I am reposting the following statement by ‘Umar Mawlud ‘Abdalhamid, a member of the League of Libyan `Ulama’, concerning the recent wave of destruction of tombs and places of worship at the hands of some Libyans who claim themselves to be Salafis:

28 August 2012

For inquiries: 091 3226168 – 092 5159497     LIBYANOLAMA@YAHOO.COM

In the name of God, the Most Gracious, the Dispenser of Grace

Statement by the League of Libyan Ulema 

Regarding the Assault on Libya’s Mosques and Mausoleums 

Praise be to God, the Lord of the Worlds, and peace and blessings on the Prophet Muhammad, his Family, and his Companions.

The Libyan revolution, which was launched on February 17^th of last year, initially sought to achieve legitimate goals through peaceful means. Despite the fact that the government was flagrantly killing innocent Libyan men while carrying out sexual assaults on Libyan women, many young men remained in their homes, under the influence of scholars who argued that the government was legitimate, and accordingly, rising up against it was an act of sedition.

Only after the Lord granted the revolutionaries victory did these youth join the fray, trying to present themselves as leaders of the movement – this despite the fact that up until that moment (and even afterwards) they had allied themselves with Saadi Gaddafi who financed the establishment of a puritanical Salafi school for them in one of the mosques of Tripoli.

This group has repeatedly attempted to undermine the stability of our country to achieve their fiendish goals. To this end, they have set off bombs at the tombs of saints, destroyed places of worship, burned down religious schools, pillaged libraries with rare and priceless manuscripts, and abducted and tortured dozens of those whose only crime was to refute their errors or stop their destruction, as in Zliten. In this, the more radical elements of the security apparatus have been complicit.

These renegades are inspired by a school of thought foreign to our venerable and indigenous traditions, a school of thought comprised of the most errant positions at odds with the teachings of the vast majority of Muslim scholars.

Assaulting a tomb and exhuming its inhabitant is a grave sin in Islam. The classical jurist Malik narrated in his Muwatta that the Prophet (peace be upon him) cursed those who dig up the graves of others.[1] Similarly, the Prophet (pbuh) declared, “Breaking the bone of a dead Muslim is as grave as breaking their bone when they are alive.”[2] And at the funeral of the Prophet’s wife Maymouna, Ibn Abbas firmly instructed the pall-bearers: “When you raise up the bier, make sure not to let it shake back and forth, but carry it with the utmost care.”[3] It should go without saying that digging up someone’s body and blowing up their grave is that much more blasphemous. [4]

These renegades claim that visiting the mausoleums of the saints amounts to idolatry, a position which contradicts the Prophet (pbuh)’s saying that “While I used to forbid you from visiting people’s graves, feel free to do so now, since visiting them is a good remembrance of one’s own mortality”[5] not to mention that it contradicts the well-established practice of Muslim society from its very beginnings. To the extent that there are some people who pray to these saints to the exclusion of God, this is due to their own ignorance and does not in any way call for the destruction of these sites or the murder of its attendants.

The Grand Mufti of Libya recently published a fatwa legitimizing the destruction of mosques built around a tomb; this fatwa is inappropriate for several reasons. First of all, the mufti should well know that all tombs in Libya, without exception, which are attached to a mosque are separated from the actual prayer area by a wall. Secondly, the mufti bases his fatwa on the isolated position of the medieval jurist Ibn Taymiyya, whom he describes as “the great sage of Islam (shaykh al-Islam)” – as if there have not been scores of scholars who have shared this encomium. The fact is that the vast majority of Muslim scholars have found no problem with having a tomb adjoin a mosque in the manner found in our society. And in any case, the Great Mosque of Medina contains not only the tomb of our Prophet (pbuh), but those of his close Companions Abu Bakr and Umar – and not a single Muslim from the Prophet’s generation ever suggested that their bodies be moved out of the mosque precinct or that the mosque should be relocated. Furthermore, the fact that the Companions debated whether to bury the Prophet (pbuh) beneath his pulpit only underlines the acceptability of this. And the Prophet himself (pbuh) commanded that “A prophet should be buried wherever he breathes his last.” [6] And Lady Ayesha, who was well-versed in Islamic law, would perform her prayers next to his grave. Thirdly, the mufti has contravened the position of the dominant school of law here in Libya – namely, the Maliki school – even though he formally committed himself to its rulings through the Fatwa Law which he himself drafted.

Accordingly, those who murder civilians and destroy our very heritage are renegades who defy God’s law. Islam enjoins on us to restrain them by force and hold them accountable for all their crimes, for as the Lord says in scripture: “It is but a just recompense for those who make war on God and His apostle, and endeavour to spread corruption on earth, that they are slain in great numbers, or crucified in great numbers, or have, in result of their perverseness, their hands and feet cut off in great numbers, or are [entirely] banished from [the face of] the earth: such is their ignominy in this world. But in the life to come [yet more] terrible suffering awaits them” [7] and “Hence, who could be more wicked than those who bar the mention of God’s name from [any of] His houses of worship and strive for their ruin, [although] they have no right to enter them save in fear [of God]? For them, in this world, there is ignominy in store; and for them, in the life to come, a terrible suffering.” [8]

In conclusion, it is the responsibility of the National Conference and the Interim Government to take measures to deter these renegades and hold them to account; to rebuild what they destroy and retrieve what they steal; as well as to hold to account those elements in the security apparatus who have betrayed their office to aid these criminals.

Similarly, the League of Libyan Ulema calls on the venerable National Conference and Interim Government to pressure the government of Saudi Arabia to restrain its clerics who meddle in our affairs in the following ways: providing intensive courses for Libyan youth where they are brainwashed with extremist ideas and taught to give their allegiance to the Saudi clerics to the exclusion of the just Lord Himself; promoting millions of free books and tapes in Libya which attack our moderate religious traditions; and pounding the simple masses with the propaganda that Libyan scholars are worthless and should not be heeded.  Accordingly, a formal complaint should be submitted to the League of Arab States and the Organization for Islamic Cooperation regarding this flagrant intervention in our domestic affairs.

Neglecting the grave responsibility of the security and stability of our country is a dereliction of duty; as the Prophet himself (pbuh) stated, “Those who do not actively care for the well-being of the Muslim community are not part of it.” [9]

Sedition ever lies below the surface; May God curse those who would stir it up.

Peace be upon you and the blessings of God

The League of Libyan Ulema

Dr. Umar Mawloud Abdu l-Hamid

[1]  The Book of Funerals, On Matters of Disappearance, No. 44.

[2]  Narrated by Imam Malik in The Muwatta’, The Book of Funerals, On Matters of Disappearance, No. 45.

[3]  Sahih Al-Bukhari, The Book of Marriage, Chapter on Having Several Wives.

[4]  Refer to the Al-Mabsut (The Unravelled) of Al-Sarakhsi, vol. 1, p. 190; Al-Sharh Al-Kabir (The Great Commentary) of Al-Dardir, vol. 1, p. 188; Al-Hawi (The Container) of Al-Mawardi, vol. 2, p. 336 and Al-Insaf (The Equity) of Al-Mawardi, vol. 1, p. 348.

[5]  The Sunan of Abu Dawud, The Book of Funerals, Chapter on Visiting Graves, No. 3235.

[6]  The Sunan of Ibn Majah, The Book on What Has Been Related Regarding Funerals, Chapter on What Has Been Related Regarding His (PBUH) Death and Burial, No. 1628.

[7]  The Holy Qur’an [Al-Ma’idah 5:33]

[8]  The Holy Qur’an [Al-Baqarah 2:114]

[9]  Narrated by Al-Bayhaqi in The Branches of Faith, Chapter on Asceticism, No. 10586.

Christina Lagarde, head of the IMF, was in Egypt today to negotiate with the Egyptian government the terms of a new $4.8 billion loan.  Predictably, many Egyptians are suspicious.  An Egyptian economist, Wael Gamal, who has solid revolutionary credentials and is economically progressive, writes on Egypt’s economic affairs for al-Shuruq, a leading independent Egyptian newspaper.  He has come out strongly against the proposed loan, first, in a piece in the Shuruq, and again on his blog.

Today’s New York Times has a front page story on the accelerating advancement of robotics and the prospect that these advanced robots will very soon replaces millions of low-skilled workers around the world.  No doubt, workers look at this possibility with trepidation: as these robots become cheaper and more efficient, low-skilled workers will face the prospect of either accepting lower wages in return for keeping their jobs, or find something else to do.  Yet, it was not so long ago when we did not view technological progress as the zero-sum game depicted in this article: many people assumed that as technology became more productive, human beings would be liberated from the drudgery of production and enjoy ever increasing amounts of leisure to engage in, well, whatever they wanted: fish in the morning and engage in literary criticism in the afternoon, for example.  Karl Marx, of course, attempted to lay out a theory for why such a future was inevitable: as the contradictions between the capacity for the rational deployment of capital to banish scarcity and the relative impoverishment of the working classes become more and more apparent, the system of unlimited private accumulation of capital would become unsustainable, and a social revolution would inevitably ensue.  A new world would come into being in which the irrationality of unlimited private accumulation would be replaced by a system that deployed capital for the social benefit of all.  Marx’s view of history has turned out to be either hopelessly naive, or too far ahead of its time, depending on one’s point of view, but when one reads about the ever-increasing capabilities of automated production, one really must begin to re-think radically the future possibilities of human life: why should the gains derived from these incredible gains in productivity be monopolized by the owners of private capital?  Wouldn’t we in fact live in a better world if we encouraged the development of technologies that liberated humans from the back-breaking drudgery of berry-picking, for example, rather than the next iteration of the iPhone?  If we agree that humans are capable of a lot more than simply doing repetitive tasks all day long, 40-hours a week (or however long the relevant work week is), shouldn’t we welcome these developments and seek to replace human labor with machine labor at every turn?  The answer is obviously yes, but with one very important caveat: we must abandon the logic of perpetual and unlimited accumulation of private capital and, instead of thinking of what new drudgery can be invented to replace the old, we should think of how these productivity gains could be used to allow individuals to pursue their own goals, rather than those of private capital.

Or so says Mormon theology, if this article from TruthOut is to be believed. So it turns out that Romney was not only kissing Sheldon Adelson’s butt for money, but also because he thinks they are part of a holy if not sacred lineage. Adelson’s holy lineage apparently makes it OK for the family values party to accept millions of dollars from a casino magnate: who cares what you do if you have the right descent? This is just another good reason, I’d say, to favor the exclusion of religion from public debate.

And, I will happily say, thank God I am a Muslim, where God teaches us that the only relevant distinction among human beings is in moral excellence:

“Ya ayyuha al-nasu, inna khalaqnakum min dhakarin wa untha wa ja`alnakum shu`uban wa qaba’ila li-ta`arafu inna akramakum ‘inda allahi atqakum” — “O people! We have created you from a male and a female, and made you peoples and tribes that you may know one another. The noblest among you in God’s sight is the most mindful of God.” Quran, al-Hujurat (the Chambers), 49:13.

Things continue to move quickly in Charlottesville.  Carl Zeithaml, Dean of the McIntire School of Commerce, who had been named interim President of U. Va. following the abrupt dismissal of Teresa Sullivan, has now announced that he has suspended negotiations with the Board of Visitors and will not serve as Interim President.

The text of his statement is set out below.

I received an e-mail today from Helen Dragas in which she explains why the Board of Visitors acted to remove President Teresa Sullivan.  I have reproduced the message below.  Upon my reading of it, it seems that the Board of Visitors is essentially saying that U.Va. cannot continue to finance itself if the liberal arts remain its principal focus.  It is amazing to me that UVa is so politically inept that it has consistently failed to get its fair share of appropriations from the General Assembly.

Despite all the turmoil in Egypt, elites in Egypt can apparently unite in mocking the appearance of Muhammad Mursi’s wife, who wears what is know in Egypt as a khimar. 

Egyptians are rightly outraged by the supplemental constitutional declaration issued by SCAF immediately after voting in the runoff ended last night.  There is little doubt that SCAF intends to neuter the power of the recently elected president and reserve real power in its own hands.  The question is whether it can succeed in doing so. 

Morsi’s win came to me as a pleasant surprise, as I had been quite pessimistic going into  the runoff that he could muster enough support outside the base of the Muslim Brotherhood to prevail.  At the end of the day, however, all his victory means is that the people of Egypt did not decide to sign its own death warrant; however, it is still unclear whether Egyptians can achieve a stable political equilibrium grounded in some kind of pluralistic, democratic state.  To do so will require a coalition, first, between moderate Islamists and non-Islamists, both of which were active participants in the Jan. 25 Tahrir Coalition, but parted thereafter, the fact that encouraged the forces of the old regime to attempt a comeback. 

Many revolutionaries who voted for Shafik, or who abstained or nullified their vote, did so on the grounds that they were defending the idea of a “civil” state.  This suggests that, in their mind, there are only two kinds of states in the world: “civil” states and “religious” states.