|
A Politico-Religious Fatwa Between Blind Followers And Deviant Critics By Muhammad B. Muhammad Forwarded by Abdurrahman Falaki
Dr. Ahmad Gumi, no doubt a scholar of sound background stirred so much controversy and debate when he issued a somehow weird fatwa on the Nigerian political situation and General Buhari’s principled challenge of the elections in the court of law. To many scholars and commentators, the fatwa lacked merit and clearly reflected a twisted reading and interpretation of otherwise sound Islamic texts.
Gumi had argued that his fatwa was informed by the altruistic motive of ensuring the peace, unity and tranquillity of the nation. He might not be faulted for his patriotic intention. The truth however, is that, in the absence of justice-social, religious, economic or political- these ideals become a far cry, impossible to attain. Yes! Injustice negates these ideals and destroys a nation, bringing it down crumbling on its very foundation.
Islam abhors injustice and urges, in fact; it commands the believers not only to resist and fight injustice, but also to identify with the oppressed men, women and children. The Qur’an (4:75) gave a clear directive to that effect. And if the unjust and oppressors are not restrained by upright people, the world will be filled with corruption and the rights of people will be trampled upon with impunity and unbridled transgression. This is the clear import of the Qur’an (2:251).Again the Qur’an (9:119) also commands us to “fear Allah, and be with the truthful” It also enjoins us to be just even to our enemies (O you who have believed, be persistently standing firm for Allah, witnesses in justice, and do not let the hatred of a people prevent you from being just. Be just; that is nearer to righteousness. And fear Allah; indeed, Allah is acquainted with what you do. Qur’an (5:8)
Now, Gumi upheld the fact that the elections and the whole process which brought the ‘Yar ‘adua Government into power were flawed and built upon a wrong foundation. He also wondered how it will be expected of a house built upon such a wrong foundation to last long or be strong. We join him in wondering, but not in his wandering about. We should be free to interprete his wondering to mean that this political system which is built upon electoral malpractice and political injustice will not endure. By extension, any false atmosphere of peace, unity and tranquillity will fade into the thin air to be replaced by uncertainties, fear, insecurity, chaos and social unrest. True patriotism demands that we disown and resist the temptation to identify with the injustice that breeds these evils. I begin to tremble, if we were to give religious recognition and the stamp of sanctity to such an establishment. I am not a Mufti, and as such I am constrained from giving religious verdict on the ‘Yar ‘adua Government. However, all I know is that politically I have been unjustly deprived- together with millions of other Nigerians- of the choice which I made in 2003 and 2007. And this is at the background of the fact that in 2003, I had decided, for the first time, to vote- putting aside strong reservations against the system- because of the hope which Buhari had brought into the system. And then only now, for me to be told (in the fatwa) that I was actually risking my faith (by voting for Buhari) is something difficult to fathom, bearing in mind that the ruling is without any strong religious basis.
The fatwa itself, not surprisingly, attracted varied reactions from different quarters, ranging from blind followers (Baban Takko: WT 29th sept. 2007) to deviant critics (Adamu Adamu: WT 22nd Sept. 6th Oct. 2007, El Binawi: DT 8th Oct. 2007). Baban Takko went off track by reasserting the wrong notion of people loosing their faith by following Buhari and Atiku. This would mean that giving unalloyed support to ‘Yar- ‘adua will be regarded as the highest stage of Iman! May Allah save the religious texts from such human misrepresentation! Baban Takko however, made some valid points related to Adamu Adamu’s religious or sectarian inclination, but his approach and manner of presentation beclouded the sense and clarity of his response.
Garba Deen (ST: 7th oct. 2007) apparently a Gumi admirer, was at pains trying to make sense out of Gumi’s fatwa. He chose to remain disconcerted and confused; even in the face of what he agreed was a fatwa which defies logic and common sense. He had however also seemed to have read in between the lines that something was also fundamentally wrong in Adamu Adamu’s discourse.
Adamu Adamu’s response to Gumi lacked restraint and sincere disposition to facts and issues of significant religious standing. He threw decorum to the dogs to have their free feast. He referred to Gumi in various places as ‘demented’, ‘a liar’ ‘a pretender’, ‘one with superficial knowledge and who outspoke his elderly and more learned colleagues’…etc.And when Adamu looked around for the virtue called ‘restraint’, he could not identify it, and he therefore launched back at Gumi with all that fury, saying, ‘the only one who can say this in Islam (Gumi’s fatwa) is someone who has lost his (faith). Takfir for Takfir, that is! May Allah forgive the two of them, who are both dear to me! I only fairly know Gumi at close range- he may not recall meeting me- but we share the same intellectual background and religious tradition. We differ in some perceptions. Adamu Adamu however, is indeed an elder brother to me, although we differ in intellectual background and religious tradition. We do agree in some perceptions.
Now, my brother Adamu digressed far away in his discourse and pitifully enough, allowed sectarian sentiments and his apparent hatred of some personalities to becloud his reasoning and perception of religious texts and historical events. He even assumed the position of a higher religious authority, passing verdicts on religious texts and denigrating prominent early and contemporary scholars. He even allowed himself to stoop so low as to adopt the insincere approach of quoting texts in a mutilated manner, in order to mislead and lend credence to his warped view. This he did with regard to his quotation from Nawawi. He comfortably shied away from quoting Nawawi in the same text (Muslim Vol I P.14) where he had said that, “Scholars have agreed in consensus, that the most authentic books after the Qur’an are two Sahihs of Bukhari and Muslim. The Muslim ummah have all acknowledged them (as most authentic)”. Adamu however choose to quote part of Nawawi’s statement which will misleadingly infer doubt on the two books. Nawawi’s point in what Adamu quoted was actually that, there are a few hadiths in the two texts which did not appear to meet the very stringent conditions set by the two scholars. These are the ones which appear to be Munqati’, but which actually have passed the scrutiny of hadith scholars and are adjudged to be authentic. Nawawi discussed this issue extensively in pages 16-20 quoting Ibn Salah (d.643 AH) and others, asserting the authenticity of Bukhari and Muslim. For instance, he quotes Imam Haramayn. saying that, “if someone were to swear to the effect that the reports of Bukhari and muslim from the prophet (SAW) are all authentic, and that if it were not so, his wife stands divorced; the divorce will not be valid, since the scholars of Muslims have agreed in consensus that they are authentic”. This means that Adamu Adamu’s casting of doubt on the authenticity of Bukhari and Muslim is not derived from the scholars of Muslims, whom Imam alharamayn had said, were unanimous in their acceptance of the authenticity of the two books. Adamu Adamu knows best his sources, but we assert that they are not Muslim sources- the deliberate misquotations apart.
My brother made several sweeping statements and generalisations with the intent of misleading gullible readers. He casts doubt on the hadith of Awf bn Malik, in Muslim (3:1481) because, according to him, despite its inclusion in the sihah sittah (sic), scholars (shiite scholars?) have always doubted whether the prophet (SAW) really said that”. Please brother, mention the name of the scholars. It is tactically convenient for him not to do so, because if he did, the Orientalist-Shiite alliance will be uncovered.
The fact that Gumi has quoted a hadith and misrepresented it is not enough reason to refute the authenticity of the hadith itself. If we were to adopt this approach, then the authenticity of the Qur’an itself would be put to question, because many people have misinterpreted it. The Qur’an says, “Obey Allah and obey the prophet and those in authority amongst you”94:59). Apparently even the unjust leaders? No! The verse and the hadith made a distinction between obeying them when they are right and disobeying them when they err. And this disobedience is again different from open rebellion and taken up arms against them when they do wrong, which is the essence of the prohibitions in the hadith of Awf and Huzaifa. Nawawi (12:224-5) said that, the traditions which command obedience to leaders will be interpreted on the basis of the hadith which directs that there is no obedience in what constitutes a sin against God. This is also the import of the hadith of Ubadah (Nawawi, 12:228) which prevented us from open rebellion against constituted authority, unless in clear instance of disbelief. Nawawi explained that the hadith which instruct us to obey leaders are aimed at maintaining the unity of the community and avoiding chaos, social upheaval and corruption in the land. If Adamu doubts the authenticity and true import of these hadiths,and he believes in open rebellion, then let him go ahead and declare an armed rebellion against the ‘Yar ‘adua government. Let him join hands with the Niger-Delta militants or sponsor a military coup. Let him disregard the judiciary that serves under ‘Yar‘adua. Let him dare the Nigerian army and the Nigerian police who also serve the government, and then the authenticity and true import of the hadith will dawn on him, albeit, when it would have been too late for him.
The whole bulk of Islamic history, hadith and tafsir are also unauthentic according to Adamu. They were written, he said under the funding and direction of Abdulmalik bn Marwan whom he despised as a bloody tyrant. He then went ahead to make another unguarded sweeping statement- what a pity! It is known to history, Adamu said, that the kings and officials of the caliphate fabricated many traditions to justify all their corrupt deeds’…and the Muslim scholars throughout history simply succumbed to the whims of the tyrants? He said, “past generations of ulama hadn’t wished to be counted questioning the infallibility of the sihah sittah..” but Adamu now stands to be counted doing that. Bold and courageous man! With his perverted thinking, warped ideas, misguided statements and deviant belief system, my brother has with a wave of a hand, dismissed as trash the whole heritage of Islamic intellectual tradition. And he believes he has done service to Islam and the prophet (SAW). This apparent contradiction may confuse some readers, but, I remain focussed, trailing the trend of his thoughts and where it leads to. Discard away all the hadith collections, Tafsir and authentic historical narrations and replace them with the sayings of the Shiite imams. These imams are infallible, Adamu would say. You don’t have to ask them of their chain of narration. Whatever they say is from Allah, and it is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Your faith will not be complete until you believe in them and you condemn to perpetual doom all the leading companions of the prophet (SAW). All the companions, except Abu Zarr, Salman and one or few more others, had all repudiated their faith and allegiance to the prophet (SAW) and conspired against the prophet’s household. The first two caliphs – Abubakar and Umar – are the leading innovators, apostates, usurpers of leadership and breakers of the prophet’s covenant. This and much more constitute the basis of Adamu’s argument. And this is what informed Adamu’s sustained vicious attacks on Ibn Taimiyyah, an eighth century Islamic scholar of great repute. Ibn Taimiyya is indisputably the most prominent critic of Shiite belief system. He had embarked on a well-spirited defence of the prophetic sunnah and the companions and had refuted Shiite doctrine, especially their vilification of the companions. Ibn Mutahhir al-Hilli, a Shiite scholar had written his Minhaj al karamah, projecting the divinely ordained office of the Shiite imams, while denigrating the first three caliphs – Abubakr, Umar and Uthman. Ibn Taimiyyah refuted the Minhaj al karamah in a four- volume treatise consisting of 1214 pages. His book, Minhaj al sunnah is a work of distinctive merit, which exposed the fallacies of Shiite beliefs. Is there any wonder therefore, that Adamu would single out Ibn Taimiyyah for his barrage of multi-directional attacks?!
In Minhaj al Sunnah, Ibn Taimiyyah wrote that, “the followers of the prophet of Islam constitute the best of people, and the worthiest in excellence and merit among them were those who first embraced Islam. But the picture drawn by these (Shiite) slanderers shows that the earliest Muslims had neither any inkling of the truth nor followed it faithfully, since, according to the Shiites, most of them, particularly the first three caliphs knowingly opposed the teachings of the prophet. All the companions, they say, followed these tyrants…” Ibn Taimiyyah then argued that if this view of the Shiite is accepted, then the Jews and the Christians would of a fact be better than the Muslims, as there would be no standard bearers of the truth and justice among the Muslims. Adamu should read Ibn Taimiyyah’s Minhaj and his Al sarimul maslul ‘ala shatim al rasul, to know the worth of this scholar, whom he ignorantly (well, knowingly) criticises.
Abul Hassan Ali An Nadwi is a contemporary muslim scholar of the highest intellectual standing and international recognition. I am sure Adamu has read his ‘Islam and the world’, and many more of his wonderful writings. In his ‘Saviours of Islamic Spirit (2:63)Nadwi quoted Taqiudeen Subki, a rival of Ibn Taimiyyah, testifying that, “I am fully aware that Ibn Taimiyyah is an erudite scholar, his knowledge is profound and deep in all religious and secular science; he is mature in thought and sparkling intellect, and I also know that his scholarship is beyond all praises. I have always acknowledged these qualities of Ibn Taimiyyah before any friends and associates”. My brother Adamu will not have the sense of humility and submission to the truth to acknowledge these qualities which known opponents of Ibn Taimiyyah had acknowledged. Another scholar, Ibn Sayyid al Nas (d. 734AH) said of Ibn Taimiyyah that, “his contemporaries did not see another man like him…”. Zahabi said of him that, “If I were asked to testify before the Ka’aba, I will swear that I never saw a scholar like him, nor did he himself see a man of his stature”. But Adamu will swear by God, in front of the Ka’aba that he has not seen a scholar as vicious as Ibn Taimiyyah. “Their testimony will be recorded and they will be questioned (Qur’an 43:19).
Adamu would choose to discard the testimony of truthful and God-fearing early scholars and tread the path of the orientalist – Shiite alliance. There is of recent a well-orchestrated American sponsored targeted attack on the person and ideas of Ibn Taimiyyah. His ideas, America says, inspire violence and terrorism, and they must therefore be deconstructed. I can hear America saying, welcome on board Mr. Adamu. What an irony for Adamu who has already made name as a critic of American policies? So how come about that he is perfectly well promoting its agenda? Read the document, ‘Civil Democratic Islam: Partners, Resources and Strategies’, and you will not be deceived. At this juncture, it is pertinent to point out that the intervention by Dr Bashir Aliyu Umar (WT 29th sept. 2007) was well-focussed, mature and highly scholarly. He sought to take up my brother on an intellectual debate, putting aside the political dimensions. Adamu threw back at him, attacking him frontally, charging at him with weak points and deliberately misreading his statements. The reply was full of sarcasm, with Adamu looking down at Dr Bashir with fierce and disdainful eyes – ‘scholar Bashir’, ‘Peruser of text’, ‘a shame even for our self proclaimed scholar’,…etc. His 20 years of study of hadith is only good to be thrown into the dust-bin, because he did not study in Qum. Even his university dons and professors equal nothing in the eyes of my brother, Adamu. They are not infallible Shiite imams. Adamu tells us however, that he does not owe duty to any group, “because I do not belong to any of their divisive sects”. Not even Shiite Ithna ‘Ashariyyah? Not even Khomeinism? Let me risk the impoliteness of telling my brother that this is simply not true.
I know that my brother is a hero-worshipper. This explains his unqualified veneration of the late Khomeini to a limitless border. He will not therefore dare question, for example, the statement of the imam in his Kashf al Asrar (p114) where he castigated the companions saying, “These (companions) were only concerned with their worldly pursuits and attaining power, and they had no zeal or concern for Islam and the Qur’an… and it was therefore easy for them to remove verses from the book of Allah’ (which point to Ali’s caliphate-ship and the venerated positions of the imams). Adamu will also argue to the high heavens that the imam was unconditionally and perfectly right when he asserted in his AlHukumat al Islamiyyah (p52) that “it is one of the fundamentals of belief in our sect (Shiite twelvers) that our imams have a (venerated) position that cannot be matched by any angel close to God or any prophet who is also a messenger”.
Will Adamu also please, attempt to question the authenticity of Usul al kafi? This Shiite primary reference book has documented a lot of verses purportedly expunged from the Qur’an by the companions. What about the mention in it of Mushaf Fatima, the so- called authentic Qur’an, which is three times larger than what we now have, and the copy of which is with the hidden imam?A certain el-Binawi, writing in Daily Trust, has tried to pre-empt the exposure of this belief of theirs.
The truth is that, Adamu has carried over this sectarian hero-worship syndrome into the political sphere, which perverted his appreciation of political issues. Buhari to him is not simply a man of honesty and integrity who is the most suitable man to rule Nigeria, he is also a super-human who must be venerated and worshipped like an idol. He is infallible and any form of doubts in his political strategies and approaches is an act of political apostasy. These are the people who turned The Buhari Organisation into a sort of a cult group. They stratified its members into degrees, depending upon the level of their faith in the leader. Others were expelled as renegades. I now begin to believe that, it was these people, through their narrow, sectarian-influenced ‘imamisation’ of Buhari – not Obasanjo – who denied us our choice of the man of integrity. And if –and I hope not- General Buhari were to continue lending listening ears and succumb to the deviant sectarian ideas of people like my brother Adamu, I will have no qualms about saying, “This is parting between me and you”. (Qur’an 18:78)
Department of Islamic Studies, Bayero University, Kano P.M.B. 3011, Kano
|