Mufti Ali Gomma

Sheikh Ali Gomaa, the Grand Mufti of Egypt succeeding Muhammad Sayyed Tantawy, said in an official Fatwa, that was published by leading state daily Al-Ahram, that Islamic Sharia ( bars women from becoming head of state. Only a week later the Mufti denied and refuted his statements claiming he issued a fatwa barring women from political leadership.

He clarified:

"This ruling does not refer to the head of a modern state but to the traditional role of Caliph as both secular head of state and imam of the Muslims"
"The head of state in a contemporary Muslim society, be he a president, prime minster or king, is no longer required or expected to lead Muslims in prayer. Therefore, it is permissible for women to hold the highest office in modern Muslim nations,"

The Mufti very well understands the Islamic prohibition for women taking positions of ruling, but only within the Khilafah (Caliphate). He argues that, in the absence of the Islamic State (Caliphate) which ceased in 1924, a Muslim women can assume the role of a President, which doesn't require her to perform duties of a male Caliph... such as leading prayers.

From this follows the discussion:
1. Is it permissible for Muslim women to assume any position of Ruling other than Caliph?
The Sahabi Abu Bakra (ra) answers this:

When the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) heard that the people of Persia had appointed the daughter of Chosroes as their queen, he said, “No people will ever prosper who appoint a woman in charge of them.” [Al-Bukhari, sahih]

2. Is it permissible for any Muslim (male or female) to become a President/prime minister/king?

Muslims have to be careful when using or adopting terminologies which contradict the essence of Islam. Islam prohibits Kingdoms and other types of ruling systems, as it has legislated a specific ruling system called the Khilafah. The absence of the Khilafah necessitates its re-establishment and not its abandonment for jahilli/taghouti modern systems.

The colleagues of Mufti Ali Gomma at the notorious Al-Azhar have disagreed with his views, some have suggested that the Mufti retracted his fatwa suffering political pressure. How can this be acceptable? when the views and fatwa of the Mufti legitimises the current brutal dictators, despots and tyrants installed by the west known as Presidents, Prime ministers and Kings of the Muslim world? Furthermore this justifies Muslim women to take such illegal positions even though she has clearly been ordered otherwise.

This should not be surprising when Ali Gomma has succeeded Shaykh Tantawi, who gained notoriety when he abrogated the Qur’an in giving his permission to French school girls not to wear the hijab.

Al Azhar university is the oldest and most prestigious Islamic university in the world. Some of the greatest scholars that the Islamic world have known have studied in its libraries. The position of the Grand Shaykh of Al-Azhar is a position of great responsibility, dignity and authority. Those who achieve such a position are endowed with such knowledge and wisdom that the very fate and progression of the Ummah may rest on their shoulders. The entire Islamic world including the Khaleefah looks to such men with awe and respect and the words of such a man have the weight to change the progress of history. Or at least that’s how it used to be.

How can it be that the Grand Shaykh of Al-Azhar could spend his time justifying the Presidents and Kings and distorting Islam to accommodate his paymasters?

The Prophet (saw) said “The best Jihad is a word of truth spoken to a tyrant ruler.”

As for the Khilafah, what more is it than the state that implements the system that Allah (swt) sent with his Prophet (saw) fulfilling his order in the Qur’an;
It is not fitting for a believer, man or woman, that when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger, to have any option about their decision. (Qur'an 33:36).

And the Prophet (saw) said “Whosoever dies without having a bay’ah (pledge of allegiance to the Khaleefah) upon his neck, dies a death of jahilliyah (the days of ignorance pre-Islam).”

.

People of Knowledge

Tafseer of Surah Al-Fatir, verse 28
Translation of the Meaning

"…Those truly fear Allah among His servants are those who have knowledge. For Allah is Exalted in Might and is Forgiving."

TAFSEER
Regarding "…Those truly fear Allah among His servants are those who have knowledge…"
Ibn Kathir stated that, "The more the knowledge of Allah and His (swt) power is complete, the more He (swt) will be feared by those who have the complete knowledge."

Imam Al-Qurtubi said that, "The scholars are those who know the power of Allah (swt). They are in no doubt of his (swt) punishment no mater what the sin is."

It was narrated by Ali ibn abi Talha that Ibn Abbas (ra) said, "The scholars are those who know that Allah is capable of anything."

Al-Rabee narrated that Ibn Abbas (ra) said, "He who dos not fear Allah (and His punishment) is not a scholar."

Ali ibn abi Talib (ra) said, "The true faqih is the one who will not make the people give up or lose hope in Allah’s mercy; an does not belittle disobedience to Allah; and does not make the people feel protected from Allah’s punishment; and does not leave the Qur’an deliberately (when judging) to judge by other than the Qur’an. A worship not based on knowledge has no value. And a knowledge with no understanding has no value. And a recitation without reflection has no value."
"For Allah is Exalted…" i.e. the One who punishes and rewards should be feared.

COMMENTARY
The amount of Islamic knowledge, however varies from individual to individual. Therefore, some will know more than others and will need to teach those whose knowledge is less. Those who have the knowledge of the Islamic rules are called ulemaa'. While they do not occupy any spiritual position in Islam, they are given more responsibility then others due to the knowledge they posses. They are the ones who teach the Ummah their Deen, help guide them through the problems of life and direct them to the Islamic priorities. Allah (swt) made it clear that His revelation is to be openly declared to all:

"And Allah took the covenant from those who had received the scripture to make it known and clear to mankind and not to hide it" (Qur'an 3:187)

He (swt) has warned against hiding the knowledge, which He (swt), has entrusted us with. He
(swt), says:

"Those who hide the proofs and the guidance which We revealed, after We had made it clear in the scripture, on them shall be Allah's curse and the curse of those who are entitled to curse." (Qur'an 2:15 9)

Allah's Messenger (saw) informed us of the status and importance of the scholars when he (saw) said, "Whomever Al1ah wants goodness for, he makes him understand the Deen (Islam)." [Al-Bukhari]

He (saw) also said, "The scholars on earth are like the stars in the sky. People are guided by them in the darkness of the land and the sea. If the stars are covered, people would get lost." [Ahmad]

So we are told by the Messenger (saw) himself that scholars play an important role in guiding the Ummah and championing its cause. They are most needed nowadays at a time when Islam is no longer implemented, shirk of legislation is the law of Muslims, division and fragmentation pervade the Ummah, and the Western nations dominate over us. They are desperately needed now to show the Ummah how to re-establish Islam, unite as one body and take control of the international arena. It is the scholars who must lead the Ummah in its struggle against the tyrant rulers who not only insist on implementing western laws on Muslims, enslaving them to imperialist masters, but also imprisoning, torturing and killing those who want to simply live by Islam. The Islamic scholars of the past played such a leading role. They always stood firm and favoured Islam and the well-being of the Muslim Ummah over any other interest, and sometimes even at the expense of their own lives. They feared no one but Allah (swt) and thus they spoke the truth with absolutely no compromise of Islam. This was especially the case when it came to the rulers and how they conducted their affairs.

Muhammad (saw) said, "Whoever sees an unjust ruler breaking the prohibition of Allah, breaking His covenant, disagreeing with the Sunnah of the Prophet, committing sins and creating animosity against the servants ofAI1ah, and he does not say or do anything against it, then it is the right of Allah to put him where he belongs (hell)." (reported by At Tabbai in At-Tarikh and Ibn Al-Atheer in AI-Kamel).

Muhammad (saw) also said, "There will be unjust rulers who cause hardship to their people. Whoever went along with their lies and helped them with their injustice, he is not from me nor am I from him, and he will not drink from the Al-Hawd (pond)" (Ahmad, An-Nisa'ii, At-Tirmithi).

The following accounts are examples of how the scholars remained steadfast to Islam and did not remain silent in correcting the rulers of their time. Their love of Allah was far greater than any fear of torture the ruler could administer.

1 - The scholar Imam Sufiyan At-Thawri said "when AI-Mahdi Abu Jaa'far AI-Mansoor (the Khalifah came to Hajj, he asked for me. So [his men] watched the house and took me at night. When I was before him, he sat me close to him. He said, "Why don't you stay close to us where we can consult you in our affair. Whatever you tell us to do, we will comply with it." I [Sufiyan] said to him, "How much did you spend on this trip [for Hajj] of yours." He said, "I don't know. I have trustees and appointees [to take care of these matters]. "I said, "What excuse will you have tomorrow when you stand in front of Allah (swt), and He asks you about it?" (Sufiyan then related the example of Omar Ibn Al-Khattab). Omar Ibn Al-Khattab asked his servant, when he performed Hajj, for how much did he spend on their trip? He said, "O Ameer of the believers, I spent 18 Dinars." Omar said, "We overspent from the Muslims treasury" (Sufiyan then added) You know, Ibn Mas'ood reported that the Prophet said, "A person who spends from the wealth of Allah and His Messenger [extravagantly], will be rewarded hell." One of Abu Ja'faar's aids said (to Sufiyan) "You say this to the Ameer of the believers!?" Safiyan answered him, with the dignity and strength of the believers: "Silent! It is Haman (minister of Pharaoh) who destroyed Pharaoh and Pharaoh destroyed Haman. (Meaning the one who gave advice and the one who should follow the advice destroyed one another when they did not do as they should.)."

2 - Hajeej Az-Zayyat was a scholar at the time of Hajjaj who was a tyrant governor of Iraq. Al-Hajjaj asked him, "What do you think of me?" Az-Zayyat replied, "I say you are one of the enemies of Allah. You break Allah's laws and you kill for mere doubt." Al-Hajjaj asked him, "What do you say about the Ameer of the believers Abdul Malik bin Marwan?" He said, "He is a bigger sinner than you. You are but one of his sins." Al-Hajjaj ordered him to be tortured. They split bamboo sticks and tied his flesh with it. Then they started splitting the sticks tearing his flesh with it. He died shaheed. He was only 18 years old; may Allah (swt) have mercy on him.

3 - Sulayman bin Abdul Malik stopped by Medinah on his way to Mecca. He sent for a scholar named Abu Hazem. Once Abu Hazem entered, Sulayman asked him, "Why do we hate death?" Abu Hazem replied, "Because you ruined your hereafter and took care of your life. So you hate to go from luxury to ruin. Then after giving him sincere advice, Sulayman asked him, "What do you say of me?" Abu Hazem said, "Do not push me to answer." He said, "It is advice. You must tell me." Abu Hazem said, "Your forefathers overpowered the Muslims and took over the ruling position without the Muslims consultation or approval. They also killed a great number of them. You should know their behaviour and what was thought of them. One of the people said, "How could you say this!" Abu Hazim said, "Allah took the covenant from the scholars to explain things to the people and not to hide (true knowledge)"

Imam Malik bin Anas stated: "It is a duty upon every Muslim whom Allah has given some
knowledge or fiqh to confront any ruler, command him to do good, forbid him from evil. This
differentiates the scholar from others when they approach a ruler. This is the status that is not surpassed."

The reader should compare the positions taken by the scholars of the past against unjust, yet
legitimate Khalifahs and governors and those taken by nowadays scholars. Al-Jaahith reported in Al-Byan wat Tabiyeen that Muhammad (saw) was asked, "0 Messenger of AI1ah, who is the worst people?" He replied, "The scholars, if they become corrupt."

Imam Ali is reported to have said, "Two types of people I cannot tolerate are - a scholar who is shameless and an ignorant worshiper. The ignorant worshipper fools the people with his worship and the scholar with his shamelessness."

If these scholars were true Islamic scholars they would show the people by example, standing by the Islamic rule, even if it costs them their lives. Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal realised his role as a scholar who is to show the Ummah that the Muslim is to fear none but Allah. He stated, "If the scholar uses Tuqyah (concealment of knowledge for one's own protection) in his answers, the ignorant person does not know, when will the Truth become known!"

These scholars have misled many people, especially those who have taken them as idols without knowing it. While denouncing imitation, they keep repeating what their scholars say, rejecting the tangible. We remind our brothers and sisters of a basic part of our Aqeedah called al-walaa wal- baraa' (allegiance to the believers and its supporters and denouncing the disbelievers and their supporters).

When a ruler rules by Kufr and scholars support him, what is their Islamic verdict? And what is our position vis-à-vis them? 0 Allah, have we conveyed the Message? 0 Allah be our witness!

New Sufis for New Labour

From another shore - New Sufis for New Labour

By Shehla Khan

The House of Commons seems increasingly ready to serve as the launch pad for new Muslim organisations. Not long ago, it staged the debut of an organisation calling itself Progressive Muslims. After a barely decent interval, on July 19, it opened its portals once again to the latest organisational aspirant, namely the Sufi Muslim Council (SMC). The SMC’s launch was celebrated with due fanfare, in the form of nods, smiles, handshakes, and laudatory speeches from the assembled guests who included representatives of the leading political parties, the media, the Church and even the Board of Jewish Deputies. Meanwhile, greetings also poured in from absentee well wishers, including Nato and George Bush.

Some Muslims might feel intrigued at the choice of cheerleaders that the SMC has attracted; others, at the very usage of the generic term ‘sufi’ as designating a branded identity. Certainly, the sufi tradition in Islam is no stranger to organisation in the forms of guilds or tariqahs, many of which have a venerable history dating several centuries. In general, however, these orders professed a distinct identity acquired from their founder/shaykh or their place of origin. In contrast, there is anonymity about the SMC, which could be countered by the organisation’s renaming itself as House of Commons Sufis, Establishment Sufis or even Blairite Sufis. In the absence of clear identification, we are left with the impression that the ‘sufi’ logo functions here as at best as a garbled, and at worst as a disingenuous statement of political detachment.

However, the confusion about the SMC’s credentials need not be long enduring. While the relationship between Sufism and political power remains a complex subject, we could highlight three dominant tendencies. There is, firstly, a rejectionist stance in which politics is seen as corrupt and degrading, an obstacle to a life of piety, contemplation and prayer. Secondly, there is an activist stance, in which the social and pedagogic role of the tariqah does not exclude participating in resistance struggles against foreign invaders. Imam Shamil’s battles against the Russian Romanovs, Imam Abdul Qadir’s against the French in Algeria, the Sanussi orders against European colonialism in Africa all belong to this genre. Thirdly, there is a collaborationist stance in which Sufism becomes an elite phenomenon that finds expression primarily in cultural production, but is strongly supportive of militantly secular or Islamophobic states and regimes. Examples of this tendency are found in present day Turkey among the Mevlevi and Cerrahi sufi orders.

It is difficult to locate the SMC in the first two categories, far less so in the third. This becomes plausible if we turn briefly to the Council’s public statements. By its own admission, the SMC is the charmed organisation that we, the ‘silent majority’ have all been waiting for; here at last is a group protesting its apolitical stance, its promise to combat ‘extremism’, its disdain for the liberation struggles waged by Muslims around the world, its suspicion of Muslim charities reaching out to the most dispossessed amongst the ummah, its silent acquiescence in the wars of terror waged by the Bush-Blair clique. Here at last is an outfit which understands that the only language we, the majority of the silent, want to speak is Blair-speak with an Islamicate twist, Blair-speak being the local, Downing Street dialect of Bush-speak, the neo-conservative imperial language which seeks to become the lingua franca of the planet. This dialect, which answers to our deepest spiritual needs and aspirations, is the one that we are yearning to master as Afghanistan mourns, Lebanon wails, Baghdad screams, and Palestine howls.

All we need to do to equip ourselves with the new lingo is to engage in a simple re-translation exercise: so the slaughter of innocents means collateral damage, collective punishment means security, occupation means liberation, wire cages mean justice, depleted uranium means democracy, ceasefire means Eretz Israel, and Geneva Convention means dead letter. Having grasped these elementary linguistic rules, we are ready to abandon our silence and speak in our new found voices as Blairite Sufis or perhaps as Sufi Blairites.
So why do we hesitate?

Could it be because we are troubled by a sense of irony, that we cannot reconcile the fact that an organisation purporting to be apolitical seeks to ingratiate itself with the country’s political elite, selecting a parliamentary chamber for its kick-off? Could it be because we see an unhealthily close fit between the latest twist in the Islamophobic discourse circulating around media, government, and academic circles and the rise to fame of our Sufi brethren? In this twist, any political consciousness amongst Muslims becomes suspect so that the term ‘Islamist’ comes to acquire the opprobrium formerly associated with ‘fundamentalist’ or ‘terrorist’ and yesterday’s ‘moderates’ become today’s ‘extremists’. This is eminently demonstrated in Martin Bright’s recent contention that the Government, in engaging with associations such as the Muslim Council of Britain, which has yet to applaud its foreign policy, has capitulated to ‘fundamentalists’. Simply put, to be moderate, you need to stop being Muslim except as a leisure pursuit.

Could it be because we find precedents for the SMC in American sufi organisations that have been warmly endorsed by Bush, and by the likes of the Rand Corporation as active partners in the so-called ‘reformation of Islam’, a reformation in which Islam is stripped of its capacity to speak truth to power? Could it be because, the pressure that has been levied upon Muslims following 7/7 notwithstanding, we are still not ready to capitulate to the absurd Blairite claim that those tragic events had no link with British foreign policy? Above all, could it be that we are, after all, less than enthusiastic pupils for Blair-speke, that we are on the way to finding a different language to express our hopes and aspirations, our understanding of our history and our future, and this is the language of Islam as it speaks of Justice, of the duty to resist oppression, of the promise to live as Muslims in the fuller sense of the term?
But then, this is not a language that is spoken in a House of Commons in thrall to Blair’s imperial delusions.

Shehla Khan, Researcher, University of Manchester
http://www.muslimnews.co.uk/paper/index.php?article=2563