Statement on al-Dedew’s “Clarifications”
A short time ago, an audio clip was published in which Shaykh Muhammad al-Hasan al-Dedew responds to our article, “The Claim that the Prophet, Peace Be upon Him, Failed in His Mission: From Khomeini to al-Dedew”, dated 18 September 2025, which refuted his disparagement of the completeness of Muhammad’s message.
His remarks make clear that he also learned that dozens of shaykhs, academics and students of knowledge from different countries and differing doctrinal and intellectual orientations and affiliations had all understood his words as we explained them, and had asked him to clarify, retract and correct them.
But al-Dedew said in his “clarifications”: “What I said contains neither a slip nor a single error!”
He also said: “The matter is clear, with no ambiguity or difficulty, no single slip and no single error. I do not know how sensible people understood from it what they understood!”
As is his habit, he filled his “clarifications” with evasions. Among them was his claim that those responding to him deny that the Messenger’s death was a calamity. He went so far as to say: “I do not know how some people deny, and dare to deny, the calamity of the Prophet’s death, may God bless him and grant him peace.” He then stated that anyone denying death is a calamity has disbelieved!
Al-Dedew knows very well that his original remarks concerned not the calamity of the Prophet’s death itself, but the incompleteness of the message that he inferred from it. According to him, the Messenger left us without a political constitution or political system, and one consequence of this deficiency was “the apostasy of the majority of Muslims from Islam”!
This is what all those responding to him understood, including many from his own group and admirers, who addressed him gently and asked him to retract. He then issued “clarifications” belittling their understanding, insulting their intelligence and playing games with words.
Every sensible person understands that the point in dispute with al-Dedew is neither the calamity of the Prophet’s death nor denial that apostasy or disagreement occurred. It is the deficiency in Muhammad’s message that al-Dedew inferred from those events. Our published article therefore sought to expose the reality of his remarks and the deviation within them.
It is appropriate to include here a comment we published hours earlier, explaining the root of the deviation in al-Dedew’s remarks and that it is among the gravest flaws of activist thought.
Regarding his disparagement of the completeness of Muhammad’s message, we said: “This is clear and evident. Al-Dedew will excuse this disparagement by saying that thousands of shaykhs and students of knowledge around the world misunderstood him, that their minds fell short of comprehending his intentions, and that he disavows what they understood and seeks God’s forgiveness and repents to Him.”
Al-Dedew did as we predicted: he accused everyone of misunderstanding. As for himself, his words, according to him, contain “neither a slip nor a single error”!
The point in dispute is the conclusion drawn from the Prophet’s leaving us without a “political constitution and political system”: that is, a legal-political constitution specifying the system of government, selection of the ruler, transfer of power, the consultative council and its powers, and arrangements for succession and holding rulers accountable, as the founding fathers of the United States did.
This is what al-Dedew means.
As a matter of historical fact, his statement is undoubtedly true: the Prophet did not do for his community what the founding fathers of the United States did when they wrote a constitution and established the system of government, House of Representatives, Senate, electoral system and laws defining the ruler’s powers through specific legal provisions.
The disagreement is not over this, whatever Hakim al-Mutairi may think. He wrote a lengthy response to al-Dedew but was unable to refute the claim.
The disagreement concerns the conclusion drawn from the condition in which the Messenger left us. That conclusion differs according to a person’s creed, method and thought.
1. If a Muslim believes that all these organisational and political matters belong to worldly affairs, as means that vary with time, place, benefits, harms, capacity and ability, and are not among the objectives of the Prophet’s call or the foundations of his message and religion, there is no difficulty in the Prophet’s leaving them unspecified. Indeed, leaving them unspecified belongs to the completeness of his message and God’s mercy in making His law accommodating, broad and suitable for every time and place.
It suffices for Muslims to fulfil their duty of submitting to His law and applying it to all their affairs, however their political and social arrangements differ.
2. If, however, a Muslim believes these organisational and political matters are the message’s original purpose, and that the Prophet was sent to bring about political revolution, establish divine government and achieve social justice – as al-Mawdudi, Hasan al-Banna, Sayyid Qutb, Muhammad Qutb, Khomeini, Ali Shariati and others say, and as every activist on earth believes to some degree, many being influenced without realising its contradiction of religion’s foundation – then a Muslim whose creed and thought have been contaminated by this distorted political interpretation must reach the conclusion that our Islam, religion and civilisation contain a deficiency and defect, as we explained in the article.
What matters, then, is not whether al-Dedew retracts what he said. That concerns him personally and is between him and his Lord. It has now become clear that he insists on his initial remarks and affirms that they contain neither slip nor error. He did not even excuse himself by citing poor expression or inadvertence during an improvised speech. Rather, he insisted emphatically and categorically affirmed its correctness, closing the way to those among his followers and admirers who might seek to excuse him.
I repeat: whether al-Dedew retracts is not the main issue. What matters, and what constitutes the subject’s foundation and the reason and purpose of the centre’s article, is that he first understand, and then acknowledge, declare and explain, that the “political constitution and political system” he mentioned are subsidiary, secondary matters concerning the organisation of worldly affairs. They are neither central to Muhammad’s message nor among its foundations and purposes. Islam is, rather, a purely religious message whose greatest foundation is singling out God for worship and disavowing polytheism and its adherents. All its legislation serves the foundation of monotheism and servitude to God.
God has preserved this religion by making it independent of any political system. All Muslims, rulers and ruled alike, are addressed by the obligation to submit to its rulings, implement its law and establish its prescribed limits as worship of God. Rulers who fail to judge by what God revealed disobey their Lord, wrong themselves and oppress their community. God’s religion nevertheless remains protected and preserved, independent of rulers’ whims, changing conditions and passing eras. Neither constitution nor governing council has authority over it.
This is the root and core of the subject. However much activists say about it, none will abandon this manifest misguidance in interpreting religion’s foundation, because it is the universal basis of their method, call and movement. Its collapse would bring the complete collapse of their thought. That is why they now find themselves in a “calamity” and “crisis”, their predicament telling their companion al-Dedew what the Sufis told al-Hallaj: “You have exposed us!”
Their attempts to contain and cover over the issue while avoiding the centre’s article, which placed the scalpel precisely on the disease, will not help them.
This is an occasion to defend the foundations of monotheism, prophethood, the prophetic message, religion and Islamic law against distortion. I therefore call on my brothers among scholars and students to give this issue their attention and contribute through writing, preaching, explanation and teaching. Let them be our helpers and supporters in confronting the danger of the “political and utilitarian interpretation of Islam”. Success comes from God; His help we seek and upon Him we rely.
Written by Abd al-Haqq al-Turkmani
Center for Studies in the Interpretation of Islam
Tuesday evening, 1 Rabi‘ al-Thani 1447 AH.