PDA

View Full Version : Islamic Law and Ijtihad



lumumba_s
12th January 2006, 07:13
Islamic Law and Ijtihad
(Part 1 (http://www.ahlussunnah.net/omca/HakimMurad_2205_part1a.MP3)) (Part 2 (http://www.ahlussunnah.net/omca/HakimMurad_2205_part1b.MP3)) (Q&A (http://www.ahlussunnah.net/omca/HakimMurad_2205_Q&A.MP3))

by Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad (aka T. J. Winters)

I'm at work, and my iPod is one of my most precious tools. I just finished the "Classical Education for Muslim Children (http://www.forums.understanding-islam.com/community/showthread.php?t=2623)" lecture a little while ago and at the moment of writing this post, I am listening to Shaykh `Abdal Hakim Murad's (the infamous author of "Bombing Without Moonlight (http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/moonlight.htm)" and "Recapturing Islam from the Terrorist (http://www.masud.co.uk/ISLAM/ahm/recapturing.htm)") lecture given to the Oxford Muslim Community Association with the above title. He makes many extremely important points that I feel are either unknown or ignored by the people who advocate against taqlid. There is one point that I am still listening to the dissertation of that is especially relevant to this discussion, and I feel undermines the both the claim to authenticity of hadith scholarship and validity of deriving or passing rulings by those who have bypassed the traditional method (i.e. the ijaza system).


***

Hopefully this lecture will be transcribed, but to summarize much of the first track, he states that it is unlawful for a person to give a fatwa based upon a hadith printed in a book, as agreed upon by classical scholars. If you look at the Sahih al-Bukhari , even the best printed version of, and compare it to previous authenticated editions of the text, there are some differences in the riwayat of some the hadith, and the same goes for Sahih Muslim. As a result, a person who has learned hadith on their own to the extent that they can make takhrij, may be making takhrij on a riwaya that is not accepted by the actual muhadditheen as being the authentic riwaya that Bukhari himself transmitted. The above edition of Bukhari is extremely hard to get a hold of and the case with the rest of the hadith productions done by independent publishers are "catastrophies". He gives the example of his working on making a proper critical edition of Sunan al-Tirmidhi, and how he realized that it has never been done, and even those sold in shops in Makka are a mess. He gives the example of a block of 10 hadiths that he knew existed in the original text, that were not in any of the printed editions that they used as variant readings. The same goes with the Saudi print of the Musnad of Imam Ahmad, which they paid $22 million to a Syrian scholar for (whom I suspect I know the name of), whose effort was "inadequate" and their edition of the text has 250 more hadith than any of the other printed editions, because no one else bothered to consult the muhadditheen for any of these books. A classical trained scholar of hadith, even if using a printed text to teach from, will be able to easily point this out and correct a student with the upmost of ease. However, amateurs attempting to compare and do the same are bewildered and often make mistakes. He then quotes one of the leading hadith scholars of Egypt who said that none of the fatwas passed by the Islamic Fiqh Academies in Egypt and Saudi can be regarded as binding because they are using these incorrect copies of hadith to issue their rulings. I could go on, but I will stop there, as that is profound enough.


***

Abdal Hakim Murad is an extremely disciplined lecturer and I recommend this lecture to everyone, especially those whom I have had discussions with on this general issue and invite a discussion about its contents as well.

vinod
13th January 2006, 07:06
Today's book massacres do not normally take the form of book burnings or mass drownings in a river. Today's massacres are far more insidious and effective. They take the form of quiet editing or banning of texts — texts that had survived the Mongols and many other invaders only to be censored today. No notice is given and the reader has no idea that he or she is reading a "cleansed" text. Somehow, the puny mind of the censor imagines that it is qualified to judge the cumulative discourses of the centuries and define Islamic authenticity. Feeble intellects threatened by complexity tend to censor it.

The Fatawa of Ibn Taymiyya (d. 728/1328) has been edited by today's censors and offending text has been removed. The only uncorrupted edition of the Fatawa Ibn Taymiyya is the one published in Cairo in the 1960s. All editions published after that have been "cleansed." In a yet-to-be published edition, further "cleansing" has been ordered. Ten pages have been quietly deleted from Ibn Taymiyya's al-Jawab al-Sahih li Man Baddala Din al-Masih and when a publisher tried to print the full text, he was arrested and his printing house was burned down. It seems that although Ibn Taymiyya survived the Mongols of yesterday, it is unlikely that he will survive the Thought Mongols of today.

After a four-year search, you find Bihar al-Anwar but only without three offending volumes. Furthermore, you realize that only in the past ten years have these three volumes been "cleansed" from the text. The Tafsirs of Zamakhshari (d. 538/1144) and Muqatil (d. 150/767) have been banned in some Muslim countries for years. The works of Muhyi al-Din Ibn 'Arabi (d. 638/1240), Ikhwan al-Safa, Abu Hayyan al-Tawhidi (d. 414/1023) and al-Qadi al-Nu'man (d. 363/974), to name a few, are likewise banned in some Muslim countries. The Fatawa of Rashid Rida (d. 1035) although printed in the 1970s are now considered un-Islamic and are quite rare. Unless you buy the full text of al-Manar, you must be willing to pay a few thousand dollars for a six-volume set. In one Muslim country the works of the Maliki jurist, Ibn al-'Arabi (d. 543/1148) were banned because he was confused with Ibn 'Arabi (d. 638/1240), the Sufi master. The absurdity has reached the point that even the age-old stories of A Thousand and One Nights have been "cleansed."

For centuries, those who tried to destroy Muslims targeted their intellectual heritage. The problem is far worse when those who declare themselves the protectors of Islam seek to destroy their own heritage. For centuries, Muslims, saturated with the morality instilled in them by the Qur'an, preserved both agreeable and offensive texts alike. The Qur'an reminded the Prophet that he is neither a warden nor a guardian over people (4:80 and 88:22). It is baffling that the Thought Mongols of today claim a position higher than the Prophet. The Mongols of medieval times were barbaric and ignorant and so they sought to be vanquishers and conquerors. The Thought Mongols of today are civilized, ignorant, and arrogant, and so they seek to be gods.

The full article is here (http://www.understanding-islam.com/related/text.asp?type=rarticle&raid=420)