The condemnation apparently “signed” by 90 scholars originating from the Indo-Pak subcontinent presented eight objections. The below is a refutation of the decontextualised and inadequate points raised as allegations:
1. The first argument is on the consensus of the Muslim scholars that blood money (diya) value is half that for a woman then is of a man. Dr Tahir ul Qadri successfully argued in a Pakistani court of law, which requires a considerable burden of proof, that there should be equality in the value of blood money. To this effect I would like to state that there is no definitive text in the Qur’an and Hadith to state the value of blood money, and is thus open to interpretation. Consequently it is permissible for a jurist like Dr Tahir ul Qadri to opine on this matter.
2. The second argument presented by critics is that Dr Qadri stated in one of his works that sectarianism is not a fundamental belief. This argument is a non-brainer. Islam has not made sectarianism a core belief like the five pillars or the articles of faith (belief in angels, books, Prophethood, Judgment Day, and Divine Destiny). Although Islam has acknowledging sectarianism as a reality of life, it has in fact discouraged it. It appears however that some Indo-Pak scholars are trying to portray sectarianism which the Holy Prophet made us aware of, as a core belief and attitude. By doing so they position themselves as the ‘saviours’ of true beliefs. It is thus no surprise they would condemn anybody who threatens their position.
3. The third criticism presented is to do with the Wembley Conference in 2011 which was attended by 12,000 people. In this conference, Dr Tahir ul Qadri was explaining the meaning of the word ‘Allah’ to Christian, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist faith representatives. In essence he stated that Allah is the Arabic word for the divine, just as Christians refer to the divine as God and Father; Hindus refer to divine as Brahma, Om and Krishna; Buddhists make reference to Buddha. Critics were quick to misconstrue this and make accusations of disbelief. Nevertheless a major concern for those scholars ascribe to this accusation is that the pagan Arabs, prior to the advent of Islam, believed that the idols were daughters of Allah (Quran 53:19-21). It is clear that Islam did not introduce the word Allah and this was in fact a word used by idolaters in the pre-Islamic era.
4. Whilst speaking at a university to a non-Muslim majority audience, he explained that the Qur’an differentiates between the monotheistic religions and polytheistic religions. He elaborated that monotheistic religions of Christianity and Judaism described in the Qur’an as Ahl al-Kitab, and Islam, are termed as believers in the oneness of God. Thus the laws in relation to their zabiha and marriage with their women differ even if they err in their concept of tawhid. On the other hand the polytheists are termed as Mushrikeen. Critics misconstrued this point and absurdly claimed that he used “believers” in the context of Mu’min, a term that is used for practicing Muslims.
5. Dr Qadri invited Christians to visit the mosque and they prayed according to their own beliefs. The critics state the Christians of today are polytheist whereas they were monotheist at the time of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). This is wholly incorrect. The Christians of Najran who came to visit the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) came to debate him on the matter of divinity (Quran 3:61-64) for this is the main point of contention between Islam and Christianity. During the discussion, the Christians of Najran stayed in the Prophets mosque and were also permitted to pray therein. Had the latter been prohibited then the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) could have arranged for them to pray outside of his mosque.
6. The sixth criticism is to do with the sharia perspective of celebrating the birth of Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him). It is permissible to celebrate this occasion which is otherwise known as Christmas in the Anglo-Christian culture. If Islam permits us to celebrate the days of prophets, the companions, awliya Allah, the shuhada; then why should we shy away from celebrating Prophet Jesus’ birthday when we have our own convictions and beliefs in relation to him? This matter has been misconstrued as an imitation of Christians, when in fact the Qur’an has gone into a lot of detail on his miraculous birth, which alone is sufficient for us to celebrate it. If we were to celebrate Christmas with Christians, whilst upholding our own religious parameters and convictions, then it is not a problem in sharia nor is there any such prohibition. If certain people find this distasteful this is not a ground upon which to declare somebody misguided, as it would require a sound juristic reasoning to do so. A detailed analysis on this matter is presented here http://islamoncampus.blogspot.com/2018/12/can-muslims-celebrate-christmas.html
7. The seventh accusation against Dr Qadri is that he denied the overall superiority of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (ra) over Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra). The point he makes in his book The Ghadir Declaration is that Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra) was given vicegerency in spirituality when the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) gave him the title of 'Maula'. The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) stated “I am the house of wisdom and Ali is its door” (Tirmidhi 49:4089). Almost all Sufi orders trace back to Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra). He did not downplay the status of Abu Bakr al-Siddīq (ra). Nevertheless, each companion has own strengths and superiorities. Who is more superior is not something which is explicitly mentioned in the Qur’an and Hadith, and so it is open to interpretation. It is an abomination that some Muslims are pitching companions of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) against each other as if it is some sort of competition. The matter is exaggerated and to call somebody misguided over it is reprehensible.
8. The final allegation is that Dr Qadri criticised Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan (ra). This is a falsification of facts and dishonesty. Dr Qadri had simply stated the Sunni position on the matter which is to maintain silence on him. Historically, Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan (ra) opposed the Rightly Guided Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra) and set up his own Ummayad empire. This formed the first political division of the ummah. It was stated by the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) that ‘Ammar will be killed by a rebellious group’ (Sahih Bukhari 2812/56:28) Ammar (ra) was on the side of Ali ibn Abi Talib and was killed by the forces of Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan (ra) during the battle of Siffeen. Nevertheless it is not permitted to criticise any companion of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), that which Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan (ra) was, and thus the orthodox Sunni position is to neither to sing his praises nor to criticise him.
To conclude I would like to state that Dr Qadri has numerous ijazahs and has learned from luminaries of his time. He is an expert on every area of Islamic subjects and has some 550 published works to his name and delivered countless lectures. His influence spans from east to west. He has thus been given the title of ‘Shaykh-ul-Islam’ from his contemporaries. If one was to compile a list of scholars who support him it would outweigh those who supported the condemnation. Time and time again we see throughout history those individuals who criticised great scholastic giants of their era but could not produce an iota themselves are remembered as nothing in the books of history except as an embarrassment for Islam. It is those who truly serve the ummah, as Dr Qadri does, who’s contributions are adhered to for years to come.
1. The first argument is on the consensus of the Muslim scholars that blood money (diya) value is half that for a woman then is of a man. Dr Tahir ul Qadri successfully argued in a Pakistani court of law, which requires a considerable burden of proof, that there should be equality in the value of blood money. To this effect I would like to state that there is no definitive text in the Qur’an and Hadith to state the value of blood money, and is thus open to interpretation. Consequently it is permissible for a jurist like Dr Tahir ul Qadri to opine on this matter.
2. The second argument presented by critics is that Dr Qadri stated in one of his works that sectarianism is not a fundamental belief. This argument is a non-brainer. Islam has not made sectarianism a core belief like the five pillars or the articles of faith (belief in angels, books, Prophethood, Judgment Day, and Divine Destiny). Although Islam has acknowledging sectarianism as a reality of life, it has in fact discouraged it. It appears however that some Indo-Pak scholars are trying to portray sectarianism which the Holy Prophet made us aware of, as a core belief and attitude. By doing so they position themselves as the ‘saviours’ of true beliefs. It is thus no surprise they would condemn anybody who threatens their position.
3. The third criticism presented is to do with the Wembley Conference in 2011 which was attended by 12,000 people. In this conference, Dr Tahir ul Qadri was explaining the meaning of the word ‘Allah’ to Christian, Jewish, Hindu and Buddhist faith representatives. In essence he stated that Allah is the Arabic word for the divine, just as Christians refer to the divine as God and Father; Hindus refer to divine as Brahma, Om and Krishna; Buddhists make reference to Buddha. Critics were quick to misconstrue this and make accusations of disbelief. Nevertheless a major concern for those scholars ascribe to this accusation is that the pagan Arabs, prior to the advent of Islam, believed that the idols were daughters of Allah (Quran 53:19-21). It is clear that Islam did not introduce the word Allah and this was in fact a word used by idolaters in the pre-Islamic era.
4. Whilst speaking at a university to a non-Muslim majority audience, he explained that the Qur’an differentiates between the monotheistic religions and polytheistic religions. He elaborated that monotheistic religions of Christianity and Judaism described in the Qur’an as Ahl al-Kitab, and Islam, are termed as believers in the oneness of God. Thus the laws in relation to their zabiha and marriage with their women differ even if they err in their concept of tawhid. On the other hand the polytheists are termed as Mushrikeen. Critics misconstrued this point and absurdly claimed that he used “believers” in the context of Mu’min, a term that is used for practicing Muslims.
5. Dr Qadri invited Christians to visit the mosque and they prayed according to their own beliefs. The critics state the Christians of today are polytheist whereas they were monotheist at the time of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him). This is wholly incorrect. The Christians of Najran who came to visit the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) came to debate him on the matter of divinity (Quran 3:61-64) for this is the main point of contention between Islam and Christianity. During the discussion, the Christians of Najran stayed in the Prophets mosque and were also permitted to pray therein. Had the latter been prohibited then the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) could have arranged for them to pray outside of his mosque.
6. The sixth criticism is to do with the sharia perspective of celebrating the birth of Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him). It is permissible to celebrate this occasion which is otherwise known as Christmas in the Anglo-Christian culture. If Islam permits us to celebrate the days of prophets, the companions, awliya Allah, the shuhada; then why should we shy away from celebrating Prophet Jesus’ birthday when we have our own convictions and beliefs in relation to him? This matter has been misconstrued as an imitation of Christians, when in fact the Qur’an has gone into a lot of detail on his miraculous birth, which alone is sufficient for us to celebrate it. If we were to celebrate Christmas with Christians, whilst upholding our own religious parameters and convictions, then it is not a problem in sharia nor is there any such prohibition. If certain people find this distasteful this is not a ground upon which to declare somebody misguided, as it would require a sound juristic reasoning to do so. A detailed analysis on this matter is presented here http://islamoncampus.blogspot.com/2018/12/can-muslims-celebrate-christmas.html
7. The seventh accusation against Dr Qadri is that he denied the overall superiority of Abu Bakr al-Siddiq (ra) over Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra). The point he makes in his book The Ghadir Declaration is that Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra) was given vicegerency in spirituality when the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) gave him the title of 'Maula'. The Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) stated “I am the house of wisdom and Ali is its door” (Tirmidhi 49:4089). Almost all Sufi orders trace back to Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra). He did not downplay the status of Abu Bakr al-Siddīq (ra). Nevertheless, each companion has own strengths and superiorities. Who is more superior is not something which is explicitly mentioned in the Qur’an and Hadith, and so it is open to interpretation. It is an abomination that some Muslims are pitching companions of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) against each other as if it is some sort of competition. The matter is exaggerated and to call somebody misguided over it is reprehensible.
8. The final allegation is that Dr Qadri criticised Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan (ra). This is a falsification of facts and dishonesty. Dr Qadri had simply stated the Sunni position on the matter which is to maintain silence on him. Historically, Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan (ra) opposed the Rightly Guided Caliph Ali ibn Abi Talib (ra) and set up his own Ummayad empire. This formed the first political division of the ummah. It was stated by the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him) that ‘Ammar will be killed by a rebellious group’ (Sahih Bukhari 2812/56:28) Ammar (ra) was on the side of Ali ibn Abi Talib and was killed by the forces of Muawiyah ibn Abi Sufyan (ra) during the battle of Siffeen. Nevertheless it is not permitted to criticise any companion of the Holy Prophet (peace be upon him), that which Muawiya ibn Abi Sufyan (ra) was, and thus the orthodox Sunni position is to neither to sing his praises nor to criticise him.
To conclude I would like to state that Dr Qadri has numerous ijazahs and has learned from luminaries of his time. He is an expert on every area of Islamic subjects and has some 550 published works to his name and delivered countless lectures. His influence spans from east to west. He has thus been given the title of ‘Shaykh-ul-Islam’ from his contemporaries. If one was to compile a list of scholars who support him it would outweigh those who supported the condemnation. Time and time again we see throughout history those individuals who criticised great scholastic giants of their era but could not produce an iota themselves are remembered as nothing in the books of history except as an embarrassment for Islam. It is those who truly serve the ummah, as Dr Qadri does, who’s contributions are adhered to for years to come.
Comments
Post a Comment