|
Between Sunusi Lamido and the Zealots By Kabiru B. Saleh
At the first instance, I was very angry with Mal Sunusi for wasting his precious time for 'Shaikh' Jafaru Adam. Because the 'Shaikh' cannot comprehend the writings of Sunusi's third hand student. But I later learnt the antecedents of the 'Shaikh' in anything lamido, I then realised that he is suffering from a psychic disorder I rather termed as lamido phobia. It's a total sum of various personality defects ranging from deep rooted inferiority complex to paranoia. I should have titled this write up as 'Between Sunusi and the sacred cows' but because to many, the 'Shaikh' can attack but it's sacrilegious for one to respond, but when I observe that the 'Shaikh''s cohorts are in rampage because their Shaikh was attacked, I re-en titled it. In fact I read elsewhere, one of the innocent students saying it's dangerous to attack auliyya (Saints) of Allah. The 'Shaikh' was promoted to the station of Sainthood the station they grudgingly denied to pious predecessors like Shaikh Abdulqadeer Jilani (R.A).
The 'Shaikh' is the archetype of the modern young, Wahabi Scholars. They pose as both religion and social scientist, conversant with religion theology and contemporary issues. They are not.
May Allah have mercy on our traditional Ulama. You will find them humble, ascetic, modest and spiritual, teaching in zaures in our traditional cities. They are devoid of pretext or false claim of modernity, trying their best to preserve the religious sciences. But the 'Shaikhs' are devoid of all these lofty qualities, thereby basu da tsuntsu basu da tarko or jacks of all trades masters of none.
Mal Sunusi main crime is, he is not a Wahabi thus not carried away with the Idea of takfir (i.e. calling Muslims heretics) or condemning the non Wahabi Muslims in every material particular. An alliance with him is not possible. Secondly he is not a literalist, thus he is in constant collusion with the literalists. By literalists I mean those that hate to look at the spirit of the law but always prefer the letter of the law. Thirdly, his boldness to say he disagree in spite of all intimidations and blackmails. Because of these crimes, he is consistently and persistently under personal attack by the 'Shaikh' and his disciples. The 'Shaikh' is relentless in his attack from pulpit to radio stations, from newspapers pages to TV stations.
Some where hypnotized with the fact that, the 'Shaikh' can, with ease, understand a certain compendium while Sunusi cannot though a blatant lie but not a problem. The problem is, what is the big deal about a collection of reported speeches and ideas, lacking in originality? For instance one cannot compare Seyyid Qutb's 'ma'llim Fil tariq' with Muhammad bn Abdulwahab's 'kitabut taweheed', one is the product of deep thought while the order is collection of speeches and ideas devoid of any incisive analysis. Thus, the need for the proper understanding of epistemology.
One can now see the lack of tolerance prevalent among the wahabbis. They have now unleashed their dogs of war against Sunusi. Somebody calls him a banker with dose of shiism in his closet the other branded him as mediocre. A banker sure he is one as for shi'i, following the foot steps of Imam Shafi'i, he once declared, 'if loving the family of Muhammad is what is considered as shiism, then let it be announced to the men and jinn I am one'.
If for one to be a scholar it requires going to school, Sunusi has done that at least to University level. If it is by inheritance, he is born in a family of scholars. Sunusi world view, exposure and versatility bear no comparison with that of any of the zealots. And unlike most of us he refused to be cowed or bullied to submission to the baseless creed of wahabbism.
As for Banu Zubair, that calls him a mediocre he has contradicted himself for two reasons. He testified that Sunusi's write ups are thought provoking. Secondly he confessed he has previously engage Sunusi in some intellectual discourse. Intellectualism is nothing but creative use of intellect rather than emotion or instinct, to reflect, speculate or study. The first and the basic ingredient for creative thought is thought provocation a quality Sunusi is endowed with as testified by the writer. Then I wonder how the writer, an intellectual, wasted his time, in the past, to engage a mediocre. Then, Banu Zubair, instead of ridiculing Sunusi ended of ridiculing himself. The conclusion he reached in his analogy of Mantu and El-rufa'i is wrong. This is basically because the logic is wron g and an elementary student of philosophy knows that all philosophers particularly Aristotle warned against that sort of syllogism. Let me explain. Banu Zubayr, in trying to show that he understands logic gives this example. Let A stand for El-Rufa'I and B stand for Mantu. Then let M stand for Muslim northerner. Since sanusi says the both, El-Rufai and Mantu are Muslims and northerners then it means we can say: A=M; and B=M; so A=B. This is the substance of the argument. Now let us use the same logic in another example and see the result. Let D stand for Donkey; B stand for Black and K stand for Kabir Banu Zubayr. Now the two statements 'the donkey is black' and 'Kabir Banu Zubayr is black' can be represented, following the above method by : D=B and K=B. So we may conclude from this that D=K or 'Kabir Banu Zubayr is a donkey' or even that 'Kabiru Banu Zubayr and the donkey are the same.' Since this logic leads to a result that Banu Zubayr himself will not accept, it is obvious that t here was something wrong with the argument, which shows that it is Banu Zubayr, and not Sanusi, that is pretending to understand philosophy. He should go back to books of basic logic to teach him how to understand the truth conditions of sentences.
So I don't know the Mediocre between Sunusi and Banu Zubair. Banu Zubair's rejoinder is more or less a rigmarole consisting of extravagant display of vocabulary but empty in substance. Sure one can disagree with Sunusi but to call him a mediocre is being dishonest. In Islam there is no priesthood. In any case, the discussion is a secular one even if it concerns Muslims. It was a debate on politics and every Muslim is free to participate. So what are you saying? But should Sunusi be saddened with the Shaikh hostility? Definitly No! The Shaikh is a strong wahabi agent and he is doing a good work espousing the cause of wahabiyya behind the citadel of mosques and madrasahs.
One of the orientations the Prophet (S) gave his companion is to fight injustice. So when he said to them they should assist their Brother whether he commits injustice or injustice was committed against him, the companion were puzzled, they therefore questioned the Prophet (S) as the new instruction is against their new world view. However, the orientation of the wahabbis is to doubt, question and if possible discredit the unassailable station of the Prophet (S). They were inculcated with hatred towards his household. Where they cannot contest the position of the Prophet (S) they accept it with a pinch of salt. So you can hear the 'Shaikh' fuming whenever the Prophet ( S) is address as 'Sayyid' (i.e. Master or Honourable), to him and acc ording to his understanding of a Prophetic tradition, its only Allah (J.Z) that is Sayyid. Forgetting that Allah (J.Z) has addressed Yahaya (A.S) as Sayyid, 'sayyidan wa hasuuran wa nabiyyan minas swaliheen'. (Q3:39). Therefore we have two Sayyids, Allah (J.Z) and Yahaya (A.S).
In one of his sermons the 'Shaikh' condemned the Prophet's Parent ( alaihimus salam) to hell fire (haza buhtanun azeem) forgetting the saying of Allah (J.Z) 'And never would we punish until we sent a Messenger' (Q17:15)
They are believers in anthropomorphism despite their constant denial. 'Grave is the words that comes out of their mouths; they speak not but a lie'(Q18:5). May Allah bless Sultanil Waa'izeen Shaikhul Shuyukh Abdul Jabbar bn Shaikh Muhammad Nasir Kabara (R.A) he is doing a good job, defending the sunnah and forcing the 'Shaikh' to retract some of his obnoxious statements. The 'Shaikh' at certain extent was audacious to say he don't know any verse that commands Muslims to love the Prophet what he knows is Allah has commanded obedient to him ( Prophet ). So the menace of wahabbiyya is increasingly becoming alarming. Their target is the Prophet; in fact they are the enemies within. Well equipped with vibrant young men with Bedouin mentality, sponsored and supported with stupendous amount of petro dollar, they are untouchable.
I am earnestly waiting for Dr. Banu Zubair's second part. I just touch the first part tangentially. However if he insists in playing it dirty he should be rest assured that he don't have the monopoly of invectives. But I should warn that those in the glass house should no be throwing stones. |