About the Salafee Call, Once Again!:
but not for the Last Time!
By: His Eminence, Sheikh 'Ali al-Halabee al-Atharee
Translated by:
www.asaala.com
…I do not want to appear as if Iam the only "Defender of the faith for the Salafee call, because I neither like that, nor is it true. However, I really become upset when I see some people plunging into what they cannot deal with like someone who goes to the battlefield without any weapon.
I am saying this after I read al-Ghad Newspaper, the issue of May 18, 2007, the section on "al-Islaam wal-'Asr" (i.e. Islam and the Present time). There, I saw three different articles in three different levels, all of which spoke about the Salafee call. Hence, I said to myself: why now?!
The first article was by Usamah Shahaadah; and it was—generally—a reasonable defense for the Salafee call where he answered the questions which Husaam Tammaam asked thru the same newspaper and in the same section one week from that date. The second article was by Bassaam Naasir; he talked about al-Kitaab was-Sunnah society and the reformatory Salafiyyah. Thus it was a good illustration about this society and its ideologies by someone who lived with it and witnessed its establishment. He spoke about it fairly—this time—and about its fluctuant nature and progress; however, his words were not—as usual—free from some veiled remarks, which his writings should always contain, against what he calls—insistently—the old-fashioned Salafiyyah; but he could never, and so did others, give a precise description for what he always repeats and repeatedly calls it the reformatory Salafiyyah. Yet, I believe, just like what he said in his article, that "nothing will come of nothing!!
The third one is by Hasan Abu Haniyah, the specialized writer in Islamic philosophy, whom I know personally for a long time, and whom I had a previous round with regarding his own philosophy. He wrote an article entitled: "Awhamus-Salafiyyah al-Ihyaa'iyah al-Mu'aasirah" (i.e. the illusions of the contemporary reformatory Salafiyyah); however, it contains lots of distortions and disorder, and I will shed light on some of them:
1. This "philosopher writer" started by saying: "what distinguishes the reformatory Salafiyyah (from other sects) is its anti-politics nature…" Well, this is—undoubtedly—a manifest mistake as this versed writer did not distinguish between two things—from two sides--, the first one is the decisive religious definition of politics versus the loose contemporary definition; and the second is that our absence from the political field—which is true—does not necessarily mean that we are against it, let alone to be against its people. Thus, this is null and void!!
Accordingly, mixing between these two things is very critical and should be well known by every layman, not to mention the specialized philosopher writers!!
2. I really liked Abu Haniyah's borrowing from Dr. Radhwaan as-Saiyid where the latter said: "the movements which are concerned with the cause of identity do not have direct political concerns". Well, this is very fair say although I believe that the philosopher writer thought that it supports his claim so that is why he borrowed it. However, it is against what he claims from two sides:
The first, the cause of identity is a basic one as it is the cause of existence and effectiveness; and man without an identity is like a feather in the wind, and thus he will have no such weight without it, especially under the attacks of globalization and secularism, which some people use under the camouflage of Islam!
The second, Dr. Radhwaan as-Sayyid limited his talk to "direct political concerns", which our philosopher writer—may Allah guide him—ignored as he borrowed it.
Thus, is it necessary for someone who has no "direct" political concerns to be ignoring all of the political concerns?
Besides, is it necessary for such a person to be an anti-politics one, let alone to be against those who are concerned with it (i.e. the politicians)?
3. Besides, what assures me of this tragic flaw of our philosopher writer is that he directly cited our great scholar, Sheikh Muhammad Naasirud-Deen al-Albaanee as the latter said: "it is politics to eschew political affairs". Thus, can one claim that who said such beneficial statement is ignoramus about politics, let alone to be against it? However he did not say it except that he is well-versed about religious politics as well as contemporary one.
Well, we have seen many victims for politics—figuratively and even literally--!!
Yes, the Salafee call is not a political movement, nor will it accept to be like that regardless of how many criticisms, articles, or names will be waged against it, and regardless of how many temptations will be offered to buy it, that is because its surveillance over the others' experiences in that field shows how sound its methodology is; just compare and you shall find the truth!
However, the one who lost his identity and who does not have any weight for the cause of identity at all, will have no worries in choosing any path, knocking at any door, or putting off any clothes, even if he changes his position from the furthest right to the furthest left!!
And it is as if this philosopher writer is wrongfully comparing himself with our great scholar, Imam al-Albaanee whose distinguished scholarly efforts in purification and nurturing reached the most remote parts of the world; from America to Indonesia and from Australia to Nigeria, while his criticizers sit here or there—in their lavish offices and on their cozy chairs—picking the idle talk.
4. Our philosopher writer also says: "al-Albaanee's methodology in purification and nurturing from his own Salafee perspective possesses an unquestionable and conclusive certainty and serenity!" Thus, I say: yes, and how great what our old friend and new philosopher said although he was so abstinent in finding the conclusive proof on that unquestionable certainty, that is in case he knew it in the first place!
However, the proof is very manifest—for every one with understanding—from two sides:
The first, the religious proof like the Prophetic saying:
"if you deal with the 'Eenah[1] , be content with your corps, follow your cows' plows (i.e. a metaphor of being materialistic), and abandon the Jihaad in the cause of Allah, then Allah will inflict you with humiliation which He will never take off (from you) until you return back to your religion". And thus, the text is very crystal clear, and it does not need any philosophy of any kind, nor does it need any figurative interpretation; it also shows the only way out from the loathsome state of affairs…
The second, the sound reasoning , and thus the bare reality —which cannot be changed—through a history of the acts of the current political, Islamic groups—be them peaceful or rebellious--, not to mention the militant, Islamic groups—shows that these groups—by their acts, let alone the origin of their ideologies—only led our nation to trials and tribulations; and their leaders only showed great concern for their personal positions and gains to the degree that some people died in defense of that!!
Besides, all the current clashes against Islam in all parts of the earth could not have happened without the acts of the groups and parties that belong to the "political Islam".
5. What the philosopher writer cited from Dr. Tahaa 'Abdur-Rahmaan, criticizing the Salafee call in its way of understanding of the religious texts by just reading them without the least of figurative interpretation or personal space of freedom…", is completely null and void, because how would the Salafee reader be like this while he is the one who knows the reasons of sending down the text, understands the text thru its context, and is knowledgeable of the Arabic language which enables one of getting the purposes behind such texts?!
As for the figurative interpretation, then it is so problematic to be treated in few words within an article, but—for the purpose of clarification—suffice it to ask one question which is going to solve the problem completely: do we initially resort to figurative interpretation with regard to Arabic, or we just consider the manifest meaning? On the other hand, we do not extend beyond the surface meaning of the text unless need be or that there is a contextual clue which urges us to do so. Thus, I do not think that any genuine Arab, let alone versed philosopher, will oppose this well established foundation. So, you can reflect on that!! Besides, the Salafee scholars would not refute Dawood and Ibn Hazm—the surface-meaning-oriented people—except that they would ignore this precise linguistic as well as religious understanding, so please pay attention to that!
And Iam afraid that Dr. Abdur-Rahmaan confused the surface-meaning-oriented school with the Salafiyyah and that he thought that they are the same thing?! And even if this was the case with Dr. Abdur-Rahmaan, was it really the case with our philosopher writer (Abu Haniyyah) or that he just knew the truth but deviated from it?!
Furthermore, what really shows his Salafee-philosophical mixing, regarding this problematic issue –which he is incapable of intruding into it—is the saying of his predecessor Ibn Rushd (Averroes) in his book al-Kashfu 'An Manaahijil-Adillah, pp. 97-98 "and in general, most of the figurative interpretations, which their proponents claimed that they are what is meant religiously, are baseless in case one reflected upon them"; he also said in page 100: "rather, religion must be understood according to its surface meaning". Thus, what will you say about these words which belong to the head of your philosophy school? Or is it that you are a Salafee and philosophy-related at the same time?!
6. What I mentioned earlier shows the voidness of what our philosopher Abu Haniyyah cited –being satisfied with it—from Dr. Abdur-Rahmaan, and Iam quoting the former:
Dr. Abdur-Rahmaan asserts the invalidity of the method of purification and nurturing when he says: 'the Salafiyyah looked forward to the purification of the religious acts as if it were the best way out for the Muslim community from the state of innovativeness, backwardness, and colonization; and it (i.e. the Salafiyyah) did its best in order to achieve this state of purification. However, this purification, upon giving its first fruits, just moved the religious acts from one form of innovativeness, which it tended to change in the Sufi ways, into another form which could be worse and more demanding of change itself!!
How strange you are, O new philosophers! As you consider the eloquent, well-composed talk—which is baseless regarding the evidence—to be evident in itself, while you consider the talk which is considered an evidence in itself—like the Qur'an and the Sunnah—to be mere doubts, falsehood, and lacking reflections and figurative interpretations.
What Dr. Abdur-Rahmaan mentioned would not be more than a description of a mental state of his own, but where is—in his words—the alleged mistake or the corruption that is required to be exposed? Where are the signs of these rushing claims?! And where are the proofs on them?!
You should know—O philosopher writer—that big names will not turn the night into a day or the white into black!
And you should also know that who imitate those big names in their words with full submission wrong themselves first and foremost, not to mention that they distort the image about whom they criticized and charged with false accusations without the least of evidence!!!
7. Then—and before I conclude—there is a manifest mistake which our new philosopher writer interpolated thru his words when he said about us that "this strategy which is based on the foundation of purifying and nurturing the community will lead at the end to the establishment of the Islamic state"! It is as if we think that there is no Islamic state today, or perhaps he thinks about it this way!
However, the truth is that we certainly believe that our state is an Islamic one, and it goes without saying—as is manifest nowadays—that it is not a state of disbelief or polytheism despite the fact that it witnesses many religious violations and defects which no one, even the rulers, denies…
Besides, this Islamic reality—which is backward religiously and practically—is not the offspring of this century or the collapse of the Ottoman state—as claimed by many Islamic partisan groups for decades—but it is—unfortunately—a very ancient reality—for ages—as Imaam Abu Bakr al-Aajurree (d. 360 H.) said—more than one thousand years ago—in his book ash-Sharee'ah (1/135). He said—in a complaining tone--:
Anyone—among the sane persons—who skims thru the matter of this Ummah will find that the vast majority of them tread in the steps of the people of the Scripture as the Prophet—peace be upon him—said; and they also tread in the steps of Khosrau and Caesar as well as the people of the Jahiliyah (the pre-Islamic era). This is obvious in the form of: the ruling and its rules; the rules of rulers and their deputies; trials, happy events, housing, clothes, and the ornaments; food, drinks, and feasts; autos, servants, and social gatherings; and selling, purchasing, and gains. There are also other likes—which need so many lines to numerate—that they practice in contradiction with the Book and the Sunnah but similar to the mentioned ways of the previous nations as the Prophet—peace be upon him—mentioned and Allah's help is to be sought. And this plague is almost the case of the vast majority; and it is something that only the intellectual ones will touch.
Thus, I say: what a difference it is between these words and his (our friend's) irrational talk! Rather, what a difference it is between the irrational claims of our new philosopher writer and the reasonable writings of our old Imaam!!
And in the light of this explanation I say: what we (i.e. the true Salafees) do of purification and nurturing is no more than a practical as well as a scholarly application of our Lord's saying:
By al-'Asr (the time); verily, man is in loss; Except those who believe (in Islamic Monotheism) and do righteous deeds, and recommend one another to the truth (i.e. order one another to perform all kinds of good deeds (Al-Ma'roof which Allah has ordained, and abstain from all kinds of sins and evil deeds (Al-Munkar which Allah has forbidden), and recommend one another to patience (for the sufferings, harms, and injuries which one may encounter in Allah's Cause during preaching His religion of Islamic Monotheism or Jihaad, etc.). (al-'Asr)
And thus, it (i.e. the purification and nurturing) is a very valuable act in order to gain the pleasure of the Lord of the worlds and shield against the great loss (i.e. the Hellfire)…
Allah says: "And We made from among them (Children of Israel), leaders, giving guidance under Our Command, when they were patient and used to believe with certainty in Our Ayaat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.)"…
8. Last but not least, what this philosopher writer tried to convince himself as well as his readers with—in a suspicious way—that "most of the adherents to the reformatory Salafiyyah are from the poor, marginal class which resides in peripheral areas …" is very null and void!
Consequently, we hope that this writer, who is specialized in philosophy, shows us that valid measure which made him judge things in this way and come up with such results! Was it deduction, investigation, or inclusiveness—be it complete or partial--? Was it the Aristotelian logic?! Or was it a mere suspicion?! And if it was suspicion, then what was its degree?! And how did he reach it?!
Or is it that these new philosophers exceeded the limits of their predecessors in belittling their readers' minds so that the latter would believe such hallucinations?!
Or is it that—while they pretend to be progressists—they want to bring the people back to the ages of Tahaafutul-Falaasifah, Tahaafutut-Tahaafut[2] , and their consequences so that they book themselves some seats in what they are ignorant of and disturb the tranquil community in a way where they distort the just, straight, and long path of the nation?!
"And verily, this is my Straight Path, so follow it, and follow not (other) paths, for they will separate you away from His Path. This He has ordained for you that you may become Al-Muttaqoon (i.e. the pious)".
Furthermore, were not the followers of the prophets and the messengers of the same type of people (i.e. the poor)?! Just like when Heraclius asked Abu Sufiyaan—in Saheeh al-Bukhaaree—when the latter told him about the emergence of the Prophet—peace be upon him--:"Do the rich or the poor follow him?!", thus he said: "the poor…" then Heraclius said: "and those are the followers of the prophets".
Thus, these are few reflections upon a great deal of talk which is merely irrational. So, what should we deal with? And what should we ignore?
I hope that what I said will be enough for those who have reason, but as for those who have never been convinced with the texts of the two revelations, then who could convince them?! And I hope that my philosopher friend will not be among the latter ones.
Allah's help is to be sought, and He is the One to rely on…
Footnotes:
1-'Eenah is a type of selling where Ribaa (i.e. usury) takes place.
2-The writer mentioned these two books pointing to the then struggle between the proponents and opponents of philosophy