I had written about Sayyid Qutb’s inconceivable slanders about Hazrat Uthman and his socialism-like statements about zakat, which are contrary to Islam, in two articles. Many of my readers expressed that they did not know Sayyid Qutb in this way and asked me whether he had other mistakes. In this respect, I decided to write another article about him…
First of all, let me state that Sayyid Qutb, like some other non-sectarians and people of bid’ah, does not accept our religion as divine revelation. He does not believe in it as a collection of definite judgements. But they do not do this openly. They inject it into the brains with insidious expressions.
When such people express their opinions about Islam, they regard our religion as a theory. Theory means knowledge that is not yet certain and remains in the field of thought.
Therefore, terms such as “Islamic theory”, “Islamic socialism”, “Islamic philosophy” are expressions that require doubt in religion. Sayyid Qutb, while accepting Islam as a theory, refers to false systems as strong theories. As a matter of fact, some of his sentences, which think that Islam is a theory and human thought, are as follows:
“Today, it is not enough to invite them to Islam with short and detailed information, as the Prophet did in his time. At that time, there were no elaborate social theories that stood against the Islamic theories as they do today” (İslamic Studies p. 32).
If we evaluate these statements of Sayyid Qutb:
Firstly, by defining the theory of Islam, he shows our divine religion as a view and thought. Secondly, he sees today’s false systems as elaborate social theories.
Thirdly, he expresses the way of invitation of our Prophet and his Companions as insufficient, that is, inadequate, for the time.
Sayyid Qutb does not think that invitation to Islam is a worship. As in every worship, the most perfect invitation was undoubtedly made by the Prophet. What can we say to people who do not like his invitation?
On the other hand, Sayyid Qutb, from a humanist point of view, wants all false and corrupted religions to be given freedom.
Moreover, he charges this idea to Islam and says, “Islam commands this”: As follows:
“Marxism claims to call for a world-wide order. But no matter which system it is, unless it ensures freedom of belief, freedom of religion cannot be substituted.” (Islamic Studies p. 84)
Since his life was moulded in socialist ideas, it is not surprising that Sayyid Qutb says that Marxism calls for a world-wide order. However, it should not be overlooked that the phrase “no matter what system” includes the Islamic system. As a matter of fact, in the continuation of his words, he emphasises this and says the following:
“We call for a system in which all faiths can progress with equality and freedom. In this system, it is the duty of the state and the Muslim community to protect the freedom of belief. Moreover, in this system, non-Muslims can follow their own religion in private. All citizens, without privilege, have the same rights, are bound by the same laws, and are burdened with equal responsibilities.” (Islamic Studies p. 85)
The above statements make it questionable what Sayyid Qutb understands by the Islamic state and order. If we think according to him, it is revealed that Islamic states have always done wrong.
His view of the true sects!
Islam is the only true religion in the sight of Allah. In this respect, as Sayyid Qutb says, not all faiths possess the same equality and freedom. In the Islamic system, a Muslim and a non- Muslim cannot have the same rights without privileges. They are not equally liable to equal responsibilities. In the Islamic system, Muslims are obliged to pray and pay zakat. However, non-Muslims living in the Islamic system, i.e. dhimmis, are not obliged to pray and pay zakat. They pay haraj. Laws are not applied equally. For example, the testimony of a faasiq or a disbeliever is not valid. Since Dhimmis cannot be imams, they cannot be caliphs. They cannot be judges. Many other duties are not given to them. Now we must ask. Where are those equal judgements?
Sayyid Qutb, in his book “Peace of the World and Islam”, states:
“Islam never accepts religious fanaticism, which means hatred of other religions.” (p. 22)
With this statement, he characterises not loving unbelievers such as Christians and Jews as fanaticism. However, the faith of one who does not recognise the friends of Allah as friends and the enemies of Allah as enemies is invalid. The meanings of two verses are as follows:
“Believers should not take disbelievers as guardians instead of the believers—and whoever does so will have nothing to hope for from Allah.” (Âl-i İmran 28) [And he who leaves the friendship of Allah becomes a disbeliever].
“O believers! Take neither Jews nor Christians as guardians.” (Al-Ma-idah 51) Sayyid Qutb says elsewhere in the same book:
“Islam considers all mankind as a single unity that helps each other. In fact, according to Islam, all human beings are a family bound to each other by close ties. It promises absolute justice to all mankind, without distinction of race, colour or religion, in order to benefit fully from the justice of Allah.” (s. 32)
Apparently, according to Islam, disbelievers and Muslims are one family(!) Which Islamic scholar has ever said such a thing?
Freemasons and humanist socialists say that people are brothers. Our religion says, “Only Muslims are brothers.” Yes, there is no distinction of race or colour in our religion, but there is a distinction of religion. As we have stated before, Muslims, dhimmis and infidels are treated differently in religious matters. In fact, these statements of his are another version of “interfaith dialogue”.
On the other hand, Sayyid Qutb considers the right sects in Islam as disputes. He clearly states this view by saying; “Islam is a whole, its separated parts should be united and disputes should be eliminated” (I.S. Justice, p. 35).
Let us not be misunderstood, Sayyid Qutb’s meaning of disagreements is not deviant sects. That would be more dangerous. Because it is already impossible for truth and falsehood to unite.
On the other hand, the unification of the true sects desired by Sayyid Qutb is “telfîk“, which is void with the ijma-i ummah. Like his teacher, the freemason Abduh, he accepts the true sects as separate parts and wants them to be united. He seems to have forgotten the hadith-i sharif of our glorious Prophet, “The disagreement among the mujtahid scholars of my Ummah is mercy”!
Is deeds a part of faith?
Sayyid Qutb’s corrupt ideas about Islam are not limited to this. In his book Social Justice in Islam, he states that “Islam guarantees complete equality between the two sexes, man and woman” (p. 75), which shows that he has a feminist mentality.
However, women are never equal to men. It is clear that they are not equal in inheritance, marriage, divorce, and responsibility over each other. Sayyid Qutb, on the other hand, describes the socialism in his mind as Islam.
One of the main characteristics of non-sectarians is that they minimise and even ignore some of the provisions of the religion while narrating the issues they consider important while explaining Islam. As a matter of fact, Sayyid Qutb, in his book Islamic Studies, says: “It is not Islam to mutter prayers, to clank the rosary beads, to rely on the words ‘O Allah, protect us’, to trust that goodness, truth, freedom and justice will rain down from the sky” (p. 35).
To answer each item:
Firstly, Allâhu ta’âlâ commands prayer, and he mocks prayer. However, our Prophet said,
“Prayer is the weapon of the believer.”
Secondly, praying the rosary is a commandment of religion. To use the expression “clanking the rosary” is to mock the sunnah of praying the rosary.
Thirdly, saying “Oh my Allah” is a supplication to Allâhu ta’âlâ. To whom will the believer make supplication? Is not this a rejection of the âyat-i-kerîmas of Allahu ta’âlâ, “Beg me, ask me”?
Fourthly, he says that it is not Muslim to trust that good will come down from the sky through prayer, that is, in a sense, tawakkul. Our Lord can rain sustenance from the sky if He wills, and He can also rain stones on their heads as He did to the army of Abraham. It is disbelief to think that He cannot.
Sayyid Qutb’s view of the sinful Muslim is also based on a false logic. In his book Islamic Studies, he writes: “Undoubtedly, Islam is a whole, it cannot be divided into parts. It is either taken as a whole or left as a whole” (p. 89).
However, Islamic scholars have stated that if something is not possible in its entirety, it is necessary to take what is possible. Can one say to a person who does not fast, cannot pray, or who doesn’t wear a headscarf that he should leave Islam altogether? Sayyid Qutb’s opinion is similar to that of Ibn Taymiyah, one of the people of bid’ah, whom he praises, in that he sees deeds as a confirmation of faith. This is because both of them consider faith together with deeds. In this respect, when Sayyid Qutb does not do something, he falls into the delusion that if he does not do something, he should leave it all and even abandon faith.
Sayyid Qutb has these and many other confusing views and opinions about the Islamic state, Islamic society and jihad.
Anyway, nothing else can be expected from a person who does not follow a madhhab, but expresses his opinion according to his mind…
REFLECTION
Open your eyes, do not wander in vain, be aware of these affairs If you have an ear, listen, what is the need, I become a repellent
Prof. Dr. Ahmet Şimşirgil
26th April 2024
Türkiye Gazetesi