Did Sayyid Qutb Repent From Abusing and Attacking the Companions? Refuting the Intellectual Fraud of the Extremist Qutbiyyah - Part 3
Saturday, January 30 2010 - by Admin
Read more articles at TheMadkhalis.Com

Part 3: Third Example of Change in Wording

In the 5th edition of "al-Adaalah al-Ijtimaa'iyyah fil-Islaam" (Social Justice in Islaam), Qutb said on page 186 of the 5th edition:

هذا التصوّر لحقيقة الحكم قد تغيّر شيئـًا ما بدون شك على عهد عثمان ، ولقد كان من سوء الطالع : أن تدرك الخلافة عثمان وهو شيخٌ كبير ، ضعفت عزيمته عن عزائم الإسلام ، وضعفت إرادته عن الصمود لكيد مروان وكيد أمية من ورائه .

فهم عثمان ـ يرحمه الله ـ أنّ كونه إمامـًا يمنحه حريّة التصرّف في مال المسلمين بالهبة والعطية؛ فكان رده في كثير من الأحيان على منتقديه في هذه السياسة : <<وإلاّ ففيم كنت إمامـًا ؟>> كما يمنحه حرية أن يحمل بني معيط وبني أمية ـ من قرابته ـ على رقاب الناس ، وفيهم الحكم طريد رسول الله لمجرّد أنّ من حقه أن يكرم أهله ويبرهم ويرعاهم

This conception of the reality of rulership changed somewhat without any doubt in the era of Uthmaan, and it was from ill-fortune (i.e. unfortunately): That the khilaafah reached Uthmaan whilst he was on old man, his determination had weakened (away) from the resolutions of Islaam, and his desire to stall the plot of Marwan and the plot of [Bani Umayyah] from behind it.

Uthmaan thought - may Allaah show mercy to him - that his being an Imaam conferred upon him the freedom to spend (liberally) from the wealth of the Muslims through gifts and presents, and his response on many occasions to those criticising him in this political [orientation] was "If not then for what [purpose] am I the Imaam?". Just like [he thought] it conferred him the freedom to carry Bani Mu'eet and Bani Umayyah - from his relatives - upon the shoulders of the people, and amongst them is al-Hakam [bin al-Aas], the one outcast [by] the Messenger of Allaah, [doing all of this] for the mere [reason] that [he thought] it was his right to be generous to his family, to be benevolent to them and to look after them.

This is what he said in the 5th edition.

In the book "al-Adaalah al-Ijtimaa'iyyah" (1993CE/1413H, Dar ash-Shurooq), there is a small introduction (p. 5) by Sayyid Qutb, which is signed and dated March 1954CE which appears in all subsequent editions. It should be noted that the last edition before Qutb's death was the 6th edition (1964), and that is the one that has continued to be reprinted as further editions and this was published by Qutb two years before his death with minor changes of wording that do not change the essence of his views. We have with us the 13th edition at this point in time.

Qutb writes (p. 159) in this 13th edition:

This conception of the reality of rulership changed somewhat without any doubt in the era of Uthmaan - even if it remained within the enclosure of Islaam - for the khilaafah reached Uthmaan whilst he was an old man. And behind him was Marwan bin al-Hakam who would turn the affair by a great deal to be of deviation from Islaam. Just as the nature of Uthmaan was very lax, [in addition to] his severe affection for his family. Both of them participated in giving rise to dealings which many of the Companions around them rejected, and [these dealings] had many consequences and effects in the tribulation from which Islam suffered greatly.

As you can see, the meaning is left intact, Qutb has not changed his ideological conviction, he's just changed the words, whilst keeping the same insults, slurs and revilement. And then immediately after this revised statement he says the following about Uthmaan (radiallaahu anhu), Mu'awiyah and Bani Umayyah - all of which makes clear that he is persisting upon his ideological conviction based upon the notion of (Communist) "Social Justice" which he used to attack Capitalism (the use of "capital" to maintain class supremacy) taking all of this from secular atheist Jews like Marx, Engels and Lenin, those Materialist Western Philosophies he was drinking from between 1925 to 1940 (see here) - so he says:

In the above lengthy quote Qutb, continuing directly from where he previously left off alluding to those activities of Uthmaan and Marwan bin al-Hakam (radiallaahu anhumaa) that "Islam suffered from greatly":

Uthman conferred, from the Bayt ul-Mal, the husband of his daughter, al-Harith bin al-Hakam, on the day of the wedding, 200,000 dirhams and then when the morning arrived, Zaid bin Arqam, the treasurer of the wealth of the Muslims came [to Uthmaan], sadness had appeared on his face and tears started rolling from his eyes, and so he asked him (Uthmaan) to pardon him for his action (i.e. for the loss of that wealh from the bayt ul-maal). When he (Uthmaan) came to know the reason (for Zayd's sadness), and he (Uthman) recognized that he gave to his son-in-law from the wealth of the Muslims, he said, in surprise (to Zayd), "Are you crying O son of Arqam because I tied my ties of kinship?" Then the man (i.e. Zayd) who perceived (felt) the very sharp spirit of Islam replied, "No O Chief of the Believers. However I am crying because I thought you had taken this wealth as compensation for what you used to spend in the path of Allaah in the life of the Messenger of Allaah. By Allaah, if you had given him one hundred dirhams it would have been enough!" So then Uthmaan became angry against the man whose concsience could not accept this liberty regarding the wealth of the Muslims upon the close-relations of the the khalifah of the Muslims, and so he said to him, "Give me the keys O son of Arqam, for we will find another (treasurer) besides you"!

It is hard for the writer of these lines to even translate this filth from Sayyid Qutb, this is extremely disgusting and vile, and this is supposed to be a so-called post-repentance publication after Mahmood Shakir's refutation of him.

And the examples with respect to such liberties are many in the seerah (biography) of Uthmaan. For he had conferred upon az-Zubair 600,000 one day, and he conferred upon Talhah 200,000, and he granted Marwan bin al-Hakam a fifth of the African land-tax. And some people from the Companions scolded him for that, at the head of them, Alee bin Abee Taalib, and so he (Uthmaan) replied, "I have relatives and ties of kinship", and they rejected that against him and asked him, "Did not Abu Bakr and Umar have reletives and ties of kinship?", so he (Uthmaan) replied, "Abu Bakr and Umar used to anticipate (reward) in preventing from their relatives, and I anticipate (reward) in conferring upon my relatives." So they stood and turned away from him in anger, saying, "Then their guidance is more beloved to us than your guidance".

This is worse filth than before and where is he getting these narrations from without any references or sources or chains of narration?

And besides wealth, the [land] provinces were showered upon the rulers from the relatives of Uthmaan, and amongst them was Mu'aawiyah towards whom [Uthmaan] was copious in granting him dominion, so he gave him Palestine and Hims, and also brought together for him the leadership of the four armies, and after that he (Uthmaan) also paved the way for him to seek dominion in the khilaafah of Alee, and he (Mu'awiyah) had gathered wealth and armies, and amongst them was al-Hakam bin al-Aas, the [one] outcast by the Messenger of Allaah, Uthmaan sheltered him and made his son, Marwan bin al-Hakam the provincial governor, and amongst them was Abdullah bin Sa'd bin Abi as-Sarh, his brother through fostering... and so on..."

These attacks you are seeing against Uthmaan, Mu'aawiyah and Bani Umayyah are just the wrath of a Communist Socialist Marxist mind being unleashed upon "Capitalists" represented in those holding the wealth (Bayt ul-Maal) and "abusing it to maintain their power and class supremacy". It's the typical Marxist discourse.

To learn more about the ideological background of Sayyid Qutb refer to the following articles:

We will repeat here what we said previously, as the observations are the same, which is that when we look at these apparent changes Qutb was supposed to have made to the 1954 edition of this book following Mahmood Shakir's refutations against Qutb in a series of five articles two years previously in 1952, you have to really understand what is going on here and what Qutb's stance is, and it is:

That pesky Mahmood Shakir with impure intentions and a desire to create fitnah is attacking my defense of Islam against the inexcusable errors of the likes of Uthmaan, Mu'awiyah, Marwan (bin al-Hakam) Amr bin al-Aas and those evil Bani Umayyah - he's written all those articles attacking me and my books (see here). So I'm going to remove those words such as "senile, decrepit" and "debilitated..." to avoid such criticism in the future, whilst maintaining my ideological conviction regarding Uthmaan and Mu'awiyah and Marwan and Bani Umayyah, continuing to express it. Because I see this as a defense of the spirit of Islam and a defense of Islam from its enemies (capitalist West), and this is in conformity with my fikr of presenting the notion of "Social Justice" (an alternative to using the word "Communism" or "Socialism") in Islam and thus, Islam's battle against "Capitalism" (the misuse of wealth for private monopoly and maintenance of class struggle). So ideologically, I ain't changing one bit, and I'm holding on to my position and perception, but I'll just be careful with my words so that those "fitnah-mongers" don't cause any more problems.

That is very accurately, what you have going on here in a nutshell - and we will publish Qutb's response to Mahmood Shakir in a separate article.

Mahmood Shakir's Amazingly Insightful Remark

These attacks from Qutb were from an ideological conviction and Mahmood Shakir could not have said it better in 1952 in his refutation of Qutb (see here) wherein he stated:

ولن أضرب المثل بما يكتبه المستشرقون ومن لف لفهم؛ فهم كما نعلم ، ولا بأهل الزيغ والضلال والضغينة على أهل الإسلام؛ كصاحب كتاب (الفتنة الكبرى) وأشباهه من المؤلفين بل سآتيك بالمثل من كلام بعض المتحمسين لدين ربهم ، المعلنين بالذب عنه والجهاد في سبيله ، وأن سمة الحضارة الوثنية الأوروبية ، تنفجر أحياناً - في قلب من لم يحذر ولم يتق - بكل ضغائن القرن العشرين ، وبأسوأ سخائم هذه الحضارة المعتدية لحدود الله ، التي كتب على عباده - مسلمهم وكفارهم - أن لا يتعدوه. أربعة من أصحاب رسول الله (صلى الله عليه وسلم) ، هم : أبو سفيان بن حرب ، ومعاوية بن أبي سفيان ، وعمرو بن العاص ، وهند بنت عتبة بن ربيعة ؛ أم معاوية ، رضي الله عنهم ، كيف يتكلم أحد الناس عنهم ؟!

And I am not going to give an example of what the Orientalists, and those of the same sort as them, for they are as we already know (of them), and nor (will I give an example) of the people of deviation, misguidance and malice against the people of Islaam, such as the author of the book "al-Fitnah al-Kubraa" and his likes amongst the authors.

Rather, I will bring you the example from the speech of one of the sentimentalists towards the deen of their Lord, who proclaim defence of it and [proclaim] making jihaad in its path, [and show] that the quality of the idolatrous western civilization manifests itself, explosively - in the heart of the one who does not beware and take caution - with all of the malices of the twentieth century and with the most evil of resentments of this civilization that transgress the limits of Allaah. [those] which He prescribed upon His servants - Muslims and non-Muslims - that they should not transgress. [This transgression being against] four from the Companions of Allaah's Messenger (sallallaahu alayhi wasallam), they are Abu Sufyaan bin Harb, Mu'aawiyah bin Abi Sufyaan, Amr bin al-Aas and Hind bint Utbah bin Rabee'ah, the mother of Mu'aawiyah (radiallaahu anhum) - how one of the people [Qutb] has spoken about them?!

Mahmood Shakir is saying here that the hatred of the Orientalists and their likes, and the people of innovation, desires and misguidance is known towards the Islam and its people, and so there is no need to give examples of their hatred, but rather, that he will give an example of a sentimentalist towards Islam, who proclaims its defence, and in whom there is found the violent explosive expression of all of the malice and hatred of the idolatrous western civilization that transgress those limits of Allaah that He ordered not to be transgressed. And that this malice and hatred manifested itself against four of the Companions of Allaah's Messenger (alayhis salaam).


It is one thing to say Qutb was in error and lets move on, but it is entirely another thing to claim Qutb recanted from his attacks upon the Companions (with a proper Sharee'ah repentance), and all we have are empty claims with no explicit proof.

Related Articles: