Let me begin by making two things clear. First, this article is not seeking to defend the positions of any person nor is it related to the issue of CVE and what it means to the Muslim American community. I am in no way claiming that CVE is not controversial or harmful to the community nor am I suggesting that affiliations with governments are without concern.
Second, this paper is meant to critique the arguments made by the author that encourage holding Islamic scholars accountable. I encourage the reader not to think of this article as an attempt to defend an individual(s) but rather as an attempt to present an important issue through the framework of Islamic discourse – Quran, hadith supported by scholarly opinion. In that spirit, I would love to see articles providing other scholarly views that are contrary to this articles. The goal is to reach the position that is most pleasure to Allah and not the one that best fits our agenda, whims, or world views.
In this article I argue that Islamic scholars in America cannot effectively be held accountable, not because they are above accountability but because (1) accountability in Islam is based on law derived from Quran and hadith and this is the responsibility of Islamic experts not those ignorant of the Islamic sciences. And to be frank, this type of discourse is absent in Muslim America. (2) Muslim Americans have no standard code of law, conduct, or ethics that can be used to judge behavior and decisions of Muslim Americans. I do believe, however, that criticism should be allowed under certain conditions, as I will elaborate in the proceeding paragraphs.
Keep supporting MuslimMatters for the sake of Allah
Alhamdulillah, we're at over 850 supporters. Help us get to 900 supporters this month. All it takes is a small gift from a reader like you to keep us going, for just $2 / month.
The Prophet (SAW) has taught us the best of deeds are those that done consistently, even if they are small.
Click here to support MuslimMatters with a monthly donation of $2 per month. Set it and collect blessings from Allah (swt) for the khayr you're supporting without thinking about it.
To begin, the evidence used to support the concept of holding leaders accountable is the statement of Abu Bakr upon his appointment to office:
“O people, I have been appointed over you, though I am not the best among you. If I do well, then help me; and if I act wrongly, then correct me.”
This is a well-known statement of his, and without a doubt part of Islamic discourse applied by the pious companions. However, one should take notice of the context in which Abu Bakr made his statement. Specifically, who he was speaking to. The companions were a generation that embodied and practiced a pristine understanding of Islam and therefore, if anyone were to hold him accountable they would do it in the proper manner. It would be done with pure intentions that they seek to empower Abu Bakr with Quranic and Prophetic principles rather than attack him personally or with ill intentions.
Furthermore, their knowledge of the faith was sufficient to where they understood where and when the boundaries of Allah are transgressed, and therefore understood when he was accountable. However, when these facets of accountability are lost then the validity of accountability is lost as well.
To give an example, during the life of Abu Bakr, prior to appointing Omar (ra) as his successor he took the opinion of several companions. The prospect of Omar’s appointment upset some of the companions because of Omar’s stern character. These companions approached Abu Bakr and asked him “what will you tell Allah when he asks why you appointed the stern and severe (ie Omar).” Abu Bakr replied “I will tell Him that I appointed the best person on earth,” after which Abu Bakr angrily commanded them to turn their backs and leave his presence.
Fast forwarding to the life of Uthman, large groups of Muslims accused Uthman of changing the Sunnah of the Prophet in several manners. Part of this group felt the need to hold Uthman accountable and ended up sieging his home leading to his death. Now, when one researches what this group was criticizing Uthman for, you find that Uthman (ra) did make mistakes in applying the sunnah that even companions such as Ibn Mas’ood expressed concern and disagreement with. However, due to the lack of fiqh and knowledge, these Muslims felt that the actions of Uthman made him guilty of “crimes” against the sunnah and therefore he must be held accountable.
With this I make my first point. A distinction between criticism and accountability must be made. Ibn Mas’ood and others criticized Uthman but, since they were scholars, understood that although Uthman was mistaken his mistakes did not cross the boundaries of Allah, and therefore he was not guilty of anything and thus was not accountable.
Holding Muslim scholars accountable cannot be justified unless evidence from the Quran and hadith indicate transgression against Allah’s law. Thus, before the Muslim American community can call for the accountability of Dr. Jackson, Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, or others, an argument founded in Quran and Sunnah and supplicated by scholarly (classical scholars) research and books must be made.
It is simply against Islamic discourse to claim that a scholar is guilty of unethical decisions or affiliations simply because CVE is a plot against Muslims (as I will detail shortly). Rather, an argument must be made that shows how involvement with CVE is against Quran and sunnah. Again, I emphasize the difference between criticizing their decision because of the potential harms versus accusing them of transgressing Islamic principles.
To further elaborate this distinction I offer the following examples. First, Allah says in context of the battle of Badr and the decision to ransom the prisoners of war,
“It is not fit for a prophet that he should take captives until he has thoroughly subdued the land. You ˹believers˺ settled with the fleeting gains of this world, while Allah’s aim ˹for you˺ is the Hereafter. Allah is Almighty, All-Wise. Had it not been for a prior decree from Allah, you would have certainly been disciplined with a tremendous punishment for whatever ˹ransom˺ you have taken. Now enjoy what you have taken, for it is lawful and good. And be mindful of Allah. Surely Allah is All-Forgiving, Most Merciful.” (8:67-69)
In these verses Allah criticizes the decision taken by the Muslims but then states that ransom money was made permissible by Allah, and therefore they are not guilty of a punishable offense. In other words, Allah criticized their decision because it was a less than ideal choice but did not hold them accountable for their actions since it was permissible.
Another example is the well-known incident of Osama bin Zaid and his killing of the individual who proclaimed shahadah during battle. Despite this, Osama proceeded to slay him. Upon hearing of this the Prophet (s) criticized Osama and said, “did you see what is in his heart?”
Although Osama’s actions resulted in the death of a person the Prophet (s), did not hold Osama accountable for his actions and no punishment was implemented. Similarly, Khalid bin Waleed killed a group of people who accepted Islam accidentally and similarly, the Prophet (s) criticized Khalid but did not hold him accountable.
Why was there no accountability? Because the decisions of Osama and Khalid were based on reasonable – although incorrect – perspectives which falls under the mistake category of Islamic law “And there is no blame upon you for that in which you have erred but [only for] what your hearts intended. And ever is Allah Forgiving and Merciful” (33:5)
The previous examples, among others, are referred to in Islamic discourse as ta’weel (interpretation). There are many examples in the lives of the companions where decisions were made that lead to misapplications of Islam but were considered mistakes worthy of criticism but not crimes worthy of punishment or accountability.
Ta’weel, as Ibn Taymiyya states, is an aspect of Islam that requires deep understanding of the Islamic sciences. It is the grey area that becomes very difficult to navigate except by scholars as the Prophet (s) states in the hadith, “The halal is clear and the haram is clear and between them is a grey area which most people don’t know (ie the rulings for).”
Scholars have commented stating that the hadith does not negate knowledge of the grey entirely and that the scholars are the ones who know how to navigate that area. The problem arises when those ignorant of Islamic law attempt to navigate the grey area or criticize scholars attempting to navigate it.
Going back to Ibn Taymiyya -skip this part if you believe Ibn Taymiyya was a dancing bear- I would like to discuss his own views on associating oneself with oppressive rulers. In his book “Islamic Political Science” (As Siyaasa ash Shar’iah) he details the nuances of fiqh in regards to working with or for oppressive rulers.
It would be beneficial to quote the entire section, but for space sake I will be concise. Ibn Taymiyya argues that the issue of oppressive rulers should not be approached with a black and white mentality. Rather, one must inquire of the relationship between the person and the ruler.
One can legitimately adhere to the verse “And cooperate in righteousness and piety” (5:2) while working for an unjust ruler such as: “performing jihad, applying penal laws, protecting the rights of others, and giving those who deserve. This is in accordance to what Allah and His messenger have commanded and whoever refrains from those things out of fear of assisting the unjust then they have left an obligation under a false form of asceticism (wara’).”
Likewise, accepting a position under an unjust regime may prevent or reduce the harm of that regime, or prevent someone mischievous from taking the position and inflicting even more harm, then such an association is Islamically valid. Furthermore, someone working in a particular department is not responsible or accountable for the crimes being committed in another department nor are they guilty of “cooperat[ing] in sin and aggression” (5:2). He ascribes these fiqh rulings to the majority of scholars including Abu Hanifa, Malik and Ahmed.
The argument against those who are affiliated with the UAE is simply not grounded in fiqh or supported by clear evidences from the Quran and hadith. How does being part of a peace forum make the participants guilty of the crimes in Yemen? The claim that such participation enhances the influence of these regimes is not necessarily consistent with Quran and hadith.
Dr. Jackson, I argue, is in line with Islamic discourse when he says that being part of such initiatives does not mean he agrees with all they do. The same goes for CVE. As Ibn Taymiyya suggests above, participating in such programs is Islamically justifiable if the goal is to reduce the harm and this is what Dr. Jackson claims. Ibn Taymiyya gives the example of someone working as a tax collector for a ruler who unjustly takes taxes from his citizens. If the individual can reduce the amount being taken then his position is Islamically valid.
One might state that such a claim – reducing the harm – is naïve and an excuse to justify their affiliations. No doubt this is a possibility, however, I once again quote Ibn Taymiyya,
“The obligation is to bring about the benefit to the best of their ability and or prevent the harm or at least reduce it. If there are two possible benefits then the individual should pursue the greater of the two even if it leads to losing the lesser. If there are two possible harms to prevent then they should prevent the greater of the two even if it results in the occurrence of the lesser.”
There are ways of determining whether a persons is clearly excusing himself. At the same time, the debate as to whether the benefits outweigh the harm is almost always within the grey area mentioned above. Thus, it is irresponsible to attack Islamic scholars and call for their accountability for positions that are not clearly against Quran and hadith.
Another rebuttal might claim that the rulers during the time of Ibn Taymiyya were better than present day rulers and that his fiqh was addressing his realities which are inconsistent with ours. My response is that although that is true, Ibn Taymiyya’s teachings are not built on contextual realities that are only effective in those realities. Rather, his teachings are built on principles that are formulated in a way that renders it capable of measuring a particular context. In other words, it acts in a way that considers the realities and context as part of the equation and decision process.
A third rebuttal might claim that Ibn Taymiyya, like many others, warned of the harms of befriending rulers. Again, this is accurate, however, an important distinction must be made and that is between spiritual advice and fiqh rulings. An issue can be spiritually problematic but permissible fiqh-wise and this differentiation is seen in the lives of the companions and spiritualists in general.
For example, the companions rejected many worldly pleasures out of zuhd and wara’ (two forms of asceticism) and not because they are forbidden. To be more specific, a person may restrict themselves from drinking green tea not because it is forbidden by Quran or hadith but because of they view it as a desire that distracts them from the next life.
Similarly, the discouragement scholars expressed towards relationships with rulers was because of the spiritual harms and not because of an unequivocal prohibition against it. This is an important facet of Islamic discourse that should be recognized by the Muslim community. That is, a person can critique an issue from various angles (for example the psychological harms of political rhetoric and how it effects a person’s spirituality) while remaining neutral to Islamic law. What I am trying to say is that legitimate criticisms can be made about a particular issues without having to bring a person’s Islamic credibility into the discussion.
To conclude, I’d like to once again emphasize a distinction between criticism and accountability. Criticism is justified when the criticizer is qualified in the topic and when the one being criticized has made a mistake. Accountability is legitimate when a person has transgressed red lines established by Islam itself. But, in order for such accountability to be valid one must invoke the Quran and hadith and here lies the problem.
In the several articles posted against UAE and CVE, Quran and hadith are excluded and such has become Muslim American discourse – we are Muslims who invoke Allah and His messenger yet exclude their words from the conversation. I remind the Muslim American community and myself of the following verse “And if you disagree over anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger, if you should believe in Allah and the Last Day. That is the best [way] and best in result” (4:59).
I would like to pose the following questions to the Muslim American community:
- Under what code of law and ethics should scholars be held accountable? In other words, what standards do we use to deem a scholar accountable or guilty? Who determines these laws and principles? Is it other scholars who are well versed in fiqh? Is it American standards or perhaps Muslim American activists and whatever is in line with their agenda?
- Who or what institution has the authority to hold scholars accountable?
- To what extent do we consider Quran, hadith, fiqh and scholarly opinions in determining illegal actions, problematic decisions, and or immoral behavior?
- Are these laws and principles only applicable to scholars or are other Muslim leader figures held to the same standards?
- Are all scholars “dancing bears” who have no credibility? If not, who, in your opinion, is trustworthy and credible and why do you think so? Is it because they are following Quran and Sunnah, or because they fit activism?
- Do you believe that certain celebrated Muslim American activists / politicians present theological and moral problems to American Muslims that are corrupting their faith and behavior? Should they be held accountable for their statements and actions? What about the various Muslim organizations that invite them as keynote speakers and continue to show unwavering support?
- Do you believe it is fair to say that these celebrated activists are not responsible for clarifying to the community their controversial positions and statements because they are not scholars or seen as religious figures?
- Do you believe that activism is dominating Muslim American discourse and do you believe that there is a serious exclusion of Quran and hadith in that discourse?
I hope the community will acknowledge the concerning reality of the exclusion of Quran and hadith from our affairs. Until we live up to the standards of Quran and sunnah our criticism will only lead to further division and harm.
Announcements2 weeks ago
Ussif
September 1, 2019 at 3:01 PM
When you say that Accountability in Islam is is the responsibility of Islamic experts not those ignorant of the Islamic sciences, it is probably true on matters related to fiqh and religion. When it’s about social issues or politics critics and accountability should be expected, an Imam that collaborate with any government is not doing it in his name only but in the name of the community he represent. CVE was very harmful to our community, we should be able to hold any participant accountable so that hopefully next time those harmful government agencies won’t be able to legitimize themselves by appointing our own.
In the case of Uthman, rebellion wasn’t cause because of disagreement on Sunna, but because of widespread corruption in his caliphate that he couldn’t control due to his old age and bad counseling.
Shuyukh that find themselves in this kind of controversies shouldn’t be deaf to critics, if their intentions they should be able to explain their personal choices to the community and recognize mistakes since nobody is immune to them. It’s the best way to live up to the Quran and the Sunna.
Ahmed Mustafa
September 1, 2019 at 5:38 PM
Yeah good points. This scholar is oblivious to the state of Muslims in the states. He should perhaps move to Saudi Arabia if he thinks the scholars are above criticism and only scholars can judge scholars.
DI
September 7, 2019 at 12:32 PM
Astaghfirullah. Please do not find fault with Sayyidina Uthman (ra).
di.
Ussif
September 7, 2019 at 5:50 PM
You are right barakallahu fik. It’s badly worded. Just wanted to say what happened wasn’t only over theological argument as suggested by the author.
Ahmed
September 1, 2019 at 7:18 PM
Ws, mashaAllah Shaikh. With this flawless logic then there is no bar to you or anyone else of a scholarly background standing with Bashar Al Assad in some faith forum or another even as he rains down death on men, women and children?
As long as the intention is to minimise harm somewhere deep in the scholars heart then bismillah.
Ahmed
September 1, 2019 at 7:31 PM
Assumptions in this article:
1. There is no islamic basis in quran and sunnah for the points advocated against the scholars who align with tyrannical regimes.
2. Anyone who is an activist is necessarily ignorant of Islamic law, fiqh and unqualified to comment / criticize / hold accountable a scholar.
3. That there are no scholars who have spoken out against this behaviour here or abroad. They have and they continue to do so but are totally ignored. If you want name check the prisons and the graveyards of the middle East not the peace forums of 5 star hotels.
4. That the logic of ibn Taimiyya is sound but can be twisted by anyone to justify just about anything (as can all non-contextual arguments.) You can literally use that argument to join a murderous gang or a extremist outfit because your intention was to kill one less than everyone else.
Your whole article illustrates perfectly not the absence of quran and sunnah from the discourse of so called activists but the absence of any basic sciences from the education of some scholars.
Siraaj Muhammad
September 1, 2019 at 8:44 PM
Salaam alaykum Shaykh, I’ve read both articles, and the way you’re using the term “accountability” in this writeup doesn’t seem to be the way Ahmed Sheikh used it. My understanding is that he used the term with being able to answer and justify his affiliations, associations, and actions as it relates to both the UAE and CVE, not accountable as in we can detain him, put him on trial, and run him through a court.
Further, when any individual involves himself with a group, a cause, or an initiative that is harmful to our community, to all of us, and that includes laymen, we all have a right to demand justification for such involvement. When leaders, scholars, and activists across the board are raising serious concerns, either privately or publicly about such programs and their repercussions, it is most definitely fair for us to question the involvement of *any* scholar, activist, da’ee, it doesn’t matter their station.
As non-experts, we certainly won’t delve into the Quran and Sunnah and purport to derive rulings ourselves, that’s not our domain of expertise. But we can certainly raise concerning questions. And if the individuals stonewall, are silent, and don’t wish to address those concerns when they have ample opportunity to explain themselves, then the community has a right to take actions to protect itself, whether to inform, to publicly question, or even boycott such an individual until they are willing to explain themselves. This is across the board for everyone. These are not shar’i rulings, but they are steps people and organizations can take to protect itself from any individual, irrespective of their repute and intention, if the community deems them a threat its well-being.
And lastly, it is not on us as non-experts to justify our questions based on an analytical understanding of the Quran and Sunnah – it’s on the scholar acting as an activist to demonstrate why their actions are both strategically sound as an activist move and why it is sound islamically in their expert opinion. We likewise expect the same from activists, except we expect that they consult with scholars to ensure the activist strategy is in line with sound perspective from the Quran and Sunnah.
SH
September 1, 2019 at 11:16 PM
Firstly, anyone, whether a layman or a man of power or a scholar, whose life might be affected directly or indirectly by any action, opinion or decision of a scholar/leader has the full right to demand accountability and explanation from that scholar/leader for that said action. If the action is of a socio-political nature than the main criteria and method for the accountability should be the existing socio-political rules, norms and standards of the land, with the supplementary guidance from the scriptures. Scriptures on their own can not be the sole basis for such socio-political issues in the western society as scriptural interpretations can vary significantly from person to person with no authorised body to regulate them. Secondly, no scholar or group of scholars or school has the sole agency of [Islamic] scholarship. Being an activist does not mean a person is lacking scholarship. The so-called institutional scholars must refrain from such superiority claims that their scholarship is the only valid scholarship and everyone else are somehow inferior to them scholarly, intellectually or morally. This is the main reason behind their absurd superiority complex mentality that they are wiser than the collective wisdom and hence have nothing to account for to the wider community, or not much to do with people outside of their type or different from their rank and title. Scholars must come out of their cocoon surrounded by their blind followers and disciples, and deal with the wider community.
SH
September 1, 2019 at 11:39 PM
Thirdly, just because a critique comes from a so-called ‘non-scholar’ does not make it invalid, especially when numerous ‘trained’ scholars can be presented in support of such a critique if needed. It is not only ‘activists’ who criticised CVE, Dr Jackson, Zaid Shakir, Hamza Yusuf et al, many ‘bonafide institutionally-trained widely-recognised proper’ scholars, intellectuals and academics have also criticised them previously on numerous occasions and in varied platforms, the main issues and questions raised in all these critiques being very similar. Hence, it is quite un-scholarly to dismiss this critique just because the critic himself does not fit a specific type. And it is not far fetched to assume that focussing on the critic himself is intended only to deflect from the real issues and questions raised in the critique itself.
Ahmed
September 2, 2019 at 3:13 AM
Assalamu alaikum
1. Well done Sheikh. These 2 articles show the difference between “those who know and those who don’t know”.
2. I would advice Mr Ahmed Shaik to stick to the inheritance work and try “not to delve into what you have no knowledge of”. Your criticism has no bases in Quran and hadith.
3. From my experience the People critizing Sh. HY, Imam Zaid and Dr SJ are either jealous of them or can’t stand anyone showing signs of interest on Sufism. This is my personal experience.
Wa salam
Ahmed
DI
September 7, 2019 at 12:44 PM
Add another question for the Muslim community:
-> Are scholars who “engage” with political organizations that are opposed to Muslims effective in engaging in the first place? Are they qualified for the job? Or are they “lame ducks”?
Dr. Jackson’s explanation for meeting Sisi was he didn’t know that would happen. Hamza Yusuf used similar “didn’t know…” explanations regretting his appearance behind Bush. So the real question for me is, are these the best people for representing the interest of the Muslims in the first place? I would say NO.
Ibn Khaldun has a lengthy quotation about ulema sucking at politics:
“Scholars are, of all people, those least familiar with the ways of politics. The reason for this is that (scholars) are used to mental speculation and to a searching study of ideas which they abstract from the sensibilia and conceive in their minds as general universals, so that they may be applicable to some matter in general but not to any particular matter, individual, race, nation, or group of people. (Scholars,) then, make such universal ideas conform (in their minds) to facts of the outside world. They also compare things with others that are similar to or like them, with the help of analogical reasoning as used in jurisprudence, which is something familiar to them. All their conclusions and views continue to be something in the mind. They come to conform (to the facts of the outside world) only after research and speculation has come to an end, or they may never come to conform (to them). The facts of the outside world are merely special cases of the (ideas) that are in the mind. For instance, the religious laws are special cases derived from the well-known (texts) of the Qur’an and the Sunnah. In their case, one expects the facts of the outside world to conform to them, in contrast with the intellectual sciences, where, in order to (prove) the soundness of views, one expects those views to conform to the facts of the outside world. Thus, in all their intellectual activity, scholars are accustomed to dealing with matters of the mind and with thoughts. They do not know anything else. Politicians, on the other hand, must pay attention to the facts of the outside world and the conditions attaching to and depending on (politics). (These facts and conditions) are obscure. They may contain some (element) making it impossible to refer them to something like and similar, or contradicting the universal (idea) to which one would like them to conform. The conditions existing in civilization cannot (always) be compared with each other. They may be alike in one respect, but they may differ in other respects. (Now,) scholars are accustomed to generalizations and analogical conclusions. When they look at politics, they press (their observations) into the mold of their views and their way of making deductions. Thus, they commit many errors, or (at least) they cannot be trusted (not to commit errors). The intelligent and alert (segment) of civilized people falls into the same category as (scholars). Their penetrating minds drive them toward a searching occupation with ideas, analogy, and comparison, as is the case with jurists. Thus, they (too) commit errors. The average person of a healthy disposition and a mediocre intelligence has not got the mind for (such speculation) and does not think of it. Therefore, he restricts himself to considering every matter as it is, and to judging every kind of situation and every type of individual by its particular (circumstances). His judgment is not infected with analogy and generalization. Most of his speculation stops at matters perceivable by the senses, and he does not go beyond them in his mind, like a swimmer who stays in the water near the shore, as the poet says: Do not go out too deep when swimming. Safety lies near the shore. Such a man, therefore, can be trusted when he reflects upon his political activities. He has the right outlook in dealing with his fellow men. Thus, he makes a good living and suffers no damage or harm in the (process of making a living), because he has the right outlook. “And He knows more than any scholar.” This (situation) makes one realize that logic cannot be trusted to prevent the commission of errors, because it is too abstract and remote from the sensibilia. (Logic) considers the secondary intelligibilia. It is possible that material things contain something that does not admit of (logical) conclusions and contradicts them, when one looks for unequivocal conformity (between them and the facts of the outside world). It is different with speculation about the primary intelligibilia, which are less abstract. They are matters of the imagination and pictures of the sensibilia. They retain (certain features of the sensibilia) and permit verification of the conformity of (the sensibilia to the primary intelligibilia).”
If Dr. Jackson was a multi-millionaire or billionaire, or someone with a huge amount of social capital and influence, then perhaps he’d make an impact.
di.
Zain Shabir
September 8, 2019 at 6:01 AM
You are doing a great job. May Allah Bless you.
Ziad Abu-Lebdeh
October 7, 2019 at 5:11 PM
I think the article is well written and presents an excellent point of view.
Our Prophet (PBUH) is said to have been walking with our mother Safiyya at night when he passed two companions. He stopped and informed them that He was with our mother Safiyya. When they showed surprise, he informed them that Shaitan runs within a man like the blood.
From that perspective, I agree that on the surface the actions of the scholars may not be in clear conflict with major Quran or Sunna principals.
However, our Scholars need be aware of optics and image because they do represent Islamic manor and principals in their actions.
The true challenge for Muslims in the US is that there is no outlet for our scholars or leaders to provide an explanation when they are challenged in their actions. Twitter, Facebook … etc. are only means where people can shout their opinions but usually there is no one who is listening.
We need independent and objective media outlets that provide unfiltered answers from them in how they see their actions benefiting Islam and Muslims and in some cases explain how their actions are indeed supported by good understanding of our traditions.
Without that the optics of standing with Tyrants, denouncing the actions of the oppressed, or aligning with entities which exhibit direct animosity towards Islam or Muslims is difficult to accept.
Allah knows best