Rashad Ali

The early release of Ms Gibbons and 'pardoning' of her 'crime' by Sudanese president Omer el-Bashir has been welcomed by all. This was after the hard work of the two Muslim peers Lord Nazir Ahmed and Lady Warsi.

It raised questions of the Rule of Law, and basic rights, Civil Society and public discourse as well as what is the nature and place of the Social Contract within Islamic Jurisprudence. The short paper initially addresses those questions. However contentions raised regarding the details necessitated a detailed response to each of these issues which the response elaborates.

The rise of Kais Saeed to power in Tunisia and his Overy authortiarian rhetoric, actions and method of governance should have been seen as a major red flag of his authoritarian and autocratic nature - undermining the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government, and undoing all the gains of the Arab Spring.

Bismillah. Here is a useful article by Rashad Ali, with good quotes from some of the classical jurists that should help in the debate about Islamism (political Islam). I particularly like the paragraphs from the 18th-19th century Yemeni Imams San'ani and Shawkani, since they are very influential in Salafi circles, and you get Salafi Islamists as well as others (both Sunni and Shi'i, lest we forget).

The debate about Science and Islam, and the place of empirical thought, scientific methodology and knowledge, and the relationship or antagonism with Islam is still an important discussion for believers and wider society alike. Whether this is an antagonism essential to the faith tradition. Or a manifestation of contemporary fundamentalism? Or something decidedly more complicated? With this in mind the following short essay seeks to address these questions.

Seeks to explain the principles laid out by Imām al-Shawkānī in his Fatwa, on what is and isn't religiously licit,  regarding relations with political power and authorities. Shawkānī elucidates both general rules for engagement and taking office and ethical principles.as rooted in Islamic theology and jurisprudence -avoiding injustice and oppression and serving justice, as rooted in Divine Justice - Taken from his Fatwa on the subject

It also also gives some context to debates surrounding political rebellion and early versus later attitudes towards them to set some context to the discussions.

Imām Muhammad bin Ismā'īl al-Bukhārì is famous for his work and service to prophetic hadīth. His major collection is widely studied. Commentaries, summaries, commentaries on summaries and books written about them are widespread. His other works of narrator criticism, and biographical literature as well as other works of hadīth are also very popular. What is less well known though gaining more traction now is his juristic ability and own positions of fiqh.

The paper explains argumenst of separatists and the Far-Right to do with Muslims demanding a seperate legal system, and Muslims inability to live within legal systems in the West without seeking to take them over  it explains why these are based on false assumptions of extremists, and manipulated by the Far-Right.

The paper goes into detail in its footnotes of religious edicts and juristic precedent from classical sources across sunni schools of thought - from the mikes of Im al-Izz bin Abdul-Salām to Taqī ul-Dīn Ibn Taymīyya - as cited by contemporary Muslim scholars [at the time].

In 1989, Salman Rushdie’s novel, The Satanic Verses, was condemned as blasphemous to Islam by the Supreme Leader of Iran’s Islamic Republic, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, who pronounced a death sentence—with an offered bounty—against the author and all involved in the book’s production. Over the last quarter-century, this fatwa has led to various lethal attacks against translators and publishers in numerous countries. In August 2022, a would-be assassin, Hadi Matar, caught up with Rushdie himself, stabbing him on stage in New York as he was about to deliver a lecture, costing Rushdie one of his eyes and the use of one of his hands.

The aftermath of the 2022 attack on Rushdie revived the argument that has taken place at varying levels of intensity within Muslim communities ever since the fatwa was issued. Two responses were particularly notable. Dr. Abdul Wahid, Chairman of Hizb ut-Tahrir (HuT) Britain, said he understood why Muslims reacted so strongly to Rushdie’s novel, which was like a “knife into the hearts of hundreds of millions of Muslims”—an attempt to Westernize and secularize them by a Muslim-born man who had sold out to liberals. Nonetheless, Wahid stopped short of endorsing the fatwa, an encapsulation of HuT’s formal stance against violence and its ambivalences about that stance in practice. The remnants of Al-Muhajiroun, a splinter from HuT that has since joined the Islamic State (ISIS), by contrast, made little secret of their support for Matar’s actions, likewise reflecting Al-Muhajiroun’s broader approach to achieving its ends.

This report examines where these two groups came from, their ideological divergences, their approaches to the use of violence in pursuit of a goal they agree upon (the restoration of the caliphate), and how this theoretical perspective has played out in historical and contemporary contexts.

The report begins with a forward by Rashad Ali, a Resident Senior Fellow at the Institute for Strategic Dialogue (ISD), examining the tensions inherent to the outlook of HuT, inherited by Al-Muhajiroun, which bases itself on the idea that it will restore the Abbasid caliphate and the medieval Islamic law tradition that underpinned that Empire, eliminating the Western influences on Islam, while its practical politics are those of a thoroughly Western and modernist totalitarian political party, of the kind that ruled the Soviet Union or Ba’thist Iraq.

Olivia Mangan, a postgraduate student pursuing a Master’s degree in International Security and Terrorism at the University of Birmingham, then explains how HuT conceptualizes its mission in the world and the role that violence plays in this, as well as the very special case of Syria that has tested the ideological boundaries of HuT, bringing them to support the violent insurgent activities of some other groups, without themselves ever changing their stance on violence and loudly repudiating the conduct of ISIS.

This contrasts sharply, as Mangan lays out in detail, with Al-Muhajiroun, which voiced its support for ISIS and helped facilitate foreign fighters, then pledged allegiance to ISIS and recognised its “caliphate” in Iraq and Syria as legitimate. HuT’s stance has allowed it to remain in legal operation, while Al-Muhajiroun has been banned and its most visible spokesman in Britain, Anjem Choudary, imprisoned. Mangan documents the current status of Al-Muhajiroun’s surviving network, including the activities of Choudary, who is now out of prison and released from his license conditions.

Hizb ut-Tahrir across Europe and UK have been key in popularising the concept of restoring a caliphate in the form of an empire, but with modern constructs of 'Islamic State' and ideas, and even modern edicts justifying extreme violence. The group al-Muhajiroun-an offshoot of HuT-shares the same ideology and sees it manifest across the borders of Syria and Iraq in the so-called 'Islamic State of Iraq' (ISIS), has alongside others across Europe been instrumental in the thousands of young people travelling to join ISIS. Understanding this and the ideological make up is key in understanding the phenomena of the 'Islamic State', an idea not found in classical Islamic heritage. This can be seen both in it's ideology, the failure to critique ISIS substantively, and it's own attempts at seeking power through Jihadist militia in the region.

This paper analyses various aspects of the disengagement/intervention/deradicaization process and approaches used in the UK; from referral to dynamics of intervention, intervention providers, to potential controversies and raises questions concerning them.

This briefing paper discusses the reactions tothe horrific events that unfolded in Paris in January 2015, with the murders of a group of journalists, a police officer, and members of the Jewish community. Responses have ranged from the slogan ‘Je suis Charlie’ to those highlighting the Muslim victims of terror, to those defending the right to get offended and react, but not violence. So what is blasphemous and insulting about these cartoons? Why has such an extreme perspective on speech been used to explicitly justify murder and acts of terror in the minds of the perpetrators? Rashad Ali discusses the inconsistencies and contradictions in terrorist and extremist interpretations of Islam and blasphemy, and demonstrates the need to highlight the ideological flaws in their narrative.

As part of ISD's Gen Z & The Digital Salafi Ecosystem project, this theoretical briefing seeks to contextualise ISD's research into the online Salafi ecosystem within the key political debates and terminological considerations that permeate current conceptualisations of Salafism. The paper outlines the limitations of established typologies which categorise Salafi adherents using terms such as quietists, activists and jihadists, and instead highlights an increasingly interdependent spectrum of ideological influence.

This paper deals with the contemporary issue of attacks and justifications for such attacks against those accused of insulting the Prophet  the rulings related to this, ans rulings connected to the issues of portraying prophets or living beings in general, and ancillary to this all the issue of apostasy in Islamic jurisprudence briefly.

It covers various positions across the sunni spectrum and schools of thought (madhahib).

An exploration into the role reason, logic, empiricism and rational critique played in the criticism of hadīth -  or essentially "matn analysis". From the companions of the Prophet like Aisha (ra) onwards to Imām Mālik and al-Abharī  to al-Juwaynī and Fakhr al-Rāzī, and hadīth critics like Hāfidh ibn Abdul Barr and Ibn ul-Qayyim; to usūliyūn like al-Shātibī and Ibn Bazīza to jurists like Ibn Taymīyya and Ibn Daqīq al-Īd. It ends with a note from scholars across schools and traditions cautioning against Takfīr and anathematization of Muslims due to their analysis and ways of dealing with the hadīth corpus.

Our aim in this paper is to describe and respond to the typical theological reasoning advanced by jihadists in support of their extremist political ideology and violent activities to demonstrate that their arguments are not, as they claim, based on Islamic consensus or traditionally recognized interpretations of classical Islamic sources.6

We analyze concepts critical to the worldview espoused by the global jihadist group al-Qaeda and the irredentist groups Hamas and Lashkar-e-Ta’iba to illustrate the typical arguments advanced by proponents of jihadist ideology as a whole. Identification of key tenets is based on their significance in framing and popularizing an extremist worldview and in efforts to legitimize violent jihadist tactics. As such, they can be found across the groups’ foundational literature and are repeated by leading ideologues as well as echoed by other individuals or groups. This leads to a self-reinforcing of the movement’s core messaging and explains, in part, the durability of the extremist narrative. The theological counter-arguments put forward in this paper are based on alternative readings of scripture citing mainstream scholars from the four medieval Sunni schools and their authorities in Islamic law7 and are informed by study at al-Azhar University in Cairo.8 We rebut major claims made by jihadists as a whole and, where possible, cite major scholars respected across the Islamist spectrum.

Jam' al-Jawāmī'' is a short, dense systematic treatment of 'Usūl' or first principles par-excellence. Usūl or first principles related to Usūl ul-Dīn or foundations of religion i.e. principles by which to deduce and arrive at basic beliefs and doctrines 'Aqīda'. This is commonly studied as part of Kalām or rational theology and formal apologetics for Islamic beliefs. Usūl ul-Fiqh on the other hand is the the first principles and foundations used to interpret the revelation and additional sources from which to derive Islamic rules, principles and judgements (ahkām) known collectively as fiqh or Islamic jurisprudence. Jam' al-Jawāmī'' is the work of the late stage authority in Shāfi'ī fiqh, a scholar in hadīth, and specialist in jurisprudence, Tāj ul-Dīn al-Subkī* (d1370CE), the son of the great Mujtahid Imām of the same school Taqī ul-Dīn al-Subkī.

The Pledge of Virtue & justice was a pledge made in pre-Islamic times aimed at safeguarding those without protection from oppression. It was a pact that the leaders of Quryash made and was witnessed by the Prophet of Islam. He later acknowledged and affirmed it. It is a pre-modern example of how justice and removing oppression both as a principle and a legal and political measure are beyond, religious communities, States and if necessary universal agreement. But rather are universal values and norms which should be a means of seeking redress for wrongs and a restoration of rights, and a basis for allowing courts to have universal jurisdiction when necessary.

A brief review and analysis of the existing literature and edicts (fatwa) pertaining to modern financial transactions - derivatives  forwards, futures and options, and their juristic grounds from a fiqh perspective- analysing their juristic reasoning aswel as scriptural interpretive claims.

Al-Dhakhīra, Tanqīh al-Fusūl-Ijtihād & Taqlīd 'Al-Dhakhīra fī Furū il-Malikīya' by Shihāb al-Dīn Ahmad ibn Idrīs al-Qarāfī (d1285CE-684H) is a major work of not just Mālikī rite, detailing rulings, their rationale and their evidences but also a comparative work alongside other sunni schools of religious rite.

The introduction is published in its own right as a work of Usūl ul-Fiqh or principles of Islamic jurisprudence and is considered a classic of the genre with many commentaries from the likes of major scholars like Hulūlū, and more recently Ibn Ashūr. It is considered to have been based on and a summary of Fakhr ul-Dīn al-Rāzī's 'al-Mahsūl' and is titled 'Tanqīh ul-Fusūl'.

This is a translation of the section on Ijtihād and Taqlīd or juristic effort to extract rulings from scripture by a competent scholar and the rulings surrounding a non-scholar's embracing of such rulings.

This is a translation with a brief introduction of terms and the author, to the science of principles of narrators criticism penned by Ibn Rajab al-Hanbalī. It is often published on its own but is actually the final section of the author's commentary on Abū Īsa al-Tirmidhī's early work on the science of hidden defects in hadīth or ilal. The full work is popularly titled 'Shar'h ilal ul-Tirmidhī' - 'A commentary on Tirmidhī's "Defects"'.

A polemic refutation of separatist Islamist claims against political participation. This paper demonstrates that classical sunni jurisprudence according to the major sunni schools hanafī shāfi'ī, mālikī and hanbalī traditions are at odds with the absolutist position held by islamist separatists such as Hizb ut-Tahrir and terrorists such as al-Qaeda and ISIS.

It demonstrates that the scholars from the likes of exegetes such as Qurtubī and Zamakhsharī jurists such as al-Sarakhsī to Ibn Taymīyya and Izz bin Abdul-Salām, and hadīth specialists such as al-Shawkānī and Majd ul-Dīn Ibn Taymīyya would have repudiated their stances on such questions as: taking positions in non-Muslim empires, social contracts, compromise for public interests and in supporting non-Muslim polities when required for public interest (maslaha), and therefore selecting and voting for parties in elections and taking office in contemporary politics and states are  rightly deemed islamically acceptable by contemporary scholars such as Bin Bayya nad the late Wahba Zuhaylī, as well as the likes the late Husain Ahmed Madni and contemporary sxholars such as Adil Salahi  - according to sunni tradition.

This paper explains the underpinning assumptions and claims of jurisprudential consistency to classical Islamic jurisprudence according to mainstream sunni schools, made by Jihadists for their World view and justifications for their actions; it then seeks to thoroughly demonstrate that these assumptions of continuity, definitiveness or claims of consensus, are fundamentally flawed and at times are actually in direct contravention with classical sunni Islamic jurisprudence. It drawa heavily from all four major schools of sunni jurisprudence but also those claimed by them as putative authoroties such as Ibn Taymīyya, al-Shawkānī and others. It demonstrates that sunni jurisprudence on questions or war, peace, rules of engagement, and international law are far from the impressions given by such groups. It also takes from contemporary works from across the ideological spectrum including the likes of Būtī, Zuhaylī and Qaradawi as well as major compendiums on the subject of Jihad, both classical and modern, such al-Nahhās and Haykal respectively.