Why did Keller believe he could himself write three books of
Shariah within the volume called the Reliance of the Traveller?
Num Keller is the “translator” of Umdat al-Salik by
Ahmad ibn Naqib al-Misri. Al-Misri’s book begins in Book d: The Author's
Introduction to 'Umdat ai-Salik. But in front of that are books a, b, and c.
For most who know little of shariah, this seems an easy thing to miss. But when
you start to study shariah for it’s purpose and intent, along with a desire to
understand where the source material for the law is, you discover some
interesting facts.
Even the introduction to Keller’s translation states, “Regarding
this need for relevance, it will be noticed that the basic text 'Umdat al-salik
is by no means the only thing in the present work. Three introductory sections
in the form of a "user's guide to Sacred Law" precede the basic text….”
It is further stated that, “the emphasis of the book is on the path we now
travel, to paradise or hell….” But is this true? Book a from Arabic translates
as the Book of Knowledge, but Keller “translates” this as “sacred knowledge.”
Why? This book attempts a discussion on ethics. Which fails miserably, after
accurately translating Keller’s corrections of the Arabic, in a1.0:
|
Reliance
of the Traveler |
Arabic |
Arabic
Translation Word for Word |
|
a1.0 The
knowledge of good and bad |
 |
a1.0 Knowing
good and ugly |
How do you not start laughing about the Arabic when you
learn the Arabic actually means “visually ugly”? How is this a discussion on
ethics?
But it gets worse, Keller devolves into material that
reveals Islam is a construct of Gnostic type beliefs. This added section in
a2.3-a2.7 repeatedly suggests that attaining knowledge of Islam is far better
than talking to Allah through prayer. Hence the connection to secret knowledge
in Islam attaining higher goals than the average Muslim.
The “Book of Sacred Knowledge” gets profane in the next
section.
|
Reliance of Traveler |
Arabic |
Arabic Translation Word for Word |
|
a3.2 Allah Most High says: (1) "Whoever wants to
cultivate the afterlife We shall increase for him his tillage,
while whoever wants to cultivate this world, we shall give him of it,
but he will have no share in the next" (Koran 42:20). (2) "Whoever wants the
present world We hasten for him therein whatever We will, for whomever We
want, and then consign him to hell, roasting in it condemned and
rejected" (Koran 17: 18). (3) "Verily, your Lord is
ready at ambush" (Koran 89:14). (4) "They were not ordered
except to worship Allah, making their religion sincere unto Him as pure
monotheists" (Koran 98:5). |
|
a3.2 Allah Most High said: “Whoever desires
the harvest of the Hereafter, We will increase for him in his harvest.
And whoever desires the harvest of this world, We will give him
thereof, but he will have no share in the Hereafter.” [Ash-Shura: 20] And
He, the Exalted, said: “Whoever desires the immediate life, We hasten for him
therein what We will to whom We intend. Then We have assigned for him Hell,
which he will [enter to] burn, disgraced and banished.” [Al-Isra:
18] And
He, the Exalted, said: “Indeed, your Lord is ever watchful.”[Al-Fajr: 14] And
God Almighty said: {And they were not commanded except to worship God, being
sincere to Him, those who are upright in their nature. [: 5] |
(1) If we only look at the RofT translation there is a word
here that is more affiliated with Eastern faith structures. “Cultivate” is word
used with a belief in reincarnation, rather than in a faith structure that
claims it believes in monotheism.
“Tillage” is used in the Qur’an to refer to a man’s sexual
prowess with his wives and/slaves. This can be seen in 2:223 Pickthall
translation states, “Your women are a tilth for you (to cultivate) so go to
your tilth as ye will, and send (good deeds) before for your souls, and fear
Allah, and know that ye will (one day) meet him. Give glad tidings to
believers, (O Muhammad).” Sahih International translates this verse (aya) as
“Your wives are a place of sowing of seed for you, so come to your place of cultivation
however you wish and put forth [righteousness] for yourselves. And fear Allah
and know that you will meet Him. And give glad tidings to the believers.”
Let’s look at an accurate translation of the Qur’an. Usama
Dakdok’s Generous Qur’an, is the one Qur’an that this author trusts as
accurate.
42:20
“Whoever was desiring the harvest of
the hereafter, we will increase to him in his harvest. And whoever was desiring
the harvest of this world, we will give to him from it. And he will not have
any portion in the hereafter.”
This has a pointed difference that is also found in the word
for word translation. Cultivation is done to soil in preparation for planting.
But the Word for Word translation provided in the table and Usama’s translation
reference reaping a harvest.
Tafsirs, which are Islamic commentaries, also place the
terminology here as referring to a harvest not cultivating or anything sexual.
Considering that RofT was written for English speaking Muslims who do not know
Arabic, was the translator purposefully connecting the acquisition of knowledge
to sexual prowess to deceive the non-Arabic Muslim?
(2) Usama Dakdok’s translation of 17:18, is very close to
the RofT translation.
“Whoever was desiring the hasty, we
hastened to him in it what we will, to whom we will. Then we made hell to be
his. He will roast in it, despised and rejected.
(3) But both the Word for Word and Usama’s translation of
89:14, mention Allah being “watchful”, not “being ready to ambush.”
What is interesting in the
difference between the word for Word translation, the RofT translation and
Usama Dakdok’s translation is that the specifics of what it means to be
“sincere” in their faith. The Generous Qur’an 98:5 states:
“And they were not commanded except
to serve Allah, devoted in the religion to him, hanifa, and to perform the
prayer and bring the legal alms. And this is the worthy religion.”
Given that this translation of Shariah is written for
English speaking Muslims, we must ask why Keller did not include the specifics.
In his insertion of these “laws.”
Book B
Keller “translated” Book B as “The Validity Of Following
Qualified Scholarship.” An accurate translation of the Arabic is “The Book of
the Legitimacy of Imitation.” This is not translation this goes far beyond
interpretation, it is DECEPTION to English Muslims.
In b1.1 Keller quotes, Muhammad Saeed al-Buti. Buti died in
2013. He was considered a prominent Sunni scholar, but was not specifically of
the Shafi School of thought in respect to shariah. Buti did not care which school
of shariah an individual subscribed to, instead, he wanted people to study
their methods and come to their own conclusions of which school best fits them
with each question they pose.
The fact that Keller cites Muhammad Saeed al-Buti, means
that Keller is now blending scholars he may actually have known personally at
one time with a work that was completed and published by Al-Misri before his
death in 769 AH/1368 AD.
Keep in mind, that he references the additionally sections
and individual “laws” in the same manner he does Umdat al-Salik’s English translation.
Keller by doing this, makes himself, an empowered authority, able to write Islamic
law without needing consensus or approval by others.
This is deceitful. Keller claims to be translating when he
is actually the compiler of the first three books!
|
Reliance of the Traveler |
Arabic |
Arabic
Translation Word for Word |
|
b1.0 Introduction b1.1 (Muhammad Sa'id Buti:) What is the proof
that it is legally valid and even obligatory to accept the authority of
qualified scholarship (taqlid) when one is not capable of issuing expert
legal opinion (ijtihad) on matters of Sacred Law? There are several
aspects to it (n: discussed in the sections that follow)
(al-Lamadhhabiyya akhtar bid'a tuhaddidu al-shari'a al-Islamiyya (y33), 70). |
  |
b1.0 Introduction b1.1 Muhammad Saeed al-Buti: ... So what is the evidence for
the legitimacy of the tradition and its obligation when it is impossible to be
diligent (ijtihad)? The evidence of finding that [taken from Al-La Madhhabiyya
[non-Affiliation] is the
most dangerous heresy threatens Islamic law[PS1] : 70]. |
This
portion of Shariah displays not only a lack of answers, it displays a lack of legitimacy
for any Muslim who seeks to fill the communal obligation of attaining religious
knowledge. How is legitimacy of a person seeking to fulfill the communal
obligation acknowledged and accepted as legit? There is no way to prove or
verify the legitimacy of a person’s belief according to thisthey are the right
one to seek religious knowledge? This answer seems to be evidence against
legitimacy.
Ijtihad “refers
to the independent reasoning utilized by jurists, or legal experts to address
issues that are not specifically addressed in the usual sources of legal sources
of law, such as the Qur’an and the Hadith ....”[1] This creates a new difficulty in
understanding, in that a process is not a conclusion. Opinions are conclusions,
not the process of a thought (conclusion) being arrived at.
John
Esposito, a modern Islamic scholar accepts that ijtihad is a method of
reasoning. But he also states that the conclusions that come from it are
classified as under that method. Esposito also says ijtihad it is not always
accepted by Sunnis because they believe it “is fallible since more than one
interpretation of a legal issue is possible.”[2]
Why did
the translator not translate all of b1.0? He transliterated the last section,
that means it was put into phonetics so the words could be pronounced. This is
again evidence that Keller’s translation is far from a good and accurate
translation.
At the end
of this law, on the left is the word Al-La Lāmadhhabiyya.
This is a reference to law schools and four specific methodologies for
determining legal answers. This section was not translated because it
communicated that there exists disagreement on methodology and that some of the
disagreement was acceptable and some were not. Some Muslim scholars were and some
still refuse to be classified by a school of law. Instead, they consider a different
methodology [non-affiliation] that does not depend upon the schools or becoming
copyist muftis using their teacher’s methods. Instead, these scholars believe
all they need to correctly make rulings are the Qur’an and the Sunna.[3]
This process would then require the
concept of verification that the topic is in the Islamic scriptures. No methodology
or system appears in place to address issues not in them.
Buti’s book is subtitled, “Why Abandoning the Schools of Law
is the Most Dangerous Innovation Threatening the Sacred Law.” On page 11 in the
English translation it asks,
Does a Muslim have to follow one of
the four schools of law?
He
has to as long as he is incapable of independent reasoning [ijtihad],
concerning the evidences of rulings and as long as he does not become a bigot
in his following [taqlid] if he desires he may follow one specific
school of law [madhhab].[4]
As shown in this quote, Buti believes most Muslims are
incapable of independent reasoning. His mention of bigotry is speaking about the
non-acceptance of one of the four Sunni schools of shariah.
In his introduction to the first
edition of this book, Buti declares that:
Today’s Muslims suffer from many
ailments such as atheistic thought, immoral conduct and distraction from
[Islamic] principles. Muslim scholars and thinkers, and whoever is concerned
about Islam, need to focus on these issues, but what do they do when other less
important matters stand in the way?[5]
Buti answers with a non-answer, stating, “These issues are
not worthy of wasting time over, thereby creating more problems than solutions.”[6]
Buti
continues:
Issues
such as the claim that following [taqlid] the four imams in disbelief [kufr],
and following a particular school of law [madhhab] is heresy [dalal] and
tantamount to taking the imam of that school as a lord besides Allah.
Today’s
Muslim, in light of such claims, starts looking back at the history of Muslims
and their notables and ranks, only to find that it was replete with apostates,
heretics, and deviants. He who has taken Islam from them, and was influenced by
his affinityto them, is now taking the risk of trying to free himself from
following the four Imams.
He now tries to understand the Sacred
Law from its primary sources, the Quran, and the Sunna., only to find out that
he, among others who are doing the same thing, is fishing in troubled water,
swimming in deep water, and sinking in ignorance. How can ijtihad
(independent reasoning) be allowed for him and how can it produce any result,
when he cannot grasp the result of previous ijtihad? [7]
This lack
of legitimacy by Keller’s added three books in the beginning of RofT is shown
in the addition of b1.2 below which is not in Arabic. Which means this is not
part of shariah, but instead is the work of the translator adding what he
considers supplemental scholarly verification. b1.2 refers to o22.1(d) which
also is not in Arabic, to give an appearance of legitimacy. Because b1.2 does
not exist in Arabic it’s legitimacy does not exist to Muslims who know Arabic,
and as such will be ignored. But what will that say about an Arabic passage
that is not translated? Would that mean they have something they wish to not
even tell English speaking Muslims today? This would be something valid in
Shariah – that has to be kept secret. Does this not return us to the discussion
on Islam and Gnosticism?
|
Reliance of the Traveler |
NO ARABIC |
|
|
b1.2 (n:) For the key term qualified to issue
expert legal opinion (Ar. mujtahid, this ability being ijtihad), please turn
to book O and read o22.1(d), the qualifications of an Islamic judge (qadi).
The difference between the qualifications for the Imam of a school and those
for a judge or a mufti is that the former's competence in giving opinion is
absolute, extending to all subject matters in the Sacred Law, while the
competence of the judge Or mufti is limited respectively to judging court
cases or to applying his Imam's ijtihad to particular questions. No age of
history is totally lacking people who are competent in ijtihad on particular
questions which are new, and this is an important aspect of Sacred Law, to
provide solutions to new ethical problems by means of sound Islamic legal
methodology in applying the Kora'nic and hadith primary texts. But while in
this specific sense the door of ijtihad is not and cannot be closed, Islamic
scholarship has not accepted anyone's claims to absolute ijtihad since Imams
Abu Hanifa, Malik, Shafi'i, and Ahmad. If one studies the intellectual legacy
of these men under scholars who have a working familiarity with it, it is not
difficult to see why. .[v· As for those who decry "hidebound
conservatism" and would open the gate of ijtihad for themselves while
lacking or possibly not even knowing the necessary qualifications, if such
people have not studied the rulings of a particular school and the relation
between these rulings, the Koranic and hadith primary texts, and the school's
methodological principles, they do not know how ijtihad works from an
observer's standpoint, let alone how to employ it. To ask them, for example,
which of two equally authenticated primary texts that conflict on a legal
question should be given precedence, and why, is like asking an aspiring
drafting student for the particulars of designing a suspension bridge.
Answers may be forthcoming, but they will riot be the same as those one could
get from a qualified contractor. To urge that a mujtahid is not divinely
protected from error (ma'sum) is as of little relevance to his work as the
fact that a major physicist is not divinely protected from simple errors in
calculus; the probability of finding them in his published work is virtually
negligible. Regarding other, long-dead schools, such as the Zahiriyya, the
difference between their work and that of the four living schools is firstly
one of quality, as their positions and evidence have not been reexamined and
upgraded by succeeding generations of first-rank scholars like those of the
four schools (dis: w12), and secondly the lack of verification of the actual
positions of their mujtahids through reliable chains of transmitters, as described
below at b7.6. |
||
Because
this is not in Arabic it is not part of Shariah but rather is made up for the
English speaker, it is not deemed worthy of comment.
|
Reliance of the Traveler |
Arabic |
Arabic
Translation Word for Word |
|
b2.0 THE KORANIC EVIDENCE FOR
FOLLOWING SCHOLARS b2.1 (Muhammad Sa'id Buti:) The
first aspect of it is the word of Allah the Majestic, "Ask those who
recall if you know not" (Koran 16:43). By consensus of all scholars
(ijma'. def: b7). This verse is an imperative for someone who does not know a
ruling in Sacred Law or the evidence for it to follow someone who does.
Virtually all scholars of fundamentals of Islamic law have made this verse
their principle evidence that it is obligatory for the ordinary person to
follow the scholar who is a mujtahid. |
  |
b2.0 Qur'anic Evidence b2.1 Muhammad Sa'id al-Buti: The first aspect is
the Dignity's statement: so ask the people of the reminder, if you were not
knowing." [An-Nahl: 43] The scholars agree that this verse
commands those who do not know the ruling or its evidence to follow those who
do. Most scholars of jurisprudence have made this verse their primary basis
for the obligation of the layperson to follow the learned scholar. |
b2.1
states in the RofT translation that it is obligatory to follow the scholar who
is a mujtahid. A mujtahid, is “one who possess the aptitude to form his own
judgement on questions concerning the shari’a, using personal effort.” But is
that really what the Qur’anic evidence cited here is telling the “scholar”? b2.1
cites Qur’an 16.43, “so ask the people of the reminder, if you were not knowing….”
Islamic scholars disagree with what Buti’s citation here. This makes including
Buti as a “qualified scholar” to trust in jeopardy. Why?
Tafsir
Ibn Abbas states
on 16.43 “…(Ask the followers of the Remembrance) the followers of the Torah
and the Gospel (if ye know not!) that Allah always sent human messengers.”[8]
Tafsir
Al-Jalalayn “So
ask the followers of the Remembrance those knowledgeable in the Torah and the
Gospels; if you do not know’ that then they know it and you are more likely to
believe them than the believers are to believe Muhammad(s).[9]
Qur’an
16.43 tells the average Muslim to consult Jews and Christians. It does not tell
them to consult Muslim scholars at all. If anything that is a discouragement of
following any Islamic scholar. Think about this, it tells all Muslims who are
not scholars to avoid their own scholars, according to shariah making them dependent
on asking “the followers of the Torah and the Gospels,” for help. This is
enshrined in the beginning of Shariah! The only Quranic evidence given for b2.1
is a statement to ask Jews and Christians for the information? This is their
law. It is not something written by Jews and Christians. It is in their Qur’an!
Why are Muslims not following shariah and seeking out the wisdom of Jews and
Christians when they read this?
Yet, this
is worse, because Keller did not quote Buti accurately. In fact, Keller gave
credit to Buti for a quotation he cited from Al-Shātibī, which Buti
cites fully as coming from Al-Muwāfaqāt, vol. 4, p. 292 and p. 290. This can be
found in the English translation of Buti’s book on page 71. Keller created the
quotation of Buti here. His slight of hand with quoting Buti inaccurately, had
to cause some scholarly anger.
Regardless
of who originated this citation of Qur’an 16:43 there remains a problem, with a
requirement of the Muslims who want scholarly advice being told to ask the
Christians and Jews for help. Do Muslim scholars not know the Qur’an? Do they
not read the Tafsirs? Or do they simply believe Muslims are not intellectuals?
[2] Esposito, J. L. (2003). The Oxford Dictionary of Islam. New York City, NY: Oxford University Press, p. 134.
[3]
[4] al-Buti, S. M. (2007). Al-La Madhhabiyya: Why Abandoning The Schools of Law is the Most Dangerous Innovation Threatening the Sacred Law. (M. A. M.Merza, Trans.) Rotterdam, Netherlands: Sunni Publications, p. 11
[5]
[6]
ibid
[7]
[8] https://quranx.com/Tafsirs/16.43
[9] ibid
[PS1]This
is a title of a book by Mohammad Saeed Ramadan al Butti
