Global Intifada

Some time has passed since the Amman Message was issued and many people signed off on it, praising it as a means to eradicate extremism and sectarianism within the global Muslim community. The fatwa was promoted by senior level scholars primarily from Egypt, the Levant, and Yemen. However, there was some confusion as to whether Deobandi ‘Ulema were signatories. Specifically, Mufti Taqi Usmani contested that he had signed such an agreement.

He wrote:

Muhtaram,

Assalamu alaikum,

Thank you for your email. I am not a signatory of the Amman message sent by you(1). Instead, Prince Ghazi had sent to me a question that I answered in detail. The text of my answer was then published by them in a book which has my Fatwa as separate from Amman Message. Later I found that my fatwa is also available on the same site under the heading of “Fatwa of Ulama” .

Wassalam

Muhammad Taqi Usmani

(Source)

The second version of the declaration included the fatwa that Mufti Taqi Usmani referenced, but interestingly enough, was not actually translated into English unlike the rest of the document. This would create the misleading inference that Mufti Taqi Usmani unconditionally signed the document. However, there are several problems with the apologetics that attempt to justify the strange events surrounding Mufti Taqi Usmani’s signature. For one thing, a basic reading of the message itself conflicts with the view of the Deobandi school. Most problematic is the impression that not only are these eight “madhaib” valid, they are, in some ways, interchangeable:

(1) Whosoever is an adherent to one of the four Sunni schools (Mathahib) of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i and Hanbali), the two Shi’i schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Ja`fari and Zaydi), the Ibadi school of Islamic jurisprudence and the Thahiri school of Islamic jurisprudence, is a Muslim. Declaring that person an apostate is impossible and impermissible. Verily his (or her) blood, honour, and property are inviolable. Moreover, in accordance with the Shaykh Al-Azhar’s fatwa, it is neither possible nor permissible to declare whosoever subscribes to the Ash`ari creed or whoever practices real Tasawwuf (Sufism) an apostate. Likewise, it is neither possible nor permissible to declare whosoever subscribes to true Salafi thought an apostate.
Equally, it is neither possible nor permissible to declare as apostates any group of Muslims who believes in God, Glorified and Exalted be He, and His Messenger (may peace and blessings be upon him) and the pillars of faith, and acknowledges the five pillars of Islam, and does not deny any necessarily self-evident tenet of religion.

(2) There exists more in common between the various schools of Islamic jurisprudence than there is difference between them. The adherents to the eight schools of Islamic jurisprudence are in agreement as regards the basic principles of Islam. All believe in Allah (God), Glorified and Exalted be He, the One and the Unique; that the Noble Qur’an is the Revealed Word of God; and that our master Muhammad, may blessings and peace be upon him, is a Prophet and Messenger unto all mankind. All are in agreement about the five pillars of Islam: the two testaments of faith (shahadatayn); the ritual prayer (salat); almsgiving (zakat); fasting the month of Ramadan (sawm), and the Hajj to the sacred house of God (in Mecca). All are also in agreement about the foundations of belief: belief in Allah (God), His angels, His scriptures, His messengers, and in the Day of Judgment, in Divine Providence in good and in evil. Disagreements between the ‘ulama (scholars) of the eight schools of Islamic jurisprudence are only with respect to the ancillary branches of religion (furu`) and not as regards the principles and fundamentals (usul) [of the religion of Islam]. Disagreement with respect to the ancillary branches of religion (furu`) is a mercy. Long ago it was said that variance in opinion among the ‘ulama (scholars) “is a good affair”.

The opinion that Mufti Taqi Usmani agrees with the essence of the Amman Message insofar as it it does not outlaw takfeer simply does not comport with the literal meaning of the message. Clause one specifically states that Ithna Asheris, Zaydis, and even Dhahiris are considered to be Muslim and clause two makes takfeer of them not only impermissible but impossible. The plain language of the second clause excludes the interpretation that takfeer is still “permissible.” The position advanced that Mufti Taqi Usmani’s fatwa and the Amman Message is still reconcilable is simply not a tenable interpretation of either document.

Moreover, this is simply not the aqeedah of the majority of the ‘Ulema at Deoband. A fatwa from Darul Uloom Deobandis Dar ul Ifta clearly states that Ithna Asharis and Imami Shias are not Muslim. A detailed explanation for lay people as to why Shias are not Muslim was written by Maulana Ludhianvi, a Deobandi scholar, in his work “Differences in the Ummat.” Thus, it is no surprise that Mufti Taqi Usmani may have had qualms about signing off on the document without the fatwa attached as an addendum. From what I have learned from Deobandi ‘Ulema in America, one of whom studied under Mufti Taqi Usmani himself, is that not only are Ithna Asheris generally not considered to be Muslim, but the same can be said of even Dhahiris. Of course, the students in the study circle were surprised at this, but our teacher went on to explain the reasons why they were not considered to be Muslim. He said “How can anyone who rejects Qiyas be Muslim?” If Deobandis believe that both Ithan Asheris and Dhahiris are not Muslim, then obviously, the first clause of the Amman Message is simply impossible to be reconciled with the Deobnadi position. One cannot endorse such a theological paradox. Either one views a particular group to be entirely Muslim, or they view that group generally to be Muslim but permits particularized takfeer on a case by case basis, or one simply does takfeer of the entire group. Deobandis tend towards engaging in takfeer of the entire group, as evidenced by the sources listed above.

Now, the purpose of this post is not to defend either position as right or wrong nor to claim that Shias are Muslim or not Muslim, but rather, to delve further into this issue to see if there really is any substance to the message. Is the Amman Message a unanimously agreed upon theological assertion or is it merely the typical unity rhetoric that comes out ever so often from our leadership.

In general, here are some unanswered questions regarding the Amman Message:

1. First, how can Shi’ism itself be considered a “school” when the manner in which its jurisprudence is conducted is through radically different structures and institutions than Ahl us Sunnah? For example, the modus operandi for taqleed in Shi’ism is not a madhab at all, but a Marja e Taqleed. A basic supposition of Shi’a fiqh is that a lay person is not allowed to engage in taqleed of a dead Marja. In other words, one is only allowed to engage in taqleed of a living jurist. Once a jurist passes away, the lay person must either choose another one to follow or follow the previous jurist’s rulings until it is no longer feasible to do so. The madhab, in contrast, is a legal guild that one adheres to even after its founders and jurists pass on so long as one attains this knowledge through proper sources of continuous transmission. . By their very definitions, a madhab and a marja are distinct entities. Given the process of taqleed in Shi’ism, it is impossible to consolidate all of the different ijtehads of various Marjas into a single codified legal methodology, let alone resemble a legal institution engaging in self-correction such that it resembles a madhab. It is not only theoretically impossible for Ithna Asherism to produce a madhab since it conflicts with an essential theological tenet of their faith (that one does not engage in taqleed of other than Imam, unless it is of a living jurist) but also practically impossible since one cannot develop a common usul between all of the various Marja e Taqleeds. More importantly, no Shi’a scholar has ever been able to do so, in spite of several assertions of being the “Jafari Madhab.”  If even Shi’a fuqaha do not treat their legal system as one of a “madhab” nor have they been able to show that their methodology for lay people to take fatawa is to an institution that resembles a madhab, then it cannot be recognized as a “madhab.” Shi’ism is more closer to the manner in which the Sahabah (radhi allahu anhum) engaged in taqleed prior to the specialization and consolidation of the Islamic sciences.

2. Secondly, even if one were to presume that Ithna Asherism is a “madhab.” There is the problem of whether it can be properly ascribed to Imam Jafar as-Sadiq. This position has been emphatically rejected by the overwhelming majority of the ‘Ulema of Ahl us Sunnah wa’al Jam’ah. When Mufti Rafi Usmani visited the U.S., he was asked a question regarding the fiqh of Shi’as being attributed to Imam Jafar as-Sadiq and he responded “Produce an ijazeh.” In other words, he rejected the claim that Shi’as could faithfully attribute their fiqh through reliable sources of transmission that extend all the way back to Imam Jafar as-Sadiq. A detailed explanation of this issue has been addressed here.

3. Thirdly, even if we were presume that such a madhab existed, irrespective if it can be attributed to Imam Jafar as-Sadiq, the differences of opinion that the Amman Message portrays as being furu’ are, in reality, those of usul. The differences over the doctrine of infallible Imams and the criticisms of the Sahabah (radhi allahu anhum) are core issues, not peripheral ones, in legal interpretation. The sayings of the Imams are used by Shias to justify interpretations of the Qur’an beyond the literal import of the plain Arabic meaning. The criticism of the Sahabah (radhi allahu anhum) are used to deconstruct the Sunnah. These views regarding the interpretation of the Qur’an and Sunnah are about usul al fiqh and not about furu.

4. Fourth, in addition to these problems, there is the problem of takfeer. While it may be true that most Shi’a scholars do not view the Qur’an to be incomplete, it seems that they do not do takfeer of those who believe it to be incomplete. There are various Shi’a polemics that justify their lack of takfeer for those who do not believe in the incompleteness of the Qur’an. This raises the question: if Shi’as believe that the Qur’an is complete, then why don’t they do takfeer of those who believe that the Qur’an is incomplete? The question arises: does not condemning kufr make one guilty of kufr? This also need needs more elaboration by the proponents of the Amman Message.

5. Fifth, do we make a differentiation between Akhbaris and Usulis being Muslim? Akhbari Ithna Asheris clearly believe in tahreef al-Qur’an and admit it themselves. Does the Amman Message make this distinction and recognize that Akhbari Ithna Asheris are not Muslim or do they lump Akhbaris and Usulis together under the banner of Ithna Asheris being Muslim? If it is the latter, how can the Amman Message justify viewing Akhbaris as Muslims when they clearly and unequivocally believe in the alteration of the Qur’an, an act that constitutes kufr?

6. In terms of cursing the Sahabah (radhi allahu anhum), the majority of Shia scholars hold it to be permissible while only a minority say that it is impermissible and they do so on the grounds that might cause tensions with Sunnis and not for the principle of respecting the companions. What is the ruling on someone who curses the companions? What about someone who doesn’t curse the companions for fear of retaliation, but holds the belief that the companions were unworthy people (naudhu billah). The Amman Message ignores this point as well.

These are some questions that need to be answered regarding the Amman Message so that true unity can be achieved.

Share This