unto you in marriage are the free women (Muhsanat) who are believers, and >>free women (Muhsanat) among the people of the Book revealed before you…”. >>(Ma’idah, 5:5) This is according to the opinion of the majority of >>scholars. Some hold that the meaning of muhsanat here is chaste women. >> >>The third meaning is chaste women, and it is the meaning referred to in >>Suratun Nur: “And those who launch a charge against chaste women >>(Muhsanat) and do not produce four witnesses flog them with eighty >>stripes” (Nur, 24:4). Going by the unilateral definition of the Kharijites >>who define ‘Muhsanat’ as married women, the one who slanders an unmarried >>woman will not be flogged with eighty strokes of the cane in utter >>contradiction to the consensus of the Muslims. But there is nothing wrong >>with that, because they have a right to dissent, so Lamido will say. >>Except that he will not agree with them, because their opinion seems to be >>anti-feminist. On a more serious tone: I am not saying this is what the >>Kharijites say regarding slandering unmarried women. All I am saying is >>that it is the logical inference to the unilateral meaning they give to >>‘Muhsanat’. If I am properly understood you will see to whom the word >>‘Muhsanat’ has given a lot of trouble: our scholars or the so-called >>dissenters? >> >>The root meaning of ‘Ihsan’ from which ‘Muhsanat’ was derived is guarding >>of chastity. Allah said: “And Mary the daughter of Imran who guarded her >>chastity” (Tahreem, 66:12). Therefore the third meaning of ‘Muhsanat’ – >>chaste women – is the nearest to this root meaning. The two other meanings >>are borrowed meanings. A free woman is called ‘Muhsanah’, because normally >>in the Arab society of Jahiliyya, slaves were the ones known to commit >>indecency not free women. That is why when Hind the wife of Abu Sufyan >>came to accept Islam, and the Prophet, peace be on him was giving the oath >>of fealty to her which was mentioned in the second to the last verse of >>Mumtahana (chapter 60: verse 12), when he said: that they will not commit >>adultery (or fornication), Hind said: ‘O Messenger of Allah! Does a free >>woman commit adultery (or fornication)?’ A married woman is called a >>‘Muhsanah’ because marriage by its nature will make her chaste, it is as >>though she is named ‘one who will be chaste’ just as a cow is named ‘a >>tiller of the soil’ because tilling the soil is done by cows, and not by >>other animals. Also camels are called ‘Hady’ because sacrifice to the >>Ka’aba, (i.e. Hady), is with camels not with other animals. This is the >>point behind Ibn Qutaibah’s mention of a cow and she-camel, if only Lamido >>reflected carefully on it. >> >>So going back to the verse in question, the meaning of ‘Muhsanat’ in that >>verse is free women, that is the second meaning, and the verse will be >>paraphrased thus: ‘When they are taken in wedlock (slave women who are >>believers), if they commit indecency their punishment is half that for >>free women’. The punishment for free women is 100 lashes if they have not >>experienced a proper consummated marriage, otherwise it is stoning to >>death, as clearly explained by the Sunnah. The Qur’an cannot speak of >>half-stoning to death, because that is senseless. The Qur’an is the Word >>of Allah; it is not for jest. Therefore the punishment that is to be >>halved is that of unmarried free women, which is 100 lashes. >> >>With particular reference to the case of Safiya, I deliberately choose not >>to delve into it for two reasons: one, Lamido has by his statements and >>insinuations raised issues that are potentially misleading regarding some >>fundamental aspects of Islamic law and jurisprudence, especially to a lay >>audience to which his writing was originally directed, therefore I saw it >>more pertinent to concentrate on addressing those issues. Secondly, the >>issue of Safiya is in an Islamic court of law, and in Islamic >>jurisprudence the verdict of a judge is not annulled except where it goes >>against a manifest ruling of the Qur’an or the Sunnah, or the ijma >>(consensus of the scholars), or a manifest analogy of the first order >>(qiyas jaliy), so it is pointless and a lack of adab (etiquette) to open >>up discussion on the matter. >> >>Having said this it is very important to point especially to the people in >>the Hisba corps, that the Prophet, peace be on him has encouraged us to >>conceal the evil actions of Muslims, as long as they do not go public with >>them. Ibn Umar reported that the Prophet, peace be on him said: “whoever >>conceals the faults and evil actions of a Muslim, Allah will conceal his >>faults and evil actions on the day of Judgement”. (See what Imam Al-Nawawi >>says regarding this in his commentary on Sahih Muslim 16/135). Imam Ahmad >>reported on the authority of Thawban, from the Prophet, peace be on him: >>“Do not pursue the concealed wrong actions of the slaves of Allah (in >>order to expose them), because whoever is after exposing the wrong actions >>of his Muslim brother, Allah will surely go after his own wrong actions >>till He exposes him in the midst of his home”. Allah says: “Those who love >>to see indecency circulate among the believers will have a grievous >>chastisement in this life and in the Hereafter” (Nur: 23). And when a >>slave girl was brought to Umar and accused of pregnancy from zina, he >>reproved the man who brought her and said to him: you are a man that does >>not bring good. (see Musannaf of Abdurrazzaq 7/404). Certainly this does >>not include witnessing a person engaged in evil action and then leaving >>him alone, while one is in a position to prevent him from doing that. This >>is only speaking of an evil action that has already been committed, and >>this also regards people that are not known to be open sinners and/or >>mischief-makers. Such a people do not deserve having their secrets >>guarded. >> >>On a final note, we do acknowledge that the situation of women in our >>society needs redress. But the sorry situation of our womenfolk is part of >>the symptoms of our drifting away from the teachings of Islam. Whenever >>the life of the Muslims degenerates, every one will taste the terrible >>brunt of that degeneration, but the weak among them will have a taste of >>that more severely. And certainly women are by their natural disposition >>weaker than men, so we see them having an averagely severer taste of the >>evil brunt of our degeneration. The remedy is in returning to Islam, in >>strengthening our knowledge of Islam and our abidance by it. The remedy is >>not found in the agenda of feminism. Feminism will only lead us to further >>degeneration. Simply reflecting on the situations of those societies where >>feminism has made record achievements is enough proof to convince us that >>it is impossible for it to provide a remedy for us. Readers of this >>article may be more aware than I am of the terrible social and >>psychological disasters that the recipe of feminist activism has >>prescribed on the western societies, among which are breakdown of the >>family, the basic unit of a healthy human social existence, increased >>marriage breakdowns and rates of divorce, increased number of single >>parent families, increased number of children born out of wedlock and >>deprived of parental love, increased number of home alone children >>(door-key children I think they call them), increased exploitation of >>women by the pornographic, fashion and entertainment industries, exposing >>women without any help or protection to an unequal and unfair struggle in >>a merciless and ruthless society of economic wolves and vultures, and >>several other ills that you are more aware of. If the western societies >>are fighting a losing battle to redress the problems caused by this >>illness, why should we purchase it for ourselves? Islam has on record >>bettered the conditions of women. Even nearer home and not long ago, the >>Jihad of Shehu Usman Dan Fodio has improved the conditions of women in >>relation to their pre-Jihad conditions. Women were encouraged to learn >>their religion, which protected their rights, and they even recorded >>intellectual and literary achievements. The Prophet, peace be on him has >>given particular attention to women in his farewell sermon in the greatest >>Islamic congregation, the Pilgrimage, where he, peace be on him, was >>reported to have said: ‘I beseech and admonish you to be good to women’ – >>three times. He commanded men to be especially good to women, because of >>the weakness of women, and this is the only natural way by which women >>will be protected. The Prophet, peace be on him, said to them: “they >>(women) are like captives in your hands’, and he also said: ‘marriage is a >>form of bondage, therefore one of you should be careful in whose hands he >>places the woman that is under his charge’. This is a natural description >>of the state of women. And what a difference between a woman who is >>‘captive’ in the hands of the father or will-be father of her children, >>and another who is captive in the hands of an unfaithful and exploitative >>lover or financial manager. >> >>Once again I say the remedy is in Islam, which teaches that goodness to >>women is a factor of goodness of one’s religion. The Prophet, peace be on >>him, said: ‘the best of you is the one who is best to his family, and I am >>the best of you to my family’. If the Prophet, peace be on him, is by >>virtue of his excellence the best to his family, it shows that true >>religious excellence in Islam must entail goodness towards women. He, >>peace be on him, also said: ‘anyone who provides and takes care of two >>female dependents, will come together with me on the Day of Judgement like >>these two fingers (the index and the middle finger)’, this shows his >>nearness to the Prophet, peace be on him. (Muslim reported the Hadith). >>Therefore when we, both men and women, go back to our religion and learn >>it and hold fast to it, we will be aware of our rights, and we will >>respect the rights of others. Individuals are the ones who relate to human >>beings, in fact to the whole universe, and when they become upright, their >>relation with one another and with the whole of existence becomes good and >>healthy. Making them upright is the goal of Islam, and it excels in that. >>The Prophet, peace be on him, built and trained men and women, who as a >>result of their uprightness brought into existence the best community >>raised up for mankind. Allah the Most High said: “Surely this Qur’an >>guides to that which is most upright, and gives glad tidings to the >>believers who work deeds of righteousness that they shall have a >>magnificent reward; and to those who do not believe in the Hereafter (it >>announces) that We have prepared for them a chastisement grievous indeed” >>(Isra: 17: 9-10). >> >>Peace and Allah’s blessings be on you. >> >>------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>In the Eye of the Storm: Critiquing the Critics of The Adulteress' Diary >>By >>Sanusi Lamido Sanusi >>Perhaps the best opening for this piece is an excursion into history. >>During Jordan's 1989 parliamentary elections, two Islamists asked an >>Islamic court to bring a female parliamentary candidate, Toujan Faisal, to >>trial for the crime of apostasy from Islam. Toujan's crime was that she >>published an article in the Jordanian paper, al-Ra'y (Opinion) dated 21 >>September, 1989 with the title : "Yashtimunana wa nantakhibuhum" (They >>insult us and we elect them!). In that article Toujan mocked the society >>she lived in and how in the name of religion women were being reduced to >>some subhuman level. She criticized the use of the hadith that "women are >>deficient in intellect and religion" and raised a number of seemingly >>reasonable questions. She sarcastically remarked that since the Islamists >>believe that women are limited by their reproductive functions the best >>women are those who are not mothers. As it had been argued that women were >>incomplete because they menstruated, then surely barren women were more >>complete than fertile ones, and women in menopause than those having >>periods! Toujan complained about how Islamists sugarcoat their views on >>women's deficiencies with euphemisms praising women's femininity and >>decency, but when women demand their freedom they are accused of wanting >>to abandon tradition under the influence of "the West" or "modernism" and >>"secularism". >>Her prosecutors wanted Toujan declared an apostate and divorced from her >>husband. Her articles were to be banned, the media to be prevented from >>dealing with her. Most blood-curdling of all, the Islamists wanted the >>court to grant immunity to any one who spilled her blood. She was said to >>have spoken "against the prophet and his religion". She had mocked the >>obligation of a woman to be obedient to her husband and not leave his >>house without his permission and she opposed the requirement that a >>woman's duty is to "cook, clean, and serve the members of her family with >>maintenance as compensation".While the case ran, every woman who stood for >>elections in Jordan was defeated. The Islamists swept into parliament with >>a clear majority but after four years were unable to deliver anything >>other than rhetoric. Meanwhile Toujan was acquitted of all charges. Toujan >>had always insisted that the attacks were political, not religious. "I am >>a Muslim and I say that God is one and Muhammad is the prophet of God, so >>they have no ground for their case in Islam, because only God can judge if >>a person is sincere". >>Some, though not all, of the reactions to "The Adulteress' Diary" echoed >>the reactions to Toujan's article. The diary was a satire, not on Islam, >>but on the manner in which Islam and its symbols are distorted and used in >>the pursuit of naked secular power and the entrenchment of secular >>relations of class and gender. In one particularly entertaining vitriol, I >>was accused of mocking Allah, His Prophet, the religion of Islam, the >>companions and all the early jurists- all in addition to having lived an >>apparently blissfully erotic life in which I have "deflowered many >>virgins". We laugh at these articles but there is a very frightening side >>to them. The views held by Islamists and, in this particular case, quasi- >>and pseudo-Islamists, are enough warning of what awaits proponents of free >>speech and progressive ideologies if we ever allow these elements to be in >>full control of our politics. Any one of the allegations levelled against >>me in "The Ushers, Notes" is sufficient, if accepted by a court of law, >>for a death sentence for apostasy. And all the allegations, without >>exception, are untrue. >>Over time, I have learnt not to respond to these types of articles. The >>writers tend to be exemplars of an intellect whose total domestication is >>achieved through a constant disarticulation between the reading religion >>and the reading of the world which religion is expected to transform. The >>process of religious thought is deliberately arrested in time and space, a >>certain era is frozen and given eternal fiat over all times while the >>world marches on through history. By separating the reading of Islam from >>the reading of the real life of Muslim people (including its tensions, its >>class conflicts, its needs and its priorities- all of which differ in time >>and space), Islamists (and would-be Islamists) are able to master what >>Paulo Freire would call a literacy of stupidification, whose hallmark is >>the anaesthetization of the mind and the paralysis of intellect. Rather >>than break free from the self-imposed shackles around their brains, these >>elements expect the rest of the world to feel guilty for the crime of >>progress and modernity. The attempt to view religion in light of >>existential reality, to marry (again borrowing from Freire) our "reading >>of the word with our reading of the world" is viewed with suspicion and >>labelled "modernism". Having provided a label, what is left is to provide >>a definition of "modernist" completely lacking in factual substance as a >>description of the views or works of those being criticised. The greatest >>mistake one can make is to fall into the trap of defending the self and >>abandoning praxis. It is in the nature of a radical reading of all systems >>of thought, religious and secular, that they elicit such responses. The >>only tangible outcome of the attacks is to place the radical in a >>defensive position, making protestations of faith and trying to convince >>all comers that he is a Muslim. Ultimately, it is the burden of the writer >>to proceed along the tortuous task of unfolding this "Pedagogy of the >>Oppressed", and remember, when faced with so much wrath, that what he >>stands for is in historic and historical confrontation with what his >>critics stand for. The battle is joined at the level of ideology, not of >>faith. >>There have been other rejoinders, more temperate in tone, and perhaps >>suffering from no more than an honest misunderstanding of the diary. In >>one case the "rejoinder" read like a commentary on the diary itself, >>providing the details of all the hadiths, which provided a basis for the >>views discussed in the diary. In another case, the major thrust was a >>sense of betrayal, and the concern that unrestricted ventilation of these >>issues would open the door to the enemies of Islam and Shariah to attack >>the religion. The concern of course is legitimate, but it pales into >>insignificance when viewed against the unfounded advertisement of Islam as >>a crude and unfair religion, which is provided by contemporary northern >>society. A third critic praised me to high heavens and concluded by >>labelling me an intellectually arrogant writer who is also like a bird >>unwilling to sing the praise of its ancestors. He paid the diary the >>ultimate compliment of ranking it with two of the most notorious works of >>pornography in classical Arabic- Muallaqat Imru'l Qays and Alfu Laytatin >>wa Laylah. I did not respond to these pieces because it was clear to me >>that readers are intelligent enough to see that there no major differences >>of opinion between us, just as they could see that the real object of the >>pseudo-fundamentalist's barbs was the writer of the diary, not its >>contents. My belief was proved right when a few readers wrote in defence >>of the contents of the diary publicly, and when many more wrote private >>letters to me and to the critics themselves. >>I am however compelled to respond to the latest by my friend and >>brother,Bashir Aliyu Umar. The article in question is a summary of his >>views already written on a separate network and over which we had an >>extensive debate. The response is necessary because, in spite of the >>brilliance (and, I must add, prolixity) of this write-up, it does not >>address the issues of the diary- and those issues are important to me and >>need to be discussed if we are to make any progress as a people. What it >>does, however, is raise a number of pertinent issues of epistemology and >>ideology, and provide what can best be described as a critique of my >>thoughts. Bashir discussed what he referred to as "themes running through >>Lamidos's writings." This point is important because very often this >>approach, deliberately or otherwise, serves the purpose of obfuscation. >>The matter is no longer the content of "The Adulteress' Diary" which the >>critic purports to be addressing, but the "themes running through the >>writings" of the author of the Diary. These are two separate points of >>discourse and we must not forget that. However, the arguments presented in >>the one arena are taken as sufficient for the second. I will show that >>this is not true. Having said that, I affirm that every writer must accept >>that his world-view is a legitimate object of critical discourse. I will >>therefore in this response to Bashir not only defend The Diary, but answer >>him on the questions he raised on method and theory. >>Let me begin by stating the following. Bashir Aliyu is my brother and my >>friend. He is in no way to be confused with those seeking a locus standi >>in Islamist circles because his record is established as a scholar and >>activist. Although firmly committed to Islam and Muslim scholarship, >>Bashir is widely read and broad-minded. There are however areas in which >>over the years we have been in deep disagreement and which his paper, and >>this rejoinder, will highlight. Since I have already said that Bashir's >>excellent posting does not address the contents of The Adulteress' Diary, >>let me restate what I consider to be the essential themes of the >>adulteress' Diary. >>The only way to understand the Diary is to take it, primarily and >>singularly, for what it is. The Diary is a work of satire. The Chambers >>English Dictionary defines "satire" as "a literary composition, originally >>in verse, essentially a criticism of folly or vice, which it holds up to >>ridicule or scorn-its chief instruments, irony, sarcasm, invective wit, >>and humour." This is precisely what The Diary was. It was not a >>pornographic work, in spite of its graphic language. It was also not a >>work of jurisprudence, even if it marshalled arguments of law. It was a >>satire on northern society and particularly its hypocrisies and pretences. >>It criticised in particular the northern Muslim male and how he views and >>treats women, all the time justifying this treatment using the symbols and >>authority of religion. It was designed to ridicule, and therefore was >>bound to generate anger. But expressions of outrage at a satire, born as >>they are of hurt pride, are not critiques. A proper critique of the diary >>would focus on the following questions: What are these "follies" and >>"vices" which the writer claims exist in the north? Do they in fact exist? >>If they do are they follies or vices? Are they secular or religious? Etc. >>Not a single critic seems to have zeroed in on this, because they all >>failed to appreciate the satire as genre. So what are the points Safiya >>raised, in order of presentation? >>Safiya made the point, first, that lewdness is rampant, largely because >>northern men, particularly its elite, are incurable womanizers. In guest >>houses, hotels, homes and overseas, northern politicians, military >>officers, traditional rulers, nouveax riches contractors and >>lumpen-bourgeoisie keep women of easy virtue while pretending to be holier >>than the next man. However, it seems only women are paying the price for >>this lewdness as if only they are responsible. >>Secondly, The Diary ridicules the conception of virtue held by northern >>men. Every northern man wants to marry a virgin and also wants his >>daughter to be presented to her husband as a virgin. This is a wonderful >>thing. Unfortunately, the men do not bother about their sons( or even they >>themselves) disvirgining other peoples' daughters. So a young girl like >>Bariya Magazu is convicted for fornication but our outrage at violated >>chastity does not make us seek by all means proof of the abuser who put >>her in the family way. Our honour is not defined by our chastity, but by >>that of our women. We value chastity in our wives and daughters but do not >>care a hoot about the daughters of others. It is a sickness. It seems we >>want to marry virgins not because we cherish chastity but because of the >>carnal pleasures associated with virginity. Who made Safiya and Bariya >>pregnant? That question will never go away. Linked to this is the penchant >>for early marriages, often loveless ones, into which girls are forced. >>Safiya associates this trend not with superior chastity of northern men >>but their selfishness. Girls are removed from school, married off, turned >>into young mothers. Sometimes they end up with complications while giving >>birth (although one of my critics says the problem is midwifery!) The >>result of these marriages and the impact on our society are well-known. >>Next Safiya moves to her case and raises pertinent questions of procedure >>and evidence. The central point in jurisprudence is the following: In >>Maliki Law if an unmarried woman gets pregnant she is presumed guilty of >>zina unless she can prove that the conception was not through voluntary >>illicit intercourse. There is no verse of the Qur'an supporting this. >>There is no record of the prophet doing this or commanding it. For this >>reason the other schools of law give her benefit of doubt and only convict >>her based on voluntary confession which she can retract. Although Malik's >>position is traced to a saying of 'Umar, we have shown that 'Umar also in >>practice gave this benefit of doubt. So on one level pregnancy as a sole >>basis for conviction lacks basis in Qur'an and Hadith and conflicts with >>the position of Abu Hanifa, Shafii and Ahmad-ie the majority. There is no >>point saying well, she confessed, because in this case her confession is >>superficial. The pregnancy convicts her-which is why even if she were to >>retract the confession today she would still need to prove her innocence >>even if she claimed rape. The proper critique of this section of the diary >>would be to argue that in fact this law is just and that Malik's position >>is closer to the rulings of Allah and His Messenger than the position of >>the majority. Given the option of assuming her innocent or guilty, we >>chose the latter option in spite of its horrendous implications. It is >>most surprising that a call to ulama to accept the ruling of the clear >>majority of early jurists is viewed as a negative attitude toward the >>mujtahids whose views may differ from what I "feel are the right ones". >>The final point she makes is a simple one. If I am guilty of zina because >>I am pregnant then the man who made me pregnant is guilty of zina. I have >>named the man and there are avenues of verifying the claim. Why is he not >>guilty? Nothing said by the critics detracts from the validity of this >>question. It is clear from the Diary that I believe the early ulama have >>an excuse in that they had no way of verifying these claims. The whole >>issue of reading the Law in accordance with what prevails in the modern >>world was therefore not directed at the "early jurists and mujtahids" but >>the contemporary ulama or, more specifically, the political leaders who >>are instituting the penal code. >>As for the issue of muhsanat, all that Bashir has done is to provide the >>arguments Ibn Qutaiba offered as a refutation of the position of the >>Kharijites on stoning. I did mention that there were many questions >>unanswered.However as a Sunni Muslim I accept the ruling of the hadith and >>that was clear from the Diary. The point was to draw attention to the >>controversy on the matter, which would only arise anyway, if we accepted >>the conviction. A final point worthy of note is that no Islamic country in >>the world today stones a convicted adulteress. Not Saudi Arabia where >>Bashir is studying hadith, not Iran, not Sudan, not Afghanistan. It is >>possible that they are all suffering from the virus of modernism. >>I will now reproduce, in brief, my response to Bashir on matters of theory >>and method. I will focus on two key areas of disagreement and my response >>to them. The first is the tendency to draw an organic link between fiqh, >>as we have come to know it, and the Word of Allah, if you like the eternal >>nomos. So for instance Bashir advises that because the Ijtihad of scholars >>is aimed at interpreting Allah's law I should keep my satires away from >>the implementation of Shariah. But this is precisely where I differ from >>him! I make a clear distinction between that which is confirmed to be from >>Allah and His Messenger-in the Qur'an and established a hadith (especially >>the mutawatira and mashhura)- and the interpolations, extrapolations, >>interpretations, embellishments, legends, myths and conclusions of human >>beings over historical time. It is true that in making this distinction I >>have been influenced by the traditions of Western Scholarship, starting >>from Goldziher but mainly articulated in three Classics: Joseph Schacht's >>"The Origins of Muhammadan Jurisprudence", Noel Coulson's "History of >>Islamic Law" and Montgomery Watt's "Formative period of Islamic Thought". >>In a few cases, notably schacht's, there are certainly questions about the >>extent to which reality was forced into a hypothesis( as in the >>exaggerated roles of Imam Muhammad in the founding of the Hanafi School or >>Ibn Qasim in the Maliki school at the expense of the founding fathers, or >>the very limited role to which Ibrahim An-Nakha'i was reduced) but by and >>large by applying a generic methodology applicable to all brands of >>knowledge these scholars, capable of detachment from mythology, were able >>to trace the evolution of Shariah over time and the stages in its >>development and the contribution of persons and generations and histories >>and experiences not just to the crystallization of a methodology but to >>the law itself. It is therefore clear to me that if I ridicule the manner >>in which Nigerian Muslim politicians have defined their shariah project >>and approached the "Islamization" of the polity I do not mock Allah or His >>Messenger but the use to which their names or words are put. None of this >>is to say I accept everything that the orientalists have to say on this >>matter. But on this particular point I agree with them. >>The second point I will pick up is this allegation: That I believe in some >>form of relativism of truth. I believe it is a fair deduction but an >>incorrect one. What is correct is that I recognise all revelation as >>eternal truth. However I view the human interpretation of revelation as a >>contingent historically conditioned understanding which may or may not >>hold permanent validity. In this sense the existence of several views does >>not, as Bashir says, mean to me that all views are equally correct (which >>is the true sense of relativism). To do so is to accept some of the less >>secure dimensions of post-modernist epistemology. What it does is to >>establish the essential multivocality of Muslim discourse and thus >>question the attempt to present the law as a univocal monolithic code to >>which all citizens are bound. The history of Islam proves this. Muslim >>Spain was ruled by Maliki Law. The Kharijite states of Oman and the >>Maghrib were based on Ibadhi jurisprudence. Greater Persia was converted >>to twelver shiism by the Ismali Shahs. The legal code of the ottoman >>Empire, the Mujallah, was based on Hanafi fiqh. In every epoch and in >>every place the ruling version of shariah has never been selected based on >>some platonic, eternal truth but on the exigencies of power and power >>relations. Indeed what was in ascendancy in one dispensation-such as >>Mu'tazili Thought- was soon to become the new heresy and apostasy. No one >>in Saudi Arabia will propagate an interpretation of shariah that questions >>the legitimacy of tribal/lineage oligarchies. No one in Iran can question >>clerical despotism. No one in Libya can dispute military dictatorship. The >>discursive arena is so defined as to ensure that its boundaries are not >>drawn in a manner capable of upsetting the apple cart. >>The multivocality of Islam is reduced to univocality under the direct >>influence of politics and secular relations-be they internal political >>jostling or external threats. This is why any call to a "return to Islamic >>Law" may on one level be a purely religious commitment to an eternal >>truth. On a different and fundamental level, especially where the >>advocates are in politics, the call is also a political slogan, >>intricately linked to the social and political power calculations of the >>dominant classes. This is why the "ghost of Marxism" will not be entirely >>abandoned. It gives one a healthy scepticism and protects one from >>idealism that can be taken advantage of. May I also note here that the >>whole point raised on there being a universal truth that is not relative >>is the subject of profound discussion in Western Philosophy. The >>discussion of absolutism was anticipated by Plato. It is not correct to >>affirm, as Bashir did, that western thought is based on a belief in >>relativism of truth. This belief was held by the Sophists, and is in some >>form present in certain strands of post-modernist discourses where the >>liberal desire to respect other peoples, other cultures and other >>civilizations has sometimes degenerated into moral ambivalence. But this >>is not the place to discuss this issue. The point is to say to Bashir that >>in his assertion of the absolutism of truth he is being a Platonist. When >>Bashir says "there is a truth and it is for real, and the realisation of >>its existence is an innate human quality" he speaks in the language of >>Plato. Truth is a universal form. It is that which Kant calls a >>Categorical Imperative. It exists in an objective form, independent of >>time and space. As we "discover" it, we merely undergo a process Plato >>referred to as anamnesis, we remember that which we always knew without >>knowing that we did. Perhaps if Bashir read philosophy with a little more >>openness, he would be a little less suspicious of the subject. Perhaps he >>should read Aristotle's concept of the "golden mean" and see how it fits >>into the concept of wasatiyyah in Islamic theology and ethics- a classical >>case of which is Ibn Qayyim's definitions of states in Madarijul Salikin. >>Even Bashir's analysis of the effect of education on one's ability to >>recognize this eternal truth- the qualities of the mujtahid- is mirrored >>in Plato's trained philosopher. >>One final note. I am fully conscious of the dangers of outright secular >>ideologies-like feminism, liberalism etc. The experience of the USSR is >>sufficient proof that sometimes when people fight for emancipation, they >>emancipate people from one despotism into another. This is equally the >>case with Islamist, as well as so-called liberal regimes. Before our eyes >>today, America has "liberated" Afghan women from the burqah imposed by the >>Taliban by force into a new dictatorship of "unveiling" which is forced >>upon them with incentives of food and essential life-saving items. I, >>therefore, do not believe that an argument is right simply because it is >>placed in the context of a perspective of liberation, otherwise I would be >>a true modernist and feminist-instead of talking about interpretations of >>the Law of hadd I would be talking about the right of woman over her body, >>to sleep with whosoever she pleases, which those who speak of modernists >>ought to know is the real modernism. What is true however is that the >>reality of our experience and the structure of our society are contingent >>and Islam, understood in its multivocality is capable of being applied and >>interpreted to suit these structures. So long as the final choice is left >>to political actors it will only serve to entrench their secular interests >>and cloak them in a religious garb. By exposing the link between that >>choice and those interests one is able to expose a hidden political >>violence and engage the project as both textual discourse and ideology. I >>do not deny that I am taking sides in a social contest. What I do is deny >>the establishment the right of pretence, the right to argue that their >>commitment has nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with a >>fixed, unchanging Divine truth. >> >>With the very best of good wishes, >>Musa Amadu Pembo >>Glasgow, >>Scotland >>UK. >>[log in to unmask] >>Da’wah is to convey the message with wisdom and with good words. We should >>give the noble and positive message of Islam. We should try to emphasize >>more commonalities and explain the difference without getting into >>theological arguments and without claiming the superiority of one position >>over the other. There is a great interest among the people to know about >>Islam and we should do our best to give the right message. >>May Allah,Subhana Wa Ta'Ala,guide us all to His Sirat Al-Mustaqim >>(Righteous Path).May He protect us from the evils of this life and the >>hereafter.May Allah,Subhana Wa Ta'Ala,grant us entrance to paradise . >>We ask Allaah the Most High, the All-Powerful, to teach us that which will >>benefit us, and to benefit us by that which we learn. May Allaah Subhanahu >>Wa Ta'ala grant blessings and peace to our Prophet Muhammad and his family >>and >>companions..Amen. >> _________________________________________________________________ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com <<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>> To view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html To contact the List Management, please send an e-mail to: [log in to unmask] <<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>//\\<<//\\>>