Shaykh Yusuf b. Sadiq’s Dangerous Sectarianism
Unlike many, I don’t deem sectarianism[1] to be inherently Islamically problematic. Nevertheless, it is certainly problematic if it drives one to commit sins or encourage their fellow co-madhabists to do so while falsely thinking that it is Islamically permissible in the hopes that these sinful actions [supposedly] further the cause of their respective theological madhab.
Unfortunately, one who has fallen victim to this sinful form of sectarianism is Shaykh Yusuf b. Sadiq al-Hanbali[2] who is well known amongst English speaking Hanbali students of knowledge for delivering classes on Hanbali fiqh and aqeedah in the English language.
It’s not really a secret to those that know Shaykh Yusuf that he harbors great resentment towards Salafis,[3] however, this is his intellectual and personal right and is not the primary focus of this article. Shaykh Yusuf wouldn’t exactly be considered unique in this regard, for many[4] passionate adherents of their theological madhabs display such resentment towards their theological opponents. Nevertheless, what isn’t so common is for such passionate adherents to support Islamically impermissible acts committed towards others in the name of sectarianism, and this is precisely what Shaykh Yusuf has done as will be shown.
The Background
The incident starts with someone by the name of Suhayb Hassan al-Shafi al-Azhari, who is a researcher who works at the Sheikhdom (Mashyakha) of al-Azhar. A glimpse through his facebook account[5] would clearly reveal to anybody just how spiteful he is towards Salafis. In one of his posts dated April 7, 2019, which is no longer publicly accessible,[6] he relays a story of how he once confronted a Salafi khateeb giving a sermon in one of the masajid in his neighborhood. The Salafi khateeb, according to Suhayb, preached that the Prophet’s (peace be upon him) parents are kuffar[7] in a prior sermon, and in the more recent sermon that Suhayb attended, the Salafi khateeb preached that the teachings of the Sufi mystic al-Hallaaj and Ibn Arabi were responsible for the sinful relations between the different genders today.
Clearly disgruntled by the teachings of the Salafi khateeb, Suhayb proceeds on to say that he threatened the Salafi khateeb by saying that he would report him to the Ministry of Awqaf (Endowments) if he doesn’t produce his license for giving a sermon.[8] The Salafi khateeb tried to resolve the matter politely and privately, but Suhayb persisted with his threats. As Suhayb got distracted by another Salafi who interjected himself into the discussion,[9] the Salafi khateeb managed to escape and run away.
This is a summary of the story relayed by Suhayb. Everyone is free to read the original post by Suhayb linked to in footnote no. 6.
Moreover, in the comments section of that post, somebody informs Suhayb that he comes across several similar cases of Salafis, and he asks Suhayb what he should do. In response, Suhayb encouraged him and others to report these Salafis to the Ministry of Awqaf.[10]
To appreciate how seriously problematic this is, one only needs to familiarize himself with the role the Ministry of Awqaf in Egypt plays in supporting the brutal and oppressive government’s policies and agenda. A useful article to read on this matter is the one by Masooda Bano and Hanane Benadi.[11] In it, they demonstrate how the Awqaf in Egypt strongly supports the regime by embracing bold and contentious stances on controversial issues. For instance, it is widely known that they marginalize groups such as Salafis and the Muslim Brotherhood from the mosques (p. 1608) and are loose and reckless in deeming notions and individuals as takfiri (pp. 1609-1610). They outwardly[12] adopt a very pro-Azhari stance and set out to ensure that everyone is toeing the tyrannical government’s line.
One of the methods that they use to ensure that this is done is by appointing the khateebs who give the unified and government-approved sermons through the issuance of licenses. There are serious consequences for the one who gives sermons without a license. The following is stated in one report:
“According to the law, penalties for preaching or giving religious lessons without a license from the Ministry of Awqaf or Al-Azhar include a prison term of up to one year and/or a fine of up to 50,000 pounds ($3,100). The penalty doubles for repeat offenders. Ministry of Awqaf inspectors also have judicial authority to arrest imams violating this law.”[13]
The prison system in Egypt is horrid and 50,000 Egyptian pounds is an oppressively exorbitant fine in a country where over a third of the population lives below the poverty line. Moreover, if this is coupled with false charges of extremism, the security service of Egypt could get involved and their infamous reputation requires no elaboration.[14]
Thus, we can appreciate how serious it is to report somebody to this oppressive vehicle of the tyrannical state.
Shaykh Yusuf’s Wrongdoing and His Defense of Himself
Now we come to Shaykh Yusuf, the focus of this article.
Shockingly, Shaykh Yusuf commented on Suhayb’s post and thanked Suhayb for what he did to that Salafi khateeb![15] To thank others for engaging in sectarian-driven sinful actions is extremely problematic as it’s tantamount to approval and support of these actions.
I requested one of Shaykh Yusuf’s students to reach out to him in order to get his response to this charge. Below are the comments[16] of that student as he relays the response of Shaykh Yusuf to this charge:
Shaykh Yusuf made a number of claims; let’s take a quick look at the relevant ones.
Claim #1: Suhayb only threatened to report the Salafi khateeb; he didn’t actually report him.
Yes, that’s because according to Suhayb’s own story,[17] the Salafi khateeb ran away! Secondly, we earlier showed Suhayb’s response to a questioner where he explicitly encouraged him to report such Salafis and not merely threaten to do so,[18] and this clearly demonstrates that he was willing to report the Salafi khateeb.
Claim #2: The problem is only with takfiri Salafis. We shouldn’t be making takfir in front of the laity.
But according to Suhayb’s story, the only “takfir” that the khateeb made was that of the Prophet’s parents in a previous sermon, which is a perfectly acceptable opinion even among scholars highly respected by non-Salafis. So how is this a problem exactly? How is this considered a “takfiri” stance? How precisely was this khateeb considered a “danger to the people”? How on earth would this warrant threatening him like that?
Moreover, the person who actually did make takfir of Ibn Arabi[19] was another Salafi who interjected himself into the discussion later on according to Suhayb; not the khateeb himself whom Suhayb threatened.
Claim #3: Sending people to prison is not desired.
That’s good to know, however eagerly striving to do an action is one thing, while being willing, even if reluctantly, to do it is another. The latter despite being less severe, is still extremely problematic. And it appears that Shaykh Yusuf approved of Suhayb’s actions of threatening to report that Salafi khateeb (in the name of “hisba”!).
So that’s pretty much all Shaykh Yusuf had to say in his own defense, which is clearly disappointingly insufficient. We now turn to some of the arguments some of his supporters made in his defense.
Responses to Some Arguments Made in Defense of Shaykh Yusuf by Some of His Students
Defense #1: “But some of Shaykh Yusuf’s teachers were Salafis. So how could you accuse him of being resentful against Salafis?”
This isn’t relevant, since hating a certain group does not mean that one cannot benefit from some of its individual adherents for personal again. It is not unheard of for people to take knowledge from their theological opponents. This doesn’t negate the evidence already presented which demonstrates that Shaykh Yusuf harbors strong anti-Salafi resentments.
Defense #2: “But Shaykh Yusuf teaches Salafis.”
Indeed, he does, but keeping financial motives aside, is there any plausible reason why he would do this? Yes, there is actually.
Suhayb Hasan made a facebook post where he argued that it is haram to teach Salafis the noble sciences.[20] He argued that it’s only permissible if it were as done in a manner which “invalidates their[21] beliefs and exposes their incoherence.” Shaykh Yusuf shared Suhayb’s post[22] and in the comments section, he said: “In my perspective, it is valuable speech.” in reference to Suhayb’s advice regarding teaching Salafis.[23] Thus, it appears extremely plausible that Shaykh Yusuf has justified to himself teaching Salafis on the condition that he also critiques Salafism.[24]
Regardless, as we are not primarily interested at this point in delving into Shaykh Yusuf’s intentions. The essential point being made here is that this defense is not a strong one and does nothing to diminish the thrust of the charge being made against Shaykh Yusuf that he clearly holds strong sectarian resentment against Salafis, at least in a general sense.
Defense #3: “But Shaykh Yusuf speaks against the oppression of the government.”
First of all, nobody accused him of being a sycophant who supports tyrannical governments.
Secondly, this only makes our charge against Shaykh Yusuf all the more serious and warranted, for how could he praise the threatening of reporting anybody to the authorities in a country whose oppression he is very well aware of?
Defense #4: “But wasn’t the Khateeb a takfiri?”
No, once again, the “takfiri” according to Suhayb’s story was another Salafi who interjected himself into the discussion; not the Salafi khateeb whom Suhayb threatened to report.
Moreover, Suhayb’s general advice to report Salafis to the questioner in the comments section didn’t qualify that the person be a radical takfiri. Suhayb’s answer made it clear that his ultimate goal was to ensure that Salafis don’t preach their views to the people.
Defense #5: “But is it even corroborated that Shaykh Yusuf thanked Suhayb? By your own admission, Suhayb’s post under which Shaykh Yusuf supposedly commented is publicly inaccessible. All we have to rely on is hearsay.”
There are three reasons why we should believe that Shaykh Yusuf did in fact comment on Suhayb’s post and thanked him for his action.
1) Witness testimony. There are actual witnesses who are willing to testify and swear by Allah that they with their very own eyes saw Shaykh Yusuf’s comment themselves. Witnesses include Ahmed Mahmoud who first shared Suhayb’s post, sister Marwa al-Hashimi,[25] and several others who could be gathered if required.
2) Sound inference and deduction. As shown earlier, Ahmed Mahmoud shared Suhayb’s post to more than 50,000 of his followers and he openly told all of them to go and see Shaykh Yusuf’s comment where he thanked Suhayb for his action. His post got more than 400 likes. How could anyone dare to tell thousands of his readers to go and read a comment which supposedly does not even exist and not get exposed by anyone for such a ‘fabrication’? The sensible and fair person would only recognize and conclude that Shaykh Yusuf’s comment actually did in fact exist at that point in time.
3) Shaykh Yusuf doesn’t deny it. We showed Shaykh Yusuf’s explanation relayed through his student earlier. Nowhere did he deny ever making the comment. In fact, he appears to have admitted it but only sought to justify it.
Thus, there is no question that Shaykh Yusuf did in fact utter that statement. The evidence is definitive and isn’t susceptible to conjecture and doubt.
Defense #6: “Regardless of the reality of Suhayb, Shaykh Yusuf sincerely, albeit mistakenly, thought that Suhayb was only willing to report the Salafi. Thus, what Shaykh Yusuf approved of was the mere threat and not actual reporting of Salafis to the Awqaf.”
First of all, there is no indication that Suhayb intended that in the original post, and this is most especially clear since Suhayb in his comments section literally encouraged someone to report such Salafis. Thus, it’s totally baseless for Shaykh Yusuf to think that this is Suhayb’s stance.
Secondly, assuming for the sake of argument that we can excuse Shaykh Yusuf for being ignorant of Suhayb’s true colors, does he not know that merely issuing such threats in an oppressive country is severely haram, if not a major sin itself as some scholars[26] have opined?
The Prophet (peace be upon him) said:
It is not lawful for a Muslim that he frightens a Muslim. [Sunan Abu Dawud; declared Sahih by Shayh al-Albani].
Defense #7: “It’s just one mistake. Are you going to discredit Shaykh Yusuf over one mistake?”
It’s one “mistake” (a euphemism for a very serious sin) which he hasn’t retracted yet. In fact, he defended it.
Yes, if he repented and condemned his act unequivocally, then of course I, speaking for myself, would accept it. But please try to understand that it’s not this single act which is a problem, but rather the mindset out of which such acts emanate from that is the core problem. If Shaykh Yusuf approved of Suhayb’s post, then what else would he approve of or even practice himself (assuming he hasn’t already)? This wasn’t some kind of slip up; if it were, then Shaykh Yusuf wouldn’t have rationalized what he did.
Moreover, we really need to appreciate the seriousness of reporting a fellow Muslim to authorities known to be oppressive.
Ibn ‘Aqil al-Hanbali (d. 513 A.H.) is reported to have said:
I have seen that some people were only stopped from oppressing others owing to their incapability [i.e. because of the lack of political support and backing from rulers]. I am not referring to laypeople, but rather scholars. The Hanbalis were the dominant force in the period of Abu Yusuf, and they would tyrannize the Shaf’is in subsidiary legal matters. This was to the extent that they prevented them [i.e. the Shaf’is] from loudly reciting the Basmalah [in Salah], or performing the Qunut [in the Fajr Salah], despite it being an issue open to ijtihad. Then when the period of Nizam [al-Mulk] commenced and Abu Yusuf died, the might of the Hanbalis subsided and the Shafi’is now began to tyrannize them in the manner of oppressive rulers. They arranged for the imprisonment of people, harmed the jurists by hurling against them the charge of anthropomorphism, and hurt members of the common folk by slandering and informing against them.
He [i.e. Ibn ‘Aqil] said: So I reflected on the two camps, and I came to the realization that they were not observing the necessary manners of knowledge...[27]
Ibn Aqil’s words have much relevance today, and particularly in this situation where sectarianism appears to be a driving force for engaging in oppression against one’s theological opponents in order to further their own sect’s cause.
And since Shaykh Yusuf is an ardent follower of the Hanbali madhab, he should know how much Imam Ahmad would disapprove of reporting people to oppressive rulers. Imam Ahmad stressed that even if the person whom you warn and rebuke for committing a sin does not stop, that you should still not report him to the Sultan out of fear that he will be oppressed by him,[28] even if they are your neighbors who are drinking alcohol, creating a disturbance by playing the lute, etc.[29] Imam Ahmad even forbade testifying on behalf of someone who was insulted or beaten to the Sultan if he feared that the accused will be oppressed.[30]
Such stances are not exclusively held by the Hanbalis. For example, the Maliki scholar Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani (d. 386 A.H.) said:
And concerning a man who transgresses against someone and then he (i.e. the oppressed man] takes him (i.e. the transgressor) to the Sultan knowing they will oppress that individual and financially penalize him and make him pay something that is not required of him. So if he takes him to the Sultan and the man is unjustly fined; there is a difference of opinion regarding his (i.e. the oppressed man) liability...many of our companions (from amongst the Malikis) said that he must be disciplined and that he committed a sin.[31]
He is also reported to have said:
As for a man who goes to the Sultan and gives him names and locations of people, knowing that the Sultan is seeking them for oppression, and then due to the information he provides, they are fined or punished, then I see that he is liable for the financial penalty he made them pay, and he deserves a severe punishment.[32]
And as shown earlier, the Awqaf in Egypt act as an oppressive vehicle serving the policies and agenda of a tyrannical and brutal government. And just like in the cases mentioned by Ibn Abi Zayd and others, one should not report fellow Muslims—especially for petty reasons just as Suhayb threatened to do[33] and was thanked for doing so by Shaykh Yusuf—to oppressive authorities who will oppress them either financially or physically with imprisonment, or both.
So after all of this, how can we take this matter so lightly simply because it’s a “single mistake”? And especially at a time when the oppressors of today are even more ruthless and further away from the deen than the oppressors of the past?
Conclusion
Regardless of one's particular sectarian views and differences with Salafism, it is incumbent for one to uphold the basic principles of Muslim brotherhood. This is especially the case if one realizes that an entire movement can be demonized and ostracized through the false charges of extremism and radicalism.
An important way in which one can uphold such a commitment is to not associate with people who violate such trusts by supporting and praising people who threaten to report Muslims for wrongful reasons. Shaykh Yusuf b. Sadiq al-Hanbali is one person who has violated such basic principles, and until he publicly and unequivocally apologizes and retracts his stance in both the English and Arabic languages, he should not be promoted or associated with.
[1] If we define it as merely being passionate adherence to a specific sect.
[2] His biography could be found here. One may also access a backup copy over here.
[3] For example, on October 19, 2020 over here, he declares that most Salafis are misguided innovators and that the ruling on the anthropomorphic stance adopted by Salafi scholars (according to Shaykh Yusuf) ranges between fisq and kufr. A backup copy could be accessed over here. An English translation is accessible over here.
[4] Some might even argue most.
[5] See here https://www.facebook.com/sohaib.hasa3
[6] However, a screenshot of the post has been saved and could be accessed over here. One may also access an English translation of the post over here.
[7] A view adopted by several classical scholars such as at-Tabari, al-Bayhaqi, an-Nawawi, etc. In fact, Mulla Ali al-Qari (d. 1014 A.H.) in his commentary on Mishkat al-Masaabeeh even claimed that the majority of scholars adopted this stance.
[8] It is illegal in Egypt for one to give the Friday sermon without a license.
[9] And who, according to Suhayb, was a “takfiri”.
[10] A screenshot of Suhayb’s response to the questioner could be found over here. One may access an English translation of that exchanged over here.
[11] See: Masooda Bano & Hanane Benadi, Regulating religious authority for political gains: al-Sisi’s manipulation of al-Azhar in Egypt, Third World Quarterly, 2018, vol. 39, no. 8, pp. 1604–1621. The article is accessible over here.
[12] I emphasize “outwardly” in order to not lump al-Azhar together with the Awqaf in a misleading manner.
[13] U.S. Department of State's Office of International Religious Freedom, 2019 Report on International Religious Freedom: Egypt; source: https://eg.usembassy.gov/irf-en-2019/
[14] Ponder upon the words of former CIA official Robert Baer who said: “If you want a serious interrogation, you send a prisoner to Jordan. If you want them to be tortured, you send them to Syria. If you want someone to disappear – never to see them again – you send them to Egypt.”
[15] An Egyptian political commentator living in exile in Germany by the name of Ahmed Mahmoud shared Suhayb’s post to over 50,000 of his facebook followers. His post garnered over 400 likes. In the post, he told his followers to see Shaykh Yusuf b. Sadiq’s comment where he thanks Suhayb for his actions. You can see Ahmed Mahmoud’s post (which is also deleted at this stage) over here. We clearly deduce from this that Shaykh Yusuf did in fact make the comment.
[16] These comments were made publicly and are not obtained from private correspondence.
[17] Return back to footnote no. 6 above.
[18] Return back to footnote no. 8 above.
[19] Several scholars have made takfir of Ibn Arabi. Here’s a book which collects the fatawa of over 200 scholars who made such declarations.
[20] It is dated January 31, 2009 and it is still available over here as of October 29, 2020. One may also access a screenshot of the post over here. An English translation of the post is obtainable over here.
[21] Referring to Salafis.
[22] Shaykh Yusuf’s sharing of Suhayb’s post is still available over here as of October 29, 2020. One may also access a screenshot of the post over here.
[23] It is still available in the comments section over here as of October 29, 2020. One may also access a screenshot of the comment over here.
[24] It has been confirmed to me by one former student, plus two current students (as of October 26, 2020) that Shaykh Yusuf criticizes Salafism in his lessons.
[25] Her facebook account is here https://www.facebook.com/marwa.alhashimi.714.
[26] For example, see: Al-Munawi, Faydh al-Qadeer, (Beirut: Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyyah, 2001), vol. 6, p. 260
[27] Ibn Muflih, Al-Furu’, (Beirut: Dar al-Kotob al-‘Ilmiyyah, 2009), part 2, p. 14
[28] Al-Bahuti, Kashshaaf al-Qinaa’ ‘an Matn al-‘Iqnaa’, (Beirut: Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyyah, 2009), vol. 3, p. 37
[29] Al-Khallaal, Al-Amr bil-Ma’ruf wal-Nahy ‘an al-Munkar, (Beirut: Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyyah, 1986), pp. 53-54.
[30] Ibn Muflih, Al-Aadaab al-Shar’iyyah, (Beirut: Dar al-Kotob al-Ilmiyyah, 1996), vol.1, pp. 151-152
[31] Ibn Abi Zayd al-Qayrawani, An-Nawadir wal-Ziyaadaat, (Beirut: Dar al-Gharb al-Islami, 1999), vol. 10, p. 372
[32] Ibn Yunus, Al-Jaami’ li-Masaa’il Al-Mudawwanah, (Umm al-Qura, Dar Al-Fikr, 2013), vol. 18, p. 361
[33] And even encouraged others to actually do and not merely threaten to do.