05.29.06
Dr. Muqtader Khan blasted!
This past weekend a leading “authority” on ijteehad was invited to a “Shi’a” convention - UMAA. Mr. Khan has written outrageous articles and has made very ignorant statements in the past.
In an article written Dr. Khan, “Have Iraqis Voted for a Dictatorship?”, he compares Ayatullah Sistani (may Allah give him long life) to Saddam:
“The US-led invasion of Iraq may have replaced an overt and brutal dictatorship by Saddam Hussein with a covert and subtle dictatorship buy the Marja-e-Taqleed, Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani—the highest-ranking Shiite authority on the planet.”
In another quote from article, Mr. Khan writes: “Ayatollah Sistani is manipulating the US occupation and the lack of a post-conquest plan at the Pentagon to orchestrate a Shiite revolution.”
Obviously, the tone of this article is not favorable towards Ayatullah Sistani (may Allah give him long life).
Complete article can be found at these links:
http://www.dailytimes.com.pk/default.asp?p…13-2-2005_pg3_6
http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fello…han20050213.htm
Muqtedar Khan, the author of this article is advisory board member of the “Progressive” Muslims Union, North America (PMUNA).
Why was Dr. Khan invited over Shi’a intellectuals? No one really knows, but the organizers have a reputation of doing this every year.
I was not able to make it, but alhamdulillah Dr. Khan got what he deserved. The President of Jafaria Association of North America, one of the first Shi’a Muslim organizations in North America, stood up and asked Mr. Khan what he said about Sistani. Mr. Khan tried brushing the question off, but M. Khan did not reply.
Sayyid Istafa Naqvi said, “Let me tell you what said…” and read off the article Mr. Khan had written which compared Ayatullah Sistani to Saddam Husain.
Of the participants no one else raised their voice. In gratitude, I believe we should all owe Sayyid Istafa Naqvi a thank you for not shying away from standing up for the truth and exposing falsehood (and for cutting Dr. Khan’s speech short). You can send your email to info@jana.org.
Now, this organization must respond somehow. If a youth spoke up they could have been brushed aside; however, Mr. Sayyid Istafa Naqvi is not so easily dismissed.
For those of you who don’t know Sayyid Istafa Naqvi, he is one of the original pioneers of Shi’i Islam in North America. During the 70s, he, along with others, organized the first set of Majalis and Maderassa schools. These programs were initially held in a rented building in the United Nations. In 1982 he founded Jaferia Association of North America in his living room with several other NY/NJ/CT personalities. As an elected president of JANA since 1984 he organized the first Muharram Procession in the Northeast, now the longest running Procession in North America.
They (the organizers) tried to legitimize the organization–which has been very controversial from day one for inviting corrupt people (ie Paul Wolfowitz) –by inviting an influential leader in the community, but the plan back-fired. I think now is the time to act, and we must reform this organization, inshaAllah. The momentum is on our side.
I really hope Muqtader Khan becomes more cautious about what he utters. By insulting our marja he insulted the Prophet (a). Our marjas are our representatives of Imam Mahdi (a) and Imam Mahdi (a) is the representative of the Imams (a). And the Imams represent the Prophet (a). Whomever disgraces the Prophet (a), disgraces God.
I pray to God that the UMAA organizers, learned their lesson.
Sarah Said:
May 30, 2006 at 5:13 pm
Wow, very interesting. That guy is quite stupid. Ok, UMAA does have a problem. They can’t keep on making the same stupid mistakes over and over.
And may Allah (swt) bless Naqvi! He’s done so much, mashAllah. Lots of respect for him.
Prometheusbound Said:
May 30, 2006 at 6:28 pm
Its so disappointing to here that an organization such as UMMA which make the claim to represents all Muslims, continually invite speakers which are partisan and biased. After the first years incident the attendance decreased dramatically. The slow rise is attends is not necessarily due to the speakers, but because it has become a social gathering. I wish our community would be more informed about the speakers before hand so they could make a appropriate decision regarding attendance.
Fatima Said:
May 30, 2006 at 9:48 pm
Salaam Abbas Bhai,
After some minor modifications, I think this piece is ready to be written down as a chapter in our Red Book for revolution.
Re: UMAA–I was talking about this a few days ago and I feel the best route would be to yes, empower our youth but also create ties. That’s a rather vague and “no-duh” kind of a statement, but I mean to say is that instead of simply criticizing an organization which at least can gather shias together, we need to impliment the necessary change from withing. This will give us more legitimacy and more power, more resources and a more prudent use of them.
This, byu no means, is condoning the unIslamic aspects of UMAA, but is simply a statement calling for change within an established entity, necessary change…just as you ask for reform…so do I.
And lastly…GO ABBU
KH
Shaid Afridi Said:
June 2, 2006 at 5:00 pm
With all due respects, just standing up and shouting for a few minutes, with his voice trembling and in a thick accent which was terrible, does not make Mr. Naqvi a hero. He was walked out like a trouble maker and Dr. Khan, who is a very eloquent speaker and a brilliant thinker, got several ovations from the crowd at the event. His talk on Ijtihad and the role of American Muslims was thought provoking.
Also how can being disrespectful or even critical of A. Sistani cosntitute disrespect for the Prophet (saw)?
Finally, he is a Sunni and surely does not understand how we Shias worship or scholars as if they were Gods.
Shaid Afridi Said:
June 3, 2006 at 8:47 am
KH, our youth need to be integrated into the community’s Islamic activities and UMAA is doing a lot to encourage that. But we must remember that it is thinkers and scholars like Dr. Muqtedar Khan who speak to them , excite them and provide them an interpretation of Islam that is appealing to them. Our traditional Mullahs, with their empty rhetoric and dictatorial attitude repel them. People like Naqvi can only stand in the crowd and shout at shcoalrs, they cannot attract the youth with their “brilliance”.
Seyyada Nahid
Shaid Afridi Said:
June 3, 2006 at 8:51 am
Seyyeda, myself and a few other youngsters have since met and have decided that we will take up Dr. Muqtedar’s challenge and establish a Shiaa-Sunni dialogue at the youth level.
Shaid, Seyyeda, Ali and Jan
publicdebate Said:
June 3, 2006 at 10:45 am
Salaam
stay far away fro this guy Muqtedar Khan, his politics are strange and weird to say the least… unless you are looking for a job at the US State Department to figure out new tactics on how to oppress Muslims, and how to sell out.
see http://pmunadebate.blogspot.com for more on Muqti.
naqvia Said:
June 4, 2006 at 2:06 pm
I apologize for not replying earlier. I was very busy this weekend. It is good to see people engaging in discussion about this very important issue. I just wanted to respond to some of the posts.
Sarah, Fatima, and Prometheous Bound all make good points. We all know that there is a problem with how UMAA is ran and is conducted and we must change UMAA somehow. Fatima, has stated this can only be beneficial from “within.” Meaning,reform can only happen if we get involved. In my opinion, that should be our first choice, but we need to infiltrate the administration somehow. Real change can only happen if we influence/change/modify the leadership. The problem now is “how do we do this?”
-Abbas
naqvia Said:
June 4, 2006 at 2:13 pm
Afridi,
Sister, I agree we (youth) must be integrated into the communities Islamic activities. The key-word is “Islamic.” Do UMAA or the organizers define what “Islamic” is? No, Allah (swt) does that. Just because there is a conference organized by Muslims does not neccessarily make it “Islamic.” Lets not be fooled. And UMAA, in my opinion, is NOT doing that. I know because I once used to have very high hopes and volunteered (only the first year). And the events and actions that followed really undermined Muslims and Islam.
Mr. Khan is no way a religious scholar or even religion thinker. I suggest you read the works of Allama Iqbal, and Dr. Ali Shariati for real Islamic “thinkers.” In the Shi’a world there are plenty of more. And what do you mean when you say “traditional” mullahs and can you elaborate on the comment you made abou them? Lastly, sister, there is nothing wrong with “hearing” new theories and what not, but inviting someone and allowing him to promote his view of ijtihad and letting that go unchallanged is horrible. I think you should be careful about some of the things you said about Mr. Naqvi. He has inspired and encouraged may youths in New York.
Now, the pulpit is something we need to take care of. The Ahlul Bayt (a) have always informed us that the pulpit is sacred and we must protect it. If there was another speaker with him representing the Muslim or the Shi’a view of ijtihad, then I do not think peope would have protested and it would be been much more fruitful. Hello… it was a “shi’a” convention! We cannot allow random people, who have no religious scholarship to teach our people, especially our youth. This is simply not acceptable.
-Abbas
Seyyada Nahid Afridi Said:
June 5, 2006 at 3:30 pm
Dear Br. Abbas, It is obvious that you have not attended the convention or at least Dr. Khan’s lecture on Ijtihad. He was on a panel with a very esteemed Shia scholar Imam Mohammad Elahi, who did not disagree or challenge any of Dr. Muqtedar’s ideas. In fact Imam Elahi who spoke after Dr. Muqtedar, picked on Dr. Muqtedar’s talk and referred to them several times in his own talk. Imam Elahai did not disagree with even one thing that Dr. Muqtedar said.
Most of the youth who were present enjoyed Dr. Muqtedar’s lecture very much. His analysis was brilliant, his critique was on the mark and most importantly he had answers to offer and was not shy from addressing critical issues.
Imam Elahi on the other hand was full of rhetoric, pointed to many many questions wiithout offering a single solution. He had no ideas to offer and nothing for the youth. Also he liked to talk about breast implants and makeover shows on TV.
You say that Dr. Muqtedar is not a religious scholar, then how come his talk had more depth than the religious scholars at the conference. I also searched the web and found that his ideas on Ijtihad are published widely in the Muslim World and in highly respected academic and Islamic journals where as our Imams have no scholarly record at all! I also discovered a brilliant article of his that analyses the work of shia scholars like Sachedina and Soroush.
It is lies like these about Muslim scholars which is turning the youth away from our community. Do you think that after studying four years in Johns Hopkins and one year at Columbia University, I do not have the ability to recognize who is a real scholar!
Imam Elahi was full of rhetoric, Dr. Muqtedar was full of insights. Why don’t you talk to those who heard him before making false assertions about an Islamic scholar.
Finally you ask me to be careful about what I say about Mr. Naqvi, the person who disrupted the proceeding by shouting out of order, because he has inspired youth in NY. But you have no problems abusing a prominent Muslim scholar like Dr. Muqtedar, who has written several books and hundreds of articles and has inspired youth all over the country!
One more reason why shia youth in America are disenchanted is because of hypocrises like this.
publicdebate Said:
June 5, 2006 at 3:58 pm
Obviously, Seyyada has not bothered to read critiques of Khan’s works -he is in no shape way or form a religious scholar… he is a political commentator, and that too a lousy one, with very strange and inconsistent politics. If you like his material… well, what can one say… you might want to actually read the works of people such as Allama Iqbal, and Dr.Ali Shariati that bro. Abbas mentioned earlier. There are many othere.
There is hypocrisy… but not amongst those who have rightfully spoken out against Muqti Khan.
naqvia Said:
June 5, 2006 at 4:35 pm
Sr Sayyada,
Alhamdulillah, thank you for responding. It reflects and displays that people really care about real issues. However, you did not address a lot of the issues I brought up, yet I still disagree with you. Every youth I spoken to (i can give you names) was disgusted with Mr. Khan’s speech and his view on ijtihad (if you do not believe me I can refer to you some Shi’a forums online). Since you loved Mr. Khan’s lecture, can you summarize his points? What issues do you agree with him on?
On Sheikh Elayhi, I do not know him and I did not hear him speak. But what is wrong with tieing in the current state of affairs (make-over shows) that this country promotes?
Now, I think there is a fundamental problem in your analysis of who is a “religious scholar” and who is not. When I say religious scholar I am referring to high-ranking scholars, like the mujtahids. Yes, Mr. Khan has a phd but that does not make him a “religious” authority. He has not studied the Quran and the Sunnah in-depth. The institutions and training is very vigerous. And even after that you need to be approved by the other scholars. In conclusion, its very difficult and you need more than just a phd to become a religious scholar, especially in the Shi’a world. By the way, which Islamic journals have you read his works on? Can you name them for me, so I can take a look too?
I am not sure if you read Mr. Khan’s works. I have and there are fundamental flaws in them - that is why I resisted him. I have read his works. I am sure you are an intellegent being, (mashaAllah you went to John Hopkins and Columbia), so you should know the fallacies he makes in his articles. Anyone who has studied or read religious material can easily expose Mr. Khan’s faulty analysis.
Finally, about Mr. Naqvi, I just wanted to clear up your misconception and accusations against him. That is all. I have never attacked Mr. Khan’s personality or his character. I respect him as a human, but his ideas are flawed. As a Muslim, we are commanded to “enjoin good and forbid evil.”
However, I agree with you on one thing. Majority of our youths are disenchanted and we have many hypocrits amongst us. If you are in Maryland I hope you attended Khomeini Day at the IEC. Hajj Hassanain Rajabali spoke there and there were many youths there. The topics were great. InshaAllah, you got the chance to go, if not may you go another time.
wa salaam,
Abbas
some guy Said:
June 5, 2006 at 4:37 pm
it seems miss Afridi that you have something personal agaisnt people who go through formal islamic training and have a preferance for people who dont. There are many scholars out there who would have disagreed with what khan said. I was at the conference and there where alot of people who felt the same way as sayid naqvi but the reason his action was liked by many youth (yes thats right many young people who were there did like him) was because he had courage to stand up when he heard someone offending the our scholars. Its not like he just did a critique of ayatolllah Sistani but he had to insult him so that he could get his article to be read. If he was truly and intellectual then he would never need to do this.
some guy Said:
June 5, 2006 at 4:57 pm
Just because one scholar didnt say anything dosent really mean anything. All you have to do is read ayatollah mutahhary’s books on ijtehad to realize that khans view of ijtehad is not very accurate at all.
This dream that he has that when youth talk about sunni shia issues then all of a sudden the issues will be resolved. we dont need to look to the youth for answers we need to look to Allah (swt) for them.
Seyyada Nahid Afridi Said:
June 5, 2006 at 10:25 pm
Dear Br. Abbas, after reading your comments that Dr. Muqtedar’s ideas are “flawed and have fundamental problems”, I have just spend a couple of hours on his website, which is fascinating and brilliant. I am recommending it to all my shia friends and also my non-Muslim friends. He is truly awesome.
You say his work his flawed, name one flaw, dispute some argument of his, specially from his research essays. Just saying his work is flawed without a single example is not an argument, it is an empty rhetoric.
I also discovered that Dr. Muqtedar was elected President, Vice President and General Secretary of the Association of Muslim Scholars, a worldwide Muslim body, now that is truly recognition by peers. I also found that he has published in the American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences, The Muslim world, Islamic, Islamic Horizon, The minaret, The Message, … and many more Islamic journals!
Amazingly he has also organized a symposium on Ayatollah Mahdi Hairi Yezdi’s book, The Principles of Epistemology in Islamic philosophy! Br. Abbas, isn’t he a very famous shia philosopher and Dr. Muqtedar did a symposium on it for the American Journal of Islamic Social Sciences [Fall 1999]!
Wow, I would love to hear your critique of Dr. Muqtedar’s analysis of Ayatollah Yezdi’s book, fundamental flaws and all…This is a challenge Br. Abbas.
And Public Debate, as far as criticisms are concerned the only critiques on the web are rabid zionists like Pipes and Militant islami monitor that accuse Dr. Muqtedar of being an Islamist and your website.
But I found several wonderful appreciations of his work by many scholars including Dr. Esposito and many positive profiles all over. And the critique is also not scholalry just full of adhominems like your and Br. Abbas’ comments on this blog.
It is amazing how much time people like you spend to undermine a Muslim scholar who seems to be working hard for Islam and Muslims, I am sure Allah will reward him, inspite of all the meanspirited things some people say about him.
I also read his article about A. sistani, it is not about Sistani at all it is a critique of US policy in Iraq. BTW ins’t a Marja by definition a totalitarian dictator, he and he alone can think and opine while all are supposed to blindly follow. Is there room for democracy in shia Islam, can we question and critique scholars, or we supposed to treat them as Gods, infallible!
Dr. Khan’s website is http://www.ijtihad.org and you cna read about this wonderful man at http://www.ijtihad.org/MuqtedarKhan.htm
I am seriously thinking of transfering from Columbia to University of Delaware to study with him, inshallah.
Seyyada Nahid Afridi Said:
June 5, 2006 at 10:32 pm
Here is the link to Dr. Muqtedar’s symposium on Ayatollah Yezdi’s book, The Principles of Epistemology in Islamic Philosophy, go to page 81. http://iiit.org/AJISS_Final/ALLPDF/V16N3%20FALL%2099.pdf
And here is a link to the book itself: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0791409481/qid=1149571909/sr=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/002-5373323-7520019?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
S. N. Afridi Said:
June 6, 2006 at 11:15 pm
You are so mean. You deleted my messages and postings. If this is the level of integrity — so much for your islamic ethics — why should I waste my time.
Ali Said:
June 7, 2006 at 7:54 am
Your comment is still there…
naqvia Said:
June 7, 2006 at 10:26 am
I do not know what you mean, your comments are all still there..
-Abbas
naqvia Said:
June 7, 2006 at 8:59 pm
I am sorry, I did not see and I had to approve your messages. I did not delete them, I just had to approve them and I forgot to. They should be up now.
-Abbas
naqvia Said:
June 7, 2006 at 10:03 pm
Dear Seyyada,
One will just have to read his theory and his works on ijithad. He believes the Qur’an and the Sunnah as tools for ijtihad actually restrict it. He believes ijtihad should be done without the Qur’an and the Sunnah. This is a MAJOR problem. Do you not see this problem? According to his version ijtihad anything can be justified - literally! We can never take Allah (swt) out of the picture. He should not be preaching to us about ijtihad and I hope it is more evident now as to why we must resist.
You are mistaken, the Association of Muslim Scholars is a group in Iraq. The main sunni group consisting of clerics from the different regions. I think you meant, “Association of Muslim Social Scientists.” He is apart of that. Its a organization for “social scientists,” not religious Muslim scholars/thinkers.
Can you give me references (ie. issue, page number, etc). His writings usually pertain to political or social matters (not religious). For example here is one sample. He states in one of his memos,
“Once the war is declared, make no mistake Mr. Saddam Hussain and Mr. Bin Laden, We are with America. We will fight with America and we will fight for America. We have a covenant with this nation, we see it as a divine commitment and we will not disobey the Quran (9:4).”
I wonder if he gave a memo on the atrocities of Haditha? Probably not.
Are you Shi’a or are you familiar with Shi’a theology? Have you studied Islamic theology? A marja is not a totalitarian dictator. That statement reflects a lot of misinformation and a lack of knowledge in your part of the field. I believe you are talking about the concept of taqleed when you naively say “blind following.”
Taqleed is not blind following. In fact, it is the anti-thesis of that. Taqleed is actually acknowledging that there are those with more knowledge and expertise in the field of Islam like we acknowledge doctors, lawyers and other professionals in their respective fields. We seek the maraja in matters of religion, like we seek doctors in matters of health. There are many maraja to choose from and there are different procedures to reach a decision. Furthmore, you also have the choice to become a mujtahid! So it would be very ignorant for us to claim that a marja is a “totalitarian dictator.”
Scholars critique one another all the time, on an intellectual level. You do not critique an individual by insulting him and calling him a dictator. It is like me critiquing you by comparing you to the brutal Shah of Iran (Pehlavi) and saying you are anti-Islamic. Does that make any sense!?
I will read the link you gave me when I get the time; thank you for posting the link. Anyone else that wants to jump into the discourse or discussion be my guest
. And sister please do not transfer - Columbia is a good school.
wa salaam,
Abbas
Ali Said:
June 8, 2006 at 7:10 pm
Salaamun’ Alaikum,
From the PDF, the sister posted, here was Dr. Khan says about Dr. Yazdi’s book:
“As the host and coordinator of the seminar, I began my remarks by discussing the aims of contempomy Islamic philosophers. I was very critical
of Yazdi’s book and argued that while it was an excellent piece of academic philosophy, it did not contribute much toward empowering contemporary Islamic thought: “Knowledge by presence” is little more than an instinct for self-awareness. In a controversial claim, at least for the Sufi
philosophers in the audience, I stated that if knowledge by presence was
given its due as described by Yazdi, then it made revelation redundant.”
– M. A. Muqtedar Khan
I bit insulting wouldn’t you think? Actually, a bit egotistical if you ask me.
Wa Salaam,
Ali
Anonymous Said:
June 8, 2006 at 8:07 pm
I was at the speech of M. Khan.
I am sorry it was a snooozzeee, BORING! If it was not for the Shiekh I think I would have threw some rotten tomatos!
Afridi, stick to Cricket!
I think you should stop with this M Khan talk, your nose is turning brown!
altaf Said:
June 9, 2006 at 9:21 am
M.Khan did not understand Ayat. Yazdi’s book, nor the concept of “presence.” Khan would have to go through an extensive period of learning, esp. in the irfani schools of people such as Mullah Sadra in order to even begin to have any say in these kinds of issues… “revelation redundant” — what a hoot, he is only revealing his own ignorance.
mohammad Said:
June 9, 2006 at 10:28 pm
how the hell is he going to comment on Yazdi’s book when he knows nothing about gnosis or irfan? its like like a doctor trying to write a computer program! come on now. afridi.. how much did you get paid? maybe you are mr khan himself! he has no knowledge about the different sciences of Islam (especially nothing about ijteehad). he is a flip flopper, he changes his views multiple times on world events and he thinks he a religious scholar. he is arrogant and ignorant at the same time.. khan doesn’t believe himself… for God’s sake.
all of us but afridi, are in agreement.. khan should not be invited to speak to shi’i (or muslims) on ijtihad. afridi, if u love him so much, go marry him! he can probably marry any number of women, since he does not need quran and hadiths…
Ali Said:
June 10, 2006 at 10:05 am
I wonder if Afridi isn’t Dr. Khan himself. That would be a hoot!
Wa Salaam,
Ali
Jamal G Said:
June 10, 2006 at 2:49 pm
I am not a big fan of Dr. Khan, but I respect him. He is too modernist for me. But he stood up very strongly when the Quran was desecrated and has defended Prophet Muhammad [pbuh] very eloquently when the likes of Falwell attacked him.
It is interesting to see that all the shiia on this forum who are attacking him for lack of knowledge, are themselves not invited to speak at their own [shia] conventions and are not recognized as scholar are intellectuals, or for that matter, anything by anybody. That man is not only invited by Shia forums [he also spoke at the Hussain Day event in NY a few years ago, which I attended, I missed the DC event], but by Sunnia, forums, by mainstream university, think tanks and is very invited abroad.
No wonder our world is *7*%$*#@* we ridicule scholars, at time when there are few and far between…
Mohsin Kidwai Said:
June 10, 2006 at 2:51 pm
Muqtedar Khan is one of the rising stars among Muslim intellectuals in the West. ” — The Daily Star
“Voice of Moderate Islam” — Los Angeles Times and the Boston Globe
“A Rare Moderate Voice”
— The Daily Times
“I think that Dr Khan helps reinforce that the war on terrorism is not a war on Islam” — General Richard Myers, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (Feb 23, 2003).
Muqtedar Khan brings passion, eloquence and intellectual power to bear on his subject.
– Dr. Ali Mazrui
Muqtedar Khan’s intelligent, reasoned, self-critical, impassioned and provocative Muslim voice makes a distinctive and significant contribution to the process of reexamination and reform that has been made even more urgent in the aftermath of 9/11.
– John L. Esposito
To my mind, Dr. Muqtedar Khan has lived up to the challenging role of of the public intellectual in a time of crisis. — Akber S. Ahmed
Khan believes his more liberal voice highlights a historical tension between traditionalist Islamic theologians, who tend to furnish more conservative fatwas and Islamic philosophers who go for the more flexible rulings.
– Washington Post.
“But make no mistake: Khan, 36, is one of a growing number of young, moderate Muslim thinkers who believe themselves engaged in a battle for the soul of Islam.” — Newsday
Mohsin Kidwai Said:
June 10, 2006 at 3:06 pm
Said, what does Islam preach about spreading lies?” When did Dr. Muqtedar say that he does not believe in Quran and Sunnah…I am on Dr. Muqtedar’s mailing and have read most of his works and he has never written that, can you prove it? Here is one quote from
“In Mr. Khan’s view, political elites in the Muslim world have for centuries restricted the development of democracy and political accountability by hiding behind religious principles that they proclaim to be fixed in stone. Mr. Khan argues, in effect, for an end run around the entire traditional apparatus of Muslim jurisprudence. Believers should instead, he suggests, look directly to the Koran and to the practices of Muhammad and his companions, and use their own efforts at interpretation to build ethical communities.” http://www.ijtihad.org/who-owns-Islamic-law.htm
You can read how beautifully he advocates the use of the Quran for Ijtihad here:
See also; “The Qur’an was sent as a divine guidance to those who believe and contains principles and guidelines essential for social, political and spiritual guidance of humanity. The Qur’an should however not be mistaken as a manual. It is an essence of divine values, a collection of revealed principles the understanding and following of which will lead us along the straight path. The derivation of a manual from the divine principles is one of the most important responsibilities that come from being a Muslim. This responsibility is like a fard-e-kifaya (communal obligation). It is enough that someone take up this task in a given place and time. ” at:
Mohsin Kidwai Said:
June 10, 2006 at 3:07 pm
See also; “The Qur’an was sent as a divine guidance to those who believe and contains principles and guidelines essential for social, political and spiritual guidance of humanity. The Qur’an should however not be mistaken as a manual. It is an essence of divine values, a collection of revealed principles the understanding and following of which will lead us along the straight path. The derivation of a manual from the divine principles is one of the most important responsibilities that come from being a Muslim. This responsibility is like a fard-e-kifaya (communal obligation). It is enough that someone take up this task in a given place and time. ” at:
naqvia Said:
June 10, 2006 at 3:23 pm
Mohsin,
One long post enough.. please do not flood the blog. Thanks.
wa salaam,
Abbas
Mohsin Kidwai Said:
June 10, 2006 at 4:12 pm
I am sorry Abbas, for some reason the link to the last quote did not appear, so I tried again. It still does not show.
Ali Said:
June 11, 2006 at 11:17 am
Jamal G.,
The Shi’a’s also invited Paul Wolfowitz to their conferences and endorsed Daniel Pipes… does that make them scholars in Islam?
Dr. Khan, talks about two approaches towards Ijtihad, this is what he says about the approach that uses the Qur’an and Sunnah:
“…very narrow, legalistic notion of it as a process of juristic reasoning
employed to determine the permissibility of an action when primary sources, namely the Koran and Sunnah…For those who hold this view of ijtihad, who can perform ijtihad is often more important than the need for ijtihad.”
Wa Salaam,
Ali
Jamal Said:
June 11, 2006 at 11:41 am
Ali, I did not know that the Shia endorsed Daniel Pipes. Very interesting. That perhaps explains their blind imitation of Sistani, they are in the habit of making thoughtless endorsements. But, I did not comment on the fatc that shia invited Dr. Muqtedar, my point was, that none of the people on this list a qualified or an acknolwedged scholars and their silly comments about Dr. Muqtedar’s scholarship is as intellectual empty as their support of Pipes and Wolfowizt.
Mohsin Kidwai Said:
June 11, 2006 at 11:44 am
What! endrosed that horrible islamophoebe Daniel Pipes! No wonder the Shias don’t like Dr. muqtedar Khan, how can they like him and Pipes both. Ali thankyou for clarifying, now I understand this irrational animosity towards Dr. Muqtedar Khan, these guys are Daniel Pipes groupies.
Anonymous Said:
June 11, 2006 at 7:58 pm
Ok Ali made a mistake. The Shia did not, a FEW Shia were listed as endorsees by ONE shia. The FEW Shia who were unaware retracted their support once they found out this ONE shia listed their names. This ONE shia is apart of the same group that invited M. Khan and Wolfowitz. I think what he meant to say is that this group invited M Khan, Wolfowitz, and endorsed Pipes, that gives M. Khan no help. So to blame Shias because of ONE Shia, we can conclude with the same logic that sunnis should be blamed for OBL and Zarqawi…but that would be stupid.
M Khan is NOT a scholar, at least not of Islam. He may be an intellectual but then again so is O’Reilly.
Btw, when the American media praises you, you know their is something wrong with you as a muslim. They praise Irshad Manji for God Sake!
Ali Said:
June 12, 2006 at 8:02 am
Correct, Anonymous.
The same people that invited Paul Wolfowitz and endorsed D. Pipes also invited Dr. Khan. So, hmm… what do all three have in common? Let’s think about this really hard. *jeopordy thinking music*
Wa Salaam,
Ali
Ali Said:
June 12, 2006 at 8:03 am
Oh, one more comment…
Just to clarify to Mohin and Jamal… the people that protested Wolfowitz and Daniel Pipes, were the one that protested Dr. Khan!
Wa Salaam,
Ali
altaf Said:
June 12, 2006 at 6:10 pm
Jamal said:
“..my point was, that none of the people on this list a qualified or an acknolwedged scholars and their silly comments about Dr. Muqtedar’s scholarship is as intellectual empty …”
Actually the Shi’a community can and do evaluate our scholars… we chose the most knowledgable amongst us, and carefully listen to them… that is a process of evaluation, and it is upto the individual and the community of Shi’as to make that determination… based on the learning, background, piety, ijaza, etc. of the scholar. The system of “taqleed” is not about following a pope like figure that Khan seems to imply (of-course he implies far worse, as has been pointed out by others…) … M.Khan can and has been evaluated based on such a criteria… the scholarship that the Shia tradition (and traditional Sunnis) demand is of a very high standard…
with regards to Khan, anyone with a high school ed. (or less) can see the contradictions in his political and social commentaries… he appeals to a certain brand of modernist Muslims who are in search of an “American Islam” - in service to America, no doubt. Seriously, those coming to his defense need to do a couple of things: First, learn a thing or two about Shias, and then critically read a thing or two that their “scholar” Khan has written.
naqvia Said:
June 13, 2006 at 1:28 pm
Brother Altaf makes very good points. I believe we are going in circles with this discussion, so let put an end to it. The bottom line, in my opinion, is that Muqtader Khan should not be given the opportunity to preach (or go unchallanged) to Shi’as about ijtihad because he does not have sufficient knowledge about ijtihad according to the Shi’a perspective.
Also, this may be a lesson for all of us. I remember Imam Ali’s (s) saying, “The tongue is like the beast, if let loose, it devours.” Meaning we should thoroughly study and research a topic before we speak about it. And if someone does speak falsely, we must challange him or her!
-Abbas
anthony Said:
July 15, 2006 at 7:04 am
Very gooood project.
john Said:
July 17, 2006 at 12:55 pm
ice Site. Could use more of these instead of the many trash blogs on the web.
michael Said:
July 19, 2006 at 1:25 pm
buga ga iera
margrett Said:
July 27, 2006 at 7:03 am
Thenks mamamama
elizabethe Said:
July 27, 2006 at 6:53 pm
Hello world
marye Said:
July 28, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Thenks, good works
grace Said:
August 1, 2006 at 3:34 am
ghj j hh
daniel Said:
August 1, 2006 at 8:40 am
dsf gsdfg sdfg
bennet Said:
August 1, 2006 at 2:08 pm
good blog.