This is a guest post by Abdul
****
Shaykh Dr Tahir ul-Qadri is a scholar of repute who has following across the East and the West. He is a Muslim scholar who had the likes of the al- Azhar institution of Cairo advocating his scholarship and knowledge. Al-Azhar in fact is seeking for the first time to have a college in Pakistan under Qadri’s auspices.
Today he launched his extensive fatwa, religious edict addressing all of the basic issues of terrorism, taking civilian life, tactics of terror but also details and ancillary issues that relate to Islamist terror tactics such as taking civilian hostages, attacking people in “occupied territories”, “resistance” and foreign policy and defining rules of conduct during warfare.
However the fatwa does not stop there. The fatwa goes on to clearly declare that not only are the actions of a terrorist something antithical to being a Muslim (he quoted a number of Prophetic sayings stating that “A Muslim is someone whom people are safe from his hand and tongue”), but moreover a terrorist believes his or her actions are sanctioned and in fact, obliged by Islam. This is then something that contradicts the fundamental principles of Islamic belief and would take someone out of the ambit of Islam.
This theological point is quite strong and powerful. The essential point is someone that seeks to make licit what is explicitly illicit in religious terms, and agreed upon to be so by Muslim doctors of scripture, would then be considered to have permitted what God forbade and to do so would take someone outside the pale of Islam.
This was a very strong point. He then cited, Imam Abu Mansur al-Maturidi from the 4th century of Islam, is considered one o f the two leading authorities in Sunni orthodox creed, to state that those who permit spilling the blood of innocent people are committing Kufr/disbelief and are outside the pale of Islam. He then applied terrorists who justify the killing of innocent people, whether women, men or children, as falling under these categories. He explained that there could also be no usage of language for political purposes surrounding the phrase “innocent people”. He emphasized that all people by virtue of their humanity were innocent, with no buts or ifs. (He was quite emphatic in making this point).
He elaborated that the Prophet Muhammad and the four caliphs had made the Islamic stance clear and beyond dispute; killing civilians, in fact chopping down trees, was against the rules of conduct during war.
He then went onto discuss the various sayings of the prophet elaborating that the Kharijite tendency would exist within Muslims. The kharijites were a religious sectarian group, which were the first to use the slogan of ‘only the rule of God’, as a political slogan to justify killing those against the rule of God in their eyes. They were the group behind the assassination of the fourth caliph Ali, the son in-law of the Prophet Muhammad.
Dr Qadri, cited jurists from all of the four main sunni schools of religious rules, and independent authorities such as Ibn Taymia in justifying all of the above points of view. He acknowledged that some scholars of the past have fallen short of describing such people as outside the pale of Islam, but all agreed that they should be fought.
He condemned Islamists who seek to reject democracy, liberty and human rights due to a warped interpretation of Islam, and advocated that Muslims engage and recognise that Islam was a faith which welcomed democracy, human rights, liberty and modern states. He refuted the idea of the need for a single caliphate. Rather all states where there was justice were Islamic. All states could claim to be caliphates if there was democracy and justice.
In the Q and A he explicitly condemned all sorts of terrorism without reserve, and explained that even if people have just causes, or perceive that they have just causes, they cannot engage in terrorism. He condemned suicide bombing and terrorism in Israel and Palestine, and anywhere else in the world.
He ended with a note that people, Muslims and non-Muslims should unite in this fight against the common enemy, the enemy of humanity, Islam and Muslims, the terrorists.
The power of these words amongst Muslims is yet to be seen. As a scholar, his words are heeded amongst Muslims. Fundamentally as a scholar, who has following across different sects, different schools of thought, shafi’I in Yemen, Hanafiya in Pakistan – including some Deobandi as well as Barelawi schools, but also regarded as an authority in Egypt by al-Azhar. This is something that will have impact amongst Muslim communities both in the East and the West.
At least the scholarly and well cited writings, from various Qur’an exegesis, hadith collections, and authorities on medieval and post medieval Islamic scriptural exegesis, should at least make people take this seriously. Communities should be emboldened by his stance. Those justifying acts of terror or supporting the cause, should be challenged and on the back foot. Those walking the trajectory towards terrorism, may or may not take up all of his words, but it may go some way to producing elements of doubt in the “Islamicity” of their cause and end point – not paradise.
Abdul
Wilayah of Britain
2nd of March 2010
16th of Rabi ul-Awwal 1431
20 Comments
Sorry to be a Jeremiah, here, but as the head of the Minaj ul Quran movement, his words are heeded by its adherents, in Britain at least, are limited to half a dozen or so mosques; and who’d have been unlikely to follow suicide-terrorism in the first place.
This is not to deny he’s opposed to murderous mayhem of such acts, but even the likes of Kemal el Hebawy insists that Islam forbids the murder of civilians (hence the need to redefine Israeli children as future soldiers).
Qadri’s fatwa breaks no new ground by Yusuf smith
The London Evening Standard yesterday had a two-page feature on a forthcoming fatwa by the leader of the Minhaj-ul-Quran group, Dr Muhammad Tahir-ul-Qadri, which unequivocally condemns suicide bombings. The feature is dominated by a picture of an al-Muhajiroun demonstration, but features a long article by Allegra Mostyn-Owen, a former wife of Boris Johnson who is now married to a much younger Muslim man who is associated with Qadri’s organisation; a shorter article is by Douglas Murray of the “Centre for Social Cohesion”, a London think-tank notorious for hostility to Muslims and Muslim organisations. Mostyn-Owen’s article includes an interview with Dr Qadri himself in which he makes some sweeping generalisations about Muslims outside his group; both articles grossly overestimate his influence. (More: Brian Whitaker @ Comment is Free.)
To begin with, Qadri’s fatwa is not by any means the first to condemn the use of suicide bombings, and he is not even the first supposedly genuine Islamic scholar to issue one. The tactic has always been controversial; there have been some scholars who approve of it, but since suicide itself is against Islam and the tactic originated among non-Muslims (the Japanese in World War II followed by the Tamil Tigers), its adoption was never likely to be universally accepted. Specifically, the mainstream Saudi Wahhabi scholars publically condemned it years ago, including a denial that suicide bombers were martyrs, as did a mainstream Sunni scholar called Muhammad Afifi al-Akiti, who is Malaysian but who lives in Oxford. Contrary to Douglas Murray’s accusations that Muslim condemnations of violence always contain caveats and double-talk, none of them make exceptions for, say, Israeli civilians. Dr Akiti’s fatwa specifically states that soldiers on the way back to the army base, for example, are not to be treated as combatants. Shaikh Nuh Keller, in 2003, disapproved of Palestinian suicide bombings on the grounds that suicide was against Islam and that they involve the killing of women and children, and unlike in cases such as those in Lebanon where fighters had killed enemy soldiers along with themselves, the “victories” spoken of in Palestine were only “propaganda victories”.
A further problem is that Tahir ul-Qadri is not by any means a universally accepted figure in the Muslim community, either here or in Pakistan. His authority is not accepted by all Barelvis, which is what is meant by “Sunni” and “Sufi” throughout this article. His fatwa will be accepted by his followers, who are likely never to have supported suicide bombings anyway, and ignored by a whole lot of other people. Having spent time among the Barelvis in east London (Walthamstow to be precise), I can state for sure that he is bitterly opposed by some of the Barelvi imams in that part of London. A Deobandi imam I spoke to in south London several years ago called him “a complete jahil”, meaning an ignorant person, and “an outcast, even for the Barelvis”. Mostyn-Owen claims that he has “the status of a Sheikh-ul-Islam”, but this is not accepted by much of the community and never has been. In the past, only the highest class of scholars had this title, many of them household names centuries later, as well as the official chief scholars of the Ottoman empire. Among the Indo-Pakistani community, there are plenty of imams whose followers give them high-flown titles and extol their phenomenal scholarship, but there is no sign of that scholarship or spirituality flourishing in the parts of London they influence.
Some of Qadri’s comments in this interview reveal his divisive, sectarian nature. Regarding Deobandis, he says:
As Dr ul-Qadri sees it, no terrorists have emerged from a Sunni or Sufi background: instead, they have come from the Salafis (Wahhabis) or Deobandis. The Deobandis are a South Asian variant which is close to the Gulf-orientated Wahhabis.
“Every Salafi and Deobandi is not a terrorist but I have no hesitation in saying that everyone is a well-wisher of terrorists and this has not been appreciated by the Western governments,” he said.
This simply isn’t true. Deobandis are recognised by Sunnis elsewhere in the Muslim world as Sunnis, and scholars from the Gulf who are not Wahhabis have travelled to the Indian subcontinent to study in Deobandi institutions. The similarities between Deobandis and Brelvis, regardless of their very different appearance and style, are much greater than between the Deobandis and the Wahhabis of today, who reject the Deobandis because of their adherence to the Hanafi school of law and various Sufi traditions. The main divide between the Deobandis and Barelvis is a bitter dispute over what some of the early Deobandi imams may or may not have written in their books a century ago which led to the Barelvis’ leader issuing a fatwa saying that the Deobandi scholars concerned were apostates. This is what it is all based on, along with disputes over such matters as whether celebrating the mawlid (birthday) of the Prophet (sall’ Allahu ‘alaihi wa sallam) is acceptable — something the Deobandis, particularly in the UK, have moved towards accepting as more moderate forms of it have become apparent, such as in the Hadrami tradition.
So, that the MQ group in London opposed the Abbey Mills mosque project is nothing surprising; Abbey Mills was a Deobandi project and Barelvis would have wanted it stopped for their own reasons even if they do not normally openly oppose them. The concern about “extremism” is just an excuse. It is not a sign of their commitment to peace, only of their hostility to Deobandis. The claim about Wahhabis being “well-wishers of terrorists” is also a lie. As already stated, the official Saudi scholars have always opposed terrorism, whether in Palestine or anywhere else. They are especially suspicious of groups seeking to wage jihad and ultimately to replace the Saudi regime. From talking to individual Deobandis personally I can state that his claim that they are all well-wishers is false as well. It’s true that many Deobandis supported the Taliban in the 1990s, but I would imagine that some Barelvis did as well. Certainly, they were active in the religious parties which governed Baluchistan and the NWFP under Musharraf. They are not nearly as pacifist as they make out when talking about “peace” to western newspapers.
Douglas Murray is also deluded about the importance and reach of Qadri’s fatwa. He claims that it “has the possibility of being respected by a far wider range of people than any of those individual non-scholarly Muslim voices who have also condemned terrorism without caveat”. Again, they are not all non-scholarly, but Qadri’s reach is to his own followers, and not many others. Many Indian and Pakistani Muslims will simply not take someone seriously as an upright Muslim, let alone a scholar, if their beard is trimmed to less than what they can grab with their fist, and this is the case with Qadri. He also claims that “the most violent interpretations of Islam have indeed trickled down to terrorists via learned scholars”, which is also mostly untrue. The justifications generally come from people with dubious scholarly credentials, are heavily based on skewed interpretations and extrapolations and are rejected by most actual scholars. Even if an individual who gives an extreme ruling, whether permissive or otherwise, is a scholar, Muslims are not allowed to accept it if it is known that most other scholars oppose him, and there are likely to be warnings not to take his word on that issue.
In short, this is a rather insignificant development which shows how ignorant the western press are about the make-up of the Muslim community and about Muslim scholarship. The fatwa will be taken up by people within the Minhaj-ul-Quran organisation and a few fellow-travellers, but most of those outside will have received similar rulings in the past anyway. As for those who do approve of this kind of thing, many of them either despise Dr Qadri and this will come as no surprise to them; others are likely never to have heard of him. It could be that it turns out to be an unusually comprehensive piece of work and may become a standard text on those grounds, but given how extensive Dr Akiti’s existing work on this matter is, I find that unlikely. It is a predictable stance by a sectarian figure, and its impact is likely to be very limited.
Lets see how the Munafiqs address this one…will they begin pouring scorn on Br Yusuf and label him an ‘Islamist’ or will they take a more diplomatic approach…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/mar/02/fatwa-anti-terrorism-minhaj-qadri
Fatwa wars aren’t the solution
Minhaj al-Qur’an’s grand fatwa against terrorism, though well-meaning, does nothing to help progressive Islam
New products, new books, new fashion collections, you name it – the PR events to launch them are two a penny. But one PR event in London this morning was surely the first of its kind: the “launching” of a fatwa against terrorism and suicide bombing.
The fatwa, running to 600 pages, has been written by Muhammad Tahir ul-Qadri, founder and leader of a Muslim sect based in Pakistan, and highlighted in a press release from the Quilliam Foundation, an anti-extremism thinktank which last year received £1m funding from the British government.
Even before its full contents were revealed, the fatwa was getting enthusiastic hype from the media, including two pages of uncritical guff in the London Evening Standard from Allegra Mostyn-Owen (former wife of the London mayor) and Douglas Murray of the Centre for Social Cohesion. But Murray and Mostyn-Owen are not the sort of people who need to be persuaded of its worth, since neither of them is ever likely to contemplate resorting to terrorism. The real question is how potential suicide bombers will react to it – and on that test the newly-launched fatwa is far more likely to sink than float.
Of course, some people might say it’s still worth a try, but there’s an important principle at stake here which Quilliam and others have failed to recognise. Seeking to counter “bad” fatwas with “good” fatwas – well-intentioned as it may be – is a dangerous road to take, because it undermines the work of those who are trying to develop more progressive interpretations of Islam.
This was apparent even in the press release circulated by Quilliam yesterday which described fatwas issued by “Wahhabi-influenced clerics and Islamist ideologues” as “theological innovations”. There are plenty of arguments that can be deployed against Wahhabis and Islamists but accusing them of innovation is, to say the least, unhelpful. In a changing world, Islam – like other religions – ought to be open to innovative ideas. For the sake of a cheap debating point, Quilliam is buying into the logic of the ultra-traditionalists.
The whole idea of waging “fatwa wars” with extremists is not only futile but anti-progressive and further entrenches the authoritarian tendencies in Islam. Issuing fatwas and promoting them, even in a good cause, is damaging because it ends up reinforcing the importance attached to fatwas in general.
Organisations such as Quilliam ought to be encouraging people to take less notice of fatwas, not more. The problem, at least in the way fatwas are often treated today, is that they provide ready-made answers for Muslims to adopt, absolving them of reponsibility for making their own moral choices. In reality, a fatwa is only an individual’s opinion, and on the issue of female circumcision, for example, there’s a full range – from those who say it’s obligatory to those who say it’s forbidden, with many others in between.
If you look hard enough you can find a fatwa for almost any purpose. Indeed, in some countries, if you can’t find one that suits you, you can pay a scholar to issue one. Governments in Muslim countries do it all the time. Regardless of whether they contradict each other, fatwas are invariably presented as giving a definitive, “true” interpretation of scripture. In doing so, they claim a monopoly on rectitute and their effect is to close down debate rather than open it up.
Claims and counter-claims where scholars simply declare an action to be “Islamic” or “un-Islamic” according to taste do not lead to productive discussion of ethical questions. For the most part, whether believers accept or reject the arguments depends on how they regard the person issuing the fatwa. Tahir ul-Qadri’s fatwa is no different in that respect, and already the lines are being drawn.
Quilliam points out that he is “a widely recognised and respected authority on Islamic jurisprudence” and his Sufi sect, Minhaj-ul-Quran, “is a major grassroots organisation with hundreds of thousands of followers in South Asia and the UK”.
This may be true, but others view it differently. By his own admission, Tahir ul-Qadri was a close friend of the late Benazir Bhutto – which immediately puts him beyond the pale as far as Pakistani jihadists are concerned. He may well have “hundreds of thousands” of followers but among an estimated total of more than a billion Muslims around the world that doesn’t make his organisation particularly large or influential. In Britain, it controls only a handful of mosques out of an estimated 1,600 or so.
One blog, written by a British convert to Islam, says: “Tahir ul-Qadri is not by any means a universally accepted figure in the Muslim community, either here or in Pakistan … His fatwa will be accepted by his followers, who are likely never to have supported suicide bombings anyway, and ignored by a whole lot of other people.”
It goes on to suggest that his movement’s influence in Britain has been divisive rather than persuasive. There’s worse – much worse – on the Salafi Talk website, where Tahir ul-Qadri is accused of deviance and promoting idolatry.
These arguments about his Islamic credentials – or his alleged lack of them – will doubtless run and run. But how many will plough through his 600-page fatwa against terrorism, let alone consider its content, is another matter.
Says Brian Whittaker: “The fatwa, running to 600 pages, has been written by Muhammad Tahir ul-Qadri, founder and leader of a Muslim sect based in Pakistan, and highlighted in a press release from the Quilliam Foundation, an anti-extremism thinktank which last year received £1m funding from the British government.”
If receiving funding from the British government is a disqualification, I wonder what Brian Whittaker makes of the fact that the IFE, an offshoot of the East London Mosque and the Muslim Council of Britain, and it’s partner organisations has received £10 million from PVE funds? Maybe Whittaker should re-think that slur or formulate a similar one for the IFE? But we know he would never make a similar pronouncement of the IFE or the MCB or the Jamaat on the pages of CiF, where comment is free but double standards are sacred.
“but features a long article by Allegra Mostyn-Owen, a former wife of Boris Johnson who is now married to a much younger Muslim man who is associated with Qadri’s organisation; a shorter article is by Douglas Murray of the “Centre for Social Cohesion”, a London think-tank notorious for hostility to Muslims and Muslim organisations. “
If hostility to Muslims is a disqualfication, I wonder what Br. Smith makes of the IFE, the East London Mosque and the Muslim Council of Britain, which are all offshoots of Jamaat-e-Islami. Jamaat was involved with the creation of death squads in Bangladesh in 1971, which were involved in the genocide of some 2 million Bengali Muslims and Hindus. Maybe Br. Smith should re-think that slur? I wonder if he has the integrity, or the balls, to deal with that inconvenient truth the next time he plays to the Islamist peanut gallery.
Personally speaking, I think a 600-page fatwa against suicide bombing will do fuck-all to change the feverish mind of a lunatic who is bent on self-immolation. This will have zero impact in AfPak where the large majority of the suicide killings by Muslims of Muslims is currently in full swing.
But that opinion is in no way an endorsement of either Yusuf Smith’s cretinous, half-baked contrarianism or the insipid left-liberal twaddle of Brian Whittaker.
Is this the same Tahir Qadri who on Friday spouted his most secterian poppycrock to date, when he said ‘“Every Salafi and Deobandi is not a terrorist but I have no hesitation in saying that everyone is a well-wisher of terrorists and this has not been appreciated by the Western governments,” he said. Blanket statement of the year award I think and what politically astute time to say it…just before the launch of his fatwa. We don’t need Mr ‘I see the Prophet (pbuh) when I am awake and in my dreams telling me what to do and love music, saint worship, dancing and fabricating hadith’ Qadri to tell us that terrorism and sucide bombing is a dispicable and henious act that controvenes all aspects of the Sharia and humanity. Ahhhh the achillies of Sufism…loved dearly by all those who contend with principled, orthodox and active traditions that run the breadth of Islamic history.
Don’t forget, will you, that sidi Hasan Gai Eaton whom your boy, Dr Abdul Bari of the MCB praised to the skies, on the day he died, and who was so essential to drafting the MCB constitution was a sufi.
“Every Salafi and Deobandi is not a terrorist but I have no hesitation in saying that everyone is a well-wisher of terrorists and this has not been appreciated by the Western governments”
Should be on a plaque outside the offices of the Muslim Council of Britain.
Now, Tahir ul-Qadri has written many books in English. Just by looking at one of them – “Islam – the State Religion” – found online
We find he has said the following:
He claims that “there is a fundamental contrast between an Islamic state and a secular state.” Why? Because “ The authority of a secular state derives from the people themselves. Religion plays no obligatory role in its functioning. But the authority of an Islamic state derives from the Almighty Allah”. He also claims that “Islam is the basis of polity in an Islamic state”, and that the first constitution of Madinah “declared the state of Madinah as a political unit”. He also mentions that the constitution declared the “indivisible composition of the Muslim nation (Ummah) and its total and unquestioning submission to the will of God”.
Furthermore, in a tip to the “dar ul Islam/ dar al-Kufr” split in Islamic political view, he mentions that “In the Holy Quran God Himself has categorically expressed the concept of two-nation theory. There are those people who belong to the Ummah and there are those who are outside it” those who embrace Islam, and those who reject from the other nation”
He also believes in the “Supremacy of Islam over other systems of life” and that “a state is Islamic only when it recognises the constitutional and political predominance of Islam”. With respect to modern constitutions, Tahir ul-Qadri says “since the constitution itself is a document of law, it has to derive its validity from Qur’an and Sunnah”, and modern political rulers have the “religious and moral responsibility to implement the “revealed laws””. In fact – he rejects secular rule stating that “a constitution is a man-made law and by no means it can be declared superior to a God-made law” and that “no authority in the land can suspend enforcement or curtail the implementation of Shariah”
In other words – he is a man who believes in the Sovereignty of God’s law, that Shari’ah equates to State law, that it is a political duty for Muslims to create a political entity that reflects that. In short – there is no doubt that Tahir ul-Qadri sees Islam as a political ideology, whatever Harry’s Place may tell us. Perhaps Tahir ul-Qadri does believe in democracy and human rights, but as is clear from the above his conception of such a State is where the people choose Islam and the rights are defined by Islam. As he mentions in other books, hudood prescriptions are primary/ core issues in the law which must be implemented unless there are societal reasons such as famine or lack of education to do so.
Ed Husain writing in the Guardian has proclaimed Tahir ul Qadri as “the head of a global social movement of mainstream Muslims, a teacher to thousands, and a compassionate Muslim leader who has drawn millions to normative Islam”.
In other words – the ideas mentioned above are all part of normative Islam. Which means, according to the Quilliam Foundation themselves – “Islamism” is part of “normative Islam”.
Which brings us to the point – exactly why are people like Ed Hussain, Douglas Murray and Harry’s Place promoting Tahir ul Qadri? While Douglas Murray and Harry’s Place obviously have no clue about this man, nor any clue that rather than being against “Islamism” as they define and hate it, but rather he is against other “Islamic sects” which he claims are “conservative”, Ed and the Quilliam Foundation surely have no excuse for this underhanded sleight of hand? This is hardly the first fatwa condemning suicide bombings or terrorism, and coming from a man whose political party achieved 0.7% of the vote in 2002 Pakistani elections there is doubt that he is the most popular to have done so either.
Ed claims “Shaikh Tahir is a leader of that caravan of ordinary Muslims, trying to rescue our Islam from the Saudi clerics that issue fatwas of death, and leading the way for announcing fatwas against death”.
Ahhh, so now we get it. This isn’t about “Islamism” at all. Its Quilliam and Minhaj ul Quran politicking to discredit “conservatives” (read” Deobandis” and “Salafi/ Wahabis”) and ingratiate themselves to a political class that has no clue about the inner workings of the wider Muslim community. They are probably also jealous of the work that Andrew Gilligan did on his dispatches program without so much as involving them, and wanted to steal the limelight back.
It all makes sense now. Petty divisiveness and attempts to garner more government money by looking relevant.
Confused?
That’s what 1£ million of taxpayers money gets you.
I have nothing against the sharia compliant perogatives of Tasawuf, indeed self-purification is a noble quest, Sidi Hasan Gai Eaton was a good man, but making him into a saint…asking for his aid now he has passed on…building tombs over his place of rest…nahhhh…not for me
astra MCB ain’t going no where 
Wait a minute..Qadri says that “Islam is the basis of polity in an Islamic state”, and that the first constitution of Madinah “declared the state of Madinah as a political unit”. He also mentions that the constitution declared the “indivisible composition of the Muslim nation (Ummah) and its total and unquestioning submission to the will of God”…I’m get confused by the minute…that makes him an ‘Islamist’ doesn’t it…Effendi…Bannanabrain, Yosarrian, Abu Arab Wannabe…where art thou..your assistance is needed
They have gone all quiet. Wonder why?
There has been a lot of fuss over the fatwa of Tahir ul-Qadri –
released in London today – and after receiving the PR from the
Quilliam Foundation about the issue my interest was doubly aroused,
since this is not the first time this particular fatwa has been
released.
In fact, this fatwa was initially released in Pakistan and Canada,
with translations available in both English and Arabic, in December
2009:
http://www.minhajuk.org/site/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=58&Itemid=1
It was subsequently released in the UK in January:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/faith/article6991483.ece
However, after being available online in English for a while, the
fatwa was taken down within the last week in the run-up to the
“re-launch”, heavily backed by the Quilliam Foundation who sponsored
the speech (http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/03/02/uk-fatwa-terrorism.html).
The reason for this removal could be due to passages such as this:
http://66.102.9.132/search?q=cache:2LuN_5Qvh4UJ:www.minhajbooks.com/en.php?bookid%3D376+tahir+ul+qadri+fatwa&cd=25&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
“Injustice being currently meted out to the Muslims in certain
matters, double standards displayed by bigger powers and their
open-ended and long-term military engagements in a number of
countries, under the pretext of eliminating terror, form some of the
fundamental local, national and international causes that underpin
terrorism, and add a punch to the war cry of militants”
Passages like this undermine the core call of Quilliam, who claim that
it is “Islamists” who set the mood music for terrorism, and grievances
are not a sufficient explanation. Therefore – the fatwa has to be
retranslated, after all – the newly claimed reason for its authorship
by Tahir ul-Qadri is that “he felt compelled to issue the edict
because of concerns about the radicalisation of British Muslims at
university campuses and because there had been a lack of condemnation
of extremism by Muslim clerics and scholars.” Therefore passages such
as the above may prove unsuitable for the Western audience of
politicians etc. This is despite the fact that terrorism has been
condemned time and time again by a multitude of scholars as any google
search will throw up.
Anyhow back to Quilliam, who helpfully define “Islamists” and “Islamism” as:
“The modernist attempt to claim that political sovereignty belongs to
God, that the Shari’ah equates to state law, and that it is a
religious duty on all Muslims to create a political entity that
reflects the above…In short, Islamism is the belief that Islam is a
political ideology.”
http://www.quilliamfoundation.org/faqs.html
Now, Tahir ul-Qadri has written many books in English. Just by looking
at one of them – “Islam – the State Religion” – found on the following
link
http://www.minhajbooks.com/english/control/btext/cid/16/bid/270/btid/1952/read/img/Islam%20-%20The%20State%20Religion-Islam%20-%20The%20State%20Religion.html
We find he has said the following:
He claims that “there is a fundamental contrast between an Islamic
state and a secular state.” Why? Because “ The authority of a secular
state derives from the people themselves. Religion plays no obligatory
role in its functioning. But the authority of an Islamic state derives
from the Almighty Allah”. He also claims that “Islam is the basis of
polity in an Islamic state”, and that the first constitution of
Madinah “declared the state of Madinah as a political unit”. He also
mentions that the constitution declared the “indivisible composition
of the Muslim nation (Ummah) and its total and unquestioning
submission to the will of God”.
Furthermore, in a tip to the “dar ul Islam/ dar al-Kufr” split in
Islamic political view, he mentions that “In the Holy Quran God
Himself has categorically expressed the concept of two-nation theory.
There are those people who belong to the Ummah and there are those who
are outside it” those who embrace Islam, and those who reject from the
other nation”
He also believes in the “Supremacy of Islam over other systems of
life” and that “a state is Islamic only when it recognises the
constitutional and political predominance of Islam”.
With respect to modern constitutions, Tahir ul-Qadri says “since the
constitution itself is a document of law, it has to derive its
validity from Qur’an and Sunnah”, and modern political rulers have the
“religious and moral responsibility to implement the “revealed laws””.
In fact – he rejects secular rule stating that “a constitution is a
man-made law and by no means it can be declared superior to a God-made
law” and that “no authority in the land can suspend enforcement or
curtail the implementation of Shariah”
In other words – he is a man who believes in the Sovereignty of God’s
law, that Shari’ah equates to State law, that it is a political duty
for Muslims to create a political entity that reflects that. In short
– there is no doubt that Tahir ul-Qadri sees Islam as a political
ideology, whatever Harry’s Place may tell us. Perhaps Tahir ul-Qadri
does believe in democracy and human rights, but as is clear from the
above his conception of such a State is where the people choose Islam
and the rights are defined by Islam. As he mentions in other books,
hudood prescriptions are primary/ core issues in the law which must be
implemented unless there are societal reasons such as famine or lack
of education to do so.
Ed Hussain has proclaimed Tahir ul Qadri as “the head of a global
social movement of mainstream Muslims, a teacher to thousands, and a
compassionate Muslim leader who has drawn millions to normative
Islam”. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2010/feb/26/fatwa-salman-rushdie-terrorism/print)
In other words – the ideas mentioned above are all part of normative
Islam. Which means, according to the Quilliam Foundation themselves –
“Islamism” is part of “normative Islam”.
Which brings us to the point – exactly why are people like Ed Hussain,
Douglas Murray and Harry’s Place
(http://www.hurryupharry.org/2010/03/02/tahir-ul-qadri-and-his-fatwa-on-terrorism-and-islamist-extremism/)
promoting Tahir ul Qadri? While Douglas Murray and Harry’s Place
obviously have no clue about this man, nor any clue that rather than
being against “Islamism” as they define and hate it, but rather he is
against other “Islamic sects” which he claims are “conservative”, Ed
and the Quilliam Foundation surely have no excuse for this underhanded
sleight of hand? This is hardly the first fatwa condemning suicide
bombings or terrorism, and coming from a man whose political party
achieved 0.7% of the vote in 2002 Pakistani elections there is doubt
that he is the most popular to have done so either.
Ed claims “Shaikh Tahir is a leader of that caravan of ordinary
Muslims, trying to rescue our Islam from the Saudi clerics that issue
fatwas of death, and leading the way for announcing fatwas against
death”.
Ahhh, so now we get it. This isn’t about “Islamism” at all. Its
Quilliam and Minhaj ul Quran politicking to discredit “conservatives”
(read” Deobandis” and “Salafi/ Wahabis”) and ingratiate themselves to
a political class that has no clue about the inner workings of the
wider Muslim community. They are probably also jealous of the work
that Andrew Gilligan did on his dispatches program (which basically
told us that Muslims are working within the political
system…creeeeepy) without so much as involving them, and wanted to
steal the limelight back.
It all makes sense now.
Confused?
That’s what 1£ million of taxpayers money gets you.
That’s what 1£ million of taxpayers money gets you.
And what does a £1 billion yearly budget and £10 million of taxpayers money in PVE grants get you?
Answer: Near complete Jamaat control of Tower Hamlets council.
Oh it seems the Islamists are really upset about suicide bombing beings against Islam. How predictable and pathetic.
Interesting points, ‘Joke’, but it remains that ut Qadri is not calling for nihilistic violence to achieve this ends… instead theological debate and, if that fails, for the faithful to withdraw from a sinful world.
Given that he’s highly unlikely to achieve his ends by these means, I think he can be tolerated. People should be free to be as socially conservative as they please, as long as they don’t impinge on others.
He’s a holy fool, like those idiots in the Socialist Party of Great Britain.
By looking at all of your comments I think I will side by Shiekh ul Islam i.e Dr Muhammad Tahir ul Qadri There is no doubt hhe is doing something good. Whether it will or whether it wont its all up to ALLAH but my advice to you all is be patient. Reminding you The Fatwa is not for tose wo are already been brain washed.
Tankyou
mayre tarf say salam I LOVE U TAHER UL QADRI