He was accused by many people of being a Wahabi—a fundamentalist that is disputably a Sunni— and of calling for polygamy. He was also accused of having relations with the former regime. This controversial personality, Dr. Hamdeh Saeed, is the new Mufti— a Sunni Islamic scholar—of Tunisia.
He was accused by many people of being a Wahabi—a fundamentalist that is disputably a Sunni— and of calling for polygamy. He was also accused of having relations with the former regime. This controversial personality, Dr. Hamdeh Saeed, is the new Mufti— a Sunni Islamic scholar—of Tunisia.
Saeed previously ran in the 1989 elections on the list of the Rally for Constitutional Democracy (RDC) (the party of former President Ben Ali) and he was elected from 1989 to 1994 as a candidate of the RDC. When he was a deputy, he was supportive of polygamy prompting his current opponents to warn that Saeed’s appointment as a mufti is a fatal mistake.
Hamdeh Saeed, some Tunisians describe you as an RDC member while others say you challenged the former regime and refused to read ready-made speeches on Fridays.
First, I want to answer those who accused me of being a member of the RDC and of having relations with the former regime and I want to tell them that RDC members cannot disobey the orders of their masters. This is, of course, impossible.
Yes, it is true that I refused to read a speech given to me during the days of the former regime. The speech was meant to tackle a certain political issue and I was asked to accuse a certain sect. However, I was not sure of the accusation and when I was given the telegram, I climbed the pulpit and I literally said that I didn’t see with my eyes neither did I hear about the issue from someone I trust and this is why I do not have the courage to accuse any one or say anything as long as I am not sure of it.
At that time, there were those who told me that what I did was wrong. I answered them from the mosque in three speeches entitled “Clerics are the heirs of the prophets.” In my speech I tried to clarify the tasks of the Imams and what they have inherited from prophets through propagation and explanation (the al-tableegh and al-bayan).
Thus, what we have inherited from the Messenger of Allah is to propagate and clearly explain the law of God and the religion of God. I ended my speech saying that the role of the Imam is not to act on behalf of the president of the state or his minister for religious affairs. The Imam in the mosque is acting on behalf of God’s prophet. Whoever accepts me as I am I will stay and if they don’t, I can simply go.
Does this mean that the Mufti position should be independent and distant from any form of political pressure?
Yes, the Mufti must be independent and now he is. I don’t have any relationship with the Ennahda Movement or with any other stream. The Mufti signs on behalf of God and his messenger.
When I knew that I received this plan, I became sure that in this position I have the full freedom to make fatwas in line with Islam, its judgments and its law and no one has the authority to tell me what to say.
You had an experience in the Ben Ali parliament and you were dismissed based on your support of polygamy. Is this true?
I did not. I seek refuge in God. In my intervention in the parliament, I gave a long introduction, and whoever wants to read it can find it in the parliament’s archive. I clarified the value of women in Islam and I said that in Islam we do not have women because God taught us that “You are members, one of another.” This means that men should not be prouder than women because men are from women and women are from men. The messenger of God commanded Muslims in the last sermons saying “Treat women well. It is only the honorable men who shall honor women; it is only the dishonorable men who shall dishonor women.” Could I say any words that might insult or degrade women knowing that Prophet Muhammad commanded us to respect them and honor them?
Does this mean that polygamy is degrading for women?
One should not make a link between this issue and that. The Islamic laws were promulgated by God to lift injustice. Islam permitted and made polygamy legal but the Islamic legislator, who derives his legitimacy from God, has the right to intervene and act in this permissible act. He can either permit it or ban it.
On the other hand, I did not advocate polygamy. We live in a society that does not know the meaning of polygamy. In my family, and in the environment where I live, there is no polygamy. And I thank God because he gave me a good wife.
What I advocated is the lifting of injustice because the Islamic laws were promulgated to do so. In our society, I noticed that there is injustice against men when their wives become fully incapable of carrying the burdens of marriage.
In this case, the existing statutory law says that the husband cannot marry another woman unless he divorces his wife. What I said is that if the wife accepts this marriage the man should be allowed to marry a second wife in order to maintain family relations between the first wife and her sons and daughters and to allow her to live with her family.
It is not reasonable to just abandon the wife when she becomes ill. She should continue to be a mother for her children and an authority for the family. We allow the husband to marry another woman in order to lift the injustice facing both the husband and wife. This is the Islamic law and it is promulgated to achieve justice. When I explained my view point, some people were angered and they launched a relentless campaign against me for a period of two years or more.
Is it possible to raise this issue now after the revolution and under an Islamic rule?
I have already raised this issue one time and I will not raise it again. It is not decent or wise to give opinions to people who interpret everything in the Islamic law and outside the Islamic law according to their own discretion. This is a heated issue and I want to distance myself from it.
What we need now is to ensure unity, stability and security. This is what is lacking today and what the Imams, preachers, social scientists, politicians and clerics should put their efforts into and unite to achieve. It is not a bad thing to have leftists and rightists but what is important is to have the same goals and aims: the interests and unity of Tunisia.
Today we are witnessing conflicts between the graduates of the al-Zaytuna and the Wahhabis. What do think about these conflicts especially since you are accused of being a Wahabi?
I do not care what is being said. Throughout my life I followed the Imam al-Maliki’s doctrine. I was raised to admire his wisdom and to admire the al-Ashariya creed and in a way that expressed the Ahl al-Sunnah wa’l-Jamaa’ah (those who adhere to the Sunnah and who unite upon it). Thus, any person who is raised in al-Zaytuna, educated in al-Zaytuna, inhaled the air of al-Zaytuna cannot be anything other than that.
In the previous era, speeches were prepared, and today there is no control whatsoever on Imams’ speeches. However, there are some Imams who are encouraging acts of killing, accusing citizens of infidelity and encouraging young people to jihad?
My approach in the series of speeches that I have delivered is based on the approach of the Messenger of Allah.
After speaking about the tasks of the Imam, and after saying that he represents the Messenger of Allah, I spoke about the legitimate policy of the Bayan and the Tableegh. God wanted us to speak and explain and then to convey. This does not mean that we should use any means or method to convey what we want to say.
We have an integrated approach as reflected and expressed by Shariah. It is the Prophet’s approach of wisdom, beautiful preaching and argument in ways that are best and most gracious. Is it reasonable for the Imam, who is the successor of the Messenger of Allah, to lead people by fear and intimidation?
What do you think about the calls and fatwas that encourage young Tunisians to jihad?
There is a legitimate Islamic speech in the Koran, which did not receive much attention. God in the Al-Furqan (The Criterion) said: “Therefore listen not to the unbelievers, but strive against them with the utmost strenuousness, with the (Koran). The Surah’s name is the criterion, which is the Koran because it differentiated between what is right and what is wrong. God ordered that we strive against them by dialogue, debate, good advice, evidences, arguments and persuasion.
Waheed Ullah Khan is one of the prominent experimental scholars. In his book “Islam Challenges” he said: “The intellectual revolution should come before the legislative revolution.” The intellectual revolution is dialogue, debate and sitting at the same table to reach the truth.
It is better to do so than to resort to violence and carry swords. This does not mean that the sword jihad is not one of the pillars of Islam. For thirteen years, the Prophet Muhammad did not lift a sword, not even a stick. When Muslims complained to the Messenger of God about the injustice they faced, he used to tell them to be patient and to resort to dialogue and wisdom. The problem of today’s youth is that they don’t want to listen and they have ready-made judgements.
Where do you stand with regard to what is happening in Egypt?
I am a supporter of legitimacy. It has only one path while illegitimacy has many paths. If we abandon legitimacy we will open many paths that lead to power through chaos, disorder, violence and vandalism.
It is better to commit ourselves to legitimacy, especially because this is not a continuous rule but governed by democracy and elections. The legitimacy of each group ends with elections. It is the most powerful and honest argument and whoever serves his society more will succeed.
But if we do not accept legitimacy, we will open many doors to break down society and the evidence is what is going on in Egypt. They thought that once they remove President Morsi everything would come to an end. However, things didn’t go this way and chaos prevailed and things will become worse than they were during Mubarak’s days. We protect ourselves by accepting legitimacy because it is a legitimacy fortified by democracy.
But in Tunisia we have a youth Tamarod (rebellion) Movement and it wants to follow the Egyptian path!
I want to be sober and to have a great deal of wisdom. Tunisia today is like a country walking on a string hanging in the air. Any wind blowing from any direction will make it fall. We do not want Tunisia to fall. I call on the youth to look at the future of Tunisia, the future of its sons and the future of this generation in a rational way.
