Letter about Senate Analyst Jatras
Jeremiah McAuliffe
chai...@rnc.org , larry...@craig.senate.gov,
mike...@craig.senate.gov,
will...@craig.senate.gov,ca...@ix.netcom.com
As a Muslim-American of Irish ancestry, a citizen, and a voter, it was
with absolute horror I learned of the comments made by James George
Jatras, an analyst on the staff of the Senate Republican Policy
Committee which is headed by Idaho Senator Larry Craig.
Mr. Jatras' comments were the penultimate example of flat-out bigotry
combined with the grossest ignorance. Such a combination is rarely
seen outside of groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. To learn of this type
of presence in our government is appalling and terrifying. So
outrageous, so clearly ignorant, bigoted, and un-American were Mr.
Jatras' comments that I shall not even dignify them with any kind of
corrective rebuttal.
I sincerely hope I shall soon read of the resignation or firing of Mr.
Jatras. I sincerely hope that I shall never see his name associated
with governmental leadership or the Republican party again. And I look
forward to statements from both the RNC and Senator Craig condemning
this "analyst" and his ignorant hatred in no uncertain terms.
I encourage the Council on American-Islamic Relations, and all
Muslim-Americans, to insist on the removal of this person from a
position of leadership.
I was considering changing my registration from Democrat to
Republican. I certainly hope the RNC will give me a reason to actually
do so by displaying a concern for the Muslim-American population by
clearly disavowing Mr. Jatras and his supporters.
Sincerely,
Jeremiah McAuliffe ali...@city-net.com
Visit Dr. Jihad! Page O' Heavy Issues Y2K
http://speed.city-net.com/~alimhaq/miaha.html
Mr Mahdi
>As a Muslim-American of Irish ancestry, a citizen, and a voter,
I hope what you meant by voter is voting for a person to rule by Quran and
Sunnah because that is the only thing allowed in Islam. Allah gave mankind a
system of life called Islam. Islam has its own politics. If you were to vote,
it would be for a Muslim who will rule by Islam in an Islamic caliphate.
Democracy is completely opposed to Islam. First of all, man created democracy.
In democracy, man determines halal or haram not Allah. The sovereignty in
democracy belongs to man not Allah. The Majlis Shura is not an example of
democracy because the Majlis Shura does not legislate but give suggestions to
the caliph and it is up to the caliph to enact the suggestions.
>I was considering changing my registration from Democrat to
>Republican.
They are two sides of the same coin. Both rule by kufr, and kufr as we have
seen since the descruction of the caliphate will never benefit the Muslims.
Muslims must understand that Islam is a system of life with its own systems
that has solutions to systematic problems. Muslims need to call for the return
of the caliphate and not for Muslims to vote for non-muslim who is not going to
rule by Quran and Sunnah. For more in-depth explanation and evidences
regarding this issue, please go to www.khalifornia.org.
Mahdi
Jeremiah McAuliffe
On Thu, 17 Jun 1999 19:03:20 GMT, mrm...@aol.com (Mr Mahdi) wrote:
There is plenty of variety in opinion regarding voting. I, for one, am
not convinced there is only one form of an Islamic government.
>>I was considering changing my registration from Democrat to
>>Republican.
>
>They are two sides of the same coin. Both rule by kufr,
Kufr??? Or jahaliyya??? 95% of Americans claim belief in Allah. There
is a reason people want to live here.
If one lives in the United States, imho, one has a DUTY to vote. Insha
Allah, we shall soon be a political force in this country, offering
the Islamic Party as an alternative to the others.
Allahu 'alim.
Yursil Kidwai
>I hope what you meant by voter is voting for a person to rule by Quran and
>sunnah because that is the only thing allowed in Islam. Allah gave mankind
a
>system of life called Islam. Islam has its own politics. If you were to
vote,
>it would be for a Muslim who will rule by Islam in an Islamic caliphate.
Islam has its own politics? Maybe, but can you tell me where they are
practiced, so that I may move there?
The fact is that there is no Khalifate, and to believe that with a few
votes, or even with many votes, one may turn the American democratic system
to a Khalifate is absurd and reflects a childish understanding of global
politics.
In which case we are, as Allah and His Beloved Messenger conveyed, to choose
the lesser of two evils.
>Democracy is completely opposed to Islam. First of all, man created
democracy.
> In democracy, man determines halal or haram not Allah. The sovereignty in
>democracy belongs to man not Allah. The Majlis Shura is not an example of
>democracy because the Majlis Shura does not legislate but give suggestions
to
>the caliph and it is up to the caliph to enact the suggestions.
Democracy, practiced on something other than a local scale usually leads to
ruins, slowly, but surely. Though still, you cannot say that "Democracy is
completely opposed to Islam", since one might find Islamic principles within
certain aspects of Democracy.
Democracy is merely an idea of people choosing for themselves what they
would like. If you establish that as your entire government, you are
probably going to self-destruct. But if you apply that in local cases or in
smaller scales, democracy is often the most preferrable method of deciding
things that need to be decided.
The Messenger (sallallahualaiheewassalam) himself had no definitive method
of forming Shura, this was all done after the Prophet (S), in different
methods each time. Abu Bakr (R) was collectively elected as Calipha, and
Umar (R) was succeeded by Abu Bakr, by Abu Bakr's orders. And Uthman (R)
was selected (or elected) by a small group of men representing the muslim
ummah.
To claim that there is one absolute way to rule the ummah, is absurd since
the successive generations after the Prophet (S) handled it in different
ways, as to whichever was more -appropriate- for the community.
>They are two sides of the same coin. Both rule by kufr, and kufr as we
have
>seen since the descruction of the caliphate will never benefit the Muslims.
>Muslims must understand that Islam is a system of life with its own systems
>that has solutions to systematic problems. Muslims need to call for the
return
>of the caliphate and not for Muslims to vote for non-muslim who is not
going to
>rule by Quran and Sunnah. For more in-depth explanation and evidences
>regarding this issue, please go to www.khalifornia.org.
>Mahdi
The site is obviously setup by the 'Salafi'yya', and is adolescent in form
and content, and is an absolute waste of time.
I am quite amused by this, from the site:
"The Muslim Ummah has suffered from this misinformation for numerous decades
and now the consequences of it can be seen in many of our actions and
sayings. As an example, many Muslims have taken to celebrating the birthday
of the Prophet (saaw), Milad an Nabi, as a way of showing their love for him
(saaw) and of asking Allah (swt) to send his peace and blessings on him
(saaw). "
May Allah continue to Bless His beloved Rasool (S), and may He continue to
Further our beloved Nabi (S) in Hereafter and in this world.
May we all attend and celebrate the life of one whom we love more than our
own fathers and mothers, not only on the day of his blessed birth, but on
everyday we walk as Muslims.
-Yursil
AltWay
wrote:
Democracy is completely opposed to Islam. First of all, man created
democracy.
Comment :-
I cannot agree.
The Quran tells us that affairs should be determined by mutual consultation.
There is no compulsion in Religion and even the Prophet had no powers of
compulsion.
Most Western democracies recognise the Law to be supreme and though these
are made by men they must conform to a Constitution.
In Islam the Quran provides the Constitution. The Law is certainly derived
from this both interpreted by human beings. The various Madhabs are such
interpretations and there is no reason whatever to suppose that the right of
human beings to interpret and apply the Quran to the changed circumstances
of the Modern Age has been abolished. On the contrary it is an absolute
requirement that muslim should do this.
H. S. Aziz
--
_ ___ _ _____________________________________________
|_| | | | | |_| \ / /
| | |_ | |/\| | | | /... Read "The Alternative Way" and "Views"
_______________________/ ... ...... on www.argonet.co.uk/education/haziz
______________________/ .............
Mr Mahdi
>There is plenty of variety in opinion regarding voting. I, for one, am
>not convinced there is only one form of an Islamic government.
>
You need to study the Seera and you will see how the Islamic government is set
up. Please go to khalifornia.org to learn more about this.
>Kufr??? Or jahaliyya??? 95% of Americans claim belief in Allah. There
>is a reason people want to live here.
Allah said in the Quran to beleive in Allah and His Messneger. The Kuffar may
believe in God, but they dont believe in Muhammad (saaw). The Creed of Islam
states that there is no God but Allah and Muhammad (saaw) is his messenger.
You must believe both Allah and Muhammad (saaw) to be a believer.
>If one lives in the United States, imho, one has a DUTY to vote. Insha
>Allah, we shall soon be a political force in this country, offering
>the Islamic Party as an alternative to the others.
You are right, it is "IMHO" not what Islam has to say. As a muslim, you must
try to establish Islam not try to be part of the process that makes man not
Allah sovereign and make the separation of religion and state legitimate. The
system of democracy has nothing to do with Islam, if you studied Islam, you
will know Islam has its own political system. If we want to participate in a
politcally system, it better be based on Islam not kufr.
Mahdi
Mr Mahdi
>The Quran tells us that affairs should be determined by mutual consultation.
>There is no compulsion in Religion and even the Prophet had no powers of
>compulsion.
I just said that Majlis Ash-Shura is not democracy. When Allah has given us a
Hukm Shar'i on something, there is no consultation on it. When the caliph
decided to get consultation on a certain issue like building a school or
something, then he can seek consultation. Dont confuse consulation with
legislation. Democracy is about legislation, Shura is about consultation not
legislation because Allah not man is the legislator.
>In Islam the Quran provides the Constitution.
The Shari'a is based on Ahkam Shar'iyya. The Constitution of the Islamic state
is based on the Shariah. But the Islamic caliphates implements Islam in an
Islamic system in an Islamic state. Democracy is not about that. Democracy is
of the people, by the people, for the people. In Islam, it is by Allah not the
people.
Mahdi
Mr Mahdi
>Islam has its own politics? Maybe, but can you tell me where they are
>practiced, so that I may move there?
Islamic politics is practiced in a caliphate which we dont have today. If we
did, I would be there not here in America.
>The fact is that there is no Khalifate, and to believe that with a few
>votes, or even with many votes, one may turn the American democratic system
>to a Khalifate is absurd and reflects a childish understanding of global
>politics.
LOL, I never said that or implied that. It is haram be involved in a political
system that is not based on Quran and Sunnah. To say that voting might help
the Muslim cause is wrong because you are helping to prolong the kufr system by
taking part in their process and their agenda. And it is the kufr system that
is the cause of the problem in the first place. You want to cure the cause of
the problem or you want to prolong the problem by attacking the sympton?
Muhammad (saaw) never tried to use the potilical system of the Quraish to
eleviate the suffering of the Muslims, he (saaw) and the Sahaba (ra) tried to
get rid of the cause of the problem by replacing the kufr system of life with
an Islamic one.
>In which case we are, as Allah and His Beloved Messenger conveyed, to choose
>the lesser of two evils.
This is completely wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. You absolutely have dont
have any evidence that Allah or Muhammad (saaw) said or implied to choose evil
as long it is the "lesser" one. We as Muslims cant choose evil in the first
place!
>Though still, you cannot say that "Democracy is
>completely opposed to Islam", since one might find Islamic principles within
>certain aspects of Democracy.
You find certain principles in atheism that is similiar to Islam, but that
doesnt make atheism like Islam. Atheism just like democracy is kufr. It is
not based on Quran and Sunnah so you cant say that Democracy is like Islam.
>Democracy is merely an idea of people choosing for themselves what they
>would like.
This is a very common mistake. People confuse election which is allowed in
Islam to democracy. In democracy, you choose a person to rule by other than
what Allah has revealed. In Islam, elections is when you pick a person to be
caliph so that he rules by Quran and Sunnah. Elections is allowed by democracy
is not.
>To claim that there is one absolute way to rule the ummah, is absurd since
>the successive generations after the Prophet (S) handled it in different
>ways, as to whichever was more -appropriate- for the community.
It is not absurd. Study the Seera, you will see how the Islamic caliphate is
structured and how the Islamic system of life is implemented.
>The site is obviously setup by the 'Salafi'yya', and is adolescent in form
>and content, and is an absolute waste of time.
LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You have not read the site because if you did this is one of the groups the
"Salafi" calls as deviant!!!!
>May we all attend and celebrate the life of one whom we love more than our
>own fathers and mothers, not only on the day of his blessed birth, but on
>everyday we walk as Muslims.
Muhammad (saaw) said that the best generation were the Sahaba (ra). The best
generation never celebrated the birthday of Muhammad (saaw), so why are we? It
is clear that Muslims have imitated the kuffar in this case. Muslims see the
kuffar celebrating the birthdays of the prophets and messengers, and some
Muslims say why cant we do the same. If these Muslims knew that not only
Muhammad (saaw) never celebrated his birthday but the best generation (the
Sahaba) never celebrated his (saaw) birthday!
Mahdi
GF Haddad
Mr Mahdi wrote in message <377c45f0...@news2.vom.com>...
[Responding to Dr. J. McAuliffe's open letter of protest against Jatras's
islamophobic remarks]
>As salaam alaikum,
>
>>As a Muslim-American of Irish ancestry, a citizen, and a voter,
>
>I hope what you meant by voter is voting for a person to rule by Quran
and
>Sunnah because that is the only thing allowed in Islam.
Wa alaykum as-salam wa rahmatullah:
If you mean by the pronoun "that", the clause "voting for a person to rule
by Quran and Sunnah" then there are many Muslim ulamas whose fatwa
differs. When no Qur'anic choice is available -- as in the world today --
then you are allowed and even required to choose the lesser of two evils.
Therefore we must not trespass bounds but say: "our Islamic view is that
that is the only thing allowed." Muslims do not all follow a single
madhhab, nor are they required to.
A question: Prophet Yusuf's office -- Allah bless and greet him -- was
state treasurer for a non-Muslim government. Was he, a prophet, doing
something that Islam disallows or considers shirk? Never.
Muslims in the US and Europe, as well as in non-Muslim states of Africa,
the Far East and Subcontinent, should stand out like lighthouses in the
society in which they live. Participation is empowerment, which is not
only permitted, but obligatory for all Muslims.
But if you mean by the pronoun "that", the clause "to rule by Quran and
Sunnah," then I wholeheartedly agree that that is the only thing allowed
for a ruler in Islam. May Allah grant us such a rule in the briefest delay
and make us fit for it.
--
GF Haddad
Qas...@cyberia.net.lb
Adnan
On Fri, 18 Jun 1999 16:37:05 GMT, ali...@city-net.com (Jeremiah McAuliffe)
wrote:
>Allah, we shall soon be a political force in this country, offering
>the Islamic Party as an alternative to the others.
<snip>
> 95% of Americans claim belief in Allah. There
>is a reason people want to live here.
Right, but US government is secular. If some day Islamic Party is formed here,
they will have to keep that in mind. See:
Americans United For Separation of Church and State
http://www.au.org/
A.C.L.U.
http://www.aclu.org/
Internet Infidels' Separation of Church and State
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/
Jeremiah McAuliffe
On Sun, 20 Jun 1999 07:09:34 GMT, mrm...@aol.com (Mr Mahdi) wrote:
> Dont confuse consulation with
>legislation. Democracy is about legislation,
I don't know if this is quite accurate. First, the US is a Republic,
in actuality. The House and the Senate are about legislation, the
people elect their representatives, that is, the vote is for WHO
provides Shura, and legislation is done by them. Have a majority of
Muslims in the House and Senate and you already have a de facto Muslim
state. Simple
When you talk Caliphate, I hear "dictatorship". I'll not live in a
dictatorship and will fight it. Sure, its great when you have a good
dictator, but that is rare, and our own history proves it.
>>In Islam the Quran provides the Constitution.
>
>The Constitution of the Islamic state
>is based on the Shariah.
First I've ever heard that. What we call "Shariah" are people's
interpretations of the Qur'an...... you are acting as if those
interpretations are the same as the Qur'an.
I absolutely, categorically disagree with your entire stance, but
Allahu 'alim.
>But the Islamic caliphates implements Islam in an
>Islamic system in an Islamic state. Democracy is not about that. Democracy is
>of the people, by the people, for the people. In Islam, it is by Allah not the
>people.
Is Allah not for the people??
I'm sorry, but this neo-Salafi stuff creeps me out big time.
It seems you want to determine things from the top down, rather than
from the grassroots up. This is why so many "muslim" countries are run
by brutal dictatorships. Please, don't import this nonsense here. I
think it safe to say that most Muslim-Americans look at how Muslims
have blown it, and so say "Not Here!"
I'm going to again point out the astounding dissonance of people who
call a system kufr, yet will work in it, feed it, use it, live in it,
for their own personal benefit..........
The US is a great political experiment. Perhaps it will fail, perhaps
it is already failing. People hate responsiblity and love having a
"Big Daddy" to tell them what to do.........
Jeremiah McAuliffe
On Sun, 20 Jun 1999 07:09:41 GMT, mrm...@aol.com (Mr Mahdi) wrote:
>LOL, I never said that or implied that. It is haram be involved in a political
>system that is not based on Quran and Sunnah.
Then why are you participating in it?
You live here.
You pay taxes.
You use AMERICA online.
You shop the stores.
You buy the products.
You go to the schools.
I bet if you needed it you would not hesitate to take food stamps, a
WIC check, or unemployment payments.
Take out any student loans or grants?
Ever here "the personal is political"??
Frankly, your cognitive dissonance must be simply horrible to live
with! To be honest, the hypocrisy of your position is glaringly
obvious. I have no sympathy for people who call America "kufr" (rather
than "jahaliyya") but will live, work, and go to school here.
There is a reason why people want to live here, and like living here,
and it has to do with our political system.
And..... if Muslims were half-way honest with themselves about
themselves.... it is an easy system to Islamize.
Mr Mahdi
>If you mean by the pronoun "that", the clause "voting for a person to rule
>by Quran and Sunnah" then there are many Muslim ulamas whose fatwa
>differs. When no Qur'anic choice is available -- as in the world today --
>then you are allowed and even required to choose the lesser of two evils.
Islam does not allow this unIslamic principle of choosing between the "lesser
of the two evils." There is absolutely no evidence to support this claim. You
can't choose evil in the first place. And plus a fatwa can be invalid when the
person doing the fatwa is either unaware the of the Hukm Shar'i concerning this
very issue or is going against Hukm Shar'i when knowning it. Many ulama are
not taught in a comprehensive manner about the Islamic system of life, they
mainly study Islam as a religion and for academic purposes.
>Therefore we must not trespass bounds but say: "our Islamic view is that
>that is the only thing allowed." Muslims do not all follow a single
>madhhab, nor are they required to.
The issue of ruling by kufr or Islam is not open for "opinions." Allah said in
the Quran in 5:44,45,47,50 that if you rule or judge by other than what Allah
has revealed (Quran and Sunnah) you are a DHalim, Fasiq, or Kafir and you can't
seek the Hukm of Jahiliyya.
>A question: Prophet Yusuf's office -- Allah bless and greet him -- was
>state treasurer for a non-Muslim government. Was he, a prophet, doing
>something that Islam disallows or considers shirk? Never.
This is one of the most used examples by those who try to justify Muslims
participating in non-Islamic politics. Insha Allah I will try to show that
this is an invalid opinion regarding this issue. First, the Shar'a of Yusuf
was abrogated by the Shar'a of Islam. You can not take "Shar'a Min Qablina" as
part of the Islamic Shari'ah especially when there is a Hukm concering a
particular issue. Second, the position of Yusuf was not established as a
political position but more of an administrative one. Also if you study the
Sunnah and the Sira we have plenty of examples concerning the Islamic system of
life and how Islam deals with political affairs. So if it is clear that Islam
abrogates all Shar'a before Islam and that Islam has a political system, why
are we saying that it is OK to participate in the kufr system when Muhammad
(saaw) was offered by Quraish to be king of his tribe but he refused? Couldn't
Muhammad (saaw) use this oppurtunity to gradually apply Islam in the system of
the Quraish? The answer is that Muhammad (saaw) wanted to use Islamic means
and methods in participating in politics and that can only be done in an
Islamic system in a Islamic caliphate.
>Participation is empowerment, which is not
>only permitted, but obligatory for all Muslims.
As I has said earlier, Muhammad (saaw) was offered to be king of his tribe but
he refused. The Shar'a of Islam abrogates the Shar'a of anything before it.
Islam has its own system of politics and we must strive to work on its
implementation not it delayment by participating in non-Islamic politics.
Mahdi
Yursil Kidwai
as-salamu'alaikum
Mr Mahdi wrote in message <377292fe...@news2.vom.com>...
>LOL, I never said that or implied that. It is haram be involved in a
political
>system that is not based on Quran and Sunnah.
This arises alot of questions:
Who says that it is haraam?
What do you do when there is no system based on Quran and Sunnah, overthrow
this government or other governments?
Do you have a militia? Are you going to overthrow America?
Do you pay taxes, why?
>To say that voting might help
>the Muslim cause is wrong because you are helping to prolong the kufr
system by
>taking part in their process and their agenda.
You keep telling us what is wrong, but you do not give us any daleel on the
matter.
Do you think the Muslims who migrated to Abysinnia and taught the Negus were
wrong? Do you think when they involved themselves with the Negus and his
government that they were wrong and against the Quran and sunnah?
I am giving you specific historic incidents which you are ignoring as if I
didn't write them.
>And it is the kufr system that
>is the cause of the problem in the first place. You want to cure the cause
of
>the problem or you want to prolong the problem by attacking the sympton?
Whats your cure, oh Mahdi?
>Muhammad (saaw) never tried to use the potilical system of the Quraish to
>eleviate the suffering of the Muslims, he (saaw) and the Sahaba (ra) tried
to
>get rid of the cause of the problem by replacing the kufr system of life
with
>an Islamic one.
What type of sirat are you learning from? Do you think the beloved Messenger
of Allah (Sallallahualaiheewassalam) declared war on the Kuffar in the
beginning of his Wahi?
No. He worked with the system that was established, even if it was a Kuffar
system. Until the Kuffar attacked our beloved Nabi (S) he worked with the
system. He even used Abu Talib (ra) to influence the governing body to let
him be in peace. You obviously know nothing except what the Wahabi's have
taught you. I hope you open your mind one day.
The only thing he (S) did not accept was the fact that they were attacking
him and his companions and asking him to forfit his Prophecy. In turn they
would give him a position and such. No one is forfitting their Islam by
voting, we are merely choosing a person who is better suited to the
interests of the Muslim people.
If you don't vote, you are killing Muslims. If Muslims don't vote, we allow
the American system to go against our interests.
You are twisting what Allah's messenger said and did, and may Allah correct
you.
>>In which case we are, as Allah and His Beloved Messenger conveyed, to
choose
>>the lesser of two evils.
>
>This is completely wrong beyond a shadow of a doubt. You absolutely have
dont
>have any evidence that Allah or Muhammad (saaw) said or implied to choose
evil
>as long it is the "lesser" one. We as Muslims cant choose evil in the
first
>place!
You are absolutely wrong, yet you talk with great audacity. I am sorry for
you, and I
hope this is merely the reflection of your youth. First I hope you
understand what I meant by choosing the lesser of two evils. It means that
if one is presented with a choice, both of which are not entirely encouraged
or Islamic, you choose the one which is less hurtful or less un-Islamic.
---
I quote "The Sharia'h" by Abdur Rahman I Doi:
"The basic principles of the Shariah, therefore can be summed up as follows:
....
c) A bigger loss cannot be inflicted to releave a smaller loss or a bigger
benefit cannot be sacrificed for a samller one. Conversely, a smaller harm
can be inflicted to avoid a bigger harm or a smaller benefit can be
sacrificed for a larger benefit."
---
This is an accepted fact in all schools of thought, and is also a matter of
common sense.
>>To claim that there is one absolute way to rule the ummah, is absurd since
>>the successive generations after the Prophet (S) handled it in different
>>ways, as to whichever was more -appropriate- for the community.
>
>It is not absurd. Study the Seera, you will see how the Islamic caliphate
is
>structured and how the Islamic system of life is implemented.
Why don't you study the Sirat and see how the Prophet (S) tried to work with
the Kuffar until they persecuted him? Why don't you read the history of
Islam and the Companions to see how the Sahaba influenced the government of
Abysinnia?
>LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>You have not read the site because if you did this is one of the groups the
>"Salafi" calls as deviant!!!!
Salafi's often attack each other, though to the Ahl Sunnah they are all
Salafis. Sometimes we divide them into what they are, like your group, they
are Neo-Salafi's. Then there are the Wahabi's you are based on. It goes
further and further.
>Muhammad (saaw) said that the best generation were the Sahaba (ra). The
best
>generation never celebrated the birthday of Muhammad (saaw), so why are we?
The best generation also never drove cars and they also had a personal
relationship with our Nabi (R).. We are as a whole, lacking on the
personality and love of the Nabi.
When the Prophet (S) said that we must love him more than our own father and
mother, and then our own selves, he meant it. And Milad is just one facet
of the expression of our love for the Nabi (S). What is the harm in this?
Oh but you Wahabi allways have a problem with love of the rasool (s).
>It
>is clear that Muslims have imitated the kuffar in this case. Muslims see
the
>kuffar celebrating the birthdays of the prophets and messengers, and some
>Muslims say why cant we do the same. If these Muslims knew that not only
>Muhammad (saaw) never celebrated his birthday but the best generation (the
>Sahaba) never celebrated his (saaw) birthday!
Well read the proofs at
http://www.sunnah.org/ibadaat/three_frameset.htm
and
http://www.sunnah.org/ibadaat/mawlid.htm
or argue with Brother Haddad.. either way, you have no understanding of
Islamic history or what the Ahl ul Sunnah believe in, so I hope you come to
learn.
-Yursil
Mr Mahdi
>Then why are you participating in it?
>
>You live here.
>
>You pay taxes.
>
>You use AMERICA online.
>
>You shop the stores.
>
>You buy the products.
>
>You go to the schools.
>
>I bet if you needed it you would not hesitate to take food stamps, a
>WIC check, or unemployment payments.
>
>Take out any student loans or grants?
>
>Ever here "the personal is political"??
>
>Frankly, your cognitive dissonance must be simply horrible to live
>with! To be honest, the hypocrisy of your position is glaringly
>obvious. I have no sympathy for people who call America "kufr" (rather
>than "jahaliyya") but will live, work, and go to school here.
>
I love responding to this. In America, where I live, I am FORCED to pay taxes,
but I am not FORCED to vote. Why do you think Muhammad (saaw) and the Sahaba
(ra) went to Madina and established an Islamic state? Why couldnt they
compromise Islam and treat Islam as a mere religion? You need to see Islam as
Muhammad (saaw) and the Sahaba (ra) saw it, as a system of life that can solve
systematic problems. The problem with you is that you view Islam like the
Christians, Jews, Hindu, etc, view their own religion, as a religion not a
system of life. And plus, if I buy clothes or food I am not participating in
the system, the facy is that I need to survive doesn't make me support Senator
or President so and so.
>I have no sympathy for people who call America "kufr" (rather
>than "jahaliyya") but will live, work, and go to school here.
Allah said in the Quran that if you dont believe Allah AND MUHAMMAD (SAAW) then
you are not a believer. It doesnt mean that if I beleive in God but I deny
Muhammad (saaw) that I am a Jahil person not a Kafir. The biggest sin
according to Islam is shirk, and Christians calling Jesus the son of God is a
major sin and kufr, not just "Jahiliyya." And plus Allah not the Americans
owns America, Allah created this earth and all that it in it, so if there is
not caliphate, then I dont have to go no where.
>And..... if Muslims were half-way honest with themselves about
>themselves.... it is an easy system to Islamize.
Oh my goodness. This is a system that calls for and implements the separation
of religion and state! Have you even read the Constituition? How can a system
that is based on the separation of religion and state be easy to "Islamize?"
Islam makes "religion" and state into one!
Mahdi
Mr Mahdi
>I don't know if this is quite accurate. First, the US is a Republic,
>in actuality. The House and the Senate are about legislation, the
>people elect their representatives, that is, the vote is for WHO
>provides Shura, and legislation is done by them. Have a majority of
>Muslims in the House and Senate and you already have a de facto Muslim
>state. Simple
You still dont get the fact that in democracy MAN not Allah is the sovereign,
that MAN not Allah legislates, that MAN not Allah determines what is halal and
what is haram. Imagining voting for a person who promises to help the Muslims
but also promises to allow schools to teach sex education to kids who are not
even planning to get married. If you vote for a person, you are contributing to
whatever he does because you helped him put him there. And plus when the Shura
proposes something and the caliph accepts it, the caliph ENACTS the proposal
not LEGISLATES. In democracy, the elected person LEGISLATES laws. A Muslim
state is not determined by the number of Muslim, but by the system implement
and that system is Islam. When the Muslim armies liberate lands and made it
part of the caliphate, although 99 to 100 percent of the people in the newly
liberate land were not Muslims, the land was still considered an Islamic state
because of the Islamic system being applied on the land.
>When you talk Caliphate, I hear "dictatorship". I'll not live in a
>dictatorship and will fight it. Sure, its great when you have a good
>dictator, but that is rare, and our own history proves it.
So are you calling Muhamamd (saaw), Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali (ra)
dictators???. They all ruled an Islamic caliphate! The Caliphate is based in
Quran and Sunnah and not the caliph. The caliph is the leader of the Muslims
not the legislator of the Muslims. Allah is the Legislator. The caliphs
ENACTS laws but doesnt legislate. One of the functions of the Majlis ash-Shura
is to be a checks and balance. If the caliphs go wrong, the Majlis ash-Shura
will take appropiate actions.
>First I've ever heard that. What we call "Shariah" are people's
>interpretations of the Qur'an...... you are acting as if those
>interpretations are the same as the Qur'an.
Brother, do you know what Shari'ah means? Shari'ah is not an "interpretation"
of the Quran, TAFSEER is!!!!! Shari'ah is the Divine Law of Islam, not some
"interpretations."
>Is Allah not for the people??
>
>
>I'm sorry, but this neo-Salafi stuff creeps me out big time.
Allah is our Guide thats why He have us Islam to rule out affairs with. And
plus this accusation of being Salafi is absurd. I beg you to ask a "Salafi"
about khalifornia.org or khilafah.com and see what he will tell you. I have
met some "Salafi" who will regard me as a deviant or even a Kafir. But the
overwhelming majority of "Salafis" are sincere Muslims and people who want to
see the return of the Islamic system of life.
> This is why so many "muslim" countries are run
>by brutal dictatorships. Please, don't import this nonsense here.
So many "muslim" countries are run by dictators because they rule by KUFR and
not ISLAM!!!!! You think a caliphate will rule by kufr?
> I
>think it safe to say that most Muslim-Americans look at how Muslims
>have blown it, and so say "Not Here!"
What? What do you mean how Muslims have "blown it?" You mean how Muhammad
(saaw), Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali (ra) have blown it by ruling a
caliphate or how Saddam Hussain, Qadhafi, Arafat, Mubarak, etc., blown it by
ruling by kufr?
>I'm going to again point out the astounding dissonance of people who
>call a system kufr, yet will work in it, feed it, use it, live in it,
>for their own personal benefit..........
Again, Allah owns America not the Americans. I live in a world with no
caliphate so dont except me packing and leaving anytime soon. And it is not
participating if I by clothes, food, shelters, etc., in order to survive.
>The US is a great political experiment. Perhaps it will fail, perhaps
>it is already failing.
Oh yes. The system that calls for the separation of religion and state is a
"great poltical experiment." A system that says man not God is sovereign and
man not God is the legislator. Kufr will always fail and Islam will always be
successful. The thing we need to do is implement all of Islam not bits and
pieces and see Islam as it is, a system of life not just a mere religion.
was salaam
Mahdi
Mr Mahdi
>This arises alot of questions:
>Who says that it is haraam?
Allah. Read 5:44, 45, 47, 49, 50, etc. in the Quran.
>What do you do when there is no system based on Quran and Sunnah, overthrow
>this government or other governments?
>
>Do you have a militia? Are you going to overthrow America?
>
>Do you pay taxes, why?
>
You do what Muhammad (saaw) and the Sahaba (ra). I live in America and I am
calling for the return to the Islamic system of life. First we must have a
caliphate in Muslim lands before we can even think about liberating non-Muslim
lands. Bombings wont create an Islamic state, following the Quran and Sunnah
and the Help of Allah will. I pay taxes because I am forced to, I am not
force to vote for a person who will rule by kufr.
>You keep telling us what is wrong, but you do not give us any daleel on the
>matter.
I have above. All I did was give a FEW VERSES of the Quran to prove what I
said is true. There are so many ayats and hadiths that supports my views.
>Do you think the Muslims who migrated to Abysinnia and taught the Negus were
>wrong? Do you think when they involved themselves with the Negus and his
>government that they were wrong and against the Quran and sunnah?
This was done BEFORE THE CREATION OF AN ISLAMIC CALIPHATE!!!!! When the
Muslims had the Islamic state, they returned to Medina!!!!
>Whats your cure, oh Mahdi?
Its called Islam not kufr.
>What type of sirat are you learning from? Do you think the beloved Messenger
>of Allah (Sallallahualaiheewassalam) declared war on the Kuffar in the
>beginning of his Wahi?
>
The one that document the life of Muhammad (saaw). And by the way, the Sira is
not Quran. I say this because you guys reject hadith. If you read Ibn
Hisham/Ibn Ishaq's "Sirat Rasul Allah" it is nothing but recorded narrations
and hadiths. But for some reason you guys accept the Sira which is composed of
narrations and hadiths but reject Sunnah. Also you guys claim you follow
Abraham (as) when it comes to rituals but there is no evidence that Abraham did
the five daily prayers or said the tasleem or Salah 'ala nabi, etc. This all
found in hadiths and no where else.
>No. He worked with the system that was established, even if it was a Kuffar
>system.
You have no evidence of this. Muhammad (saaw) was offered to be king, but he
refused. Why did he refuse? Why when the Muslims emigrated to Medina an
Islamic state was establish? Why didnt the Muslims worked within the kufr
Quraishi system and implement Islam in that?
> You obviously know nothing except what the Wahabi's have
>taught you. I hope you open your mind one day.
LOL, I call for the khilafah. If I were in Saudi Arabia, I will be in jail or
dead. You have no idea. You speak with anger and yet you accuse me of
ignorance. You have no idea of what Islam or and Islamic state is and yet you
claim I am the ignorant one. You are like the non-Muslims when they view their
religion. You view Islam as just a mere religion not system of life that has
solutions for systematic problems. And plus you deny Sunnah which takes you
outside the fold of Islam. Thats why I am not suprise that you are against the
calling for the return of the Islamic system of life.
>The only thing he (S)
Again, does the Quran say to say "Salla Allah 'alaihi was sallam" or the
hadith???? It is the HADITH!!!!! Why do you guys pick and choose between
hadiths you reject and hadith you accept like prayer, Sira, (S), etc.
>If you don't vote, you are killing Muslims. If Muslims don't vote, we allow
>the American system to go against our interests.
We need to vote for a person who will rule by what Allah has revealed not by
kufr. The American system will always be against the Muslims interest between
Islam is based on what Allah revealed and the America system is not.
>You are twisting what Allah's messenger said and did, and may Allah correct
>you.
You guys deny SUnnah (but accept some hadiths like I already proven) and yet
you accuse me of twisting what Muhammad (saaw) said? This is the pot calling
the kettle black.
> First I hope you
>understand what I meant by choosing the lesser of two evils. It means that
>if one is presented with a choice, both of which are not entirely encouraged
>or Islamic, you choose the one which is less hurtful or less un-Islamic.
You better provide evidence of this before you defend it. There is no evidence
to what you said and you know it.
>I quote "The Sharia'h" by Abdur Rahman I Doi:
>
Is Abdur Rahman Doi Allah or Muhammad (saaw)? >
This is an accepted fact in all schools of thought, and is also a matter of
>common sense.
>
Abdur Rahman Doi never said that kufr can be taken when the the smaller harm
can be inflicted to avoind a bigger harm. He was talking about prinicples in
Islam that allow certain halal actions to be suspended for other halal actions.
You have no idea of Islamic fiqh.
>Sometimes we divide them into what they are, like your group, they
>are Neo-Salafi's. Then there are the Wahabi's you are based on.
LOL, this is getting ridiculous. First of all, I never announced the group I
am in. You have no idea of what group I belong to, or even if I belong to a
group in the first place. My belief is based on Quran and Sunnah not anything
else.
>The best generation also never drove cars and they also had a personal
>relationship with our Nabi (R).. We are as a whole, lacking on the
>personality and love of the Nabi.
Oh my goodness. What does driving cars have to do with bid'ah??? Birthdays
existed at the time of Muhammad (saaw), cars didnt. If birthdays existed at
the time of Muhammad (saaw), why didn't he or the Sahaba (ra) celebrate his
(saaw) birthday??? And plus, no where does the Quran say to celebrate Muhammad
(saaw) birthday.
Mahdi
Jeremiah McAuliffe
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 03:34:27 GMT, mrm...@aol.com (Mr Mahdi) wrote:
>Islam does not allow this unIslamic principle of choosing between the "lesser
>of the two evils."
With this, you have shown such an astounding ignorance of basic
Islamic thought, and the Qur'an, that one may question whether or not
you are actually a Muslim, or one of these bigots posing as a Muslim
only to cause problems.
If you are starving, do you eat a ham sandwich, if that is all there
is? Yes, by Allah's leave.
That is the principle of "lesser of the two evils." Depending on
context, what is haram actually becomes halal. This is basic, classic,
standard Islamic thought, to my best understanding.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
On Mon, 21 Jun 1999 07:18:16 GMT, mrm...@aol.com (Mr Mahdi) wrote:
>You still dont get the fact that in democracy MAN not Allah is the sovereign,
No. YOU l don't get it. In this Republic (the US) the Constitution is
the foundation.
In an Islamic Republic the Qur'an would be the foundation.
Now, you can make a de facto clerical caste, as has been done, to give
"official" interpretations of the Qur'an, but then you would be going
contrary to the Qur'an. And, you can try to force Islam on people by
legislating it from the top down, but this would be contrary to the
sunnah.
Also, your understanding of the US separation of church and state is
dismal. It means the State cannot impose a religion on the people.
However, religion and religious discourse certainly does have a role
in public debate, and thus on legislation.
"Mahdi"--- in order to be consistent in your thinking you have to
move. Otherwise, your lack of consistent thinking is painfully
obvious. I pray it is not flat-out hypocrisy.
AltWay
wrote:
You still dont get the fact that in democracy MAN not Allah is the
Comment :-
I think this controversy is based on a semantic misunderstanding.
To one person the word "Democracy" means a particular political system and
to another it means a way of doing things.
It is plain enough that the ideal islamic system is not like a Western
system because the former does not separate religion from politics.
It is also plain that Islam requires that all things be judged by the Quran
which, therefore, provides the Constitution.
But then it is equally plain that the interpretation and application of the
Quran has to be done by human beings and that circumstances have changed
from what they were in the time of Muhammad (saw). It becomes necessary to
make laws about motor traffic, the use of machinery, chemicals, electronic
communication and fraud, genetic engineering and so on.
But it is plain that Islam requires affairs to be conducted by mutual
consultation and this can certainly be called democratic.
It is also plain that if democracy is defined as the "government of the
people by the people for the people" then this exists nowhere at all. People
merely vote for this or that person or party. They do not make the laws.
Their opinions are manipulated by Newspapers and those who have the money
and power.
One can, however, define Democracy as a system which is beneficial for the
welfare and development of the people. From this point of view Islam is a
true Democracy at least in its ideals.
H.S.Aziz
AltWay
wrote:
You do what Muhammad (saaw) and the Sahaba (ra). I live in America and I
am calling for the return to the Islamic system of life. First we must
have a caliphate in Muslim lands before we can even think about liberating
non-Muslim lands.
Comment :-
The question is :-
Who is worthy of being a true Caliph? - He must be a successer to the
Prophet in a spiritual sense.
Who will determine who this will be or choose or nominate him?
What criteria will be used?
Who will follow him or accept this nomination?
Yursil Kidwai
>I love responding to this.
Why? Are you a confrontational person?
>In America, where I live, I am FORCED to pay taxes,
>but I am not FORCED to vote.
You are not forced to do anything in America. You can do anything at all.
If Henry Thoreau could not pay taxes and accept the punishment, as described
in his Civil Disobedience, why can't you?
Like Br. Jeremiah said, you call this system Kufr and yet you continue to
pay taxes in fear of Jail-time.
So if you want to stick to your philosophy of attacking this Kufr system,
the first thing to do is to stop giving the system money. If you go to
jail, so be it.
Don't you fear Allah more than jail? Or don't you stick to your oh-so-holy
principles when the going gets tough?
>Why do you think Muhammad (saaw) and the Sahaba(ra) went to Madina and
established an Islamic state?
Why do you think he (salallahu'alaiheewassalm) did? Have you read any
decent Sir'at at all? He went because the Makkans were trying to kill him,
and although our Nabi (S) is protected by Allah in all forms, he left
because they were going to be anti-receptive to his message. He left
because they would torture his (s) believers. He left because they killed
his wife (S).
He did not just leave when he recieved Wahi.
But -FIRST- he tried to give Dawah and support himself within the system of
Makkah.
First he tried to give Dawah.
Only when the Makkans were to be violent with them, starve them, kill them,
only then did our Nabi (S) establish the foundations of the Islamic state
and only then did he use force against the Makkans.
He (S) signed treaties such as the treaty of Hudaibiya, which gave the
Makkans much power over them. He worked with the other systems as much as
possible.
And even though I am all for an islamic state, there is no such thing now.
Here I can practice my religion, near-freely, and give Dawah to those who
need it. I don't preach hatred against America, because that is hypocrasy
in its highest form.
> Why couldnt they
>compromise Islam and treat Islam as a mere religion?
Oh, would you have been of those who disagreed with the Prophet (S) on the
treaty of Hudaibiya?
>You need to see Islam as
>Muhammad (saaw) and the Sahaba (ra) saw it, as a system of life that can
solve
>systematic problems. The problem with you is that you view Islam like the
>Christians, Jews, Hindu, etc, view their own religion, as a religion not a
>system of life.
Sure, Islam is a system of life, and has the Divine Law, unlike most of the
other religions (Jews do have their own statelaw).
But what is your point? You live here, you cannot establish the Shariah
here.
So because of your urge to establish Shariah somewhere, you are going to
let Senator Jatras and his ilk win your states seat? Utter foolishness.
Choose the lesser harm instead of the greater harm, as -according the
Shariah-.
Vote instead of sit idely.
But the neo-Salafi will never understand, except by the grace of Allah.
>And plus, if I buy clothes or food I am not participating in
>the system, the facy is that I need to survive doesn't make me support
Senator
>or President so and so.
Yes it does, because you are accepting the taxes on the foods. You are
accepting the food of American farmers. You are accepting the clothes of
some Jewish corporations.
So is this not wrong to you?
>Allah said in the Quran that if you dont believe Allah AND MUHAMMAD (SAAW)
then
>you are not a believer. It doesnt mean that if I beleive in God but I deny
>Muhammad (saaw) that I am a Jahil person not a Kafir.
So why was the age before the Prophet (S) called Jahiliyya?
>The biggest sin
>according to Islam is shirk, and Christians calling Jesus the son of God is
a
>major sin and kufr, not just "Jahiliyya." And plus Allah not the Americans
>owns America, Allah created this earth and all that it in it, so if there
is
>not caliphate, then I dont have to go no where.
Have you killed a christian lately? Is that not the punishment for shirk in
your mind?
Why not, are you still scared of that whole jail thing?
The point is, by living here and paying taxes, you accept the sovereignty of
America's government on you. Thats the whole point. Read Civil
Disobedience sometime.
>Oh my goodness. This is a system that calls for and implements the
separation
>of religion and state! Have you even read the Constituition? How can a
system
>that is based on the separation of religion and state be easy to
"Islamize?"
>Islam makes "religion" and state into one!
Sure it does. But you are living a contradiction. You are saying on the one
hand "This is all kufr" yet you live here and pay taxes still. On one hand
you say "Christians are all committing shirk" yet you wont punish them
according to the Shariah.
On the one hand you say "Voting is haraam" yet you eat while Kosovars do
not.
-yursil
Mr Mahdi
>>You still dont get the fact that in democracy MAN not Allah is the
>sovereign,
>
>No. YOU l don't get it. In this Republic (the US) the Constitution is
>the foundation.
Amazing. Anyways, do you know what SOVEREIGN means??? In Islam, Allah makes
the laws. In democracy man makes the laws. Man in democracy is the legislator
(not God) and he is the sovereign (not God).
>In an Islamic Republic the Qur'an would be the foundation.
There is no republic in Islam. Muhammad (saaw) ruled a caliphate and so did
the caliphs that came after him. A republic AGAIN makes man not God sovereign.
Why was the state that Muhammad (saaw) ruled called a caliphate and not a
republic.
>Now, you can make a de facto clerical caste, as has been done, to give
>"official" interpretations of the Qur'an, but then you would be going
>contrary to the Qur'an.
I see your extreme ignorance of Islam showing up. Islamic caliphate is not a
clerical state, the sovereignity does not belong to a bunch of clerics. The
caliphate of Muhammad (saaw) and those that came after him had no clergy. So
please study Islam as a system of life not just a religion and you will know
what makes a state Islamic before you challenge me on issues you have no idea
about.
>And, you can try to force Islam on people by
>legislating it from the top down, but this would be contrary to the
>sunnah.
What a double-standard. Democracy and kufr is being imposed on everything
single person on this earth today. Nobody lives in a real Islamic state. Why
arent you complaining about this? And you need to study the caliphate of
Muhammad (saaw) and those after him to see how Islam is implemented on the
people. Your view on Islam and politics is like the non-Muslims view on
religion and politics, they see it as an oppressive "clerical" state that
"imposes" Islam on the people. The caliphate is ruled in the proper fashion is
not a clerical state or an oppressive one.
>It means the State cannot impose a religion on the people.
>However, religion and religious discourse certainly does have a role
>in public debate, and thus on legislation.
You can have a public debate on religion? You cant debate on what Allah has
made into law. If America can not impose religion on the people, why can they
impose non-Islamic laws on the people?
>"Mahdi"--- in order to be consistent in your thinking you have to
>move. Otherwise, your lack of consistent thinking is painfully
>obvious. I pray it is not flat-out hypocrisy.
I see that you are very frustrated at me because you know that I dont see Islam
as just a religion. Thats why you resort to personal attacks which are
uncalled for. I am not inconsistent, you are. You refuse to acknowlede or
admit that Muhammad (saaw) ruled a caliphate, and even said in a hadith that
there will be no prophets or messengers after him EXCEPT "CALIPHS." Why would
Muhammad (saaw) mention the word "caliphs" if Islam according to you doesnt
need a caliphate?
Mahdi
AltWay
McAuliffe) wrote:
> If you are starving, do you eat a ham sandwich, if that is all there
> is? Yes, by Allah's leave.
>
> That is the principle of "lesser of the two evils." Depending on
> context, what is haram actually becomes halal. This is basic, classic,
> standard Islamic thought, to my best understanding.
Comment :-
"This day have I perfected for you your religion, and completed My favour
unto you, and have chosen for you as religion Al-Islam. But he who is forced
by hunger, not inclined willfully to sin, verily, Allah is Forgiving and
Merciful." 5:3
However, if you have a choice between a greater good and a lesser good and
you willfully choose the lesser, then you have done an evil - i.e the
difference between the greater and the lesser.
This must follow from the law of cause and effect and that our good or evil
actions have proportional consequences for our souls.
GF Haddad
Mr Mahdi wrote in message <377db208...@news2.vom.com>...
>As salaam 'alaikum,
[...]
>>When no Qur'anic choice is available -- as in the world
today --
>>then you are allowed and even required to choose the lesser of two
evils.
>
>Islam does not allow this unIslamic principle of choosing between the
"lesser
>of the two evils." There is absolutely no evidence to support this
claim.
Wa alaykum as-salam. There is plenty of evidence, otherwise the ulama of
usul would not have made it a rule (qa`ida shar`iyya).
It used to be that taking money to teach Qur'an and fiqh or Shari`a was
haram, not on the basis of nass but of ijtihad. Then Muslims fell into
such deep sleep over what they must learn of their religion that the
ruling on the same matter, based on new ijtihad, is that it is allowed.
This is based on choosing the lesser of two evils. The rule here is
"taghayyur al-ahkam bi taghayyur al-azman" or the change of rulings in
view of the change of times.
Drinking wine and causing one's own death are two evils, each of them
haram in the eyes of the Law without doubt nor disagreement on the
question. Now, suppose one is choking to death on a morsel of food and the
only liquid available to help him swallow it is wine, the Shari`a allows
him to drink it because at that time that gulp of wine became halal for
him. The rule here is "salamat al-abdan muqaddamatun `ala salamat
al-adyan" or the safety of lives comes before the safeguarding of creeds.
The same with someone dying of malnutrition, who finds only haram meat.
The amount of such meat that enables his survival becomes halal for him.
Thus the lesser of two evils (death and the commission of haram), in the
absence of alternatives, becomes allowed.
To lie is permissible to save one's life or that of one's relatives. Even
to the point of outwardly denying Allah, which is explicit kufr! Yet to
save one's life it becomes allowed and even advisable.
You
>can't choose evil in the first place.
I understand what you mean, shall I rephrase it better? By Allah, we are
living in a world of good and evil not a world of angels. In our world it
may be that every other choice we make in the course of an entire
lifetime, is the lesser of two evils. Only through Allah's wisdom and
mercy, this is not counted against us but for us, because Allah made
intention the overriding criterion.
And plus a fatwa can be invalid when the
>person doing the fatwa is either unaware the of the Hukm Shar'i
concerning this
>very issue or is going against Hukm Shar'i when knowning it. Many ulama
are
>not taught in a comprehensive manner about the Islamic system of life,
they
>mainly study Islam as a religion and for academic purposes.
This rationale resembles that of those who take bad Muslims as the
illustration of Islam as a whole. This rationale is rejected.
I repeat: Many ulamas -- knowledgeable, pious, and reliable ulamas such as
Ibn `Abidin -- gave fatwa that when evil becomes generalized (`umum
al-balwa) then legal rulings become prioritized and relativized according
to the most urgent needs, taking into consideration the rule that the
lesser of two evils MUST be chosen. This is eminently reasonable and is
understandable to those who deal with real-world problems day in and day
out such as muftis, qadis, and fuqaha'.
In the light of the above, to say that the principle of choosing between
the lesser of two evils "is unislamic" is absolutely unacceptable. If you
are really trying to bring the Muslims together to build an ideal state,
at least begin by showing respect of differing views. Islam is about wide
leeway not rigidity.
>>Therefore we must not trespass bounds but say: "our Islamic view is that
>>that is the only thing allowed." Muslims do not all follow a single
>>madhhab, nor are they required to.
>
>The issue of ruling by kufr or Islam is not open for "opinions." Allah
said in
>the Quran in 5:44,45,47,50 that if you rule or judge by other than what
Allah
>has revealed (Quran and Sunnah) you are a DHalim, Fasiq, or Kafir and you
can't
>seek the Hukm of Jahiliyya.
If you had read my series entitled "The Probativeness of the Sunna" you
would have read the following:
{Whoso judges not by that which Allah has revealed: such are disbelievers}
(5:44) and there is Consensus that obedience to His judgment is definitely
binding upon all. However, the specifics of this judgment are not
disclosed in [this verse] but in other verses of the Book as well as in
the Sunna, the Consensus, legal analogy, and other sources of the Law. End
of excerpt.
The greatest innovation fought by `Ali - may Allah be well-pleased with
him -- was that of the Khawarij or "Seceders," also known as Hururiyya
after the village of Hurur, near Kufa, where they set up military
quarters. They were originally a group of up to twenty thousand pious
worshippers and memorizers of the Qur'an (`ubbad wa qurra') who were part
of `Ali's army but walked out on him after he accepted arbitration in the
crises with Mu`awiya ibn Abi Sufyan and `A'isha the Mother of the
Believers. Their strict position was on the basis of the verses {The
decision rests with Allah only} (6:57, 12:40, 12:67) and {Whoso judges not
by that which Allah has revealed: such are disbelievers} (5:44). `Ali
said: "A word of truth by which falsehood is sought!" (kalimatu haqq
yuradu biha al-batil). He sent them the expert interpreter of the Qur'an
among the Companions, Ibn `Abbas, who rejected their adducing of the above
verses by explaining: "Concerning the verse {Whoso judges not by that
which Allah has revealed: such are disbelievers}: This is not a disbelief
(kufr) that brings one out of the Religious Community; it is a kufr that
falls short of kufr."* That is: Abandonment of Allah's rule does not
legally constitute disbelief unless accompanied by a declared or patent
denial of its obligatory nature. In elucidation of the verse {The decision
rests with Allah only} Ibn `Abbas recited to them the verses {The judge is
to be two men among you known for justice} (5:95) and {Appoint an arbiter
from his folk and an arbiter from her folk} (4:35) then said: "Allah has
thereby entrusted arbitration to men, although if He had wished to decide
He would have decided. And is the sanctity of Muhammad's Community not
greater than that of a man and a woman?" Hearing this, four thousand of
the Khawarij came back with him while the rest either left the field or
persisted in their enmity and were killed in the battles of Nahrawan (year
38) and al-Nukhayla (year 39).
*Innahu kufrun duna kufr. Narrated by al-Bayhaqi in al-Sunan al-Kubra
(8:20) and al-Jassas in Ahkam al-Qur'an (2:439).
Make no mistake about it, your view, like the Khariji view is also an
opinion. However, it has its place as ijtihad, even if it is a minority
view, according to the Prophet's directive on the question of ijtihad,
Allah bless and greet him.
>>A question: Prophet Yusuf's office -- Allah bless and greet him -- was
>>state treasurer for a non-Muslim government. Was he, a prophet, doing
>>something that Islam disallows or considers shirk? Never.
>
>This is one of the most used examples by those who try to justify Muslims
>participating in non-Islamic politics. Insha Allah I will try to show
that
>this is an invalid opinion regarding this issue.
Your first sentence above, shows acknowledgment that there is a widespread
view that Muslims are (conditionally) justified in participating in
non-Islamic politics. Are all our Muslim jurists who propounded this view
"DHalim, Fasiq, or Kafir" but you and your view alone are on the right?
{What say you? How do ye judge?}
First, the Shar'a of Yusuf
>was abrogated by the Shar'a of Islam. You can not take "Shar'a Min
Qablina" as
>part of the Islamic Shari'ah especially when there is a Hukm concering a
>particular issue.
You did not read my question carefully. I did not ask whether what he did
counted as a law for us in the least sense. What I asked was: "Was he, a
prophet, doing something that Islam disallows or considers shirk?" Because
it is established that what is considered shirk now, no Prophet would ever
commit even in the dispensations that preceded us. So if it was not shirk
then, it certainly is not shirk now.
Second, the position of Yusuf was not established as a
>political position but more of an administrative one.
This is playing on words. Even if the above were true, the difference
remains far from probative in the issue of the problems facing Muslims who
vote or do not vote.
As for the examples taken from the Sira, they are out of place because the
Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- physically moved out of the
hostile pagan polity that was persecuting Muslims and preventing them from
prayer. However, this is not the case in most Islamic communities in the
US and Europe. On the contrary, these communities are able to raise
mosques and schools, and direct the course of local and state government
to take their interests into account. Such communities have become Dar
al-Islam, not Dar al-Harb. Whereas pagan Mecca was Dar al-Harb. These
communities are examples of adopting the lesser evil in the absence of an
Islamic caliphate that protects and enforces the rights of Muslims. The
rule that applies here, as I said before, is that "Participation is
empowerment, which is not only permitted, but obligatory for all Muslims."
>As I has said earlier, Muhammad (saaw) was offered to be king of his
tribe but
>he refused. The Shar'a of Islam abrogates the Shar'a of anything before
it.
Again this is out of place. Muslim representatives and their electorate do
not want to foster riba, zina, and zulm legislation. Quite the contrary.
Their presence in the system and their growth do make a difference. Let
them keep a strong Islam asking help from Allah wherever they vote, sit as
jury, write, and hold public office, and success is from Allah.
>Islam has its own system of politics and we must strive to work on its
>implementation not it delayment by participating in non-Islamic politics.
>Mahdi
Those who apply all that they can of the Sharia of Islam are certainly
closer to Caliphate rule, than those who say "All or nothing." And Allah
knows best.
GF Haddad
Qas...@cyberia.net.lb
Mr Mahdi
>Comment :-
>
>I think this controversy is based on a semantic misunderstanding.
>
I understand this. But we must have terms that doesn't cause this type of
confusion. That's why elections is a better word than democracy because
election is a process while democracy is a system composed of processes like
elections. You know how people try to compare Islam to the "Abrahamic"
religion like Christianity and Judaism, people are also comparing democracy to
the Islamic system of life. Yes both democracy and Islam have elections, yes
both Islam and democracy have constitutions, and so on. But, Islam is not
democracy because democracy is more than just elections and constituions.
Democracy is a political system based on electing humans to legislate laws.
Islam is not based on this.
>It becomes necessary to
>make laws about motor traffic, the use of machinery, chemicals, electronic
>communication and fraud, genetic engineering and so on.
Of course. That's why the caliph ENACTS laws like the speed limit, genetic
engineering, communication fraud, etc. That's why we need mujtahids to make
Ijtihad in order to address the modern issues that weren't around in the time
of Muhammad (saaw). Without Ijtihad and of course a caliphate, Islam can not
survive as a system of life in the modern age.
>But it is plain that Islam requires affairs to be conducted by mutual
>consultation and this can certainly be called democratic.
I wrote in an earlier post about the duties of the Majlis ash-Shura. One of
their duties is to give the caliph suggestions like to build a new school or
highway, etc. Then it is up to the caliph to ENACT their
proposals/suggestions. But this is not democracy although this type of
consultation happens in democracy.
was salaam
Mahdi
Mr Mahdi
>Comment :-
>The question is :-
>Who is worthy of being a true Caliph? - He must be a successer to the
>Prophet in a spiritual sense.
>Who will determine who this will be or choose or nominate him?
>What criteria will be used?
>Who will follow him or accept this nomination?
Before a person is chosen to be a caliph, first he must be Muslim, male, sane,
just, free (not being held captive), and not an open sinner. There are several
ways a person can be chosen as the caliphate. But in each way there is always
"bai'ah" or oath of allegience given to the caliph. Without the "bai'ah," his
caliphate is invalid.
In the history of Islam, most caliphs were chosen through the people electing
the caliph and then of course givining the caliph the bai'ah. Sometimes a
certain group of people like the Sahaba (ra) or scholars will choose the
caliph. The bai'ah is a Fard Kifayah or an obligation that a few can do but it
will be suffice for everybody.
was salaam
Mahdi
Mr Mahdi
>You are not forced to do anything in America. You can do anything at all.
Ok, if I am being drafted from a war, I don't have to join the Army right? If
I am trying to feed my kids, I don't have to get a job, just sell drugs all
day? This is not reality. I was born and raised in America, if I have a wife
and a family, I am going to work and support them. I am forced to pay taxes.
I am not forced to vote. Don't try to make the two similiar.
>Don't you fear Allah more than jail? Or don't you stick to your oh-so-holy
>principles when the going gets tough?
>
Allah said in the Quran if the slave girls are forced into prostitution, Allah
will forgive them. The point is that if someone is forced to do something
haram, then he is not held accountable depending circumstances of course.
>Have you read any
>decent Sir'at at all?
I have read the Sirat not the Sir'at.
>He went because the Makkans were trying to kill him,
>and although our Nabi (S) is protected by Allah in all forms, he left
>because they were going to be anti-receptive to his message.
He left Makkah because Allah ordered Muhammad (saaw) to do so. And by the way,
last time I asked you about why you guys accepted Sira (to a certain extent)
and say "Salla Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam" after the name of Muhamamd (saaw) when
the Sira and saying (S) is found in hadith not in Quran.
>He (S) signed treaties such as the treaty of Hudaibiya, which gave the
>Makkans much power over them. He worked with the other systems as much as
>possible.
What? The Quraish never had any power over the Muslims when the Muslims were
in Madina. The Treaty of Hudaibiya was a treaty not a surrender.
>And even though I am all for an islamic state, there is no such thing now.
Are you paying attention to what I am saying? I have said that we need an
Islamic state. Why would I say that if I believe the earth already had an
Islamic state? No where on earth is there an Islamic state, not Iran, Saudi
Arabia, Sudan, Afghanistan, etc. No where.
>Here I can practice my religion, near-freely, and give Dawah to those who
>need it.
In a caliphate, you can practice freely Islam. Here, you can practice Islam as
long as you dont try to make the system be based on Quran and Sunnah.
>Oh, would you have been of those who disagreed with the Prophet (S) on the
>treaty of Hudaibiya?
Again, the Treaty of Hudaibiya was a treaty not a surrender.
>But what is your point? You live here, you cannot establish the Shariah
>here.
>
I guess you didn't read my other posts. I said before we even think about
havinng an Islamic state here, we must first establish an Islamic state in the
Muslim lands.
>So because of your urge to establish Shariah somewhere, you are going to
>let Senator Jatras and his ilk win your states seat? Utter foolishness.
>
LOL, it is not Senator Jatras. Anyways, the system that allowed people to
attack Islam in the first place is the cause of the problem! Do you think if
we had an caliphate that people will be allowed to attack Islam? Please answer
this, is a system a just system if it allows people to attack Islam in public?
Do you think the system of Allah will tolerate people attacking Islam in
public?
>But the neo-Salafi will never understand, except by the grace of Allah.
It's funny that I keep saying about how the so-called "Salafi" view me and
others, and yet you still resort to personal insults and attacks. You need to
ask yourself why you guys reject Sunnah but yet for some reason accept some
hadiths when they are found in the Sira or when you guys make prayers, or when
you guys say "Salla Allahu 'alaihi wa sallam." This question in itself refutes
your Rashid Khalifa religion because why say Sunnah and hadiths are not part of
Islam but yet you guys accept the Sira which is composed of hadiths and say (S)
after Muhammad (saaw) when the Quran never says to do that.
>So why was the age before the Prophet (S) called Jahiliyya?
Becuase of the KUFR. If I were a recent convert to Islam, I would say my time
before my conversion to Islam was my "Jahiliyya." Allah said in the Quran that
those who say that Allah is Isa or that Allah has a son are Kuffar. Are you
going against Quran now?
>Have you killed a christian lately? Is that not the punishment for shirk in
>your mind?
What kind of silly question is this? I can't murder anybody according to
Islam. The Christians in a caliphate have the right to be Christians and
worship and go to church and even eat pork and drnk wine. Nobody murders
without right Christians and get away with it in a Islamic caliphate.
>The point is, by living here and paying taxes, you accept the sovereignty of
>America's government on you. Thats the whole point. Read Civil
>Disobedience sometime.
>
No I don't. If a person is a victim of a crime, does that mean that person
accepts crime? If I am force to pay taxes because I have a job in order to
feed my family, how can you even say I am accepting the sovereignity?
> On one hand
>you say "Christians are all committing shirk" yet you wont punish them
>according to the Shariah.
According to the Shari'ah, Christians have the right to worship and remain
Christians in an Islamic state. I guess you have heard of the Ahl ul-Dhimma.
Mahdi
Mr Mahdi
>Drinking wine and causing one's own death are two evils, each of them
>haram in the eyes of the Law without doubt nor disagreement on the
>question. Now, suppose one is choking to death on a morsel of food and the
>only liquid available to help him swallow it is wine, the Shari`a allows
>him to drink it because at that time that gulp of wine became halal for
>him. The rule here is "salamat al-abdan muqaddamatun `ala salamat
>al-adyan" or the safety of lives comes before the safeguarding of creeds.
This is not proof of choosing a lesser of the two evils. In Islam, if becomes
HALAL to eat pork or drink alcohol if my life depending on it. If something is
evil in Islam, it can not never be halal. Drinking alchohol or eating pork in
cases of life and death is not evil because Allah made it halal in this case.
>I repeat: Many ulamas -- knowledgeable, pious, and reliable ulamas such as
Please do not confuse me. I know many if not most ulama are very sincere and
knowlegable, but many of them were taught in a way that doesnt make them
UNDERSTAND Islam. Yes they know a lot of knowldge about Islam, but do they
understand the knowlegde to a point that they understand the reality of what's
going on and apply the knowledge in this case. Many ulama are aware that we
have no khilafah, but many ulama also believe that Saudi Arabia is an Islamic
state! How can you be aware that we have no khilafah but regard Saudi Arabia
or other places as Islamic states? This is because the Islamic institutions
water-down Islam to a point where Islam appears to be just a religion and that
Islam supports the modern-day regime of so-and-so.
>If you
>are really trying to bring the Muslims together to build an ideal state,
>at least begin by showing respect of differing views. Islam is about wide
>leeway not rigidity.
Of course Islamic opinions are allowed in cases where Islamic opinions are
allowed. But in the case of ruling and participation in politics, the Hukm is
very clear on this issue. You can't vote for a Kafir to rule over you let
alone a Kafir or a Muslim that will rule by other than what Allah has revealed.
It is very clear in many ayats and hadiths.
>Make no mistake about it, your view, like the Khariji view is also an
>opinion. However, it has its place as ijtihad, even if it is a minority
>view, according to the Prophet's directive on the question of ijtihad,
>Allah bless and greet him.
The Khariji view and what I say about Islam and politics are 2 different
things. Islam allows varying opinions if based on conclusive daleel. But
saying that Muslims can participate in non-Islamic politics is not an Islamic
opinion because there is a Hukm Shar'i regarding this issue. If a Hukm Shar'i
exists, you can't have a varying opinion about it.
>Are all our Muslim jurists who propounded this view
>"DHalim, Fasiq, or Kafir" but you and your view alone are on the right?
>{What say you? How do ye judge?}
As you know I am not a scholar of Islam. BUT, please do not have what some
call the "shaikh mentality." What I mean by that is treating virtually
everything a person who is a "shaikh, mufti, 'aalim, faqih, etc.," say as a
legitimate Islamic opinion or belief. In some cases, the so-called scholar is
actually an agent of the regime that's why he gives certain "verdicts" on
issues that justify some evil act of a ruler or system. We need to examine in
detail the "verdicts" of anybody because we just can't hear a person who is
considered a scholar in Islam and not examine what he says. If we are
muqallid, be a muqallid muttabi' rather than a muqallid 'aami. A muqallid
muttabi' studies the evidence while a muqallid 'aami just accepts anything for
the simple fact that it came from a "scholar."
>Because
>it is established that what is considered shirk now, no Prophet would ever
>commit even in the dispensations that preceded us. So if it was not shirk
>then, it certainly is not shirk now.
First, as I have said before, there is no conclusive that Yusuf (as) was in any
political or legislative position. If you are in charge of a warehouse of
goods you are not in a political position but more of an administrative one.
>This is playing on words. Even if the above were true, the difference
>remains far from probative in the issue of the problems facing Muslims who
>vote or do not vote.
No it is not. It is a matter of halal and haram. It is haram to be in a
poltical system other than an Islamic one, but it is not haram to have a
administrative position in a compny for example.
>However, this is not the case in most Islamic communities in the
>US and Europe. On the contrary, these communities are able to raise
>mosques and schools, and direct the course of local and state government
>to take their interests into account. Such communities have become Dar
>al-Islam, not Dar al-Harb. Whereas pagan Mecca was Dar al-Harb. These
>communities are examples of adopting the lesser evil in the absence of an
>Islamic caliphate that protects and enforces the rights of Muslims. The
>rule that applies here, as I said before, is that "Participation is
>empowerment, which is not only permitted, but obligatory for all Muslims."
Calling a land that rules by other than Quran and Sunnah as Dar ul-Islam is
completely wrong. What makes a land Islam when the system of life implemented
on the land is based on Quran and Sunnah. There is no country on earth where I
can FULLY practice Islam, Islam is practiced to a certain extent as just a
religion. So that in itself makes all countries not Dar ul-Islam because no
country will allow Islam to be fully practiced.
>Those who apply all that they can of the Sharia of Islam are certainly
>closer to Caliphate rule, than those who say "All or nothing." And Allah
>knows best.
Allah said enter Islam completely. You can't pick and choose which ayats or
hadiths you want to implement and say we are closer to Islam. It is like
saying I am closer to Islam if I decide to pray 4 times a day not 5. If I
don't pray 5 times a day on purpose, then I have a serious problem because I
can't gradually apply Islam like that when Islam is complete and tells me to
pray 5 times a day. Same thing with the Shari'a. I can't pick and choose
parts of the Shari'a to implement and tell people that we are closer to Islam
when Islam says that all of the Shari'ah must be implemented.
was salaam
Mahdi
Jochen Katz
"GF Haddad" <Qas...@cyberia.net.lb> writes:
> The same with someone dying of malnutrition, who finds only haram meat.
> The amount of such meat that enables his survival becomes halal for him.
> Thus the lesser of two evils (death and the commission of haram), in the
> absence of alternatives, becomes allowed.
I certainly agree with that. There are higher values that take priority
over lower values. And the preservation of life should be above the
issues of dietary regulations.
However, the next statement is where we would certainly disagree:
> To lie is permissible to save one's life or that of one's relatives. Even
> to the point of outwardly denying Allah, which is explicit kufr! Yet to
> save one's life it becomes allowed and even advisable.
I find this quite astonishing. Could you give us some references
that this is truly what Islamic ruling is? You have not backed this
up with quotations and references as you usually do. Life takes
priority over food, but does lengthening our life on this earth a
tiny bit (compared to eternity) really have more importance than
giving supreme honor and glory to God? The above seems to me to
invert the values I am familiar with. Would you be willing to
explain the reason for why this is the Islamic view? It certainly
sounds very strange to a Christian who is familiar with Jesus'
words in Matthew 10:28
Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul.
Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
Thank you for your efforts. And though I don't agree with you
on many issues, I do learn a lot from you about authentic Islam.
Jochen Katz
GF Haddad
I feel that we have exhausted the constructive side of this debate -- at
least in what I can see of it -- and are stepping more and more into
meaningless generalities or -- worse -- disputation. So I will wrap up
with a few remarks:
1. By saying that "Drinking alchohol or eating pork in cases of life and
death is not evil because Allah made it halal in this case," it appears we
are wrangling with words. Allah showed us, by making it halal, that the
lesser of two evils becomes a good in the absence of alternatives. I fail
to see why Br. Mahdi insists on not using the terms "lesser evil" when it
has been shown that there is no basic disagreement.
2. I had said that many ulamas -- knowledgeable, pious, and reliable
ulamas such as Ibn `Abidin, held that the Muslim in every day and age has
to choose the lesser of two evils in the absence of better alternatives.
The response came "I know many if not most ulama are very sincere and
knowlegable, but many of them were taught in a way that doesnt make them
UNDERSTAND Islam." To me this is a dead-end generality that shows we are
unable to pass the point of canned formulas and proceed to debate real
issues.
2a. I don't want to sound condemnatory but I have to say that according to
our Religion, disparagement of ulamas (Muslim scholars) is kufr, as is
disparagement of the Qur'an, disparagement of the Sunna, or disparagement
of shari`a and its sciences. I am also reminded of the flippant dismissal
of Imam Ghazzali's status in Islam by the same respondent, which I pointed
out but which he failed to address. A sincere Muslim should always
remember that the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- said: "The
ulamas are the inheritors of Prophets" and "Whoever does not recognize the
rights of ulamas is not of us." After this, the least we can do is fall
silent, and the best we can do is show adab.
3. With regard to the unnamed ulamas who consider Saudi Arabia a truly
Islamic state, I know of none, and Br. Mahdi could have cited at least
some names for precisions' sake. However, one could make a case that SA
quantitatively applies more Islamic laws than any other state on earth,
regardless of correctness or consistensy.
4. As for the statement that "saying that Muslims can participate in
non-Islamic politics is not an Islamic opinion because there is a Hukm
Shar'i regarding this issue," this is something that even after all this
time the respondent has failed to prove other than by citing one Qur'anic
verse which does not apply here. The Hukm shar`i is that Muslims should
not _rule_ by other than what Allah has decreed. There is no disagreement
about this. However, the application of this explicit, uncontested hukm
shar`i to the voting of Muslims is not by any means evident. If it were,
there would be no leeway for this discussion in the first place nor
scholarly disagreement -- which is very real no matter how dismissive you
are about it.
5. What is "FULLY practice Islam" ? We are tasked to put Islam into
practice to our best powers in private and public life here and now. Each
one has to search out and know his or her duties. This is exactly what
those who ask themselves the necessary questions of political empowerment,
do.
6. The understanding of Dar al-Harb and Dar al-Islam has to be
sharpened in order to escape from meaningless generalities. It is not
permitted for a Muslim to reside in Dar al-Harb. However, if a Muslim
comes to have family and relatives around him and he is able to display
his religion, then it is no longer permissible for him to emigrate,
because the place where he lives has become Dar al-Islam. The latter is
not minimally defined by more than that. If other aspects are missing,
such as, for example, the application of shari`a in criminal or trade
laws, it doesn't make that place Dar al-Harb. Even in the early centuries
praised by the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- there were examples
of unjust rulers and disregard of the Law.
>>Those who apply all that they can of the Sharia of Islam are certainly
>>closer to Caliphate rule, than those who say "All or nothing." And Allah
>>knows best.
>
>Allah said enter Islam completely. You can't pick and choose which ayats
or
>hadiths you want to implement and say we are closer to Islam. It is like
>saying I am closer to Islam if I decide to pray 4 times a day not 5.
Not at all. It is like saying I am closer to Islam if I decide to pray 4
times instead of less-- not instead of more! Islam tells you to pray 5
times a day, but if you pray 4 it is still better than 3; 3 is still
better than 2. etc.
Same thing with the Shari'a. I can't pick and choose
>parts of the Shari'a to implement and tell people that we are closer to
Islam
>when Islam says that all of the Shari'ah must be implemented.
We should express ourselves carefully. You make too many aspersions on
Muslims and Islam in your posts, without realizing it. No one sincere is
"picking and choosing" here. WHat you call picking and choosing, to others
is the result of istikhara in the path of jihad and it may be that Allah
has accepted their intention while yours and mine He has rejected. So give
your brethren the benefit of the doubt and come to them with constructive
language, not false condemnations. In particular, I advis you
sincerely -as is my duty- to respect the rights of ulama over us as
prescribed by the Prophet -sallallahu alayhi wa sallam \- in countless
authentic hadiths, and to Allah is our return.
>was salaam
>
>Mahdi
was-salam alaykum warahmatullah wa barakatuh
--
GF Haddad
Qas...@cyberia.net.lb
Khaled....@ensigct.fr
I am quit happy to read finally in your post words like "ijtihad".
I can not debate these kind of question here. The thread is about
"participating in a political system wich is not ruled by islam"
if i have understood (my english is very poor so excuse the style)
For instance after reading your posts in this thread i want to share
with you some facts and questions may be it will be helpfull.
1/ "Khilafat" : What i know that there were some "Khalifatu arrasul",
and the apostele as i knew was never called the "Khalifa" any more.
2/ Allah never ordred to establishing a khalifate ruler system.
3/ His apostel also was never involved for that.
4/ The apostel refused to be King cause :
a/ The price to be paid for, according to the terms of the contract,
was to stop preaching and renouce his prophecy
b/ He was "Al amine", he never commited treason to a contract.
5/ After 1492 when muslim lost Granada, thousends of them stay there,
under chrestian ruler. That was not the first case. before them at
north spain and sicilly happened the same case. Most case happened
after surrender treaties permitting among other to practicing their
own religion. Almost all of the juge, fuqaha, and mufti at that time
found no probleme for that and some guived fetwa for that.
6/ The apostel and his khalifa send muslim to fight far from medina
and mekkah. For instance more far than abyssina wich was ruled by
a chrestian ruler (but letting any one to practice any religion he
want !!). The country was still ruled that way until modern time.
They never fought it (just behind!!) at the time they rich france
and china borders and never add it to the khilafa domain. Why ?
7/ You personally have never any government agent or representant
forbided you to practice your personal islamic duty's as salat,
sawm or any other thing ?
8/ For the question of "pacte" I don't know american system enought
but i heard that new cityzen must swear (promise solemnly) to
respect american laws and constitution. If it's the case, I knew for
sure that if the Apostele if he swear he would for ever respect his
vow.
Khaled
Ps: I think Mr Mahdi that the Human understanding of some verse like
5:44,..etc are the root of your position aguinst voting for instance.
Let Allah open your hurts to His truth. If i could say one thing
is to be sure about the meaning (among all the book) of the two
words "mushrik" and "Kafir".
What i knew that "mushrik" is (in arabic excuse me) :
"Lissanu Hall, Qana3a wa ta3a"
And "Kuffr" :
"Lissanu maqal wa mawqif"
May god guide us all
Sherif Safwat
<Qas...@cyberia.net.lb> writes
>I don't want to sound condemnatory but I have to say that according to
>our Religion, disparagement of ulamas (Muslim scholars) is kufr,
And what is this religion?
Sherif Safwat
Sherif Safwat
writes
>In the history of Islam,
History is one thing and religion is another. what Moslems did after the
death of the Prophet is not part of our religion.
The Bay3a was the system used in tribal societies, nothing Islamic about
it. Certainly after the death of the Prophet, the Moslems were split on
tribal grounds, the Ansar elected one of them saad be 3ebada, while
Meccans supported AbuBakr, though some stayed at home like Ali Ben
AbiTaleb.It took a lot of convincing to get all the moslems to agree to
AbuBakr, Certainly Saad bin 3ebada felt abandoned by the ansar, left
Medina and never came back. (He was found murdered a few years later).
Some Moslem tribes refused to elect AbuBakr, and refused to pay the
Zakaa to his government, this led to the Rida war.
> The bai'ah is a Fard Kifayah or an obligation that a few can do but it
>will be suffice for everybody.
On what do you base this conclusion? With bay3a all tribes had to agree
on the same person, tribes that did not, ended up either changing it's
mind or going to war against the majority. We still have this system in
the Middle East, where all our presidents get 99.99% of vote, well you
have no option, you either vote for the guy or take the consequences.
It is quiet different from democracy, where although you might not vote
for the president, you tend to accept the majority vote. So a president
can be elected with 51% of the vote, the 49% who did not vote for him
will accept the decision, and will not get penalised for their
decision.!
Sherif Safwat
Mr Mahdi
>death of the Prophet is not part of our religion.
>
>
Insha Allah I will respond to all those concerning evidence that the khilafah
is Fard. Insha Allah you all shall see the post tomorrow. I have been very
busy so that's why I haven't been writing any responses.
Mahdi
AltWay
<She...@safwat.co.uk> wrote:
It is quiet different from democracy, where although you might not vote
for the president, you tend to accept the majority vote. So a president
can be elected with 51% of the vote, the 49% who did not vote for him
will accept the decision, and will not get penalised for their
decision.!
Comment :-
Actually, it is perfectly possible that the Head of the State or the
rulingparty is elected by only 40% or less of the vote and even these are
manipulated by propoganda and control of information by those who have the
money and in their own interests.
This would not happen if every community or group chose its own leader
according to certain criteria and all of these were independant persons in
the Central Assembly. It would also be necessary that these leaders did not
ply their own narrow interests or prejudices, but that they all agreed to
abide by what can be established as true through research etc. This means
there would be no debate where each defends or attacks, but sober discussion
and investigation. It would require that each of these leaders was a much
more morally developed person than now runs political affairs, and was
recognised as such by the people directly or through much more honest
journalists than now exist.
This would be much more compatible with an Islamic Ideal.
Sherif Safwat
writes
>This means
>there would be no debate where each defends or attacks, but sober discussion
>and investigation. It would require that each of these leaders was a much
>more morally developed person than now runs political affairs,
Well we are not all perfect, so we have to adhere to a system which
protects the people from the inadequacies of the rulers.
Democracy seems to be the best system.
Sherif Safwat
GF Haddad
I had written in article <7ktv0n$sce$1...@waltz.rahul.net>:
I don't want to sound condemnatory but I have to say that according to
our Religion, disparagement of ulamas (Muslim scholars) is kufr,
To which Sherif Safwat wrote in message
<7l120m$4s2$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>...
>And what is this religion?
The religion of Ibn Rushd whom you admire, but know little about. It is
notoriously known that the Maliki school is the strictest of all in this
regard.
--
The same Sherif Safwat wrote in message <7ktuu2$s91$1...@waltz.rahul.net>...
>In article <37767ab6...@news2.vom.com>, GF Haddad
><Qas...@cyberia.net.lb> writes
>>Ibn Rushd the grandson was the foremost Maliki authority in Cordoba in
his
>>time both in the law and its principles. There was no one higher than
him
>>in the matter of fatwa for crucial issues.
>
>Yes and he has 3 volumes of Fatawi....
No such work of his was published to my knowledge.
>Yet most his other publications are non existent in Arabic, although
>they still exist in Latin and Hebrew.
Not only are most of his works available in Arabic, but many have been
published as well:
Bidaya al-Mujtahid (fiqh of the Four Sunni Schools)
Fasl al-Maqal fi ma bayn al-Shari`a wa al-hikma min al-Ittisal
(Relationship of Law with Philosophy)
Al-Damima (Addendum to the preceding)
Fasl min Kitab al-Sihha fi al-Kulliyyat (Book of Medicine from Aristotle'=
s
Universals)
Al-Kashf `an Manahij al-Adilla fi `Aqa'id al-Milla (Islamic Doctrine and
Its Proofs)
Al-Kulliyyat (Aristotle's Universals)
Muqaddimaat Ibn Rushd (Marginalia on al-Tannukhi's Great Compilation of
Maliki Fiqh)
Tahafut al-Tahafut (refutation of al-Ghazzali)
Talkhis al-Khataba (oratory)
Talkhis al-Safsata (sophistry)
Talkhis Kitab al-Hass wa al-Mahsus and Talkhis Kitab al-Nafs (Aristotle o=
n
the Soul)
Talkhis Kitab al-Jadal (Aristotle on Logic)
Talkhis al-`Ibara (Rhetoric)
Talkhis Kitab al-Shi`r (Aristotle's Poetics)
Talkhis Kitab al-Maqulat
Talkhis ma Ba`d al-Tabi`a (Aristotle's Metaphysics)
Rasa'il (Epistles)
>Certainly I have been trying for years to get his book "Tahafot
>alTahafot" which he wrote criticising AlGhazali's "Tahafot Alfalasefa",
>but it is non existent in Arabic.
With an F in research skills, I certainly doubt that finding it will be
much help to you, but here goes:
_Tahafut al-Tahafut, aw Tahafut al-Mutahafitin_ ("The inconsistency of
[al-Ghazzali's book] 'The Inconsistency [of the Philosophers]', or: The
inconsistency of the contradictors")
1st edition: Cairo, al-Matba`a al-I`lamiyya, 1302=3D1883
2nd edition: Cairo, al-Matba`a al-Khayriyya, 1319=3D1901
3rd edition: Cairo: Mustafa Baba al-Halabi, 1321=3D1903
4th edition: Beirut: Catholic Press, 1930 (680 p.)
5th edition: Hyderabad: Da'ira al-Ma`arif al-`Uthmaniyya, 1945
6th edition: Cairo: Dar al-Ma`arif, 1964-1965 (1072 p.)
>IbnRushd writings in Philosophy has been the main texts used in Europe
>for centuries, yet they are non existent in Arabic.
"You know one or two things and are ignorant of many." (Arabic proverb)
--
The same Sherif Safwat wrote in message <7krniv$pq3$1...@waltz.rahul.net>...
>In article <376c2bf6....@news2.vom.com>, GF Haddad
><Qas...@cyberia.net.lb> writes
>> Al-Ghazzali wrote over twenty books in refutation of the Arab and
>>Muslim vulgarizers of Greek philosophy in his time. He protected and
>>guarded Orthodoxy
>
>With ghazali Islam entered the age of darkness. Fear took the place of
>arguments. In my opinion he was a disaster to Islam.
An ignorant opinion based on superficialities. Al-Ghazzali is considered
the fifth-century reviver of Islam. Neither you, nor Adnan, nor Mahdi hav=
e
been able to pinpoint the exact basis of your superstitious aversion to
al-Ghazzali nor took specific issue on the ten or more pages of
documentation I posted on him except with slogans such as "shaykh
mentality" and "blind taqleed". Is there no end to the arrogance of
critics who are too mentally lazy to produce the evidence in their case?
>A lot of his work was refuted by the great Andalusian Scholar Ibn
>Rushed, but unfortunately fundamentalists destroyed most of his work.
We established the inanity of that claim and the poster's complacent
ignorance of his own topic.
>You just have to compare the amount of freedom allowed before the times
>of Ghazali, and the state of Islamic thinking afterwards.
This has to be the most meaningless argument of all. According to this
nonsensical proof I am to study all of Muslim intellectual history, or
what Mr. Safwat terms "the amount of freedom allowed" (in tonnage?) befor=
e
and after al-Ghazzali and then compare the two periods in order to get hi=
s
point. Leave your cliches and come to serious exchange, or away with you.
>Moslems excelled when they allowed freedom of thought, since Ghazali
>imposed this state of "siege" on thought we entered a long age of
>darkness.
Enough already with the vacuous speeches.
>> so I must say the problem is compounded by
>>our Muslim brothers' lack of adab with our Muslim ulamas.
>
>There is nothing wrong in challenging ideas...
This is called, a ten dollar expression for a two cent idea. Exactly what
idea do you fancy yourself as challenging so far?
>> May Allah
>>forgive us and reform us. What an ugly picture this is, those who come
at
>>the tail-end of times, cursing -- yes, these barbs and aspersions are
>>curses posing as clever remarks -- cursing the Salaf that came before
us.
>
>There is nothing called salaf in Islam, it is an invention of people
>seeking power by using Islam...!
Lexically, al-salaf means:
- one's ancestors or older relatives, particularly those of pious memory.
- one's past good deeds.
- an advance deposit on a sale.
- a loan, like qard.
In the legal terminology of Islamic Law the word salaf has the
following meanings:
- It refers to the early Mujtahid Imams of the Schools who are accepted
and imitated, such as Abu Hanifa and his companions Abu Yusuf and Muhamma=
d
ibn al-Hasan al-Shaybani (d. 189), the Companions of the Prophet -- Allah
bless and greet him --, and the Tabi`in. This is the definition of Ibn
`Abidin, who identified the top of the third century as the time divide
between those we call "the early scholars" (al-mutaqaddimun) and those we
call "the later scholars" (al-muta'akhkhirun).1
- In the Shafi`i school, it means "Those who came first in the history of
this Community (awa'il hadhihi al-umma)."
- It refers to the Companions, the Successors, and the immediate follower=
s
of the Successors, who are encompassed by the hadith of the Prophet: "The
best of centuries is my century, then the one that follows it, then the
one that follows that."2 This is the meaning favored by most scholars. Se=
e
my previous post entitled "Those Who Are Imitated in Islam."
Dr. Muhammad Sa`id Ramadan al-Buti stated in the introduction to his
book al-Salafiyya:
The established technical definition of the term salaf is: the first
three centuries in the age of this Muslim Community, the Community of our
Master Muhammad -- Allah bless and greet him --. This is derived from his
saying according to the narration of the Two Shaykhs [Bukhari and Muslim]
from `Abd Allah ibn Mas`ud: "The best of people are my century, then thos=
e
that follow them, then those that follow the latter. After that there wil=
l
come people who will be eager to commit perjury while bearing witness."
End of al-Buti's words.
The meaning of the above is further elucidated by the Prophet's --
Allah bless and greet him -- saying: "There is no year nor day except tha=
t
which follows it is worse than it."3
NOTES
1In Majmu`a Rasa'il Ibn `Abidin (1:161).
2See Sa`di Abu Habib: al-Qamus al-fiqhi lughatan wa istilahan "Dictionary
of Islamic Law: Lexical and Technical" (Damascus: Dar al-fikr, 1408/1988)
p. 180; Muhammad Rawwas Qal`aji and Hamid Sadiq Qunaybi, Mu`jam lughat
al-fuqaha' "Compendium of Islamic Legal Terminology" (Beirut: Dar
al-Nafa'is, 1405/1985) p. 248; Imam Nawawi, Tahrir al-tanbih mu`jamun
laghawi p. 209; Ibn Manzur, Lisan al-`Arab, art. "s-l-f."
3Narrated from Anas by al-Tirmidhi (hasan sah=EEh), al-Nasa'i, and Ahmad.
Al-Bukhari narrates it in his Sahih with the wording: "No time comes to
pass upon you except that which follows it is worse."
--
The same Sherif Safwat said in message <7ktuum$sa4$1...@waltz.rahul.net>...
>Ghazali limited the space allowed to people to doubt their faith, to
>make their own decisions.. That is the problem with him.
Such noble solicitude, allowing people to doubt their faith! Such concern=
,
when the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- explicitly said: "Stay
away from anything that seems doubtful, and cling to what leaves no doubt
to you"!
Al-Ghazzali did not limit anything. He refuted falsehoods to the best of
his ability and according to his Islamic duty, as others before and after
him. Much of the greatest works of doctrine in Islam came out of the
refutations of heresies, to the dismay of heretics and innovators.
>That is the problem with current Islamic thought, it is all about you
>can not do this, and you can not do that. it seized talking about the
>meaning of life, all we seem to discuss, is what to say before sexual
>intercourse, and whether it is O.K to eat in a restaurant that serves
>Pork.!!
There is a nearly-mass-transmitted hadith that refers to the division of
the Umma into seventy-three sects, all of them in the Fire but one. Mr.
Safwat likes to be "free" to pick whichever he wants, to have "space to
doubt his faith" and to "make his own decisions," but is upset he cannot
impose his "freedom" on others. Does he not know that no matter what he
does he is always imitating and never inventing anything new? You can
either imitate shaytan and his ways, such as that heretical sect who
pray in toilets and call the punishment of the grave a myth; or you can
imitate the Prophet Muhammad -- Allah bless and greet him -- and those wh=
o
stuck to his way in small and great things, and tossed the sophistries o=
f
innovators where they belong.
--
GF Haddad
Qas...@cyberia.net.lb
Mr Mahdi
I have written a statement about Al-Ghazzali which I regret now. In my case it
was reading the wrong books thus getting the wrong answers. At the end of
Al-Ghazzali's life he repented on many of the mistakes he did. I regret
regarding him in any negative way. GF Haddad, I regret not researching well
enough on Al-Ghazzali, so please forgive me. As far as I know, Al-Ghazzali is
not a good scholar but a GREAT scholar of Islam. I understand now why people
like Sherif and Adnan attack Al-Ghazzali. I should of been defending
Al-Ghazzali instead of not doing my research on him and saying remarks about
him which deeply regret now. May Allah forgive of my mistakes.
Mahdi
Sherif Safwat
<Qas...@cyberia.net.lb> writes
>our Religion, disparagement of ulamas (Muslim scholars) is kufr,
>
><7l120m$4s2$1...@shell3.ba.best.com>...
>
>>And what is this religion?
>
>The religion of Ibn Rushd whom you admire,
No, that is not.. You are obviously inventing a religion, where does it
say in Islam that disagreeing in opinion is Kufr.
There is no theological hierarchy in Islam, if you long for one, you
better stick to Christianity..!
>Not only are most of his works available in Arabic, but many have been
>published as well:
You will find that most of them are translations from Latin or Hebrew.
>>IbnRushd writings in Philosophy has been the main texts used in Europe
>>for centuries, yet they are non existent in Arabic.
>
>"You know one or two things and are ignorant of many." (Arabic proverb)
I never claimed to be a scholar, and I do not wear a funny hat either...
>An ignorant opinion based on superficialities. Al-Ghazzali is considered
>the fifth-century reviver of Islam. Neither you, nor Adnan, nor Mahdi hav=
>e
>been able to pinpoint the exact basis of your superstitious aversion to
>al-Ghazzali
Al Ghazali book "Ehyaa eloum Eldein" is the most popular among
fundamentalists today. so you can judge his works by the effect it has
on people.
and do not get me wrong, I am sure Al Ghazli's intentions were good, but
the results are disastrous.
My main concern with him is that he started to put limits on people to
express their doubts. this led us to the state we are in today: every
thing is Haram till the guy with the funny hat says it is O.K.
as far as I know: Islam has no "guys in funny hats". and simply trying
to imply that Scholars do not make mistakes is like Catholics believing
in the infallibility of the pope.. it is just nonsense.
>>You just have to compare the amount of freedom allowed before the times
>>of Ghazali, and the state of Islamic thinking afterwards.
>
>This has to be the most meaningless argument of all. According to this
>nonsensical proof I am to study all of Muslim intellectual history, or
>what Mr. Safwat terms "the amount of freedom allowed" (in tonnage?) befor=
>e
>and after al-Ghazzali and then compare the two periods in order to get hi=
>s
>point.
Well you do not seem to appreciate freedoms. And that is a problem!
>This is called, a ten dollar expression for a two cent idea. Exactly what
>idea do you fancy yourself as challenging so far?
It does not matter. the issue is that Islam allows its followers
freedom, which you and your likes try to take away, when you are
challenged to give proof, you can not provide it from the Koran or
Sunnah, and you have to look into books written by mortals for your
evidence... When told that this is not "Islam" you say that challenging
it is Kufr.!
Well good luck to you mate..!
> In the legal terminology of Islamic Law the word salaf has the
>following meanings:
>
>- It refers to the early Mujtahid Imams of the Schools who are accepted
>and imitated,
Sorry mate, again you are giving definitions by "mortals" and you expect
me to accept it as if it is Religion.. tough luck it ain't.
>
>The same Sherif Safwat said in message <7ktuum$sa4$1...@waltz.rahul.net>...
>
>>Ghazali limited the space allowed to people to doubt their faith, to
>>make their own decisions.. That is the problem with him.
>
>Such noble solicitude, allowing people to doubt their faith! Such concern=
>,
>when the Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him -- explicitly said: "Stay
>away from anything that seems doubtful, and cling to what leaves no doubt
>to you"!
39:09
"Is one who worships devoutly during the hours of the night prostrating
himself or standing (in adoration), who takes heed of the Hereafter, and
who places his hope in the Mercy of his Lord, (like one who does not)?
Say: "Are those equal, those who know and those who do not know? It is
those who are endued with understanding that receive admonition."
3:191
"Men who celebrate the praises of Allah, standing, sitting, and lying
down on their sides, and contemplate the (wonders of) creation in the
heavens and the earth, (with the thought): "Our Lord! not for naught
hast thou created (all) this! Glory to Thee! Give us salvation from the
Penalty of the Fire."
2:26
"Allah disdains not to use the similitude of things, lowest as well as
highest. Those who believe know that it is truth from their Lord; but
those who reject Faith say: "What means Allah by this similitude?" By it
He causes many to stray, and many He leads into the right path; but He
causes not to stray, except those who forsake (the path),"
Sherif Safwat
mrm...@aol.com
In article <7l8jtk$ntj$1...@waltz.rahul.net>,
"GF Haddad" <Qas...@cyberia.net.lb> wrote:
> Salam alaykum:
>
> I had written in article <7ktv0n$sce$1...@waltz.rahul.net>:
>
> I don't want to sound condemnatory but I have to say that according to
> our Religion, disparagement of ulamas (Muslim scholars) is kufr,
In Islam, when somebody is wrong according to Islam we as muslims
must correct that person with evidence from Quran and Sunnah. He can
be a average person on the street or a scholar in Islam, if he is wrong, we
must correct him. Unfortunately many muslims like I have said in a
previous post developed what some call a "shaikh mentality" meaning that
to them it becomes wrong to question a scholar or say he is wrong when
he is wrong. And the practice of blind taqleed also plagues the muslims
today. Nothing is wrong in being a muqallid, but it is better to be a
muqallid muttabi' than a muqallid 'aami because a muqallid muttabi' does
his research while a muqallid 'aami just accepts a fatwa without even
referring to the Islamic texts.
You telling me it is wrong to question so-called scholars like Tantawi when
he gave a "fatwa" allowing riba? Tantawi sits at the foot of Husni
Mubarak, a man who killed and imprisoned so many Muslims who were
calling for Islam. So many "scholars" today are used by their respective
governments as people who give "fatawa" to legitimize the kufr regimes
and actions of their governments and rulers. Hisham Qabbani attacked
and slandered Muslims in America, and you are telling me it is wrong to
criticize a person like Hisham Qabbani who is doing clear haram? This is
not what Islam teachings at all. Umar (ra) wanted to impose a limit on
the mahr when an old woman stood up and told Umar (ra) you can not do
something that Muhammad (saaw) didn't do. Umar (ra) didnt get angry
and tell the old woman how dare she challenged Umar, a Sahabi of
Muhammad (saaw). He never told the old woman that you can not
question or challenge a scholar in Islam. He as a matter of fact thanked
the old woman for correcting him. This is what Islam teaches, and Islam
does not condone the "shaikh mentality" syndrome or blind taqleed.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Jeremiah McAuliffe
wrote:
>No, that is not.. You are obviously inventing a religion, where does it
>say in Islam that disagreeing in opinion is Kufr.
Uh, disagreement and disparagement are two very different things.
GF Haddad
mrm...@aol.com wrote in message <7l9dta$pud$1...@waltz.rahul.net>...
>As salaam 'alaikum,
[...]
>In Islam, when somebody is wrong according to Islam we as muslims
>must correct that person with evidence from Quran and Sunnah. He can
>be a average person on the street or a scholar in Islam, if he is wrong,
we
>must correct him. Unfortunately many muslims like I have said in a
>previous post developed what some call a "shaikh mentality" meaning that
>to them it becomes wrong to question a scholar or say he is wrong when
>he is wrong. And the practice of blind taqleed also plagues the muslims
>today. Nothing is wrong in being a muqallid, but it is better to be a
>muqallid muttabi' than a muqallid 'aami because a muqallid muttabi' does
>his research while a muqallid 'aami just accepts a fatwa without even
>referring to the Islamic texts.
Wa alaykum as-salam wa rahmatullah:
Good manners and knowledge are two necessary prerequisites and integral
parts of ordering good, without which one is actually compounding the evil
one purports to correct (or actually creating an evil where, before, there
was none). So those who flippantly attack ulamas are committing a sin,
unless their criticism meets these two criteria. This was my point against
those who defamed Hujjat al-Islam al-Ghazzali with neither proof nor
ethics, and Allah hears and sees.
Secondly, there is no disagreement that ordering good and forbidding evil
is a general obligation upon all. But this is besides the point I was
making, and I am always surprised to see how careless our brethren are in
addressing specific points and issues. The point I was making has to do
with the aspersions of corrupt and ignorant people against the
_generality_ of Muslim scholars, in order to target Islam itself. This is
not bad manners but sheer unbelief.
>You telling me it is wrong to question so-called scholars like Tantawi
when
>he gave a "fatwa" allowing riba?
How can it be wrong to question a fatwa when the Prophet himself -- Allah
bless and greet him -- said that the mufti who is right has two rewards,
and the one who is wrong has one? But I do object to your disrespectful
term "so-called scholar" which violates the ethics of disagreement in
Islam to which I just referred. Recourse to such terms, also betrays a
certain inability to address issues rather than persons.
Tantawi sits at the foot of Husni
>Mubarak, a man who killed and imprisoned so many Muslims who were
>calling for Islam.
Once again, go back to your Prophet Muhammad -- Allah bless and greet
him -- (notice I do not say just call him "Muhammad" as if he were some
ordinary person like us, but "The Prophet") and read what he said about
evil leaders: "Do not fight them as long as they do not prevent/forbid
salat." I will also quote you another hadith which Hizb al-Tahrir should
emblazon on their letterhead if they want to benefit:
Zyad ibn Kusayb al-`Adawi narrated: "I was with Abu Bakrah under Ibn
`Amir's pulpit while the latter was speaking, and he was wearing very fine
clothes. Whereupon Abu Bilal [= Muradis ibn Uddayya, one of the Khawarij]
said: 'Look at our emir, he is wearing the garb of corrupt men!' Hearing
this Abu Bakrah said: 'Be quiet! I heard Allah's Messenger -- Allah bless
and greet him -- say: "Whoever denigrates Allah's ruler on earth, then
Allah shall certainly denigrate him."'"
So many "scholars" today are used by their respective
>governments as people who give "fatawa" to legitimize the kufr regimes
>and actions of their governments and rulers.
The relationship of Muslim qadis, muftis, mosque imams, and ulamas to
political leaders in Islam has always been and continues to be far more
complex than this childish simplification. But as you see the
revolutionary-Khariji mentality works with sweeping generalities and
abhors details like precision.
Hisham Qabbani attacked
>and slandered Muslims in America, and you are telling me it is wrong to
>criticize a person like Hisham Qabbani who is doing clear haram?
Once more, a blatant generality like your unqualified statement that
"al-Ghazzali repented at the end of his life." Ya Mahdi! Here are the
recording angels watching and keeping records, and here are al-Ghazzali's
books in front of us, and I also have all of Shaykh Hisham Kabbani's
public statements on the takeover of US mosques by extremist-leaning
mentalities. Where and what do you mean that he "slandered Muslims in
America"? Why this irritating impotence to be precise beyond schoolmarmish
slogans when hastening to attack public figures in Islam?
This is
>not what Islam teachings at all. Umar (ra) wanted to impose a limit on
>the mahr when an old woman stood up and told Umar (ra) you can not do
>something that Muhammad (saaw) didn't do. Umar (ra) didnt get angry
>and tell the old woman how dare she challenged Umar, a Sahabi of
>Muhammad (saaw). He never told the old woman that you can not
>question or challenge a scholar in Islam. He as a matter of fact thanked
>the old woman for correcting him. This is what Islam teaches, and Islam
>does not condone the "shaikh mentality" syndrome or blind taqleed.
My final conclusion to this irrelevant reference and to the previous
material, is that brother Mahdi is far more of an undiscriminating
muqallid than he cares to admit. I am waiting to hear from him concerning
*exactly and precisely* what he means by his words against Shaykh Hisham
Kabbani, or else take them back as he took back his words against Imam
al-Ghazzali just recently, to his credit. And from Allah is help.
--
GF Haddad
Qas...@cyberia.net.lb
GF Haddad
Mr Mahdi wrote in message <7l9drh$pnq$1...@waltz.rahul.net>...
Wa alaykum as-salam wa rahmatullah:
May Allah accept from you and us all good deeds an increase them, and give
us a good life in this world and the next.
Do not believe the fabrication that "At the end of Al-Ghazzali's life he
repented on many of the mistakes he did." This so-called "repentence from
his mistakes" is a "Salafi" fiction without basis in fact and a disguised
attack on his established status as an Ash`ari in `aqida and a Sufi, by
the enemies of Ash`aris and Sufis. A careful reader must not accept
everything that he hears said without verification. My notice on the life
and works of Imam al-Ghazzali based on the most authentic sources is
available at:
http://sunnah.org/history/imam_alghazali.htm
GF Haddad
Qas...@cyberia.net.lb
Mr Mahdi
>How can it be wrong to question a fatwa when the Prophet himself -- Allah
>bless and greet him -- said that the mufti who is right has two rewards,
>and the one who is wrong has one? But I do object to your disrespectful
>term "so-called scholar" which violates the ethics of disagreement in
>Islam to which I just referred.
Brother, this is what I feared. I feared a naivte from people saying "Oh, the
scholar made a mistake." Tantawi was what the enemies of Islam in Egypt used
as their "legitmizer." Muslims were being killed and tortured while Tantawi
was getting love and praise from Husni Mubarak and the secular establishment.
I recall a hadith talking about these "scholars for dollars" that become a
legitmizer of the haram actions of their ruler and regime. A person with the
academic knowledge of Tantawi just didn't make a "mistake" in that "fatwa" he
gave allowing riba. I am not a scholar and I know that riba is haram. How can
you go to Egypt and see the mess it is in and see Tantawi praising Husni
Mubarak and being praised in return and say Tantawi was a sincere Muslim who
made a few "mistakes?" This to me is an extremely naivte if a person thinks
like this. Brother, go to the prisons in Egypt and see it full of people whose
crime was calling for the return of Islam and ask yourself why Tantawi was the
same person praising the person (Husni Mubarak) who put these Muslims behind
bars.
>"Whoever denigrates Allah's ruler on earth, then
>Allah shall certainly denigrate him."'"
Brother, I am disturbed that you take this hadith out of context. This hadith
regards to the Muslim ruler who rules by Islam not kufr! A muslim ruler who
rules by Islam not kufr may do things that you feel are not good, but as long
he is ruling by Islam and not kufr and you can not attack him or do anything
bad to him. Muhammad (saaw) said in a hadith that if you see a Munkar, change
it with your hand, if you can't, change it with you tongue, if you can't, hate
it in your heart and that is the weakest of Faith. The rulers are ruling by
kufr and nothing but kufr. Also Muhammad said in a hadith that the best Jihad
is to speak truth in front of a ruler and get killed for it. So many muslims
are speaking the truth and are getting killed for it.
>The relationship of Muslim qadis, muftis, mosque imams, and ulamas to
>political leaders in Islam has always been and continues to be far more
>complex than this childish simplification.
I am afraid that you seem so insistant on defending the "scholars" that you are
not worried about the Muslim ummah ever returning to the system of life and
khilafah. We muslims are in sin because we have no Ad-daulat ul-Islamiyya and
yet some Muslims insist on maintaing the status quo by saying it is haram to
speak out against a ruler or system that is ruling by kufr. We muslims will
never get out of this situation if we have muslims calling for other muslims to
NOT speak out or do something against the Munkar. It is Waajib to do something
against the Munkar as Muhammad (saaw) said in the ahadith.
> But as you see the
>revolutionary-Khariji mentality works with sweeping generalities and
>abhors details like precision.
>
What???
>Once more, a blatant generality like your unqualified statement that
>"al-Ghazzali repented at the end of his life." Ya Mahdi! Here are the
>recording angels watching and keeping records, and here are al-Ghazzali's
>books in front of us, and I also have all of Shaykh Hisham Kabbani's
>public statements on the takeover of US mosques by extremist-leaning
>mentalities.
Please don't compare Al-Ghazzali to Hisham Qabbani. I went to that
"Sunnah.org" website and saw the whole speech of Hisham Qabbani in the "State
Department" of all places. He did nothing but attack Muslims in that speech
under the guise of "defending and speaking out against extremism." Muhammad
(saaw) and the Sahaba (ra) were hated by the Kuffar, but Hisham Qabbani is
loved by the Kuffar. You think the Kuffar love and respect Al-Ghazzali like
they do Hisham Qabbani? Only Islam can apply justice in dealing with a
situation, not the kuffar. Without Islam there is no justice, so how on earth
can you advise the Kuffar to deal with Muslims??? Hisham Qabbani talked about
Americas dealing with "extremist" Muslims, so is the Americans going to deal
with Muslims by the true justice of Islam or by their kufr laws? What about
the "extremism" in the Christian, Jewish, Hindu, atheist, etc., groups? Hisham
Qabbani talked nothing about those, it was all about Muslims and Islam. I read
the "Al-Muslimoon" magazine, it is a magazine that hurts me as a muslim because
of the concepts that is spreads in that magazine.
>My final conclusion to this irrelevant reference and to the previous
>material, is that brother Mahdi is far more of an undiscriminating
>muqallid than he cares to admit. I am waiting to hear from him concerning
>*exactly and precisely* what he means by his words against Shaykh Hisham
>Kabbani, or else take them back as he took back his words against Imam
>al-Ghazzali just recently, to his credit. And from Allah is help.
What do you mean by "irrelevant reference?" My mistake of Al-Ghazzali was I
didn't do the appropiate research, and realized he recanted on lot of the
deviant beliefs he once held. But I have read extensively the "Al-Muslimoon"
magazine and went many times to sunnah.org and saw and read what Hisham Qabbani
had to say. Just admit it, the Kuffar loves Hisham Qabbani. You need to ask
yourself why the Kuffar hated Muhammad (saaw) and the Sahaba (ra) but love
Hisham Qabbani. What did they do that Hisham didn't do? What did Al-Ghazzali
do what Hisham didn't so?
Also I am not against the muqallid. I am a muqallid, and I am a muqallid
muttabi' on top of that. I am a muqallid because I am have not attained
enought knowledge yet to be a mujtahid or mufti or a 'Aalim. I am not a
muqallid 'aami because a muqallid 'aami follows a fatwa without even referring
to the texts or investigating while a muqallid muttabi' investigates and does
his research.
Mahdi
Sherif Safwat
<ali...@city-net.com> writes
>Uh, disagreement and disparagement are two very different things.
We are not going to play with words. I have no intention of insulting or
demeaning any one. the issue is: no body is above questioning.
The message of god is a true one, and very clear. It does not need your
protection, or any one else. Just do not allow mortals to put claims and
relate it to God, when it is total lies.
Sherif Safwat
Jeremiah McAuliffe
wrote:
>In article <7lc5bl$79h$1...@waltz.rahul.net>, Jeremiah McAuliffe
><ali...@city-net.com> writes
>>Uh, disagreement and disparagement are two very different things.
>
>We are not going to play with words. I have no intention of insulting or
>demeaning any one. the issue is: no body is above questioning.
>
>
>The message of god is a true one, and very clear. It does not need your
>protection,
No. But obviously some people need to read a bit more carefully.....
when one person is talking about disparagement, and the other reads
"disagreement" then there is a major problem, wouldn't you say?
Also, the Haddad posts are about classic writers living some centuries
ago.... not contemporaries. Another misreading of simple usenet posts.
If we can't read simple usenet posts without completely changing words
around, how can we trust our reading of the Qur'an???
GF Haddad
>As salaam alaikum,
[I had written:]
How can it be wrong to question a fatwa when the Prophet himself --
Allah bless and greet him -- said that the mufti who is right has two
rewards, and the one who is wrong has one? But I do object to your
disrespectful term "so-called scholar" which violates the ethics of
disagreement in Islam to which I just referred.
>Brother, this is what I feared. I feared a naivte from people saying
"Oh, the
>scholar made a mistake." Tantawi was what the enemies of Islam in
Egypt used
>as their "legitmizer." Muslims were being killed and tortured while
Tantawi
>was getting love and praise from Husni Mubarak and the secular
establishment.
Wa alaykum as-salam:
I will cling to what you call naivete if it saves me from what I call
violation of adab in Islam. The Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him --
said: "Most of the inhabitants of Paradise are the naive." As for
violators of adab he said: "Those that do not know the rights of ulamas
are not of us." It is clear what is preferable here.
Concerning Shaykhs Tantawi and Kabbani: There is nothing in your
response but phrases like "scholars for dollars" and unsubstantiated
accusations , when I had asked for substance and precision. As I said
and say again, it is you who are being simplistic in your approach.
At best there is circumstancial evidence of the type: "The enemies of
Islam love him" -- what does that prove? The enemies of Islam loved
some of the greatest scholars of Ahl al-Sunna such as Ibn al-Madini,
Yahya ibn Ma`in and al-Shafi`i at the time Ahmad ibn Hanbal was being
lashed and jailed, does that mean that the former scholars were any
less righteous? Never.
Do you know Ibn Tumart? He was a Sufi faqih and mujtahid Imam who spent
his life in jail, beaten, expelled from here and from there for his
personal jihad against communities and people in power, which some
people found unbearable. Does that make all the other scholars in his
time collaborators of anti-Muslim authorities just because they were
accepted rather than persecuted? Never.
Do you know Abu Darda' the Companion of the Prophet sallallahu `alayhi
wa sallam? He was the strictest and most austere of the Companions and
he used to stand at the Ka`ba and shout at the people "You have
perished, you have perished, you have perished" and sometimes he would
beat them with his stick, until `Uthman expelled him from Mecca - not
once, but twice! Does that make the other Companions in his time any
less righteous? Never. May Allah be well-pleased with all of them!
You criticize Tantawi and Kabbani, at least show us who, in our time,
is like Ahmad ibn Hanbal or Ibn Tumart or Abu al-Darda' instead of
criticizing scholars because they follow different methods.
Shaykh Tantawi allowed riba? That is pure falsehood, show me the exact
text in which he states such a thing. He made ijtihad, and if his
ijtihad is wrong he still gets one reward, and if his intention was
wrong then his judgment is with Allah, Who has no partner.
>Brother, go to the prisons in Egypt and see it full of people whose
>crime was calling for the return of Islam and ask yourself why Tantawi
was the
>same person praising the person (Husni Mubarak) who put these Muslims
behind
>bars.
How do you know that he is praising him for putting them behind bars
rather than praising him for sparing their lives and not taking more
repressive measures?
>>"Whoever denigrates Allah's ruler on earth, then
>>Allah shall certainly denigrate him."'"
>
>Brother, I am disturbed that you take this hadith out of context.
This hadith
>regards to the Muslim ruler who rules by Islam not kufr!
On what do you base the definition that any Mideast government rules by
kufr rather than Islam? The Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him --
made the dividing criterion of our taking action against a ruler, the
ruler's prevention of the people from praying. Is this the case in the
examples you have brought so far? Or are you trying to be more strict
than Rasulullah ?!
A muslim ruler who
>rules by Islam not kufr may do things that you feel are not good, but
as long
>he is ruling by Islam and not kufr and you can not attack him or do
anything
>bad to him. Muhammad (saaw) said in a hadith that if you see a
Munkar, change
>it with your hand, if you can't, change it with you tongue, if you
can't, hate
>it in your heart and that is the weakest of Faith.
It is self-evident then, that he did not say to all people to do all
things. Someone who is powerless, is not qualified to change things
with their hand in the way someone who has power is. Someone who is a
bumbling ignoramus is not qualified to change things with their tongue
in the way someone who has knowledge and skill is. Somone who lusts for
power is not qualified to change things with their heart in the way
someone who has faith is.
There are priorities here, and each one knows what concerns him and
applies to him. Otherwise, we will have the mindless anarchistic
bloodsheds that we see committed in the name of Islam in our time.
The rulers are ruling by
>kufr and nothing but kufr. Also Muhammad said in a hadith that the
best Jihad
>is to speak truth in front of a ruler and get killed for it. So many
muslims
>are speaking the truth and are getting killed for it.
That was also the rationale of the Khawarij, whom the Companions fought
to the death. The Khawarij were certainly not martyrs standing for
truth, rather they were misguided innovators standing for corruption in
the earth and fitna - yet in our time certainly no one compares with
the Khawarij in piety and worship! - may Allah guide us.
It is a far, far cry between standing for truth on the one hand, and on
the other, struggling for power using the uneducated poor for soldiers
and canon fodder with Islam as a convenient ideology. Allah will judge
both those who fought Islam openly, and those who fought in its name
for their worldly purposes.
> >The relationship of Muslim qadis, muftis, mosque imams, and ulamas
to
>>political leaders in Islam has always been and continues to be far
more
>>complex than this childish simplification.
>
>I am afraid that you seem so insistant on defending the "scholars"
that you are
>not worried about the Muslim ummah ever returning to the system of
life and
>khilafah.
Following Rasulullah's command, I pray Allah every day to send us the
Khalifa on the model of Prophethood, whom the Prophet predicted, Allah
bless and greet him. His name in the mutawatir reports is Muhammad
al-Mahdi, and I never hear Hizb al-Tahrir mention him. I only see them
quote weak reports on the primacy of jihad over everyhing else.
Certainly jihad is primary, but who is your leader ?!
We muslims are in sin because we have no Ad-daulat ul-Islamiyya and
>yet some Muslims insist on maintaing the status quo by saying it is
haram to
>speak out against a ruler or system that is ruling by kufr.
The sin belongs at the door of those who removed this Dawla. As for us
we had no say in the matter, and there is no concept of hereditary sin
in Islam. What applies to us now is exactly the hadith that you quoted,
and one who tries his best to change whatever he can, is innocent of
the charge you just leveled.
We muslims will
>never get out of this situation if we have muslims calling for other
muslims to
>NOT speak out or do something against the Munkar. It is Waajib to do
something
>against the Munkar as Muhammad (saaw) said in the ahadith.
Enough already with the logical leaps. I spelled out at length and
width the requirements for speaking out truthfully and effectively, and
here you are suggesting that I call for not speaking out. If an
academic advisor tells you to take Freshman Composition before graduate
Philosophy, will you go and accuse him of stifling your education?
Worse, you want to teach him what is required.
>> But as you see the
>>revolutionary-Khariji mentality works with sweeping generalities and
>>abhors details like precision.
>>
>
>What???
Meaning the mentality whose entire argument is "The leader is wrong, we
are rightous, let us topple him whatever the human cost, and whoever
stands in our path is fair game because we are righteous so they are
surely evil." No complexities here, so simple.
>Please don't compare Al-Ghazzali to Hisham Qabbani.
You are right, al-Ghazzali was not a descendent of the Prophet
sallallahu alayhi wa alihi wa sallam.
I went to that
>"Sunnah.org" website and saw the whole speech of Hisham Qabbani in the
"State
>Department" of all places. He did nothing but attack Muslims in that
speech
>under the guise of "defending and speaking out against extremism."
Bring your proof if you are truthful, and enough empty paraphrases and
inflammatory slogans. If you are not willing to discuss truthfully and
precisely, I se no reason to reply to you with other than admonishment.
Muhammad
>(saaw) and the Sahaba (ra) were hated by the Kuffar, but Hisham
Qabbani is
>loved by the Kuffar. You think the Kuffar love and respect
Al-Ghazzali like
>they do Hisham Qabbani?
I have addressed this flimsy, circumstancial approval-criterion above.
Only Islam can apply justice in dealing with a
>situation, not the kuffar. Without Islam there is no justice, so how
on earth
>can you advise the Kuffar to deal with Muslims???
This is wrong from A to Z, otherwise it would be impossible for any
Muslim power, beginning with the Prophet himself - Allah bless and
greet him - to enter into a pact with a non-Muslim power. Further,
Islam recognizes the laws and justice system of non-Islamic peoples as
viable for them, in fact even in fiqh, in fatwa and in qada', this rule
is taken into consideration to advise interest cases regarding
non-Muslim individuals.
Hisham Qabbani talked about
>Americas dealing with "extremist" Muslims, so is the Americans going
to deal
>with Muslims by the true justice of Islam or by their kufr laws?
It is right that Shaykh Hisham should call for the law to be applied to
all equally, and Muslims should stand for the law as they are the most
law-informed and law-abiding people on earth. As for extremists, this
is an order from Allah Himself not to be extremist. Yet we have not
seen anyone stand against the terrorist massacres recently perpetrated
in Algeria in the name of Islam except very few ulamas, who were then
branded by the type of condemnation we see expressed here.
What about
>the "extremism" in the Christian, Jewish, Hindu, atheist, etc.,
groups? Hisham
>Qabbani talked nothing about those, it was all about Muslims and
Islam.
The fact that he talked about his own house does not in any way fault
him for not talking about the neighbors. "Speak the truth even against
yourself."
I read
>the "Al-Muslimoon" magazine, it is a magazine that hurts me as a
muslim because
>of the concepts that is spreads in that magazine.
Spare us your subjective impressions and talk facts or hold your peace.
>Also I am not against the muqallid. I am a muqallid, and I am a
muqallid
>muttabi' on top of that. I am a muqallid because I am have not
attained
>enought knowledge yet to be a mujtahid or mufti or a 'Aalim. I am not
a
>muqallid 'aami because a muqallid 'aami follows a fatwa without even
referring
>to the texts or investigating while a muqallid muttabi' investigates
and does
>his research.
If you are a true muqallid muttabi`, then you should make ittiba` of
Sunna and Shari`a and taqlid of this: al-bayyina `ala al-mudda`i.
Produce your proof, or stop crying wolf.
Was-salam alaykum wa rahmatullah.
GF Haddad
Qas...@cyberia.net.lb
Asim Mehmood Awan
delusion. Never once did these ulema stand before non-Muslims complaining
about so-called extremist Muslims. None of the ulema like ibn Hanbal (R)
cowed to the regimes of past, in fact they were persecuted. Imam Malik
(R) was lashed for his fatwas, Imam Abu Hanifa (R), they say was poisoned.
And these were all supposedly Islamic states. To even use the name Abu
Darda (R) in a defense is utter shamelessness. Abu Darda (R)
knew the rights of Muslims and would never had cowed before Mubarak, let
alone the US gov't complainign about extremist gov'ts. If anything Abu
Darda (R) would have done his best to fight against the likes of Mubarak./
Ijtihad is when you strive to do your best, with sincere ambition only for
the sake of Allah. The hadeeth clearly is referring to Allah and his
slave, and how Allah will reward somebody. And this is known only to
Allah. Because Allah only knows the amount this person
strove, how sincerely he strove. It has nothing to do with us accepting a
fatwa of somebody. And by the way, this hadeeth is not exclusive to just
ulema.
The Prophet (S) also said and it is
compiled in Nawawi's (R) forty hadeeth, to the effect, if a mufti makes a
judgement and
you feel a pricking in your heart, follow the pricking in your heart.
--
'In the screaming gale of Love, the intellect is a gnat.
How can intellects find space to wander there?' (Rumi)
Asim Awan: "The Quran is not defined by man, the Quran defines man"
asad...@my-deja.com
GF Haddad I haven't read your whole post but I will tell you that
generally what I see I'm especially happy to see, alhamdulillah.
But with regards to this:
> On what do you base the definition that any Mideast government rules
by
> kufr rather than Islam? The Prophet -- Allah bless and greet him --
> made the dividing criterion of our taking action against a ruler, the
> ruler's prevention of the people from praying. Is this the case in the
> examples you have brought so far? Or are you trying to be more strict
> than Rasulullah ?!
I recall seeing see different variations on this hadith, one in which
the Prophet (S) says this, then another in which he speaks of "clear
kufr" and another in which the Prophet (S) speaks of "establishing
prayer". Both of these imply stricter criteria than "preventing people
>from praying".
Wallahu a'lam.
Asad.
Sherif Safwat
<ali...@city-net.com> writes
>No. But obviously some people need to read a bit more carefully.....
>when one person is talking about disparagement, and the other reads
>"disagreement" then there is a major problem, wouldn't you say?
Let me make my point clear:
1) Kufr is an act you can only commit against God. To associate any
mortal with God and saying that insulting a mortal is similar to
insulting God is wrong.
2) I never played with words it is Haddad who did: No body insulted any
scholars, we certainly disagreed with some of the ideas of AlGhazali,
and I did mention that some of his writings had disastrous effects on
the Islamic world... Would you consider that idea insulting?
>
>Also, the Haddad posts are about classic writers living some centuries
>ago.... not contemporaries. Another misreading of simple usenet posts.
You mean the more ancient you are, the more authentic you get ?????
>
>If we can't read simple usenet posts without completely changing words
>around, how can we trust our reading of the Qur'an???
I do hope I made my self clearer..
>
Sherif Safwat
Mr Mahdi
>How can it be wrong to question a fatwa when the Prophet himself --
>Allah bless and greet him -- said that the mufti who is right has two
>rewards, and the one who is wrong has one?
I don't question fatwas, I questions legitimizing haram and calling them
fatwas. Why don't you talk about the hadith when Muhammad (saaw) was talking
about seeing the Munkar and changing it? What about the hadith about seeing
"clear kufr." The hadith of not rebelling against the leader as long as he
establishes Salat should not be taken that it is okay for him to do "clear
kufr." Islam is Salat and Salat is Islam, so if a leader is doing clear kufr
you must like the hadith says to change it with your hands, tongue, or hearts.
> But I do object to your
>disrespectful term "so-called scholar" which violates the ethics of
>disagreement in Islam to which I just referred.
To me it is disrespect to call a so-called scholar a scholar because for the
fact it makes real and sincere scholars look bad and confuses people to whether
or not what he says is always in accordance with Islam.
> "Most of the inhabitants of Paradise are the naive."
What is the word for what you say is "naive" in this hadith. Is it like the
arabic for naive "saadhaj?"
> As for
>violators of adab he said: "Those that do not know the rights of ulamas
>are not of us." It is clear what is preferable here.
LOL, what are the rights of the "ulama?' If they make a mistake or do a haram,
we can't correct them? If they legitimize the the kufr regime and leaders we
cant say nothing about it becuase they made "ijtihad" and an innocent mistake?
>The enemies of Islam loved
>some of the greatest scholars of Ahl al-Sunna such as Ibn al-Madini,
>Yahya ibn Ma`in and al-Shafi`i at the time Ahmad ibn Hanbal was being
>lashed and jailed, does that mean that the former scholars were any
>less righteous? Never.
The great Imams of the past were tortured, imprisoned, killed, etc., for
speaking out against the Munkar. Tantawi and Qabbani are praised by the kuffar
for doing the Munkar! How can you compare these great sincere scholars with
the likes of Qabbani and Tantawi??? Tantawi said nothing about what Mubarak is
doing in his war against Islam. In Egypt, school girls must get permission to
wear Hijab from their parents! Allah already ordered them to wear hijab, so
why must you get permission from your parents to obey Allah??? Also in Egypt,
the unspeakable happens in the prisons. Muslim activists are forced to rape
their fellow muslim brothers!!! How can you realize this and say Tantawi was a
good man? Haddad, I dare you call for khilafah in Egypt. If you are thrown in
jail, wonder whether or not Tantawi will say anything about it.
> Does that make all the other scholars in his
>time collaborators of anti-Muslim authorities just because they were
>accepted rather than persecuted? Never.
Subhanullah. These scholars were speaking out against the Munkar and fitna
they saw! It was nothing to do with going against Islam or the Islamic state
or trying to be collabrators with the kuffar! Wallahi, you just can not take
this out of context and use what happened to these honorable muttaqi scholars
and try to find parallels with the likes of Tantawi and Qabbani.
>Shaykh Tantawi allowed riba? That is pure falsehood, show me the exact
>text in which he states such a thing. He made ijtihad, and if his
>ijtihad is wrong he still gets one reward, and if his intention was
>wrong then his judgment is with Allah, Who has no partner.
I can't believe you even try to challenge me on this because it is well known
about that Tantawi did. You can not make ijtihad when there is already a Hukm
Shar'i. It's like making ijtihad on whether or not Zina is allowed. Riba is
haram, plain and simple.
>How do you know that he is praising him for putting them behind bars
>rather than praising him for sparing their lives and not taking more
>repressive measures?
I am very sadden by this statement from you brother. I have heard of sick
atrocites in Egyptian prisons, while at the same time Tantawi is being praised
by Mubarak and the secular establishment "progressive" scholar and Tantawi is
saying nothing the crimes Mubarak did against Islam.
>On what do you base the definition that any Mideast government rules by
>kufr rather than Islam?
On Quran and Sunnah. Islam is meant to be applied in its totality, not in bits
in pieces. Its either all of what Allah revealed or none at all.
> Is this the case in the
>examples you have brought so far? Or are you trying to be more strict
>than Rasulullah ?!
Don't twist my words. Like I said earlier, there are hadiths about taking
action against a ruler when he is doing "clear kufr." Why dont you mention
these ahadith? Why don't you read what Salat means in the context of hadith?
It means to apply Islam and establishing Salat requires the implementation of
the Islamic system.
>There are priorities here, and each one knows what concerns him and
>applies to him. Otherwise, we will have the mindless anarchistic
>bloodsheds that we see committed in the name of Islam in our time.
Ok, so I am right to say that it is allowed in Islam to speak out against a
ruler or "scholar" who is doing "clear kufr?"
>That was also the rationale of the Khawarij, whom the Companions fought
>to the death.
The Khawarij? The hadith says that the best Jihad is to speak the truth
against a ruler and get killed for it What does this have to do with the
Khawarij?
>It is a far, far cry between standing for truth on the one hand, and on
>the other, struggling for power using the uneducated poor for soldiers
>and canon fodder with Islam as a convenient ideology.
So in other words, don't call for khilafah, just "pray for it."
>Following Rasulullah's command, I pray Allah every day to send us the
>Khalifa on the model of Prophethood, whom the Prophet predicted, Allah
>bless and greet him.
Like I said, you just can't pray for something to happen without doing
something. This is not Tawakkul, this is Tawaakul.
>His name in the mutawatir reports is Muhammad
>al-Mahdi, and I never hear Hizb al-Tahrir mention him.
What on earth does Hizb ut-Tahrir have to do with this discussion? I have not
mentioned this group at all, and yet you bring it up.
> I only see them
>quote weak reports on the primacy of jihad over everyhing else.
>Certainly jihad is primary, but who is your leader ?!
Again, what on earth are you talking about???
>Meaning the mentality whose entire argument is "The leader is wrong, we
>are rightous, let us topple him whatever the human cost, and whoever
>stands in our path is fair game because we are righteous so they are
>surely evil." No complexities here, so simple.
I never said that. I never implied "by any means neccessary." We must follow
what Muhammad (saaw) did in creating an Islamic state. It is not by blowing up
a lot of things and killing people. It is by following the example of Muhammad
(saaw).
>You are right, al-Ghazzali was not a descendent of the Prophet
>sallallahu alayhi wa alihi wa sallam.
Are you implying that Qabbani is more special than Al-Ghazzali because was a
"Sayyid?"
>Bring your proof if you are truthful, and enough empty paraphrases and
>inflammatory slogans. If you are not willing to discuss truthfully and
>precisely, I se no reason to reply to you with other than admonishment.
Enough with the poetic statements of "bring your proof if you are truthful." I
saw the whole speech of Qabbani, read the "Sunnah.org" website, read their
magazines, etc. I am not making myself into a fool by repeating well-known
statements that Qabbani said. If you live in America, nearly all of the
Islamic groups condemned Qabbanis statements. I guess all of these Islamic
groups have bad adab and they all misunderstood what Hisham clearly said in
front of the "State Department" of all places.
>This is wrong from A to Z, otherwise it would be impossible for any
>Muslim power, beginning with the Prophet himself - Allah bless and
>greet him - to enter into a pact with a non-Muslim power. Further,
>Islam recognizes the laws and justice system of non-Islamic peoples as
>viable for them, in fact even in fiqh, in fatwa and in qada', this rule
>is taken into consideration to advise interest cases regarding
>non-Muslim individuals.
You have no proof from Quran or Sunnah that Islam regards any non-Islamic
system as just in any circumstances. Only the correct application of Quran and
Sunnah can justice be served. The Kuffar can never apply justice, go to
America and see the crime rate and the prison population. And what on earth
does entering a pact with a non-Muslim power have to do with the kuffar being
just? Come on!
> is right that Shaykh Hisham should call for the law to be applied to
>all equally, and Muslims should stand for the law as they are the most
>law-informed and law-abiding people on earth. As for extremists, this
>is an order from Allah Himself not to be extremist. Yet we have not
>seen anyone stand against the terrorist massacres recently perpetrated
>in Algeria in the name of Islam except very few ulamas, who were then
>branded by the type of condemnation we see expressed here.
No muslim can call for a non-Islamic laws to be applied. Muslims can only call
for the implementation of Islam in a islamic state. You never hear Muhammad
(saaw) calling on the Quraish to apply "justice" on those who were attacking
Islam. Islam condemns being extreme, including being extreme in "respecting"
the scholars
In Islam, there is no "shaikh mentality." Scholars are not holy men, and
correcting them is not a sin but a good deed.
>The fact that he talked about his own house does not in any way fault
>him for not talking about the neighbors. "Speak the truth even against
>yourself."
If a Muslim is acting up, then we must report him to the caliph or the Islamic
authorites not to the Kuffar because only Quran and Sunnah can apply true
justice. Speak truth against yourself where you can recieve the justice of
Quran and Sunnah not the injustice of kufr.
Finally, why don't you criticize the incident of the old woman and Umar (ra) if
speaking out against the "Ulama" is haram? Why didn't Umar (ra) punish the old
women but actually thanked her?
Mahdi
Jeremiah McAuliffe
wrote:
>I do hope I made my self clearer..
Yes, but not in the way you think.....