A Response to an Intellectual Challenge

By

Danladi Adamu Mohammed

khaladaki@yahoo.com

Since Sanusi has pleaded guilty to some of the charges made against him by this writer and others there is no need to revisit some of the issues raised in the paper he responded to. On the other hand this writer is not convinced of some of the allegations made against him by Sanusi. The contradictions in Sanusi’s rejoinder (see www.gamji.com/sanusi25.htm) make the task of this paper easier.

I do not wish to be accused of being “prolixious” therefore I will go straight to this point: Mahmud Taha and his student An-Naim do not believe in the finality of the Qur’anic Revelations after Hijra. According to this people this is the public law of Sharia. It “is the transitional message, which by now has served its purpose; it must be superseded by the eternal and universal message, the practical of which has, thus far, been precluded by the realities of human existence. Whereas the public law of Sharia was appropriate for the previous stages of human society, it is no longer appropriate and must make way for another version of the public law of Islam.”[1] Sanusi also confirmed this by stating that: “Revelations after Hijra were historicized and considered a specific application of law in a particular context”. From my little knowledge of Islam all Qur’anic injunctions are binding till the end of time. Nobody can come and abrogate the public law of the Sharia with just his pen and get away with it. Sanusi knows very well that the Qur’an is the primary source of Fiqh and its injunctions cannot be abrogated by anybody this is what makes Islam unique. An-Naim’s statements are very clear they mean abrogation of the public law of Sharia as Paul abrogated Jewish law in Christianity a position rejected by Church elders such as James[2]. Therefore I will maintain this position: “The problem is that Sanusi and the modernists before him wanted to change the rules so that Islam will be totally reformed as Christianity leading to complete secularization and the abolishing of Islam just as Christianity was abolished[3]. This is very clear from the writings of Mahmud Taha and his followers”. In this case I will easily concede that I am subjecting myself to “ridicule”. I will also concede that I am “ignorant”, like most of the “gardawa” since I cannot comprehend “hermeneutics” and “epistemology”.

The previous paragraph will lead us to another point, if the public law of Sharia is abrogated who will make the new laws? Sanusi made this statement: “The Shehu stated clearly that the scholars of every generation are the most learned about the affairs of that generation. In this there is a subtle point. Any one who aspires to be a scholar of his generation must go beyond cramming and regurgitating the rulings of earlier generations. In Fazlur Rahman’s words, he must transcend “learning jurisprudence” and begin “to do jurisprudence”. We should not forget that Sanusi has acknowledged that he is in the league of Dan Fodio. In this case we must discard the opinions of other scholars of this age who are “learning jurisprudence” and adopt those of his like-minded group such as Mahmud Taha, An-Naim, Aiyesha Imam and others. He has thus simplified a very intricate issue[4]. This is why he claimed that: “Muslims in India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Morocco, Tunisia, Senegal etc have accepted these reforms, which Muslim jurists in those countries have considered consistent with the valid interpretation of the Qur’an and Sunnah, the same sources we hold sacred”. This is very typical of Sanusi, making very sweeping statements. I have not visited any of those countries except Egypt where I studied briefly under private tutelage of some the most distinguished Ulama of that country. None of those Ulama that I came across who were not associated with the government accepted secularist reforms of Islamic personal law. In Tunisia the secularist government of Bourgiba had to destroy famous Islamic university of that country before it could carry out its secularist reforms[5]. In India and Pakistan it is common knowledge that there were serious differences between the traditional Ulama of Deoband and the modernists[6]. All these differences have been swept away by Sanusi. This is because according to him these Ulama are only “learning jurisprudence” while the successors of Afghani and Abduh who enjoy state power are “doing jurisprudence”.

As a “philosopher” Sanusi quoted some of his favorites to refute my charge that he doubted authentic Hadiths. I am not convinced by that quotation from Adonis. This is because it may only be applicable to authenticity of interpretations and not the authenticity of texts. Sanusi on the other hand doubted the authenticity of the texts, something unheard of Sunni critique. This is what he wrote: “Even the authenticity of hadiths must be established after accounting for the impact of the environment on the narrators and interpreters”. Narrators deal with matan (text) and isnad (chain) if they were negatively influenced by the environment, it means the Hadith cannot be sahih (authentic). The Hadiths authenticated by the transmitters are authentic. Sanusi cannot make that statement unless he does not believe in the authenticity of authentic hadiths.  Therefore all my “copious” explanations remain valid.

 I will also refuse to accept that I am guilty of intellectual dishonesty. This is because the basis of my critique of Sanusi’s philosophy is not based on his paper on “Shariacracy” but on an earlier paper where he wrote: “The greatest tragedy in Sunni thought is its hatred of philosophy and philosophers and its enthronement of the legalistic rulings of jurists over all facets of our life”. This is typical of him, making sweeping statements. I chose this because it agrees with my submission that Sanusi wants to demolish the integrity of the earlier Ulama in order to establish his own position and of those like him. This is because he wrote this: “The Ulama, deliberately or by accident, gave prominence to certain hadiths, which were interpreted in a manner that made it incumbent on people to accept lack of probity and accountability. This was particularly true of Sunni Islam”. I never expected any compliment from Sanusi but ridicule therefore I was not surprised when he wrote that I spent so much time quoting other writers to link Khomeini and the “philosopher-king”. At least I did not spend so much time quoting his “Shariacracy”. I quoted “copiously” other writers because I wanted to prove that it is wrong to make generalized statements.

In my critique of Sanusi’s philosophy I tried to show his close link with the western imperialist epistemological vision. He eulogized western welfare state by showing contempt for Muslims. This was what he wrote: “Modern Welfare States like Britain, which Muslims disdainfully dismiss as nations of Kuffar (unbelievers) even though they are the ones implementing Islamic principles of economic justice”. I referred to al-Masseri who demonstrated the connection between the welfare state and imperialism. This was what al-Masseri wrote: “To be sure, western democracy itself and Western welfare state are indeed inseparable from western imperialism. This democracy originated under an imperialist umbrella by which western democracies, via imperialist solution, could export their respective social problem, overcome the uneven distribution of wealth, and, at the same time, deal with their minorities. Western democracies could also accumulate capital and establish a huge infrastructure that, by stripping the Third World of its natural and human resources, could achieve social welfare for their respective citizens”[7].

As a “philosopher” Sanusi is free to make statements and in another breadth change his position, this is a skill perhaps of philosophers who live in “two worlds”. He has acknowledged that my paper is an exploration of his write-ups but surprisingly he attributes some of my observations to a paper that I was not referring to. Therefore he accused me of copiously quoting other writers while he has treated the issue in “Shariacracy”. And in another point he spent some time to prove that Safiya is not guilty. Her case is still pending in a court of law but he has passed the verdict that the “traditional qadis” are ignorant of even the Maliki law. I did not bother myself about that diary because I cannot do a better critique than Mallam Bashir Aliyu Umar. Moreover even though I am not a lawyer I know that in common law tradition when a judge makes a mistake members of the learned profession do not condemn him as ignorant but as someone who has erred. In the Islamic tradition based on authentic tradition (although with apology to Sanusi), if any ignorant person accepts qadiship his abode is hell fire in the hereafter[8]. I do expect Sanusi to have good opinion of these qadis because I am told that he has degree in Sharia from Sudan. To be fair to Sanusi he has pleaded guilty of some of the charges against him this is the reason why he spent so much time to defend Safiya in his rejoinder to prove his knowledge of the Sharia.

Sanusi accused me of trying to dodge the content of his paper on politicization of ontological questions by panoramic journey on his writings. My paper was not a response to his politicization of ontological questions only but an attempt to build him from his writings therefore whichever point I made was based on what he wrote at whatever period since his papers are available on the web. For example I tried to show that Sanusi has the same vision with Mahmud Taha and his students, which is that the public law of Sharia must give way. This is only possible by showing that the Sharia as interpreted by earlier scholars condones corruption and this he did in his paper on accountability and probity. To demolish the integrity of the Ulama he questioned the authenticity of authentic hadiths. To sneer at the Malikis he had to depend on Ibn Hazm. To celebrate his belief in Yar’Adua he had to forget the standard he employed on the Ulama, in this case Yar’Adua a doyen of corruption had to be elevated to the status of a leader with “a definite and responsible ideological coloration”.

As a “philosopher” Sanusi is at liberty to choose his methodology but an ordinary journalist like my humble self cannot afford such a luxury. This is the reason why he makes generalized statements on historical issues[9] and also on matters that require empirical evidence. This may also be the reason why he never bothered to find out the theory of my paper, although he has “laboured through” it and found it to be a “prolixious tirade”. He fell into the trap he accused me of falling into. He spent time to show that I quoted from Tanbih al-Ikhwan and he demanded that I should have added another quotation from another book of the Shehu presumably to support his position. I resist this bully mentality. I quoted the Shehu to show a senior member of the federal government that there was no need to invite Sadiq al-Mahdi to convince Nigerian Muslims that their conception of Shari’ah is flawed. But I was careful in quoting the Shehu so that his revolutionary message is not misunderstood and that was the opportunity Sanusi seized.

It is baffling that although he has “laboured through” my “prolixious tirade” Sanusi still spends time to prove that he was correct in his paper on politicization of ontological questions. He tried to show that he was objective while I was subjective. I am not a philosopher so I will not bother myself with this issue of objectivity and subjectivity. Sanusi claimed that I was engaged in “panoramic journey” instead of concentrating on that paper. Unfortunately because he has no regard for this writer, he never cared to ask why this “panoramic journey through “Sanusi’s writings” spanning over four years”. As a social science student I could be guilty of employing the tools of social analysis by going beyond what someone writes to objective facts of the situation. From what Sanusi has written in that paper and others where he quoted An-Naim who is Taha’s student one may be right to suggest that he accepted their position that Madinan Revelations have served their purpose and therefore they must give way to new laws made by men. If he referred to the conclusion of my paper he will see the reforms I rejected. These are the ones that will lead to abrogation of the Qur’anic Revelations. For example Mazrui called for the abolishing of the permission to marry more than one wife[10], in this case Mazrui, the intellectual has turned into a rabbi[11]. In some of the Muslim countries whose “reforms” were eulogized by Sanusi, secularists in the name of “reforms” have denied Muslims the right given to them by in the Madinan Revelations.

Perhaps Sanusi, thinks I have no right to employ the tools he employed to appraise others and also used by his teachers in ABU whom he has the passion of quoting to justify his position that the Sharia governors are manipulating Islam for political purposes. When the Sharia was re-introduced the ABU Marxists were quick to analyze it as the road to Pakistan even though there was no correlation because Pakistan was a secularist invention. This may be acceptable to Sanusi but not the “panoramic journey” to expose his modernist inclination. As a humble student of Usul al-Fiqh I would not have written this response if Sanusi had corrected me by stating that he is not what I assumed especially on abrogation of Madinan Revelation and the questioning of authentic Hadith. This is because in that case I will only be involved in Shiqaq (dissension), which may be defined as being concerned to get at the opponent and not the truth[12].

Sanusi attempted to hassle me into accepting his position of quoting off the wall groups in his engagements with other Muslims. He wrote that Sultan ul-Ulama Izzuddin Ibn Abdus-Salam has written that “of all the books written in Muslim jurisprudence, none surpassed Ibn Qudamah’s al-Mughni and Ibn Hazm’s al-Muhalla. But then perhaps Izzuddeen is also “an off the wall jurist””. I don’t have the knowledge to call Izzuddeen off the wall this is left to people like Sanusi who could not even spare Uthman bn Affan (RA). But my position on Ibn Hazm stands because that was what majority of the Sunni Ulama considered him to be. Even though he tried elsewhere to appease his Maliki opponents by commending al-Tamhid lama fil-Muwatta minal-Ma’ani wal-Asanid, the outstanding work of his teacher Ibn Abd al-Bar thus: la a’alam filkalam ala fiqhil Hadith mithlih fakayfa ahassan minhu[13]. Sanusi’s passion for Ibn Hazm and others such as the Khawarij is because of style and disposition. Therefore most of the time he engages in ego trips to respond to his critics by quoting the bizarre groups and Ulama. 

For example Sanusi has evidence that will free Safiya from all the four known schools of law but this is not enough for him he has to go to Ibn Hazm because the latter disparaged the Malikis. Sanusi does this to prove to his Maliki audience that he knows more than what they know. I am very sure; scholars like Mallam Bashir Aliyu will not have bothered replying Sanusi if he had restricted himself to issues of jurisprudential disputes with clear critique of the Maliki School. This is a tradition as old as all the schools. And I have emphasized it in my paper. If Sanusi had behaved like a Muslim scholar Tribune will not have published the diary. This attitude runs through Sanusi’s writings and even his friend and fellow gamji writer Magaji Galadima has advised him on this. This may be irrelevant to Sanusi because he thinks everybody should be a philosopher before he reads what he writes, sorry I remember he wrote that he could afford to be arrogant after his presumption that he has demolished my treatise on his writings. It was this kind of styles that eclipsed Ibn Hazm. The late prolific scholar of Kano, Shaykh Nasiru Kabara has said that the Ulama described the pen of Ibn Hazm as sharp as the sword of Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf. I believe the aspiration of every scholar is to bring about positive change and not entertainment of fans. This could only be achieved with mild exhortation as Allah has stated: “Call men to the path of your Lord with wisdom and mild exhortation. Reason with them in the most courteous manner. Your Lord best knows those who are rightly guided” (Qur’an 16: 125).

I hereby wish to disclaim that it was my intention to add my name to the list of “intellectuals” who responded to Sanusi’s pedestrian scholarship. This is because I am not one. The intellectuals I mentioned are popular figures in their respective circles, I don’t belong to any of such circles. And moreover Sanusi’s attempt to add me to that list of intellectuals is a self-serving adventure. As a “philosopher” he writes something and quickly changes to another. He wrote that: “I begin from the position that one should consider it a matter of pride that one has produced a body of knowledge sufficient to require a twenty page critique”. This should be the positive aspiration of any scholar, but Sanusi squandered it because he wanted to crucify this writer to entertain his audience. It is surprising that he could be proud of a piece he described as “prolixious tirade”. How could somebody be proud of “intellectual dishonesty” that runs through these articles or copious quotations of other writers? Sanusi wants to eat his cake and have it. He is proud of something but ego will not allow him to cool his emotion and then approach it from a position of maturity so that he could correct the writer and then claim credit for a review. Because he wanted to entertain his audience he did not devout much time to the theory of the paper, he just went ahead to make a reply. Honestly I still believe Gamji is an enlightened forum and I thought a distinguished gamji writer will respond positively to a critical review but alas he went about defending himself. Anybody could take my paper, remove what Sanusi terms personal attacks and then take his response he will find that Sanusi’s journey is an ego trip trying to prove that he is something even though he tried to say he will not respond to personal attacks.

Sanusi claimed that his response is an “intellectual engagement with the intellectually challenged”, this means that he is the one who is engaged in an intellectual exercise the writer of the critique of his works is not engaged in such an exercise but the person challenged intellectually. A twenty-page critique of works spanning over four years that elicited a rejoinder of five pages is still not an intellectual challenge this could only be a view of a “philosopher” who lives in “two worlds”. So what pleasures does Sanusi drive from “savaging an intellectual corpse” with five pages of essay?

I was actually amazed to read Sanusi stating that he could afford to be arrogant. I have never read this in the writings of any Muslim scholar, no matter how provoked he may have been. I may not have bothered replying him had it been he did not make that statement because I am not convinced that he has demolished my thesis or may be I don’t understand English and in that case Sanusi cannot help me. Should in case he demolishes my thesis with the humility of a scholar, I will acknowledge, hand over my critique of his works as a review and then he will claim the credit, in which case he can make this statement: “I begin from the position that one should consider it a matter of pride that one has produced a body of knowledge sufficient to require a twenty page critique”. Pride is a positive state but arrogance which Sanusi decorates himself with three times in his rejoinder is a negative state.

I sincerely hope Sanusi will mature to the status of a scholar by refusing to succumb to ego and in that case he can give us “the milk of human kindness”. Here I will refer him to the exchanges between Sultan Muhammadu Bello and Shehun Borno al-Amin al-Kanami, where Bello restrained himself and he was not carried away by his knowledge and he ended his letter with what I intend to end mine and not affording to be arrogant the phrase with which Sanusi ended his.

“May God be gracious to us in our end” and to Sanusi in his end. “May He keep us both upon the straight way and show us mercy”[14].