A Rejoinder to: Fiqh for Minorities - A Source Methodology and Framework Approach Part 1
Fiqh for Minorities: A Source Methodology and
Framework Approach by Mufti Muḥammad Haffejee was presented at the Southern African
Ulama Conference, Eswatini [30 September 2022 – 2 October 2022].
This paper, ostensibly promotes the concept of Fiqh
for Minorities (Fiqh Al-Aqalliyāt) as not something novel, but sourced in the
Noble Qur’ān. Naturally, such a claim must satisfy the curiosity that
subsequently arises. This brings us to the first question that this rejoinder
poses.
What is the need for such an endeavor?
As matters stand, there has been nothing of substance
in the paper presented that answers this question. From this, it can be safely
said that this is a project or endeavor to slip in the new and do away with the
old, i.e., acceptance and embrace of Modernism accompanied by dismissal and
dissolution of Traditionalism. Such endeavors have been attempted by other
religions in the past, leading to destruction of the entire building of the religion.
Examples of people who attempted this are Moses Mendelssohn (Judaism), Abraham
Geiger (Judaism), William Wilberforce (Christianity), Ram Mohan Roy (Hinduism),
Anagarika Dharmapala (Buddhism).
When a paper like Fiqh for Minorities is presented for
consideration and implementation, it reminds us of the blessed ḥadīth of
Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam, wherein he says,
You would tread the same path as was trodden by those before you inch by inch and step by step so much so that if they had entered into the hole of the lizard, you would follow them in this also. We said: Allah's Messenger, do you mean Jews and Christians (by your words)" those before you"? He said: Who else (than those two religious groups)?[1]
The paper states in the first paragraph ‘any discussion on Fiqh al-Aqalliyāt (Fiqh for Minorities) has the potential of being emotively charged in nature, even giving rise to extreme behaviour such as complete sidestepping of the Sharī’ah on the one hand, and possibly intimidation or even violence on the other.’ This pre-empts the nature of any response given to it. It has already made the preposterous claim that the response would be of an emotional nature. Islām is the greatest bounty any human being could be blessed with. Hence, an attempt to reform it, deform it, or modernize it will definitely be met with varied responses. ‘Even giving rise to extreme behaviour’ tells the reader that those who respond could be doing so as an act of extreme behaviour. This is, in essence, laying an accusation upon anyone responding as ‘radical’. ‘Such as complete sidestepping’ reveals the true nature of the objective of the paper, as the implementation and practice of Fiqh for Minorities is aimed at sidestepping the Sharī’ah.
With this being said, we politely ask, where has the tolerance gone? Where has accommodation for other views gone? Where has Adab-ul-ikhtilāf gone?
The paper further describes the categories of people
who are likely to read and respond to the ideas presented. It covers the ‘idealist’, who are in fact, the true scholars (‘Ulamā’),
who have been entrusted with the protection and propagation of Islām in its
pristine purity.
The aim of the subject is the ‘rational mind’,
encouraging all and sundry to gauge reality in the light of rationality, tying
in with I’tizāl[2].
This brings us to a critical juncture: the paper
really states that those who want to consider and implement Fiqh al-Aqalliyāt
are rational, whilst those who respond and refuse to adopt it, are irrational.
The inclusivity of Maqāṣid al-Sharī’ah must be dealt
with in terms of the context it was introduced into the Ummah by Muḥammad Ṭāhir
ibn Ashūr. The Maqāṣid al-Sharī’ah were covered by scholars like Shāṭbī raḥimahullāh,
but were later edited by Muḥammad Ṭāhir ibn Ashur, after his interaction with
Muḥammad ‘Abduh.[3]
The major difference between seeking out the Maqāṣid by Shāṭbī raḥimahullāh and
Muḥammad Ṭāhir ibn Ashūr is that the former used the Noble Qur’ān and blessed
Sunnah as the source for his conclusions, whilst the latter began with a
foregone conclusion and then sought out random texts to support his view.
The basic question regarding the Maqāṣid is that who
stipulates the Maqāṣid? If stipulation of the Maqāṣid and its finer details are
left to the common person, the human mind will find it extremely difficult,
near impossible, to determine what carries benefit and what entails harm.
The core argument in response to the paper of Mufti Muḥammad
Haffejee is that in the simplest of terms, a Fiqh for Minorities Framework is,
for all practical purposes, a framework to dissolve Islām entirely, under the
guise of adapting to the time and responding to issues where there is no clear
text. Modernists and Liberals achieve this by giving Classical Fiqh a new framework,
with new terms like Al-Fiqh Al-Iftirādī etc. Once the traditional or classical
Fiqh framework is done away with, and replaced with a new one, based on modern ideas,
with new terminology, a Muslim will be gob smacked and happily consent to
everything un-Islāmic, because of the ‘Islāmic’ terminology employed.
The source for Fiqh al-Aqalliyāt given in the paper
are verses 7 and 8 of Sūrah al-Mumtaḥinah. Whilst Muslims, or those who respond
to Fiqh for Minorities, are given the impression in the paper that they are
radical, extreme, and combative by default and do not engage with other faiths
based on justice. This smacks of adoration for mainstream media messages about
Muslims in general.
‘Advocates of a Fiqh for Minorities trace
the origins of this sub-discipline of Fiqh back to the time of Yūsuf ‘alayhi
as-salām…’ This claim is made on the premise that the Sharī’ah of
Sayyidunā Yūsuf ‘alayhi as-salām is valid for Muslims today to follow. This is a
hollow and baseless premise because the Sharī’ah of the final Messenger,
Sayyidunā Muḥammad Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam has abrogated every
previous Sharī’ah. Even if the example of Sayyidunā Yūsuf ‘alayhi as-salām is
to be taken, then it must be carried out within the parameters of Islāmic
tradition and the Sharī’ah of Sayyidunā Muḥammad Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi
wa sallam. By promoting the example of Sayyidunā Yūsuf ‘alayhi as-salām, the
writer, knowingly or unknowingly, slanders a great Messenger of Allāh Ta’ālā.
Sayyidunā Yūsuf ‘alayhi as-salām cannot be used an example of ‘Muslim participation in commercial institutions such as
banks, insurance houses, and asset managers.’
‘Muslim minorities are required to actively
invite and display the beauty of Islām to their constituency…’ The message conveyed here is to Muslims to preach to their own, in
their own circles, as long as they embrace what is fed to them, without
question. The emphasis upon minorities is cause for alarm, because it
tells Muslims that they should be happy with their minority status, and must
not feel threatened or questioned when pushed into a box that is ever becoming
smaller. The continued usage of the word minorities, even when speaking about
Muslim countries dismisses any thought of allowing Islām to reign supreme. This
is in direct conflict with the Noble Qur’ān,
It
is He who sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth to
manifest it over all religion, although those who associate others with Allāh
dislike it.[1]
‘Identify common interests with fellow
compatriots and display the beauty of Islām.’ The
beauty of Islām, as Mufti Muḥammad Haffejee seems to have overlooked, is that
it is displayed practically, when in line with tradition, and not according to
what the common Muslim feels is rational, or, when in line with Liberalism. This
statement also calls for interfaith engagement, under the premise that
interfaith is accepted as a genuine and true idea that must be given
ground amongst Muslims. The classical scholars have provided ample guidance
with regards to dealing with adherents of other faiths. A shift from this is
also vividly seen from the advocates of Fiqh for Minorities.
‘Then at least try to present an
alternative…’ What alternative to what scenario? The paper gives us
just one example of the Ṣaḥābah raḍiyallāhu ‘anhum being presented in the court
of the King. What about the countless aspects of the daily life of a Muslim?
Just as there are pillars and fundamentals of Islām, grounded in the Noble
Qur’ān and blessed Sunnah that cannot be changed, in the same way, the daily
practices of a Muslim can never be changed. In fact, a Muslim should be asking
everyone else, ‘How does Ṣalāh threaten you?’ ‘How does the Sunnah dress offend
you?’ Just as Muslims are tolerant and respectable in public spaces,
non-Muslims should also be called on to respect and tolerate Muslim practices. The
writer should, in his capacity, as a scholar, provide suggestions and methods
of preserving, and conveying the true message of Islām with examples for
practical implementation.
‘Verdicts which serve as a temporary coping
mechanism…’ This calls on scholars to issue verdicts based on the
new framework given to them, based on the new terms coined. In effect, it tells
us that from time to time, more temporary verdicts will be issued, so as to
render the traditional Fiqh structure of Islām totally useless. The foundation
of this argument is to basically change the framework whenever it suits a
person. Once the framework is changed, the verdicts will be issued accordingly,
so as to accommodate for Modernism and Liberalism more and more, with each
passing day and each passing circumstance.
It would be highly appreciated if the advocates for
Fiqh for Minorities can present successful case studies of its application,
where Islām was preserved in its pristine purity.
One of the striking features of the paper are the
reference points and sources for the ideas being conveyed. One of them, ibn
Bayyah, stands out very peculiarly. Ibn Bayyah has been a pioneering figure of
the Abrahamic Accords, over the last few years. Under the pretext of an
Alliance of Virtue - a deformed application of the Ḥilf-ul-Fuḍūl - the Muslim
Ummah has had to deal with an increasing pressure to give in, submit, and agree
to modernizing Islām, without any benefit whatsoever.
https://www.allianceofvirtues.com/english/docs/The_New_Alliance_of_Virtue_Booklet.pdf
Without delving into finer details, the following
information about this scholar (ibn Bayyah) can be studied:
https://www.rfp.org/leadership_member/shaykh-abdallah-bin-bayyah-3/
https://www.trtworld.com/opinion/the-doublespeak-of-hamza-yusuf-and-abdullah-bin-bayyah-22483
https://www.jpost.com/international/article-710861
https://www.middleeasteye.net/news/uae-israel-muslim-scholar-hamza-yusuf
In summary, the objective of the paper ‘Fiqh for
Minorities’ seems to be an unfortunate case of a scholar, or, body, trying to
make Modernism and anti-Islām ideologies palatable to a Muslim public who trust
the guise or disguise with which they are being pummeled into oblivion.
Rasūlullāh ṣallallāhu ‘alayhi wa sallam said,
"Be prompt in doing good deeds (before you are overtaken) by turbulence
which would be like a part of the dark night. A man would be a believer in the
morning and turn to disbelief in the evening, or he would be a believer in the
evening and turn disbeliever in the morning, and would sell his Faith for
worldly goods."[2]
We hope in the mercy of Allāh Ta’ālā for acceptance
and protection from every form of harm or loss.
[1] Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim, reported by Sayyidunā Abū
Sa’īd Khudrī raḍiyallāhu ‘anhu
