The misuse of Quran (5:44, 5:45 and 5:47)
Moataz H. Emam
Glorfindel wrote:
> "Those who do not rule by what Allah has revealed are the
> Kafiroon...Dhalimoon...Fasiqoon" (5:44, 5:45 and 5:47)
This is how these verses are usually translated. Well, these verse
happen to be the most misused verses in the middle east. They are used
to brand all rulers with being Kafir and nonMuslim, and of course the
next step is that the apostate has to be killed, another misuse of God's
word. So, political assassinations, murder and terrorism become
justified on the basis of this verse. Add to it the famous:
"He who sees a bad thing must change it with his hand, if he can't then
with his words, if he can't then in his heart and that is the weakest in
faith"
which is neither Quran, nor Hadith and I have no idea where it came
from. All three misconceptions put together become a manual for
political revolution and assassination.
Anyway, let me go back to Quran (5:44, 5:45 and 5:47).
Those who quote these verses do so by snipping what is around them. When
one reads the complete verses, one immediately realizes that the verses
are speaking of the Jews and how they must act by what God has revealed
to them in the Torah. The reason of revelation behind this verse is that
the Jewish Rabbis in Medina brought an adultering couple to Mohammed one
day and asked him what they should do with them. According to the
agreements between Mohammed and the Jews, they must apply their own laws
on their own people, so he asked them what does the Torah say? The Jews
did not want to tell him that, perhaps as a test to his presumed
prophethood, so they brought a man with the Torah and he started to
read, placing his hand on the stoning part of the verses, until a Muslim
removed it and asked him to read what's in there. So, he did and
Mohammed told them that they have to apply stoning on the adulterers
according to their Torah.
This verse was revealed for this reason and for this event. Now, even if
we wish to ignore the meaning and context of the complete verses and
simply generalize, we must note that the word "yahkom" which people
mistranslate as "rule" actually means "judge" or "pass judgment on legal
issues" as is clear by its use all over the Quran. Political rule in the
Quran is denoted by the word "Amr", hence "Amir ElMomeneen" was the
title of Caliphs. "Wa amrakom Shura beynakom" [And you deal with issues
of Amr - politics - by taking the opinions of the people].
So, even if we generalize the meaning, it is not applicable to political
rule and governments. Period. This misunderstanding is in the Arabic
original too, since unfortunately the word "hokm" has evolved in modern
Arabic to actually mean "political rule", but that was not the case at
the time of the Quran.
--
Moataz H. Emam
David / Amicus
context. Nothing stands alone. What were the circumstances of the
occasion of the revelation. Why was it given. The Qu'ran was not
revealed in a vacuum. Tho' it is the last and ultimate and final
revelation from God (taken from the Muslim perspective) and is for all
people and all time still to rightly understand it one must know the
particulars of the whys and wherefors of the chapters and the verses. A
text without a context is only a pretext!
Glorfindel
mind. You have not provided me with any other alternative to what is meant
in these verses.
As For: "He who sees a bad thing must change it with his hand, if he can't
then with his words, if he can't then in his heart and that is the weakest
in faith"
This is a Hadith.
On the authority of Abu Sa`id (radhiallahu `anhu) that the Prophet
sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam said, "Whoever sees something evil should
change it with his hand. If he cannot, then with his tongue; and if he
cannot do even that, then in his heart. That is the weakest degree of
faith." (Muslim)
The verses and the hadith do not stipulate changes in political nature of
any state through methods of terrorrism etc, they are categorizing the
different people who do not rule by what Allah has revealed i.e. the
Shariah. The catergories are as such Kafir, Dhalim and Fasiq. In terms of
Kufr, it is far from any believer to call another believer a Kafir as stated
in the following hadith:
Ibn Umar related that the Holy Prophet said: "If a Muslim calls another
kafir, then if he is a kafir let it be so; otherwise, he [the caller] is
himself a kafir.'' (Abu Dawood)
So it can be seen that this applies to the Kafir leaders of the Kafir world
like Bush, Blair etc.
Since Imaan is in the heart and none knows the heart of another except Allah
himself. Interms of Dhulm and Fisq, this is were the majority of the
"Muslim Leaders" fall. Not ruling by what Allah has revelaed is where it
comes from because to rule on Muslim by anything other then the Shariah is a
system of oppression. The verses are usually snipped for sake of brevity
but even if we look into what they say in entierity it makes no difference,
since it is saying those who do not rule by Allah has revelaed are the
kafiroon, dhalimoon and fasiqoon. Here we have to decide what is meant by
"Anzal Allah" is the torah or injeel, "Anzal Allah" anymore? Since the Quran
came it abrogated them and anyone who wishes to rule other then the
revelation given to Muhammed (saw) is committing Kufr, just as the Ottomans
did when they implemented the French penal code (using the usul Qablna
Shariah - which is weak) or the myriad forms of governement imposed on us
now in our lands today, it is still kufr. I thank you for putting the
verses into historical context, but again we see the Jews and Christians are
cursed for not implementing their respective Shariah's and hence the curse
would be applied to us since we do not rule by what Allah has revealed. And
the terms of Dhalim and Fasiq are applied to Muslims, since one can be
Muslim and be a Fasiq/Dhalim...No one is saying pick up a spoon and go and
fight the leaders, the leaders themselves will vanish away when we the
Muslims say enough is enough we don't want half baked Islam anymore we want
it in it's entireity. The reason these verses are invoked by "Islamists" is
because without Islamic ruling about 60% of the Shariah is inapplicable
(according to Imaam Ash-Shaafi') so for example if I came out today and said
I no longer want to be muslim and start cursing the Prophet (saw) etc, who
is going to carry out the punishment? Al-Qaeeda? Bani As-Saud? You see even
if the ordinary man in the street carrys out the punishment he will be
commiting a sin, since it is not the duty of the individual but its the duty
of the state to carry out punishments. There is a Fiqhi principle which
states that anything leading to a Wajib is a Wajib in itself...so since the
ordinary man cannot enact the Hudood and it is the function of the state, it
is wajib for their to be a state hence working to establish it is wajib as
well.
With regards to political assinations when Abdullah bin Selul was asked
about the time when Muhammed (saw) came and took leadership of Madinah he
replied "this was organised in the night" (ie, that the Prophet (saw) had
organised it before hand) and it is reported that people came out with their
leapord skins as a implication that a military coup would take place if ibn
Selul and his cohorts tried to seixe power from the Muslims, what we see
here is that the preference is a peaceful transfer of authority but if the
need should arise the threat of force is allowed. Having said that we
should realise that the Ummah is not at stage were she can give rulership to
anyone one organisation to rule by Allah's commands since many of these
organisation (yes including Al-Qaeeda) are working towards fullfilling
American objectives in our lands be it knowingly or unknowingly. Until
then, these "Jihadi" organisations do nothing but spend the emotions of the
Ummah and achieve nothing but to only exascerbate the situation until, the
Ummah being complacent and say "Is this Islam? We don't want televisions
hanging from treetops, the is answer to our ills is - Democracy" and the
other systems of Kufr that prevade the earth now.
As for the wording of Hukm (7a-kaf-meem) it can be translated as judge as
well as rule, to me it begs the question what is the difference between
judging and ruling? Because the same word has been used to denote that
Allah alone is the ruler/judger. As for your attempt at "shurocracy" in the
verse:
"Those who hearken to their Lord, and establish regular Prayer; who
(conduct) their affairs by mutual Consultation; who spend out of what We
bestow on them for Sustenance; " (42:38)
I ask does this abrogate everything that Allah has revealed, i.e. if the
people decide that they don't want to cut the hand of the thief any longer
is it applicable when the verse to cut the hand of the theif is definite in
text and definite in meaning (Qattiy)? You see the whole point of Amr is
leadership, telling us that the authority (sultan) is in our hands to pick
our rulers but not the rules that are implaced on us. And the term amir
al-mumineen, is LEADER of the believers and not RULER of the believers since
the ruler is Allah alone (ie, the one who gives, abrogates and explains
rules and the one who sets the standards of right and wrong).
Using your definition of amr (ie meaning politics) it would be permissable
for not to fast since "Those In Authority" (Awli Al-Amr, 4:59) are to obeyed
and since Ali bin Zeyn Al-Abideyn of Tunisia publically said that we should
not fast since it is bad for the economy and he himself did not fast in the
month of Ramadhan.
Min Akhook Fi Islam.
Allahu Alem.
"Moataz H. Emam" <em...@physics.umass.edu> wrote in message
news:3E6A13E6...@physics.umass.edu...
Okie
suit his ends.
It is visible very notably in the media, in religions, in government
policy and business policy alike.
I must confess that in heated arguments where I have been driven past
anger and near tears, I have done the same.
However I belive there are people who are chronically that way, with
whom a purportedly rational conversation rapidly becomes a matter of
boxing with shadows. Their intention is clear, but they hide it behind
seeemingly good causes.
I see this frequently in religion bashing and race bashing and in
class bashing and in all manners of policy twisting.
There is a Christian phrase I very much enjoy that is applicable: "The
Devil quotes the scripture."
I like to always keep in mind the purpose of the group for whom the
policy is written. WHen I see people using a policy for a purpose
contrary to the purpose of the group for whom the policy was written,
I look at the policy and try to find how it is being twisted.
This is useful for me in any group situation. Maybe you will find it
useful as well.
Also practical in dealing with teens. To explain the purpose for which
policy is implemented so they don't twist it and even so they
understand it better.
A famous example is when the US media misquoted Kruschev as saying "We
will bury (the US)" to make it sound like he was going to try to kill
us all, which wasn't his purpose, one can look at the actual quote
which was that they would bury us with economic duress, which actually
WAS the purpose and a thing which they succeeded in during the cold
war. Not much of a purpose seeing as how they buried themselves right
alongside us.
Going a step back from that, Marx would be rolling in his grave if he
saw what happened with his dream of communism. I am no communist, mind
you. I am just saying that I supect Marx was well intentioned, as are
many political ideologists before their words are twisted by the ill
willed or simply the self serving.
Okie
asimm...@yahoo.com
> So it can be seen that this applies to the Kafir leaders of the Kafir world
> like Bush, Blair etc.
>
> Since Imaan is in the heart and none knows the heart of another except Allah
> himself. Interms of Dhulm and Fisq, this is were the majority of the
> "Muslim Leaders" fall.
1. The guise as a Muslim propaganda artist is quite intriguing.
2. A Kafir is one who knowingly rejects the truth. A non-Muslim may
not be a kaffir, furthermore the only time a person can ever be
declared kaffir is through the revelation of God Almighty. This
happens only during the period of Messengers (AS), where the judgement
of nations occur in this very life. "We do not destroy a nation until
we send to them a Messenger." Thus, only one time in the Quran are
the people ever declared DIRECTLY "O Kafiroon".
3. The very verses being referred to use the words "Lum". In Arabic,
this does not only imply a negative, but deals with a forceful
negation. Thus, as is clear, the verses not only refer to a weakness
in a person's ability to rule by God's command, but they refer to a
forceful and continual rejection on a person's part to believe and
submit to the religion of God knowing full well it is the truth. It
was the Khawaarij that intepreted the verse totally incorrect, and
said whomever sins is included in this verse. Not a single Muslim
jurist agreed with them and the Khawaarij intepretation is absolutely
baseless.
`Ikramah has said: "The words 'Whoever refuses to decide according to
what God has revealed', imply the person who refuses from his heart
and declares his refusal from his tongue. As for him, whose heart
accepts these directives to be God's decisions and whose tongue
acknowledges their being God's directives, and yet he does things
which are against these directives, he is, in fact, a person who
decides according to God's revelations, but is guilty of ignoring
these directives. It is not necessary to bring such a person under the
scope of this verse".
4. As is clear, the verse does not only deal with a political
situation, but is a general statement regarding any person who adopts
such a mentality when the truth has been presented to him/her, and
they continue in obstinate denial.
5. The Quran, in these verses, draws attention, as Brother Moataz
pointed out, is in reference to the hypocrisy of certain Bani Israel
that became manifest from the outside. Their rejection of truth was
dhulkm, fisq, and ultimately kufr and their displayal of it not only
was known through their defiance of the truth of Muhammad (S), "they
recognize him as they recognize their own sons", but through their own
non-chalant obedience to the Book they proclaimed as being from God
and given to them.
6. Thus and Muslim that tries to justify political rebellion leading
to anarchy and chaos can be dealt with by the government in a manner
that is suitable for criminals.
Joubin
Peace Husayn Al Satter,
Regarding the question of judgement:
[...]
> Ibn Umar related that the Holy Prophet said: "If a Muslim calls another
> kafir, then if he is a kafir let it be so; otherwise, he [the caller] is
> himself a kafir.'' (Abu Dawood)
[...]
> As for the wording of Hukm (7a-kaf-meem) it can be translated as judge as
> well as rule, to me it begs the question what is the difference between
> judging and ruling? Because the same word has been used to denote that
> Allah alone is the ruler/judger. As for your attempt at "shurocracy" in the
> verse:
[...]
> I ask does this abrogate everything that Allah has revealed, i.e. if the
> people decide that they don't want to cut the hand of the thief any longer
> is it applicable when the verse to cut the hand of the theif is definite in
> text and definite in meaning (Qattiy)? You see the whole point of Amr is
> leadership, telling us that the authority (sultan) is in our hands to pick
> our rulers but not the rules that are implaced on us. And the term amir
> al-mumineen, is LEADER of the believers and not RULER of the believers since
> the ruler is Allah alone (ie, the one who gives, abrogates and explains
> rules and the one who sets the standards of right and wrong).
[...]
> Using your definition of amr (ie meaning politics) it would be permissable
> for not to fast since "Those In Authority" (Awli Al-Amr, 4:59) are to obeyed
> and since Ali bin Zeyn Al-Abideyn of Tunisia publically said that we should
> not fast since it is bad for the economy and he himself did not fast in the
> month of Ramadhan.
<Rule of Law - H.K.M.>
In the Name of ALLAH
ArRahman !
ArRahim !
[5.1]
[...]
And as for
The man who steals
and
The woman who steals
Cut off their hands
In retribution of their offence
As an exemplary punishment from ALLAH
And ALLAH IS
Mighty !
Wise !
[5.39]
</Rule of Law>
<Warning by The Messiah regarding passing Judgement - H.K.M.>
In the Name of The-GOD Most Gracious Most Merciful!
Judge not that ye be not judged
For
With what judgment ye judge
Ye shall be judged
&
With what measure ye mete
It shall be measured to you again
</Guidance of The Messiah on Judgement - Matthew 7:1-2>
<Example of exercise of Judgement by The Messiah>
Jesus had gone over to the Mount of Olives
But at daybreak He again went back to the temple
All the people gathered around Him
And He sat down
and taught them
Then the scribes and Pharisees came to Him
bringing along a woman
who had been taken in the act of adultery
And they placed her in their midst
Then they said to Him
Teacher
This woman was caught in the very act of adultery
In the **Law** Moses had told us to stone such women
Now
What do you have to say about it?
(They were trying to trap Him
so that they might find something against Him)
But Jesus
stooped down
and began to write on the ground
with His finger
Since they kept questioning Him
He got up
and said to them
Let him among you who has no sin be the first to cast a stone
at her
Again
He leaned forward
To write on the ground
But they had heard Him
and accused by their own conscience
They went away
one by one
beginning with the oldest
till they all were gone
And Jesus was left alone with the woman
who was still standing before Him
Then Jesus
raised Himself up
and seeing no one there except the woman
He said to her
'Your accusers - where are they?
Did no one condemn you?'
'No one Lord'
She replied
'Then neither will I condemn you'
Said Jesus
'Go
And sin no more'
</Example of the exercise of Judgement by The Messiah - John 8:1-10>
Praise and Glory to ALLAH whose Judgement is True and Just!
HE IS
The Best of Those who Teach
The Best of Those who Know
The punishment for theft is the cutting off of the hand. And there is
no 'measure' proscribed in the Law of ALLAH.
Whether the theft is a dinar, or a silken thread
or the theft of the middle class's 401Ks by the Trillions of
dollars
The punishment for that which is 'judged' as 'theft'
is the cutting off of the hand.
But woe on to he who judges by the strictest of Measures.
"For
With what judgment ye judge
Ye shall be judged
&
With what measure ye mete
It shall be measured to you again"
And compassion and forgiveness is Best.
So woe on to the 'hakim' who has wrapped himself in the mantle of
(self)righteousness and judges harshly the poor the needy the
desperate.
For if he shall pass judgement on the cutting off of the hand of
those
then let him make CERTAIN that he himself is FREE of ALL SIN
And to those who show compassion
My LORD Shall by likewise
And those who are forgiving & merciful
Surely my LORD IS Most Forgiving Most Merciful
And he who passes stern judgement by the _strict_ letter of the Law
Then he too Shall Be Judged By the _strict_ letter of Law
So let the 'judges' beware.
That is the Guidance from my LORD.
And let the hearing ones hear.
<Obligatory Law - H.K.M.>
24: 1.
In the name of ALLAH
the Gracious
the Merciful
24: 2.
This is a Surah
Which WE
Have Revealed
And the ordinances of
which WE
Have Made ___Obligatory___!
and WE
have Revealed therein
__Clear Commandments__
that you may
Take heed!
24: 3.
The adulteress
and the adulterer -
Flog
each one of them
with a hundred stripes
*** And let not pity for the twain take hold of you ***
In executing
The _Judgment_ of ALLAH
If you believe in
ALLAH
and the Last Day
And let a party
of the believers
witness their punishment.
</Obligatory Law - H.K.M - The Glorious Recitation, Sura 24 (The
Light) Signs 1-3>
And woe on to those who presume to be more Just more Forgiving more
Compassinate than ArRahman!
Surely my LORD alone IS
Loving and Merciful
Most Forgiving
For that which HE HIMSelf Has Made _obligatory_ is HIS Judgement and
the execution of HIS Judgement HE HIMSelf Has Made _mandatory_,
Woe on to those who seek to devitate from _the Judgement of ALLAH_.
& Woe on tho those who seek to "reform and update" The Guidance of
ALLAH.
Remember:
ALLAH IS
Most Forgiving
Most Merciful.
This is The Light from your LORD. Your LORD's Mercy IS Upon you, for
HE Has Turned to you -- HE IS All Hearing Fully Aware -- and HE Shall
Protect you.
And have no fear:
For ALLAH Shall _Restore_ HIS Perfect Religion
The Religion of our father Abraham.
(So let the hypocrites and ubelievers perish in their rage.)
& As regarding to the 'leader' who gave 'guidance' to the believers:
"Let us not follow ALLAH's Commandments
For that would hit us in our bottom line"
Woe on to that biped!
Woe on to him!
And O you Believers!
You have already been Given CLEAR Commandments to NEVER follow those
who enjoin the breaking of HIS Laws
Even if they be your dearest Mother and Father!
Do you not have ears?
Have you forgotten how to reason?
And the Believing women are Commanded by Most Just to be 'obedient'.
But as no Believing woman sh(/w)ould obey
her husband's order to commit sin
So too no Believer should follow
the sinful commands of an erring 'leader'.
<Q>
O ye who believe !
Remember
ALLAH
much!
And Glorify
HIM
Morning and evening
HE it IS Who Sends down HIS Blessing on you
And HIS angels pray for you
That HE may Bring you forth
From all kinds of darkness
Into Light
And HE IS Most Merciful to the Believers!
</Q>
So Praise be to ALLAH
The LORD of The Realms.
Peace.
Moataz H. Emam
> Moataz, I have tremendous respect for you, so please read this with an open
> mind.
Thanks for the first, and I will try for the second.
> On the authority of Abu Sa`id (radhiallahu `anhu) that the Prophet
> sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam said, "Whoever sees something evil should
> change it with his hand. If he cannot, then with his tongue; and if he
> cannot do even that, then in his heart. That is the weakest degree of
> faith." (Muslim)
Please provide the numbers. I have searched for this Hadith high and low
and have failed to find it anywhere. The numbers would be appreciated.
> any state through methods of terrorrism etc, they are categorizing the
> different people who do not rule by what Allah has revealed i.e. the
> Shariah.
I am sorry. You are overinterpretting, following the standard Fiqh
approach.
I read the verses, their context and their reasons of revelation and I
see NOTHING of what you say here in them. Instead of referring to Fiqh,
refer to the original and then tell me again.
> Kufr, it is far from any believer to call another believer a Kafir as stated
> in the following hadith:
Thank you, but that is exactly what people do.
> Ibn Umar related that the Holy Prophet said: "If a Muslim calls another
> kafir, then if he is a kafir let it be so; otherwise, he [the caller] is
> himself a kafir.'' (Abu Dawood)
>
> So it can be seen that this applies to the Kafir leaders of the Kafir world
> like Bush, Blair etc.
Well, how do you know they are Kafir? A Kafir is someone who KNOWINGLY
denies the truth of God, how do you know this applies to anyone? "Hall
shaqaqtta qalboh?"
> kafiroon, dhalimoon and fasiqoon. Here we have to decide what is meant by
> "Anzal Allah" is the torah or injeel, "Anzal Allah" anymore? Since the Quran
> came it abrogated them and anyone who wishes to rule other then the
No, again you are taking the verses out of context. The verses address
the Jews and Christians who do not apply God's laws as explained in
THEIR books. There is nothing in the verses that hints at extending the
rulings to the Quran and Muslims. But even if this were true, what is it
that God has revealed? The Quran! Does it define how a Muslim state
should be like? Does it give us the right to kill a ruler because he
does not rule by the Quran (in our definition of how to rule by the
Quran)? This would be spreading Fasad fee al ard, which the Quran
forbids.
Look, to make a long story short: You are looking at the standard Fiqhi
ideas and deriving conclusions from them. These ideas are indeed based
on the Quran, but they are based on someone else's understanding of the
Quran. I look at the Quran and Sunnah directly and do not see these
ideas as clear as Fiqh writers would have us believe. Address the
verses, their context and their reasons of revelation and THEN tell me
how you can make more of them than they already say?
I have always claimed the following:
1) The Quran contains NO verses on how to rule in a political sense.
There is no system of government.
2) What we today call Shari'ah is nothing other the Fiqhi opinions of
scholars, not directly from the Quran, but from their understanding of
it. Claiming that their opinions, written in the early centuries of
Islam, applies to all times and situations is the same as cloaking them
with divine holiness like the Quran. So, for example, it says in Fiqh
books that a true ruler of Muslims must be a desendent of the tribe of
Quraysh. Where in the Quran does it say so? Where in Muttawatter Hadith
does it say so? It says in Fiqh that the penalty of Zena is death by
stoning. Where in the Quran does it say so? Where in Muttawatter Hadith
does it say so? In fact, these ideas are in frequent contradiction to
the Quran itself, which sets the Limit on Zenna by 100 lashes.
Let us go back to the origins and see what they say, instead of wasting
time on reinterpreting the opinions of people who died a thousand years
ago. I recall it was Omar Ibn AlKhattab who advised one of his governors
to rule using his conscience since "those who know in what the Quran was
revealed are long gone", rather than over interpret the text.
I agree with much of what you wrote, but I disagree with over
interpretation and taking divine rulings from the opinions of fallible
humans.
> As for the wording of Hukm (7a-kaf-meem) it can be translated as judge as
> well as rule, to me it begs the question what is the difference between
No, judging is not the same as political ruling. Please show a single
Quranic verse that uses "hukm" to mean political rule. I know of none.
Verses such as "wa in hakkamtum beyna al nass fahkomo bel'dl" mean
judgment in a legal sense and "wa ateynaho al hokm sabeyan" of Jesus
means wisdom, since Jesus never ruled or judged anyone. The verses (5:
44, 45, 47) obviously use "hokm" in a legal sense, specially when you
look at the context of the historical revelation I provided. There is no
ambiguity.
> Using your definition of amr (ie meaning politics) it would be permissable
> for not to fast since "Those In Authority" (Awli Al-Amr, 4:59) are to obeyed
> and since Ali bin Zeyn Al-Abideyn of Tunisia publically said that we should
> not fast since it is bad for the economy and he himself did not fast in the
> month of Ramadhan.
No sir, this is different. In my view, Zeyn Al-Abideyn was either:
1) Making a mistake, in which case his people should remove him. Recall
AbuBakr's famous speech at Saqifah Bani Sa'da where he used the spirit
of the Quran to mean if he made a mistake he should be removed.
2) Was making a suggestion, not a political command, from his
understanding of the lesser of two evils. In which case, his people are
free not to do it. Obeying those in Authority means respecting the laws
of the land, not some suggestion he came up with. Awli-Al-Amr means
exactly that, those denote with POLITICAL rule. Thanks for providing an
example of the use of the word Amr in the Quran. As you see, the word
Hakim was not used.
> Min Akhook Fi Islam.
> Allahu Alem.
God bless us if we are wrong and bless us if we are right.
--
Moataz H. Emam
Zuiko Azumazi
"Okie" <Okie...@AOL.com> wrote in message
news:a388fbdf.03031...@posting.google.com...
> It is true of any written or spoken words that a man may twist them to
> suit his ends.
Comment:-
Yes, you're quite correct, all religions, including Islam, are infected with
verbal and written 'obesity', it's called 'politics' and the art of
'sophistry', the meat and gravy in the daily grind of life. Maybe we should
all become 'political' vegetarians, it's certainly a lot healthier!
Peace
--
Zuiko Azumazi.
Glorfindel
> Glorfindel wrote:
> > Moataz, I have tremendous respect for you, so please read this with an
open
> > mind.
>
> Thanks for the first, and I will try for the second.
>
Well you tried (",)
> > On the authority of Abu Sa`id (radhiallahu `anhu) that the Prophet
> > sallallahu `alayhi wa sallam said, "Whoever sees something evil should
> > change it with his hand. If he cannot, then with his tongue; and if he
> > cannot do even that, then in his heart. That is the weakest degree of
> > faith." (Muslim)
>
> Please provide the numbers. I have searched for this Hadith high and low
> and have failed to find it anywhere. The numbers would be appreciated.
>
Book of Faith, number 80, the preceeding Hadith is narrated on the Authority
of Tariq bin Shihab (rah) and is a different chain but includes Abu Sa'id
(ra)
> > any state through methods of terrorrism etc, they are categorizing the
> > different people who do not rule by what Allah has revealed i.e. the
> > Shariah.
>
> I am sorry. You are overinterpretting, following the standard Fiqh
> approach.
> I read the verses, their context and their reasons of revelation and I
> see NOTHING of what you say here in them. Instead of referring to Fiqh,
> refer to the original and then tell me again.
>
> > Kufr, it is far from any believer to call another believer a Kafir as
stated
> > in the following hadith:
>
> Thank you, but that is exactly what people do.
>
> > Ibn Umar related that the Holy Prophet said: "If a Muslim calls another
> > kafir, then if he is a kafir let it be so; otherwise, he [the caller] is
> > himself a kafir.'' (Abu Dawood)
> >
Whether people follow it or not, you have no argument to say anything
against them since you rejected ALL single narrated hadith as attested
further down in your post. Which is curious because the verses you have put
in historical context would mean nothing since the context of the verses are
from the historians who got there evidences formt he Ahadith, including the
single narrated ones!
> > So it can be seen that this applies to the Kafir leaders of the Kafir
world
> > like Bush, Blair etc.
>
> Well, how do you know they are Kafir? A Kafir is someone who KNOWINGLY
> denies the truth of God, how do you know this applies to anyone? "Hall
> shaqaqtta qalboh?"
Obviously I do not know what is in their hearts, but I know they don't
follow Muhammed (saw) hence they are disbelievers/Kafirron. Read Surah
Al-Kafiroon, and pay particular attention to the 2nd and 3rd verses:
"I worship not that which ye worship.
Nor will ye worship that which I worship" (109:2,3)
Can you honestly tell me that these people worship Allah? If this were true,
then the you couldn't call anyone a Kafir, since you do not know what anyone
believes, but when someone says "I believe such and such" it puts them in a
category, next thing you will tell me that Jews and Christians are
Muslims?!?!
As for saying "KNOWINGLY denies the truth of God" well these men are very
well-read and are cultured enough (well perhaps not George Bush) to know
what Islam is and what it is not. The very fact that people like Hamza
Yusaf (Allah Yehdeehu) sit with (he is a special advisor to Bush) him and
talk to him, puts the matter even clearly, they know what Islam is and they
reject it hence they are Kafir. Another thing which falls out of your
argument is that with this kind of thinking you couldn't tell if anyone is
Muslim or Kafir, you are basically assuming everyone belongs to one of the
categories exclusively!
> > kafiroon, dhalimoon and fasiqoon. Here we have to decide what is meant
by
> > "Anzal Allah" is the torah or injeel, "Anzal Allah" anymore? Since the
Quran
> > came it abrogated them and anyone who wishes to rule other then the
>
> No, again you are taking the verses out of context. The verses address
> the Jews and Christians who do not apply God's laws as explained in
> THEIR books. There is nothing in the verses that hints at extending the
> rulings to the Quran and Muslims. But even if this were true, what is it
> that God has revealed? The Quran! Does it define how a Muslim state
> should be like? Does it give us the right to kill a ruler because he
> does not rule by the Quran (in our definition of how to rule by the
> Quran)? This would be spreading Fasad fee al ard, which the Quran
> forbids.
>
Ok lets look at the verses and see what they say. Al-Qurtubi, says this is
one of the last surahs and the last verse of the Quran is in this surah
(5:3). The actual wording is as follows:
"Wa Malam Ya7kum Bima^ Anzal Allah Fa-Ula'ka Hum Al-Kafiroon", in verses 45
and 47 the word Al-Kafiroon is substituted with Al-Dhalimoon and Al-Fasiqoon
respectively. The words Wa Malam (compound of Min and Lam) don't restrict
the verese to Jews and Christians, and are applicable to anyone and
everyone, and I have to ask, how are the Jews and Christains going to
Judge/rule by what Allah has revealed when they don't know what parts of
their books are revelation and which bits are "by the hands of scribes and
rabbis and priests"? If your contention is that they shuld rule by the
Quran, then how will they rule by the Quran if they don't belive in it...and
if they believe in it they are Muslims, hence it applies to Muslims!
The Quran doesn't define as Islamic state, but looking at the Islamic state
of Madinah you can deduce what is and isn't an Islamic state. Through the
manner in which it was governed, etc. Also the Sunnah tells us more
explicitly when a specific rule applies and where it doesn't etc...
Killing the ruler, extends only to the ruler who doesn't leave his post when
the people rebel, the Prophet (saw) said "follow the amirs as long as they
establish Salat" the terms "Iqam as-Salat" has been translated by many
scholars to mean the "entirety of Islam - laws, social system etc" so it is
not just about praying in the mosque oblivious to the ills of other around
us. So when we call for the various leaders of the Muslim leaders to rule
by Shariah and they don't they are libel to be removed.
Does the Quran define what an Islamic state should be like? Ofcourse it
does, when it says "cut the had of the thief" it doesn't say it idly, it
says it so that we implement it.
> Look, to make a long story short: You are looking at the standard Fiqhi
> ideas and deriving conclusions from them. These ideas are indeed based
> on the Quran, but they are based on someone else's understanding of the
> Quran. I look at the Quran and Sunnah directly and do not see these
> ideas as clear as Fiqh writers would have us believe. Address the
> verses, their context and their reasons of revelation and THEN tell me
> how you can make more of them than they already say?
>
> I have always claimed the following:
>
> 1) The Quran contains NO verses on how to rule in a political sense.
> There is no system of government.
>
> 2) What we today call Shari'ah is nothing other the Fiqhi opinions of
> scholars, not directly from the Quran, but from their understanding of
> it. Claiming that their opinions, written in the early centuries of
> Islam, applies to all times and situations is the same as cloaking them
> with divine holiness like the Quran. So, for example, it says in Fiqh
> books that a true ruler of Muslims must be a desendent of the tribe of
> Quraysh. Where in the Quran does it say so? Where in Muttawatter Hadith
> does it say so? It says in Fiqh that the penalty of Zena is death by
> stoning. Where in the Quran does it say so? Where in Muttawatter Hadith
> does it say so? In fact, these ideas are in frequent contradiction to
> the Quran itself, which sets the Limit on Zenna by 100 lashes.
So what would you have us do? See how the west rules and emulate them didn't
Rasoolulah say "those who imitate the Kaffir are the same as them", but I
suppose you will disregard it since it is single narrated.
Mutawatir hadith are used to establish belief specifically, so when
Rasoolullah says "do not lie reagrding me" it is a matter of belief so we
don't lie and we believe these to be his words. The ruler being a
descendant of Quraish is a preferential thing, it is not something which is
a neccesity liek the Ruler being Muslim, sane etc...As for the stoning with
regards to Zina, it is for the married people and the Fact that Umar bin
Al-khattab (ra) did it and the companions didn't object indicates to us that
it is evidence of something they heard from the Prophet (saw) but it was not
conveyed to us via the hadith books. The charge would be that they applied
a ruling which was against Islam and so collectively they had disobeyed the
Prophet (saw) and therefore Allah, and so everything that we have between
our hands regarding Islam is doubtful even the Quran! Because it was these
very same people who collected it and compiled it and also the Hadiths
(mutawatir as well) are narrated via them!
> Let us go back to the origins and see what they say, instead of wasting
> time on reinterpreting the opinions of people who died a thousand years
> ago. I recall it was Omar Ibn AlKhattab who advised one of his governors
> to rule using his conscience since "those who know in what the Quran was
> revealed are long gone", rather than over interpret the text.
>
> I agree with much of what you wrote, but I disagree with over
> interpretation and taking divine rulings from the opinions of fallible
> humans.
In terms of ruling with concious, this is erroneous, it is not conscious as
such but an usul known as Qiyas (analogical deduction)...it was this Qiyas
that the Prophet approved of when Mu'adh ibn Jabal (ra) went to Yemen the
Prophet (saw) asked him how he would rule, he said "the book (ie Quran) the
Sunnah, and my own reasoning"...Imam Ash-Shafi recognised this and wrote
about the sources of religion came primarily from Quran and Sunnah then Ijma
of the companions and Qiyas. These are not opinions, these are rulings
based on evidences from the Sunnah and the other three sources I have
mentioned...if there is anyone who gives rulings other then this then the
verses of 5:44, 5:45 and 5:47 would apply to them, and there are many people
who do that including our leaders. The prophet (saw) is reported to have
said that "This ummah will remain strong as long as tow groups of people are
of the Sadiqoon - the leaders and the scholars".
> > As for the wording of Hukm (7a-kaf-meem) it can be translated as judge
as
> > well as rule, to me it begs the question what is the difference between
>
> No, judging is not the same as political ruling. Please show a single
> Quranic verse that uses "hukm" to mean political rule. I know of none.
> Verses such as "wa in hakkamtum beyna al nass fahkomo bel'dl" mean
> judgment in a legal sense and "wa ateynaho al hokm sabeyan" of Jesus
> means wisdom, since Jesus never ruled or judged anyone. The verses (5:
> 44, 45, 47) obviously use "hokm" in a legal sense, specially when you
> look at the context of the historical revelation I provided. There is no
> ambiguity.
And is not the legal sense incoporated in the political sense? How is
someone going to apply a Shariah ruling without the political infrastructure
to enforce it. We all know that cutting the hand of the thief is Qattiy but
who is going to enforce it? Rasoolullah (saw) is reported to having said
"the ties of faith will come undone one by one, the first will be ruling and
the last the prayer"
Jesus did not rule or judge? Come on I am sure it was him who said to the
Rabbis and Scribes "...Now have I come to you with Wisdom, and in order to
make clear to you some of the (points) on which ye dispute: therefore fear
Allah and obey me" (43:63), if that is not judging them I don't what is!
If you look to what Abu Bakr (ra) said he was help him and if he committed
somethign which went against Islam that they should remove him, the very
fact that he upheld the state of Islam just as the pophet had done, shows
clearly that is what we need! He fought Jihad, killed those who refused to
pay Zakat, he implemented the Shariah in its entireity that is why the
people didn't remove him!
That is like saying even someone doesn't believe in the quran being
Kalimullah he is still Muslim! Fasting is proscribed for us, and there is no
excuse for telling anyone not to fast, and he has no excuse! Amr is
translated as meaning "authority" in the verse above not political rule,
please explain to me the difference between a legal ruling and a political
ruling? There is none, if a Muslim politician says "fight the disbelievers
as Allah says in the Quran" and a Qadi says the same thing, whats the
difference?
Thanks for taking the time to read this.
Min Akhook Fi Islam.
Moataz H. Emam
> Book of Faith, number 80, the preceeding Hadith is narrated on the Authority
> of Tariq bin Shihab (rah) and is a different chain but includes Abu Sa'id
> (ra)
Thank you. I found it. My argument still stands, because the context and
wording of the Hadith you refer to are different than the one I refer to
which has no context and is generalized to all things. But thanks
anyway.
> "I worship not that which ye worship.
> Nor will ye worship that which I worship" (109:2,3)
Which does not give me the right to brand anyone by anything. When
someone declares that they do not worship the One God, then the above
verses tells me to compromise with them: I grant you your right to
worship what you want as I have the right to worship what I want, i.e.
what the West today calls freedom of religion. No judgment of who is
kafir or who will be judged what in the eyes of God. This is a subtle
point, I agree, and not too different from yours, but important
nonetheless.
> Can you honestly tell me that these people worship Allah? If this were true,
No, but can you honestly tell me that you and I worship the same God
exactly? Does your view or personal image of Him exactly match mine? I
don't think so. The point is: pass no judgments, this is not our right,
but rather God's.
> category, next thing you will tell me that Jews and Christians are
> Muslims?!?!
>From a certain basic of believing in the One God who sent Moses and
Jesus, they probably are. But that is besides the point. Again, I have
no right to make such decisions. I have met many Jews and Christians
whose personal views and beliefs are not at all different from mine. I
have even met Christians who do not believe in the trinity. They are one
step away, belief in Mohammed, of pronouncing the shahada. I did not
know what was in their hearts before they told me, hence I cannot pass
judgment, period.
> As for saying "KNOWINGLY denies the truth of God" well these men are very
> well-read and are cultured enough (well perhaps not George Bush) to know
Again, "hall shaqaqta qalboh"? No judgment. Not our right. I respect
your view, but I believe that such categorizations are the beginings and
roots of racism and self superiority.
> Muslim or Kafir, you are basically assuming everyone belongs to one of the
> categories exclusively!
No, what I do is make no categories or try not to. If I started to do
so, then I will probably have to look at Muslims and classify them in a
1000 different ways.
> So what would you have us do? See how the west rules and emulate them didn't
> Rasoolulah say "those who imitate the Kaffir are the same as them", but I
Define "Kaffir" and define what exactly is being imitated. Give me the
context and reason for his saying so. Generalizing the meaning ('moom
allafz) is a curse that we Muslims have been plagued with for so long.
> suppose you will disregard it since it is single narrated.
No, but I will look at its context and take it under advisement only.
Anyway, I have made clear my views on Hadith in another post. They are
based on scholarly views I have looked at and was convinced by.
> conveyed to us via the hadith books. The charge would be that they applied
The Quran is very clear about the Zena issue. Any other story about Omar
or otherwise must be wrong because the Quran says so. I have read the
arguments of adultry versus fornication many times before and was not
convinced.
> our hands regarding Islam is doubtful even the Quran!
No, because the Quran is the ONLY source that God Himself promised to
protect from corruption. No other source of Islam carries the same
label.
> In terms of ruling with concious, this is erroneous, it is not conscious as
> such but an usul known as Qiyas (analogical deduction)...it was this Qiyas
My friend, you keep repeating the standard arguments which all of us
read in Fiqhi books, over and over again. Look at the sources of these
arguments, look at the Quran, Hadiths, reasons of revelation. Start
fresh and clear your mind of the biases installed in it by years of
listening to scholarly dogma and being told "la togadel fa inna
almogadalla tareeq alshaitan" or something similar.
> And is not the legal sense incoporated in the political sense? How is
The difference between "alqadaa" and "government system and politics"?
C'mon now.
> Jesus did not rule or judge? Come on I am sure it was him who said to the
> Rabbis and Scribes "...Now have I come to you with Wisdom, and in order to
> make clear to you some of the (points) on which ye dispute: therefore fear
> Allah and obey me" (43:63), if that is not judging them I don't what is!
Jesus was not the POLITICAL ruler of anyone, neither was he appointed a
judge who sentenced people and applied laws of the land. This is very
clear in the Quran even in the verse you quote, it is also supported by
the Bible.
> ruling? There is none, if a Muslim politician says "fight the disbelievers
> as Allah says in the Quran" and a Qadi says the same thing, whats the
> difference?
Political system: The system of government through which the people are
ruled, example: dictatorships, democracies, republic, monarchy,
parliament etc
Legal System: The system by which the civil and criminal laws of the
land are applied, also arbitration (alfadh beyna alkhossoomat).
If you see no difference between the two, well then there is nothing I
can do about it.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree. I have nothing new to
say on this subject.
--
Moataz H. Emam