Two anonymous posters, whose comments I can’t put up because they didn’t comply with the new comments policy (on the right-hand sidebar on the front page). One didn’t give his full name or hometown. The second didn’t give his hometown or a valid email address.

One, a Sunni and a Sufi, reports that at an Eid gathering in Greenford Park in London, al-Fitrah, a Salafi organisation, which, according to the poster, was handing out literature that attacks the beliefs and practices of Sufis as shirk. Apparently this organisation is linked with some signatories of the pledge. Obviously this report has to be corroborated further.

The second poster refers to a long refutation of the pledge from salafitalk.net, a Salafi disucssion forum. Their main target is Yasir al-Qadhi. Interestingly they also reproduce a post from a Deobandi rejecting the pledge on the grounds that Yasir al-Qadhi have not changed their fundamental positions.

The link is here:

http://salafitalk.net/st/viewmessages.cfm?Forum=9&Topic=6237

If people want to get their posts posted up then please do follow the comments policy. The policy is laid out in detail here:

http://www.yahyabirt.com/?page_id=110

Ma’shallah the “Mutual Respect and Cooperation between Sunni Muslim Scholars” is a great development!

May the Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamat continue to progress and be successful.

Ameen

The Middle Awakening
http://www.themiddleawakening.net

hmmm, don’t know about this. There is one thing in recognising others as Muslims in line with Al-Ghazzali’s broad views on the subject and even uniting across sectarian divides for the purpose of solidarity and common faith and political causes, but it’s another thing altogether recognising a sect- Salafys as being part of the Ahle-Sunnah-wal-Jamaat.

I was actually having this discussion with my father-in-law last night about how do you define a sect. I explained that although certain secondary issues may be legitamatly differed on, when a group takes a radically new stance on a major issue they either become a sect or kafir. In this case the Salafys inheriting Abdul Wahab Najdi’s innovation on the subject declare anyone performing tawassul or tabarruk as mushriks which is clearly a huge difference to the concept of shirk held by the Ahle-Sunnah throughout history and is a major root issue, not a minor branch one.

In fact this is even the case with the Brelwi-Deobandi dispute, Imam Ahmed Raza Khan pronounced takfir on the ulema of Deoband because he believed that their writings amounted to insulting the Prophet (PBUH). Contrary to popular opinion this wasn’t because they disagreed with on branch matters- in the opening to many of his refutations to their positions he openly admits that they are legitimate differences between the Ulema on these subjects, e.g. in his book on the question of the salvation of the Prophet (SAAWS) parents (RAA). It was rather because he felt the language they had used in making some of their arguments was tantamount to insulting the Prophet (PBUH). Please note i’m not trying to reignite this argument rather explain it’s proper parameters.

Of course all the involved parties are with their Lord now, he will decide between them and concerted efforts are being made to overcome the Brealwi-Deoband divide today. However this is on the basis that they all follow legitimate opinions within Ahle Sunnah not that we widen the concept of Ahle Sunnah everytime a group emerges with a large following in an attempt to co-opt them. Especially when they consider us mushriks (trust me i’ve been called it a few times).

wasalaam

Ismaeel

This pledge is addressing theological intolerance and the tendency that a lot of ordinary Muslims as well as some religious leaders got into in the UK and the US — the attempt to cast other Muslims outside the realm of the faith. The fact that religious scholars who were once bitter rivals have got together to denounce this is to be welcomed in the broader scheme of things.

The pledge is not addressing normal political discussions, which might legitimately include public criticism of bodies like the Muslim Council of Britain, the Sufi Muslim Council, the British Muslim Forum, the Muslim Association of Britain, British Muslim Initiative or anyone else who would claim to represent Muslims.

Of course many Muslims don\’t follow the teachings of traditional Muslim scholars but that doesn\’t mean that they are without real influence as many do follow them, and to that extent it is important that they take a positive lead in reducing intra-Muslim sectarianism. It is hardly surprising that they will view traditional scholastics as the scholarly standard to which all interpreters of Islam should aspire: one would expect them to articulate that view. And you are right, there is no doubt that Zia Sardar wouldn\’t agree.

Fundamentally the significance of the pledge is not the debate about traditional or reformist means of interpreting Islam but about a theological ceasefire between certain sectors of the faith. It\’s better than potshots.

Of course it won\’t end debate on the net, and I don\’t think this is even the pledge\’s intent. That would be unrealistic to say the least. Rather it is trying to put a cap on intra-Muslim theological intolerance on the net not a cap on debate on the net. If I understood it to be against debate per se I would never have supported it. However taking a stand against theological intolerance is laudable aim that I support, which is the reason for my putting the pledge up. A ceasefire is better than war in these circumstances. Respect and recognition across boundaries, e.g. basic civility, is actually a precondition for the formation of the public sphere in the first place. And this I thought was what Zia Sardar was also getting at in a talk he gave with Iftikhar Malik at City Circle in September 2006: \”Bringing Salafis, Sufis and Secularists Together: Rearticulating Civil Society in Islam\”. The link is here: http://www.thecitycircle.com/events_full_text2.php?id=412.
All the best, Yahya

- “Urge Muslims to categorically cease all attacks on individual Muslims and organizations whose varying positions can be substantiated…”

Which can be interpreted as – don’t disagree with the MCB when it takes a stance.

- “….to cease unproductive, overly polemical writings and oral discourse; and to work to stimulate greater understanding and cooperation between Muslims, at both the level of the leadership and the general community;”

No one’s allowed to write opinion articles any more? Not even to criticise the government or Muslim inaction over Darfur/

- “Urge Muslims in the West, especially our youth, to leave off unproductive and divisive discussions of involved theological issues that are the proper domain of trained specialists,”

Surely Ziauddin Sardar would disagree?

- “… and we especially discourage participation in those internet chat rooms, campus discussion groups,”

This is the most amusing. Do internet chat rooms and polemical writings include blogs? So… in other words young Muslims are not allowed to write opionion on blogs and partake in a discussion with other Muslims or non-Muslims?

Wa s-salam, Yahya

ikhtilaf takes many forms – not just opinion but also argumentation, reasoning, method.
it’s good that you chaps are trying to sort yourself out – there’s little point as i see it for commonalities across the madhahib without some internal cohesion. as for the anti-shia element, i doubt the recalcitrant salafis and deobandis would sign up anyway (the problem is often more the hard core pakistani related deobandis – indian deobandis are slightly different).
anyway keep at it – how do you find the time to write so much?
peace

For sister SSK and others who are interested, I suggest she looks at the following article.

http://alternativeentertainment.wordpress.com/2007/09/24/the-spirit-behind-the-pledge/