Is monarchy accepted in Islam
Nouaman
This question has disturbed me for quite a while now.
Can any one justify the validity of such a system.If Islam does not allow it
how can the so-called government call itself an Islamic state.
I have learned that only a pious,knowlegdeable and a role model can be a
leader.
Any comments!
Nouaman.
Hyder Ali Khan
In the name of Allah(SWT), the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Greetings,
Monarchy is forbidden in Islam, except in the case of a Prophet of
Allah(SWT) or an Imam(AS), in which absolute control lies in the hands of
the divine representative of the Absolute Monarch of this Universe.
The Islamic state is such that the leader of the government has absolute
authority, but it is subject to conditions, whereas if a Prophet or Imam
were to have this authority, due to their infallibility, there is no
question of their ability to be the leader.
I hope this helps! Feel free to reply back if you have further
questions!
May Allah(SWT) guide us all,
Hyder Ali Khan
Fouad Haddad
>This question has disturbed me for quite a while now.
>Can any one justify the validity of such a system.If Islam does not allow it
>how can the so-called government call itself an Islamic state.
Without doubt, monarchy in its best sense is the closest of
governments to the Islamic model.
Abu Hammad
Faruq abd ul-Rafi
>Without doubt, monarchy in its best sense is the closest of
>governments to the Islamic model.
It is hightly implausible that there is a single Islamic model of
government. The Prohpet, upon whom be peace and Allah's blessings, very
wisely left it up to Muslims in each generation to develop whatever forms
of government are best suited to the needs of their communities. While some
forms of government may be more Islamic than others, since the Qur'an
requires of Muslims that we conduct our affairs through mutual consultation,
it is hard to see how monarchy could be the ideal.
_____
Faruq abd ul-Rafi (R. A. Nelson)
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Department of Philosophy
E-mail: fa...@uiuc.edu, fa...@prairienet.org
Craig Paul
In article <4vkvf1$e...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, Hyder Ali Khan <hkh...@uic.edu> writes:
> In the name of Allah(SWT), the Beneficent, the Merciful.
>
> Greetings,
>
> Monarchy is forbidden in Islam, except in the case of a Prophet of
> Allah(SWT) or an Imam(AS),
There is no Qur'anic restriction regarding a monarch ruling. If one
looks through the history of Muslim countries one will see monarchs
ruling.
History is rife with various ahadith and sect clashes regarding a
monarch's "right" to rule.
Being an Imam for an entire country implies being available at the
masjid (mosque) for consultation by the people, as the Prophet (saws)
was available to his followers. This task, in many countries, has been
replaced by local imams. The imams cannot often take the redress/questions of
their congregations to the ruler. The ruler, whether he claims to be a
descendant of the Prophet's (saws) family, or not, may or may not,
claim to be a "leader of the faithful" and therefore have religious
authority. If he can claim descent from the Prophet's (saws) family
then, according to some religious schools, he can claim to be a
"leader of the faithful" and have religious authority. Otherwise that
authority lies with the Caliph.
Note: The Prophet (saws) was corrected in the Qur'an. To claim that
any imam does not need correction implies that the imam is more
correct than the Prophet. Can that really be claimed?
Y Rapido
Fouad Haddad wrote:
> Without doubt, monarchy in its best sense is the closest of
> governments to the Islamic model.
>
rap: Now we see where these Sufi foundations get their money from!
Monarchy is a totally anti-islamic government. God wanted Ummah
to elect its leaders by their wisdom, virtues, islamic guidance of
all sorts, etc. -- not by birth. Dynasty/Monarcy is based on
inheritance of total despotic rule by the fact that a son gets to
be King after his father. That can not lead to just government
EVER.
The history of Prophet Muhammed tells us that he wanted the best
men to inherit him and not his son (he lost his sons) or someone
elses's son.
We can look no further than at "Saudi" Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan,
etc. etc. to see how disastrous effect those Monarchies have
on Ummah and people they rule. They are nothing but Quraishi-type
anti-islamic Oligarchy. Monarchy is anti-islamic type of government.
Do not listen to advice from people who promote Monarchy !
Fouad Haddad
In article <4vo7k6$n...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> fa...@students.uiuc.edu
(Faruq abd ul-Rafi) writes:
While some
>forms of government may be more Islamic than others, since the Qur'an
>requires of Muslims that we conduct our affairs through mutual consultation,
>it is hard to see how monarchy could be the ideal.
By elimination.
Abu Hammad
AbdulraHman Lomax
as-salamu 'alaykum.
fha...@unix.asb.com (Fouad Haddad) wrote:
>Without doubt, monarchy in its best sense is the closest of
>governments to the Islamic model.
With the caveat "in its best sense," this is true. However, monarchy
for us generally implies a hereditary position. Since I do not think
that my brother is Shi'a, I find his statement problematic. However,
if I discard the hereditary part, his point is certainly arguable.
(And, in fact, the Shi'a position is also arguable.)
Nevertheless, there are actually several Islamic models. The Prophet
was sovereign, SAS, and he was chosen by Allah. So that is one Sunna;
one which is not necessarily available for imitation.
So we would then look to the Sunna of the Companions. The first
khulafa resemble monarchs, but the way in which they were chosen
(actually, the four ways) differs. Nearly all contemporary monarchs
inherited their positions; but there are other autocratic leaders who
obtained their positions by force. Neither of these methods are Sunna.
I would welcome further discussion of this question; the issues are
many:
How would a monarch be chosen?
Would there be any constitutional restraints on the monarch?
How would succession be determined?
What would be the authority of the monarch?
Are there other alternatives which are also Sunna?
My own intuition is that we need to develop leaders of communities,
leaders chosen by consensus within those communities, and who are
servants of the consensus at the same time as they are leaders of the
community. These communities would not necessarily be geographically
defined, and they would govern, within the sphere of their contract,
with the consent of the governed.
To be more explicit, there would be bay'a (promise, contract) and a
duty to obey. The followers who choose a leader would be obligated to
follow that leader; but also the leader would be obligated to follow
the consensus of the community. If a leader violated that contract,
the followers would be released from their promise to the leader, but
would remain obligated to follow the consensus of the community.
Because such communities would not comprise the whole Muslim
community, I suspect, leaving a community would not be considered
leaving Islam. If one believed that the leader of one's community was
in violation of the contract, and was unable to obtain satisfaction
and resolution within the community, it would be one's right to notify
the community that, for cause, one considered the bay'a no longer
valid.
It would be very interesting to see what would happen within the
American political system, for example, if there were several hundred
thousand people who would truly vote as a block. I guarantee you that
the politicians would sit up and take notice. Even smaller numbers
would have a major effect.
There is potential within the Sunna for the reestablishment of this
kind of khalifate. But it is new territory. Islamic law was worked out
with the assumption that the sovereignty of the Islamic ruler was
absolute; there is little fiqh on the position of muslim communities
within a larger non-muslim state. (The enemies of Islam take this to
mean that Islam is hostile to the concept of a pluralist state; but it
is more a consequence of history than of essence. If a non-muslim
state allows the muslims to practice their religion, it is lawful for
muslims to live in peace within it, and the verses about fighting
until the religion is for Allah alone are only triggered when there is
oppression similar to the oppression of the Makkans of the muslims.
May Allah aid the Chechens in their struggle.)
AbdulraHman Lomax
mar...@gate.ioa.com
P.O. Box 25133
Asheville, NC 28813
AbdulraHman Lomax
as-salamu 'alaykum.
Y Rapido <rap...@eskimo.com> wrote:
>Fouad Haddad wrote:
>> Without doubt, monarchy in its best sense is the closest of
>> governments to the Islamic model.
>rap: Now we see where these Sufi foundations get their money from!
As usual, off-the-wall comments by Y Rapido. There is one monarchy
that he might be thinking of, and it is thoroughly hostile to the
Sufis.
>Monarchy is a totally anti-islamic government. God wanted Ummah
>to elect its leaders by their wisdom, virtues, islamic guidance of
>all sorts, etc. -- not by birth. Dynasty/Monarcy is based on
>inheritance of total despotic rule by the fact that a son gets to
>be King after his father. That can not lead to just government
>EVER.
It's like we are playing this game of baseball, and a stranger appears
and joins our game. Then he grabs the ball, holds it close to his
body, and runs for the end of the field, exclaiming "I won!"
Rapido has basically taken what Br. Haddad wrote, given it the most
hostile and offensive interpretation possible, and then argued against
that interpretation. Haddad did not mention anything about inheritance
of rule, and if you look up "monarchy" in the dictionary, you will not
find inheritance mentioned. Monarchy means rule by a person; it is
quite possible to have an elected king. In other words, there is
dynastic monarchy and non-dynastic monarchy. When Haddad mentioned the
"best sense," I am fairly sure he was referring to the sense in which
the first four khalifs were monarchs; and they did not inherit their
positions, and, with the possible exception of 'Ali, RA, they did not
pass their positions on to their children.
This style of debate does not demonstrate intelligence and
discrimination; rather it is the mark of a seriously disturbed
personality, one which continues to argue even when his perceived foe
has said something that, rightfully, he ought to agree with.
>The history of Prophet Muhammed tells us that he wanted the best
>men to inherit him and not his son (he lost his sons) or someone
>elses's son.
History? Uh, where is that "history?" Is it in the Qur'an? We do know
that Ibrahim, AS, asked Allah that his descendants inherit the
imamate. It was not Abraham who restricted this; but, in fact, among
the children of Abraham the imamate was passed on, at least for a
time. Does Rapido need Qur'anic citations?
>We can look no further than at "Saudi" Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan,
>etc. etc. to see how disastrous effect those Monarchies have
>on Ummah and people they rule. They are nothing but Quraishi-type
>anti-islamic Oligarchy.
Perhaps, but I do not see that any other "Islamic" country is better
off than the countries mentioned. I have visited only one Islamic
country, Morocco. It is a dynastic monarchy. While it is a repressive
dictatorship, the repression is not overbearing, apparently, and it
could be argued that the monarchy there is better than its most likely
replacement, which would probably be a military dictatorship (in the
guise of a popular revolution).
I too find dynastic monarchies offensive. The problem is finding
something better, and a dynastic monarchy is better than chaos (and
this is, essentially, as I understand, the position of the scholars).
But there is a saying: the good is the enemy of the best. What is the
best?
Perhaps now we have the opportunity, living with a certain kind of
freedom, to explore alternatives to the traditional solutions. The
first four khulafa were selected each in a different way; and it is
rare that their outer successors were selected in any one of these
ways, except possibly by selection of the previous khalif.
(And it could be argued that such a selection was of the person best
qualified in the community, and that it is very, very unlikely that
this would be the son of the previous khalif; which is rebuttable
prima facie evidence that inheritance of the khalifate is not a
following of the sunna of a khalif selecting his successor.)
Rapido is a Qur'an-only fanatic. So let us see what he can derive from
the Qur'an regarding the ideal form of government for Muslims. Will he
truly review all that is in the Qur'an on this subject? I am not
holding my breath.
Monarchy is anti-islamic type of government.
>Do not listen to advice from people who promote Monarchy !
Hey, why listen to anyone? It might disturb our preconceptions.
"Do not listen" is the advice of the kafiruwn (the veiled, the
unbelievers), the dalliyn (the astray), the mukadhdhibiyn (the criers
of 'lies'). "Listen" is the command of Allah, and the response of the
believers is "We hear and we obey." This does not mean that they obey
just anything that anyone says to them, but that they listen for the
guidance of Allah in all that is said to them, and when they hear it,
they follow it. These are the people who are on guidance, and for them
is a promise of paradise and the pleasure of Allah.
I once heard a famous religious leader say "All knowledge comes
through hearing." Prize of the month goes to the one who can guess the
name of this leader, or the name of the group which he founded. Please
do not answer within this thread, however, where it would be seriously
off-topic; answer if you care, by e-mail to me.
AbdulraHman Lomax
as-salamu 'alaykum.
fa...@students.uiuc.edu (Faruq abd ul-Rafi) wrote:
>It is hightly implausible that there is a single Islamic model of
>government. The Prohpet, upon whom be peace and Allah's blessings, very
>wisely left it up to Muslims in each generation to develop whatever forms
>of government are best suited to the needs of their communities. While some
>forms of government may be more Islamic than others, since the Qur'an
>requires of Muslims that we conduct our affairs through mutual consultation,
>it is hard to see how monarchy could be the ideal.
Brother Faruq's comments, as usual are cogent and to-the-point.
However, the Quranic verse cited can be understood as requiring the
head of state to consult the citizens; it is not necessarily contrary
to monarchy. It is, in fact, difficult to distinguish in practice
between a monarchy and a strong presidency. One could even claim a
president is a monarch with, perhaps, a limited term and circumscribed
authority. There is no hard-and-fast division.
Because monarchy has been so often abused, we tend to associate it
with an arbitrary, tyrannical rule. But some of the Prophets of Israel
were monarchs, and it could well be argued that our Prophet was also
one. We should also note that the history of presidencies, if one
considers all countries which have tried the experience, is also
replete with abuses and oppressive rule.
There is no Qur'anic example of a democracy. There is the seed of
democracy in the verse of shura, and, from it, we may infer that
democracy is lawful (and, in at least some form, is obligatory; in
other words, a government which does not, at least, consult, is
contrary to the divine command). But the verses that come to mind on
this point are the verses of Baqara on the establishment of Saul as
King. It is clear that this monarchy, at least, was ordained by Allah;
the verses are explicit.
It is interesting that this establishment was apparently in response
to the demand of the leaders of the people for a king so that they
could fight against oppression; and this demand is not viewed with
unqualified approval. Further, when Saul was ordained as King, they
grumbled that he was not the best choice. And when he led them in
combat against Goliath and his armies, they did not obey him, except a
few.
These stories are recited to us so that we may learn from them, not so
that we may look with contempt upon "those people." These stories
describe us, as human beings. Do we want leaders?
It is possible to conceive of community-based leadership, distinct
from the kingship model. But the advantage of the kingship model is
that there is a focus of responsibility; if the king is not
responsible, or at least someone in his place, he is soon replaced. A
community-based model requires active participation by many. It
remains to be seen whether or not it is actually possible among
Muslims.
"We could have made of you one people, but you will not agree."
Fouad Haddad
A follow-up.
In article <4vo7k6$n...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu> fa...@students.uiuc.edu
(Faruq abd ul-Rafi) writes:
>While some
>>forms of government may be more Islamic than others, since the Qur'an
>>requires of Muslims that we conduct our affairs through mutual consultation,
>>it is hard to see how monarchy could be the ideal.
I wrote:
>By elimination.
I was asked to clarify. I mean "by elimination" of other types of government,
most especially this free-for-all, amoral vacuum masquerading as a
"freedom of religion" government called democracy which is a high-sounding
term for the rejection of any and all divine Law and which, as even the
early Greeks pointed out, is a worse tyranny than tyranny itself.
The Hadith of the Prophet concerning the hierarchy of governments is explicit
on the place of monarchy as second only to khilafa:
After me there will come:
1. the well-guided Caliphs (the first Four),
2. then the Umara' or Emirs (the Umayyads and Abbasids),
3. then the Kings (the Ottomans),
4. then the tyrants (the so-called "republics" regardless of their
proximity or farness to democracy, from Turkey to Libya, Egypt, Iraq etc.
as well as the regimes masquerading as Islamic but which are in fact types of
oligarchies such as the Sa`ud regime, or parliamentary adaptations foreign to
Islam, such as Iran).
Numbers 2 and 3 are types of monarchy. As for government by the "demos"
or mass of the people through universal representation, it is not
recognized by Islam. Proper government is by the elite of the People --
variously called the People of Consultation (ahl al-shura) or the People of
Doing and Undoing (ahl al-`aqd wa al-hall) -- headed by a single leader
who has the last word in decision-making though not infallible.
Abu Hammad
Faruq abd ul-Rafi
I wrote:
>>While some
>>forms of government may be more Islamic than others, since the Qur'an
>>requires of Muslims that we conduct our affairs through mutual consultation,
>>it is hard to see how monarchy could be the ideal.
To which fha...@unix.asb.com (Fouad Haddad) replied:
>By elimination.
By elimination of what? Since monarchy is the least likely to involve
mutual consultation, monarchy is the least likely to meet this Quranic
requirement. And we see this in our history, in which Muslim monarchs have
consistently ignored the requirement, or at best treated it like mere
advice.
Faruq abd ul-Rafi
>The first
>khulafa resemble monarchs, but the way in which they were chosen
>(actually, the four ways) differs.
It seems to me that the rule of the first khalif is better described as
aristocracy-- in the original, literal sense of "rule by the best".
Even though there was ostensibly a single ruler, we find that decisions
were really made more by consensus of the major Companions of the Prophet.
Each successive khalif, however, became more monarchical.
Asad Ali Zaidi
Salaam,
The Umayyads were deviant in that they made the caliphate a kingship.
Everything I have read would suggest that monarchy is wrong/unacceptable.
Wassalam,
Asad
_____________________
zai...@andrew.cmu.edu
Asad Ali Zaidi
School of Computer Science
Carnegie Mellon University
*
* *
* *
* Carnegie
* Mellon*
* *
* *
* *
*
Hyder Ali Khan
In the name of Allah(SWT), the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Greetings,
On 25 Aug 1996, Craig Paul wrote:
> Note: The Prophet (saws) was corrected in the Qur'an. To claim that
> any imam does not need correction implies that the imam is more
> correct than the Prophet. Can that really be claimed?
The Holy Prophet(SAW) was never corrected in the Holy Quran, because he
never committed any sins or any mistakes. For example, it was not the
PROPHET who frowned, but one of the other Muslims who was present with him
at the time of this verse's revelation.
Y Rapido
Asad Ali Zaidi wrote:
>
> Salaam,
>
> The Umayyads were deviant in that they made the caliphate a kingship.
> Everything I have read would suggest that monarchy is wrong/unacceptable.
>
> Wassalam,
>
> Asad
rap: Wasselam. Yes, that is true. That is the major foundation block
for all muslims who are involved in study of Political Sciences, political
activism, geostrategy, ideology, etc. on which they should build their
understanding of Islam, statecraft, ideology etc. etc.
Muslims should establish, as indisputable truth, the truth given them by
God in the Quran, and the truth that is self-evident from the political
activity and state building of Prophet Muhammad and the first four
RIGHTLY GUIDED Caliphs, that Dynasty/Monarchy is deeply anti-islamic method
of forming and ruling the government of any muslim country.
Dynastic rulers, rulers who establish Monarchy (any form thereof) in which
son or next of kin becomes rulers merely and mostly on the "strength" of his
bloodline connection with the existing ruler and/or ruling clan/family, are
not proper representatives of Ummah in that country and are no friends of Islam
anywhere.
Dynastic rulers will do everything and anything, in most cases, as the History
teaches us (PROPER History: the Science of History), in order to achieve,
maintain and continue their rule.
We do not even have to look into history; we merely have to see the present
Dynastic/Monarchic regimes, such as Morocco, Jordan, "Saudi" Arabia, Kuwait,
Emirates, etc. etc. and to see that those regimes are merely continuing
anti-islamic Oligarchic practices of enemies of Islam such as the Quraishi
tribe, the oligarchic tribe that Prophet Muhammad fought with zest, throughout
of his adult life in order to establish Islam amongst the people.
Dynastic/Monarchic rulers are, in effect, ideologically, geostrategically,
economically, culturally, theocratically, ... in many, many ways, actually
working against Islam, on each and every corner of the globe. Muslims
owe it to themselves, as God commanded them, to expose that travesty of
God's justice, and ACT accordingly. There is NO compromise whatsoever
on that fundamental issue, if muslims are to cut their chains, set themselves
free and prosper.
Monarchy/Dynasty/Feudalism is totally anti-islamic way to govern the Ummah.
The proper way is REPUBLIC! Republic is defined as THE RULE OF LAW. Surprize:
Study American original Republic of Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, etc.
You might learn something very useful !
Do not even take their money -- their money is unacceptable to the righteous!
AbdulraHman Lomax
as-salamu 'alaykum.
fha...@unix.asb.com (Fouad Haddad) wrote:
>(Faruq abd ul-Rafi) writes:
>>>[...]it is hard to see how monarchy could be the ideal.
>I wrote:
>>By elimination.
I and some others asked Abu Hammad to clarify what he meant.
>I was asked to clarify. I mean "by elimination" of other types of government,
>most especially this free-for-all, amoral vacuum masquerading as a
>"freedom of religion" government called democracy which is a high-sounding
>term for the rejection of any and all divine Law and which, as even the
>early Greeks pointed out, is a worse tyranny than tyranny itself.
My brother's comment is bristling with issues which deserve
disentanglement.
First of all, the overall effect of the paragraph above is still
unclear. I think the intention was to claim that, while monarchy may
have limitations, it is superior to the alternatives. Therefore it is
"ideal" by "elimination." Now, this is a misuse of the word "ideal."
We do not say of a thing that it is ideal when it is merely the least
of a series of evils.
Abu Hammad has identified democracy with a "free-for-all, amoral
vacuum." But there is nothing, at least nothing clearly expounded,
which ties such a moral vacuum with democracy itself. Rather, in a
democracy, if the people are moral, the givernment will be moral, and
if the people are not, neither will be the government. My brother has
confused, I essay, "freedom of religion," which is a right guaranteed
by some democracies, with the fundamental principles of democracy
itself. The United States was a democracy before the Bill of Rights
was added to the Constitution, and there are democracies which have an
established religion. and certainly democracies have suppressed
disapproved religions.
Some definitions are in order. The relevant definition of democracy
from Webster's New Collegiate (my copy is certainly not "new") is:
1. a. government by the people, especially rule of the majority.
b. a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people
and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of
representation usually involving periodically held free elections.
Monarchy is:
1. undivided rule or absolute soveriegnty by a single person
...
3. a government having a hereditary chief of state with life tenure
and powers varying from nominal to absolute.
Often we in the United States think of democracy and monarchy as
distinct from each other and mutually exclusive, but this is not
necessarily the case, as is immediately obvious to those who live in
constitutional and democratic monarchies.
Essentially, it is possible for the people to chose or to consent to
government by a monarch. This is not only theoretically and
practically possible, it is, in fact, ultimately necessary for the
stability of *any* monarchy. No monarchy survives long if it does not
obtain at least the consent, if not the choice, of the majority of
people: unless, possibly, it is maintained in place by a sweeping and
overpowering tyranny.
Since a major goal of government in an Islamic sense is stability,
that the citizens be spared the difficulties inherent in struggles for
power, it follows that an Islamic monarchy could not possibly be a
truly undemocratic one.
>The Hadith of the Prophet concerning the hierarchy of governments is explicit
>on the place of monarchy as second only to khilafa:
> After me there will come:
> 1. the well-guided Caliphs (the first Four),
> 2. then the Umara' or Emirs (the Umayyads and Abbasids),
> 3. then the Kings (the Ottomans),
> 4. then the tyrants (the so-called "republics" regardless of their
>proximity or farness to democracy, from Turkey to Libya, Egypt, Iraq etc.
>as well as the regimes masquerading as Islamic but which are in fact types of
>oligarchies such as the Sa`ud regime, or parliamentary adaptations foreign to
>Islam, such as Iran).
I have read that such hadith are not generally considered reliable,
but perhaps this one, which has been cited with additional material
which is really a speculative identification of the referents, is an
exception. The problem is that the word "tyrant" has a meaning, and
their were tyrants prior to the close of the Ottoman dynasty.
Certainly democracies can be characterised by tyranny, even when they
are truly democratic (because the people can by tyrannical); but this
would hardly fit as an exposition of the hadith. At least it is quite
a stretch.
Nevertheless, let us grant that the hadith does represent a grading of
certain forms. Given that the most desirable form, involving direct
government by the Messenger of Allah, is not available to us, the next
most desireable form would be that of the rightly-guided khalifs, may
Allah be pleased with them. But there were four of them, and they were
chosen in various ways, and there were serious problems which appeared
in the 'umma at this time. The last two of them did not enjoy
unchallenged sovereignty; the whole fabric of the community was
unravelling.
>Numbers 2 and 3 are types of monarchy. As for government by the "demos"
>or mass of the people through universal representation, it is not
>recognized by Islam. Proper government is by the elite of the People --
>variously called the People of Consultation (ahl al-shura) or the People of
>Doing and Undoing (ahl al-`aqd wa al-hall) -- headed by a single leader
>who has the last word in decision-making though not infallible.
It is true that direct elections where the mass of people participated
were unknown. But some scholars, in elucidating the meanings of the
hadith, "my community will not agree on an error," did consider that
this hadith referred to all the people, not merely the elite; but that
the people of lesser knowledge or authority were represented in the
consensus by their religious leaders, the ulema.
Ahmed Hassan writes on this point, in The Docrine of Ijma' in Islam,
p. 32:
"Since Ijma' is the conscience of the community, it must ultimately
have the consent of the community. The ijma' of the scholars would,
therefore, be accepted as a transitory stage to reach the ultimate
goal (i.e., the will and conscience of the community) and not as the
last word. It is astonishing to note that the Hadith 'my community
will not agree on an error' was interpreted in the classical period to
mean 'the scholars of my community will not agree on an error.'. The
reason given for this interpretation is that the masses receive the
knowledge of Islam from the scholars and they are, therefore,
subservient to them."
What is remarkable about brother Haddad's calling forth of this hadith
in this context, as evidence of the superiority of monarchy vs.
democracy, is that the hadith would imply that the best available form
of government would be like the khulafa, not monarchy. Were the
khulafa like monarchs?
Here is a reported speech of Mu'adh b. Jabal, which he made, it is
said, to the ruler of Syria:
"If your sovereign is Heraclius, our sovereign is God who created us.
Our leader is one of us; if he implements among us the teaching of our
religious Book and the Sunnah of our Prophet, we shall have him over
us. But if he goes against it, we shall depose him. If he commits
theft, we shall amputate his hand; if he commits adultery, we shall
flog him. If he abuses any of us, we will abuse him as he (the
leaader) did. If he injures him, we will retaliate upon him. He will
not hide himself from us, nor will he be self-conceited. He will not
reserve for himself the booty which God bestowed on us. He is a person
as good as we are."
(cited in Hassan, op cit, p. 24)
So how were the khulafa' selected? I am sure that Abu Hammad knows
this material, but I will review it:
According to the traditions,
Abu Bakr RA was elected by a small group and the election was clearly
accepted by the general community, including 'Ali, RA
'Umar RA was appointed by Abu Bakr after consultation with members of
the community.
'Uthman RA was elected by an "electoral college" appointed by 'Umar.
'Ali RA was elected by the surviving members of that electoral
college.
Now, here is a report from 'Umar:
"I have heard that someone said, 'If 'Umar were dead I would hail
so-and-so.' Don't let a man deceive himself by saying that the
acceptance of Abu Bakr was a hasty affair which was ratified.
Admitedly it was that, but God averted the evil of it. There is none
among you to whom people would devote themselves as they did to Abu
Bakr. He who accepts a man as ruler without consulting the Muslims,
such acceptance has no validity for either of them: they are in danger
of being killed...." (from Guillaume, The Life of Muhammad, a
translation of Ibn Ishaq's Sirat Rasul Allah.)
I would argue that all this points to either direct democracy, or
representative democracy in some form. The existence of formal
elections is not the point; as long as the ruler has the consent of
the community to rule it, it is a democracy. A leader may appoint his
successor so long as that appointment is not opposed by the community.
Now, the election of 'Ali was, in fact, opposed by a substantial
segment of the community (and it is pretty clear that the continuation
of 'Uthman was also not without opposition). Out of this grew some of
the deepest divisions in Islam. Because the community had not
developed mechanisms for an orderly transfer of power, for a
resolution of disputes about leadership without internecine war,
'Uthman was assassinated, 'Ali fought with Ayesha, RA, and with
Mu'awiya, and was ultimately assassinated by a Kharijite.
I argue that the early community practiced a rough democracy; but
that, without formal institutions, it was unable to weather these
challenges without devolving to the next stage, referred to in the
hadith as the Umara. Monarchy, in its various forms, is preferable to
chaos. Since it was in this next stage that the Fiqh was elaborated,
it has been colored by constant reference to the 'Amir; thus, I can
understand why Muslims would feel more comfortable with the concept.
But this does not make monarchy perferable to democracy, since
democracy is closer to the ideals of the khulafa than is monarchy.
In the end, part of the distinction is academic, since in modern times
there seem to be only two basic choices: a rigid tyranny or some form
of democracy. And a rigid tyranny is utterly contrary to Islam;
therefore we need, by *elimination,* to look to democratic forms,
which does not necessarily exclude government by the khass, the elite,
so long as this government carries the general approval of the amm,
the generality.
Since I do not expect to see true Muslim governments in the near
future, if ever, I am more interested in how Muslims with similar
hopes and inclinations can come together and act in concert; and,
without the support of governmental sovereignty, such organizations
*must* be democratic, even if they have a strong 'amir.
By the way, I do not see direct democracy as being of much value;
rather, in large groups, it is easily manipulated by oligarchies.
There can be tremendous inertia in large groups such that even open
corruption will not result in deposition of corrupt leaders.
Essentially, the 'amm are often uninformed and often unwilling to
believe that their leaders are capable of lying and cheating, etc. It
is far easier to assume that those who would point it out and attempt
to reform the situation are merely troublemakers.
So I instead incline to representative democracy. From this point of
view, elections by a small group familiar with the candidates is
superior to direct elections by the generality. I actually have been
working on this problem for almost twenty years.... The summary of my
proposals is in voting by transferable proxy.
Fouad Haddad
A follow-up to this thread from Br. Recep Senturk of Columbia University
(ra...@columbia.edu). Forwarded with permission.
Abu Hammad
--------------Forwarded message----------------
This discussion isnn't directly relevant with the problems facing us
today. It's a speculative and theoretical one. Nor is it an informed
discussion.
Muhammad Hamidullah says, there is nothing wrong in monarchy
islamically.
(see his The Emergence of Islam (Adam Publishers India 1993)).
>> My own intuition
Since when we decided these kind of legal issues with intution. Intution
isn't a source of legislation. It can only be an aid to legal reasoning.
In Usul al-Fiqh the way we pursue solution for these sort of legal
problems are explained in great detail.
>> there is little fiqh on the position of muslim communities
>> within a larger non-muslim state.
No. There is law for Dar al-Islam, for Dar al-Harb, and for DAR AL-
SULH.
Eveything is explained in great detail. Consult relevant section in the
Fiqh books. I don't have time for providing details of the issue. I blieve
one can even find detailed books on the issue. Prof. Muhammad
Hamidullah,
whose specialty is Islamic political system, might have some studies on
the issue along with his works on international relations and islamic
state.
recep
------------end of forwarded message-----------
Fouad Haddad
In article <4vtjno$b...@shellx.best.com> mar...@gate.ioa.com (AbdulraHman Lomax) writes:
...
>What is remarkable about brother Haddad's calling forth of this hadith
>in this context, as evidence of the superiority of monarchy vs.
>democracy, is that the hadith would imply that the best available form
>of government would be like the khulafa, not monarchy. Were the
>khulafa like monarchs?
Monarchs in the best sense, yes, but my point was that the Amirs
and the Kings (the next two categories) were more recognizably
monarchs in the English sense of the word, some of the Ottomans
reminding Br. Lomax of tyrants, although I would not call any of them
so.
...
>So I instead incline to representative democracy. From this point of
>view, elections by a small group familiar with the candidates is
>superior to direct elections by the generality. I actually have been
>working on this problem for almost twenty years.... The summary of my
>proposals is in voting by transferable proxy.
Again this is the lesser of two or more evils, but inferior, to my sense,
to monarchy, which carries the added connotation (and this was
missing from Br. Lomax's Webster's, apparently) of divine right.
This is the connection which is absent from our notions of democracy,
whereas the monarch, similar to the Khalifa, is supposed to uphold
God's Law on earth.
This is perhaps why a scholar like Hamidullah, much more in line with
classical thinking than Hasan (the scholar Br. Lomax relies upon here),
sees nothing wrong Islamically with monarchy. But there would be
plenty wrong with constitutional democracy, for the rule that goes from
the demos up is forever redefining its notions of moral freedom to fit
the easier path. Nothing is more illustrative of this than the dissolution
of Augustine's ideal of "Civitas Dei" in the West until the Church was booted
out of government and assumed a largely symbolic role, its rule left to the
individual conscience unrestrained by legal obligation. In such a
scenario, the Church is characterized as the tyrant, the demos as the
liberator. Our idea of the monarch is largely influenced by the former label.
Abu Hammad
Hazem Nasereddin
In article <4vsd9e$3...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>,
Hyder Ali Khan <hkh...@uic.edu> wrote:
>In the name of Allah(SWT), the Beneficent, the Merciful.
>
>Greetings,
>
>On 25 Aug 1996, Craig Paul wrote:
>
>> Note: The Prophet (saws) was corrected in the Qur'an. To claim that
>> any imam does not need correction implies that the imam is more
>> correct than the Prophet. Can that really be claimed?
>
> The Holy Prophet(SAW) was never corrected in the Holy Quran, because he
>never committed any sins or any mistakes.
I am afraid the above is incorrect.
the prophet was human, and he made some mistakes. So did many of the prophets before
him like prophet Yosif who was swallowed into the whale for his mistake.
Prophet Mohammad was corrected by Allah several times in quran, one of them is when
he was calling the high leaders of Quraish to Islam, then an old blind man came to
the prophet and asked him about Islam, so the prophet looked unhappy and turned away
from the man. The verse "3abbasa" came to advise the prophet abotu his mistake!
Another stroy is when the prophet wanted to pray on Abdullah bin Abai, the leader of
the hypocrites (munafiqeen) in madeenah after he died, Omar was pulling the prophets
hand and telling him "oh prophet of Allah, he was a hypocrites! don't pray on him!"
... the prophet did pray on him and the verse came ordering the prophet never to do
it again.
Another thing is when Allah ordered the prophet to marry the wife of Isamah bin
Zaid, the young man who he raised, the prophet told Isamah to keep his wife to gain
some time to think about the issue, then the verse came ordering the prophet to marry
her because that was the order of Allah.
anothe mistake the prophet made was about the palm trees, the people o Medeena used
to carry the "tal3" from the male palm tree to the female palm tree so that it
produces more dates. When the people asked the prophet about it he said don't do it,
lateer that year the yeild was very bad, so the people turned back to the prophet
and he said to them to ask him only in issues of religion, and that he is of
knowledge only inn what Allah told him. Another great example of the modesty of the
prophet PPOABUH.
This issue is not an easy one, we must believe that what the prophet says is what
Allah wishes (in howa illa wa7yon yo7a), however the prophet made mistakes and for
that Allah corrected him several times. So today what the prophet left us is all
correct, because what the prophet erred about he was corrected by Allah, and because
the prophet said in Hujjat al-wada3 "today i have completed your religion ... ".
Allah could have made his prophet avoid ALL mistakes, and make none! but the mistakes
of the prophet are of the wisdom of Allah, to prove to us that no one is perfect
except for Allah, and perfection is one of the attributes of Allah, and if it is
attributed to any other then that is shirk wal-3iyath billah.
Wa Assalamu Ala Mun Ittaba3a Al-Huda
--
-=<<( ht...@ee.mcgill.ca )>>=- ,=====================.
-=<( http://www.ee.mcgill.ca/~htana )>=- | HaZeM T. NaSeRedDiN |`.
`====================='`:
Free Shiekh Al-Albani from Jordanian Restrictions `--------------------`'
Fouad Haddad
>The verse "3abbasa" came to advise the prophet abotu his mistake!
"3abbasa" means to cause someone else to frown and there is no such verse.
The word is "3abasa" with a non-stressed b. Here he is enumerating the
Prophet's mistakes, and he cannot quote a single word of the Qur'an without
making one.
>Allah could have made his prophet avoid ALL mistakes, and make none! but the mistakes
>of the prophet are of the wisdom of Allah, to prove to us that no one is perfect
>except for Allah, and perfection is one of the attributes of Allah, and if it is
>attributed to any other then that is shirk wal-3iyath billah.
It is the doctrine of Ah al-Sunna that all Prophets are ma`sum (exempt,
innocent) of sin. There is ijma` on the fact that they are completely immune
of committing kaba'ir (grave sins), and the majority hold the same about
their committing sagha'ir (small sins or mistakes). Read the relevant
sections of Qadi `Iyad's "al-Shifa' fi ma`rifat ahwal al-Mustafa."
The belief propagated by the mulhids (heretics in religion) and "Salafis"
is that the Prophets are people like you and me and they are not perfect.
This is because "Salafis" reduce the Prophet according to their own vision
of themselves. They want him to be ordinary and sinful like them, and
it disturbs them to no end that he should be above that, although Allah
made him above mankind in all respects, including attributes of perfection.
Their logic is that "only Allah is perfect" and so to say that the Prophet is
perfect threatens, in their eyes, the uniqueness of Allah in that respect.
This leads them to the following delusion: they level the charge of "shirk"
against those who uphold the belief of Ahl al-Sunna.
>Wa Assalamu Ala Mun Ittaba3a Al-Huda
Most readers of SRI are not Christians and Jews. Say as-salamu `alaykum or
don't say anything at all.
Abu Hammad
Mazen Mokhtar
Assalamu `alaykum,
Hyder Ali Khan wrote:
> In the name of Allah(SWT), the Beneficent, the Merciful.
> The Holy Prophet(SAW) was never corrected in the Holy Quran,
> because he never committed any sins or any mistakes. For example,
> it was not the PROPHET who frowned, but one of the other Muslims
> who was present with him at the time of this verse's revelation.
I agree that the messenger (PBUH) did not sin, but do you
think that he really never made a mistake? You argue that the story
of 'abasa is not about him (though there is some evidence to the
contrary), but how about the story of the prisoners of the
battle of Badr and the story of taHreem (in the sura of the
same name) ?
Mazen Mokhtar
Craig Paul
In article <4vsd9e$3...@usenet.srv.cis.pitt.edu>, Hyder Ali Khan <hkh...@uic.edu> writes:
> In the name of Allah(SWT), the Beneficent, the Merciful.
> The Holy Prophet(SAW) was never corrected in the Holy Quran, because he
> never committed any sins or any mistakes. For example, it was not the
> PROPHET who frowned, but one of the other Muslims who was present with him
> at the time of this verse's revelation.
There are other ayat in the Qur'an that also correct him, besides 80:1-10.
Muhammad
- admonished
- avoiding sex with wives due to problems with them 66:1
- hiding a particular revelation 33:37
- tempted by Quraysh to compromise the message 17:73-75
- turning away from a blind man while persuading politically powerful
80:1-10
- verbalizing revelations in progress too hastily 75:16-19
- like of a pretty woman and not being allowed to marry) 33:52
AbdulraHman Lomax
as-salamu 'alaykum.
fha...@unix.asb.com (Fouad Haddad) wrote:
>In article <4vtjno$b...@shellx.best.com> mar...@gate.ioa.com (AbdulraHman Lomax) writes:
>>What is remarkable about brother Haddad's calling forth of this hadith
>>in this context, as evidence of the superiority of monarchy vs.
>>democracy, is that the hadith would imply that the best available form
>>of government would be like the khulafa, not monarchy. Were the
>>khulafa like monarchs?
>Monarchs in the best sense, yes, but my point was that the Amirs
>and the Kings (the next two categories) were more recognizably
>monarchs in the English sense of the word, some of the Ottomans
>reminding Br. Lomax of tyrants, although I would not call any of them
>so.
The first part of the sentence would be, essentially, in agreement
with what I was implying. Yes, the Amirs and Kings were, or were like,
monarchs. But Br. Haddad is utterly disregarding the whole period of
the Khalifate in which there were a succession of thoroughly corrupt
rulers, and if there were no tyrants among them, then the word tyrant
has lost all meaning. I was not thinking of the Ottomans specifically.
Probably, at least initially, Ottoman rule was an improvement over
what came before.
>>So I instead incline to representative democracy. From this point of
>>view, elections by a small group familiar with the candidates is
>>superior to direct elections by the generality. I actually have been
>>working on this problem for almost twenty years.... The summary of my
>>proposals is in voting by transferable proxy.
>Again this is the lesser of two or more evils, but inferior, to my sense,
>to monarchy, which carries the added connotation (and this was
>missing from Br. Lomax's Webster's, apparently) of divine right.
Abu Hammad is here assuming that a democracy cannot be ennobled by
divine right; but it is certainly possible, at least in theory. "My
community will not agree on an error" points to the possibility.
Divine right as a basis for monarchy works great when the monarch is
rightly guided; and Abu Hammad ignored much of my posting which points
out that there is no intrinsic conflict between democracy and
monarchy; the point is merely that a democratic monarch is one who
rules with the consent of the governed.
Because this resembles the situation with the rightly-guided khulafa,
it would not be an evil at all, much less the lesser of a number of
evils. Nor would a monarchy, in itself, be evil. But the problem is
how to deal with succession and incapacity.
>This is the connection which is absent from our notions of democracy,
>whereas the monarch, similar to the Khalifa, is supposed to uphold
>God's Law on earth.
So to, the body of believers is supposed to uphold God's Law on earth.
And a monarch cannot do it if the people are opposed to him.
>This is perhaps why a scholar like Hamidullah, much more in line with
>classical thinking than Hasan (the scholar Br. Lomax relies upon here),
>sees nothing wrong Islamically with monarchy.
And neither did I.
>But there would be
>plenty wrong with constitutional democracy, for the rule that goes from
>the demos up is forever redefining its notions of moral freedom to fit
>the easier path.
This is certainly a thoroughly pessemistic view. But democracy does
not mean necessarily government by every person on the street. I was
proposing representative democracy, not direct democracy. Such a
democracy has many possible forms, not all of which have been
attempted.
Essentially, if we are limited to solutions which have been tried in
the past, we will be limited to revisiting all the ways in which past
societies, Muslim and non-Muslim, went astray. Rather, we need to
gather what is best from our past experience. Perhaps Abu Hammad would
think that the khulafa ur-rashidiyn never made mistakes; but if he
would, I would not agree. While I am not going to set myself up as
superior to them, I do have the benefit of hind-sight; and we can see
the consequences of certain acts and rulings. These are not on points
where there was unanimity in the community; rather they reflect
disagreements within the early community; but the community went, by
majority only, or even by a powerful minority, a different way.
>Nothing is more illustrative of this than the dissolution
>of Augustine's ideal of "Civitas Dei" in the West until the Church was booted
>out of government and assumed a largely symbolic role, its rule left to the
>individual conscience unrestrained by legal obligation. In such a
>scenario, the Church is characterized as the tyrant, the demos as the
>liberator. Our idea of the monarch is largely influenced by the former label.
But I do not have the negative idea of a monarch that Abu Hammad is
trying to dispel. Nevertheless, I would attempt to dispel his own
negative ideas about democracy.
Let me repeat this, since it was missed in my earlier posting:
democracy does not equal, necessarily, individual freedom. A democracy
could be highly restrictive of individual freedoms. Democracy does not
equal freedom of religion, though modern democracies generally espouse
this. Democracies are not intrinsically moral or immoral, the same as
monarchies. It depends on the people just as the monarchy depends on
the King. And in the end, if the people are corrupt, they will not
prosper under a righteous King; rather they will depose him or subvert
his noble efforts; to save such a people a righteous King would need
to educate them and bring them to his way; and, if he did that, his
society would deserve to be called democratic.
It has been said that this discussion is only theoretical. I disagree.
The principles of government apply even in societies which do not
enjoy untrammeld sovereignty. We see this issue all the time in
Islamic groups: and the general opinion seems to be that there should
be an amir.
Now, this is clearly sunna, but we do not have, in general, people
trained to be amir, to represent, as amir, the community and its
consensus. Instead, many amirs end up being petty tyrants, even when
they mean well. It is because they have not learned the mechanisms of
democracy, and when one does not have sovereignty, only weak
organizations survive with amirs who do not know how to bring out the
best in people.
Instead, these amirs attempt to govern these voluntary societies by
"I'm the amir, therefore you have to do what I say." People will do
it, for a while, then, somehow, they lose interest and drift away.
Ultimately, there is a much better way, and kafir societies have
learned to do it. In fact, this way is much more like our early
community than the autocratic model which these people seem to
imitate. People obeyed the khulafa because they *trusted* them.
AbdulraHman Lomax
mar...@ioa.com
Fouad Haddad
As-salamu `alaykum,
In article <503btq$9...@shellx.best.com> Mazen Mokhtar <m...@unx.dec.com> writes:
> I agree that the messenger (PBUH) did not sin, but do you
>think that he really never made a mistake? You argue that the story
>of 'abasa is not about him (though there is some evidence to the
>contrary), but how about the story of the prisoners of the
>battle of Badr and the story of taHreem (in the sura of the
>same name) ?
It is an honorable argument to sat that the frowning in "`Abasa"
refers to other than the Prophet, even if it may not stand to
the external evidence provided by the hadith: "You are
the one concerning whom my Lord reprimanded me"
spoken by the Best of creation to Ibn Umm Maktum, the
blind man referred to in the Sura.
These are reasonable questions asked in a respectful fashion.
We should try to keep the high tone used here when addressing
such sensitive issues.
Yes, we know that on the one hand Prophets made mistakes,
since Allah said in His Holy Book about our father and mother,
fa azallahuma al-shaytan,
or: Shaytan caused them to lapse. However, we also know that
the doctrine of Ahl al-Sunna is that the Prophets are ma`sumin
or exempt from sins. The solution of some is to divide the
latter into two categories. However, it is the opinion of the
majority of scholars that Prophets are exempt even from
small sins, and one explanation I have seen is that
"the mistakes of Prophets are acts of obedience"
i.e. that Allah in His Mercy causes the Prophets to make mistakes,
but that unlike the mistakes of ordinary human beings, these
are not counted against them but for them, because of what
comes out of these mistakes (e.g. Sunnas in the case of the
Prophet SAWS), and for other reasons known to Allah. He knows best.
At any rate, it is reasonable to say that we should avoid the danger
of approaching the verses and hadiths relevant to this
question with mere logic and analogy to clearcut answers.
We should, instead, go to the scholars who have pondered
over these same questions with the knowledge of doctrine and
that of other evidence which sheds vast light on the issue,
the kind of light that increases our iman and love for the
Prophet, not the clinical light of everyday logic, as if it did
not matter one way or another whether the Prophet is this or that.
I have obtained a book by the Saudi scholar Ibn `Alawi al-Maliki
which analyzes this case by case and point by point. Insha
Allah I will try to post some translations of what he says
in the coming weeks.
Blessings and Peace on the Best of Creation.
Abu Hammad
Muhammad Elrabaa
In article <4vvf84$j...@shellx.best.com>,
Hazem Nasereddin <ht...@Aries.EE.McGill.CA> wrote:
>I am afraid the above is incorrect.
>
>the prophet was human, and he made some mistakes. So did many of the prophets
Assalamo Alikum,
I think some further clarification is due here.
As far as disobeying Allah or making
a mistake in delivering the message, ALL PROPHETS
(sala Allahu alihim agma'ieen) are
completely infallible (Ma'sooms). So PROPHETS (sala
Allahu alihim agma'ieen wassalam)
NEVER commit ANY sins. Now as for making a mistake
in the sense of leaving something
superio for something less superior, WITHOUT DISOBEYING
ALLAH, then they did do that.
So if there were no previous revelation regarding
something (e.g. the prisoners of,
Badr) the prophet (sala Allahu alihi wassalam) can make
his own ijtihad, which in this
case, as Allah, explained, was less superior than the
other option. However, note that
Allah did not say that he made a mistake (Allah did not
ask the prophet to change his
ruling, an indication that it is a valid ruling).
Similarly with the blind sahabi (RAA) incedent. The
prophet (sala Allahu alihi
wassalam) was acting upon good judgement: He was talking
with someone, when the blind
sahabi walked in and started talking to him. The sahabi
is not to be blamed because
he was blind. The prophet sala Allahu alihi wassalam) was
slightly upset at the sahabi's
conduct which was improper (to start talking to someone
who is talking to another as
if he was alone), yet execused as I explained. Allah
used 'itab (which is not even
blaming, it is rather light gentle draw of attention)
with the prophet (sala Allahu
alihi wassalam) and draw his attention to the fact that
it would have been better if
he ignored the kafir and turned his attention to the
sahabi, BECAUSE the kafir had
no intention of accepting Islam (which the prophet had
no waqy of knowing till Allah
reavelled it to him).
Now let us see what Fouad did as a reply to br. Hazem's
article; he acused 'salafis'
of commiting ilhad! He accused them of degenerating
the prophet (sala Allahu alihi
wassalam) wal 'iazu bellah.
A quick examination of one of the sufi beliefs that
Fouad himself was defending on this
forum; namely Al-kashf (unvileing), where they claim
that the prophet (sala Allahu alihi
wassalam) concealed some parts of the message and did
not deliver it, instead he kept it
to them (i.e. the sufis)! so what are they claiming
against Allah ? He said 'Today I have
completed my favor upon you and perfected your religion'
yet they claim (like the Shia)
that some of the religion was saved to them!
Muhammad Elrabaa
Hazem Nasereddin
In article <502d8f$o...@shellx.best.com>,
Fouad Haddad <fha...@unix.asb.com> wrote:
>In article <4vvf84$j...@shellx.best.com> ht...@Aries.EE.McGill.CA (Hazem Nasereddin) writes:
>
>>The verse "3abbasa" came to advise the prophet abotu his mistake!
>
>"3abbasa" means to cause someone else to frown and there is no such verse.
>The word is "3abasa" with a non-stressed b. Here he is enumerating the
>Prophet's mistakes, and he cannot quote a single word of the Qur'an without
>making one.
here is tafseer Yosif Ali for the verses :-
080.001 YUSUFALI: (The Prophet) frowned and turned away,
080.002 YUSUFALI: Because there came to him the blind man (interrupting).
080.003 YUSUFALI: But what could tell thee but that perchance he might grow (in spiritual
understanding)?-
080.004 YUSUFALI: Or that he might receive admonition, and the teaching might profit him?
The above is clear, the prophet PPOABUH made a msiatek and Allah is telling him not
to do it again. Whoever wants to listen then listen, whoever wants to follow Dalal
and personal Ta'weel then do as you wish, Allahuma fashhad inni gad ballght( Oh
Allah witness, i have delivreed my advice)
>>Allah could have made his prophet avoid ALL mistakes, and make none! but the mistakes
>>of the prophet are of the wisdom of Allah, to prove to us that no one is perfect
>>except for Allah, and perfection is one of the attributes of Allah, and if it is
>>attributed to any other then that is shirk wal-3iyath billah.
>
>It is the doctrine of Ah al-Sunna that all Prophets are ma`sum (exempt,
~~~~~~~~~~~
You, Foad Haddad are a sufi naqshabandi, you are not ahlu assuna wal-jama3a. You
naqshabandi allow making du3a' for people in graves, that disagrees with the
princepels of ahlu-assuna wal-jama3a and their aqeedah. you guys allow building
mosques arround graves, although that disagrees with SAHIH hadithS as i have proven
to you, so i think it is fair to mention that you are a naqshabandi and speak in the
name of naqshabandiya and not ahlu-assuna.
>innocent) of sin. There is ijma` on the fact that they are completely immune
>of committing kaba'ir (grave sins),
>and the majority hold the same about
>their committing sagha'ir (small sins or mistakes). Read the relevant
>sections of Qadi `Iyad's "al-Shifa' fi ma`rifat ahwal al-Mustafa."
The above is correct, I agree with you, it means that the prophet may possibly make
sagha'er, if they make sagha'er then they are not ma3soomen. (forbidden from making
mistakes).
>The belief propagated by the mulhids (heretics in religion) and "Salafis"
>is that the Prophets are people like you and me and they are not perfect.
Its funny how can you do "3atf" (arabic term, sometimes used to show equality)
between salafies and heretics :)
Are you calling salafies heretics??? i hope you are not, cuz if you are then you are
obliged to give your proof WHY are our salafy brothers heretics, and remember the
hadith "if a muslim says another muslims is a kafir, then one of them is surely a
kafir."
>This is because "Salafis" reduce the Prophet according to their own vision
>of themselves.
Salafies say, just like you just did, that prophet are ma3soomen from kaba'er, but
not from sga'er, which definately makes them less that perfect.
>They want him to be ordinary and sinful like them, and
sinful like them? how do you generalize abotu salafies and say thay are sinfil???
what right do you have? where is your proof from quran and sunnah???? This is low.
Really.
>it disturbs them to no end that he should be above that, although Allah
>made him above mankind in all respects, including attributes of perfection.
you have admitted above, that ahlu-assuna agree (have ijma3) that prophet are
ma3soomen from kaba'er only, not from sagha'er, so why are you denying it now????
another thing, When Allah told prophet Mohammad that he forgave what he did and what
he would do from erros the prophet was praying long and a lot, the Sahabh (including
aisha, there is a hadith about this i can get you the refrence if you want) told the
prophet "why do you pray if Allah forgave your sins?" the prophet said "if he did
that shouldn't I thank him??"
Doesn't this hadith that there are sins and mistakes for the prophet?????
if the prophet didn't make any sins what will Allah forgive exactelly??!?!?!
>Their logic is that "only Allah is perfect" and so to say that the Prophet is
>perfect threatens, in their eyes, the uniqueness of Allah in that respect.
Of course, and their opinion is correct. Quite frankly Salafies may today be the
only closest group today to the Ahlu-assuna. They seem to take ALL islam without
additions or modifications, free from all bida3 and ta7reefat and chnages.
Perfection is one of the attributes of Allah, anyone who gives that attribute to
anyone else has done an action of kufr, and this kufr is kufr mukhrij min al-millah
fi al-7ujja was muqamah on that person. (sorry for the english speaking, i only know
the terminology in arabic)
>Most readers of SRI are not Christians and Jews. Say as-salamu `alaykum or
>don't say anything at all.
3azizi, "la ta'lo ma laysa laka bihi 3ilm"
If there is a group with 134598348534 muslims and one christian then i adress them
by "peace be upon those who follow the right guidence" which includes the
134598348534 muslims and not the christian.
And finnaly ya 3azizi why do you always delete my evidence and not reply to it???
I give you PROOF from Quran and SUNNAH about my arguement, you delete it and type up
a page of your own babble. Sorry but you are losing credibility. Can you answer the
proofs i gave to you? ha? ha? can you? or is this the best you can do? delete the
evidence and babble?
Hazem Nasereddin
In article <505uq5$r...@shellx.best.com>,
Muhammad Elrabaa <melr...@ptdcs2.intel.com> wrote:
>In article <4vvf84$j...@shellx.best.com>,
>Hazem Nasereddin <ht...@Aries.EE.McGill.CA> wrote:
>>
>>the prophet was human, and he made some mistakes. So did many of the prophets
>>before him ...
>
> As far as disobeying Allah or making
>a mistake in delivering the message, ALL PROPHETS
> (sala Allahu alihim agma'ieen) are
>completely infallible (Ma'sooms). So PROPHETS (sala
*smile* WRONG
Read these verses about prophet Yones, verses 139-146 from surat Assafat (37), from
tafseer Shakir :
"And Yunus was most surely of the messengers, When he ran away to a ship completely
laden,So he shared (with them), but was of those who are cast off, So the fish
swallowed him while he did that for which he blamed himself, But had it not been that
he was of those who glorify (Us),He would certainly have tarried in its belly to the
day when they are raised, Then We cast him on to the vacant surface of the earth
while he was sick, And We caused to grow up for him a gourdplant. "
These verses are talking about when Yunus got realy tired of his people and decided
to leave them and go, disobeying the order of allah, so Allah wanted ot punish him
and he started making the sea move vigoriously and waves were hitting his ship, so
the sailor threw him out of the ship and the big fish ate him, but he made tawbah
from disobeying Allah and Allah accepted it from him and the big fish threw him out
again.
The above, CLEARELY constitutes a mistake for prophet Yunus! and it is mentioned in
the Quran! so Allah is telling us that even prophets make mistakes but Tawbah is
open to everyone.
> Allahu alihim agma'ieen wassalam)
>NEVER commit ANY sins. Now as for making a mistake
Ah ... ha ...
What about 3abasa for prophet mohammad?
what about the marriage of the prophet ot the ex-wife of the boy he raised Isamah
Bin Zaid?
what about when the prophet prayed on Abdullah Bin Aubai?
give me evidence, do not give me talk and stuff, talk is not a proof!! quran and
sunnah are proof! were is your proof?
>Similarly with the blind sahabi (RAA) incedent. The
>prophet (sala Allahu alihi
>wassalam) was acting upon good judgement: He was talking
>with someone, when the blind
>sahabi walked in and started talking to him. The sahabi
the above is incorrect. The Sahabi came to the prophet AFTER he was finished with
the leaders of Mecca, and not during the time, this is documented in the Sirah
books. Still, the prophet was upset and tired from the kufar of mecca so he frowned
away, which was a mistake and Allah corrected it.
>is not to be blamed because
>he was blind. The prophet sala Allahu alihi wassalam) was
>slightly upset at the sahabi's
>conduct which was improper (to start talking to someone
>who is talking to another as
>if he was alone), yet execused as I explained. Allah
*smile* and what sources do you have that support your arguement? what proves that
he came during the time?
still, even if he did, the prophet should have talkien to him afterwards, but the
prophet didn't that is why Allah told the prophet "wa yodreeka la3allahu yazzaka?"
(what tells you not, that he may do well??)
>he ignored the kafir and turned his attention to the
>sahabi, BECAUSE the kafir had
>no intention of accepting Islam (which the prophet had
>no waqy of knowing till Allah
>reavelled it to him).
The blind man was kafir at the time!!! he was not a muslim!!! man what sources did
you get your stroy from!??
check tafseer Ibn Katheer, "yazzaka" in the verse was understood as "become a
muslim, do good in his life"
Bro, let us not speak without previous knowledge.
Fouad Haddad
>Now let us see what Fouad did as a reply to br. Hazem's article; he acused
>'salafis' of commiting ilhad! He accused them of degenerating the prophet
>(sala Allahu alihi wassalam) wal 'iazu bellah.
The only degenerate thing here is Elrabaa's English.
>A quick examination of one of the sufi beliefs that Fouad himself was
>defending on thisforum; namely Al-kashf (unvileing), where they claim
>that the prophet (sala Allahu alihi wassalam) concealed some parts of the
>message and did not deliver it, instead he kept it to them (i.e. the sufis)!
>so what are they claiming against Allah ? He said 'Today I have
>completed my favor upon you and perfected your religion'
>yet they claim (like the Shia) that some of the religion was saved to them!
Elrabaa was refuted at length on these shameless allegations at the time
he first made them. I challenge him to quote a single piece of evidence to
support the lies that he is happy to regurgitate. I remind him also
that the Prophet said: "It is a greater sin to abuse twice after abusing
once." Abu Dawud, Adab #4859. Of course, a mulhid and a munafiq has
no idea when to stop before getting himself in too deep. We will see
in which category he falls.
Blessings and Peace on the Prophet, and may Allah abase those
who abase the Religion of the Prophet.
Abu Hammad.
Fouad Haddad
>And finnaly ya 3azizi why do you always delete my evidence and not reply to
it???>I give you PROOF from Quran and SUNNAH about my arguement, you delete it
and type up >a page of your own babble. Sorry but you are losing credibility.
Can you answer the >proofs i gave to you? ha? ha? can you? or is this the best
you can do? delete the >evidence and babble?
Why answer with some boring reminder of the truth when there is all this comic
relief for the readers of SRI? Such unabashed rebellion, such incoherence...
Let us distract ourselves a minute with the antics of the ignorant, for even
then there is profit: we learn to be more thankful, to "Let them play in their
circles," and redouble our vigilance.
Abu Hammad.
Fouad Haddad
This is against the Sunna. When addressing a group in which there is a mixture
of Muslims and unbelievers, even if there is only one Muslim among them,
the Sunna is to give salam with the intention of addressing the Muslims or
that single Muslim person. See Imam Nawawi, al-Adhkar, Mecca ed. p. 311.
Imam Nawawi continues: "We narrated in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim from
Usama ibn Zayd -- may Allah be pleased with both of them: "The Prophet
-- Allah's Blessings and Peace be upon him -- passed by a group sitting
in which there were a mixture of Muslims and Mushriks both idolaters
and Jews, and he gave them salam (i.e. salam `alaykum)."
Abu Hammad
Hazem Nasereddin
In article <50f8pa$k...@shellx.best.com>,
Fouad Haddad <fha...@unix.asb.com> wrote:
>Why answer with some boring reminder of the truth when there is all this comic
I rest my case,
obviously, the evidence we gave you is too compelling for you to find a
way out, so you babble and babble.
It is arrogance that prevents you from admitting what is the "truth".
I find your violent reactions in personally attacking each one of the
people who reply to you as an evidence of your weakness, if your
arguement was strong enough you would not have come to personal insults
and baseless acusations.
Also your jump on salafies is really a funny thing, it exposes a lot
about what you feel inside towards this issue and it certainly showes
weakness in your argument.
Anyway, I am done with you,
Allah yehdeek, wa yahdeena jamee3an.
Muhammad Elrabaa
In article <50f8gg$h...@shellx.best.com>,
Fouad Haddad <fha...@unix.asb.com> wrote:
>In article <505uq5$r...@shellx.best.com> melr...@ptdcs2.intel.com
(Muhammad Elrabaa) writes:
>The only degenerate thing here is Elrabaa's English.
Masha'Allah! This all you have to say about me!
No replies filled with false evidence
or insults and accusations of kufr?
Well, unlike you, my native language is not english,
it is Arabic! So critisize my
english as much as you like, I DO NOT CARE!
>Elrabaa was refuted at length on these shameless allegations at the time
>he first made them.
Refuted at length! What do you mean? Do you
mean that you proved that Kashf is a source
of religion or not ? You have never refuted anything.
> I challenge him to quote a single piece of evidence to
>support the lies that he is happy to regurgitate.
What exactly are you falsly calling a lie?
Tell me (if you dare to leave the accusation of
kuffr and commenting on my english for
a little bit) :
- Do you beleive in Kashf (unveiling) as a source of religion or not ?
- Do you beleive that the prophet (sala Allahu
alihi wassalam) 'kept' some knowledge
hidden for some 'special' people and that he
give it to them through kashf, or not?
> I remind him also
>that the Prophet said: "It is a greater sin to abuse twice after abusing
>once." Abu Dawud, Adab #4859.
May be you should ponder upon what you wrote
above before you advice others to do
so! You have abused me by accusing me of kuffr,
nifaq, or even ilhad (as you did
below) several times so far! Tell you what, may
Allah guide you to His straight
path.
> Of course, a mulhid and a munafiq has
>no idea when to stop before getting himself in too deep. We will see
>in which category he falls.
Tell me, would it make you feel better if I
did fall into one of the above? Is
this the result of your sufi 'tazkiah' and 'ihsan'?
Well It would make me very happy
if you rise to be really one of Ahlul-sunnah-wal-jama'a ...
May Allah guide us All.
>Blessings and Peace on the Prophet, and may Allah abase those
>who abase the Religion of the Prophet.
Ameen
Muhammad Elrabaa
AbdulraHman Lomax
as-salamu 'alykum. In another thread,
fha...@unix.asb.com (Fouad Haddad) wrote:
[responding to a writer who said that if a very large group included
even one non-Muslim, he would use the form "as-salamu 'ala man tabi'a
al-huda," that is "peace be upon those who follow guidance," rather
than "as-salamu 'alaykum," "peace be upon you,"]
>This is against the Sunna. When addressing a group in which there is a mixture
>of Muslims and unbelievers, even if there is only one Muslim among them,
>the Sunna is to give salam with the intention of addressing the Muslims or
>that single Muslim person. See Imam Nawawi, al-Adhkar, Mecca ed. p. 311.
>Imam Nawawi continues: "We narrated in Sahih Bukhari and Muslim from
>Usama ibn Zayd -- may Allah be pleased with both of them: "The Prophet
>-- Allah's Blessings and Peace be upon him -- passed by a group sitting
>in which there were a mixture of Muslims and Mushriks both idolaters
>and Jews, and he gave them salam (i.e. salam `alaykum)."
It has long been my experience that when I find those among the
Muslims with hearts dark with distaste and hatred for the people of
the book and other non-Muslims, who justify their state by reference
to certain hadith, that they are not, in general, actually
knowledgeable about the full Prophetic Sunna. Rather, they have
attached themselves only to that which is pleasing to their confined
souls.
After keeping company with such as these, it is like arriving at an
oasis to come into the presence of a genuine Muslim scholar; one who
not only knows the material, but who also has filled his heart with
the qualities of the Prophet, SAS.
m a m
IN THE NAME OF ALLAH. THE EVER-MERCIFUL, THE MERCY-GIVING.
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.
Heavenly Salutations and Peace be upon the Messenger of Allah
and upon his family, his noble companions
and all those who follow them in righteousness until the Day of
Judgment.
br. AbdulraHman Lomax;
Assalamu alaykum wa rahmat-ULLAHi wa barakatuhu.
>
> as-salamu 'alykum. In another thread,
>
> fha...@unix.asb.com (Fouad Haddad) wrote:
>
AbdulraHman, what about those Muslims on SRI who do not return
the Salam of their fellow Muslims, do they follow Sunnah?
majed almogbel
AbdulraHman Lomax
as-salamu 'alaykum.
m a m <maln...@maine.maine.edu> wrote:
>AbdulraHman, what about those Muslims on SRI who do not return
>the Salam of their fellow Muslims, do they follow Sunnah?
It is contrary to the sunna to fail to return a salaam from a muslim.
However, in written matter, it is easy to overlook a salaam. On the
other hand, perhaps these people consider that they are not being
addressed by a muslim. This is a serious matter, and not to be done
lightly.
Further, a salaam may be made without the accompanying intention. If
one has reason to believe that the intention was not valid, then it
would be appropriate to respond with "the same to you" or the like.
Generally, I consider that material written for s.r.i. is best
addressed to the entire readership, rather than personally to
individuals. Therefore my salaam at the beginning is almost never
personally addressed to a single individual, and does not reflect my
opinions about the originator of a posting to which I may be
responding.
m a m appears to have a different view of what is taking place in
s.r.i., for he often writes to "you," referring to the person he is
quoting. Nevertheless I consider such writing to be other than a
personal greeting, so there is no obligation to return it.
In my opinion, if truly he wishes to greet an individual, it is more
appropriate to write it in e-mail to that person.
AbdulraHman Lomax
mar...@ioa.com
m a m
IN THE NAME OF ALLAH. THE EVER-MERCIFUL, THE MERCY-GIVING.
All praise is due to Allah, the Lord of the Worlds.
Heavenly Salutations and Peace be upon the Messenger of Allah
and upon his family, his noble companions
and all those who follow them in righteousness until the Day of
Judgment.
br. AbdulraHman Lomax:
Assalamu alaykum wa rahmat-ULLAHi wa barakatuhu.
> It is contrary to the sunna to fail to return a salaam from a muslim.
> However, in written matter, it is easy to overlook a salaam. On the
> other hand, perhaps these people consider that they are not being
> addressed by a muslim. This is a serious matter, and not to be done
> lightly.
I hope you got the idea that not you whom I mentioned by "those who
doesn't
the Salam of their fellow Muslims". I think you know!
What you said above is true, and all I'm asking is to conduct Sunnah.
So if some one is Muslim the Sunnah is that (no matter how bad Muslim
he is) you have to, I repeat, have to return his Salam as it or better.
If he's not Muslim then again you have to return his Salam by
"wa alykum" or "same for you" as you translated it.
I think we agree on that. Now I repeat the question:
Are those who dose not return
the Salam of their fellow Muslim (even if they think
he is not Muslim) follow the Sunnah or not?"
majed almogbel
AbdulraHman Lomax
as-salamu 'alaykum.
m a m <maln...@maine.maine.edu> (majed almogbel) wrote:
>Assalamu alaykum wa rahmat-ULLAHi wa barakatuhu.
Wa 'alaykum salaam wa rahmatullah wa barakatuhu wa ilmih.
>What you said above is true, and all I'm asking is to conduct Sunnah.
>So if some one is Muslim the Sunnah is that (no matter how bad Muslim
>he is) you have to, I repeat, have to return his Salam as it or better.
>If he's not Muslim then again you have to return his Salam by
>"wa alykum" or "same for you" as you translated it.
This is true when the salaam is given personally. Writing in s.r.i. is
not personal communication, but is, rather, publication, and it
creates no obligation of response. If brother Majed thinks
differently, perhaps he should consider that perhaps 40,000 people,
many of them Muslim, read s.r.i. If all the Muslims were to, say,
respond to his salaam by e-mail, or by posting in this group, he would
certainly have a problem with his service provider, and so would the
moderators.
By writing the salaam the way he has, he has imitated the way in which
one makes a show of greeting with the intention of forcing a response.
If this is done in person, it is offensive, for it invites and tempts
a brother to fail with regard to this particular sunna. Rather, it is
sunna to greet with sincere intention (of "peace") and sunna to
respond similarly.
>I think we agree on that. Now I repeat the question:
>Are those who dose not return
>the Salam of their fellow Muslim (even if they think
>he is not Muslim) follow the Sunnah or not?"
If the greeting is personally delivered, it is sunna to respond in
some way. Now, I am reminded of story of the Egyptians who came to
'Umar, R.A., intending to complain that their fellow countrymen were
only following *some* of the sunna and not all of it. 'Umar was
informed in advance, so, before they asked their question, he asked
them if they had put into practice in their own lives every command in
the Qur'an. They admitted that they had not. He then said that, had
they not admitted this, he would have made an example of them. And
Allah knows best the truth of this report, and I am not sure that I
have reported it accurately.
AbdulraHman Lomax
mar...@ioa.com
Alaa Zeineldine
assalmau aleikum,
Just a footnote to this discussion. Returning Salaam is not just a
sunnah, it is a farD emanating from ayah in surat al-nisa':
004.086 When ye are greeted with a greeting, greet ye with a better
than it or return it. Lo! Allah taketh count of all things.
Whether published Salaam count or not I do not know.
- Alaa