12-24-2003, 11:49 PM
as-Salaamu 3alaykum,
This is a short description of the Usool al-Fiqh of the Modernist movements, the head of them being Yoosuf al-Qaradaawee. Usool al-Fiqh is the science of deriving rules from the evidences and texts. This is a harsh criticism of the modernists, so please do not take this as real Usool that should be followed. Rather it is to mock them; although the reality is what I state, is true about them, both theoretically and practically. They're Usool (some of these are not Usool, but trends):
Quote:1. If the scholars differ over an issue, some prohibiting it and others permitting it, then they say \"the Asl (original rule) is that it is Halaal. Those prohibiting it are extremists, and those who permit it are the moderates.\"As Shaykh 'Alee bin Khudayr al-Khudayr, Fakk Allaahu Asrah, said, their Deen is Shirk, it is to worship their desires alongside or besides Allaah, Allaah Ta3aalaa Says (~translation), {Do you see the one who takes his desires as his god?}
2. If there is a weak Hadeeth that coincides with modern Western life or values, even if it is fabricated, it is considered authentic by them, due to their claim 'that it is in agreement with rational and intellect'.
3. If there is a Saheeh Hadeeth that opposes some modern or Western lifestyle or value, it is rejected by them, even if the Hadeeth is agreed upon by al-Bukhaaree and Muslim and accepted by the consensus of the Ummah. This is because they say 'Islaam is not barbaric and the text contradicts intellect and reason'.
4. The Asl (original rule) regarding issues is they are Halaal. So, they say, 'if one is unsure of an issue, whether in matters of worship or transactions, it is Halaal to do, even if one is not a scholar.' This is because they say, 'the Prophet commanded us to consult our hearts, and our hearts like what is easy, and the Deen is easy.' So, they say, there is no need to ask 'an extreme, harsh, ignorant student, if one is unsure. Rather he should refer to the great scholars like al-Qaradaawee, Muzammil Siddeeqee, Taariq Ramadaan, etc.'
5. When an issue opposes Western values, and there are explicit texts on the issue, their rule is 'one should refer to the general texts and try to encompass the ruling on the controversial issue under the umbrella of the general texts. Example, anything that obligates fighting the non-Muslims should be avoided by referring to texts about Islaam being just and merciful.'
6. During interfaith dialogues, all issues that Muslims fundamentally differ with the non-Muslims over are labelled by them as 'secondary (Furoo3).' The only so-called 'fundamental' issue which is discussed is 'the agreement that God exists.'
7. When researching an issue, they go through all the books of the earlier and later scholars to find one who permitted it. They will even go as far to quote scholars that they typically label as extreme (such as Ibn Hazm) to declare it Halaal. If they can't find a scholar who preceded them, they do so-called 'Ijtihaad' and declare it Halaal due to false necessity.
8. When applying the principle of the lesser of the two evils, or weighing benefit and harms, they seem to always assume that major Kufr is the lesser of the two evils and that the benefit of Tawheed does not outweight the so-called 'benefit' gained by Shirk. Example, democratic activities, abstaining from waging war against Taaghoot, etc.
9. The most important fundamental to preserve, according to them, is unity. So anything that leads to some type of contreversy is labelled Fitnah by them. So if one calls to good, denounces evil, follows the Sunnah, he is called one who is causing Fitnah and disunity. So basically, it goes back to their false understanding of the lesser of the two evils, or harms and benefits principle.