This post makes too many generalisations. However unfortunate the reaction of some sufis was, at the end of the day it was poor adab on the part of SOME sufis. Not ALL. Just some. Are they representative of the global sufi population? Is this reflective of some trend? Difficult to say, but probably unlikely.

Hate to say this (because I'm doing the same thing right now) but the problem today is that it is simply too easy for anyone to get their point across. You don't need to be a shaykh or mufti to be able to post stuff on the internet.

This is not reflective of the attitude of sufi/traditionalist scholars. Probbaly just a case of a few people being immature and over-reacting to what Shaykh Bayyah said. Simple as that.

Let's make sure that we don't over-react.

As the previous comment states this article contains a number of generalisations. How can all Sufis/Salafis be portrayed in the same way. We are all individual with our own levels of understanding and obviously our own views and reactions to certain situations.
Living in a non-islamic environment is not a new thing for muslims, people migrated to non-muslim lands at the time of the prophet and were able live their lives as muslims.

I think Ed Husein has pointed out something valuable here - when some Sufis have the audacity to accuse the greatest Ulama of our time of 'causing fitnah', as some did on various web fora, we should ask are Sufis becoming like Salafis, i.e intransigent and intolerant? We might not like what Ed has to say, but he is holding up a mirror that is worth some of us taking a long and hard look into.

Check this: http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/ed_husain/2007/10/the_gender_agenda.html

I've recently come back from the US (NY)and Muslims there are years ahead of us - why? Us Brits have some serious fixing to do in our communities.

What amazes me is that people actually need a fatwa for such trivial matters. Surely Allah knows my intention. Is the handshake a polite greeting, would it offend if withheld, then it is permissible. Aren't we Muslims allowed to ask our own hearts anymore? I hope we all agree that Allah will judge intentions and not actions. No fatwa can provide the right intention. Let's take on more personal responsibilities in our daily lives, please.

This discussion has been done to death in works of usool al-fiqh - there is difference of views on what urf is allowed/not allowed. Ed appears not to recognise that basic fact...

Interesting reading despite the generalisation. Sometimes we need some kicking to get us started or even startled.

We need more sincerity and tolerance for one another. And RESPECT for other opinions. We should learn to disagree in a disagreeable way. The scholars on boths or all sides of the divide MUST lead in this direction by meeting regularly and staying side by side. Once this is the case, the stupid followers will realise that there is no need to fight if those with knowledge are happy to live and let live, what are the foot soldiers going on about with hatred.

On the issue of figh, we need not invent a new one, just recycle the old ones to suite modern context. There are many opinions and they take account of changing circumstances, and whichever you take sincerely even if you are wrong you will be rewarded for it (say the Rasul, pbuh). Therefore, choose the one that gives you peace of mind or solves your problems. Just be sincere and faithful.

And Allah knows best.

I agree with Fatima here. The issue is trivial and intention is what will be judged. what is more surprising is the inability of Muslims to make responsible decisions themselves. the dependency culture needs to end.

Finally, Ed Hussains choice to use such loaded language as "Salafis, historically, have been known for their scriptural rigidity, intense literalism, violent intolerance, and rejection of valid Muslim scholarship (past and present)" is untrue, unacceptable and calls into question his motives.

Forgive me, but I see a lot of irony in the ones who claim, or as seen to be, righteous ("sufis") taking such a blatantly arrgant attitude, i.e. we are so pure that we can make offensive comments against other Muslims (as obviously it means you don't have to actually refute them with knowledge, so anybody can do it).
As with scholars like Bin Bayyah, then people are wrong to completely someone of his level of knowledge just because of an opinion on a "minor" matter. However, perhaps people should remember that this issue of shaking hands is something well-known- had it been to do w/ sexuality, then why can you not find the 'ulama saying it is OK to shake hands with old women, for example?

Anyone who cannot understand that this blog is to enrich our understanding and to debate points to come to a amature evaluation of the problem is just silly. For a sufi to put down a salafi is just as arrogant as a salafi putting down a sufi. Its all just swings and roundabouts. At the end of the day we are all Muslims and we must all answer to the same God. Lets learn to accept each other and not be the arrogant vain person thinking they know whats the truth and the others dont.

Yes once again Ed Husain jumps out to blame Salafi's for everything.

I suggest he spends a few pounds of his earning from his book to read the facts in:

http://www.thewahhabimyth.com/

Ed is simply out to blame Wahabi's for everything and if he knew about Islamic History he would know that notable scholars such as Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal, Ibn Tayymiah and others spoke out againts the very spiritual theology which he now purports. So the Sufi claim of 1,000 years of scholarship is nonsense.

Leading scholars have spoken and shown the spiritual claims to be nonsense. So is Ed Husain (Not his real name I see) claiming he knows more than the notable scholars whom he claims were in agreement with his thinking.

Perhaps Edward would like to explain why Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal then chose to go to trial than accept the thinking Edward holds so dear??

Oh dear - that kind of goes against the claim that Salafi's and Wahabi's go against this!!!

Quote: 'Shaikh Abdallah bin Bayyah (hafidhahullah), issued a ruling permitting inter-gender handshakes,'

It amazes me how all the people who commented above failed to spot this blatant and open lie fabricated against the Shaikh by Ed in his misleading piece.

This is what the Shaikh said:

حكم مصافحة الرجال للنساء

السُّؤالُ السّابعُ: هَل تَجُوزُ مُصافَحَةُ النِّساءِ للرِّجالِ بِحالٍ مِنَ الأَحوالِ؟.

الجواب

الأَصلُ أنَّ الرَّجُلَ لا يُصافِحُ المَرأَةَ. لَكِن؛ إذا كانَت عَجُوزاً فَمَذهَبُ أَبِي حَنِيفَةَ رَحِمَهُ اللهُ تَعالى أنَّ مُصافَحَتُها تَجُوزُ. ورُبَّما أَنَّ السائلَ يَسألُ ـ وهوَ فِي بَلَدٍ إفرِيقِيٍّ ـ فَيَقُولُ: إنَّ عَدَمَ المُصَافَحَةِ يُؤَدِّي إلى حَرَجٍ وتُؤَدِّي إلى تَباغُضٍ ونَحوِ ذَلِكَ. فَإذا كانَت تُؤَدِّي إلى ذَلِكَ فَيَجُوزُ لَهُ أن يُصافِحَ بَعِيداً عَن الشَّهوَةِ وبَعِيداً عَن الاهتِمام بِالمَرأَةِ. أَمّا إذا كانَت جَمِيلةً أو كانَت هُناكَ شَهوَةٌ فَلا تَجُوزُ المُصافَحَةُ بِحالٍ مِن الأَحوالِ.

Taken from his official website ‘www.binbayyah.net’

[Translation]

“Is it allowable for men and women [who are eligible to marry] to shake hands at times?”

The Answer:

“The principle rule is that a man is NOT allowed to shake hands with a woman [who he is eligible to marry and vice versa]. However, if she is an elderly woman then the school of Abi Hanifa [may Allah have mercy upon him] considered shaking hands with her permissible. Perhaps, the questioner - who may live in an African country - states that “By not shaking a woman’s hand it could lead to hardship or ill feelings and so forth?” If not shaking hands will lead to the actuality of those fears, then it is allowable to shake hands as long as there is no desire or feelings of affection towards the woman [and vice versa]. But if the woman is beautiful or there exist [sexual] desire, then it is NOT permissible in any circumstances.'

Dr. Abdullah bin Bayyah


Prophet Muhammad (sallalahu a’laihi wa sallam) [upon whom Ed no longer sends peace and blessings in his writing and hypocritically claim love towards] said in an authentic narration that ‘I do not shake hands with (unrelated) women.’ This statement is sufficient for any Sufi, Salafi, and Modernist etc to adhere to if he a true believer in Islam.

Anyone with least common sense in the West should realize that shaking hands with unrelated women will lead to placing a peck on the check in not too distant future, as proven time and over again.

But in all honesty, it should not be surprising to see Ed or the likes at some time in the future to place a peck on the check of an unrelated woman in the name of pluralisms and social interaction, because such apologetics have already kissed hypocrisy and disbelief by their heart.

As for those ‘Muslim’ who feel unhappy about the sacred laws of Islam, then let them ponder over the following verses of the Quran, if they have faith!

‘Do they not then think deeply in the Quran, or are their hearts locked up (from understanding it)? Indeed, those who have turned back as disbelievers after the guidance has been manifested to them, the Satan has beautified for them (their false hopes), and (Allah) prolonged their term. This is because they said to those who hate what Allah has revealed: "We will obey you in SOME PART OF the matter," but Allah knows their secrets. Then how (will it be) when the angels will take their souls at death, SMITING THEIR FACES AND THEIR BACKS? That is because they followed that which angered Allah, and hated that which pleased Him. So He made their deeds fruitless.

Or do those in whose hearts is a disease (of hypocrisy), think that Allah will not bring to light all their hidden ill-wills? Had We (Allah) willed, We could have shown them to you, and you should have known them by their marks, but surely, you will know them by the TONE OF THEIR SPEECH! And Allah knows all your deeds. And surely, We shall try you till We test those who strive hard (for the Cause of Allah) and the patient ones, and We shall test your facts (i.e. the one who is a liar, and the one who is truthful). (Muhammad 47:24-31)

What does Ed Husain make of his beloved spiritualists taking up arms:

http://www.jamestown.org/terrorism/news/article.php?articleid=2370133

Iraqi Sufis Join the Fight Against Coalition Forces

Also Ed needs to recall that the Ottomans were influenced by Sufi's and spiritualism so his contant denigration and sniping at Salafi's is unjust and uncalled for. Indeed it defies history itself.

Also Ed fails to mention that Salafi scholars such as Shaykh Bin Baz, Shaykh Uthameen and Shaykh al-Albaani condemned acts of terror publicly saying they were unIslamic.

In addition Ed should learn that it is Sayeed Qutub who inspired the concept of violence using Islamic Though and Maxist/Communist thought. He was Egyptian and was refuted by many Salafi scholars.

So the gross distortion of history is troubling and Ed's contant and inaccurate barbs at scholars is troubling.

Also Ed keeps mentioning Islamic Scholarship and teaching, and yet his beloved spiritualists - The Sufi's - jailed many leading Sunni Imams such as Imam Ahmad bin Hanbal and Ibn Tayymiah.

So the spiritual approach is to jail leading Imams who refute your thought and Ed looks back on this as a golden age. Is the jailing of leading Sunni Imams so golden?

History is a great way to correct Ed Husain and his assertions.

HT his former love was widely condemned by Salafi scholars. Yet he ignored this and now he chooses to blame Salafi's for his own misguidance in HT. Surely a great injustice.

Surely anyone who fails to listen to the leading scholars cannot then blame then for his own failings. Unless it is to make money from writing books, TV appearances and thank yous from neo-conservatives.

Arif, I echo you -I am a bit of a hanafi and bit of a sufi, that makes me a multifaceted muslim or one who appreciates the rich dirversity of the relgion? i;m sure Ed will have a dynamic prescribed answer for that.
Your blog was no doubt interesting Ed and i completely shadow your negativity towards the frequent sexualisation of simple, almost domesticated civil acts that occur in our day to day lives. But where i feel you have once again, marginalised and alienated is the narrow chanelling of your quite obvious disaporoval of teh 'salafi way'. It comes across to me as an emotional, unresearched, highly opinionated slippage of academic distaste. To be so reductive of one group alongside others illuminates intolerance not wisdom or an acceptance of the differences that exist. Naturally, with any religion, act or movement, whether it be the arts, the method of cake making or political partys, there will always be a layering of thought, principle and interpration. if the salafis do not want to pray in a sufi's mosque and a sufi sits here and calls them a bunch of social misfits who are far to sexualy aware and rigid in their demeanor, then surely, all we can do now is sit back and sigh at the wonderful hula hoops of approach and thought. Your clones of eachother with alterations in your approach - aka, just as bad as eachother.

I think a more apt question is why are some who claim to be Sufi using the langauge of neo con fanatics? How can a socalled sufi go on newsnight and claim the Salafi doctrine espoused by Saudi Arabia (but of course not followed by them)be called terrorist and Islamist? How can a so called sufi call for the imprisonement of other Muslims simply for calling for an Islamic Caliophate? How can a so called sufi say: “Religions are not for governments or states, they are for individuals. The state can assist individuals religious responsibilities, but governments cannot, should not, profess faith” (The Islamist) I wonder what traditional sufis in the past like Yusuf an-Nabhani would have thought of such so called sufis.

Shiraz, with all due respect, you need to consult some history books.

The people behind Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal's imprisonment were the Mutazilites, who were hardly friends of the Sufis!! Imam Ahmad is highly respected by traditional Muslims (which include the sufis) as being the founder of one of the 4 orthodox schools of fiqh in Sunni Islam. The founder of the Qdiri order, Shaikh Abdul Qadir Jilani was a Hanbali.

As far as Ibn Taymiya is concerned, he was a member of the Qadiri order. He was imprisoned a number of times for certain very unorthodox positions he had in fiqh and aqeeda. Please refer to this excellent article http://www.newislamicdirections.com/nid/articles/answer_to_a_salafi_brother/

"Ed" seems to know nothing about tasawwuf (Sufism). Tasawwuf is about clearing all concern for anything but Allah from one's heart. As Ansari of Herat said:

"I live only to do thy will;
My lips move only in praise of thee.
O Lord, whoever becometh aware of thee,
Casteth out all else other than thee."

It is not about being a lax, lawless, pseudo-Muslim who doesn't follow the Shari'ah. The true Sufis are the strictest followers of Allah's law. "Ed" Husain is the furthest thing from a Sufi and has no right to lay claim their august legacy.

In shaking hands, inter-gender, it would depend on the school of jurisprudence (4 Sunni, 4 Shia), would it not? With Hanafi allowing this with older women...?

if we say that shaking hands between sexes (non-mahram)is allowed, then what about the casual pecks on the cheeks and hugs??
Why is it that the former is "allowed" yet not the latter??
these days collegues give each other "goodbye" hugs and pecks on the cheeks. if we say that shaking of the hands is allowed on the basis of "halal intention", then what about these acts??

what about someone working as masseur? are you going o say it is halal for him to massage women for his intention is puerly job related?

It is not enough to say "my intentions are correct", our actions has to be in accordance with the Will of Allah.

It is true that some great Scholars of Islam have allowed this handshaking with some conditions attached--- BUT-- these fatwas open up many queations, which these respected Scholars should also answer-- like the issue of casual hugs and pecks.

There are certain rulings in Islam that do not have an "'illa" (explicit "reasons" understood by men). Such as- why is the sunnah salah of Fajr, two rakat?

or why, when doing the ritual bath, must all the hair on the body be washed, even though no filth reached there?

All these rullings are "Ta'budiyya", as in they have no "illa". We just obey them.

Likewise a young bold muslim women must still cover her head, even hough she herself may find wearing a headscarf will make her look more "beutifull".

likewise the Awra of the women. It ia all of her body, except face and hands. (Hanafi opinion allows feet as well). But someone can argue, "I don't have to wear the head scarf, because I do not intend to display my hair for attracting male attention". This is obviously rejected, as the order is "ta'abbud". The intention of the individual has no bearing.

Furthermore our intention cannot make a Haram act Halal, just the way as saying "bismillah" to eat pork wont make it halal.

Those scholars who say that shaking hands is Haram between the sexes, say so because they consider it prohibited on the basis of "ta'budiyya". They do not say that it is only haram if the intention is wrong. They say that any physical contact between the sexes (who can marry) are all prohibited, except if and where there may be exceptions based on Quran/Hadith.

In the Shafee medhab the wudu is broken if ANY type of physical contact is made between the sexes (who can legally marry). And this is even if done accidently!!

Please people-- before you look into your heart to see whether an action is halal or haram, look into our Sharia. What does it say. For the Sharia of Allah is free from Satan, whilst the heart of man is the home for Satan.

Wa'salam