No, I haven’t ’signed’ it. Do I have to? I have been living under an even more stricter and sincere version of this document for some time, under specific instruction from my Shaykh.
I have, and still hold today, every Salafi as a Muslim. I prefer to focus on positive developments rather than debate about creed or fiqh. I work at real Islamic programs, help capture and distribute some media, meet with people of different understandings, and I don’t attack personalities. I didn’t even start nor endorse a boycott al-Maghrib for all the attention that a few of my posts got on the subject. Even those have been removed. The most one can say is that I did (and do) believe in properly identifying all the parties at hand, especially at times when those ideologies were hidden and causing confusion amongst people on the ground.
Any declaration in the style of the sunnat of the Holy Prophet (Sallahu’alaiheewassalam) (think: Treaty of Hudaybiyah) requires a deep committment and dedication to upholding its principles. How can one uphold the principles of a document which seeks to be deliberately unspecific? This is only a door for being dishonest to ourselves.
Let us ask a simple question: Who are the signatories looking to unite in this document?
“Urge Muslims to categorically cease all attacks on individual Muslims and organizations whose varying positions can be substantiated based on the broad scholarly tradition of the Sunni Muslims. We especially urge the immediate cessation of all implicit or explicit charges of disbelief;”
Emphasis mine. According to whose ‘broad scholarly tradition’ is this group defined? Do Salafi’s now consider Naksibendi’s, Chishti’s, Shazali’s, Mevlevi’s, etc, as part of the broad scholarly tradition of Sunni Muslims? I don’t think so, but Allahualim. Do the Salafi’s consider Ashari’s as Sunni’s? A quick glance at the comments section of muslimmatters.org already starts to show the doubts and the loopholes. What is even more interesting is that in countering a more sincere Salafist, one of the signatories clearly disregards at least two of the main points of the pledge.
The best thing about this pledge is that is not a pact merely between those who have signed it. It is a pledge by the signatories to unite on the conditions defined by the terms of the pledge.
So, if the Tareeqats of Islam, the Madhabs, the Ashari and Maturidi Aqeedats are a part of this ‘broad tradition’, they have to do little to see the fruits that this will bear. Salafi’s will stop attacking, as they are superficially obliged under this pledge, and the Shaykhs of Tareeqat will continue on as they always have, working on peoples hearts in the best most positive way possible. Not attacking any personalty or promoting intolerance amongst the laymen, is what the Ahl ul Sunnah have been doing all along.
On the other hand, signatories for this pledge have been attacking my particular tareeqat not only two weeks ago (when this pledge was supposedly thought up).
This pledge will prove its mettle, if only in the response to this criticism.
September 24th, 2007 - 10:15 pm
as Salamu ‘alaykum brother Yursil
I felt a type of obligation to post that I agreed with this pledge due to the presence it has had amongst the bloggers. However, I decided it was best not to post it because I shared your same feelings. I feel, and have always felt, that just being nice is the way to go. We all have our moments of lack of control, and I know I have been rude sometimes, but I acknowledged this mistake when it happened and I tried to correct it. That’s why I believe that with or without this ‘pledge’, we are under pledge to guard our tongues, to speak only good, to treat people kindly, etc. So Jazaka Allahu khairan for putting together in words what I could not.
September 25th, 2007 - 1:32 am
This was a good post and an interesting view on it. I’ve read so many posts on it, but nothing like this. I personally needed this pledge, due to my heated discussions in the past on my blog regarding the rift between the sunni theological creeds.
September 25th, 2007 - 4:16 am
Dear yursil
A.S.
I think you have not understood the Pledge sufficiently well to comment on it. No where in the Pledge was there a mention of an unified fiqh or the attempt to break down the differences between the different camps. What was put forth by the Wisdom of the Ulema was not to leak the differences out to the Awaam, but to concentrate on the basics of Aqeedah that all can agree on. In the same way the Turaq of Tasawuf are mearly Taskiya An-Nafs, which also can be simplified and agreed to by the matters.
Waallahualim wa yusahil amoorana
Fiaz
September 25th, 2007 - 7:10 am
Asalaamu alaikum.
I think you would appreciate my comments on it as well then (http://writeoussisterspeaks.wordpress.com/2007/09/23/unity/) and also recommend the comments at Ginny’s blog and Shar’i Perspectives. Although you of course conveyed it in a much better way than I did.
September 25th, 2007 - 8:56 am
BismillahirRahmanirRaheem
Salamu’alaykum Fiaz,
Where in my comments did I say the pledge calls for unified fiqh or an attempt to break down differences? Rather the pledge is about curbing hostilities in classes, on websites, etc, between groups, local scholars, etc.
As noted the first element of the pledge is to urge Muslims to seek hostilities, it mentions nothing about aqeedah, fiqh or tassawuf.
A statement like that requires identification of which groups are safe from criticism and attack. Is it simply the signatories? No. Is it Ashari’s? No. Is it Ahl ul Tareeq? No. Is it Salafi’s, no.
Anyway, I don’t need to recap my points again, it is clear (if one reads what I wrote).
September 25th, 2007 - 9:01 am
Fiaz:
“What was put forth by the Wisdom of the Ulema was not to leak the differences out to the Awaam, but to concentrate on the basics of Aqeedah that all can agree on.”
The Salafis consider it basic Aqida that Allah is in the heavens. The Ash’aris/Maturidis consider it basic Aqida that Allah is not. This is but one basic issue, so, how are we supposed to deal with that according to this agreement?
was salam.
September 25th, 2007 - 10:14 am
[...] read more | digg story [...]
September 25th, 2007 - 11:16 am
“In the same way the Turaq of Tasawuf are mearly Taskiya An-Nafs, which also can be simplified and agreed to by the matters.”
Tassawuf is not ‘merely taskiya an-nafs.’ Tassawuf is the acquisition of the knowledge of ma’rifa of Allah (of which purification is a means and not an end in itself), a knowledge that certain quarters of the modern ummah deny even exists.
I’m finding such simplifications of tassawuf deeply disturbing, especially if it leads to people being cut off from the immensity of the world of ma’rifa.
Wa s-salam
September 25th, 2007 - 3:22 pm
Bismillah.
Assalamu alaikum.
I agree with you Sidi Yursil. When I first saw this pledge, I had reservations about it, too. A lot of people hyped up the Amman Message, yet there is so much anger and hatred still in the psyche of each of these groups (be it laymen or scholars), which can be seen on the Internet, for example. People hear “unity” and they get excited, because unity is a nice concept. However, when two groups differ even in some, not all, of the fundamentals, there is going to be heated debates and arguments, that will make unity impossible . Alhamdulillah, the intention and attempt to “unite” should be commended, but I don’t think that many people are going to be upholding this pledge. Right now, everyone is excited and hyped about the pledge, but as time progress (by the Will of Allah), this hype is going to die down and we will once again start to bicker about these issues, unfortunately. I pray that I am wrong and that we will “unite”. I want to be optimistic, but I can’t. Sorry for being a pessimist.
This is my opinion, so please forgive me for anything that I may have said wrong.
May Allah guide us all to the Right Path and make us united as one, inshaAllah.
Ma’salama
Sufyan Yunus
September 25th, 2007 - 11:58 pm
what do you think of this?
http://youtube.com/watch?v=1h9AJ-5wIoc
http://youtube.com/watch?v=H1afR6VTvaA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=QMfaDfhV7Kg
September 26th, 2007 - 12:03 am
[...] September 26th, 2007 at 12:05 am (Islam, Sunni Unity, Weblogs) Mind, Body, Soul » Blog Archive » What is wrong with the Sunni Unity Pledge… [...]
September 26th, 2007 - 1:55 am
This pledge has simply left me feeling disenfranchised from the discourses surrounding Muslim belief. I find its avowal to leave important questions to the “trained specialists” particularly distressing. It says to me, “Liberals and progressives, go take a walk!” How is that unity? There has to be room for a broad response to the Quranic message, providing we are respectful of each other’s views. This is not a pledge of unity, but a call for conformity. Just another bunch of conservative traditionalists marking out their territory, which is circa 14th century madrassa. Some of the responses I have recieved to criticisms of this have been unbelievably patronising. And its hypocritical, too - at least one of the signatories disses a progressive Muslim on his website in a particularly nasty way, but its not chavlim cursing, but “wit”. So that’s okay, then. Middle class sneering permitted!
September 26th, 2007 - 4:14 am
Salaams, one and all…
I endorsed this move, as I did the Amman Message. I did so because I feel that, as a broad global community, we need to focus more on the ethics of discussion and debate than on the debates themselves, at present. There are important issues to discuss, and matters religious are always prone to heated argument. But, I contend that we will never be able to discuss them properly unless and until we are able to see the sincerity in the other person.
It’s an ongoing struggle, for me as for everyone. I signed it, so to speak, because I recognise it as a step in the right direction, and not as an end in itself.
I also think that those with reservations should voice them, and that no one should be castigated for honestly expressing their views.
My thanks to Yursil for his usual honesty and sincerity.
Ma’as salama
Abdur Rahman
September 26th, 2007 - 4:53 am
BismillahirRahmanirRaheem
Salamu’alaykum,
I don’t agree with the style and message of the youtube video’s presented. While al-Maghrib is now a well known Salafi institution, making ties to terrorism is unnecessary.
-Yursil
September 26th, 2007 - 5:15 am
BismillahirRahmanirRaheem
Salamu’alaykum Abdul Rahman,
Certainly, we need to focus on the ethics and manners of debate. I simply feel this pledge is deliberately ineffectual, and in that manner a representation of the problem. When we are still discussing (as on the comment linked in the post) whether we consider each other heretics, and therefore outside the scope of the broad scholarly tradition which is the realm of the unity pledge, we have only brought more confusion and exposed more division.
But I also understand the viewpoint that it is a step in the right direction, however for me a more clear ‘pledge’ would have been a step (no document could solve all the problems).. Unfortunately, right now, for me, this pledge only demonstrates the abilities of our scholars to write documents with legalistic loophopes.
So we have established that the wording is extremely broad and for one person it might mean uniting with Sh Hamza and Yasir Qadhi, and for another it might mean not. One might say, at least all these scholars got their names side by side on the same piece of paper. That is a step, right?
Well, something I later discovered is that a great deal of scholars were specifically not approached in signing this document, because they were deemed too ‘extreme’ in terms of their Sufism or too isolated in terms of their Salafism. This pick and choose approach between the organizers as to who may be involved at an official level makes the pledge (for those who have all the information) a tool of increasing of the misunderstandings and problems.
September 26th, 2007 - 6:23 am
[...] and reflection. [You can find the pledge itself here; further discussion can be found here, here, here, here, here and [...]
September 26th, 2007 - 6:59 am
Salaams Yursil bhai,
Your points are thoughtful and well made, as ever. I recognise what you say, and agree with you. I also think that you’re right to point to action, and that failure to sign up to this document in no way condemns anyone. It that is the point behind it, then it is a poor one.
My own take is that I’m happy to co-operate on things that are positive and worthwhile.
Salaams to you and your family. Ramadan mubarak to you and everyone at the Dergah. My salaams to Shaykh Abd al-Karim Effendi
Abdur Rahman
September 27th, 2007 - 8:08 am
I personally feel the ‘Amman message was sufficient. Shukran for a good read sidi Yursil, ghafar allahu lakum.
September 27th, 2007 - 3:20 pm
Yakoub,
You are free to practice or not practice your religion as you see fit.
But it is silly for you to expect others to approve of the nonsense that is liberal/progressive Islam, let alone give it a seat at the table of serious scholarly discussion.
September 28th, 2007 - 3:09 am
Great post. It’s a feel-good unity pledge and it certainly won’t change anyone’s beliefs. However, it may be a first step to mending the ever-widening rift between Traditional Muslims of all kinds and Salafis, which is a problem that needs to be addressed. But the solution is not necessarily “unity”, as it may actually require a hard look at the truth behind the aqeedah, etc espoused by each ’side’.
September 28th, 2007 - 8:00 pm
Excellent post, clear and concise. Bravo. The Sufi path is much stricter at guarding the tongue and practicing love and kindness to all than any pledge could be, no matter how broadly it is written.
Ya Haqq!
October 9th, 2007 - 5:01 am
I think you have completely misunderstood the pledge. These are learned people who have put aside differences to lessen the fitna of open debate and ridicule amongst the awam, especially on the internet and the like. The scholars know better than us and we should not expect that there will be instant change or any removal of texts or fatawa, but we should understand that a unity to ‘point with all our fingers in the right direction.’ I think Shk Faraz makes a great post on DP.
October 11th, 2007 - 1:22 pm
as-salaam ‘alaykum Yursil:
My feelings run along the lines that no matter how it is posed, as long as it is scientifically/philosophically derived, there will be no results. It is not possible for people to put their differences aside, as everything is “doubtful” now.
It is also apparent that things that are not “doubful”are even debateable now.
How can any unity come from this?
It may be thought that I am being negative, but that is not my intention.
All informed Shaykhs agree that there will be no concensus until a figure like Mahdi (as) or Jesus (as) appears, and a bayyan that is in no way debateable, appears.
I am suggesting that this will have nothing to do with science or politics, as all of this folly will be cancelled out by the power of the bayyan.
As long as people are self-electing themselves to positions of authority, and they are lacking the Godly support for that, it will result in destruction.
As God is One, and His Rasool (sal) is a chosen one, then what makes us think that by any other process than 1 overall uniting ruler with bayyan will be able to solve or unify anything.
There is a saying. “Occupy until he arrives.” That is the best we can do. Keep the peace and fanaticism to a minimum until the divine appointed time arrives.
mabruk - abd rzq
October 11th, 2007 - 1:37 pm
to Aamina
as-salaam ‘alaykum
I read your response on your blogroll. Thanks for including some links.
I stay with my opinion that this kind of “pledge” will never work.
In that sense I agree with you.
The intention is commendable, but the way seems to me to lack a certain grasp of reality. They invoke the “trustworthy handhold” (sal) at the very beginning, but then there are so many holes and concessions that to me, it means “anything goes”.
An excercise in futility.
There is no unity or concensus because we are waiting for an authority to emerge.
Until then we are wanabees, takeing care care of other business but our own.
mabruk - abd rzq