All knowledge springs from Divine Unity

See but One, say but One, know but One,
In this are summed up the roots and branches of faith.

Shaykh Mahmud Shabistari, Mystic Rose Garden, pp 84

Podcast: Imam Zaid Shakir

Question Time! Part I | With Imam Zaid Shakir

The passing of knowledge

There is a famous Hadith that warns of a latter time, when knowledge will begin its exodus from the world. In that time, God:

...does not withdraw knowledge by extracting it from the hearts of men, rather He takes away the religious scholars. When no religious scholar remains, people take the ignorant as their leaders; these ignorant ones are questioned and give religious verdicts without knowledge. They are astray and lead others astray. [1]

It is instructive that the departure of knowledge is not the result of a literal taking away of knowledge from the hearts of ordinary men and women, for there is little knowledge there to begin with. What thirst-quenching sustenance is there in empty water-skins?

Knowledge is a combination of data and understanding. Data is abundant, understanding is not. Data grows exponentially, understanding retreats. Data is revered, methodology is scorned. With the departure of religious scholars, goes the distillation of data. Nobody to qualify and quantify data. All that remains is data, and the only methodology that laymen and laywomen can resort to in interpreting the data is a kind of half-hearted literalism and confused absolutism.

There is no more mortal blow than this.

---

Notes:
1. Bukhari, Hadith number 100, 7307

Mufti Taqi Usmani and the Amman Message

An interesting question about Mufti Taqi Usmani's stance on the Amman Message and Shaykh Faraz Rabbani's clarification on the matter.

Mufti Taqi Usmani and the Amman Message

Maulana Ashraf Thanvi on the culture of feeding the ego

Maulana Ashraf Thanvi was born in 1863 and died in 1943, having lived a life steeped in scholarship and wisdom. He was one of the most prolific and intelligent scholars from the sub-continent, and his teachings continue to inspire many earnest students of the religion. For all his efforts, he came to be known as Hakim al-Ummat, or Sage of the Muslim Community.

Here is a sermon he delivered to a group of college students [1]:

Today we do not propose to speak on a particular theme, but to make a brief survey of the causes which have not so far allowed you to profit from the sermons of Ulema, and which, if not indicated and remedied now, would render such sermons unprofitable in future too. The causes spring from certain deficiencies in you your selves.

The first of these deficiencies that although religious doubts are spiritual ailments, you do not regard them as ailments. That is why you have never dealt with them in the manner you deal with physical ailments. May Allah protect you from all harm, but whenever it so happens that you fall ill, you never wait for the official physician of the college to come down to your room for himself in order to examine you and to treat you. When you were ill, you would have gone to his residence yourself and spoken to him about your illness. And if his treatment did you no good, you must have gone beyond the boundary of the college to to the town, and seen the civil surgeon at the hospital. And, in case even his treatment did not prove effective, you must have left even the town and made a journey to other cities, and must have spent quite a good sum of money in bearing expenses of the journey, in paying the doctors and in buying medicines. In short, you had no peace of body or mind until you had fully regained your health. This being so, how is it that when you are afflicted with religious doubts, you just expect that the Ulema themselves should attend you? Why do you not turn to them yourselves? And if, during this quest, one 'Alim fails to restore your health, why do you not seek other Ulema? Why do you jump to the conclusion that your problem is insoluble?

The second deficiency is that you too often have an absolute confidence in your own opinion and judgment, and assume that nothing can be wrong with your way of thinking. This is another reason why you never turn to any religious scholar. This in itself is a great error. If you seek a verification of your opinion from the Ulema, you would soon be aware of the errors you commit.

The third deficiency is that, in religious matters, you are habitually reluctant to follow any one. That is why you do not accept the authority of any expert in any religious matters, but always pry into the explanations, reasons and arguments of everything. While the truth is that one who is not an expert cannot at all do without accepting the authority of an expert. This does not mean that the scholars of the Shariah do not posses any reasons or arguments. They do possess all that. But many things are beyond your understanding. Just as it is very difficult to explain a theorem of Euclid to a man who is ignorant of the first principles, definitions and other preliminaries necessary for a proper study of geometry, in the same way there are certain sciences which serve as a instruments and elementary principles for a study of the injunctions of the Shariah. Any one who wishes to understand them fully must necessarily acquire a knowledge of these sciences to begin with...

---

Notes:
[1] Ashraf Ali Thanvi, al-Intibahat al-Mufeedah (Answer to Modernism), trans. Modhamed Hasan Askari and Karrar Husain, 2004

Islam is not a cereal

Shaykh Nuh Keller Lecture on Modernism and Fiqh Al-Aqaliat (Jurisprudence for Minorities)

I would like to share my notes on one specific group of topics the Shaykh spoke about namely the perils of Western Apologetic Islam, Modernists and Minority fiqh.

The topic was covered, chiefly in response to a question asked on 17 August during the Q&A session, but the Shaykh made references to the topic throughout the Suhba and encouraged murids who had missed the to session to get the recording and specifically listen to what was said about the topic of minority fiqh. The Shaykhs answer was passionate and masha Allah as always very balanced but also straight and to the point. It contained several quite strong warnings, and coming from a man of the Shaykhs calibre such are not to be taken lightly.

I have immense respect for Shaykh Ha Mim Keller and his works, the most outstanding being his English translation of Imam Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri's Reliance of the Traveller. This voluminous book on Islamic jurisprudence singlehandedly popularized the madhhab of Imam ash-Shafi'i in the English-speaking world. Since the latter is a growing phenomenon in the Muslim global community, the book's achievement is no small feat.

In fact, I also suspect that Reliance of the Traveller helped check the spread of the Salafist movement and its "free yourself from madhhabs" attitude in regions like Southeast Asia, where Arabic has never been an indigenous language. A useful measure of this is the rabid criticism of the book that comes from Salafists, despite the fact that it is endorsed by some of the highest authorities in the Sunni world.

Then again, this contradiction could be one of many devices that some ideologues are deploying in order to change the very meaning of Sunni-ism to fit their own petty ends. For more on this, read my previous essay entitled, Urban myths that bear repeating.

Faith and Doubt

Faith and Doubt Fellow Travelers

Faith and doubt are twin brothers or sisters in the human condition. The Qur'an recognizes the capacity of the human being to believe or not to believe. Believing in the visible and the tangible is more widely acknowledged by most people when they are confined within their own mental estate. When they venture beyond their own world into the wide world of others where language and concepts rule, chances are one may claim belief when in actual fact belief is not the thing in place, social solidarity has become the mother of all faiths. This is true of religious belief as well as secular faith in ideologies.

The imminent departure of scholars from this world

A Closer Look at Sufism

Perhaps the biggest challenge in learning Islam correctly today is the scarcity of traditional 'ulema. In this meaning, Bukhari relates the sahih or "rigorously authenticated" hadith that the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) said,

"Truly, Allah does not remove Sacred Knowledge by taking it out of servants, but rather by taking back the souls of Islamic scholars [in death], until, when He has not left a single scholar, the people take the ignorant as leaders, who are asked for and who give Islamic legal opinion without knowledge, misguided and misguiding" (Bukhari, 1.36: 100. S).
The process described by the hadith is not yet completed, but has certainly begun, and in our times, the lack of traditional scholars—whether in Islamic law, in hadith, in tafsir or "Qur’anic exegesis”—has given rise to an understanding of the religion that is far from scholarly, and sometimes far from the truth.

Wahdat-al-Wujud and the politics of polytheism

Wahdat-al-wujud was an idea developed by the inestimable twelfth-century scholar, Ibn Arabi. Translated literally, wahdat-al-wujud means unity of being, but it can also mean unity of finding. The object of this 'finding' is God, and the finder seeks to remove the veils that stand between himself and God so that the perfect level of certainty is reached. This doctrine forms an integral part of traditional Islam, but finds its most explicit expression in the mystical discipline known as Sufism.

The veil is often used as a metaphor for either emotional obstacles or worldly distractions. Even certain Sufi rituals are not spared. For example, poverty is a well-known circumstance that many Sufis choose to place themselves in. Thus, it is often said in Turkey [1]:

Sharia (Islamic Law): yours is yours, mine is mine
Tariqa (The Sufi path): yours is yours, mine is yours too
Marifa (Gnosis): there is neither mine nor thine

However, poverty must not be regarded as a goal in and of itself, or else it becomes a veil along the path toward God. From the outset, wahdat-al-wujud's chief concern has been with God, or more specifically, with attaining an existential awareness of the Divine Unity. Poverty is nothing more than a condition bequeathed by God to test a person's trust in Divine Grace. Some authorities assert that the more God loves a person, the more He will test him. Hence, we find that the Prophets, being nearest to God, are made to suffer the most.

Since the veils relate to the Divine, they are an infinite number of them. The proper attitude of the seeker is that of bewilderment. The state of finding is said to be directly parallel to the state of not finding, since it is humanly impossible to overcome infinity. This kind of paradox is hardly novel, as evident by this saying from Abu Bakr, the first caliph of Islam.

...the incapacity to attain comprehension is itself comprehension. [2]

Because there is a verse in the Quran that states, wherever you turn, there is the face of God [3],  the seeker understands that everything he witnesses and experiences is a divine manifestation of God's Eternal Will. But taking this idea too literally would lead the seeker into anthropomorphism; the attribution of uniquely human characteristics to God. The seeker knows that just as all is God, all is not God.

If such is the case, what does finding God entail? The problem lies in the vagueness of the question. It should instead be re-phrased as: "How do I remove the veils that prevent me from finding God?"

Muslim cosmology is divided into two worlds, the seen and the unseen. The Quran makes it clear that,

With Him are the keys of the Unseen. No one knows them save He. [4]

Hence, none knows God but God Himself. Because of this, our question can be further refined as: "How to remove the veils that prevent me from being God?"

The question is not as radical as it appears. After all, proximity with God has always been an overriding goal of the nominal believer. In a famous hadith, it is striking that the measure of distance is used as a metaphor for the degree of closeness between the believer and God.

If my servant draws nearer to Me by a handsbreadth, I draw nearer to him by an armslength, and if he draws nearer to Me by an armslength, I draw nearer to him by twice that distance. And if he comes walking to meet Me, I come running to meet him. [5]

And the culmination of such a journey has always been understood by scholars to be union with God. For example, Imam al-Ghazali states in his Ihya [6],

I want union with him...

Before Imam al-Ghazali, the great Shaykh Junayd Baghdadi had been even more explicit:

Love between two is not right until the one addresses the other, 'O Thou I' [7].

It would be a grave mistake to dismiss the likes of these scholars as mere pantheists without first understanding what is actually meant by union or wahdat-al-wujud. The latter term does not only have an apparent meaning, but also an inner meaning that cannot be discarded. As mentioned before, wahdat-al-wujud not only means unity of being but also unity of finding. Thus, the ostensibly radical question "How to remove the veils that prevent me from being God?" is in essence, "How to remove the veils that prevent me from finding God?" In an intimate study of Ibn Arabi's thought, William Chittick clarifies that,

Being precedes knowledge as in the world; nothing knows until it first exists. [8]

I wrote this article not because I have a particular affinity with Ibn Arabi's thought, but because I came across another article written by a Muslim who pompously accused wahdat-al-wujud of being polytheistic. In the Islamic sense, polytheism is known as shirik and involves the worship of multiple gods, something that is conspicuously missing in wahdat-al-wujud.

It is not unreasonable to demand restrain where the charge of polytheism is concerned, since history attests that factions like the followers of Shaykh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahhab had been all too ready to use that label to justify the persecution and outright murder of fellow Muslims.

---

Notes:
[1] Annemarie Schimmel, Mystical Dimensions of Islam, p99, The University of North Carolina Press, 1975
[2] William Chittick, Ibn Arabi's Metaphysics of Imagination, State University of New York Press, 1989
[3] The Holy Quran, 2:115
[4] The Holy Quran, 6:59
[5] al-Bukhari, Sahih, Book 97, Section 50, Hadith 1
[6] Abu Hamid al-Ghazali, Ihya 'ulum ad-Din, 4:117
[7] Fariduddin 'Attar, Tadhkirat al-Awliya. Edited by Reynold Nicholson. Reprint, London and Leiden, 1959
[8] William Chittick, Ibn Arabi's Metaphysics of Imagination, p4, State University of New York Press, 1989

Remembering Our Ancestors- Black History Month

A whole new lecture from Imam Zaid Shakir:

Remembering Our Ancestors - Black History Month

Subscribe to Alhambra Productions to recieve updates on the latest lectures from Shaykh Hamza Yusuf and Imam Zaid Shakir.

Schwartz's Words of Mass Distortion

In an article written for Family Security Matters, Stephen Schwartz rhetorically asked "Is California an Islamic Republic?", and directly accused the state's most prominent Muslim, Shaykh Hamza Yusuf, of being a dishonest person and a poseur.

Sidi Aftab Ahmad Malik [1] responds:

In his recent article: Is California an Islamic Republic? (The Family Security Foundation, Inc., October 25, 2006), Stephen Schwartz, in his tireless search for an opportunity to profess his undying patriotism, has written a personal attack against Hamza Yusuf Hanson. The nominal basis for his attack is an article in a Saudi newspaper, in which Hamza Yusuf "was described as 'the mufti of California.'" It is not clear how accurately this was translated for him, particularly as he later states that "It is Hamza Yusuf Hanson who is dishonest, when he calls himself, ridiculously, 'the mufti of California,' and when he claims to be a Muslim moderate." Schwartz's claim then, is that Yusuf has been called or has called himself the mufti of California and, therefore, Schwartz claims, "propagandizes for the Islamicization of America," based on how Yusuf has "built himself up as a major Western Muslim leader."

My immediate response is to question why Schwartz has searched out this reference (of questionable accuracy) to denounce Hamza Yusuf. Why does he go to such pains to try to convince his readership that Yusuf is an extremist who does not speak for the majority of Muslims? The implication of course, is that Schwartz is a moderate Muslim (struggling for plurality) and in fact speaks for the majority of mainstream Muslims. In fact, Schwartz has a long record of denouncing other Muslims as either being Islamists, Jihadists, or Wahhabis—all words that the public has been taught to "understand" represent three incarnations of everything evil in the world today. While the reality remains that many Americans still cannot make sense of Islam, Schwartz's simplistic articles only offer a dangerous black and white view of a complex landscape. I find it astonishing that Schwartz, the executive director of the Center for Islamic Pluralism cannot even recognize the plurality within the Muslim community itself, and rather than acknowledge this, he demarcates disperse communities into moderates versus extremists.

Schwartz's unabashed attack on Hamza Yusuf is at best misguided and at worst libelous. His continued character assassination of one of the most distinguished, loved, and brilliant Muslim scholars in the Western world is enough to discredit him in the eyes of many mainstream Muslims. The respect that Yusuf commands from numerous sectors of the Muslim community throughout the world is unquestioned; it is based on nearly fifteen years of studying with scholars throughout the world, in a tireless effort to grasp the depth of traditional Islamic scholarship. Schwartz himself wrote a moving obituary of the late "famous Sufi teacher" and scholar, Shaykh Muhammad Alawi, in which he highlights the authority that Alawi commanded. And it is this very same Muhammad Alawi that is counted among the teachers of Hamza Yusuf, who was awarded a handwritten diploma by the Shaykh—something that Alawi rarely did—conferring upon Yusuf the licence to teach the Islamic sciences, which include Sufism.

I find it lamentable that Schwartz maintains this misguided assertion that Hamza Yusuf is dishonestly portraying himself as a Sufi and hiding ulterior motives that only Schwartz has been able to decipher (the rest of the gullible world has failed to recognize these ill-intentions). Surely this, above and beyond his other outlandish claims, clearly indicates that Schwartz is a man with an agenda and far from a serious or scholarly commentator on Islamic affairs. I question Schwartz's intentions because he is most likely aware of and has met many contemporary Sufi shaykhs from America to Great Britain; West Africa to the Middle East; the Subcontinent to the Arabian peninsula, who confirm and acknowledge Yusuf as being counted among the qawm—a sufi term that refers to "the people [of spiritual excellence]." Could Schwartz's accusations stem from such a superficial fact that Yusuf does not dress like a Sufi shaykh, but wears western clothes? (I have actually met some individuals who criticize his ability to be a shaykh precisely because of this.) Or, perhaps Schwartz is irked by the fact that Yusuf is invited by a wide range of people to speak to diverse audiences, some of whom may not see eyeto- eye with the spiritual tradition of Islam?

Ironically, back in 1997 at Stanford University, the late expert on Sufism, Annemarie Schimmel, Hamid Algar of the University of Berkeley, and Hamza Yusuf spoke on the theme of "Sufism and its influence on Europe." In closing the program, Yusuf stressed that Sufism was an integral part of Islam, stating that "in the tradition of Islam Sufism has always been part of the traditional Islamic curriculum in every single Muslim university." He continued to remark that he knew of "no period in the Islamic tradition in which Sufism was not taught in the universities and not seen as an important and fundamental aspect of the tradition of Islam." More ironic yet is the fact that this favorable write-up of the event was (and remains) posted on the Naqshbandi.org website, a prominent Sufi group that operates under the auspices of the Sufi sage, Mawlana Shaykh Nazim al-Haqqani. If we believe, as Schwartz proposes, that Yusuf decided to transform himself from a "radical" Muslim preacher into a spiritual Sufi, the author of the lengthy article would not have concluded by saying that this event took "great courage" and was a "courageous stand" in the light of the fact that (at that time) Sufism was perceived by many Muslims as something alien to Islam—clearly a result of the strength of a Wahhabi-brand of Islam.

I actually agree with Schwartz on one issue: it is ridiculous for Hamza Yusuf to call himself "the mufti of California"; I daresay that Yusuf would consider it ridiculous as well. I doubt that Schwartz's reference to the article in the Saudi newspaper is accurate. But I would correct Schwartz on the role of a mufti. He confusingly defines a mufti as a "religious judge, directing sharia courts in Sunni Muslim countries," (one would think a fairly substantial position of authority), then says that California does not need a mufti, "because Sharia governs such minor aspects of Islamic life as the issuance of halal butchers' licenses…and the propriety of certain financial transactions." Schwartz reveals his ignorance of the sharia, not to mention the role of a mufti. Then he goes on to clarify (for those unaware!) that California does not have sharia courts.

By way of clarification, a mufti fulfils a role that goes beyond merely declaring meat halal. The role of a mufti is more akin to that of a rabbi and an imam to that of a cantor. A rabbi explains Torah and Mishnah to his congregants and the function of a mufti is to explain the Qur'an and the Prophetic way to his followers; this can relate to everything from how to prepare oneself for prayer to whether insurance is a halal financial transaction. A mufti gives non-binding legal opinions and has no state authority, nor can his opinions be enforced by the state in most matters. Muslim nations often appoint a Grand Mufti, as in Egypt, but most muftis actually have no state affiliation. Muftis are also noted for their intellectual ability and moral character. Indeed, the late Dr. Zaki Badawi of London was, in one of his obituaries, referred to as the "Grand Mufti of Islam in England." There were no sensationalist headlines the following day that sought to explain how all along, Zaki Badawi the mild-mannered moderate Muslim, was a stealth Islamist by night, because it simply would not be true. Rather, the title was bestowed upon him as a mark of respect and acknowledgement of his intellectual prowess, authority and admiration he had earned from many people, Muslims and non- Muslims alike in the UK.

In his article, Schwartz has manipulated the facts in order to create a fictional scenario in which a fictional character (only nominally based upon the real Hamza Yusuf) has a fictitious aim of establishing an Islamic republic in California. The only credence that Schwartz has that lends itself to this mythical construct is a quote by Zaid Shakir (who he inaccurately refers to as Ziad Shakir), in which Shakir remarked that he would "like to see America become a Muslim country." Had he known Shakir personally, Schwartz would have understood the inaccuracy of his explanation. Shakir's remark is no more than an imitation of the Prophet Muhammad's words: "Love for humanity what you love for yourself." Shakir, a dedicated savant and intellectual giant, said that to love what he loves (and clearly, Zaid Shakir loves Islam), how could he not wish for other people to enjoy what he enjoys from Islam? As the late Betty Shabaz remarked, only people of violence read violence into Malcolm's words and I would add that only those who want to feed the current climate of fear, announce it wherever they can.

Hamza Yusuf has been vociferous in the past as well as the present, on the topic of those who seek to subvert the lands in which they live, and has said in no uncertain terms that these people should leave—if they wish to live under Islamic law, there is nothing preventing them from moving to those lands in which it is the rule of the land. At the same time, Yusuf has not made secret his views on what he sees as the ailments of the society in which he lives. There is gross inequality in the distribution of wealth, the educational system is not producing rounded human beings, and there are areas in America where there is intense racial tension and segregation. While Yusuf has openly criticized the country's foreign policy, he has emphasized that foreign policy should not be seen as synonymous with the American people; this is a message that he has particularly stressed when speaking in the Middle East. The problem we face is that despite the Internet and talk about a global village, there still remains a huge gulf between the West and the Muslim world.

To be patriotic (and Schwartz implicitly implies that Yusuf is not), does not mean to turn a blind eye to injustices. To be loyal or zealously support one's country can be dangerous if it is merely another name for crude nationalism. True patriotism—to truly have a great love for one's country—would include exercising one's judgment, evaluating policies, and engaging in discussions. When Yusuf says that most Americans do not comprehend Islam or that racism is a real concern, he is not revealing a conspiracy of hate toward America. These are issues that have been debated for decades by many (non-Muslim) social scientists and (non-Muslim) religious/political commentators. It is only at the mercy of Schwartz's pen that such concerns are twisted and morphed into a sinister and threatening menace. In an environment that is plagued by a virtual avalanche of tracts, writings, and publications that express unrestrained animosity to Islam and Muslims, written by so-called experts on Islam (the vast majority of whom do not read, write, or speak Arabic), the quest for sanity and balance seems lost within a quagmire of suspicion and self-appointed "moderate" Muslim leaders. The only losers in the end will be the principles of equity, integrity, and justice. When these are lost, what reigns is anarchy, and this will ultimately lead to the perpetuation of hate crimes.

Notes:
[1] Editor of The State We Are In: Identity, Terror and the Law of Jihad and Visiting fellow at the Center of Culture and Ethnicity, University of Birmingham (UK)

You speak, he hears

As for visiting God's Messenger, on him be peace: you must stand before him in the manner we have described, visiting him in death as you would have visited him in life. Do not approach his tomb except as you would have approached his noble person if he had been alive. Just as you would have considered it respectful to refrain from touching or kissing his person, rather standing back and bowing before him, you should now act accordingly. Touching and kissing tombs is a custom of Christians and Jews. Realize that he is aware of your presence, of your standing there and of your visit; that he is receiving your greeting and benediction. Imagine his noble form as it lies in the tomb in front of you. Feel in your heart his tremendous dignity. For he is reported as saying that God, Exalted is He, has appointed to his tomb an angel who conveys to him the salutations of those members of his Community who salute him.

This refers to those who are not actually present, so how about those who leave home and cross desert wastes from longing to meet him, content merely to behold his noble shrine since they have no possibility of witnessing his noble countenance? He said, on him be peace: 'When someone blesses me once, God blesses him ten times.' This refers to the reward for oral benediction, so how about the reward for coming in person to visit him?

Next, you should go to the pulpit of God's Messenger, on him be peace, imagining you can see the Prophet, on him be peace, ascending it. Picture to yourself his radiant appearance, as if he were there on the pulpit, surrounded by the Emigrants and Helpers, may God be pleased with them, as he urges them in his sermon to be obedient to God, Great and Glorious is He. Ask God, Great and Glorious is He, not to part you from him at the Resurrection.

Imam al-Ghazali (Inner Dimensions of Islamic Worship).

Even Imam al-Nawawi, in his book Kitab al-Adhkar, had emphasized the benefits of visiting the Prophet's grave. It's too bad the book has been tampered with, and I'm not simply making this up.

Reviving The Islamic Spirit 5th Annual Convention

"Reviving the Islamic Spirit" convention is an attempt by the youth to help overcome new challenges of communication and integration. The convention aims to promote stronger ties within the North American Society through reviving the Islamic tradition of education, tolerance and introspection, and across cultural lines through points of commonality and respect.

Furthermore, the convention will be a celebration of our identity and Islamic faith. To help attain these ideals, the convention will feature a wide range of voices from various parts of the world.

This convention is not organized by any organization and does not engage in any ideological discourse. It showcases Islamic leadership from across the globe sharing a common platform before the widest cross section of our community. This program hopes to empower the youth across North America and inspire a true revival.

The next convention will be held from 22 to 28 December 2006. Speakers will include:

Shaykh Abdallah Bin Bayyah
Habib Ali Al'Jifri
Shaykh Hamza Yusuf
Imam Zaid Shakir
Dr. Tariq Ramadan
Robert Fisk

More details here.

The real response to Pope Benedict

Thirty eight leading Muslim scholars and leaders have signed a joint open letter to the Pope in the spirit of goodwill to respond to the remarks made by His Holiness on 12 September 2006.

All the eight schools of thought and jurisprudence in Islam are represented by the signatories, including a woman scholar. In this respect the letter is unique in the history of interfaith relations. The signatories include:

Shaykh Muhammad Said Ramadan Bouti (Syria),
Shaykh Mustafa Ceric (Bosnia and Herzegovina),
Shaykh Ali Mashhour (Tarim, Yemen),
Shaykh Umar bin Hafeeth (Tarim, Yemen),
Shaykh Hamza Yusuf (USA),
Prof Omar Jah (Gambia),
Shaykh Ali Zain al-Abideen al-Jifri (UAE),
Shaykh Ali Jum'a (Egypt),
Prof Muhammad Hashem Kamali (Malaysia),
Shaykh Nuh Ha Mim Keller (Jordan),
Shaykh Ahmad Hasyem Muzadi (Indonesia),
Professor Seyyed Hossein Nasr (USA),
Ayatollah Muhammad Ali Taskhiri (Iran),
Mufti Taqi Uthmani (Pakistan),
Shaykh Abdal Hakim Murad (UK)

Click here to go to ISLAMICA Magazine's website to read the full letter.

Hat-tip to the Reading Sanctuary for this.

New podcasts- Shaykh Hamza Yusuf and Imam Zaid Shakir

Hamza Yusuf - Achieving Balance in a Troubled World

Imam Zaid Shakir - Balancing Between Faith, Family & Community

You might subscribe to these illuminating lectures through Podcasts regularly featured at Alhambra Productions.

What the media needs to show: Muslim Scholars condemning Terrorism

Mujahideenryder has collected a list of links that feature prominent Muslim scholars repudiating extremism and terrorism. What is striking is that these scholars are not merely repeating the old line that "Islam does not condone violence", but are learned enough to identify the very sources of extremism in the Islamic world.

Visit the entry here.