Print Page | Close Window

Arab Spring - The Great Deception

Printed From: IslamiCity.com
Category: Politics
Forum Name: Current Events
Forum Discription: Current Events
URL: http://www.IslamiCity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23576
Printed Date: 24 October 2014 at 10:33pm


Topic: Arab Spring - The Great Deception
Posted By: i.dawa
Subject: Arab Spring - The Great Deception
Date Posted: 27 July 2012 at 5:12am
Assalamualikum Dear Brothers and Sisters.

As most of you are probably aware of the massive changes that are occurring in our lands (Islamic Lands) where the old servants of America and the West are being disposed of and new governments are being elected in due to severe misery experienced under the previous corrupt rulers.
The children of the Ummah found new courage to make a stand against those that were ruling over them with an iron fist who brought them nothing but humiliations in all walks of life.

A new reality has now emerged where certain movements such as the "En Nahda” party of Tunisia, the “Muslim Brotherhood” of Egypt have gained huge popularity amongst the masses due to their “inclinations” towards Islam and currently they occupy the seats of power. Naturally Muslims equate honesty and fairness with those who are seen to be Islamic and as a result of that the so-called “islamist’s” movements are popular in the Muslims world and America see’s this which prompted America to quickly embrace the “Islamist’s” and started sided with the people at the same time.

America lost all credibility in the Muslim world due to her approach towards Islam and Muslims, and of the fact that she was seen to siding with the dictators while lecturing about “freedom” and “democracy” etc.
The Idea of religion entering in to politics and the rise of Islam is reality America has nightmares over and she has been meticulously planning and plotting against the ummah’s for decades now attempting to steer the ummah further away from Islam by implementing various styles.

Though the Ummah is rejoicing the removal of the evil dictators but she is falling in to yet another dangerous trap set by America – a trap which is designed to cement secularism by adopting the notion of a “Civil State”.

“The concept of the civil state has cropped up recently as a result of the cultural deception that America has been spreading in the region. Many Muslims from among the elites and the masses have been influenced by this concept and endorsed it in its quality as an alternative to the military and tyrannical rule and as a reflection of the wishes of society. Others deemed it as the healing remedy to what is existent in society in terms of cultural, political, ethnic and religious plurality. They pitted the civil state against the “theocratic state” by which they mean the state that is based upon the theory of divine right or the “church-based state”. Then they attributed this to the state that is based upon the religion of Islam. They also mean by “civil state” the state that separates religion from life’s affairs.”

Sadly the very movements who talk about Islam are the ones whom America has befriended because they are the “islamist’s” and America knows these movements do not base their opinion on the Islamic Aqeedah. This is similar to a party which may call itself the “Christian democratic party” yet adheres to the principles of capitalism.

The following was written by a brother which summarises the new American design in our lands:

I think it is very important to point out to the Muslim's that there is a very dangerous plot being hatched in order to dupe the Muslim ummah in adopting secularism.

If we look at the year or so old and current events occurring in the Middle East after the Arab spring, we can see that it would seem as the so called 'Islamists' are coming into power.

Do you really think that the West, headed by America, would allow this to happen if it was genuine? No, of course not. In fact, this is their latest plan on tricking the Muslims into believing that they have liberated themselves, but the sorry outcome is that they have not.

Brothers and sisters, It is our duty to expose the Greater Middle East Initiative and expounding America’s objective from promoting the Turkish model, namely bringing the “Islamists” to power but with no Islam, in order to revive secularism, the concentration of which would serve America’s supremacy over the world this century.

There are 5 main points that the Ummah should be aware of:-

- The so-called Arab Spring is but an exploitation of the Ummah’s resentment towards the gangs of rulers in the Muslims’ lands and the utilising of the Ummah’s faculties to replace those gangs with popular chieftainships.

- The masses, who cannot be accused of treason, are prone to deception. People have been deceived and goaded towards rebellion against the ruling gangs under secular slogans; they have also been deceived into believing that the “civil state” is the objective the Ummah endeavours to achieve.

- America has succeeded in bringing the so-called Islamists to power but without Islam. America is forging ahead with her plans to subject the Ummah into embracing secularism once it has been shrouded with the Islamic cloak.

- Helping the Islamists seize power without Islam is a great deception of the Muslims; some justify this by claiming it is a gradual process. This is part of the thoughts that must be resisted. Some also consider it coinciding interests, which is also a political idea that must be fought. Others deem it a victory for Islam and the Muslims, and choose to overlook the parable of Hamas, who is still implementing the laws of the Palestinian Authority in Gaza, the parable of Tunisia and that of Turkey before it.

- Alleviating people’s burdens of economic hardship and cutting down corruption does not mean achieving the objective to which Muslims should aspire; this will be a part of the great deception that entails turning the Turkish model and what it has yielded in terms of alleviating the economic burdens on people and the state, and portraying all this as either an achievement of the objective the Muslims should seek or as the path towards attaining the objective, namely the resumption of the Islamic way of life.

Please share your views...



Replies:
Posted By: Dick
Date Posted: 27 July 2012 at 3:54pm
There will never be a revolution anywhere, and every attempt will always be taken over by American puppets, as long as there is an America. That is just what they do. That is what they always do, everywhere. And there will always be an America because there will always be brain dead red necks to love, worship, adore, and support any rotten evil thing that it does. Did it ever occur to you that God must love flag waving *****s, he made so many of them. Go to www.whatreallyhappened.com to see some alternative ideas.


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 28 July 2012 at 4:17am
Dawa, as long as you blame all of your own mistakes on America, there won't be any real progress in the Muslim word.

As long as you talk about the Ummah there won't be world peace. Dividing the human family into two parts is irresponsible and wrong.



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 28 July 2012 at 12:02pm
Originally posted by Matt Browne

Dawa, as long as you blame all of your own mistakes on America, there won't be any real progress in the Muslim word.

As long as you talk about the Ummah there won't be world peace. Dividing the human family into two parts is irresponsible and wrong.

 
Thumbs%20Up
Right on target Matt.
The blame game never gets anyone, anywhere.
Take responsibility for your own mess I say and maybe you will see progress.
The Israelites never wasted time blaming what happened to them, they just get on with life and look how much they accomplish.
Start focusing on yourselves and doing what you need to do for your own people and stop worrying about battling with the world.  Only then will there be improvement for all.


Posted By: TruthSeeker995
Date Posted: 29 July 2012 at 4:44am
The Israelites? who used the holocaust to displace a people and continue to oppress them using US weaponry and military aid while the world watches with complete apathy?

You are correct that that Muslims must get their own house in order. It is that they fall for the trap of detaching Islam from life's affairs that leads them to error.

Islam did indeed come for mankind and humanity as a whole but it is the Muslims that must carry it to all other nations, so the Muslim ummah must concern themselves with their own situation first. They need to become aware of the US designs for the Middle East and the greater Muslim world so that they foil them and begin to work according to her own independent agenda. Not one conceived for her so that she remains subjugated for the next hundred years. She must begin to adhere to and reflect the ideas and values which distinguish her from other nations, one which is devoted to Allah (swt) and only then will she become freed from the shackles that she finds herself in.

You are right though one can not blame America for looking after her "interests" like one can not blame a snake for biting and poisoning someone. It is what it does.


Posted By: TruthSeeker995
Date Posted: 29 July 2012 at 8:09am
Brother you mention bringing in Islamists without Islam - however the AK party would not call themselves as such - rather promoting themselves as believers of conservative democracy. Why do they continue to be called Islamists? I agree that the brotherhood and others fall into line with that comment. In any case isnt the term Islamist a devisive term - No Muslim goes by any other name then 'Muslim'

My question is can you realistically avoid gradualism? Can one expect that change will happen in a black and white way - so one day you are living under tyranny and the next you are living under Islam under a just ruler. Can it happen like that? You are correct to make the point that secularism in any form has no acceptance in Islam and the civil state is an embodiment of secularism..

Seeing that the media is beyond the control of sincere people - and without it the reach you need to educate sufficient Muslims to counter these designs is a tough ask - What do you do? Jzk for raising awareness of this matter


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 31 July 2012 at 5:25pm
Originally posted by TruthSeeker995

The Israelites? who used the holocaust to displace a people and continue to oppress them using US weaponry and military aid while the world watches with complete apathy?


This is an aggravating misconception that comes up time and again.
The Jewish people did not displace and oppress.  The Arab continuum refused to accept any proposal for relocation of the Jewish people to their original place of habitation.  The Jews were willing to accept the proposal that was made for them to have a small portion of the land to live in.  The Arab(Palestinian if you want to call them that) leadership brought this on its own people by refusing to accept any, and all, reasonable proposals.  The Jewish people did not seek to displace but they accepted the proposal for a separate state in order to solve the matter. (They were receiving such a minuscule portion of the land, a percentage if I remember correctly of less than 20 percent.  I don't have time to look it up right now.)
The Arabs would not accept this and they began a war in which all the Palestinians fled the land because they were warned by their people that this war was going to happen.  They left to escape the war.  The Arabs lost this war and that is why things are as they are today. (Do the research) The Arabs refuse any compromise, holding to the idea that their way is the only right and acceptable way.  The people who want to do the oppressing are the Arabs.  The people they seek to subdue and oppress are the Jews.  Would any living human being be willing to accept this?  Wouldn't any living human being fight against it?
The answer is yes, and the Jews were willing to fight for the right to exist and no longer be subject to the treatment of others.
The Arabs(Palestinians) had every opportunity to resolve the matter amicably and they would not.
"Islam did indeed come for mankind and humanity as a whole but it is the Muslims that must carry it to all other nations, so the Muslim ummah must concern themselves with their own situation first. They need to become aware of the US designs for the Middle East and the greater Muslim world so that they foil them and begin to work according to her own independent agenda. Not one conceived for her so that she remains subjugated for the next hundred years. She must begin to adhere to and reflect the ideas and values which distinguish her from other nations, one which is devoted to Allah (swt) and only then will she become freed from the shackles that she finds herself in."
She must stop making war.


Posted By: i.dawa
Date Posted: 01 August 2012 at 10:14am
This is a discussion relevant to the Muslims because of what is at stake here. Discussing with non-Muslims would be futile because any discussions with non-Muslims has to be about establishing the truth i.e. the true way of life and whether they agree that there is a creator who created everything and the criterion for judging matters has to be from that creator. For the Muslims Halal and Haram is the criterion for actions and we should judge everything from our creed which "There is no God but Allah and Muhammad is the Messenger of Allah". In other words we believe in the creator and we believe in the revelation sent by the creator to Muhammad (saw) as the final revelation sent to mankind. The Quran and the Sunnah is our source of legislation where we take our laws from.

Anyway in response to some of the other posts:

The term “islamist’s” is often used by the western media and amongst western politician to describe those movements who are seen to be islamicaly inclined (not necessarily ideological). The AK party of Turkey is also viewed to have Islamic origins. What you’ll find common amongst such movements including the An-Nahda party of Tunisia is that they all talk about aspects of Islam and its role within the modern day politics.   They do not want the Islamic aqeedah to be the basis of their rule where everything is viewed and dealt by Islam; on the contrary they just champion certain matters which the masses may feel to be of some importance like the headscarf case in Turkey or talking favourably of the Muslims in Gaza and so on.

As for the “gradual implementation” approach – well this has no reality and it can be made in to a mockery. One can say I’ll stop drinking alcohol gradually and one day I’ll do other things bit by bit. I’m sure no Muslim can accept this kind of thinking clearly because it contradicts Islam.

Our work must be geared towards uprooting kufr from our countries by culturing the ummah with Islam by explaining the nature of Aqeedah that it is a political and a spiritual Aqeedah, about the Khilafah and how it looks after the affairs of Muslims etc.

If we look at the example of the Messenger (saw) how he ruled by Islam then we’ll learn that a state is needed and this State must be built by the Ummah on the basis of the Islamic Aqeedah alone.

Presently the ummah is still in a decline state and unaware of the political side of Islam. We need to continue to expose the plans of the kuffar against the Ummah so she’ll be able to stand up to those who are trying to take her further away from Islam.
The fault really is within us the Islamic Ummah and others are taking advantage of this situation.

The Ummah must realise that secularism, nationalism, gradualism, democracy, freedom, political pluralism, human rights they all emanate from a kufr aqeedah and has nothing to do with Islam. Islam has its own thoughts and rules which emanate solely from the Islamic Aqeedah.
The Arab Spring has been turned in to another American project in the Muslim world to remove the potential rise of Islam.

Interesting article below:

http://downsum.heliohost.org/index.php?page=page&action=viewcommentsy&story=1886031669516000&email=&session=&special=null&category=


Posted By: i.dawa
Date Posted: 01 August 2012 at 10:25am
Originally posted by Caringheart

Fatwa Bans Christian Priests from Public Transportation to Church
Dr. Yassir al-Burhami, a prominent figure in Egypt's Salafi movement and vice president of the Salafi Call has just issued a fatwa, published in the "Voice of the Righteous Salaf," forbidding Muslim taxi-drivers and bus-drivers from transporting Coptic Christian priests to their churches, which he depicted as "more forbidden than taking someone to a liquor bar."
Comments?


This type of "fatwa's" serve a greater political aim namely to look favorably towards embracing a secular system. There are crazy people who are used and abused and given the air time because these crazy people serve a purpose.

Just like the Taliban serve a purpose in giving Islam a negative image through the eyes of the western media.


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 01 August 2012 at 1:14pm
Originally posted by i.dawa


Our work must be geared towards uprooting kufr from our countries by culturing the ummah with Islam by explaining the nature of Aqeedah that it is a political and a spiritual Aqeedah, about the Khilafah and how it looks after the affairs of Muslims etc.

If we look at the example of the Messenger (saw) how he ruled by Islam then we’ll learn that a state is needed and this State must be built by the Ummah on the basis of the Islamic Aqeedah alone.

The Arab Spring has been turned in to another American project in the Muslim world to remove the potential rise of Islam.



Regarding the above 3 things, some observations:
"The Arab Spring has been turned in to another American project in the Muslim world to remove the potential rise of Islam."
First it would be helpful if Muslims could stop adhering to conspiracy thinking.
"Our work must be geared towards uprooting kufr from our countries by culturing the ummah with Islam by explaining the nature of Aqeedah that it is a political and a spiritual Aqeedah, about the Khilafah and how it looks after the affairs of Muslims etc."
kufr - disbeliever
The Qur'aan uses the word Kufr to denote people who cover up or hide realities.
- Kafir (Arabic: كافر‎ kāfir, plural كفّار kuffār) is an Arabic term used in a Islamic doctrinal sense, usually translated as "unbeliever," "disbeliever," or "infidel." The term refers to a person who rejects God or who hides, denies, or covers the "truth."
- The word kāfir is the active participle of the root K-F-R "to cover". As a pre-Islamic term it described farmers burying seeds in the ground, covering them with soil while planting.[1] Thus, the word kāfir implies the meaning "a person who hides or covers." According to Oxford - -- - Dictionary of Islam the word 'Kafir' means: 'Unbeliever. First applied to Meccans who refused submission to Islam, the term implies an active rejection of divine revelation. In Islamic parlance, a kāfir is a word used to describe a person who rejects Islamic faith, i.e. "hides or covers [viz., the truth]."

- the Arabic term used as a loanword in English is seen as derogatory, which is why some Muslim scholars discourage its use and suggest the neutral term non-Muslim instead.


True or false?
- All four major Sunni schools of thought hold that whoever follows another religion besides Islam is an unbeliever (kafir).

# Kufrul-Istihaal: Disbelief out of trying to make HARAM into HALAL. This applies to someone who accepts as lawful (Halal) that which Allaah has made unlawful (Haram) like alcohol or adultery. Only Allah has the prerogative to make things Halal and Haram and those who seek to interfere with His right are like rivals to Him and therefore fall outside the boundaries of faith.

"Allah forbiddeth you not those who warred not against you on account of religion and drove you not out from your homes, that ye should show them kindness and deal justly with them. Lo! Allah loveth the just dealers."

It is the aim of many Muslims belonging to the Sunni sect to restore the Khilafah (Caliphate) abolished by Kemal Ataturk in 1924.


Aqeedah refers to those matters which are believed in, with certainty and conviction, in one's heart and soul. They are not tainted with any doubt or uncertainty.

Aqeedah (Matters of Faith)
(the word Aqeedah) is derived from al-Aqad, which is to tie something (firmly)


Khilafah (caliphate)
The term caliphate, "dominion of a caliph ('successor')" (from the Arabic خلافة or khilāfa, Turkish: Hilafet), refers to the first system of government established in Islam and represented the leader's unity of the Muslim Ummah (community)[clarification needed]. In theory, it is an aristocratic–constitutional republic[1] (the Constitution being the Constitution of Medina), which means that the head of state, the Caliph, and other officials are representatives of the people and of Islam and must govern according to constitutional and religious law, or Sharia. In its early days, it resembled elements of direct democracy (see shura) and an elective monarchy.


After the Rashidun period until 1924, caliphates, sometimes two at a single time, real and illusory, were ruled by dynasties.

Abdülmecid II officially abolished the system of Caliphate in Islam (the Ottoman Empire)

The sayings of Islamic scholars: 
Al-Mawardi says:[21]
    It is forbidden for the Ummah (Muslim world) to have two leaders at the same time.

Yahya ibn Sharaf al-Nawawi (Al-Nawawi) says:[22]
    It is forbidden to give an oath to two leaders or more, even in different parts of the world and even if they are far apart.

Ahmad al-Qalqashandi says:[23]
    It is forbidden to appoint two leaders at the same time.

Ibnu Hazm says:[24]
    It is permitted to have only one leader (of the Muslims) in the whole of the world.

Al-sha’rani says:[25]
    It is forbidden for Muslims to have in the whole world and at the same time two leaders whether in agreement or discord.

Al-Qadhi Abdul-Jabbar (he is a Mu’tazela scholar), says:[26]
    It is forbidden to give the oath to more than one.


Let's examine.
Are these realistic?  And why do they go against they way God had always operated in the past according to the religion of Abraham?  In the ancient days God always appointed one to govern the people and one to be a spiritual leader... two leaders, always.  So is this from God, or from man?

For the vast majority of Muslims the caliph as leader of the ummah, "is[realistically] cherished both as memory and ideal".
* in brackets, added by me.

"If we look at the example of the Messenger (saw) how he ruled by Islam then we’ll learn that a state is needed and this State must be built by the Ummah on the basis of the Islamic Aqeedah alone."
"It is the aim of many Muslims belonging to the Sunni sect to restore the Khilafah (Caliphate) abolished by Kemal Ataturk in 1924. In the modern context, this is linked to the desire of proponents of the Islamic revival to see a global, united Islamic state. Inevitably, however large the borders of such a state, it would contain religious minorities. Muslims are usually insistent that other religious communities have always been treated with respect and dignity by true Muslim rulers. It is therefore pertinent to examine Islamic history to test the authenticity of this claim."
(citation:  http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/xstnc-6.html)

This is in regards to the Ottoman Khilafah:
"It is practices like these that have left dark memories in Balkan peoples and Armenians about the long years of Muslim rule."

"It should be remembered that the Muslim army was commanded by the Grand Vizier himself, Kara Mustafa. It is difficult to see how such behaviour could be considered as attracting people to Islam."

(I am not elaborating here, just sharing the research.  The further reference may be read here if you like...  http://debate.org.uk/topics/history/xstnc-6.html)  I can not declare the veracity of the reports... each must seek the truth for himself as I certainly hope that Muslims will do.  We need an enlightened, educated, Muslim community and not one following in blind faith.  A supporting document of the truth is the Treaty of Paris in March 1856.

If you seek truth consider this;
the burial-permit issued by a qadi (Muslim official) in 1855 for a deceased Christian: 'We certify to the priest of the church of Mary, that the impure, putrefied, stinking carcass of Saideh, damned this day, may be concealed underground.' [11] Undoubtedly, Muslims would regard such sentiments made in regard to a Muslim corpse to be bigoted and insensitive; they should not be surprised that Christians would react similarly, and find it difficult to credit that the Khilafah was indeed a Utopian regime.

and this;
the Khilafah was the legal government of the Greek and other Balkan peoples; it had a duty to defend, rather than exterminate its subjects. This raises two problems for Muslims seeking the revival of the Khilafah: firstly, a Government that believes it is legitimate to commit massacres in the name of religion is scarcely an attractive concept for those who might be its victims; secondly, because the Khilafah is considered as divinely ordered, Muslims are left defending the idea that God ordered the massacre of innocent women and children because of their religion.

End of references and research.
__________________________

What I know is this... the entire history of Muhammad and Islam has conflicted and contradictory reports and truth must be sought from many sources.
Heart


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 01 August 2012 at 1:18pm
Originally posted by i.dawa

Originally posted by Caringheart

Fatwa Bans Christian Priests from Public Transportation to Church
Dr. Yassir al-Burhami, a prominent figure in Egypt's Salafi movement and vice president of the Salafi Call has just issued a fatwa, published in the "Voice of the Righteous Salaf," forbidding Muslim taxi-drivers and bus-drivers from transporting Coptic Christian priests to their churches, which he depicted as "more forbidden than taking someone to a liquor bar."
Comments?


This type of "fatwa's" serve a greater political aim namely to look favorably towards embracing a secular system. There are crazy people who are used and abused and given the air time because these crazy people serve a purpose.

Just like the Taliban serve a purpose in giving Islam a negative image through the eyes of the western media.


I don't know how or why this got posted here... it is part of the thread titled Egypt.
Heart


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 01 August 2012 at 2:55pm
A much better response, encouragement, and article.
A Muslim's Call...
the Golden Age of Islam
, which spanned from the 9th to the 12th centuries. Why was it so dynamic and what happened to it?
http://reformjudaismmag.org/Articles/index.cfm?id=1052
Iijtihad - Islam's tradition of critical thinking
 
What eclipsed this enlightened period of Islam?

Toward the end of the 11th century, the gates of ijtihad closed for political reasons. The fragile Muslim empire--from Iraq in the East to Spain in the West--was experiencing a series of internal convulsions. Dissident denominations were popping up and declaring their own runaway governments. So the main Muslim leader, known as the caliph, cracked down politically. Within a few generations, Islam saw the closing of something else--the gates of ijtihad. The 135 schools of thought were whittled down to only four, in which conservative Sunni teachings reigned. This in turn produced a rigid reading of the Quran as well as a series of legal opinions known as fatwas that scholars could no longer overturn or even question, but only imitate. With some glorious exceptions, that's what Muslim scholars have been doing to this day--imitating each other's medieval prejudices, without much introspection. In fact, after the gates of ijtihad were closed, innovation was deemed a crime. Tolerance took a severe beating as result. One of the enduring lessons of history is that whenever an empire becomes insular to "protect" itself, intellectual decline and cultural intolerance are sure to follow.

How can ijtihad be restored today?

I don't believe there's a single answer. There are multiple audiences, so there have to be multiple approaches. Take, for example, Muslims in the West. We may be best positioned to revive ijtihad because we already enjoy precious freedoms to think, express, challenge, and be challenged without fear of government reprisal. Muslims are immigrating to the West in bigger numbers than ever--which offers my generation a sterling opportunity to help the emerging generations reconcile their Muslim identity with their pluralistic reality. One approach, then, is to teach young Western Muslims about Islam's towering intellectual figures, so they understand there's nothing incongruent about being thoughtful and faithful simultaneously. Very few public schools or Islamic religious schools are teaching these themes. Project Ijtihad seeks to fill that gap.

In the Islamic world, I believe the key is to improve literacy so that Muslims can read the Quran for themselves and see the various options it offers them for self-respect--as well as respect of the "other." For instance, the Quran tells women it is their right to reject marriage. And if they choose to accept marriage, the Quran encourages them to negotiate a contract so that their interests are no less protected than their husband's. You could say Islam introduced the prenuptial before Elizabeth Taylor popularized it! Also, when women read the Quran, they will encounter verses that heap praise on Abraham, grandfather of the three monotheisms, as well as passages that describe Jews as members of the "exalted nation." A couple of separate verses even validate the sovereign role of Jews in the Holy Land. Self-serving clerics won't share any of this information. You have to be literate to get it.

Interviewer:  I understand that after you finished speaking at the Consultation on Conscience, you stayed for the remainder of the conference, engaging in conversations with progressive Jewish groups. What did you seek to learn, and what has remained with you?

"I wanted to learn whether it's true that if you put three Jews in a room, you'll get five opinions. I discovered that's a myth. You'll actually get seven opinions. Better still, you'll see how diversity of thought does not have to undermine community."
 


Posted By: i.dawa
Date Posted: 01 August 2012 at 3:58pm
Further info on the reality of the so-called islamist movements.

http://theislamistsarecoming.wilsoncenter.org/islamists/islam-and-democracy#the_middle_east

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-13249434

"If you want to know what principles guide our party let me tell you - the principles of the Islamic Sharia law and they are included in the Egyptian Constitution. Our party is not a religious party but it's a civil party... that seeks a modern and democratic state but with a 'Islamic reference'. We see the principles of Islamic Sharia as the framework that governs us when we enact laws. We are not against any different reference as long as it does not conflict with our constitution. The important point is not to have parties based on religion and not to have parties with military wings to achieve any goals.

Mohamed Saad Katatni, secretary general of the Muslim Brotherhood

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2011/11/2011112694418337373.html

http://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/09/14/166814.html


Rachid Ganouchi Interview (En-Nahda - Tunisia)

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/24d710a6-22ee-11e0-ad0b-00144feab49a.html#axzz22L1szfKp




Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 01 August 2012 at 4:11pm
also;
http://www.ijtihad.org/Impose-Islam.htm

"We can prove that Muslims can live in harmony with non-Muslims and that the thesis of the clash of civilizations is bogus."

But only through enlightenment...
remembering the Byzantine era...
study what made the Byzantine era of Islam great.


Posted By: i.dawa
Date Posted: 01 August 2012 at 5:30pm
Interestingly caringhearts comments are in line with ideas that are constantly being promoted in the minds of muslims in order to getting them to accept the dominion of kufr over them and turning Islam in to a personal relegion. In other words muslims should remain silent and become like the followers of all the other religions.

I will address some of the points www.ijtihad.org later for the benefit of the muslims perhaps on another thread.

Muslims are not blood thirsty people as described by the western media and the politicians. Most non-muslim in the western world accepted what their governmnts tell of Islam and the muslims and they've used groups like "al-Qaeda" and the likes of the Taliban to depict a negative image of Islam.

As for the term (Kuffar) the Quran uses it and I don't have a problem with it.

As for quoting/following scholars we follow a different approach to the Jews and Christians.

"They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah" (Quran 9:31)

"It was not that they worshipped these people, but rather whatever they made permissible for them, they believed it to be permissible and whatever they forbade, they believed to be unlawful. " (Hadith from Tirmidhi)

So for us if a scholar bases his opinion on the quran and the sunnah and gives his understanding then we'll study this and if convincing enough then we'll act upon it because we are forbidden from following anyone other than the teachings of the Messenger (saw).

I will address the issue of muslim and non muslim living in harmony later if Allah wills.





Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 01 August 2012 at 6:29pm
Originally posted by i.dawa

In other words muslims should remain silent and become like the followers of all the other religions.

Muslims are not blood thirsty people

"It was not that they worshipped these people, but rather whatever they made permissible for them, they believed it to be permissible and whatever they forbade, they believed to be unlawful. " (Hadith from Tirmidhi)

So for us if a scholar bases his opinion on the quran and the sunnah and gives his understanding then we'll study this and if convincing enough then we'll act upon it because we are forbidden from following anyone other than the teachings of the Messenger (saw).

I will address the issue of muslim and non muslim living in harmony later if Allah wills.

"In other words muslims should remain silent and become like the followers of all the other religions."
Actually it is saying the exact opposite... that Muslims should read their scriptures and learn to speak up.

Please people go and read and decide for yourselves.  It's why I share the links and not just say what I think.  Anything I say, please go and explore for yourselves.  I serve no purpose in being a stumbling block to any who might belong to God.
"Muslims are not blood thirsty people "
The links that I shared were exactly to show that point.
and I'm sorry, but the rest of i.dawa's comment is nothing but inflammatory, unnecessary, and wrong.  Do not allow yourselves to be inflamed by slanderous remarks.  He violates the commandment, "Thou shalt not bear false witness".  'Who stirs up trouble amongst you'.
"It was not that they worshipped these people, but rather whatever they made permissible for them, they believed it to be permissible and whatever they forbade, they believed to be unlawful. " (Hadith from Tirmidhi)
How is this any different than Muslims and Muhammad?  They all believed they spoke for God.


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 01 August 2012 at 9:17pm
Originally posted by TruthSeeker995

The Israelites? who used the holocaust to displace a people and continue to oppress them using US weaponry and military aid while the world watches with complete apathy?

You are right though one can not blame America for looking after her "interests" like one can not blame a snake for biting and poisoning someone. It is what it does.


Let's talk about land grabbing and snakes that bite.

Translation of Sahih Bukhari, Book 93:
Volume 9, Book 93, Number 469:
    Narrated Ibn Abbas:
    When the Prophet sent Muadh to Yemen, he said to him, "You are going to a nation from the people of the Scripture, so let the first thing to which you will invite them, be the Tauhid of Allah. If they learn that, tell them that Allah has enjoined on them, five prayers to be offered in one day and one night. And if they pray, tell them that Allah has enjoined on them Zakat of their properties and it is to be taken from the rich among them and given to the poor. And if they agree to that, then take from them Zakat but avoid the best property of the people."

and I'm not throwing stones here... these things happen.  What I am saying is that the Muslims need to get over the perception that all things Islam are perfect and innocent.
Because you say it is done in the name of Allah, that makes it ok?
All the ancient tribes justified what they did saying it was their god, or gods that delivered it to them, or ordered it.

note:  and what land has America taken from anybody?  other than the land that is now called America... and there was nothing right about that either.  But since becoming a country, have they taken any land from anyone?  and certainly not in the name of any god.


Posted By: sultanmuradII
Date Posted: 03 August 2012 at 3:14am
Salam

Great thread, just what I had been thinking about - the so called 'Arab Spring'- ... As they say 'from the frying pan in to the fire' ...

Before USA supported tyrants like Mubarak, and now it supports those people who are so pliable that they will be the mouthpiece, and do the dirty work, for USA, and all justified under receiving funds and prosperity.

The division of our lands will remain, the occupation of our lands will remain, Secularism will be the basis just like in Turkey and Pakistan, and so corruption and suffering will continue, but all under a deception of liberation.


Posted By: sultanmuradII
Date Posted: 05 August 2012 at 6:49am
"If you want to know what principles guide our party let me tell you - the principles of the Islamic Sharia law and they are included in the Egyptian Constitution. Our party is not a religious party but it's a civil party... that seeks a modern and democratic state but with a 'Islamic reference'. "

Mohamed Saad Katatni, secretary general of the Muslim Brotherhood

The above quote from Muslim Brotherhood exposed them as not being Islamic, but secular just as what we see in places like Turkey. This is treacherous behaviour, may Allah guide them.


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 05 August 2012 at 3:30pm
Originally posted by sultanmuradII

This is treacherous behaviour, may Allah guide them.


In what way is it treacherous behavior?
Have you taken the time to study the Qura'n?  Have you considered that the Qur'an instructs a democratic society?  Take time to read some of the articles and then judge. Smile


Posted By: i.dawa
Date Posted: 06 August 2012 at 7:51am
Like I suggested carinhgheart should discuss whether Islam is the Truth or not and whatever he follows should be put to the test. Please start a new thread cause the discussion here is nothing to do with non-muslims hence you are being ignored.

As for the Arab Spring and the Great Deception to secularise the Ummah it would be nice to hear the comments of Muslim participants!!



Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 06 August 2012 at 9:52am
Originally posted by i.dawa


As for the Arab Spring and the Great Deception to secularise the Ummah it would be nice to hear the comments of Muslim participants!!

 

I think the notion that the Arab Spring flows from some sort of 'great deception' crafted by western European countries should be debated in the section on conspiracies.  I personally see no evidence for this assertion.   I do believe it is only prudent that when western interests are involved, that political outcomes in these countries will indeed have continued western engagement.

With respect to secularizing the Ummah by external forces it begs the question and debate of Islam and the secular state, and even, what constitutes the secular state, and whether or not there is compatibility.  Surely Islam as evidenced in Spain had little or no problem with pluralism and religious freedom.  Today, Muslims are by no means homogeneous and it becomes a question of what Muslims want and believe.  In the interest of not treading a secular democracy do Muslim wish to live the example of Sudan, Iran and Afghanistan?  Are the many millions of Muslims currently living in western countries who are thriving and living in peace and security willing to trade this for a theocratic rule?

My own personal opinion is that radical change in a country isn't sustainable and a path of moderation, and balance between tradition and change - using consensus/democracy is the best way forward.  How else will it become manageable in a country like Syria when dealing with Muslims (several different groups) Shia, (several different beliefs), Alawites, Jews, Christians (maybe a dozen different denominations) Druze, and Jihadis (and other such criminal thugs and gangs).   Do you really think this could become the seat of an Islamic Khilafah?!



Posted By: abujamal
Date Posted: 06 August 2012 at 10:26am
There is no secret, and certainly no theory, that the many of the players involved in fomenting the Arab Spring were actually groomed by the US as was April 6th Movement which received training and funding from the US State Department via the Alliance of Youth Movements umbrella.

It was kept a secret that 6th April were at the 2008 AYM conference in New York until it was released in the WikiLeak cable releases after which it transpired the movement had also received training from CANVAS, AKA Otpor, in Belgrade, which the US funded and trained to overthrow Milosevic.

Also note how while only about a quarter of the Egyptian population voted and while the vote count ofthe EGyptian Election was still underway, US media, particularly the State Department funded RFERL announced the Muslim Brotherhood as the winners and any challenge was met with claims of election fraud.

Regardless, the key point is the new leaders, while wearing Islamist labels, are implementing the same secular constitutions of their predecessors making it clear that Shariah has no role.

"Al-Nahda ventured into politics not to campaign for Sharia law, but to campaign for freedom..." http://panafricannews.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/tunisia-fought-for-freedom-not-sharia.html - Rachid Ghanouchi, Leader of the Al-Nahda party


Posted By: abujamal
Date Posted: 06 August 2012 at 10:58am
Looks like the US is also grooming the Syrian "Islamists" as the tool for secularizing the region and Ummah.

Members of Syrian opposition receive training in Berlin on 'democratic governance' in programme run by Swiss Foreign Ministry, Dutch and Norwegian NGOs, and US State Dept


http://downsum.heliohost.org/index.php?page=page&action=viewcommentsy&story=1886031669516000&email=&session=&special=null&category=


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 06 August 2012 at 2:31pm

 US funding of activities is one matter, but if this funding and youth group were directly and primarily responsible for the geneses of Syria's uprising (Arab Spring) is speculation at best.



Posted By: i.dawa
Date Posted: 06 August 2012 at 4:16pm
Originally posted by abuayisha


Originally posted by i.dawa


As for the Arab Spring and the Great Deception to secularise the Ummah it would be nice to hear the comments of Muslim participants!!


 
<font size="3" face="Times New Roman">

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" ="Msonormal"><span style='color: black; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt;'>I think the notion that the Arab Spring
flows from some sort of 'great deception' crafted by western European countries
should be debated in the section on conspiracies.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>I personally see no evidence for this assertion.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>I do
believe it is only prudent that when western interests are involved, that
political outcomes in these countries will indeed have continued western engagement.<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></span>

<font size="3" face="Times New Roman">

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" ="Msonormal"><span style='color: black; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt;'>With respect to secularizing the Ummah by
external forces it begs the question and debate of Islam and the secular state,
and even, what constitutes the secular state, and whether or not there is
compatibility.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Surely Islam as evidenced
in Spain had little or no problem with pluralism and religious freedom.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Today, Muslims are by no means homogeneous
and it becomes a question of what Muslims want and believe.<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>In the interest of not treading a secular
democracy do Muslim wish to live the example of Sudan, Iran and Afghanistan?<span style="mso-spacerun: yes;">  </span>Are the many millions of Muslims currently
living in western countries who are thriving and living in peace and security
willing to trade this for a theocratic rule?<o:p></o:p></span>

<font size="3" face="Times New Roman">

<p style="margin: 0in 0in 10pt;" ="Msonormal"><span style='color: black; line-height: 115%; font-family: "Verdana","sans-serif"; font-size: 9pt;'>My own personal opinion is that radical
change in a country isn't sustainable and a path of moderation, and balance
between tradition and change - using consensus/democracy is the best way
forward. <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>How else will it become manageable
in a country like Syria when dealing with Muslims (several different groups)
Shia, (several different beliefs), Alawites, Jews, Christians (maybe a dozen different
denominations) Druze, and Jihadis (and other such criminal thugs and gangs). <span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span><span style="mso-spacerun: yes;"> </span>Do you
really think this could become the seat of an Islamic Khilafah?!</span>

<font size="3" face="Times New Roman">



Salam Brother.

Jzk-Allah for your comments.

You see the problem is we all know that Islam is complete and perfect and yet this doesn't always reflect in our approach towards addressing issues so that we may firstly understand what we're dealing with.

We must accept that as Muslims we have to refer back Allah and His Messenger (saw), and every dispute must be settled according to Islam and not our own minds.

Sometimes Muslims get lost and confused so they start expressing opinions which doesn't conform to sharia rules because most of us are unaware of the reality of the struggle undergone by Allah's Messenger (saw).

The Messenger's struggle was to uproot kufr and spread Islam. This struggle was political in nature because He (saw) was actively seeking to establish the authority of Islam. As you probably know after many years of struggle Allah (swt) granted victory to the Muslims and the Islamic State in Medina was established. From there the dawa was launched on a State level while the Muslims implemented Allah's laws within the State.

After the Messenger (saw) passed away the companions of the Messenger (saw) carried on with the implementation of Islam and the spread of it to other nations.

This is how Islam manifests itself in a society.

Now some Muslims today would argue that times have changed and we live amongst other people of different beliefs and sects so therefore an Islamic Rule like of the Messenger (saw) will not work and so on. They will argue that we need an approach which is compatible with our reality today where we can accommodate the differences that exists in our countries etc.

Now the questions need to be asked whether it is allowed in Islam (which is complete and perfect) for:

A)     Muslims to live by anything other than the sharia
B)     Are Muslims allowed to rule by anything other than the Sharia
C)     Are Muslims allowed to be divided on nationalistic borders
D)     Can Muslims have more than one ruler at one time
The answer to the above questions is “NO”.

Now anyone who suggests that we need an approach which is more compatible today should take in to account all the sharia rules and then provide an answer as to how we go about living by Islam.

For some people (Muslims) when they talk about a different approach compatible with today depart from the wrong premise. They’re answers are from their own minds and not sharia. It is more in line with what is acceptable by people other than Muslims. They ignore sharia rules and end up legislating rules which are not from Islam in order to make Islam fit in the current norm. This is what the Muslim Brotherhood is doing. This is wrong because trying to please anybody other than Allah (swt) would be sinful and could even lead to kufr.
As Muslims we have to command the good and forbid the evil, change our reality so that it conforms to Islam and not the other way round where some people end start changing sharia rules so that it fits in to the reality.
Now to those who do not perceive the nature of the Islamic Aqeedah taking in to account that Allah (swt) is the creator, to Him belongs everything, and this life is a test (battle between Iman and Kufr), day of reckoning etc can we ignore the ayah of the Quran and be selective with our Islam and take guidance from those who are considered to be the enemies of Allah?

Allah’s deen is perfect and within this deen there are rules which take care of a society which is composed of Muslims and non-Muslims.

Today the so-called “extremists” who go round attacking non-Muslims in the name of Islam have helped those who use incidents like this in order to frighten people of Islam. Incidents like this are used to stir up debate and discussions whether religion (Islam) should be part of ruling or not. The enemies of Allah are those who oppose Islam, and it is those people and nations who are constantly pushing ideas which are non Islamic and yet coated in such manner that it seems very appealing to people and especially the Muslims and in particular the Muslims who reside in Muslim countries Arab countries due to their reality (living under dictatorial regimes).

Before we talk about what will work for our time and whether a radical change which is completely in favour of Islam will work or not we should remind ourselves of some golden rules in Islam such as:

Islam is a perfect deen revealed by Allah which comes with its own set of rules. Since it is a perfect deen it does not accept human intervention in devising a method of implementing the sharia rules. The job of the mind is to apply the sharia rules and it is forbidden for man to legislate in Islam. Every matter has to be referred back to the Sharia, and it is a condition on the Muslims to emulate the Messenger (saw) and none other because He (saw) is the best example to follow and this is the order of Allah (swt).

As for Muslims who may be living in non-Muslim countries and who may think that they’re able to practice their religion without any complications – well, this is only because Islam is just a personal religion for them and they do not appreciate the fact that Islam is a way of life, a rational Aqeedah/Ideology which needs to be implemented, protected and propagated to other nations.
A Muslim cannot judge right and wrong and what work and doesn't work from his own experiences rather he has to see if Allah’s commands are being obeyed (all of them) and if not then he should question why not and how it can be obeyed.

Around 80% of Islam is to do with rules and regulations which can only be administered by an Islamic State. The Islamic Ummah is responsible for the Implementation of Islam and the propagation of it. This is easily accepted by those who know that this life is a test and it is a battle between truth and falsehood.

I hope I’ve answered some of your points and insha-Allah next time I will give some references from Quran and Sunnah.


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 06 August 2012 at 5:53pm
Originally posted by abuayisha


I think the notion that the Arab Spring flows from some sort of 'great deception' crafted by western European countries should be debated in the section on conspiracies.  I personally see no evidence for this assertion.   I do believe it is only prudent that when western interests are involved, that political outcomes in these countries will indeed have continued western engagement.

With respect to secularizing the Ummah by external forces it begs the question and debate of Islam and the secular state, and even, what constitutes the secular state, and whether or not there is compatibility.  Surely Islam as evidenced in Spain had little or no problem with pluralism and religious freedom.  Today, Muslims are by no means homogeneous and it becomes a question of what Muslims want and believe.  In the interest of not treading a secular democracy do Muslim wish to live the example of Sudan, Iran and Afghanistan?  Are the many millions of Muslims currently living in western countries who are thriving and living in peace and security willing to trade this for a theocratic rule?

My own personal opinion is that radical change in a country isn't sustainable and a path of moderation, and balance between tradition and change - using consensus/democracy is the best way forward.  How else will it become manageable in a country like Syria when dealing with Muslims (several different groups) Shia, (several different beliefs), Alawites, Jews, Christians (maybe a dozen different denominations) Druze, and Jihadis (and other such criminal thugs and gangs).   Do you really think this could become the seat of an Islamic Khilafah?!



Thumbs%20Up


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 06 August 2012 at 6:25pm
Originally posted by i.dawa

Like I suggested carinhgheart should discuss whether Islam is the Truth or not and whatever he follows should be put to the test. Please start a new thread cause the discussion here is nothing to do with non-muslims hence you are being ignored.

As for the Arab Spring and the Great Deception to secularise the Ummah it would be nice to hear the comments of Muslim participants!!



What a wonderful example of what it means to be a follower of beloved prophet Muhammad and the teaching of the Qur'an.

Disapprove

"... following the rituals of Holy Qur’an, we were ordered to debate the others with wisdom and good faith. The Almighty Allah is the ONLY one who knows the intentions and the ONLY one who has the final judgment. It is not allowed to accuse the others of being strayed and/or blasphemous."


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 06 August 2012 at 7:22pm
Around 80% of Islam is to do with rules and regulations which can only be administered by an Islamic State. 
 

No need to make this religion complicated.  From where I sit in Los Angeles it is easy to apply the following:

 

Narrated Talha bin 'Ubaid-Ullah:

A bedouin with unkempt hair came to Allah's Apostle and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Inform me what Allah has made compulsory for me as regards the prayers." He replied: "You have to offer perfectly the five compulsory prayers in a day and night (24 hours), unless you want to pray Nawafil." The bedouin further asked, "Inform me what Allah has made compulsory for me as regards fasting." He replied, "You have to fast during the whole month of Ramadan, unless you want to fast more as Nawafil." The bedouin further asked, "Tell me how much Zakat Allah has enjoined on me." Thus, Allah's Apostle informed him about all the rules (i.e. fundamentals) of Islam. The bedouin then said, "By Him Who has honored you, I will neither perform any Nawafil nor will I decrease what Allah has enjoined on me. Allah's Apostle said, "If he is saying the truth, he will succeed (or he will be granted Paradise)."



Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 06 August 2012 at 7:45pm

   Muslims to live by anything other than the sharia
   Are Muslims allowed to rule by anything other than the Sharia

It was related on the authority of Abu Sa’id Sa’d bin Malik bin Sinan al-Khudri, radiyallahu ‘anhu, that the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam, said:

“There should be neither harming nor reciprocating harm.”

This is the essence of sharia, and the reason why Prophet Muhammad sent almost half of his ummah (at that time) to live under the Christian rule of Najashi.


     Are Muslims allowed to be divided on nationalistic borders
    Can Muslims have more than one ruler at one time

If seeking to bring about a situation where no borders exist, or only one Sultan to rule over all the Muslims, will bring about a greater harm than having borders (Nation States) and separate rulers, it becomes mandatory to leave matters as they are.  You tell me; how much blood would be have to flow in order to bring about your utopian vision?



Posted By: AbuUbaydah
Date Posted: 07 August 2012 at 5:34am
As-Salaamu Alaikum,

If I may add a few comments. Indeed what is correct and obligatory according to shariah is not suspended on the basis of there being no/ less benefit or more harm. Allah azawajal says in the Quran, paraphrasing - that you may think something is good when in fact it is not and you may think something is bad when in fact it is good - Allah knows and you know not. If we are to argue along the lines of benefit/harm then we have removed ourselves far from the straight path, for our criterion is no longer obedience to Al-Hakim. This is a dangerous idea. It must be said also that this is not the same as one seeking the most practical way to fulfill an obligation either. One may look to take the easier of any options providing of course they are permissable in the first place. However, the obligation is never suspended due to a difficulty.

Specifically addressing the situation in the Muslim lands, one need not engage in armed rebellion to overthrow existing despotic regimes and kingdoms, nor does long lasting change come through the replacement of a ruler - Change will come if the masses were to unite upon the correct ideas i.e. accepting that sovereignty belongs to Allah, refusal of nation states and unification of the Muslims etc - popular rejection will result in the authority of the villains ruling the Muslim lands being stripped away. This however does not mean that the ruling powers will give up too easy or will not look to contain any threat but this is when the courage of the Muslims will be brought into the fore. Change will not come about simply by sitting at home. Allah draws a comparison in the Quran asking whether such a person is the same as one striving in the way of Allah. Sacrifice is a central ideal and we should be reminded of it especially in Ramadan. We will have to sacrifice everything we have, our time, our health while we're young, money and resources to align the Muslims upon the truth. We should not be scared of sacrifices.

Touching upon the ''conspiracy". Visit this website www.mepi.state.gov to get a better idea how the popular will of the Muslims is being steered away from a true Islamic rule. Funding program's and grooming groups and individual's to subplant democracy and secularism in the minds of the masses. By raising awareness of this issue, we can to work to avert the Muslims from following this path. One just has to follow the news to perceive these plans. I agree that foreign powers do not wield the Muslims like a puppet on a string - using a hidden remote control to steer events on a divine level of precision. However they do plan very effectively and they lay down effective foundations to ensure they bear fruit. Unfortunately it is us who are duped time and time again and it is us that do not rise the challenge of explaining Islam and calling for it holistically.


Posted By: i.dawa
Date Posted: 07 August 2012 at 8:41am
Originally posted by abuayisha

Around 80% of Islam is to do with rules and regulations which can only be administered by an Islamic State. 
 


<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt" =Msonormal><SPAN style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin"><FONT face=Calibri>No need to make this religion complicated.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>From where I sit in Los Angeles it is easy to apply the following:<?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><O:P></O:P></SPAN>



 

<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt" ="Msonormal"><SPAN style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin"><FONT face=Calibri>Narrated Talha bin 'Ubaid-Ullah: A bedouin with unkempt hair came to Allah's Apostle and said, "O Allah's Apostle! Inform me what Allah has made compulsory for me as regards the prayers." He replied: "You have to offer perfectly the five compulsory prayers in a day and night (24 hours), unless you want to pray Nawafil." The bedouin further asked, "Inform me what Allah has made compulsory for me as regards fasting." He replied, "You have to fast during the whole month of Ramadan, unless you want to fast more as Nawafil." The bedouin further asked, "Tell me how much Zakat Allah has enjoined on me." Thus, Allah's Apostle informed him about all the rules (i.e. fundamentals) of Islam. The bedouin then said, "By Him Who has honored you, I will neither perform any Nawafil nor will I decrease what Allah has enjoined on me. Allah's Apostle said, "If he is saying the truth, he will succeed (or he will be granted Paradise)."



<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt" ="Msonormal"><?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><O:P></O:P>
</SPAN>



Salam Brother.

The hadith you quoted could be conditional and perhaps this was only relevant to the Bedouin. This hadith cannot be generalise in such manner that if all Muslims were to do only what is mentioned in the hadith the they'll end up neglecting other obligatory matters in the deen such Hajj, obeying ones parents, providing for one’s family, carrying dawa etc, refraining from backbiting, staying away from Riba etc.

The Deen is a complete way of life and not just a few rituals. The Quran and the Books of hadith contains many duties other than those mentioned in the above hadith and neglecting them would be sinful.

May Allah guide us to what pleases Him most.







Posted By: i.dawa
Date Posted: 07 August 2012 at 9:30am
Originally posted by abuayisha

<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt" =Msonormal><SPAN style="LINE-HEIGHT: 115%; FONT-FAMILY: 'Verdana','sans-serif'; COLOR: black; FONT-SIZE: 9pt"><SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">   </SPAN></SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin"><FONT face=Calibri>Muslims to live by anything other than the sharia    Are Muslims allowed to rule by anything other than the Sharia <?:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" /><o:p></o:p></SPAN>


<P style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0.25in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto" =Msonormal><FONT face=Calibri><SPAN style="COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: Meiryo; mso-fareast-: JA">It was related on the authority of Abu Sa’id Sa’d bin Malik bin Sinan al-Khudri, radiyallahu ‘anhu, that the Messenger of Allah, sallallahu ‘alayhi wasallam, said: </SPAN><SPAN style="COLOR: #301818; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: Meiryo; mso-fareast-: JA"><o:p></o:p></SPAN>


<P style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0.25in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto" =Msonormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: Meiryo; mso-fareast-: JA"><FONT face=Calibri>“There should be neither harming nor reciprocating harm.” <o:p></o:p></SPAN>


<P style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0.25in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto" =Msonormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family: Meiryo; mso-fareast-: JA"><FONT face=Calibri>This is the essence of sharia, and the reason why Prophet Muhammad sent almost half of his ummah (at that time) to live under the Christian rule of Najashi.<o:p></o:p></SPAN>


<P style="LINE-HEIGHT: normal; MARGIN: 0in 0in 0.25in; mso-margin-top-alt: auto" =Msonormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin"><FONT size=3 face=Calibri>     <FONT face=Calibri>Are Muslims allowed to be divided on nationalistic borders     Can Muslims have more than one ruler at one time<o:p></o:p></SPAN>


<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt" =Msonormal><SPAN style="COLOR: black; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin"><FONT size=3 face=Calibri>If seeking to bring about a situation where no borders exist, or only one Sultan to rule over all the Muslims, will bring about a greater harm than having borders (Nation States) and separate rulers, it becomes mandatory to leave matters as they are.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>You tell me; how much blood would be have to flow in order to bring about your utopian vision?</SPAN><SPAN style="mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-theme-font: minor-latin"><o:p></o:p></SPAN>



1)The hadith about "harm" does not nullify all the other Ahkams does it?

2)What is your definition of "harm" and who defines it?

Consider the following ayah's and ahadith before replying:

“It is not fitting for a Believer, man or woman, when a matter has been decided by Allah and His Messenger to have any option about their decision: if any one disobeys Allah and His Messenger, he is indeed on a clearly wrong Path." [Qur’aan 33:36]

"Fighting is ordained for you, even though it be hateful to you; but it may well be that you hate a thing the while it is good for you, and it may well be that you love a thing the while it is bad for you: and God knows, whereas you do not know" 2:216 Quran

“I have been ordered to fight people until they profess that there is no god but Allah. If they said it, their lives and their wealth would be inviolable to me, except that which is by right and Allah (swt) will hold them accountable.” (Hadith)

"Verily, those who conceal the clear proofs, evidences and the guidance, which We have sent down, after We have made it clear for the people in the book, they are the ones cursed by Allah and cursed by the cursers." [al-Qur'aan, al-Baqara(2):159]

"And who is better in speech than he who invites to Allah and does righteous deeds, and says: 'I am one of the Muslims.'" [al-Qur'aan, Fussilat(41):33]

"And rule between them by that which Allah has revealed and follow not their vain desires, but beware that they may turn you away from some of what Allah has revealed." (Qur'an, 5:49)

“It is He Who has sent His Messenger with guidance and the religion of truth, to make it superior over all religions, even though the Mushrikûn (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) hate (it).” [9: 33]

“Alif Lam Ra, a Book which We have revealed unto you in order that you might lead mankind out of the depths of darkness into light by the leave of their Lord to the Way of the Exalted in power, the Worthy of all praise.” [TMQ 14-1]

“You are the best nation sent to mankind, you enjoin what is righteous and forbid what is evil.” [TMQ 3-110]

"There will come a time in my Ummah where there will be nothing left from Islam but its name and nothing left from the Qur'aan but its letters. Many mosques will be built but they will be empty from guidance. No hudood will be established, and they will not call to Islam nor command the good and forbid the evil. They will be the worst of creations." (Hadith)

,"The Muslim Ummah is a unique Ummah among the whole of mankind: Their LAND is ONE, their WAR is ONE, their PEACE is ONE, their HONOR is ONE and their TRUST is ONE". (Hadith)

Abu Da'wud that the Messenger of Allah (saaw) said,

"He is not one us who calls for `Asabiyyah, (nationalism/tribalism) or who fights for `Asabiyyah or who dies for `Asabiyyah."

I'd like to go by what Allah and His Messenger (saw)say. The possibility of "harm" as per your suggestion did not stop the Messenger (saw) to establish the authority of Islam, nor did it stop Him (saw) and the companions from ruling over people by Islam. The whole of Arabian peninsula did not come under the authority of Islam automatically without any efforts and planning from the Muslims.

Good and Bad is defined by Allah not you and I, and certainly not the kuffar.

The enemies of Islam have managed to convince certain Muslims with the help of some "scholars for dollars" that calling for Islam and the unity of Muslim lands as Islam orders will result in bloodshed and it'll go against the norm of today so therefore we should be tolerant of kufr and live under its dominion.

"Islam dominates and nothing else dominates above it."

Daraqutni, Al-Bayhaqi, At-Tabarani


Posted By: i.dawa
Date Posted: 13 August 2012 at 10:35am
A youtube talk on the Arab Spring..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQIWQsz-UUg


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 13 August 2012 at 11:25am

The essence of our religion is concerned with the preservation of five basic and fundamental rights;

religion, life, intellect, offspring and property.  If we allow you to insist upon your misguided and unrealistic quest, all of the above rights I have as a human are compromised.  My definition of harm - given what you are proposing would be as I previously mention,  what amount of blood are you will to shed seeking your goal?  When our former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright was asked if she felt that reports of a half million children dying was worth it, she said the price was worth it.  I explain "harm" in these terms.  When resultant harm to religion, life, intellect, offspring and property is greater than what you are seeking to achieve it becomes mandatory for you to adopt another approach.  And I say patience is best.  Wallahu Mustaan! ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll - )



Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 13 August 2012 at 11:36am
[QUOTE=i.dawa]A youtube talk on the Arab Spring..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQIWQsz-UUg%5b/QUOTE - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gQIWQsz-UUg[/QUOTE ]
 
Well, it is certainly a gross overstatement to consider Hizbutahrir to be "the voice of the ummah" however, after having viewed this video yourself, are there any points you'd like to share on the Arab Spring?


Posted By: i.dawa
Date Posted: 15 August 2012 at 9:45am
In the wake of the upheavals that have shaken the Arab world since December 2010, activists, politicians, and analysts have all been searching for new, democratic models of governance that could come into force in these lands. The cases of Iraq and Turkey are perhaps the most obvious choices to examine based on the notion that these are the only examples of functioning democracies within Muslim-majority nations of the Middle East.

http://www.meforum.org/3293/iraq-turkey-democratization


What is Turkey's position in the Greater Middle East Initiative?

We want to look at “the Greater Middle East Initiative and the position of Turkey in this initiative” in the light of changing structure of the political scenes and concepts.

http://www.worldbulletin.net/?aType=...rticleID=71637

SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR FURTHER READING WHICH TALKS ABOUT THE "GMEI" AND THE "TURKISH MODEL".



Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 15 August 2012 at 3:45pm

Originally posted by i.dawa

Now the questions need to be asked whether it is allowed in Islam (which is complete and perfect) for:

A)     Muslims to live by anything other than the sharia
B)     Are Muslims allowed to rule by anything other than the Sharia
C)     Are Muslims allowed to be divided on nationalistic borders
D)     Can Muslims have more than one ruler at one time
The answer to the above questions is “NO”.

I think you forgot the most important one, when it comes to politics:

E)  Are Muslims allowed to impose their religion on non-Muslims?
The answer to that is also "NO".  There is no compulsion in religion.


-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: Caringheart
Date Posted: 15 August 2012 at 4:04pm
Originally posted by Ron Webb

Originally posted by i.dawa

Now the questions need to be asked whether it is allowed in Islam (which is complete and perfect) for:

A)     Muslims to live by anything other than the sharia
B)     Are Muslims allowed to rule by anything other than the Sharia
C)     Are Muslims allowed to be divided on nationalistic borders
D)     Can Muslims have more than one ruler at one time
The answer to the above questions is “NO”.

I think you forgot the most important one, when it comes to politics:

E)  Are Muslims allowed to impose their religion on non-Muslims?
The answer to that is also "NO".  There is no compulsion in religion.


and what about oppression? 
You forgot oppression which supposedly Muhammad was strongly against.   

What does the Qur'an say about oppression(denying rights) of those who do not share in the religion? 

It seems I remember Muhammad speaking about fighting oppression wherever you find it.  And yet, where do you find the most oppression?

It seems that as much as Muhammad spoke against oppression, he also spoke for it.


Posted By: i.dawa
Date Posted: 15 August 2012 at 4:08pm
I'm going to give you a short answer for now..

You are right because muslim aren't allowed to force others to become muslims. For one to become a muslim it has to be by their own will after they acknowledge that Islam is the Truth.

On the other hand the system by which muslims govern their affairs has to be according to Islam. The non-muslims in the Islamic State have certain rights and they're not treated as some non-muslims would like to imagine.

I'll advise you to do some research if you are interested in finding out more.



Posted By: Ron Webb
Date Posted: 15 August 2012 at 6:17pm

Originally posted by Caringheart

It seems I remember Muhammad speaking about fighting oppression wherever you find it.  And yet, where do you find the most oppression?

In Islamic States, by far.  I'm not sure what your point is, but most western secular democracies enjoy much more freedom of religion than Muslim theocracies, even for Muslims themselves.


Originally posted by i.dawa

On the other hand the system by which muslims govern their affairs has to be according to Islam.

Sunni or Shia?  Do Sunnis get to impose their religious dogma on Shias, or vice versa?

Individuals should vote for the kind of government that best reflects their personal beliefs, which in a Muslim-majority country would naturally result in an especially Muslim-friendly nation.  But they should leave as much room as possible for minority beliefs to live according to their own conscience.   The only legitimate purpose of government is to ensure civil order, not to impose its religious dogma on individuals.  That would not be Islamic, among other things.



-------------
Addeenul ‘Aql – Religion is intellect.


Posted By: abujamal
Date Posted: 17 August 2012 at 1:45pm
Morsi & Mubarak: Spot the difference - Same Kufr, New Face

Further proof of the great deception of the Arab Spring in which America is replacing its old servants with new ones posing as Islamist, yet swearing to up hold the same secular constitution law and Republican system.

Becomes difficult for those who are trying to hide the sun in the middle of the day:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZVZop7dRrQ&feature=player_embedded - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZVZo...layer_embedded


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 17 August 2012 at 2:55pm
Originally posted by abujamal

Morsi & Mubarak: Spot the difference - Same Kufr, New Face

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZVZop7dRrQ&feature=player_embedded - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZVZo...layer_embedded
 
Where is the deception and kufr? Is it because in taking the oath of office he has affirmed to uphold and preserve the Republican order? How do you find this in contradiction to Islamic principles? Republicanism is simply the rule by a head of state, which is certainly not un-Islamic, or worse, kufr. What am I missing here?


Posted By: abujamal
Date Posted: 17 August 2012 at 7:59pm
Mursi taking the Same Oath to uphold the same kufr constitution of a State built on the same kufr premise as of Mubarak which shows nothing's changed.

Alhamdulillah, Muslims are not that declined to not see through this despite America's efforts to sell their new agents to the muslims.


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 18 August 2012 at 12:06am

Which aspects or articles of the constitution in your estimation call to disbelief?  Keep in mind that in matters of worship everything is forbidden except what is allowed by textual evidence, and in worldly affairs everything is permissible but what has been clearly forbidden.  Therefore, what specific article in the Egyptian constitution is forbidden, and please support your answer with textual evidence?  The danger in your rhetoric is that if one upholds a "kufr constitution" he should be opposed, and opposition leads to fitna in the land.



Posted By: sultanmuradII
Date Posted: 29 August 2012 at 6:43am
Salam,

This is a false principle that in "worldly affairs" everything is permissible unless clearly forbidden, misunderstood by some people from the principle that objects (material things) have all been created for us to use except the few that have been expressly forbidden.

In fact even the categorisation between between what is worships and what is 'transactions between people' was done by jurists to highlight different areas and some broken down further categories like morals, foods stuffs, social/family rules, but all actions fall under 5 rules from reward and punishment perspective:

obligatory
recommended
permisible
disliked
forbidden

We can not presume that any rule is originally permissible, as every action will be accounted on the day of judgement, how ever minute.

"and whoever does an atoms weight of bad will see it" 99:8

For example we are shown the details of marriage, and can not assume everything is permissible unless clearly forbidden, rather we seek the guidance in every matter because Islam guided in all matters even if it made many matters permissible.

Thus in matters of governments also we have guidance, rules and the best of example in what the Messenger (saw) brought.

The Egyptian constitution is a nationalistic constitution giving ultimate sovereignty to the people of Egypt to decide the laws, and not to Allah (swt) and this contradicts Islam.


Posted By: i.dawa
Date Posted: 07 September 2012 at 10:21am
Egypt is not a religious state but a civil (secular) one says Morsy.

http://www.egyptindependent.com/news/egypt-not-religious-state-morsy-tells-students



Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 07 September 2012 at 4:10pm
I don't think Morsy views "civil" and "secular" as synonymous as suggested above, however civil in terms of power shifting from the army to elected leaders through a civil process.  There is little doubt that religion will have representation in Egyptian society.  But don't expect Egypt to follow the same path as Sudan, Iran and Afghanistan in making unsustainable and unwise declarations.
 
 


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 07 September 2012 at 4:54pm
Originally posted by sultanmuradII

Salam,

This is a false principle that in "worldly affairs" everything is permissible unless clearly forbidden, misunderstood by some people from the principle that objects (material things) have all been created for us to use except the few that have been expressly forbidden. 

 

There is no disagreement with scholars regarding areas of worship needing textual evidence before engaging.  The affairs of a country are so vast surely you can’t expect text prior to action.  This is not to say that text on some aspects are not mentioned, and when found they are applied, but as a general rule one is not precluded from action as in the case of ibadah.  An example on a micro level would be you as leader of your home.  In December you wouldn’t put up Christmas lights around your home and sing Christmas carols, because we can point to text which would forbid this practice for a Muslim, however if you desired to cut your grass twice monthly as opposed to once a week, this requires only your judgment as to what is best for your home.  There is no difference on the macro level for governing a country.  The general rule is permissibly in matters having nothing to do with worship, therefore if Egypt requires a fee for cargo ships entering port Zeit,  this is the prerogative of Egyptian Port Authority – as in cutting your grass twice monthly – general rule, permissibly for matters outside of worship.    



Posted By: i.dawa
Date Posted: 10 September 2012 at 6:27am
Originally posted by abuayisha

Originally posted by sultanmuradII

Salam, This is a false principle that in "worldly affairs" everything is permissible unless clearly forbidden, misunderstood by some people from the principle that objects (material things) have all been created for us to use except the few that have been expressly forbidden. 

 

<P style="MARGIN: 0in 0in 10pt" =Msonormal><FONT face=Calibri>There is no disagreement with scholars regarding areas of worship needing textual evidence before engaging.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>The affairs of a country are so vast surely you can’t expect text prior to action.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>This is not to say that text on some aspects are not mentioned, and when found they are applied, but as a general rule one is not precluded from action as in the case of ibadah.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>An example on a micro level would be you as leader of your home.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>In December you wouldn’t put up Christmas lights around your home and sing Christmas carols, because we can point to text which would forbid this practice for a Muslim, however if you desired to cut your grass twice monthly as opposed to once a week, this requires only your judgment as to what is best for your home.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>There is no difference on the macro level for governing a country.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">  </SPAN>The general rule is permissibly in matters having nothing to do with worship, therefore if Egypt requires a fee for cargo ships entering port Zeit, <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes"> </SPAN>this is the prerogative of Egyptian Port Authority – as in cutting your grass twice monthly – general rule, permissibly for matters outside of worship. <SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">   </SPAN>



Salam brother.

Morsy's comment exposes the "Islamist's" on how they dropped Islam for approval and backing from America. As for applying Islam as a ruling system then we have to adhere to the method of the Messenger (saw) and prepare the grounds by culturing people with Islam as an ideology and once people are aware of the nature of the Islamic Aqeedah being spiritual and political and the desire is to live by Islam then we'll have to assume power so that Islam can be applied.

I hope you'll stop making excuses for people who don't deserve it.

There is an huge effort being waged in distorting the Imaage of a state based on religion (Islam) and this is why America is now using the likes of AK party, Muslim brotherhood and An-Nahda to propmote the idea of a "Civil State".

Erdogan and his new associates explicitly call for a civil state and reject the idea of a state based on religion.

This Article may make you think twice:

http://www.alarabiya.net/articles/2011/09/14/166814.html

They know what they mean by a "civil state" but some of us seem to fall for their justifications over what they actually mean.

May Allah (swt) guide us to what pleases Him most.


Posted By: i.dawa
Date Posted: 10 September 2012 at 7:09am
Those that are interested in facts may have a read of this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muslim_Brotherhood

"The Brotherhood's credo was and is, "Allah is our objective; the Quran is our law, the Prophet is our leader; Jihad is our way; and death for the sake of Allah is the highest of our aspirations."[9][10] The Brotherhood's English language website describes the "principles of the Muslim Brotherhood" as including firstly the introduction of the Islamic Shari`ah as "the basis for controlling the affairs of state and society;" and secondly work to unify "Islamic countries and states, mainly among the Arab states, and liberating them from foreign imperialism"

"Its founder, Hassan Al-Banna, was influenced by Islamic reformers Muhammad Abduh and Rashid Rida. In the group's belief, the Quran and Sunnah constitute a perfect way of life and social and political organization that God has set out for man. Islamic governments must be based on this system and eventually unified in a Caliphate. The Muslim Brotherhood's goal, as stated by Brotherhood founder Hassan al-Banna was to reclaim Islam's manifest destiny, an empire, stretching from Spain to Indonesia.[19] It preaches that Islam enjoins man to strive for social justice, the eradication of poverty and corruption, and political freedom to the extent allowed by the laws of Islam. The Brotherhood strongly opposes Western colonialism, and helped overthrow the pro-western monarchies in Egypt and other Muslim countries during the early 20th century."

"The Muslim Brotherhood's candidate for Egypt's 2012 presidential election was Mohamed Morsi. The Egyptian cleric Safwat Higazi spoke at the announcement rally for the Muslim Brotherhood's candidate Morsi and expressed his hope and belief that Morsi would liberate Gaza, restore the Caliphate of the "United States of the Arabs" with Jerusalem as its capital, and that "our cry shall be: 'Millions of martyrs march towards Jerusalem.'"

HOPEFULLY SOME PEOPLE WILL REALISE FROM THE ABOVE HOW CERTAIN MOVEMENTS HAVE DROPPED WHAT THEY ARE USUALLY KNOWN FOR IN ORDER TO GET TO WHERE THEY ARE NOW.




Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 10 September 2012 at 9:04am
Originally posted by i.dawa


HOPEFULLY SOME PEOPLE WILL REALISE FROM THE ABOVE HOW CERTAIN MOVEMENTS HAVE DROPPED WHAT THEY ARE USUALLY KNOWN FOR IN ORDER TO GET TO WHERE THEY ARE NOW.
 
Great! Welcome to the real Islam.  I don't see how a declaration of "Islamic State" will somehow transform the life of everyday Egyptians struggling to feed, clothe, and educate their children.  Muslims, in whatever country they are found today, are more in need of substance, and can do without ceremonial formalities aimed only at pleasing the radical few.  Why must civil necessary equal un-Islamic?  Any "civil" society that upholds religion, life, intellect, offspring and property - all of which are the basis of sharia, is a great place for a Muslim to reside, in spite of  your need for formal proclamations.


Posted By: i.dawa
Date Posted: 11 September 2012 at 10:06am
Dear brother abuayisha.

Let’s not discuss for the sake of discussion and pay some attention to what is actually being highlighted in this discussion.

1) The "Islamist" parties in the Arab/Muslim world have dropped what they were founded upon such as the idea of Khilafah, unity of Muslim lands, Implementation of sharia etc now that they're in power.

2) We are not saying they should declare Egypt as an Islamic State and everything will then be ok. The point is they did not stick to what they are known for. We would like you and other Muslims to take this in to account.

3) I hope you read the bit where I said how a state is built as per the sharia method. In our opinion we have to rule by Islam, which requires a state to exist which will then look after the affairs of its people.

I have a few questions for you:

1) Is Islam perfect and complete?
2) What did the Messenger of Allah (saw) rule by after establishing the state in Medina?
3) Were the Messenger (saw) and His companions radicals?

"Any "civil" society that upholds religion, life, intellect, offspring and property - all of which are the basis of sharia, is a great place for a Muslim to reside, in spite of your need for formal proclamations."

4) Please can you provide the evidences (dalil/proof) for the above statement?

Jzk-Allah





Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 11 September 2012 at 1:01pm
With respect to your first question, Allah says, 'This day have I perfected your religion for your, completed My favors upon you......."
 
Our Prophet, who cannot be compared to any other, ruled by the Book of Allah, and even prior to prophethood he was known to be kind, honest and humble.  He was a devoted husband, religious teacher and statesman.  Sir George Bernard Shaw said; 'He was by far the most remarkable man that ever set foot on this earth. He preached a religion, founded a state, built a nation, laid down a moral code, initiated numerous social and political reforms, established a powerful and dynamic society to practice and represent his teachings and completely revolutionized the worlds of human thought and behavior for all times to come.'
 
Your question as to whether or not our Messenger and his companions were radical is assumed to be rhetorical, however I answer by saying it is important that scholars consider time, place and circumstance when applying fiqh.
 
Lastly, as I mentioned before, Abyssinia is an example of where the Messenger of Allah sent his companions in order to protect their religion, life, intellect, offspring and property.


Posted By: i.dawa
Date Posted: 30 September 2012 at 11:03am
Just a quick reply and Insha-Allah will elaborate further in the future.

1) The Prophet (saw) showed us how to live by Islam (all of it). He (saw) is an example to follow and it is obligatory and denial would mean amount kufr.

2) In order for there to be an Islamic State there has to be a group who works with the ummah in order to prepare the grounds - similar to what the Messenger (saw) did and Medina was where the birth of Islamic State happened. I urge the Muslims to read a reliable Seerah Book for further knowledge.

3) A group who is working for Khilafah cannot assume power unless the Ummah is revived intellectually and understands that the Islamic Aqeedah is a political and a spiritual one.

4) The case with Abyssinia shows that Muslim are allowed to seek political asylum to flee from persecution. It is not proof to suggest that we should leave the systems of Islam and establish a "just" society as per any other criterion other than Islam. The prophet (saw) did not say we should build a state like the one Abyssinia.

5) America has succeeded in making some Muslims ashamed of Islam and now some Muslims judge Islam according to what the Kafir's likings.

6) Nothing has change in terms of the battle between Truth and Falsehood (iman and kufr). Shaytan still exists and he's mission is to misguide mankind and lead to the fire. The day of resurrection is true and the world will come to an end. Let us not get fooled by those who oppose the Islamic way of life and talk about modernity and the need for reforms. Islam is here to deal with all problems at all times.

7) Let us not look for "loop Holes" in order to twist the truth and bring it in conformity with kufr. Let us not be shy to say Allah's revelation is the best and man has no right to legislate.

8) Let us not twist what is being said here and think that we should wage a war with the non Muslims. Let us look at the early stages of Islam and see how the Messenger (saw) dealt with kufr and how He (saw) made Islam prevail.

9) Scholars in Islam are not evidence and their job is to explain the Sharia rules and not to invent them.

10) The Messenger (saw) was sent as mercy to mankind with Islam and Islam is mercy. In other words only the rule of Islam can liberate mankind from the falsehood to the correct way of life. Mercy does not mean turn a blind eye to kufr and accept the current norm (kufr).

Here’s a video on the topic of Khilafah:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XoB0gY80Mlk



Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 30 September 2012 at 3:28pm

1. Denial of what means kufr?

2. Which book in your estimation is the most reliable seerah?

3.  Please explain further….

4. What is your evidence?  Abyssinia was primary for preservation of deen, and not political

persecution.

5. What is an example to illustrate your concern?

6.  Let us move beyond slogans and speak in specifics.

7. 
“If you fear a breach between the twain (the man and his wife), appoint (two) arbitrators, one from his family and the other from hers; if they both wish for peace, Allah will cause their reconciliation. Indeed Allah is Ever All-­Knower, Well­-Acquainted with all things.” (Quran, 4:35)

Did not Allah make man an arbitrator?  The default unless having to do with deen is permissibility. 

8.  Well, certainly whenever there is an action a reaction follows, thus all the more reason we should speak clearly and to the point.

9. An example would be helpful to know what is meant here.

10.  Nor should we not use our sense in not creating a greater harm, because this may indeed mean certain matters are not carried out. 


Ibn az-Zubayr said, "I heard Aisha (may Allah be pleased with her) say, 'The Prophet said: "If your people had not quite recently abandoned the Ignorance (Unbelief), and if I had sufficient provisions to rebuild it [the Kaba], I would have added five cubits to it from the Hijr. Also, I would make two doors; one for people to enter therein and the other to exit." (Bukhari).



Posted By: i.dawa
Date Posted: 02 October 2012 at 8:09am
The issue of harm and benefit is discussed here:

http://www.islamicity.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23663

Let's leave this discussion for the Deception of the Arab Spring!


PS. As for the Issue of Abyssinia this will also be discussed on a separate thread soon Insha-Allah so that it becomes clear in the minds of some muslims who use it as a "model" over the model of islam.






Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 02 October 2012 at 9:05am
Originally posted by i.dawa

".. so that it becomes clear in the minds of some muslims who use it as a "model" over the model of islam."
 
Well, like it or not, it is very much a part of our Prophet's sunnah, and as such, we can apply legal rulings to base our current actions upon.  Surely you are not suggesting that we pick and choose that which suits our desires, and that of hizbut tahrir - are you?


Posted By: i.dawa
Date Posted: 02 October 2012 at 11:58am
Originally posted by abuayisha


Originally posted by i.dawa

".. so that it becomes clear in the minds of some muslims who use it as a "model" over the model of islam."

 
Well, like it or not, it is very much a part of our Prophet's sunnah, and as such, we can apply legal rulings to base our current actions upon.  Surely you are not suggesting that we pick and choose that which suits our desires, and that of hizbut tahrir - are you?


All in good time dear brother - we'll see where Abyssinia fits in and what we can take from it when we start a new thread (discussion) on the topic!

Once admin approves my post on the topic of Benefit and Harm InshaAllan you are welcome to respond.

Jzk-Allah


Posted By: abuayisha
Date Posted: 02 October 2012 at 7:27pm

barakallah feek! Khair insha'Allah.



Posted By: i.dawa
Date Posted: 04 October 2012 at 7:55am
Source: RAND (2004)
---------------------------------------------------------

To encourage positive change in the Islamic world toward greater democracy, modernity, and compatibility with the contemporary international world order, the United States and the West need to consider very carefully which elements, trends, and forces within Islam they intend to strengthen; what the goals and values of their various potential allies and protégés really are; and what the broader consequences of advancing their respective agendas are likely to be. A mixed approach composed of the following elements is likely to be the most effective:


• Support the modernists first:

— Publish and distribute their works at subsidized cost.
— Encourage them to write for mass audiences and for youth.
— Introduce their views into the curriculum of Islamic education.
— Give them a public platform.
— Make their opinions and judgments on fundamental questions of religious interpretation available to a mass audience in competition with those of the fundamentalists and traditionalists, who have Web sites, publishing houses, schools, institutes, and many other vehicles for disseminating their views.
— Position secularism and modernism as a “counterculture” option for disaffected Islamic youth.
— Facilitate and encourage an awareness of their pre- and non-Islamic history and culture, in the media and the curricula of relevant countries.
— Assist in the development of independent civic organizations, to promote civic culture and provide a space for ordinary citizens to educate themselves about the political process and to articulate their views.

• Support the traditionalists against the fundamentalists:

— Publicize traditionalist criticism of fundamentalist violence and extremism; encourage disagreements between traditionalists and fundamentalists.
— Discourage alliances between traditionalists and fundamentalists.
— Encourage cooperation between modernists and the traditionalists who are closer to the modernist end of the spectrum.
— Where appropriate, educate the traditionalists to equip them better for debates against fundamentalists. Fundamentalists are often rhetorically superior, while traditionalists practice a politically inarticulate “folk Islam.” In such places as Central Asia, they may need to be educated and trained in orthodox Islam to be able to stand their ground.
— Increase the presence and profile of modernists in traditionalist institutions.
— Discriminate between different sectors of traditionalism. Encourage those with a greater affinity to modernism, such as the Hanafi law school, versus others. Encourage them to issue religious opinions and popularize these to weaken the authority of backward Wahhabi inspired religious rulings. This relates to funding: Wahhabi money goes to the support of the conservative Hanbali school. It also relates to knowledge: More-backward parts of the Muslim world are not aware of advances in the application and interpretation of Islamic law.
— Encourage the popularity and acceptance of Sufism.

• Confront and oppose the fundamentalists:


— Challenge their interpretation of Islam and expose inaccuracies.
— Reveal their linkages to illegal groups and activities.
— Publicize the consequences of their violent acts.
— Demonstrate their inability to rule, to achieve positive development of their countries and communities.
— Address these messages especially to young people, to pious traditionalist populations, to Muslim minorities in the West, and to women.
— Avoid showing respect or admiration for the violent feats of fundamentalist extremists and terrorists. Cast them as disturbed and cowardly, not as evil heroes.
— Encourage journalists to investigate issues of corruption, hypocrisy, and immorality in fundamentalist and terrorist circles.
— Encourage divisions among fundamentalists.

• Selectively support secularists:


— Encourage recognition of fundamentalism as a shared enemy, discourage secularist alliance with anti-U.S. forces on such grounds as nationalism and leftist ideology.

—     Support the idea that religion and the state can be separate in Islam too and that this does not endanger the faith but, in fact, may strengthen it.

Whichever approach or mix of approaches is chosen, we recommend that it be done with careful deliberation, in knowledge of the symbolic weight of certain issues; the meaning likely to be assigned to the alignment of U.S. policymakers with particular positions on these issues; the consequences of these alignments for other Islamic actors, including the risk of endangering or discrediting the very groups and people we are seeking to help; and the opportunity costs and possible unintended consequences of affiliations and postures that may seem appropriate in the short term.


Posted By: Mohammad Golem
Date Posted: 17 November 2012 at 12:39am
Muslims don't know anything about peace and liberty to be able to give any dissertations. America should just do the world a big favor and nuke every country that is dominated by Islam.


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 02 December 2012 at 3:53am
Originally posted by Mohammad Golem

Muslims don't know anything about peace and liberty to be able to give any dissertations. America should just do the world a big favor and nuke every country that is dominated by Islam.


I can't believe I'm reading such horrible comments. There must be a reason when someone is so full of hatred. Something terrible must have happened in your life, Mohammad Golem. The only other explanation is trolling. In this case we shouldn't feed the troll.



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: honeto
Date Posted: 04 December 2012 at 2:54pm
Only non-Muslims lunatics can make such comments and still walk free as it is tolerated. I wish they treat this same and do what they do to a Muslim lunatic when he makes such a threat.

Hasan

-------------
39:64 Proclaim: Is it some one other than God that you order me to worship, O you ignorant ones?"


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 16 December 2012 at 8:14am
Originally posted by abuayisha

Originally posted by i.dawa

As for the Arab Spring and the Great Deception to secularise the Ummah it would be nice to hear the comments of Muslim participants!!
Surely Islam as evidenced in Spain had little or no problem with pluralism and religious freedom.  


Wrong, Abuayisha. We need to depict history accurately. Islam in Spain has little to do with modern democracy. It was an apartheid-type system. There was official discrimination against Christians and Jews (and against Muslim women too). Muslim men were the rulers, like the white men in South Africa till 1993. There was no pluralism and religious freedom in the modern sense. Muslims in Muslim Iberia did not have the freedom to become Christians. They could not disagree with the Sharia and found political parties to change the laws. The Sharia is in large parts a set of barbaric, inhumane laws, created more than 1000 years ago and based on 7th-century Arab tribal culture.

The Arab Spring in Egypt is now headed for barbarism. The new Sharia-inspired Egyptian constitution makes discrimination official: discrimination against women and discrimination against Christians and other religious minorities. The Muslim Brotherhood was the first Islamist terror organization of the 20th century.



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 16 December 2012 at 8:20am
Originally posted by honeto

Only non-Muslims lunatics can make such comments and still walk free as it is tolerated. I wish they treat this same and do what they do to a Muslim lunatic when he makes such a threat.
Hasan

This is not entirely correct, Hasan. Asking people to commit a crime is a crime and not free speech.



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt


Posted By: Matt Browne
Date Posted: 16 December 2012 at 8:31am
Originally posted by abuayisha

I don't see how a declaration of "Islamic State" will somehow transform the life of everyday Egyptians struggling to feed, clothe, and educate their children.  Muslims, in whatever country they are found today, are more in need of substance, and can do without ceremonial formalities aimed only at pleasing the radical few. 


Egypt based on an Islamist, Sharia-inspired constitution will make life of everyday struggling Egyptians even worse. Investors will avoid Egypt even more. And soon tourists will avoid Egypt too, destroying millions of tourist-related jobs. Imagine the first news report about unmarried teenagers being whipped after having sex or unfaithful married women being stoned to death or people getting beheaded for insulting Islam. I also fear for the lives of the millions of Egyptian Copts. We will see more and more destroyed churches, like what is happening in Nigeria or Iraq. More and more Christians are leaving Iraq because of violent followers of the religion of peace. Half the Christian population has fled, with an estimated 330,000 to Syria and smaller numbers to Jordan. Now if Islamists take over in Syria with Assad gone, these Christians have to flee yet again, all in the name of the world's best religion.



-------------
A religion that's intolerant of other religions can't be the world's best religion --Abdel Samad
Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people--Eleanor Roosevelt



Print Page | Close Window