Ahmed el Tayeb: new head of Alazhar.

[Castro]

Originally posted by Karl_Polanyi:

In any case, that post wasn't for you. Naden challenged me to bring one proof regarding the Niqab

And you still haven't provided any. Sometimes, not even Google can save you.

[N.O.R.F]

^What evidence are you looking for?

 

Good debate so far. In danger of being hijacked by others though.

[Polanyi]

Originally posted by Castro:

quote:Originally posted by Karl_Polanyi:

In any case, that post wasn't for you. Naden challenged me to bring one proof regarding the Niqab

And you still haven't provided any. Sometimes, not even Google can save you.

The Link I provided by Yasir Qhadi details the evidences of Niqab.

[B]

I don't understand why we are too busy trying to refute each other. Islam is not set in stone, which means that apart from the divine sources like the Quran and the hadit(together they form shariah law) everything else is up for interpretation. Islamic law is a man made law, which means that it was arrived at from ijma (consensus) of the scholars. There is no literal interpretation of Islamic law, hence why we have different school of thought. Also, we need to bear in mind that Islam has allowed flexibility in interpretation so that Islam remains a religion that adopts to its environment. Although many people have suggested that we should open the gates of ijtihad, I am not sure if this will improve the conditions of Muslims the world over. The very nature of Islamic law is flexible.

 

So let’s not try to assume a righteous attitude because there is no literal interpretation of the Islamic law. This was arrived at on different interpretations of the different scholars.

 

And also while many of you may suggest that there is ikhtilaf between the scholars, you might be interested to know that Islamic law is not set in stone. The best of followers of Islam are those who maintain a neutral line, by not following the two extreme spectrum's.

 

P.S - On the issue of the niqab, we have to use qiyas (analogical reasoning). for example. on the issue of alcohal. this leads to intoxication, therefore anything that leads to intoxication and changes the mental capacity of your acts and thoughts is haraam, thus alcohal is haraam since it intoxicates you. On the issue of the niaqb, i take the view that, if it covers what is considered sufficent in terms of flesh, it has achieved its objectives. anything over that is taking an extremist path.

[Khayr]

Originally posted by Johnny B:

We ( Muslims ) vs The rest of the world ( Liberal Democracies ) ?

 

If you don't take an irrational position and show enough hatred towards the rest of the world(non-moslims), you're not serving Islam?

 

Stuff and nonsense®

You are an ardent supporter of muslims.

Did you get a book deal yet Johnny B?

 

El Punto,

 

You have elucidated the points very well. MashaAllah. Now, where are all those courtjesters?

[Castro]

^^^^ Look in the mirror.

 

Originally posted by Karl_Polanyi:

quote:Originally posted by Castro:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl_Polanyi:

In any case, that post wasn't for you. Naden challenged me to bring one proof regarding the Niqab

And you still haven't provided any. Sometimes, not even Google can save you.

The Link I provided by Yasir Qhadi details the evidences of Niqab.

lol. It does? Did you even read your own link? You should start hoping Naden is busy with something and doesn't return to this thread.

[Chocolate and Honey]

NG has truly done an outstanding job putting this issue to rest. Sorry, but after such response his opponents have no leg to stand on. This Niqab issue is like a dead horse being kicked to get a rise. NIQAB IS NOT OBLIGATORY, period!

[NGONGE]

Originally posted by ElPunto:

Ngonge,

 

There is nothing in it for me(directly) and it's not a bother. But I disagree that it's not for me or you to say. I as a Muslim am a stakeholder in all Islamic institutions particularly when they have the importance that Al-Azhar does. As long as it is constructive criticism and not gratituitous bashing - I see no reason to circumscribe the ability of a layman or scholar to point out disagreements. They and you then have the ability to counter the arguments made or simply ignore them.

 

No judiciary is truly independant of the state or the cultural millieu but I would like to see the leadership of Azhar elected independantly of the state and for dissent at that institution to be tolerated. That would be a big improvement on the current status.

All sounds good when one reads it but you know and I know that the world does not work this way.

 

Number one: as a layman you cannot criticise constructively (because you ARE a layman).

 

Number two: Independence, freedom or 'freer' as you put it are subjective terms that are neither here nor there if you already do not trust these scholars (the same if you trust them).

 

Number three: If everyone gave their opinions on the faith (because they are stakeholders) nobody will trust anybody (as is the case today) and, ultimately, the so-called stakeholders will suffer.

 

Again I ask you, why bother?

[NGONGE]

Karl, I asked you if you watched the clip I posted because you wrote the following:

 

Therefore, this issue of the Niqab is not about insulting the scholars nor is it a matter of arrogant young men insulting their knowledge. We are only criticising those people of knowledge and the so-called “modernists”, who have decided to ignore all of the Shariah evidences and come up with a completely new innovation: “Niqab is alien to Islam”. Many of the Ulema have also labelled these people, be they scholars or nonprofessionals, as people who are completely ignorant of the Shariah.

In the video, he is interviewed by a female journalists (with her hair all out by the way) and he answers questions about that Niqab scandal. The man makes it clear that his problem was not with the niqab but with the wearer of that niqab. He repeats (several times) that he does not have a problem with women wearing it at home, in the street or anywhere else. He even does not have a problem with that young girl wearing it in the playground. But he says that he does not condone young girls wearing a niqaab in a classroom that has a female teacher and female classmates (he says it is not part of Islam).

[GaroweGal]

Smart sheiky confederation plus or minus one. Snap! Someone direct me out of this thread and quick!! :eek:

[ElPunto]

Ngonge,

 

As a layman my criticims may not be constructive - but as long as they are not bashing or derogatory - why put the kibosh on me? And frequently it's not a matter of layman or not. It's a matter of prerogative. Before Tantawi's latest fatwa, ladies in all ladies schools could wear the niqab - but then something all of a sudden changed. I disagreed with his change of heart and thought that it may have been politically motivated. Is my criticism invalid? Must I be a scholar to criticize?

 

I was talking about the independance of the institution as a whole. If it was more independant - it would have greater weight than it does now. And it would reduce the perception of stoogism. And thus serve its stakeholder better. As to trust or not - I look to the consensus of the scholars not to any particular person.

 

There is a difference between everyone giving their opinion and taking an opinion seriously. Who people take seriously are scholars and respected institutions. That's why it is important their objectivity is unquestioned(or rarely questioned). And when that objectivity appears to be or is indeed clouded - there is a duty to speak up.

 

It's not a bother for many. I ask you - if it's not a bother - why the need to keep these folks quiet? I just don't get that. If your position is - I don't give a fig for those opinions then that's perfectly reasonable. But the whole why bother - why speak up - I don't get that position. The easy answer is - if I care - why not?

[NGONGE]

Originally posted by ElPunto:

Ngonge,

 

As a layman my criticims may not be constructive - but as long as they are not bashing or derogatory - why put the kibosh on me? And frequently it's not a matter of layman or not. It's a matter of prerogative. Before Tantawi's latest fatwa, ladies in all ladies schools could wear the niqab - but then something all of a sudden changed. I disagreed with his change of heart and thought that it may have been politically motivated. Is my criticism invalid? Must I be a scholar to criticize?

 

What is your criticism based on? Did you look into the actual dispute? The man went into a school, saw a young girl wearing a niqab and asked why she was wearing it. From there, he decided to ban the niqab in girls' schools. For you to agree/disagree with him is ok. For you to air that disagreement really isn't. For a start you're not giving him the benefit of the doubt and are faffing about political reasons and what not. Secondly, you do not even know (despite Karl's posts) if the man was right or wrong (you are layman, saaxib). Yes your criticism is invalid and yes you must be a scholar.

 

 

Originally posted by ElPunto:

Ngonge,

 

 

I was talking about the independance of the institution as a whole. If it was more independant - it would have greater weight than it does now. And it would reduce the perception of stoogism. And thus serve its stakeholder better. As to trust or not - I look to the consensus of the scholars not to any particular person.

 

The problem is the perception, saaxib. Saudi Arabia has loads of scholars (and no Azhar) yet the perception remains. Forget about them, adigu wiswiskaaga ka adko, saaxib.

 

Originally posted by ElPunto:

Ngonge,

 

 

There is a difference between everyone giving their opinion and taking an opinion seriously. Who people take seriously are scholars and respected institutions. That's why it is important their objectivity is unquestioned(or rarely questioned). And when that objectivity appears to be or is indeed clouded - there is a duty to speak up.

 

Speak up for them and never against them, saaxib. You are not a scholar and you can not compete with them on that front in the same way that I can not compete with Xiin or A&T in Somali. Besides, we live in a time of fitna where everybody's objectivity is questioned because of the sect/group/xaraka they belong to. Ka dhix bax, saaxib.

 

Originally posted by ElPunto:

Ngonge,

 

It's not a bother for many. I ask you - if it's not a bother - why the need to keep these folks quiet? I just don't get that. If your position is - I don't give a fig for those opinions then that's perfectly reasonable. But the whole why bother - why speak up - I don't get that position.

I am asking you why bother so I can get to the bottom of what's irking you, saaxib. I already gave you the reasons why I want to 'keep these folks quiet'.

[ElPunto]

What is your criticism based on? Did you look into the actual dispute? The man went into a school, saw a young girl wearing a niqab and asked why she was wearing it. From there, he decided to ban the niqab in girls' schools. For you to agree/disagree with him is ok. For you to air that disagreement really isn't. For a start you're not giving him the benefit of the doubt and are faffing about political reasons and what not. Secondly, you do not even know (despite Karl's posts) if the man was right or wrong (you are layman, saaxib). Yes your criticism is invalid and yes you must be a scholar.

My criticism is based on this: before his fatwa niqabs were ok in all female schools - that is to say - it was theologically permissable to wear them. Then it became theologically impermissable and I don't see how. I haven't seen a theological explanation as to the change of the heart. What you are saying is he was right before the fatwa and he was right after the fatwa? And I have no ability to ask questions or post criticisms even though I'm not a scholar. I think we will have to disagree on this issue.

 

Are you really saying that you, Ngonge, would never speak against a scholar on any position no matter how it deviates from the religion? That would indeed be something. I think part of our disagreement is that you think that something is irking people who air their disgreements with scholars/insittutions, that there must be an ulterior and nefarious motive etc. Just as you asked me to give the scholars the benefit of the doubt - you must give the benefit of the doubt to those dissenters.

 

I think we'll agree to disagree at this point.

[Khayr]

Just as you asked me to give the scholars the benefit of the doubt - you must give the benefit of the doubt to those dissenters.

You are asking too much saxib of Ngonge, way too much saxib.

 

In anycase, this thread is about Al-Azhar Heads being appointed by the Eyptian government. Which means ultimately that anything that they write or say has to tow the line, has to be pro-gov. agenda and not to the contrary. It means that the deen can and will be comprimised (a suite and tie wearing, clean shaven arab "alim" - what connection or allegiance to the deen does his image portray?

[NGONGE]

Originally posted by ElPunto:

quote:

What is your criticism based on? Did you look into the actual dispute? The man went into a school, saw a young girl wearing a niqab and asked why she was wearing it. From there, he decided to ban the niqab in girls' schools. For you to agree/disagree with him is ok. For you to air that disagreement really isn't. For a start you're not giving him the benefit of the doubt and are faffing about political reasons and what not. Secondly, you do not even know (despite Karl's posts) if the man was right or wrong (you are layman, saaxib). Yes your criticism is invalid and yes you must be a scholar.

My criticism is based on this: before his fatwa niqabs were ok in all female schools - that is to say - it was theologically permissable to wear them. Then it became theologically impermissable and I don't see how. I haven't seen a theological explanation as to the change of the heart. What you are saying is he was right before the fatwa and he was right after the fatwa? And I have no ability to ask questions or post criticisms even though I'm not a scholar. I think we will have to disagree on this issue.

 

Are you really saying that you, Ngonge, would never speak against a scholar on any position no matter how it deviates from the religion? That would indeed be something. I think part of our disagreement is that you think that something is irking people who air their disgreements with scholars/insittutions, that there must be an ulterior and nefarious motive etc. Just as you asked me to give the scholars the benefit of the doubt - you must give the benefit of the doubt to those dissenters.

 

I think we'll agree to disagree at this point.

But I am giving you the benefit of the doubt, you sponge. I am asking you why bother. I am giving you a chance to explain yourself. What more benefit of the doubt do you want?

 

Your opposition to Sheikh Tantawi is not giving him the benefit of the doubt (ignore Khayer, saaxib). You are asking questions of a dead man. Would it not be better to give him the benefit of the doubt than to hint at political control and what not? What exactly do you gain by doing that? I mean look at Khayer above going on about shaved beards and other nonsense to belittle men whose knowledge is higher than all his ancestors and mine (though my grandmother told me that my great grandmother hada karaamo and what not). The scholar's faith might not be better than Khayr's (or mine) but since we are not in a position to look into their hearts we only judge them on their merits. I know the clean shaven Azhar man is a more knowledgable person than angry Khayr.

 

P.S.

Had more or less the same discussion five years ago.