AbuZayd
10-08-2004, 07:46 PM
Wa `alaykum as-Salam wa rahmatullah:
> I have a question regarding the scholars who associate heavily with
> tyrant
> rulers supporting their policies and inadvertantly their brutality
> against
> the Muslim populace.
>
> I noticed on your excellent website you have articles regarding
> government
> scholars and also regarding Shaykh Kabbani.
>
> However, can the following be justified according to the rules of
> Commanding
> the Good and Forbidding the Evil? Or would you suggest it would be
> better
> that the Muslims avoid such scholars who support the tyrant of
Uzbekistan
> and George Bush?
>
> http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/bin/site/wrappers/splash.asp
>
>
http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/bin/site/wrappers/default.asp?pane_2=co
> ntent-uzbekistan
>
>
> Also, could you advise as to whether Shaykh Dr. Ramadan al-Buti can
be
> considered a safe source for knowledge considering his love for the
> tyrant
> Hafez Assad who slaughtered hundreds of innocent Muslims during his
rule?
>
> http://www.bouti.com/bouti_e_lectures1.htm
>
>
> I hope you will please answer this post as I cannot see how the above
can
> be
> justified according to Shariah. Surely it would be better to add in
your
> post about Government scholars to avoid the doubtful shaykhs as the
> scholars
> always quote "this knowledge is Din so be careful as to whom you take
> your
> knowledge from".
By citing the golden rule that "this knowledge is Din so be careful
as to whom you take your knowledge from" the questioner is questioning
the uprightness of the two Shaykhs he named and, consequently, their
learning also. But he must beware that, perhaps, in the sight of Allah,
those he has thus reviled have a higher rank than him; it is enough
that
one has single-handedly put to rest the media cliche that turbaned and
bearded Muslims are terrorists and the other is recognized as one of
the
major Ulema of our time by his peers East and West.
Critics of what they call "government scholars" do have a point in
adducing the hadiths about the best scholar being those the prince
goes to visit but the worst are those who visit the prince i.e.
run after worldly favors and worldly power. But has this questioner
ascertained for a fact that this applies to the ones he cited? On
what evidence? Al-Buti's speech (although the English on that website
is apalling) is all about one sentence: "Make sure, your Excellency,
that your capital is, first, to resort to Allah. Secondly, loving your
people and being faithful to them. Thirdly, having mercy on your
mass[es]."
Has the questioner practiced the hadith Inna al-Din al-Nasiha in any
remotely comparable way lately?
Interaction with the political scene in the modern world is the most
confusing, dangerous activity which is best left alone. It is fraught,
obviously, with people with the wrong intentions running after the
world and its worthless scraps. It is the death of Tasawwuf and the
hardening of hearts, as Imam Ahmad al-Rifa`i said. However, Allah Most
High has also placed whatever means He wishes to contain the wildness
even there, under the domes of libido dominandi. Thus, at the same time
as we run away from the door of princes it is nevertheless the
responsibility
of whoever can, whoever is at the same time mercy-hearted and
steel-hearted,
to advise with sincerity the leaders. If one is in a position to do
that,
he must do it. If you can, step up; if not, shut up.
If you must evaluate, try to evaluate such advisers with the best
opinion
but you might do so often on the basis of insufficient knowledge both
of their actual station and of the adab that applies. In condemning
and reviling in wholesale fashion there are Islamic principles that one
is likely to overlook and then commit grave suspicion while also
involving oneself with what is of no concern to them. But -- as Imam
al-Tahawi said in his `Aqida -- "There is no change away from sin nor
power to remain firm on good except through Allah Most High and
Almighty."
Hajj Gibril
> I have a question regarding the scholars who associate heavily with
> tyrant
> rulers supporting their policies and inadvertantly their brutality
> against
> the Muslim populace.
>
> I noticed on your excellent website you have articles regarding
> government
> scholars and also regarding Shaykh Kabbani.
>
> However, can the following be justified according to the rules of
> Commanding
> the Good and Forbidding the Evil? Or would you suggest it would be
> better
> that the Muslims avoid such scholars who support the tyrant of
Uzbekistan
> and George Bush?
>
> http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/bin/site/wrappers/splash.asp
>
>
http://www.islamicsupremecouncil.org/bin/site/wrappers/default.asp?pane_2=co
> ntent-uzbekistan
>
>
> Also, could you advise as to whether Shaykh Dr. Ramadan al-Buti can
be
> considered a safe source for knowledge considering his love for the
> tyrant
> Hafez Assad who slaughtered hundreds of innocent Muslims during his
rule?
>
> http://www.bouti.com/bouti_e_lectures1.htm
>
>
> I hope you will please answer this post as I cannot see how the above
can
> be
> justified according to Shariah. Surely it would be better to add in
your
> post about Government scholars to avoid the doubtful shaykhs as the
> scholars
> always quote "this knowledge is Din so be careful as to whom you take
> your
> knowledge from".
By citing the golden rule that "this knowledge is Din so be careful
as to whom you take your knowledge from" the questioner is questioning
the uprightness of the two Shaykhs he named and, consequently, their
learning also. But he must beware that, perhaps, in the sight of Allah,
those he has thus reviled have a higher rank than him; it is enough
that
one has single-handedly put to rest the media cliche that turbaned and
bearded Muslims are terrorists and the other is recognized as one of
the
major Ulema of our time by his peers East and West.
Critics of what they call "government scholars" do have a point in
adducing the hadiths about the best scholar being those the prince
goes to visit but the worst are those who visit the prince i.e.
run after worldly favors and worldly power. But has this questioner
ascertained for a fact that this applies to the ones he cited? On
what evidence? Al-Buti's speech (although the English on that website
is apalling) is all about one sentence: "Make sure, your Excellency,
that your capital is, first, to resort to Allah. Secondly, loving your
people and being faithful to them. Thirdly, having mercy on your
mass[es]."
Has the questioner practiced the hadith Inna al-Din al-Nasiha in any
remotely comparable way lately?
Interaction with the political scene in the modern world is the most
confusing, dangerous activity which is best left alone. It is fraught,
obviously, with people with the wrong intentions running after the
world and its worthless scraps. It is the death of Tasawwuf and the
hardening of hearts, as Imam Ahmad al-Rifa`i said. However, Allah Most
High has also placed whatever means He wishes to contain the wildness
even there, under the domes of libido dominandi. Thus, at the same time
as we run away from the door of princes it is nevertheless the
responsibility
of whoever can, whoever is at the same time mercy-hearted and
steel-hearted,
to advise with sincerity the leaders. If one is in a position to do
that,
he must do it. If you can, step up; if not, shut up.
If you must evaluate, try to evaluate such advisers with the best
opinion
but you might do so often on the basis of insufficient knowledge both
of their actual station and of the adab that applies. In condemning
and reviling in wholesale fashion there are Islamic principles that one
is likely to overlook and then commit grave suspicion while also
involving oneself with what is of no concern to them. But -- as Imam
al-Tahawi said in his `Aqida -- "There is no change away from sin nor
power to remain firm on good except through Allah Most High and
Almighty."
Hajj Gibril