Boycott of an Eminent Muslim Scholar and Leader
Published in The Muslim Magazine, Vol2 No4 (Winter 1999)

---

"Shaykh Hisham has a right to his opinion...In the US where people have freedom of speech, you don't have a right to tell people what they can and cannot say...Many people carry the third world mentality... Dr. Sulayman Nyang, Howard University, Board member: AMC, CAIR, Muslim Observer

---

These quotes summarize the reaction of many organizations and mosques listed in an article released last spring, entitled, "100 Muslim Organizations Condemn Kabbani's Continued Attacks on Muslims and Islam; Scholars see Juridical Grounds for Boycott of Kabbani's organization." 

Despite being posted worldwide on the Internet, and published in The Muslim Observer, this condemnation simply is a misrepresentation of many organizations that the article claims signed it.The statement is merely another tactic used by some Muslims with various viewpoints to mobilize the American Muslim community against an individual they seek to discredit. They paint the appearance of their own success in order to engender popular support - an all-too-familiar tactic employed by certain Muslim leaders in America.

While it has been some time since the "100 Muslim Organizations" document was first circulated, it is still our Islamic duty to present the truth of this issue. With due respect to all of their viewpoints, some, like Dr. Aslam Abdullah, Editor of The Muslim Observer, and the Minaret, should feel the Islamic responsibility to revisit this issue or critique it. His response to us was that he believed "the world is changing every day and we must keep up with it," and hence he did not need to clarify mistakes in his articles. Despite the responsibility of a journalist to print accurate information, Dr. Abdullah still refrains from clarifying this issue.
When asked who authored this document, Dr. Abdullah said AMPCC was the source listed and he referred all inquiries to Agha Saeed, its chairman. 

After leaving a number of messages for Dr. Saeed which went unanswered, we were finally able to reach him for comment in an article in TMM. "I do not want to speak with you and I forbid you from ever calling me again!" he responded. 

The surprising response of two leaders who were largely responsible for this condemnation and its distribution and never made any effort to come forward to discuss the matter with the party they slandered, who is a Muslim! In any or all of this, one must ask, "Where is the adherence to Islamic values and the example of our great Prophet (s) if we can sit in interfaith programs but we cannot sit with a Muslim scholar who adheres to different views?"

Of the 100 organizations listed in the "boycott" document, oddly enough over one-third are from the Chicago area alone, and over one-fourth are from California. Investigating these two communities in-depth, TMM found that the "umbrella" organizations in both states were responsible for the majority of the names on the list - unbeknownst to the individual organizations they claim to represent. Sources allege that only these few organizations consented to the boycott and most of their constituent organizations WERE NEVER CONTACTED! It appears that they wished to show that dozens of organizations vehemently condemn the actions of the Shaykh. If these sources are correct, the boycott is tantamount to pure propaganda.
Even more disconcerting is the fact that many presidents and directors of these institutions were not even familiar with the controversy at hand. Those who had merely heard rumors surrounding it did not feel confident to make any judgment on the issue without having a thorough look at all of the facts, which were never presented to them. What is clear, however, is that much of the community is tired of using the banner of Islam for political agendas.

These sentiments resonate amongst the Muslim population across the nation [see Voices of the Silent Majority, page 23]. It was this silent majority Shaykh Kabbani spoke of when he emphasized that most of the Muslim population was composed of moderate, peaceful and tolerant individuals. Examining those who rose to so falsely and vehemently twist the actual speech of the shaykh and condemn him, a clear pattern emerges. Those who hold opposing views and usually claim they work for Muslim civil rights are the ones who have hijacked the human rights of a Muslim scholar by the condemnation. 

One may ask: why didn't even one leader of any of the original eight organizations come forward to discuss their grievances with Shaykh Kabbani before distributing such accusatory, libelous statements, as Islamic etiquette dictates? Why didn't any leader who was part of the boycott sign his personal name, rather than naming the organization? Why was a boycott, initiated by those unqualified to issue such a grave fatwa, subsequently announced and disseminated throughout the community as if it were a part of the shari'ah?
These issues and scores of others reflect a fundamental problem between the Muslim community in America and its leadership.

Who are our "leaders" and what are their qualifications?
Who are the leaders speaking on behalf of the entire Muslim community in America today? In a phone interview with Dr. Ahmed Sakr, he said there is no real leadership in America because "everyone is a leader, unfortunately." There are too many umbrella organizations with the same board members, he says, and he is in favor of having a "Mufti of America," one who is qualified to give legal rulings (fatawa) on contemporary issues.

Similarly Shaykh Murtaza Qazwini of Southern California agrees that there is a problem with various ideologies being spread in the mosques and he feels the community today is facing difficulty because of the lack of a strong leadership. 

"The one who wants to lead people must have complete knowledge about Islam," Shaykh Qazwini says. "Most of the people leading are doctors or engineers, and it is not enough. I believe if you are sick, you go to a medical doctor, not to an engineer. Why? Because an MD is a specialist in this subject. So in Islam, similarly one must be a scholar and this is his duty."

He went on to say, "We believe in taqleed - in following a big scholar or mujtahid - one who has studied in religious schools more than 20 years, to have the ability to give fatwas from the Qur'an." 
Unfortunately, today we find legal rulings coming instead from "Muftis in the Chat Room," as described by The Washington Post's Emily Wax. 

The Modern-Day "Mufti in the Chat Room"
In her article Emily Wax writes, "Once Muslims seeking muftis - Islamic legal experts - would have had to travel from village to village to find wise and respected folk. The muftis…would sit face to face with questioners issuing fatwas. These were legal opinions on questions that came up in everyday life…But to get one [fatwa] today, Muslims can just surf and click. Poof! A whole World Wide Web of cyber-fatwas appears, including those laid down by respected muftis from Egypt, some iconoclasts with no credentials at all and a few younger, hipper alternative muftis like Khan, with Islamic legal backgrounds but without official titles."
So often, we are quick to blame "The West" for the misperceptions of Islam. However, in this as in many cases, it is our own disrespect that has aided the demise of traditional scholarship, leading inevitably to such mockeries of Islamic jurisprudence. Here, the misunderstanding by a non-Muslim reporter is enhanced by the Muslim she is profiling who dares to say, "The Internet has made everyone a mufti. In the past there was only the local mufti. The Internet has opened up a variety of opinion. It's globalization of the mufti." [The Washington Post, July 31, 1999]

Regrettably, fifteen centuries of respect paid to those with the knowledge and ability to derive legal rulings in Islam has been reduced to a mere surfing-the-net, point-and-click experience. Imam Qazwini has spent much of his life studying Islam, yet he faces constant opposition in the Muslim community of Southern California for reasons unknown to him and others. This is the level of tolerance imposed by others on scholars of Islam with differing opinions.

The "condemnation" against Shaykh Hisham Kabbani was in serious violation of Islamic norms and dictates of the Qur'an. As one brother who wished to remain anonymous, who has worked closely with a leader in Southern California said, "We are terrible, so we get leaders that are terrible." 

Not one person associated with the condemnation has fulfilled the Islamic criteria for making such a condemnation, as mentioned in the "Ethics of Disagreement" article published in ICNA's The Message. 
Islam teaches that each of us is responsible for upholding truth; we can only sincerely ask Allah I to open our hearts to that truth and empower us with the strength to stand up for what we believe. It is incumbent on every sincere Muslim to gather all of the facts of a matter before making substantial conclusions which as in this case, may have grave repercussions for the community at large. 

The following summary of the past eight months' discussion of Shaykh Kabbani's State Department speech highlights the reluctance of our leaders, with all due respect to them, to resolve such issues.
The State Department Open Forum, January 1999

Many people wondered why Shaykh Kabbani chose a governmental forum. 
Chiefly, it must be understood that the shaykh was invited to address the State Department to educate representatives of government and media regarding the true nature of Islam versus the misconceptions they have of Islam and its appearance as a threat. It is a well-known fact that this topic has been discussed in political circles prior to this address. 

In his speech, Shaykh Kabbani served the Muslim community at large by distinguishing between moderate, mainstream Muslims, versus those holding extremist ideologies - either extremely liberal or extremely conservative, far from the moderate line, linguistically meaning radical, not violent or terrorist. The Shaykh distinguished clearly between radical ideology and terrorism, particularly after a previous speaker gave the impression that Islam as a whole is intolerant.

Before this, many people were not aware that there are serious ideological differences among the followers of the faith. In making this distinction, Shaykh Kabbani repeatedly pointed out that the general Muslim population is peace-loving, moderate and tolerant.

Any sincere Muslim knows that serious conflicts take place in many organizations' board meetings.
One example took place earlier this year when Dr. Ahmadullah Siddiqui resigned from the Islamic Circle of North America. As alleged in Pakistan Link, in his resignation letter to the president of ICNA, Dr. Mohammad Yunus, Dr. Siddiqui said, "Since last year, a number of Shura members, regional presidents and MGA's tried their best to point out many fatal mistakes that were committed by you and many brothers responsible for various ICNA departments and institutions. Instead of taking that in the spirit of nasiha (advice), you always got upset and forced those brothers either to quit or apologize. One last time, I would like to put on record that you have placed ICNA in a situation of great legal and financial risk." Pakistan Link further reported that a large number of ICNA general assembly members were about to submit their resignation in protest to alleged wrongdoings in the organization. [See page 9 for report.]

Shaykh Kabbani tried to work from within the community for the past ten years to educate people about Islam's moderation and its traditional beliefs inherited through 1400 years of the consensus of Islamic scholars, including qiyas, taqleed, ijma` and many other points of Islamic jurisprudence. He sought to avoid politicization of Islam and involving it in foreign political agendas. After countless unsuccessful attempts, the shaykh found it necessary to make this struggle public for the greater good of the entire community, here and abroad. 

Probably the gravest implication for the American Muslim community is the fact that, according to US law, any person who supports an organization which supports what is considered terrorist activity abroad, can in fact be held accountable, even if the activity is unbeknownst to them. 

As recounted in a previous TMM article "A Nation Divided" (October 1998) it is clear Shaykh Kabbani has gone to extraordinary lengths to speak with individual organizational heads for the past decade, encouraging them to sit at a round table and discuss differences of opinion and ideology. This would allow the average, innocent Muslim to make an educated choice of whom he supports. These attempts were repeatedly met with contempt, and the political climate of the times warranted that this subject finally be discussed publicly.
Anatomy of the "Condemnation"

By cutting and pasting the shaykh's words, taking them out of context and "spinning" them, then distributing the "condemnation" en masse, they incited nationwide hysteria throughout the Muslim community. This resulted in endangering the lives of the shaykh, his family and his associates.

If anyone felt aggrieved with any aspect of what the shaykh had said, they could have approached him directly to initiate dialogue and understand his motivation and intention. As the same Chicago activist quoted previously said, "In the case of Shaykh Hisham, they [organizational 'leaders'] had all been waiting for an opportune time to unite against him, which is what they did. If you call people to a rally, they will come. But to sit down for a peaceful discussion between two parties, no one will show."

Who Sat at the Head of the Table?
Inside sources alleged that an ISNA Shura Council meeting was held at a Hilton Hotel in early 1999, to discuss Shaykh Kabbani's remarks at length and the video of the State Department forum was viewed. The same sources allege that the Shura Committee decided to drop the issue and the idea of issuing a condemnation. Until today it is a mystery who issued the condemnation, who wrote it, who asked the other organizations to sign it and whose opinion was followed after the Shura had voted to drop the issue. 
Dr. Karim Tourk of Chicago Illinois, spoke to Dr. Syeed shortly after the now-infamous condemnation. He says, "He confirmed that there had been no attempt to discuss the issue directly with Shaykh Hisham."
This shows how the second party in the dispute was never asked to explain his position at a round-table, which is the Islamic approach to such issues.

Dr. Syeed is reported to have said to a TMM reporter that he believes that "TMM started the conflict with an article about Abdullah Idris' critical of ISNA." The interview of Abdullah Idris published in the Winter 1999 TMM, indicated that Idris felt ISNA had wronged Shaykh Kabbani. 

The TMM reporter relates: "Dr. Syeed told me that the article was a complete fabrication and that I ought to contact brother Abdullah Idris. Not only did I contact Br. Idris, but I also contacted half a dozen witnesses that confirmed the accuracy of the interview, the TMM reporter informed us, "Brother Idris told me, 'What was said was said, what was done was done.'" 

In the same way, those who signed the false allegations did not sign the statement as individuals. A question arises here: why was no single individual's name associated with this condemnation and why was no single individual's name signed on the "boycott"? 

Not one "leader" of any of the organizations who signed the condemnation or the boycott approached Shaykh Kabbani on any of the issues under dispute, all of which have been substantiated. 

The real irony in this case is that an organization that claims to defend Muslims from negative stereotyping in the Western media was instrumental in making this condemnation global. While not one Western media outlet came forth with negative images of Islam in response to Shaykh Kabbani's forum, the condemning organizations peddled their own brand of negative stereotyping through a worldwide campaign targeting the Muslim media. 

Moreover, when activist Hamza Harris approached the National Communications Director of one of these organizations by phone regarding the subject, he merely responded by saying, "Brother, you are wasting my time - I don't want to discuss this." Yet these same organizations used their own mass-distribution lists to disseminate the condemnation. 

"Alternative" Mufti Calls for Boycott
If anyone disputes the reality of muftis in the chat room, Dr. Hisham Abdullah is a living example. 

It is easy to write an opinion on a subject via the Internet and think there are no consequences to such action. However, Abdullah, a pharmaceutical engineer and community activist in Northern California, must live with the fact that he issued a fatwa that resulted in repercussions for a significant number of believers worldwide.

On March 4, 1999, one week after the original "condemnation" was distributed, Dr. Abdullah took it upon himself to issue a call for a boycott (hijr) of Shaykh Kabbani, his organizations, affiliates, followers and in fact anyone associated with him. His guidelines for the boycott include: 1) Not greeting or talking to anyone who has made a statement of support, or is known to be a close follower of Shaykh Kabbani but has not denounced his accusations. 2) Completely boycotting any activities, programs, publications or forums sponsored by his organization, and 3) Not dealing with the above individuals and organizations in any business transaction.

One must first ask, is Hisham Abdullah qualified to issue a fatwa? Months later, when told that his remarks have caused repercussions for many Muslims, Dr. Abdullah stated he knew this was a very serious issue, and yet he admitted that he had not thought about it in a long time. Even worse, in his Internet fatwa he cites the Prophetic r example of a boycott issued on three of the Sahaba y, as if he is qualified to do that which the Prophet (s) did under Divine Guidance. Asked if he was qualified to make such a ruling, Dr. Abdullah hesitatingly replied, "Jazakallahu khair, I do not want to make any statements about this issue," and hung up the phone. While eight months ago he had no problem issuing a fatwa that impacted tens of thousands of Muslims, today Hisham Abdullah cannot answer if he was qualified to do so. 

A Scholarly View on the Imposed Boycott
On this issue, Dr. Taha Jabir Al-Alwani, president of the School of Islamic Social Sciences, stated: "In Islam, there is no right for a Muslim to abandon his brother in faith for three days or more." Regarding the example of Dr. Abdullah's boycott, Dr. al-Alwani emphasized that this type of action was not practiced historically except in the case of the three companions who did not join the Prophet (s) in the battle of Tabuk. When the Prophet (s) returned from battle, he asked the Muslims to boycott the three individuals until Allah I gave him direction on how to pursue this matter.

The boycott endured for nearly fifty days, until a verse in Surah Tawbah was revealed to the Prophet (s), whereby Allah I granted the Companions forgiveness and their boycott was lifted. [9:118] 

"The Prophet (s) gave us certain ethics to live by," said Dr. al-Alwani. "When we see something from any Muslim which we feel is unacceptable, we must try to speak with him and work out the problem. In this case, it looks like they are justifying their act. They know the idea [of a boycott] and they are trying to link it together in a contemporary issue to which it doesn't apply. They don't have the vision; they can't see the real Islamic ethics in this problem."

Dr. Sulaymn Nyang mentioned that while people may have the right to disagree with remarks made, "they cannot institute a boycott. Muslims must develop internal pluralism which is in our heritage, via the different schools. Not all Muslims agree on everything under the sun…."

The Effects of Hisham Abdullah's Call for Boycott
For the first time ever in this country, Muslims worshippers have been barred access to mosques in which they formerly prayed. Common invitations to community events were suddenly withheld. Muslims are being slandered in the worst way by those they don't even know, who readily spread the slander until it seemingly becomes fact. 

Hisham Abdullah's call for boycott was referenced in a subsequent document already mentioned, citing 100 Muslim organizations that supposedly joined in the original condemnation. This weight is on the one who called the boycott, and on those who have endorsed and promoted it. Such is the consequence Hisham Abdullah will have to face the next time he entertains the thought of issuing an Internet fatwa.

A Fallacy From Beginning to End
After the original condemnation and Dr. Hisham Abdullah's call for boycott, another document was distributed to the masses, once again without any one person claiming responsibility. Though printed in The Muslim Observer newspaper, mysteriously, the editor-in-chief claims he does not know who actually wrote it. As mentioned earlier, he references Agha Saeed, who was quoted in the document and is the chair of both AMA and AMPCC, two of the eight condemning organizations. Yet, Mr. Saeed has made it known that he will not discuss this subject with the injured party. Whether or not he perceives he is responsible to speak on this matter is not important; it is his duty as someone in a "leadership" position to address the allegations made by his organizations and in his own words.

Opening with a false statement that "Scholars see juridical grounds for boycott of Kabbani's organization," the only "scholarly" opinion given on this subject was by Professor Hamid Algar, who said, "Islamic jurisprudence provides that anyone who incites non-Muslims against Muslims and Islam is legitimately subject to boycott." According to Dr. al-Alwani, this is not true and "he had no right to go in this direction regarding this subject." Furthermore, even if it were a valid statement, there is no evidence that Shaykh Kabbani incited non-Muslims against Muslims.

As seen in the opening quotes of this article, the leaders and directors of many of the listed organizations had no idea how and why their names were used nor who was behind the "boycott". Here again it appears the opinion of three or four well-placed individuals is made to appear the opinion of the masses, highlighting the truth of Shaykh Kabbani's assertion that the "mike has been hijacked."

Who Has Hijacked the Mike? Organizational Leaders Speak Out
The Council of Islamic Organizations in Chicago was largely responsible for "speaking on behalf" of 36 organizations and their memberships. Dr. Talal Sunbuli, president of the council, possessively says he is authorized to speak on behalf of these organizations. Individual organization leaders claim otherwise. When Imam Senad Agic, Mufti of Bosnians in America and Imam of the ICC, Islamic Cultural Center, (Northbrook, IL), met with Dr. Sunbuli, he said, "I was surprised that a man could have so much vengeance towards Shaykh Kabbani, someone he had never even met."

"It is strange that the Imam of the ICC was not contacted about whether we were willing to put the name of our center on the list or not. Probably it was the head of the council who may have done that. I don't know who gave him the authority to speak on our behalf. We distance ourselves from that organization and apologize to Shaykh Kabbani for such a big mistake," says Imam Senad, Mufti of Bosnians in America and Imam of the ICC. 

Such was the general consensus amongst the leaders of the organizations listed. They either did not know anything about this condemnation/boycott, or if they did, had not joined in the condemnation and were upset their names were being used in an unauthorized manner. "I never talked about this subject to anyone," says Professor Rahman Khan, President, Muslim League of Voters. "It is wrong to use my name in this way. The Council of Islamic Organizations of Greater Chicago does not have authorization to do this either."
One person, Sayed Qadri, president of MCC, said he never heard anything about a boycott. Three times he was asked whether or not he supported the condemnation and boycott of Shaykh Kabbani and he could not answer. He only became very upset, said he needed to contact his lawyer, and hung up the phone.
The point in all of this? To illustrate a common occurrence in our community, that there is no practice of democracy within these organizations. 

As a scholar who has dedicated his life to the dissemination of truth and traditional scholarship, it is unimaginable that Shaykh As-Sayyid Muhammad Hisham Kabbani would do anything to endanger the lives of innocent Muslims in any part of the world, as these "leaders" have 
suggested. Those who have made unwarranted claims against him have not examined the evidence substantiating the contents of his speech, nor have they contacted the shaykh directly regarding this matter.

It is time all Muslim organizations and leaders in America came forth to discuss their conflicts openly, in order that the common American Muslim may make an educated choice as to whom they wish to support. This process has been absent in our community until now. Shaykh Kabbani has paved the way to revive the faith in this country, reviving Islam's traditional components and values to reflect its essence of love and peace.
May the collective decisions of the Muslim body be guided by Allah U, supported by our Prophet Muhammad (s) and championed by generations to come as an historical move that strengthened Islam in the US and around the world. Ameen.