The Best School of Fiqh is the Qur’an – Gulf Talk

Audio Translated from Arabic to English by Faysal Burhan

However, when I seek legitimacy based on the source—al-Shari’ah—some consider it to be an innovation. What does this mean? It implies that deriving legitimacy from one’s personal or sectarian identity is seen through a Salafi lens. That is an innovation. Yet, we have been given a single name: Islam. That is what Allah has called us in the Holy Qur’an. We cannot ask, “O Allah, grant us a different name; this one is not sufficient.” Therefore, this sectarian ignorance, which is prevalent and divisive, has dominated the scene.

I’ve even written about this phenomenon: people often ask whether you are Sunni or Shi’i, yet rarely do they truly understand what Shiism or Sunnism means—even before posing the question.

The Moderator: It has become a matter of sectarian affiliation or a political circumstance, involving political affiliations.

The Host: It is essential to acknowledge and emphasize the commonalities shared by Sunnis and Shiites. Both believe in God and the Last Day, adhere to a shared value system, and observe the same prohibitions—with most differences arising from historical events and distinct theological perspectives about God. 

Even among Sunnis, there are notable differences regarding the understanding of God. For example, the Salafi stance has harshly criticized the Ash’aris, at times even more severely than their criticism of the Shiites. Historical texts, such as those by Hamada bin Salama, Abdullah bin Ahmad, Al-Barbahari, and Ibn Al-Bata, all reflect a tradition that stands in opposition to the original Ash’ari view, known as Ash’ariyyah al-Kulabiyyah.

Being different does not concern me. I may have some Shiite beliefs, but what truly matters is the pursuit of the ideal. If I embrace certain Mu’tazili principles, I am comfortable with that. I have no issue with secularism, nor am I troubled if some label me a liberal. I fully support civil society and individual rights, and I am at peace with these convictions.

The Moderator: But, Abu Malik, why does this issue persist in our time? Why are we so preoccupied with labeling and categorizing others? Shouldn’t we move beyond stereotyping individuals and refrain from confining people to rigid categories?

The Host: Unfortunately, the Salaf themselves made us feel as though it is wrong not to follow their own sect, and that all other sects are evil, deceitful, and conspiring against us. They fostered the belief that nothing should be accepted from a Mu’tazili simply because of their affiliation. But who set this standard?

“Take and give—even if it is from those who fundamentally disbelieve. How did the Prophet know there was a just king in Abyssinia? He heard about it—either directly from the disbelievers themselves, or through widespread public reports.

This shows that Muslims should not isolate themselves from humanity as a whole; in my view, such isolation goes against human nature.

When someone hears that a person is a Shiite, Salafi, or holds a particular belief, he should examine the idea itself—whether it is correct, incorrect, accurate, or false—rather than making assumptions based on labels. We must put an end to the trend of using derogatory labels.

Of course, such remarks have not entirely disappeared—although the label ‘Shiite’ is now less common. In the past, people used the term ‘Nusayri,’ and sometimes even associated me with political matters or accused me alongside figures like al-Bashir. May God guide them. Such accusations might have a widespread appeal, but I do not subscribe to them.”

Absolutely—I genuinely believe that if my brothers who disagree with me understood Islam as I do, they would be free from hatred and, by God’s grace, find peace. Glory be to God.

The Moderator: That’s correct—this issue does not stem from what you previously described as the use of religious rhetoric or religion itself to serve those in power or to advance political interests.

The Host: Multiple factors have contributed to these tragedies, which stem from a complex interplay of political, intellectual, tribal, and social forces. Tribalism, in particular, has played a significant role, but it is only one among many causes.

As a Muslim, I cannot overlook the influence of Satan—the ultimate leader of misguidance—who incites immorality and indecency throughout the world. I recognize his impact goes beyond the material; it is both spiritual and pervasive. It is important to remember all these dimensions when reflecting on the roots of our challenges.

I hold the text of the Qur’an in the highest respect, exactly as it is. However, numerous factors have led us to our present state. The devil has ensnared us in the outward form of religious terms—stripping them of their true meaning—and left us mired in ignorance. Sadly, today, many Muslims persist in this ignorance; words are uttered, but their true intent remains hollow.

Of course, I do not mean to generalize. Yet, it is hard to ignore that we often find ourselves among the most quarrelsome, the most deceptive, those most resistant to truth, the most wasteful, the most greedy, the most hypocritical, and the most talkative—at times, the most ignorant as well. Truly, this is a dire situation. May God help and guide us all.

The Moderator: (You stated) On Twitter: Truly, our hardships are overwhelming—a list too long to recount. As noted on September 22, if the early members of this nation had upheld righteousness, Muawiyah would never have risen to power, the community would not have backed Yazid against Hussein, nor would they have stayed silent as Ali was cursed from the pulpits or as a catapult struck the Kaaba. Some may accuse these observations of echoing Shiite rhetoric or aligning with sectarian narratives. To that, what do you say?

The Host: My critique is grounded in historical facts and the pursuit of justice, rather than driven by sectarian bias. Honest reflection on these events is crucial for understanding our shared past and fostering genuine unity.

If faithful Islam had prevailed as before, the Kaaba would not have been attacked, Medina would not have been violated, Husayn would not have been killed, and the Imam would not have been openly cursed on the pulpits. In contrast, others stood silently. There were only a few righteous individuals and a handful of early companions still alive. Out of the 332 people who fought at Badr, only about 100 remained during Ali’s era, and these were the ones who witnessed the battle alongside him. Sa’d and Usama bin Zayd withdrew, and Usama himself was not a veteran of the Battle of Badr. Of the 100 Badris who supported Ali, half were killed at Siffin—targeted by Mu’awiya—and the rest were hunted down and disappeared as a result of Mu’awiya’s regime. Given the brutal nature of Mu’awiya’s rule, it is in such instances that fairness toward the Shiites is warranted.

Several factors facilitated their rise to power. Uthman’s weak rule made it easier for them to govern. When they took charge, they hoarded wealth and bribed people and tribes to gain support. Even during Saqeefa, the Ansar and other tribes were marginalized, while only Quraysh and their allies, the Thaqif, were dominant.

During the Prophet’s (PBUH) time, the Ansar were the majority. The Prophet said that if people chose one valley and the Ansar chose another, he would follow the Ansar. Despite this, the Ansar were neglected until the reign of Imam Ali, when they regained leadership. Only then did we hear again of figures such as Abu Ayyub al-Ansari, Khuzayma ibn Thabit, Qays ibn Sa’d, and al-Nu’man ibn Ajlan al-Zarqi. On the other hand, there was a weakness that enabled Mu’awiya to seize power early. Had he come later, after matters had stabilized intellectually, the outcome might have been different.