Ahmed el Tayeb: new head of Alazhar.

[Polanyi]

 

Ahmed el Tayeb, the man President Hosni Mubarak has appointed as the new head of Al Azhar, is known for his moderate interpretation of Islam, is a regime loyalist and member of Mr Mubarak’s ruling National Democratic Party and takes a firm stance against the Muslim Brotherhood.

So he is part of the government or what? :eek:

 

Usually seen dressed in smart suits, the new Sheikh of Al Azhar also said he will start wearing traditional religious grab, such as long cloaks and a red and white head turban

.

 

 

Why didn't he wear it marki hore?

 

 

He has outwardly criticised hardline Islamists, saying the focus on rituals and outward manifestations of piety – such as Islamic garb and long beards – comes at the expense of true spiritual development.

So why not have a beard and focus on spiritual development too, yah? I mean the sahabas had very long beards and they paid careful attention to their outward appearance too, yet they still made an abundance of dhikr( rememberance of Allah).

 

He supported late Sheikh Tantawi in his last battle to ban the niqab, or face veil, inside Al Azhar girls institution. He is against wearing the niqab in general and considers it alien to Islamic teaching.

I guess all that islamic knowledge, years of studying and sitting in Al azhar has gone to waste. Somehow this guy thinks he knows better than the companions of the prophet(SAW) and the fourt madhabs(schools of thought), who were all agreed that Niqab is part of Islam. The only thing they differed on is whether or not it was recommended or obligatory. If this guy would have lived in their time, he would have probaly got scolded(maybe even whipped) for fasad fila ard and spreading heretical teachings. Kulaha, niqab is alien to alien teachings. I guess he did not have his glasses when he studied the books of hadith. Perhaps he has chosen to blind himself? Even some of the Western Academics in the various univeristies will tell you that Niqab is very much part of Islam. Of course, we did not expect anything better than the replacement of Tantawi. Evil has replaced Evil.

 

He angered radical Islamists for once telling an Islamic conference that “the logic of things is change” and again when he said it permissible for Muslims to sell alcohol to non-Muslims abroad in non-Muslim countries.

I guess this is what the Somalis refer to as "Bir Bila dambi". You will awlays find a " beer bila dambi scholar" to make everything that is haram- halal. It was the disgraceful Tantawi(he passed away last week), the previous head of Alzhar, who once famously made some forms of interests halal and more recently publicly insulted a young girl for wearing niqab . Maybe they should start a telephone service called "rent a fatawa". The motto could be " you can do it( the haram), if you fatawa it". I am sure their will be plenty of "scholars" will to take on this work .

 

Department of research and Ummah affairs at the embassy of Moorishland and Bladland. Peace to all the halganized Moorish and Berber Somalis of rageedi calibre. Jayshul Masakeen.

[NGONGE]

^^ Sheikh Tantawi is dead, adeer. Have your mullah not taught you about talking ill of the dead?

 

For that point alone, I refuse to listen to anything you say. Go blow yourself up somewhere else warya. Grrrr.

[Polanyi]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

^^ Sheikh Tantawi is dead, adeer. Have your mullah not taught you about talking ill of the dead?

 

For that point alone, I refuse to listen to anything you say. Go blow yourself up somewhere else warya. Grrrr.

Blowing up kulaha. I have alot to achieve in live, still. My plans are many.Matter of fact, I am contemplating starting roundtable negotiations with you concerning certain high calibre females from the Somaliland area, who are users on this forum. If you consider yourself to be their tribal wali, send me a pm. We will start diplomatic relations from there.

 

 

ps. Tantawi was a heretical individual who used his position to undermine the traditional islamic ethos. A clear example of this is his position on Niqab. He even went a step further than Western governments and so called liberals by publicly humilating a Muslim girl and insulting her appereance for wearing niqab. Islamically there is no problem pointing these crimes against the deen out and I do not believe it comes under the heading of backbiting or "speaking ill of the dead". If this was the case, then no one would speak about Ibn Arabi and many other deviants of the past. I hope Allah swt forgives him.

[NGONGE]

^^ I am indeed their wali but I would not recommend you for any of them. You're too volatile and quick with your judgment. Why would I subject a cousin of mine to your unpredictable wrath?

 

The Niqab issue of Sheikh Tantawi was hijacked by the Zealots. The man did not call for the ban of the niqaab in the streets; he banned it in Al Azhar's girl schools. This does not make him a heretic. Now I can take you through the whole thing step-by-step and know that I will manage to convince you in the end (if your intention is good) or we can fight it off all the way down.

[N.O.R.F]

[Polanyi]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

The Niqab issue of Sheikh Tantawi was hijacked by the Zealots. The man did not call for the ban of the niqaab in the streets; he banned it in Al Azhar's girl schools. This does not make him a heretic.

ASWRB.

 

Sheikh Tantawi did not call for an outright ban on the Niqab in all public places because he knew the overwhelming opposition he would recieve from the steadfast Scholars and the masses alike. But it was evident the man had an immense dislike for Niqab. Let me ask you this: What was the reasoning behind Tantawi's proposal to ban the Niqab and what was his reason for publicly humilating that young Girl?

 

I will tell you the reason: “The niqab is a tradition and has nothing to do with Islam.”

 

Those are the beliefs and the precise words Tantawi allegedly said to the young girl. It is also the same beliefs the new head of Al Azhar holds about the Niqab. "Birds of a feather flock together". Furthermore, Sheikh Tantawi did not stop at this, and he even went a step further by insulting the young girl with these tragic words :

 

“I tell you again that the niqab has nothing to do with Islam and it is only a mere custom. I understand the religion better than you and your parents.”

 

 

If the above quotes are not the words of an innovator and someone who is attacking the sunnah of the Muslims, then, oh Ngonge, I do not know what is defined as heresy and innovation in the religion. The only excuse we could have given Sheikh Tantawi, may allah swt forgive him, is the one of ignorance.

 

However, I do not believe that Tantawi, a man who graduated in tafsir studies and who spent almost ten years producing a kitab of tafisr, would be so ignorant of all the evidences pertaining to Niqab in the classical Islamic books, especially in the books of tafsir. I find it impossible that a man of his scholarly calibre would have missed the reports of Niqab in the Sahih Bukhari; the reports by the companions; the reports by the greatest scholars of Tafsir such as Ibn Abbas, Tabari and Ibn Katheer; and finally, the views of some of the well known scholars of the schools of thought- who all held the view that Niqab was in fact wajib(obligatory). I cannot for one moment bring myself to believe Tantawi was ignorant of these clear evidences , rather I believe he chose to willingly blind himself, follow his own "modernist" desires and succumb to the political whims of the EGyptian/Western Governments.

 

Any individual with an ounce of intelligence and the layman of this religion will tell you that Niqab has many evidences. There is no dispute about this matter, except with regards to whether or not it is obligatory or a highly recommended sunnah action. The only people who hold Niqab to be an "alien practice" are the ignorants, innovators and heretics. We can excuse the ignorant, but how do we excuse a scholar of tafsir studies, ya sheikh?

 

The implication of their statement is severe and what they are really saying is this: the companions of the prophet, the scholars of tafsir and the scholars of the schools of thought were all innovators and they brought something alien into Islam. They are also saying this: we know better than them. So who is truly an innavator: the companions or Tantawi? I say Tantawi and Ahmad el Tayeb.

 

ps.I have only mentioned one example where Tantawi rubber stamped the political wishes of the egyptian/western governments onto the Islamic instutions. There are other infamous examples such as: his most recent fatwa in support of the building of the wall suffocating the Palestinians on the border with Gaza, his ideas on the Hijab ban in france and his infamous ideas on certain forms of interest.

 

 

" Woe once to the ignorant man for not seeking after knowledge. Woe a thousand to the scholar for not acting in accordance with knowledge".

 

 

"we love the shaykh and the truth when they agree. But if they disagree it is the truth which comes first"

 

The Islamic government of Bladland and Moorishland.

[NGONGE]

^^ Step by step it is then?

Fine. At least we dealt with the point about him not calling for a public ban (despite what your pious-sunnah-following-self would claim to think he believed).

 

Next point, you say the scholars were divided on the niqab being oligatory or not. Am I reading you correctly here? Not ALL scholars believe it to be an obligation, right?

 

Pardon me for this obtuse way of doing things but I'm trying to talk some sense into this thick head of yours and think this is the only way I am going to do it.

[Polanyi]

Originally posted by NGONGE:

^^ Step by step it is then?

Fine. At least we dealt with the point about him not calling for a public ban (despite what your pious-sunnah-following-self would claim to think he believed).

 

Next point, you say the scholars were divided on the niqab being oligatory or not. Am I reading you correctly here? Not ALL scholars believe it to be an obligation, right?

 

Pardon me for this obtuse way of doing things but I'm trying to talk some sense into this thick head of yours and think this is the only way I am going to do it.

My argument is very simple, my friend:

 

 

1. Whether Tantawi wanted to ban the Niqab in all girls institutions or only in his back garden is entirely irrelevant;

 

2.This is because Tantawi holds a heretical and innovated opinion of the Niqab being totally alien to Islam. It was due to this belief that he openly asked the young girl to remove the Niqab and then proceeded to insulted her parents. No true scholars of Islam ever held the Niqab to be an "alien practice". What they differed on was whether or not the Niqab was obligatory or something recommended. Only innovators, Arab/Western government appeasers and ignorant people hold this view(that Niqab is alien to Islam). Sheikh Qardawi is on record as saying that people who hold such views are "ignorant of the Quran and Sunnah"( or something to this effect). I will go a step further by saying that it is impossible for a scholar of tafsir such as Tantawi to be ignorant of all the evidences pertaining to the Niqab and hold the same views as Sarkozy on the subject.

 

3. Tantawis fatawas which went against the agreed Sunnah and the interest of the living Muslims were not only confined to the issue of Niqab. He recently made a fatawa supporting the Egyptian governments plans to build a subjugating wall of the inhabitants of gaza. Tantawi came in handy and he was the favourite Sheikh of the government when they wanted to take policies against the Niqab or when the government wanted to gain support for building the Gaza wall( which was even condemend by non Muslim organisations). I believe he abused his position and he let down Muslim WOmen and men alike.

 

4. I do not see how any of this backbiting.

[Naden]

Originally posted by Karl_Polanyi:

Any individual with an ounce of intelligence and the layman of this religion will tell you that Niqab has many evidences.

Provide one.

[GoldCoast]

Karl your mental gymnastics in this thread are astounding. For your aforementioned commitment to scholarly evidences and by the book interpretration surely I'm not the only seeing the irony in your rhetoric filled posts. It's a shame you have to resort to ad-hominen attacks slandering a dead man as "evil" in order to make your points. Yet you've yet to directly address the fact his ban was subjected specifically towards an ALL GIRLS school and not towards all facets of society. Fact is it was your ilk that seized on this story like hyenas and blew it entirely out of proportion for your own ideological gains,and not vice versa.

[NGONGE]

Karl,

 

On the niqab issue, have you even listened to the man speak about it? Maybe you should.

 

It's in Arabic

 

 

According to him (and you already agreed to his knowledge), all four Sunni schools of thought agree that the palms of the hands and the face are not considered awra. But further still, on the issue of the niqab itself and the ban; the man was very clear and said that he only banned it in places where the colleges/schools were all women. He clearly said that he has no problem with a woman wearing her niqab in the street, at home or the school playgrounds. However, he objected to school girls (who have not reached puberty) to wear it in the classroom. He said that such rigidness was not part of Islam. He used quotes from the scholars (Shafici, Hanafi and Maliki) to support his argument. Incidentally, I asked a similar question a while back (before the niqab problem) about young girls and hijab.

 

On shaking the hand of the Israeli Prime Minster, he again said there is nothing in the faith that forbids him from shaking the hands of the enemy. Even on the story of the Egyptian iron wall, he gave logical reasons of why he supported it (again from the Islamic sources).

 

Now, I could go on about each point and keep on pushing you until you agree that you can never be certain about the man’s motivation and that though extremely unlikely he might have been acting in good faith. You may wonder why I would go through all this trouble if all I’ll achieve is to only get a very tentative agreement from you on a very remote possibility! But surely it is the remote possibility that makes or breaks this entire discussion? If there is even an iota of doubt that the man might have been misunderstood then you would be doing him a great disservice and gaining nothing but sins for your haste. Are you prepared to take the risk on such disputable issues?

 

Still, this really is not what got my goat. Lately, I have been growing tired with testosterone Islam and this thread is merely a vehicle for me to air my frustration and share my thoughts on it. The following my take a while, so hold on to your cumaamad and pay attention, saaxib.

 

Fifty years ago, my grandfather and yours did not have any internet, satellite TV or the plethora of books that you and I can get hold off now. In religious terms, what they had to go by were the words of their local mullah and their trust in his knowledge. Some mullahs made their followers visit graves, some got them to follow Sufi practices, some got them to believe in all sorts of innovations and others told their followers to follow the way of the Salaf (with certain variations even there). Some sprinkled touches of local culture on the faith itself, some banished local culture and others adopted new alien cultures. This took place from Mecca all the way to Merca. The Arabs of Mecca fought alongside the British against their fellow Muslims (after the Abdulwahab revival). The Somalis fought their fellow Somalis for or against the colonisers. Every group issued its own fatwas and division was rife.

 

Today, we have internet, we have satellite TV, we have books and we have mullahs by the ton. Fatwas are being made left, right and centre. People ask about all manner of things and they all want to know if wearing pink socks is halal if you’re a man (considering that, culturally, pink is associated with females) or if driving a car is haram for a woman (going from the idea that motorcars are a manly pursuit). Some ask if eating a chicken that occasionally ventures into a pigsty is halal or slaughtering a goat that used to be owned by a Jew is haram! The mullahs in their turn have to answer these questions and make sense of events, situations and foolishness that some of their predecessors did not have to deal with. They use their logic, knowledge and quiyas to reach acceptable fatwas. Some (probably) get it right and some (probably) don’t. But regardless of the rightness or wrongness of these fatwas, they still remain the opinions of these mullahs and no person is obliged to take them. I, for instance, refuse to take Al Shabab’s fatwa as to the ridda of Sheikh Sharif’s government (though I do not support Sheikh Sharif).

 

However, I am still puzzled and still have doubts (what if I am wrong?). Yet, I go back to my early Islamic education and remember all the sweet words of my religious teachers. I remember the proud stories of Islamic fotooxat. I remember the stories of early Islam and how the prophet used to send his companions with some Bedouins to teach them about the faith. Yet, in those stories, I am sure I’ve read that some of the companions only knew a couple of chapters of the quran. What in the world did they do when the Bedouins (and for that read: geel jires’) started asking them about the permissibility of eating the earlier chicken that had a penchant for frolicking in pigsties? When Ali Bin Abi Talib fought against the Nabi’s wife, did they call each other murtads? Why not? If yes, which side was? How about Bani Ommaya and their Khilafa? Are they like Hosni Mubarak today and will future generations sing the laughing cow’s praises and talk about how he helped spread Islam (albeit unintentionally)? These are only few questions that cross my mind every time I try to judge current events (I suppose, technically, you would say I am trying to refer to the Salaf and what they did in their time before making a decision).

 

But let us leave the salaf alone for now and talk about the khalaf instead. Why is it I get irritated when I listen to Nur, Kashafa or Khayer but I am more than happy to listen to Maaddeey? Even though I know that Maaddeey more or less follows the same line of thought as the others? Why do I feel comfortable discussing Islam with anyone but a Pakistani (or those from the Indian sub continent)? Why do I admire Sheikh Shacraawi even though I heard he once said bribery is ok yet I can not stand all the Jihadi sheikhs? Why do I find myself sympathising with the people of Gaza and opposing the wall but at the same time I also find myself agreeing with Egypt and understanding their reason for the wall?

 

Now do not go thinking that I am confused and have no idea what I am talking about, brother. There are things I am certain off. I, for example, believe there is only one god and no other god than Allah. I believe in xisaab and ciqaab. I am confident that I am going to die one day. I know if I do good I’ll get ajar and if I do bad my sins will increase. I know what my duties are and (though I may not always follow them to the letter) I try to fulfil them all. I know that good manners will triumph over bad manners most times. I know all these things and I hope (with very little confidence) that they will be enough to see me through (just like those Bedouins were depending on a Sahaabi who knew only few chapters of the quran).

 

What I do not know is the consequences of condemning men that already carry big responsibilities. Don’t get me wrong, I know I have a choice here. I can condemn them, I can support them or I can give them the benefit of the doubt and choose not to comment on their faith. This brings me to the main thing that I know and believe in, which is that I will one day be asked about all of this. I really do not think I would be fair to myself if in addition to the day I looked at a short skirt with temptation or spoiled a poor man’s day or lost my temper on an blameless person, I also get questioned and punished for being quick to label someone a kaffir, evil, murtad, turncoat or religious innovator. I suppose I am being a tad selfish here and only looking out for number one. But it is number one who will get questioned alone on that daunting day, no mother, no father, no wife and no children. Just me. War not even all of me; my hands and legs and heart will sell me out and snitch on me. Could I really then expect support from this Islamic group or that Islamic gathering that (today) I may claim I belong to?

 

I think I’ll stop now.

 

How are you doing about condemning Sheikh Tantawi? Are you still ready to judge him or will you leave it to the ultimate judge, saaxib?

[Abu-Salman]

First, having some excellent points is best complemented by a comparable delivery if I may advise the brother with good intentions who started this topic.

 

Just to point out to one ever missed yet crucial consideration, the precautionary principle is paramount when it comes to serious matters, let alone one's faith (and the prophet notoriously stated: abondon what makes you doubt in favor of what does not).

 

Here, if covering one's face is judged to be obligatory for women by major scholars, then no amount of self-justification takes away from the self-evident, namely that, indeed, covering the face is the safest option (additional points such as the importance of the face in a woman's appeal comparing to the rest to the rest of the body etc are made by scholars).

 

Otherwise, we would soon find ourself in a situation far removed from the sunnah with everyone presenting controversial "scholarly difference of opinions" or weaker narrations etc to cater for his whims (and we already have similar justifications when it comes to musical instruments or more relaxed stances towards usury, thanks to some favoring their own discretion over clear islamic evidences).

 

Lastly, self-justification and disputing with little knowledge is most dangerous; thus, one may still be Muslim while comitting all major sins but step outside the deen for allowing himself a clear interdiction.

 

On a side note, the new Al Azhar Head's description, if accurate, speaks for itself and we know how the Egyptian secular establishment is complexed vis-a-vis the West.

Also, invading Napoleon secured a Fatwa before Sarkozy came to seek support himself for his hijab ban at that illustrious institution, so our focus should be the truth, neither humans nor institutions...

 

 

................................IslamQA..................................

 

 

Niqaab is that with which a woman veils her face (tantaqib)…

 

The difference between hijaab and niqaab is that the hijaab is that which covers all the body, whilst niqaab is that which covers a woman’s face only.

 

The woman’s dress as prescribed in sharee’ah (“Islamic dress”) is that which covers her head, face and all of her body.

 

But the niqaab or burqa’ – which shows the eyes of the woman – has become widespread among women, and some of them do not wear it properly. Some scholars have forbidden wearing it on the grounds that it is not Islamic in origin, and because it is used improperly and people treat it as something insignificant, demonstrating negligent attitudes towards it and using new forms of niqaab which are not prescribed in Islam, widening the opening for the eyes so that the cheeks, nose and part of the forehead are also visible.

 

Therefore, if the woman’s niqaab or burqa’ does not show anything but the eyes, and the opening is only as big as the left eye, as was narrated from some of the salaf, then that is permissible, otherwise she should wear something which covers her face entirely.

 

Shaykh Muhammad al-Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:

 

The hijaab prescribed in sharee’ah means that a woman should cover everything that it is haraam for her to show, i.e., she should cover that which it is obligatory for her to cover, first and foremost of which is the face, because it is the focus of temptation and desire.

 

A woman is obliged to cover her face in front of anyone who is not her mahram (blood relative to whom marriage is forbidden). From this we learn that the face is the most essential thing to be covered. There is evidence from the Book of Allaah and the Sunnah of His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and the views of the Sahaabah and the imams and scholars of Islam, which indicates that women are obliged to cover all of their bodies in front of those who are not their mahrams.

 

Fataawa al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah, 1/ 391, 392)

 

Shaykh Saalih al-Fawzaan (may Allaah preserve him) said:

 

The correct view as indicated by the evidence is that the woman’s face is ‘awrah which must be covered. It is the most tempting part of her body, because what people look at most is the face, so the face is the greatest ‘awrah of a woman. This is in addition to the shar’i evidence which states that it is obligatory to cover the face.

 

For example, Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

 

“And tell the believing women to lower their gaze (from looking at forbidden things), and protect their private parts (from illegal sexual acts) and not to show off their adornment except only that which is apparent (like both eyes for necessity to see the way, or outer palms of hands or one eye or dress like veil, gloves, headcover, apron), and to draw their veils all over Juyoobihinna (i.e. their bodies, faces, necks and bosoms)…”

 

[al-Noor 24:31]

 

Drawing the veil all over the juyoob implies covering the face.

 

When Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) was asked about the aayah (interpretation of the meaning):

 

“O Prophet! Tell your wives and your daughters and the women of the believers to draw their cloaks (veils) all over their bodies”

 

[al-Ahzaab 33:59] –

 

he covered his face, leaving only one eye showing. This indicates that what was meant by the aayah was covering the face. This was the interpretation of Ibn ‘Abbaas (may Allaah be pleased with him) of this aayah, as narrated from him by ‘Ubaydah al-Salmaani when he asked him about it.

 

In the Sunnah there are many ahaadeeth, such as: the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “The woman in ihraam is forbidden to veil her face (wear niqaab) or to wear the burqa’.” This indicates that when women were not in ihraam, women used to cover their faces.

 

This does not mean that if a woman takes off her niqaab or burqa’ in the state of ihraam that she should leave her face uncovered in the presence of non-mahram men. Rather she is obliged to cover it with something other than the niqaab or burqa’, on the evidence of the hadeeth of ‘Aa’ishah (may Allaah be pleased with her) who said: “We were with the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) in ihraam, and when men passed by us, we would lower the khimaar on our heads over our faces, and when they moved on we would lift it again.”

 

Women in ihraam and otherwise are obliged to cover their faces in front of non-mahram men, because the face is the center of beauty and it is the place that men look at… and Allaah knows best.

 

Fataawa al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah, 1/396, 397

 

He also said:

 

It is OK to cover the face with the niqaab or burqa’ which has two openings for the eyes only, because this was known at the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), and because of necessity. If nothing but the eyes show, this is fine, especially if this is customarily worn by women in her society.

 

Fataawa al-Mar’ah al-Muslimah, 1/399

 

And Allaah knows best.

 

 

Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

 

 

.............................................................................

 

 

PS: I am deliberately not dwelling on Tantawi for I am not qualified for that and that is hardly crucial for the issue of the Niqab.

[NGONGE]

^^ There is precaution and then there is Abu Salman precaution.

 

I don't think I understood any of that, saaxib. What exactly are you saying?

[BUKURR]

Karl, why don't you wear one of those Niqaab's? Oh let me guess, you're a male, so not required to have it, isn't it?

 

Do you ever heard of human choice - human right - if you did, that comes before any religion's mandate.

[Abu-Salman]

Edited, it was not adressed to you in particular sxb, just a matter of timing...

 

GD, are you making fun of an Islamic prescribtion and claiming that a Muslim's choice supercedes his obligations? Could you define "Muslim" or Islam literally?