The War Within
Posted on January 25th, 2007 by Tariq Nelson
For those that have not seen it, below is CNN’s special “The War Within” about the Battle between Moderate Muslims and Extremists such as Anjem Chaudry and Omar Brooks who grab
Filed under: Muslim Isolation, The Culture of Denial and Pretense
Dont be surprised if, after 10 or 15 years from now, we all learn that Omar Bakri, Chawdhury, Omar Brooks, and these characters are all agent provocateurs working for British Intelligence. I have no doubt in my mind of that. Yes, there are people who are foolish enough to believe in what they espouse, but they are allowed to roam freely and spew their venom because of a plan with those in power.
I would be very surprised if they were British agents, but a belief such as that is common amongst Muslims who believe everything they dislike is a conspiracy. More so then showing that these guys are mentally deficient I think it also shows the tabloid nature of the British media.
Ever wonder why these people (Omar Bakri, Chawdhury, Omar Brooks) appear the right place where media is present?
I don’t believe that everything I dislike is a conspiracy, but I would invite you to look at the details about Omar Bakri that were brought up some years ago by other (more balanced) salafis. I believe that their followers are definitely deficient in their Aql, but I have serious suspicions about their leaders like Bakri and Brooks. They are very useful for the UK government. I will look for an old article about Bakri that was put out by Azzam publications some years ago and post it here for you to take a look at.
It is not beyond the realms of possibility to say these people have contact with British intelligence services.
Two men held in Guantanamo were apparently in contact with British security services, before they were abandoned in West Africa and finally kidnapped and incacerated by the Americans. They are said to have been go-betweens to Abu Qatada, the so-called “spiritual leader” of “al-Qa’ida in Europe”, was in contact with the British too.
“Agents” is too strong a word. Bakri et al. are as genuine as we can ascertain them to be (it is pure unfounded speculation to say otherwise). But it is silly to say these men moved without the security services knowing who they met, and where they moved. In fact, one could argue that the British policy of ‘containment’ (that is ‘preach what you like as long you do don’t anything on our turf’) and ‘keeping enemies close to one’s chest’ allowed these men to spread their ’cause’.
Umar Lee,
You’d be amazed what money can buy.
COINTELPRO is not that old. You are right perhaps, maybe agent is too strong a word. A more fitting word would be asset.
As-Salaamu ‘alaikum,
The “Rangers/Celtic Muslim” joke that “Muslim comedienne” told in one of those videos is so old! For anyone not familiar with the situation in Glasgow, Rangers is the local football (soccer) team associated with the Protestant community and Celtic are associated with the Catholics, and matches between the two are often accompanied by sectarian singing and chanting.
The joke actually went “are you a Catholic Muslim or a Protestant Muslim”, meaning that nobody they know isn’t either one or the other. It’s also been said that someone, when asked what “Protestant and Catholic” meant, replied “Rangers and Celtic”.
http://www.salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_Saudi.pdf
See pp.29-31 above
That PDF is trash put together by another branch of Salafis that are woefully ignorant of the reality of the Najdi movement. …*sigh*
Let’s discuss the women who were denied to enter mosques. Clearly, Islam does not prohibit women to attend mosque. Where does it come from?
My mother is member of women organization who helps to build the first mosque in Denmark, and this organization raised money, almost 1/5 of donation, also did campaigning.
Imagine, you are not allowed to attend the mosque you have build with your own money.
The reason why the women are not allowed in the Masajid there, has to do with a Hanafi ruling stating such (and im not a Hanafi myself, so im not aware of the ruling and if it is the relied upon position in the school or not). It would be worth exploring. I am aware however, that many of the leading Hanafi jurists such as Mufti Taqi Usmani dont hold that view.
well, just after I posted above, I came across a discussion of this by one Hanafi Mufti in the UK. I cant find the original source for this, so I hope brother Tariq doesnt mind me posting it here in its entirety;
====================================
In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,
Generally, the major Fatawa books of the Indian Subcontinent Hanafi jurists (fuqaha) discourage (quite vehemently at times) women from attending and praying at Mosques. They base their understanding on the fact that a woman is encouraged by Allah Most High to remain within the confines of her home unless there is a need for her to emerge outside. Allah Most High says:
alkashif Says:
“That PDF is trash put together by another branch of Salafis that are woefully ignorant of the reality of the Najdi movement.
Funny, you say ad hominem attack, and then case in point you refer to my blog. I say that this PDF is trash because it is poorly researched, full of misconceptions, ad hominem attacks, sources non muslim works on Muslims, and attempts to cover up the ideological traces that have indeed been a cause for the antics of people like Bakri, Chawdhury, et al. And on top of all that, they cant even be profesional enough to spell peoples names correctly. Last time I checked, it was Zaid Shakir and not Ziyad Shakir. It was Hamza Yusuf and not Hamza Yoosuf.
The biggest grievance I have with that PDF is that is intellectually ignorant or dishonest regarding the nature and beliefs of the Najdi state. They try to argue that the Najdis never rebelled against the Ottoman Khilafah or made Takfir of it. They did make Takfir of it and rebel against it, and to suggest otherwise is completely disingenuous.
The collection of Najdi essays and Fatwas are crammed full with outright Takfir of the Ottoman state-all found in al-Durar al-Saniyyah and Mujmu Muallafat al-Shaikh.
And it is not true that the Najdis were not ruled by the Ottomans at that time-contrary to what is claimed in that PDF.
So, while I dont belive in the fear mongering of people like Shwartz or Kabbani, I do believe that there is a Najdi influence among these ”radicalized” youth there in the UK. It is an undeniable influence, and those who are salafi and dont take that path, Ill be blunt with my opinion and say that this is despite the actual teachings of the Najdis (im speaking of the ideology of Takfir, not violent actions which is another level).
I dont believe every claim made against the early Najdi movement, but at the same time, I do not for one minute believed in the lily white sanitized version that it presented in salafi apologetic works published in Saudia
was salam.
Asalaamu ‘alaykum
I have to agree with Umar Lee, Muslims are too quick to jump on the bandwagon of conspiracies. As Muslims we need to deal with hard substantiated facts and not conjecture. Indeed, it was conjecture that Allaah condemns in the Qur’an concerning the very crucifixion of Jesus, son of Mary.
And Allaah says: “Do not pursue that of which you have no knowledge. Indeed, the hearing, sight and feelings of the heart will be inquired into (on the Day of Judgment).”
And He says: “Truly conjecture cannot avail against the Truth.”
It has to be said that to postulate Najd (Saudi Arabia) having some influence over the radicalisation of these youth is preposterous. Anyone that knows the background of Bakri, Brooks et al. knows that there is no connection to be made whatsoever.
The ideology of Takfeer is something that was popularised by none other than Sayyid Qutb whilst fomented by his predecessor and founder of the Muslim Brotherhood Hasan al-Banna. To say that the prevalent ideology of takfeer stems from Najd is ludicrous.
For one thing, the very shuroot and qawaa.id of takfeer differ so remarkably between the two strains, if you will, that they are mutually exclusive. Take the single most grievious distinction - the issuing of mass takfeer upon a whole ummah. Where in ad-Durar as-Saniyyah was this alluded to?
It is because of this mass takfeer and the corrupt idea that there exist absolutely NO MUSLIM COUNTRIES that has led to the spread of this poisonous extremism of takfeeri thought by the neo-kharijites.
Hence, alkashif’s “opinion” is merely hot air. It is a case of a lie hidden between two truths, and he needs to go read into this vast subject with a fine tooth comb before forwarding vacuous “opinions”.
Wa salaam
Incidentally, Hasan al-Banna and his predecessor Sayyid Qutb definitely weren’t “Wahhabis” were they? Hasan al-Banna in fact has more in common with alkashif’s cohorts than he does with Salafism. As is well known, Al-Banna was a grave-worshipping Sufi who used to call upon the dead for aid and assistence and gave his bay’ah to the Husaafi Shadhilee tariqah (path):
http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/banna.htm
http://al-ibaanah.com/cms/pdf_files/15.pdf
Hence, it is ironic that alkashif audaciously attempts to make a connection between Salafism and these extremists, when the reality is that their radicalisation stems from none other than the father of the neo-kharijites - a Sufi - something alkashif is a staunch promoter and supporter of.
Furthermore, Sayyid Qutb’s ‘aqeedah had more in common with Sufism who believe in wahdatul wujood, hulool, kashf, bakaa, fanaa, etc. than it did with Salafism. Thus one could quite convincingly argue that Qutb’s radicalisation was because he had an errant understanding of the fundamentals of Islam due to him holding a corrupt Sufi-oriented understanding. Such an argument would be much stronger than alkashif’s hot-headed “opinions”.
What do they say about throwing stones at others when living in glass houses yourself?
a) bakri is charlatan…no body actually knows of his history.
b) these guys are a bunch of inane idiotic youth who are pawns in the hands of govt.
c) hassan al banna wasnt a takfiri
niqab is more about culture? hmmmm
Salam Alaikum al-Kashif,
“The collection of Najdi essays and Fatwas are crammed full with outright Takfir of the Ottoman state-all found in al-Durar al-Saniyyah and Mujmu Muallafat al-Shaikh.”
Some of this is true, although there was a difference amongst the scholars of the Najdi call (Aimmah al-Dawah al-Nadiyyah) as to whether they were to be made khuruj on or not. Obviously though certain political goals would override any objectivity in variant opinions when it comes to application. see below.
“And it is not true that the Najdis were not ruled by the Ottomans at that time-contrary to what is claimed in that PDF.”
This point however is one of contention. Those of Hail and several northern cities of Qasim and those of Najd that were closer to Qasim and under the allegiance of al-Rashid were. Other farther into Najd and several of the Gulf lying areas were not, as well as the arid lands outside of Taif (Those not under the authority of the Yemen). In general it wasnt much of a place to rule anyways, being mostly barren desert land, as much of it is today.
Additionally, it is important to differentiate between the time period in which Muhammad Ibn AbdulWahhab appeared and allied with Muhammad ibn Saud, the positions taken in that period towards the Ottomans (and their allies) and those of the later periods of in-fighting between the Sons and grandsons of Muhammad ibn Saud and the scholars that supported them.
It is in this latter period that (if memory serves me correctly) more incendiary literature against the Ottomans developed, and then were later “toned down” when they went into wide circulation.
It is definitely an interesting period of history, and one that needs to be studied more objectively both in its religious, cultural, and historical contexts.
Those contexts however should never blind a person from coming to terms with the theological truths when they become self-evident.
Wa alaykum as salam Hood wa jazakum Allah khaira.
I will respond to brother Abu Adeebah after a while in sha Allah. I think you of all people are aware of the strong connection many of the Takfiris make with the works of the A’imah al-Dawah. This can not be denied. There are too many details twists and turns to warrant one group saying that they were the epitome of evil, while another group says that they were the greatest thing the Ummah has seen since sliced khubz. There is blood on there hands and there is an unmistakable influence from the Ikhwan man Ata’ Allah (not the ikhwan al-Muslimun)
http://www.salafimanhaj.com/pdf/SalafiManhaj_Saudi.pdf
See pp.29-31 of the above with regards to the reality of Bakri et al.
As for the claims of “alKashif”, then they have all been dealt with objectively by the researchers of the paper above.
Bismillah,
Okay, first of all, we should understand that this issue is multi faceted and there are lots of details that could be discussed, but I will suffice with this:
1. Did the Najdi scholars make Takfir of the Ottoman Khilafah? The facts show that indeed they did, contrary to what is being stated by the brothers who authored that PDF. There are tons of quotes to establish this, but I will suffice with a few here (and these are not my translations, although I have the original Arabic with me-i hate double A’s, E’s and O’s):
A. Shaykh ‘Abd al-Lateef ibn ‘Abd ar-Rahmaan ibn Hasan (died 1293H):
In one of his letter to Shaykh Hamad ibn ‘Ateeq regarding the case of ‘Abdullaah ibn Faysal, the imaam at that time, seeking help from the ‘Uthmaaniyyoon against his brother Sa’ood ibn Faysal, when the latter defeated him in the battle of Joodah during the events around the year 1289H, he said:
“And ‘Abdullaah had a legitimate rule and bay’ah in general, but later on I found out that he had corresponded with the kaafir state (i.e. the ‘Uthmaani state), sought help from it and brought it to the lands of the Muslims. So he became like the one about whom it is said [poetry]:
And the one who seeks protection with ‘Amr in his difficulty,
Is like the one who seeks protection with fire from the burning heat.
So I spoke to him verbally, objecting to his action and declaring my disassociation from it, and I spoke harshly to him, telling him that this is destruction of the fundamentals of al-Islaam and uprooting of its bases, and that it was this and that and the other… the details of which conversation I cannot remember right now, so he expressed repentance and regret, and he made much istighfaar. And I wrote, at his dictation, to the governor of Baghdaad: “Allaah has sufficed, made easy, and arranged for the people of Najd and the bedouins that which has fulfilled our need, in shaa’ Allaah. So we are no longer in need of the army of the state,” and words to that effect. And I believe he sent the letter and disassociated himself from what had occurred, and it was a long letter.”[End of quote.]
[Ad-Durar as-Saniyyah, 7/184, and Tadhkirat Ulin-Nuhaa wal-'Irfaan, events of the year 1289H, from the first volume.]
Shaykh ‘Abdullaah ibn ‘Abd al-Lateef (died 1339H):
He was asked
Kashif, I find your use of the “Najdi” term interesting… I am sure you seek to express some connotations here… that in itself drives much credibility from arguments, because it shows some of your own contempt for anything that comes from that region.
You are right indeed that salafis are not monolithic… the silent majority of those who are upon the Aqeedah of the salaf us saleh is slowly but surely emerging.
Well, all you have to do is ask. When I say Najdi, I refer to the those who are referred to as the A’aimmah al-Dawah of Najd from all 3 of the Dawlahs that ruled. As far as connotations, I suppose you are alluding to the narrations regarding Najd. That didn’t cross my mind, but yes, I believe that they apply to Najd as well as Iraq, even though there are great scholars and people from those regions as well. Do you agree or disagree with the points I brought up in my previous comment?
One point that is important to remember is that whatever was said and whoever has said it, statements of the scholars cannot be lifted to the level of the Sacred texts.
Anytime texts other than the Quran and Sunnah are used, they must be quantified by the former. One of the biggest problems with the modern Takfiri movement is that they wish to take the statements of scholars such as the Aimmah al-Dawah al-Najdiyyah and raise them to the level of being sacrosanct.
They are not the only ones doing this (i.e. almost every group, modern and otherwise is guilty of this) but one thing that you will find is that even though those modern takfiri movements use the statements of the Najdi scholars to legitimize their positions, they have no real connection to them as far as tutelage goes, at least to those that are seen as the “Kibar” from amongst them, nor even those that are seen as moderately “high” in the student hierarchy.
Several scholars of Najd have told me that one problem that emerges when people read the works of Aimmah al-Dawah is the lack of contextualizing the statements made, and they thus raise the implications of those statements to the level of sacrosanct, when in fact they may not or are not be applicable at all.
As for this back and forth of comments, in summary the type of water that you say I cant make Wudhu with, I don’t even call water. If you’ve studied fiqh I think you’ll get what I mean.
Jazakum Allah Khairan
You said:
They are not the only ones doing this (i.e. almost every group, modern and otherwise is guilty of this) but one thing that you will find is that even though those modern takfiri movements use the statements of the Najdi scholars to legitimize their positions, they have no real connection to them as far as tutelage goes, at least to those that are seen as the
Those mentioned were largely seen, by both official and unofficial religious authorities, as being isolationist and of a certain “fringe” of society. I had actually forgot about them.
They are the main Marja’ for the Takfiris (besides Abu Qatadah, and al-Maqdisi-all of whom were given tazkiyah by Shaikh Hamud.
If thats true that would seem to establish a connection between them.
However one of the reasons behind the (mis)interpretations of the Najdi treatises that they held may be their being effected by ideas foreign to their own tradition. al-Uqla was known to speak very highly of Sayyid Qutb. Reading Qutb’s writings then may have had a role in radicalizing some of the more nascent ideas of takfir found in some of those writings.
This wouldn’t be because of Sufi methodology as one commentor mentioned above, but instead from Qutb’s socialist background, and Voltaire-esque view of revolution and revolt.
These views would then be legitimatized by their connection to “tradition” in the form of Najdi treatises. I alluded to some in the last of a series that I wrote on ambiguity.
So the problem remains, and we do have to address it. Those writings are not sacrosanct and of the level of infallibility of the Quran, and as such should be analyzed and critiqued. Those of ambiguity would then come under the scrutiny of correct scholarly interpretation, relation to sacred tradition, and coherence of the theory that is being presented.
Allah knows best.
And JazakAllahu Khairan alKashif
I appreciate the manner in which you have carried yourself and replied.
Thanks as well for repping the Prophetic model of discussion and debate which I do hope that we all can be blessed with when comment and speaking amongst brothers.
Wa Iyyak brother, I do wish that I had chosen my words more carefully when I called the PDF ”trash”. I do have serious problems with it of course, but I value being objective as much as I can. There are no doubt differences among the Muslims, but we must all come together to work for the greater good of the Ummah. A part of that should be coming together to counter the mutilation of our Din by those that have taken the path of extreme liberalism (pro-regressives), and extreme Takfir and nihilism-which I honestly feel are two sides of the same coin.
I second Hood on his last comment…and I second you on your last line of your last comment. Those 2 are the real challenges in Islamic refutation, and let us not forget the many, many Muslims who are simply Muslims by name.
And Alkashif, while we are talking about coming together against common adversaries, let us not forget the Shias… those who would build shrines for the murderer of Umar (RD).
Abu Lulu: The Shrine of the Umar’s (RD) Murderer
And somewhat relevant to many of the topics here, Wahhabi Myth: Debunking the Bogeyman
One of the students od knowledge has just completed a PHD at the Islamic University of Madinah on the a’imatu Da’wah from Najd and the doubts regarding linking them to open takfeer leading to tafjeer and so on. Abu Salah Muhammad Hisham mashaallaah has just completed this research and an answer to Kashif’s quotes above.
Inshaallaah, i pray i have time to translate some of the replies to these doubts. We ask Allaah to guide us to the truth, Indeed Allaah is the beneficent , the Merciful.
I asked Sheikh Ubayd al-Jaabiree and he says that it was a known fact that during the last years of the Ottoman rule, the rule of Islam was not being applied in fact shirk was widespread. I even have photos of Baqee’ before the da’wah of Muhammad Abdulwahhab rahimahllaah and how it looked. Tombs of companions being worshipped besides Allaah.
If the takfeeris have taken some quotes from the Aimatu Da’wah to establish their takfeer then they also do that with the Qur’an as you all well know, they misquote verses from the Quran and ahadeeth. I even remember one Hizbutahreeri who used Muhammad Abdulwahaab’s Nawaaqid al-Islam to establish his own understanding of takfeer. Whereas if he read his Usool 6 then he will see that Muhammad Abdulwahhab is not saying what he desires with regards the rulers.
Kashif, may Allaah guide me and you to the truth, your quotes regarding some of the scholars such as Sheikh Abdullateef ibn Abdulrahman ibn Hasan does not give a clear picture on these scholars position on Takfeer. since, for example, Sheikh Abdullateef ibn Abdulrahman ibn Hasan himself goes against “takfeer that is Islamically illegitamate without a clear proof for this goes against what the scholars of Ahlu Sunnah wal Jamaa’ah were upon and this way (of illegitamate takfeer) is the way of ahlul Bida’ah and misguidance and also from not having fear and piety from what eminates from their speech and action.”[Ar-Risaail wal Masaail an-Najdiyyah (3/20)]
The takfeer that was made was not like sayid qutb who made takfeer of whole societies but rather takfeer of particular individuals based upon the above quote. A mistake could have been made but the overall methodology of establishing the proof before making takfeer was established and ascertained by the aimatu Da’wah.
This shows that a little knowledge can be dangerous without understanding and sitting with Ahlu Ilm to clarify matters before rushing to put them out on the internet causing confusions. These are characteristics of Isolationists.
It is known that sayid Qutb’s influence with regards takfeer is an established fact and those who went out against the rulers in Saudi had used his quotes and he was praised amongst their youth. Salman al-Awdah himself called Sayid Qutb Imam of guidance. Safar Hawali in his book Dhaahirat al-Irjaa praises Sayid Qutb and calls him shaheed.
I will ask you sincerely, who from the scholars alive today say what you are saying and hold your methodology? Many shy away from this question as i have seen from many who raise their head to speak without knowledge. Why? because that way their roots will be known. and is is said ‘from their fruits you shall know them.’
Alhamdulillaah, we do not shy away from this question for truth is clear its night is like its day none strays from it except that they are destroyed. Our beloved sholars, the likes of Sheikh ibn Baz, Sheikh al-Albaani, Sheikh Ibn Uthaimeen rahimahumAllaah and none of them said what you are saying. So name your men and their understanding of these issues.
Im sorry Akhi, I did not see your comments until today, so I hope you still come around here to read my response.
You said:
I asked Sheikh Ubayd al-Jaabiree and he says that it was a known fact that during the last years of the Ottoman rule, the rule of Islam was not being applied in fact shirk was widespread. I even have photos of Baqee
very judgemental indeed. To correct you, sheikh al-Albaani was not from Saudi Arabia. He is Albanian who lived in Syria and Jordan and was one of the great scholars of hadeeth and fiqh of this time. So your presumption is wrong that i would only refer to Saudi scholars. The foundation is to go back to Allaah and His Messenger sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE COMPANIONS.
I only mentioned these three not to limit the scholars in other parts such as Sheikh Muqbil of Yemen rahimahullaah but these three were no doubt the revivers of this deen this century for they revived the correct belief and worship of the Messenger sallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam. Knowing Arabic would help as you can clearly see that they revived the books of the scholars of the past, from the first three generations.
Many Muslims do not follow this blessed path but fall into, though they maybe sincere, following the understanding of a sufi sheikh who may claim to know the unseen etc. I know you know what i mean after looking at your profile and the numerous sufi sheikhs you have on there and the various innovations they practise such as celebrating the Prophet’s birthday and various strange beliefs such as your sheikh Hamza Yusuf saying:
“The black stone was defined as the
As for the graves being built into tombs and saying that it doesn’t mean that the people were worshipping them. Then a simple answer as if you studied Usool al-Fiqh that what leads to haram is in itself haram. For indeed Abi Hayyaj al-Asdi said Ali radiallaahu ‘anhu said “Shall i not show you what the Messenger sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam sent me with, that you do not leave a picture/idol except that you disfigure it and nor do you leave a grave that is raised except that you level it.” Saheeh Muslim
Compare this to the graves that had domes over them. They didn’t do that just to make it look nice. They did opposite to what the Messenger sallallaahu ‘alaihi wa sallam called them to hence falling into shirk.
Also the pictures you have on your profile is totally contradicting the hadeeth above. And remember the picture makers will be the severest of the ones punished on the day of judgement. I pray Allaah enlightens you to the correct path based upon proof from the Qurana in the Sunnah in the understanding of the companions.
I ask Allaah to give me the strength and knowledge and understanding to root out all of these false arguments, innovations, shirk etc and establish the religion of ALLAH.
These relpies are indeed brief and inshaallaah i am working on some translations of scholarly work past and present to finish off these weak arguments by the help of Allaah.