al-Sistani and Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi [Archive] - Understanding Islam Community

newsX

3rd February 2005, 00:29

Newsx, think about it. Islamic law is superior to man-made law in every way! Divine law, is better than democracy anyday! For the muslims, we rule by allahs azzawajjal word. Our constitution is the qur'an, we live by islam, rule by islam. And besides, you see al zarqawis opinion as half crazed, tell me this. Half the country is destroyed, thousands slaughtered, the americans have turned the country to rubble. The invading infidals, they kill all the civilans, women and children involved, ther is nowere left to vote! And also, tell me this...the elections are a sham, puppet government, puppet leader, puppet regime! Why would you vote? I don't understand?!! So what he is saying, how is it half crazed????!!!!

Hi there Hash.

Very much better. With all due respect, your latest response to me is a studied example of bottled-up emotions. Keep it up :)

Okay. I do not dispute the muslim view that divine law is better. However, I fail to see how the essential principals of democracy contradict islam. Aside from the fact that the western conceptualization of democracy is a seperation of church and state, the bare doctrine of democracy is really consensus-building.

As is obvious, though, democracy is not the same everywhere. Even what you might consider as seperation of church and state isn't necessarily the base feature of democracy. George Bush quite easily wears his religion on his cuffs. He makes no secret that he makes his policy decisions based on his christian faith. He makes it very clear that God is on his side [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2921345.stm]. He unshamedly does not drink alcohol. He invites pastors and bishops to say mass for worship events; he invites imams to the White House for talks. He visits masjids, and even broke fast with Muslims during Ramadan. In America, seperation of church and state is beginning to lose its momentum.

To adopt zarqawis' brash denouncement of democracy per se is surely a mistake borne of impulse. Jordan's secret service say zarqawi was an alcoholic and had once been charged of sexual assault [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi]. Is he really an authority on democracy?

And my question remains? Are ordinary Muslims, whose background on theological education is shady at best, allowed to make such religious pronouncements?

You say:
"Half the country is destroyed, thousands slaughtered, the americans have turned the country to rubble."

But the fact is, Iraq was bleeding under Saddam's rule too. I am sure you agree that Saddam, like many other leaders in the Middle East, was nothing more than a hypocritical despot. The Baath party was never a religious party, and apparently, managed to earn Usama's ire too.

The shias tried to topple him once, but failed, and was punished quite brutally. Sistani detests him. His father was executed by the Baath.

Are you saying that its all right for Saddam to slaughter thousands of kurds and shia, and not all right when the americans are the ones holding the whip?

You say:
"The invading infidals, they kill all the civilans, women and children involved"

No, it is the insurgents who bomb marketplaces, police stations, shia shrines; drag iraqi election officials out into the streets and execute them without due process of law (shariah?)

The blood is on the hands of those who fear the majority (shia) taking over the reins of government, as they rightly should.

You say:
"ther is nowere left to vote!"

The turnout was larger than even the amercian presidential elections.

You ask:
"Why would you vote?"

Why do you think the shia came out to vote, hash? I'd like to hear your opinion on this...

=====

My other question which you did not quite clear up was this:

Your accusation that sistani is baised on the side of the west is rather a tall order. You once said that the west were the ones who were bombing shia shrines, didn't you? Well, Sistani is the head honcho of shia movement in iraq.

I think both lines of thought are rather contradictory. Can you articulate this for us?

Ansar Al-Haq

3rd February 2005, 00:50

Salaam newsX,
Don't believe any lies that people say. islam is a religion BASED on democracy! islam is a democratic system!

This website will answer all your questions about politics in Islam:
http://www.islamonline.net/english/introducingislam/topic08.shtml

A khilafa= Islamic democracy

I have already proven this point in threads like "HT- Return of the Khilafa"

Democracy has many islamic principles.

Ron

3rd February 2005, 00:51

Salam All,

Army your type of posts don't belong here. You either stop or you may leave.

Hash,

Do you support all hatered and violence? I don't mean to be offensive but since when does anyone have God's authority to declare anything? I urge you to study more. No one backs terrorist ideologies, not one scholar. The "terrorists" are coming up with their own fatwas based on their agendas. Who is Zaraqawi? You accept a person who masks himself? Maybe he thinks he's Batman or some other masked super hero. Some people have the courage to stand for the truth. You don't know who he is. You don't know where what he's done. You don't know his ideologies. You watch him kill both Muslims and non-Muslims and it doesn't matter because it's a "resistance." Well the "resistance" is a sham. If it were real the elections wouldn't have taken place. The "resistance" would consist of more than tens of men. I ask again please let the emtional attachments and let's discuss the issues and the truth.

Divine law, is better than democracy anyday!
What is the Divine law? Please explain it. What is democracy? Please explain it to me. Also, tell me the difference and where they are against each other. Factual examples would be great.

Half the country is destroyed, thousands slaughtered, the americans have turned the country to rubble.
It is obvious you know little about the history of Iraq. The country was "destroyed" from before. Saddam cared less about anything. He only gave money to the different tribes in the country to keep them quiet. The country is a mess. "Thousands slaughtered?" How about 100's of thousands slaughtered? Saddam turned the country into hell for the Iraqis. He's killed more Muslims than any American government has. Let's deal with the facts. If you bring them we can discuss them. Keep the opinions aside.
Razwan,

P.S. Ron: I believe the most wanted list of the FBI is for crimes on American soil. Zarqawi heads their most wanted terrorist list, which includes individuals who act "against American interests" outside the US (as well as inside).
Thanks I didn't think about that. Would you happen to have the answer why he covers his face?

Regards

Ansar Al-Haq

3rd February 2005, 00:56

Maybe he thinks he's Batman or some other masked super hero. Some people have the courage to stand for the truth.
Good ol' Ronnie Roo! :bravo: :raisether

Tell you what... i'll dialogue with hash if you take care of my smileys :D

newsX

3rd February 2005, 01:08

Ansar Al-Haq

3rd February 2005, 01:13

Did you like it? (the website) :)

Hashim

3rd February 2005, 17:03

This man, zarqawi, may not even exist. This could just be another propaganda bogeyman to justify american mass bombings! It is his view that we are disputing. (IT IS VERY CONFUSING!!???!)

Newsx, let me clear the air. This sectarian violence and shia/sunni conflict is nothing! They are both muslims end of the day. Don't you see, the shia mujahideen and the sunni mujahideen are working as one resistance movement. They resist the occupation, when the time for prayer comes, they scurry to a mosque quickly, join ranks and pray behind one imam! The west tries to tempt sectarian tension, but it is all in vain. They will fail because what the west fails to see is this, the shias and sunnis both belive in one god, one prophet and one book. They are both MUSLIMS!

Ahmed Waheed

3rd February 2005, 17:09

Assalam . . .

:cool: Good point.

Wassalam . . .

Hashim

3rd February 2005, 17:17

Brother ahmad, thanks for the support, but what is the point? They want listen to what i am saying! Iran, yes they are shiaa, but they are our muslim brothers, they are on the brink of invasion from america. We need to stick together, but these idiots just make the situation 10 times! You got one idiot called sheik right, and he says that he has a hadith which destroy all the sunni's, then he goes into hiding, then you got nadeem, who is in denial he is brainwashed by the west!

Guest

3rd February 2005, 17:17

Ron.

So are u telling me that you sitting here on an internet forum, issuing fatwas against the brothers and sisters who fight, and are the mujahideen in Palestine, in Iraq, in Afghanistan e.t.c., have the courage to stand for the "truth"? What truth are u expounding on? You seem to have missed the truth that YOUR brothers and sisters are being slaughtered, unjustly. You seem to have missed the truth that sitting on an internet forum isnt gonna help where the help is needed. You do nothing but sit there asserting that the Muslims are to blame because they "leave their doors open". If those are the best words of encouragement you've got for those strong people out there, fighting for Allah, then u might as well keep them. Its like i said before, i cant see u fighting on the battlefield for Islam. Maybe sitting on ur internet forum spreading ur "truth" is ur way of fighting, who knows?

Hashim

3rd February 2005, 17:20

Sheik haroon and ahmad waheed, brothers we are just talking to a brick wall with these jokers. Iran is on the brink of invasion, and look how we are bickering with each other like this !

Guest

3rd February 2005, 17:22

Salaam Hash.

Allah is with Iran. Who knows, the Americans may be defeated there. May Allah strengthen the mujahideen, and make us strong for our time too.

Ahmed Waheed

3rd February 2005, 17:22

Sheik haroon and ahmad waheed, brothers we are just talking to a brick wall with these jokers. Iran is on the brink of invasion, and look how we are bickering with each other like this !
Assalam . . .

:confused: Sorry; am I missing somthing? What exactly does that mean? Could you share it with us?

Wassalam . . .

Guest

3rd February 2005, 17:24

Is it really on the brink of invasion? Well, whatever the case may be, the Ayatullah Sistani better call a jihad, muster the shia to his side, and throw back the wretched enemies of Islam. May Allah give them a swift and efficient victory.

Hashim

3rd February 2005, 17:24

Brother look, look at the beauty of the situation! Iran is shia, and we differ with the shia, but look how stupid we are! The mujahideen in iraq, in syria, lebanan, yemen, etc, will pour into iran inshAllah and defend the muslim land!

Ahmed Waheed

3rd February 2005, 17:26

Assalam . . .
:)
May Allah Help the Muslims . . . Ameen

Wassalam . . .

Guest

3rd February 2005, 17:26

Mujahideen will come, and martyrs will leave, yes i know. However, each of the above named countries, have their own problems as it is.

Hashim

3rd February 2005, 17:27

Brothers i understand the confusion, i will explain insh'allah. Basically bush just said in his union speech live on air, that iran is the main terror place, etc ( all the usual rubbish ) and iran is going to be invaded! It is breaking news on all the news channels. The iran leader condemned the speech!

Guest

3rd February 2005, 17:28

Which Iran leader? What is Sistani doing?

Hashim

3rd February 2005, 17:30

Brorhers, this is the problem, we do not have proper accesses to news in the middles east. I urge all muslims to regulary check out www.jihadunspun.com and other islamic reporters in the middle east and keep in tune with what is going on! It is true, the americans almost fully re-claimed falluja, but it is only temporaliy, the mujahideen came pouring in and by the grace of allah re-claimed the city! This is a prime example!

Hashim

3rd February 2005, 17:31

I am not sure which iran leader, sky news did not clarify, and all the other news channels are not giving details of the iran leader. Forget sistani, he wont do much, he is too afraid!

Hashim

3rd February 2005, 17:33

Over the past few weeks, statements issued by President Bush and his officials have ripened speculation that America is about to change the regime in Iran. During his State of the Union speech on Wednesday, Bush declared, “Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror - pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve...To the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you”. On 21/01/05 during his inauguration address, Bush said, "We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” This statement was widely interpreted by the world’s media that Bush is to adopt an interventionist approach in ending regimes that promote tyranny and replacing them with pro-American democratic regimes. The immediate focus of this doctrine appears to be Iran. Earlier in the day, US Vice President Dick Cheney described Iran as the number one trouble spot in the world. He said, "You look around the world at potential trouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list."

Guest

3rd February 2005, 17:33

SubhanAllah. May Allah send the dogs fleeing back to the pounds from whence they came.

Hashim

3rd February 2005, 17:34

Ameen

Guest

3rd February 2005, 17:34

"You look around the world at potential trouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list."

First it was Afghanistan, then Iraq, now Iran.

Hashim

3rd February 2005, 17:35

After iran, syria will be next, the list goes on!

Guest

3rd February 2005, 17:36

And soon our time will come.

Hashim

3rd February 2005, 17:37

Things will change, it will not stay like this.

Guest

3rd February 2005, 17:39

Yeah come down to my college, and we'll declare a jihad. What do u say:p?

Ahmed Waheed

3rd February 2005, 17:39

Assalam . . .

:( I can see no doubt that it is a War against Islam.

Wassalam . . .

Hashim

3rd February 2005, 17:44

This is pointless, nadeem goes and hisham khan comes, he goes and another joker comes!

Ahmed Waheed

3rd February 2005, 17:47

This is pointless, nadeem goes and hisham khan comes, he goes and another joker comes!
Assalam . . .

:cool: There must be alot of jokers around here. ;)

Wassalam . . .

Hashim

3rd February 2005, 17:49

FULL WITH JOKERS! WWW.LOAD-ISLAM.COM IS GOOD!

I have to log out now, allah hafiz brothers. Brother sheik haroon and ahmad waheed, don't let these idiot jokers get you down. They bow down to the west, we bow down to allah azzawaajal!

Guest

3rd February 2005, 17:49

Oh yes, the word that we Brummies use the most is "joker" - for an idiotic person, and "masayr" - (ask Hash for the meaning);)!

Hashim

3rd February 2005, 17:51

Well put it this way, sheik haroon is a prime example of a musair! Nah just joking, true brother is the correct term, as is ahmad waheed.

Guest

3rd February 2005, 17:51

Ok Hash, take care of yourself, stay safe. Salaam.

Ahmed Waheed

3rd February 2005, 17:53

Assalam . . .

The foolish try to grasp the riches of the world, while the wise go for the here-after. :cool:

Wassalam . . .

Guest

3rd February 2005, 17:54

Ok brothers, im off too. See u round;) salaam.

razwan1979

3rd February 2005, 18:06

assalaamu 'alaykum

I was going to respond to Hash, but then I saw this:

"don't let these idiot jokers get you down. They bow down to the west, we bow down to allah azzawaajal!"

Apart from name-calling (which I can understand given your age and will ignore) you have just accused any Muslim on this thread who happens to disagree with you of engaging in some form of shirk, and so tantamount to kufr. I find such an idea repugnant. May God forgive you. And this is from someone who calls for "unity".

It is clear you have no interest in a discussion, apart from accusing other Muslims of kufr. Fear Allah.

assalaamu 'alaykum

Hischam Khan

3rd February 2005, 18:08

Hash, do you "bow" to Allah (swt) with this insulting attitude? Do you "bow" before Him by branding everyone that disagrees with you “dumb”, “idiot” and “joker”? What kind of worship is this? Or is your worship only in the Mosque? Then you feel insulted when I say that you disobey God’s directives? What are you doing right there? And Haroon, you take this so light? He is merely being “harsh”? Is that it? Is the Qur’an like a game of poker or something? Allah (swt) says:

“O you who have believed, neither should men mock other men, it may be that these are better than they; nor should women mock other women, it maybe that these are better than they. Do not taunt one another nor call one another by nicknames. It is an evil thing to be called by a bad name after faith. Those who do not avoid this are wrongdoers.” – Surah Al-Hujurat 49:11

“Wrongdoers”! How bad can you get? I am showing you these verses and still you continue! Did the Almighty forget to add “But if you feel like being harsh because you are “Hash” go right ahead!” Amazing! Please, grow up. See a psychologist. Do something! But don’t make a mockery of Islam. You are blatantly going against God’s directives and won’t even stop when you’re being presented with them.

Nadeem

3rd February 2005, 19:07

then you got nadeem, who is in denial he is brainwashed by the west!
Salaam Hash,

Will you stop blurting your unfounded accusations you WORTHLESS troublemaker???:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: I have no respect for people like you.

You are now yourself backbiting like a hypocrite!!:mad:
How and of what am I in denial?:confused: Please explain.
Can you prove that I am brainwashed?You don't even know me!
I am not brainwashed by anybody but it seems that you clearly are!
It shows in what you say which doesn't reflect Islam but rather uncontrolled anger,pride and arrogance.All of which are evil sins.:cool:
Why haven't you answered my posts in the other threads?
You know you cannot possibly produce any evidence for your non-sense.
Ever since both you and your buddy Waseem(who ran away) failed to prove me wrong in the 'Qiyam ul Lail' thread you have been trying to defame me.
Then you talk of unity,you don't know the meaning of the word nor the meaning of truth and justice.:( :cool:

Wasalaam.

Ansar Al-Haq

3rd February 2005, 19:14

;)

Hash, you really need to take a sincere look at reforming your views with the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Salaam

Nadeem

3rd February 2005, 19:23

Salaam Ansar,

Sometimes people can learn by taking a dose of their own medicine if not by other means,but Hash is more importantly wrong for holding extremist views which are in complete opposition to the Holy Qur'an and Sunna?:(

I have asked him to show me where it says to go to another land to kill atheists in another thread with no response as usual!!:( :cool:

Wasalaam.

Hashim

3rd February 2005, 20:26

Nadeem, you really take it to far. And what is so irrataing, is that you ask questions, but ignore the answers! About the atheists, i replyed to that in the thread more than 5 minutes ago! Come on man wake up and stop crying. You say my extremist views are not in coheriance with the qur'an and the sunnah, and ansar echo's the same point. PROVE IT, in this thread tell me which view of mine contradicted the qur'an, come on i challenge you. I asked you this same question more than a hour ago aswell, problem is, your all talk. Show me which view is contradictting the qur'an,-then you wonder why i call you dumb-!

Hisham khan, what i meant is this bout the bowing. When i said that some of you are bowing to the west, i do not mean literrly bowing down, prostating on the ground to the west. Come on ma, you know i did mean that and your just causing trouble. You know what i meant, pleasing them, kwwping them happy, keeping them sweet (bowing to the west).

Hashim

3rd February 2005, 20:33

Yeah now what, back into hiding! Come on nsdeem, why start on me, and then disappear like a coward. You have no argument, nothing, your all talk! Face it! You said i say the command exists to go out and kill atheists, when did i say this! You say i have extremist views which contradict the quran, what views are these, present them!

Hashim

3rd February 2005, 20:41

Come on man nadeem, you make me look like the bad guy. You starte this, you attacked me, you drew first blood, now you are backing out and keeping silent. PAAAATHEETICCC!!!!!

Nadeem

3rd February 2005, 21:17

Salaam,

Give me a chance to read and reply properly without jumping to outrageous conclusions like you do!!:LOL: :LOL:
Hash now you are just lying!!:mad: I wasn't attacking anyone but was just participating in the discussion.
You are the one who attacked me first and called me wrong as well as almost all the members of this forum.
Look in the 'Qiyam' and 'Suicide bomber' threads.:cool:

I have just shown you in the 'suicide bomber' thread how by agreeing with those "sheikhs" who ordered the killing of that atheist,you were disagreeing with the Qur'an and Sunna.
That is why I asked you to show me how those "sheikhs" were so correct and I was so wrong to disagree with them!!:cool: :)

Wasalaam.

newsX

4th February 2005, 01:11

Dear Hash,

I was beginning to have high hopes in engaging in a meaningful discussion with you, but you have relapsed into your default mode of avoiding questions and name-calling. If I may say so, your words, the way you conduct yourself; all are clear indications of your juvenile mind. No offense intended. Simply stating what is obvious to everyone, and perhaps, to you too.

This could just be another propaganda bogeyman to justify american mass bombings! It is his view that we are disputing.

One moment, you declare that Abu Mus'ab Al-Zarqawi is a propaganda bogeyman, another moment, you openly affirm your support with the man's views. I am concerned, because your mind seems to be going through some convoluted double-think (sic Orwell).

As it is, you still have not provided any meaningful (and sane) study on how Islam contradicts the essential principles of democracy. Across several posts, the same question has been posed to you, and your non-response is answer enough.

Newsx, let me clear the air. This sectarian violence and shia/sunni conflict is nothing! They are both muslims end of the day.

I don't understand what you mean by your "sectarian violence and shia/sunni conflict is nothing". Are you saying it does NOT exist? Or that it is unimportant in the scheme of things?

Don't you see, the shia mujahideen and the sunni mujahideen are working as one resistance movement.

No, I don't see.

So far:

1. Most violence spring from Sunni-dominated regions
2. Most victims are Shia
3. Most religious places targetted by suicide bombs are Shia masjids (I haven't heard one Sunni masjid being bombed yet)
4. Most voters who turned up were Shia, as opposed to the low turn out of Sunni [http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4229355.stm]

If you think that there is some form of conspiracy between Shia and Sunni, I think you will be sorely disappointed. The 'facts on the ground' do not seem to support your bold assumptions.

I am sorry to use terms like Sunni and Shia, but that is the reality on the ground. I do not mean to divide. I seek only to push a point.

They resist the occupation, when the time for prayer comes, they scurry to a mosque quickly, join ranks and pray behind one imam!

I see 2 difficulties in your statement.

1. What is the official position of Sunni scholars on praying behind a Shia Imam? Even from a cursory examination, I would say that it is not very encouraged.

2. I know, from personal experience, that the Shia and the Sunni carry out their Friday Prayers very differently. I have seen Shia Muslims beating their chests softly in some sort of ritualistic lament (maybe a Shia can correct me).

Do Sunni worshippers do that? Will you, Hash, attend a Shia friday service and beat your chest along with them?

The west tries to tempt sectarian tension, but it is all in vain.

Again, you repeat this mysterious assertion, without providing any semblance of proof. My question remains unanswered:

Your accusation that sistani is baised on the side of the west is rather a tall order. You once said that the west were the ones who were bombing shia shrines, didn't you? Well, Sistani is the head honcho of shia movement in iraq.

On the one side is a west that is intent on provoking sectarian violence by targetting Shia shrines and worshippers. On the other, is a man widely respected not only in Iraq, but also in Iran, as the leading authority on Shia matters- Sistani- a man whom you blithely accuse of 'working' with the west, apparently to destroy Iraq.

[sic]Al sistani on the other hand, is a shia leader, and very much biased and alligned with the US., so he wants to keep them happy with his views.[sic]

Do you understand the implications of what you have said?

Try to reconcile the contradiction, please.

Hashim

4th February 2005, 17:59

Newsx, i have finished with nadeem, please flick to the 'amazing story of a suicide bomber' thread, i have left him tattered and demolished, humiliated. He said that i agreeded with these sheiks, please check my post on the first page, this is what he is referring to. I clearly said not to backbite or slander these sheiks, have i agreeded or sided with them in any way? So now that i have polished him off, i have some spare time to answer your questions.

First of all, yes, all these arguments recently have revolved around your threads. And i will take a less nice approch to what ansar said, i think you are to blame. You purposely made all these threads, about suicide bombers, honor kilings, and mosques preaching 'hatred'.

Now, back to buisness, your first querie, about abu musab al zarqawi. You want to know about me supporting him, but deniying him. Then you go on chatting it like a joker. Okay, listen carefully! When you opened this thread, you presented two views. One of al sistani, good to vote, and one of zarqawi, bad to vote. I agreedd with the second view, that voting is bad. So this view of voting baing haraam, or disliked etc, is a open and widespread view. This man, did not start off this view, or invented it. So i sided with this view, about this statment. About the man himself. From what i know, if he is real, legit, than i rate him for his resistance against the west. But i have heard that he may be a bogey man, to justify american mass bombing. You understand? Its lik, if you tell me about a man called irfan who raises his hands in salaat, then i openly agree with this view, i don't know who the hell irfan is!

Then you go on chatting on for ages but the main jist is about sectarian violence, listen carefully. The west not only encourages and edges on, or tries to create sectarian violence, but the west also hipes it up in the media. It is true that in iraq, there is sectarian differences. But now how the west portrays it! You go talking about sunnis bombing shia mosques, sorry you are mistakemn again. Another tactic of the invading infidals is this, bomb a shia shrine, shias assume it was the sunni's, and retaliate against them insted of the americans. I explained this before.

Then you say about sunni's praying behind shiaas and vice versa. This is true, these days many sunni's refuse to pray behind a shia imam and vice versa. But in this situation, the jihad has inified the muslims in many areas. You see the sunni and shia mujahid fighting together, as one unit, against the invaders. So you think when the time for prayers come, they will start bickering about who will lead the prayer! No, no, this is not the case. Al-jazeera, and other sources, have broadcast and shown dozens of pictures, vidoes and live coverage of the fighters, when the time for prayer, put down their weapons, and join ranks and proclaim 'allah huakbar'and proceed with the prayer.

Ratatosk

4th February 2005, 19:24

Salaam,

Hash, peace. There are a couple of notions presented that haven't been resolved nor explained in any way whatsoever. Many of these are issues that you oppose, I grant you that. However, one of these was also worthy of an entire thread, a thread with some interesting albeit very blurry points. As these notions and matters are closely linked to this thread, I would like to take the opportunity to bring the matter to the forefront. In the beginning of this thread you stated;

Voting and elections, etc, all manifestations of democracy which is haraam.

Could you perhaps give us a glimpse of your personal understanding of the above quote? I've re-read most of the previous threads regarding this, and all that I could extract from the points made against this were simply a plethora of re-wordings of the age old "it's wrong because it just is". That kind of responses make for a very weak argument, I trust you agree.

I might be wrong, but I am under the impression that you abide by the Qur'an and the Sunnah, no? In short, could you possibly present which ayat or hadith support this view, ie that democracy is haraam?

Would it be possible for you to elaborate what the "west" is? To me, it's a point on the compass. I might be ahead of myself here, but if you are refering to the "imperialistic swine that water down Islam", it appears that you are critical towards a mindset, no? If that is the case, would it be possible for you to articulate this view of yours? Simple imagery, laden with emotional symbolism, is not very explainatory, I reckon you gather.

(Do not misunderestimate me, I agree with you on a lot of points regarding the Bush administration. The Knight In A Shining Armor routine is a bit transparent to most discerning individuals both inside and outside the United States. That aside, perhaps you could elaborate on the issues I pointed out, no?)

peace

The_Other_Admin

4th February 2005, 19:41

i have finished with nadeem, please flick to the 'amazing story of a suicide bomber' thread, i have left him tattered and demolished, humiliated.

I find this extremely humorous!
Hash why do you ignore the verses of Quran when they are presented to you?

“O you who have believed, neither should men mock other men, it may be that these are better than they; nor should women mock other women, it maybe that these are better than they. Do not taunt one another nor call one another by nicknames. It is an evil thing to be called by a bad name after faith. Those who do not avoid this are wrongdoers.” – Surah Al-Hujurat 49:11

Hashim

4th February 2005, 21:37

May allah azzawajjal forgive me if i err, i relise that i was wrong to mock nadeem. But he brought it on himself. May allah most mighty exert his blessing and barakah on me and forgive me for my mistakes, verily allah exalted is al karim, ever generous.

"And rule between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their whims away from the Truth which has come to you."
[Qur'an 5:48]

Allah (SWT) revealed the religion of Islam as a complete and comprehensive system for mankind. This system gave a guideline and rules for every aspect of man's life. So, the Islamic system is perfect and will remain unchanged and whole until the end of creation. The Qur'an says:

"Today I have perfected your Deen, completed my favor upon you, and have chosen for you Islam as your Deen." [Qur'an 5:3]

Gradually, the Muslims started turning away from Islam, despite its complete perfection. They became absorbed by this world and were attracted by new ideas and systems. They forgot that the only way to live is by following Islam and avoiding false, corrupt ideologies. When the Islamic Khilaafah was destroyed in 1924, and the Islamic world came to be ruled by Kufr systems and rulers, the one that had and still has the greatest effect upon Muslims was the Western democratic system. Now, many Muslims actually love democracy as a system and vow to serve and protect it.

There are many slogans which America and the West call for in their global campaign to make the nations and peoples of the world embrace Capitalism/democracy such as; Human Rights, Freedom of Belief, Freedom of Expression, and Personal Freedom. Yet even these slogans are conditional and misleading. For example, especially since September 11th, Muslims are definitely not allowed to speak out against President Bush's so-called "War on Terror." Even though in reality these "characteristics" of democracy often do not exist, they are very attractive to some Muslims, because they live in suppressive countries where they can be put to death simply for speaking out against their unjust rulers. Muslims around the world need to realize that democracy is just another man-made system that has many faults and defects, and only leads to corruption of the society.

The Darkness of Democracy, the Light of Islam

The democratic system is built upon the creed of secularism, which separates religion from life's affairs. Therefore, the most important element of democracy is the rejection of Allah's (SWT) right to legislate. Democracy makes the human being the legislator and lawmaker. Basically, the basis for democracy (Man Made Law) is the rejection of Allah's Law and putting man in the place of the Creator. He is made free to do whatever he wishes. This is a clear contradiction with the Islamic system. For example, in a democratic system, it is allowed to establish or make legal things which Allah (SWT) prohibits, such as sexual activity outside of marriage, adultery, gambling, drinking alcohol, and abortion. Men and women can live together without being married. A person can say whatever he wants, even if it goes against righteousness and morality. For example, the Ku Klux Klan can hold public meetings and express their hatred towards African Americans. Even though in Islam, all of mankind is equal, the members of this racial group are even protected by the police as they call for the destruction of colored people based on the democratic idea of "freedom of speech." For these Capitalists, the concept of halal and haraam does not exist.

As a result of applying this type of freedom in the Capitalist societies, immorality has spread. Men and women who are not married are involved in sexual relationships. Even now children in America are involved in these type of relationships. Pornographic magazines and movies, sex phone lines, and nude bars are just a few examples of the evils promoted by democracy.

However, Islam makes it an obligation for the Muslims to rule by what Allah (SWT) have revealed. The Qur'an says:

"And those who do not rule by whatever Allah has revealed are the disbelievers."
[Qur'an 5:44]

"And rule between them by what Allah has revealed and do not follow their whims away from the Truth which has come to you."
[Qur'an 5:48]

Collective Ruling or One Leader?

Another key element of the democratic system is that ruling and the leadership are a collective matter. This means that the affairs of the state are managed through a collective body, which divides authority between the members of cabinet. Because the power of leadership is shared, decision-making and legislation are based on compromise among the people-not on halaal or haraam.

Islam, on the other hand, pays no regard to majority rule. All the powers of ruling are in the hands of one person: the Khalifah. Prophet Muhammad (saw) said, "If three of you went out on a journey appoint one of you as Amir." (Abu-Dawood) The Khalifah is Allah's representative of His Law on earth, so the Khalifah makes decisions and establishes law based on Islam.

Conclusion

After reading this article, you can now see the corruption of democracy/capitalism, and how it greatly contradicts with the beliefs and teachings of Islam. Clearly, the system brought to us by the Prophet (saw) is not democratic.

The only reason why the West is trying so hard to destroy Islam is because Islam is the only system that can challenge Capitalism!!! The Kuffar know what Muslims can achieve once we return to the light of Islam. Forget the false ideologies of today, oh Muslims, and come back to Islam!

Hashim

4th February 2005, 21:40

In reality democracy and dictatorship are simply tools of American imperialism. If America can manipulate a single dictator, it has sufficient resources to manipulate a few hundred assembly members. Both democracy and dictatorship can be manipulated as both rely on man to make law. Man-made legislation is liable to change with the whims and desires of men, and hence can be moulded by vested interests. The most powerful and largest vested interests are those of America, which through its institutions and organisations are able to dictate policies to dictators or democrats alike. The October elections are a facade to hide America's continued domination of Pakistan and it will only result in assemblies whose legislation will further entrench American imperialism in the country.

Islam has unconditionally rejected both democracy and dictatorship. In both, the law is from the minds of men and is liable to manipulation by vested interests. Allah is Al-Hakim and has restricted legislation to Himself alone. Allah says,

"The rule is for none but Allah" [ An-An'am 6:57]

"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." [Al-Ahzab 33:36]

Nothing is legal but that which Allah has made legal (Halal) and nothing is illegal but that which Allah has made illegal (Haram). In democracy and dictatorship the halal and haram are defined by man and not by Allah. Those who are submissive before democracy's throne or a dictator's throne are guilty of following other gods instead of Allah. It is this meaning which came in the ayah and hadith:

Hashim

4th February 2005, 21:43

Has that cleared up democracy for you chuck? Perhaps you are looking at it from a differnt prospective, no?

Hashim

4th February 2005, 21:46

I'm sorry i mean ratatosq, not chuck. I think it was ratatoaq qho was asking about democracy.

Ratatosk

4th February 2005, 22:37

Salaam,

Thanks for the reply, Hash. In answer to your query, I'm sorry, it hasn't cleared the issue up one bit. You wrote that we mustn't disobey Allah. I understand that very well. However, it doesn't touch base with the issue of democracy at all, I'm sorry to say. I'm not trying to put you down in any way whatsoever, don't get me wrong, but it seems that you do not have a clear grasp of what a democracy entails. It's just a gut feeling, I might be totally wrong. If that's the case, I am sorry.

You gave no definition of the "west", though.

peace

Ansar Al-Haq

4th February 2005, 23:16

Hash,
If you are defining democracy as the societal culture of the US and other western countries, then perhaps you would be more accurate.

But that is NOT what democracy is. Democracy is freedom of the people to actively participate in their country's decisions etc.

Please read the article here for more info:
http://www.islamonline.net/english/introducingislam/topic08.shtml

i have already posted each of them like ten times so i won't do it again.
The main difference with an Islamic democracy (khilafa) and other democracies, is that in an Islamic democracy the laws are fixed and not subject to change with the norms and desires of the society. The laws are given by God.

Salaam

Ron

5th February 2005, 06:56

Salam Haroon,

I missed your post.

So are u telling me that you sitting here on an internet forum, issuing fatwas against the brothers and sisters who fight, and are the mujahideen in Palestine, in Iraq, in Afghanistan e.t.c., have the courage to stand for the "truth"?
I don't issue "fatwas." And I never spoke against anyone who fights in the way of God. That's simply a lie. I have seen the videos of the "resistence" when they hold up a head of a human being and say in Arabic, "pick up the Qur'an..." while laughing in the background and reciting God's words. You sir are the one who dishonors the very word mujahid by labelling such depraved men with such an honorable title. Your insults don't come from a position of knowledge or reality so they do little. If you were actually willing to converse I'd be happy to get into a dialog with you. Instead you have your emotional outbursts and lash out. The "truth" escapes you and when it is near you it walks by without a notice from you so how can you claim such things about me? There's very little worse than than the misinformed pointing finger.

What truth are u expounding on?
I'm dealing with Islam, not some fabricated interpretation of religion. And definitely not some emotional ties that go against the very religion I profess. There are those that don't appeal to the emotions of people or simply slide in where they fit to maintain their popularity, rather they're the ones that actually take the flag of Truth and wave it regardless of the situation. And of course as a result they're the ones that endure the insults and the accusations.

You seem to have missed the truth that YOUR brothers and sisters are being slaughtered, unjustly.
You didn't miss the "truth" in Darfur? Or when Saddam was in power? Or in Algeria? Or in Syria? etc... It's simply hypocritical. Call it as it is. Both are wrong. A stranger killing me is no worse than my brother, after all I would be dead any way. So the killers are in the wrong that's a given. Is this your show of piety? You cry over "your" brother's deaths because the bullet is American? It's a farce. You use this highly charged, emotionally laden argument to keep your position. Please let's not accuse me of missing the truth as you are not the bearer of it.

You seem to have missed the truth that sitting on an internet forum isnt gonna help where the help is needed.
Where are you sitting? I hope your chair is comfortable enough.

You do nothing but sit there asserting that the Muslims are to blame because they "leave their doors open".
I'm amazed by the fact that you still have not grasped this analogy. Let me simplify it for you. We, the Muslims, were the superpower of the world for a thousand years but let people take it away from us. We left God's path. We turned away from Him and followed our materialistic allurements. Had we not done this there would be no Palestine, Afghanistan and surely no Iraq problems. How you cannot understand this is simply confounding. Are you happy with the state of the Ummah? Is it because others are doing it to us or is it our fault? Even if you say the blame is on both that's more fair than the typical song and dance to appeal to the public. For once let's be truthful and tell it like it is. Have the courage. Tell people to get back to God and see how it changes.

If those are the best words of encouragement you've got for those strong people out there, fighting for Allah, then u might as well keep them.
Not words of encouragement as you seem to misunderstand, words that indicate where we were and where we are.

well keep them. Its like i said before, i cant see u fighting on the battlefield for Islam.
I could care less what you can or cannot see. God sees, that's all that matters. All this war talk we'd think you're a vet. Would you mind telling me when was the last time you were on the "battlefield?" I don't mean playground here shooting cap guns. Do let me know. Funny thing is you don't know the first thing about me but you can "see."

Maybe sitting on ur internet forum spreading ur "truth" is ur way of fighting, who knows?
It's obvious you don't know...

Haroon you have presistently attacked me. You have a personal dislike towards me. I have no problem with that. However, this is a forum. If you are interested in dialog I'd sure would like to discuss things with you. We can discuss the topic of your liking. However, I would prefer that if you cannot set aside your bitterness towards me then there's no point in posting vitriol.

Regards

Hashim

5th February 2005, 14:28

Rayatosq, generally when the term 'west' is implied, i am referring to the western superpowers, America , Britain etc.

Ratatosk

5th February 2005, 16:19

Salaam,

Thank you for the clarification, Hash. As I understand it, the United Kingdom and the United States (I believe you were refering to these) are sovereign states with millions of citizens. They are not conscious entities in themselves. I can not criticize a sovereign nation consisting of millions of subjects, therefore I can not dialogue with you on the issues presented. However, if you are refering to social policies, administrative decisions, trade pacts or/and embargos, foreign policies, infrastructural or societal or overseas agendas, then I can discuss the matters presented. I can not, however, resort to blanket statements or wide, sweeping generalizations, however enticing the emotional side of the issue might be.

I believe you are still under the impression that capitalism and democracy are one and the same. Alas, they are not. Capitalism is an economic system, democracy is a form of governance. Please, let's keep those issues separate.

peace

Hashim

5th February 2005, 16:26

So basically, if you don't want to dislogue then don't.

Ron

5th February 2005, 16:33

Hash,

He's not saying he doesn't want to dialog. Actually that's the opposite of what he's saying. He simply doesn't want to make generalizations. He doesn't want to place millions of people in one basket and either be praising or condemning them. Instead he wants to discuss with you aspects of governments and laws and other things. As he said before he agrees with some of what you say. Actually, just about everyone would agree with you regarding the issue of justice. No one here is blind. But you have to try a little to be open minded with us and give us a chance. You never know we may end up agreeing with one another on a lot...no one is going to agree 100%. Let's take it step by step.

Regards

Hashim

5th February 2005, 16:39

Okay ron, i see what you are saying.

Ratatosk

5th February 2005, 16:55

Salaam,

Ron said it much better than I ever could. My incoherent babblings are a far cry from being crisp, precise and articulate. As Ron meticulously stated, I could very well end up acceding with you, Hash, on many issues. As a matter of fact, I sympathize with you to a great extent. However, it's the cathegorization that I find arduous to get a grip of. Especially when the assertions presented are along the lines of 'being brainwashed by the west'. I still do not fathom what that even means. Bear with me, dear Hash. I'm trying to understand, I really am.

peace

Hashim

5th February 2005, 17:13

To put it briefly ratatosq, the west brainwashes the weak muslims by forcing them to accept the western mentality, via the media , TV , radio etc. The western media propagates any practising ,muslim wearing islamic clothing, or brandishing the beard, as a radical, or a extreist. The western media edges away at the muslims to leave the local mosque, and go down the local snooker club or cinema. Shave off the beard,take off the islamic clothing, throw on a pair of jeans and designer top, pick up a girl and go clubbing. The practisng muslim is more often than not, isloated, taunted, and outcast from the society. The west uses hollywood, T.V. and other media manifestations to pick away at islam and brain-wash the weak muslims.

Ratatosk

5th February 2005, 18:06

Salaam,

Oh, I do understand that the picture that the media conveys of the "western" lifestyle is, well, enticing. (I'm just using 'west' as a matter of discourse convenience here, since I have a hard time fully understanding the concept.) Thing is, mostly there is another way larger concept behind these mechanisms, and many people make grave mistakes in trying to understand them. Exemplified in president Bush telling the Americans; "Those evildoers hate us because of our freedom". Which is a dumbfounded statement, if I ever saw one.

The way I see it, many of these conflicts are based upon values clashing in societies with totally different value systems. There is a notable imbalance between the standards of living in the western world when compared to the arabic world, let's not beat around the bush with it. There is far greater percentage of the population living below the poverty line in the arabic world than there are in, for example, the United Kingdom. The hope of affluence is, however, global. When the image of the affluent west is rubbed in the face of empoverished muslims around the arabic region, through MTV and McDonald's and all, it seems more or less like a giant advertisement for a "the West is the Best" campaign.

Of course, the world situation hasn't always been this way. If we know our history, there was a period when the Islamic Empire was the absolute pinnacle, the crowning achievement of the world as it was known back then. The at that point stagnant Europe was ages behind the muslim world, in arts and science and standards of living. Now that the tables have turned, it's easy to understand that the feelings towards the situation and the gathering of wealth - exemplified in 'western' materialism - are fueled by something as mundane as envy. Simple as that. Add a generous dosage of knowledge about the loss of once-abundant prosperity to the mix, and you're all set.

The materialistic wealth is, however, not dependent upon adopting a western societal structure wholesale, the kith and the kaboodle and the kitchen sink, full on. This is, more or less, the fear of the people that hold islamic values true and deeply cherish the culture that surrounds them. This is perfectly natural. Thing is, the 'western' affluence is an end result of many things, the system of governance plays merely a small part in the history of the west. The western value system plays even less of a part. The arabic world has no need to adopt these values, nor does it want to. Some of the ingredients in the dish known as 'western values' go quite against the grain of cultural, societal and religious values as the ones cherished in the islamic region. What must be understood, however, is that it is not these values in themselves that are the crux of the problem. It is the lack of dialogue, dialogue that is crucial despite the differences in value systems.

Talk of the 'west' waging a war on islam is, whichever way you inspect and dissect the issue, a giant load of horse manure.

peace

Ansar Al-Haq

5th February 2005, 19:45

Well that was very insulting.

There are many western-based organizations which continue to spread misconceptions about Islam.

("Islam is a peaceful religion" doesn't sell as well as "Islam is a savage bloodthirsty cult out to kill you"- That gets people's attention)

So I don't know why you ignore the hatred and call this perspective horse manure.

Ron

5th February 2005, 19:56

Salam Ansar,

If by the "West" it is meant the collectivity then you should appreciate what is being said here. There are elements in the "West" that fear and hate the Islamic presence but to paint with such wide strokes is rather unfactual. Besides he did not direct the comment to Hash but rather the concept itself, so please no one take this too far and make it personal because it wasn't. Even George Bush who claims a Godly mission isn't really interested in some "crusade." It's really about power and money. It just so happens that a lot of those elements are located in Muslim territory. Less than 100 years ago the "West" could have cared less about the Middle East. India and parts of Africa were far more important. Just think of colonization. Was anything really about religion? As a matter of fact were the original Crusades themselves about "religion?" So even though there are individuals that would love to eliminate Islam and Muslims, the people with power are really not concerned about it they just want to hold onto it and maintain their wealth. That's what it comes down to.

Regards

Hashim

5th February 2005, 20:05

Ratatosq, you seem like a reasonable and understanding, interllectual guy....but your statment about the west war on islam is hose manure, is COMPLETLEY wrong, and a simple mistake. The west has, and is wging a war on islam. They have not even fully destroyed one muslim country yet( iraq) and they are already about to invade Iran. They just invadd and destroyed afganistan before iraq, and now they are going to invade syria after iran. Come on man, no matter how much you argue, no matter how much we talk, we could discuss this all year, the fact remains, the west is at war with islam.

Ratatosk

5th February 2005, 20:07

Salaam,

Could you perhaps elaborate as to why you found my - perhaps badly worded - view on the argument that the "west" is waging a war on a world religion to be insulting?

There are many western-based organizations which continue to spread misconceptions about Islam.

I am fully aware of that, and I am just as saddened by it as you are. However, I claim that this is a double edged sword. As well as I am aware of the fact that many organizations (luckily they are a minority, albeit a loud minority) based in the western culture spread misconceptions and downright lies about islam, I am also aware of a widespread hatred towards, for instance, americans. Exemplified in Usama Bin Laden's rethoric about killing every american encountered, civilian or military. We are aware that two wrongs don't make a right, no? I was simply pointing out a different perspective, as a alternative way of seeing the issue in response to the views presented by the esteemed Hash. The coalition presence in the region is not about religious stances, it's about money, merchandice, capital, extending the influence sphere, maintaining a military presence, et cetera. To me, those are not very religious reasons.

There exists hatred on both sides of the conflict, sure, I agree. Ignorance is not a purely western trait, I trust you agree with that, as well. When analyzed and dissected, a stance of an 'evil west' waging a 'war on islam' becomes very hard to maintain. In my view, it is simply not based on fact. There are numerous factors that become very difficult to keep coherent, for instance the subject of "the west". To indeed imply that just because the hand that holds the gun is the hand of a non-muslim means that the entire western hemisphere is trying its utmost to rid the world of the followers of a particular religion in a bizarre second holocaust, is to make a very bold statement, which in my view is not based upon facts. That's what I meant with the faeces hippos. I hope this cleared things up.

peace

Ron

5th February 2005, 20:09

Hash,

the west is at war with islam.
Can you please explain this to me. Show me how this all works. Give me some evidence. Who is behind this? Why are they doing it? How do they know they will accomplish such a feat? What will they gain?

I really hope that you will answer these questions. I just want to understand your perspective.

Regards

Ratatosk

5th February 2005, 20:18

Salaam,

Peace, Hash.

They have not even fully destroyed one muslim country yet( iraq) and they are already about to invade Iran. They just invadd and destroyed afganistan before iraq, and now they are going to invade syria after iran.

The last time I checked, islam is doing just fine in Iraq. Plus, the reports that I've read and the pictures that I've seen of Afghanistan don't really paint a picture of a war-torn country, any less than it was in, say, 1992 after the collapse of the Kabul regime. That had very little to do with the 'evil west', by the way. Ironically, the 'evil west' de facto helped the Afghanistan resistance against the Soviet invasion. From what I've gathered, islam is doing just fine in Afghanistan, as well.

Please, do not take this as an attack or anything of that kind. I have no reason to attack you. Why on earth would I do such a thing? I only want to understand your point of view. I am just presenting mine alongside yours, that's all.

peace

Hashim

5th February 2005, 20:23

Come on man, wake up and look around, this is reality ron, this is what s happening. You know the extent US/zionist fear islam. Islam is the only obstacle left infront of the US/zionist entity. This war on islam has waged on for a long time now, it is not something new! First of all, they destroyed the khilafah, at the time of 1924, then they divided the muslims ummah into tiny pieces, insted of one islamic state, 52 or 54 states. Only three contries, saudi arabia, indoneisa and iran uphold the islamic law. ( an even in those three, one of them, indonesia, has implemented a 'moderate' more relaxed islamic law!). Then the west began its treacherous assult and constant devestating all out onslaught against islam. With the media attacking islam from the mental approch, the physical assult has left the muslim land in depair. In palestine, we have been oppressed, chechina persecurted, afganistan humiliated, iraq destroyed, and the list goes on. Look at the consequences of the west war on islam. The fatal blow, dear brothers, was the destruction of the khilafah. With no unity, and no islamic army we were helpless! In the times of the khilafah, in one instance, the whole entire islamic army went on a deadly expediation to save one muslim women, these days 30 000 bosnian muslim women raped, but there is no islamic army to save them this time...

Hashim

5th February 2005, 20:28

Ratatosq i understand that you are not insulting or attacking me in any way, chill sit back and read what i am telling you.

You state that iraq is doing just fine, okay my friend telll me this. The day of the invasion, 23 000 bombs dropped for 14 days straight. Today 100 000 iraqis killed in iraq. Easily more than 100 mosques happened. Half the country in ruins. Half the population either dead, homeless. Afganistan is he same, if not worse.

Ratatosk

5th February 2005, 20:35

Salaam,

Could you perhaps elaborate on what exactly the "US/Zionist" entity is?

then they divided the muslims ummah into tiny pieces, insted of one islamic state, 52 or 54 states

Who are these elusive 'they' in the above quote?

You seem to be under the impression that the entire arabic region and the states around the world with a muslim majority were a single state before the year 1924, no? This is manifestly not so. Most of the states we know today did, in fact, exist before 1924. Granted, Iran was known as Persia back in those days. If I am mistaken, I apologize.

peace

Ron

5th February 2005, 20:50

Hash,

I understand what you are saying but you're not answering the questions. It's important that I know the source of all this. Let's take it step by step, I really want to understand your concepts.

You know the extent US/zionist fear islam.
Why do they fear Islam?

Islam is the only obstacle left infront of the US/zionist entity.
An obstacle to what?

First of all, they destroyed the khilafah
Please provide the history of this with some factual sources.

at the time of 1924, then they divided the muslims ummah into tiny pieces, insted of one islamic state, 52 or 54 states.
Please provide the history of this with some factual sources.

Only three contries, saudi arabia, indoneisa and iran uphold the islamic law. ( an even in those three, one of them, indonesia, has implemented a 'moderate' more relaxed islamic law!).
None of these countries are run by the Shari'ah. Can you show me what you mean by this statement?

With the media attacking islam from the mental approch
I assume you are claiming that the media is controlled by the governments. Can you show me how this is true?

In palestine, we have been oppressed, chechina persecurted, afganistan humiliated, iraq destroyed, and the list goes on.
Palestine- The Arab nations handed it over on a silver platter.
Afghanistan- Used the help of the U.S. then proceeded to wage war on each other.
Iraq- Saddam committed more torture and killed more Iraqis than the U.S. could do in 20 years time at this rate.
This is no excuse for the "West" but I just want to make sure you're not giving double standards here.

The fatal blow, dear brothers, was the destruction of the khilafah. With no unity, and no islamic army we were helpless!
I disagree. What good would a Khalifah government system do for a bunch of corrupt nations? I would propose that leaving God, the way of His Guidance; that's what caused the Muslims to fall. No one can destroy the faith of people or their relationship with the Almighty because it is promised that God will help the righteous. However, a Khalifah system can be destroyed, by no less than "evil" men...according to you. So which is the better route?

in one instance, the whole entire islamic army went on a deadly expediation to save one muslim women, these days 30 000 bosnian muslim women raped, but there is no islamic army to save them this time...
When and where did this happen? Who was this "Islamic army?" Who was this woman? A source would help.

I hope you will answer my questions.

Regards

Ratatosk

5th February 2005, 21:03

Salaam,

Half the population either dead, homeless.

Refering to Iraq, this would mean 11.5 million people dead or homeless, since the population total of Iraq amounts to some 23 millions. It is manifestly not so.

Afganistan is he same, if not worse.

Could you please provide some source for this statement? In conjuction with the previous quote, this would mean more than half the population dead or homeless. It is manifestly not so.

I understand that you are saddened by the situation. We all are. It would be beneficial, though, if you could provide at least some sources to the made assertions.

Regards,

Hashim

5th February 2005, 21:13

Ratatosq, you do not believe that the figures i provided are correct. Maybe because you have yur news from iraq from western media, which is biased towards america. The truth in iraq, is shrouded in a thick fog of lies and decit. The sources i am telling you this if you want to know, are al jazeerah, jihadunspun.com, al arabia, mafrakat al islam, and other islamic reporters agency working in iraq with the resistance forces.

Ron, some of your questions regarding sources, i have answered to ratatosq, please read the earlier portion of this post, i provided my sources. The slources i providid are but a few main souces. Concerning your question on who 'they' are and who the US/zionist enitity are, this answer is simple and answers it self. They, refer to the west, the west refers to the US and its allies of cronies, Britain etc. The US/zionist enitity answers it self as i mentioned! The US (united states of america=america) and zionist (jews-Israel).

Ratatosk

5th February 2005, 21:30

Salam,

Peace, Hash. I check out Al Jazeera (http://english.aljazeera.net/HomePage) almost daily, but I haven't come across any reports of over 11 million people in Iraq either dead or homeless. Neither does Jihad Unspun (http://www.jihadunspun.com) carry any such report.

It seems strange that the United States and Israel (which didn't even exist at that time, by the way) would have had very many benefits from the Treaty of Peace and the following Armistice Convention with Mustafa Kemal's Turkey in 1924. If anything, Mustafa Kemal was not very well recieved in the west.

Regards,

Guest

5th February 2005, 21:37

Peace Mighty Ratatosk:).

I think that what the enlightened youth in question was implying when he meant "half the pop..." was "a lot of the pop....", u know in the vernacular. Now shoo! Silly squirrel, go and dig nuts under a different tree.:p

Ratatosk

5th February 2005, 21:49

Salam,

Scuttling off, as per your instructions. ;)

peace

Guest

5th February 2005, 21:57

Lol!! Thats an amusing word "scuttle". It wouldnt be an example of that dodgy thing, onomatapoeia or something? Would scurry be a more appropriate substitute:p?

Ron

5th February 2005, 22:15

Hash,

I know people that work at both Al Jazeera and Al Arabiyya and I watch both of them on a regular basis. None of what you say has ever been reported by either. So either you misread, misheard or misunderstood. If you don't feel like answering the questions that's fine but it doesn't leave much room for a discussion.

Regards

Guest

5th February 2005, 22:17

Isnt Ron just bad to the bone?:)

Ansar Al-Haq

6th February 2005, 02:23

Assalamu Alaykum,
I agree with what Ron and Ratatosk have said for the most part. I am against making blanket statements completely. But I found that that was what Ratatosk was doing when he implied that any notion that Islam is under attack is horse manure. I found that particularly insulting and siturbing because there clearly is much resentment towards muslims in the western media and even amongst many ordinary citizens who are ignorant of Islam's teachings.

When I told a non-muslim colleague that I was a muslim one day, he muttered some joke to his friend about my saying a-la-la-la-la and running into building and blowing it up. These feelings are there but they are supressed behind formalities. This guy only mentioned it because I have known him for some time and he knows me to be very friendly and easy-going, so he didn't feel so bad making the joke.

But it hurt. It hurt to see that these ideas of hatred are embedded in the minds of people living in western countries.

So Islam is certainly being attacked at many different levels. And we should recognize that. I think Ron and Ratatosk agree with me on this, and there really isn't a difference of opinion here, but I just wanted to clarify that.

With regards to a military attack on muslims as some members are suggesting, I don't think that is the case right now, but it could easily happen, what with certain groups calling for an attack on the "snake's nest" (Saudi Arabia). And muslims are being persecuted everywhere in the world, but that is not directly by the west. I think the reason they get some of the blame is because their governments and newsgroups turn a blind eye on the sufferring, when they have the potential to help.

Just clarifying my view...
Ansar Al-Haq

Ratatosk

6th February 2005, 09:25

Salaam,

I agree with many of your points, dear Ansar Al-Haq. The story about your colleague implying exactly what he did is just sad. His wisecrack might have in his eyes seemed funny, but it's quite a good example of ignorance.

and even amongst many ordinary citizens who are ignorant of Islam's teachings

That's just it, isn't it? A big, nay, the biggest enemy is ignorance. I can see ignorance on both sides, and I can see proponents in both camps whip themselves into a lather, proclaiming war on terror and jihad and whatnot. I don't know, but to me these kinds of measures aren't very constructive. If anything, they will only serve as a hotbed for ignorant buffoons, making any and all steps towards peaceful and tolerant co-existance even harder to take. If there is a war that's needed right now, it's a war against ignorance.

peace

razwan1979

6th February 2005, 10:42

Living as a minority in Europe does worry me. I fear more for Muslims who live in mainland Europe. This is because Europe has a sad history of treating minorities who happen to be 'distinct', and what's worse have the gall to want to be 'distinct'. Arthur Hertzberg, a US rabbi in the Conservative Jewish tradition, wrote a book called The French Enlightenment and the Jews. If you read what was being demanded of Jews in Europe during the 1920s and 1930s, and then see the (apparent) mood in Europe today, it does make you think. God forbid such a calamity.

For all its "liberal" preaching to the world, Europe can seem like a very intolerant place if you have the wrong skin colour, wrong name and wrong religion.

Guest

6th February 2005, 11:02

Yes same here. England is a pleasure to live in, for the time being. One thing i have understood about these people though, is that if the Quran and the Messenger was sent to them, they would have been angels. Apart from the worship and belief in One God, they live decent, moral lives (generalising a bit here).

6th February 2005, 11:13

Europe can seem like a very intolerant place if you have the wrong skin colour, wrong name and wrong religion.

both multiculturalism and tolerance are under broad attack, offcource the kife slides at both sides, radicalism is intolerance also.

It depends wich country in Europe, the Netherlands are considered the most tolerant country, and perhaps way too tolerant when it comes to the drug policy, anyways tolerant enough to tolerate the gay marriage for example.. but in France they want to ban on the headscarf if they havent already done so, well I think thats against the constitution (freedom of religion, speach etc)

Europeans ponder how the tolerant can best deal with the intolerant (http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=3379357)

“THE jihad has come to the Netherlands.” That was the verdict of Jozias van Aartsen, parliamentary leader of the power-sharing Liberals (VVD), after the violence following last week's murder in Amsterdam of Theo van Gogh, a film-maker, by a Muslim radical. Attacks on mosques and Muslim schools were met by retaliatory attacks on churches. A raid on a terrorist cell in The Hague turned into a street battle featuring hand grenades and wounded policemen, before two suspects were arrested.

This sorry tale raises a big issue not just in the Netherlands, but across Europe: how far should liberal societies tolerate the intolerant? For 20 years the instinct of many has been to defend the rights and cultures of growing numbers of Muslim immigrants, even radicals. Any other approach, it was feared, would pander to racists. But both multiculturalism and tolerance are now under broad attack.

In the Netherlands, Pim Fortuyn, a gay maverick, popularised the argument that Muslim immigrants were promoting values inimical to Dutch traditions. When he was murdered in 2002, his political movement all but collapsed. But some of his arguments found a new advocate in Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a female Somali immigrant and former Muslim who is now a liberal member of parliament. She urges the Dutch to insist forcefully on the superiority of western liberal values. Ms Hirsi Ali was threatened, along with Mr Van Gogh, after they made a film together that attacked Islamic fundamentalists' treatment of women.

Voters are also turning to a new champion, Geert Wilders, a renegade member of parliament thrown out by the liberals. Polls show that his party-in-the-making might win 7-17 seats if an election were held now, largely thanks to his attacks on Islam. The government urges restraint; but it is tightening immigration controls and cracking down on Islamic extremists.

In France, Nicolas Sarkozy, now finance minister but once interior minister, commented recently that “whether I like it or not, Islam is the second biggest religion in France. So you've got to integrate it by making it more French.” His government has a two-pronged approach to its 5m-strong Muslim population. It has tried to contain the radicalism of Islamists by co-opting them. And it has used a tough security regime to curb troublemakers.

To the first end, Mr Sarkozy last year set up the French Council of the Muslim Faith, an official voice for French Islam. When hardliners won elections to its regional branches and governing council, he said this was no disaster: it was best to bring such groups out of the shadows. Yet his strategy has had mixed results. A power-struggle rages in the council, threatening moderates. But one mark of the council's success was the reaction to the seizure in Iraq of two French journalists whose captors want the repeal of a ban on the headscarf in state schools. All shades of French Islam condemned the capture.

France has a strikingly harsh anti-terrorism policy. It has had no qualms in making the most of laws allowing the detention of terrorist suspects without trial for months on end. All four of its nationals repatriated from Guantánamo Bay were detained on a judge's instruction on their return to France. Dominique de Villepin, Mr Sarkozy's successor as interior minister, has been unyielding in his determination to expel imams guilty of hate crimes. When an expulsion order against Abdelkader Bouziane, an Algerian cleric based near Lyon, was overruled in the courts, Mr de Villepin changed the law—and Mr Bouziane was on the next plane out.

For Mr de Villepin, the trade-off between security and civil liberties is a fine one. But he insists “we must never find ourselves in a position of powerlessness.” The French monitor activity at mosques across the country, reckoning that of 1,500 Muslim prayer places, some 50 preach a radical form of Islam. This need not mean violence, but Mr de Villepin urges vigilance: “radical Islam can be used as a breeding ground for terrorism.” The French are also keen to co-operate with other European countries, fearful that their tough regime might otherwise move the problem to “softer” neighbours. With this in mind, Mr de Villepin has secured agreement with Britain, Germany, Italy and Spain to share intelligence on radical Islamists who attend training camps.

In Germany, home to 3.5m Muslims, over three times as many as the Netherlands, fears of violence and jihad are somewhat smaller. Admittedly, Islamic extremists could hit anywhere, but most Muslims in Germany are from Turkey (2.6m) or Bosnia (170,000), and espouse a more moderate form of Islam. Police have found few links between Islamic groups in Germany and the Netherlands. Yet Germany is not oblivious to the threat. As in France, the government is getting tougher on Islamic fundamentalists, even as it tries to foster integration. This double strategy underpins Germany's new immigration law: it facilitates the expulsion of Islamic radicals, but also makes language classes mandatory for immigrants.

In the same spirit, EU immigration ministers, meeting in the Netherlands, signed up on November 10th to common principles, both tender and tough, for integrating newcomers. They must be helped to take part in peaceful politics; faith must be respected, but not used to curb freedom.

In Germany, as elsewhere, there is now more emphasis on toughness. In October, after four years of legal manoeuvring, Germany ejected Metin Kaplan, the Turkish founder of an illegal Islamic group. There is less tolerance for radical Islamists using legal tricks to stay in Germany. The rule of law must “show its edge”, says Otto Schily, the interior minister.

After the Van Gogh murder, calls for Europe's open societies to be more aggressive towards Islamic radicals can only get louder. “Militant Islamism is only a tiny force in Europe”, wrote the conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung, “yet it is dangerous, because many societies on this continent have elevated their defencelessness into a virtue.” Yet the risk is that, rather than the intolerant learning tolerance, the tolerant become intolerant too.

6th February 2005, 11:28

French MPs back headscarf ban (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3474673.stm)

French MPs back headscarf ban
Muslim protester
There are about five million Muslims living in France
French MPs have voted by a massive majority to ban the Islamic headscarf and all other overt religious symbols from state schools.

The bill was passed by 494 votes to 36. It now goes to the upper house, the Senate, for approval.

The wearing of Jewish skullcaps, large Christian crosses and probably Sikh turbans would also be banned.

About 70% of French people back the controversial law - and even 40% of Muslim women, according to some polls.

Most French MPs backed the bill on the grounds that it protected the secularity of the French state, by keeping religion out of the classroom.

'Intolerant'

The bill also has the guarded backing of one of the highest authorities in Sunni Islam - the Grand Sheikh of Egypt's al-Azhar mosque.

Speaking after meeting French Interior Minister Nicholas Sarkozy in Cairo in December, Mohammed Sayed Tantawi said Muslim women may ignore the obligation to wear a headscarf if the law where they lived demanded so.

But some French MPs, backed by Muslim leaders and rights groups, warn the proposed law could be seen as intolerant and undermine the integration of France's Muslims.

Already, the prospect of the new law has squandered much of the goodwill President Jacques Chirac built up in Muslim countries when he opposed the war in Iraq, says the BBC's Caroline Wyatt in Paris.

Saudi Arabia's top cleric has accused the proposed French law of violating the human rights it claims to be defending.

The Indian government has reportedly told France to handle the ban with "sensitivity" and the issue may well be raised during this week's visit by French Foreign Minister Dominique de Villepin.

India is home to the Sikh faith, whose male followers are required to keep their long hair wrapped in a turban.

Protests

There have been protests against the law in India and amongst France's 7,000 strong Sikh community.

The International Helsinki Federation for Human Rights has also warned the French government against the ban, as has US-based advisory group, the Commission on International Religious Freedom.

Some French MPs claim young Muslim women are being forced to wear the headscarf, though the few hundred who have turned out for demonstrations against the new law say they wear it of their own free will.

Unspoken in this entire debate is the government's need to boost its own popularity, and combat a rise in support for the far-right National Front, ahead of key regional elections next month, Caroline Wyatt says.

Ansar Al-Haq

6th February 2005, 15:12

I agree with you completely Br. Ratatosk. Ignorance and Hatred are the worst enemies of humanity.

razwan1979

6th February 2005, 17:35

"radicalism is intolerance also"

This is true.

But what I find absurd, and also dangerous, is the idea that Muslims are capable of "changing" Europe, or of "Islamising" it. This is a nonsense, propogated by certain extremist right-wingers in Europe, the UK, and the USA, and crackpots like Bat Ye'or.

We are not a powerful minority in Europe, as some Americans tend to believe. I mean in France were Muslims able to stop the headscarf laws? For a whole century, French Jews and Christians wore their "symbols" without anyone batting an eyelid. When a Muslim girl wore a headscarf this was an attack on French laicity. One wonders how weak they perceive their own beliefs to be. The same can be said for Germany. In Spain and Italy, Muslims are even more meaningless; the historic ties in Britain and France mean that we at least get some sort of voice, however small and impotent.

In the UK, Muslims have a lot to thank the Jewish Board of Deputies for. Twice now, a government appointed comission on the welfare of livestock has demanded halal-meat practices and the Jewish method of animal slaughter, shechita, be banned. The Muslim communities here are politically inept, powerless and ultimately a nothing. The Jewish community is better established and politically more powerful, and led a protest to demand the report be rejected. Thankfully, the government on both times has listened to them on both occassions.

It is the scaremongering against what is essentially a politically weak, divided and poor (Muslims are some of the most deprived people in Europe) minorty, that we witnessed in the aftermath of the Rushdie affair, we witness after "9/11", that we witness in newspapers at the hands of certain journalists, that is of concern to me, as a Muslim and a person who lives and works in Europe.

salaam

Ahmed Waheed

7th February 2005, 11:45

I agree with you completely Br. Ratatosk. Ignorance and Hatred are the worst enemies of humanity.
Assalam . . .

:cool: No doubt. And Islam has the solutions. :shiny:

Wassalam . . .

Hashim

7th February 2005, 15:46

Originally Posted by Ansar Al-Haq
I agree with you completely Br. Ratatosk

I did not even know that rataosq was a muslim, you live you learn!

Ahmed Waheed

7th February 2005, 16:05

Assalam . . .

Indeed we do learn many new things . . . :alien2:

Wassalam . . .

Ratatosk

8th February 2005, 07:45

Salaam,

Originally Posted by Ansar Al-Haq
I agree with you completely Br. Ratatosk

I did not even know that rataosq was a muslim, you live you learn!

Peace, Hash, that's just it, isn't it? Do not let appearances decieve you.

That said, I'm not aware of ever stating any moniker for my faith. You wrote wise words earlier on, though, about not being a sunni or shia, but a muslim. Along those lines, I'd prefer it if my known stance would be that I believe, that I have faith, that I've surrendered my heart. That, I think, is the main issue; being a believer, knowing that there are reasons for things, having faith that some day, some way, somehow it will in the end make sense. For now, that's how I would like to leave the issue. If you feel a need to put a label on my faith, please feel free to do so. I do not mind.

No, really; I don't.

peace

Waseem

8th February 2005, 09:35

Waseem

8th February 2005, 09:40

you people twist the sunnah. i advise you to understand the sunnah properly before going against it. coming back to my running away, how can you say that i ran away, people have different lifes and situatuations. if i ran away from this then i would be running away from something which the prophet would like.

Guest

8th February 2005, 10:48

Salaam Waseem.

Welcome back brother. Just one question, did u know that the Sahih Bukhari may not be 100% authentic?

Regards

Ahmed Waheed

8th February 2005, 14:37

Salaam Waseem.

Welcome back brother. Just one question, did u know that the Sahih Bukhari may not be 100% authentic?

Regards
Assalam . . .

:cool: No doubt. It is not like the Quran . . .
:) The Quran is the Book of Authenticity, and it cannot be imitated by any other book; in any way . . . :rolleyes: :cool:

Wassalam . . .

Hashim

8th February 2005, 16:11

Indeed the bukhari shrif is the most authentic book after the qur'an.

Guest

8th February 2005, 17:23

Most authentic maybe, but still not proven to be 100%:).

Ahmed Waheed

8th February 2005, 17:28

Most authentic maybe, but still not proven to be 100%:).
Assalam . . .

:p And so it can't be proven 100%, we can't compare it to the Quran. Quran is from Allah, and Bukhari is written by a Human.

Wassalam . . .

Hashim

8th February 2005, 17:38

Brothers sheik haroon and ahmad waheed, just for a moment, swith off this joker site and go to www.load-islam.com, click on basics of islam, the first thread, and go the second to last reply by the admin, he provides a download to a du'aa by sheik mohassny (saudi haramain imam). For this du'aa he was immediatley arrested and banned for 9 months. The most beautifu; du'aa you will Ever hear! The whole of the worshippers in the salaat, in masjid al haram sharif were in tears. SUBHANNALAH!!"!"!!"!!!!!

Ahmed Waheed

8th February 2005, 17:47

Brothers sheik haroon and ahmad waheed, just for a moment, swith off this joker site and go to www.load-islam.com (http://www.load-islam.com/), click on basics of islam, the first thread, and go the second to last reply by the admin, he provides a download to a du'aa by sheik mohassny (saudi haramain imam). For this du'aa he was immediatley arrested and banned for 9 months. The most beautifu; du'aa you will Ever hear! The whole of the worshippers in the salaat, in masjid al haram sharif were in tears. SUBHANNALAH!!"!"!!"!!!!!
Assalam . . .

:confused: Can you put a Hyperlink of it on here, because I couldn't find it.

Wassalam . . .

Nadeem

8th February 2005, 18:18

May allah azzawajjal forgive me if i err, i relise that i was wrong to mock nadeem. But he brought it on himself.Salaam,

Thanks for admitting you were wrong to mock me and please realise that I did'nt bring it upon myself nor was I in the least affected by it!;) :monkey: :)

Wasalaam.

Nadeem

8th February 2005, 18:32

Nadeem dont accuse people of running away some people dont even come on the site. you cant argue with sahi bukhari as it it the most authentic book after the quran, on this everyone agrees. the referance to the pig is in ahi bukhari. have you ever even picked up the bukhari sharif. hashim uses the sunnah and the quran, you speak from your wims and desires. someone who speaks from the sunnah amd the quran he is upon SIRAT_UL_MUSTAQEEM.Salaam Waseem and Hash.

Nice to have you back Waseem but I never argued with Sahih Bukhari!:cool:
If you think I did then please show me where I said "I disagree with Al-Bukhari"?:cool: :)
Like I said before please don't speak about any hadith being in Bukhari until you are sure you can prove it is in there.:)

As I mentioned before I used to own the complete 9 volume set of Sahih Bukhari with Arabic text and English translation by Dr.Muhsin Khan of Medina University.
I don't remember ever reading a hadith from it that said "it is better to roll in the dirt with pigs than to date a member of the opposite sex".:cool:

If you are so sure of this hadith,then why can't you find it as Bukhari is the most well known and most widely available hadith collection???:confused:

And I do not say anything about Islam from my whims and desires.
If you maintain that I do ,then show me where specifically or quit falsely accusing me!!:(

Hash,
If you use the Qur'an and Sunna,why don't you back up everything you say with references from them then??:confused:
You speak of the Qur'an and Sunna carelessly without proper knowledge.:cool:

Wasalaam.

Hashim

8th February 2005, 19:49

Were do you get this truthless arguments from, do you just make them up? When i argue, the qur'an and the sunnah is my back up. My points, are backed up from refernce from the quran and the sunnah.

Hashim

8th February 2005, 19:53

http://www.load-islam.com/swf/Flash/duafull.swf

There you go brother, waheed. The most beautiful du'aa, it brought the whole of he masjid al haraam to tears.

Nadeem

8th February 2005, 19:56

Salaam Hash,

Well you should always show references from the Qur'an and Sunna if you want people to take you seriously!!:cool:
I recall many of your posts speaking of the Qur'an and sunna but failing to provide the references from them!:cool:
Maybe you should read all your posts and see how many of them you have backed up with the relevant references!
I will also read them and then we will see who is truthful!:cool: :)

Wasalaam.

Hashim

8th February 2005, 20:04

What is wrong with you? Sereiously, you are like a kid. You just go around looking for a fight, desperate to argue wih someone. You are full with hate, and you have to argue with me! Forget you man, you are a joker. This arguing only makes the heart black, black and hard. Think about that...'brother'.

Nadeem

8th February 2005, 20:17

Salaam Hash,

You started arguing with everyone in a ridiculous immature manner and now you can't prove your case,you want to give up!!!:)

As for your other comments I really do not care about them because they are worthless to me and so I ignore them!:cool: :)

Come on prove your case or admit the truth that you don't provide the references most of the time.:cool:

The proof that you hardly ever provide the references is recorded and cannot be lost,Alhadulillah.:) :)

I'm not here to fight but to discuss,there is a huge difference.
If you want to treat discussions as wars and make divisions that is your problem!:( :)

Wasalaam.

Hashim

8th February 2005, 20:24

Guest

8th February 2005, 20:38

Will u jokers stop squabbling like a married couple! Seriously, i think u should get married bros.

Hashim

8th February 2005, 20:44

You TWO, this joker cant help himself. Me and waseem taking it in terms
rinsing him! Look the man attacked me, i don't why, i had to sort him out! Sheik haroon,l did you check out that du'aa or what. You better have!!!

Guest

8th February 2005, 20:51

Salaam Hash.

I checked out the dua about a year ago, but it was nice of u to put it back on here again. Do u know what has happened to Sheikh Mohsainy now? Is he alive? Is he in prison? Where?

Ahmed Waheed

9th February 2005, 14:51

http://www.load-islam.com/swf/Flash/duafull.swf

There you go brother, waheed. The most beautiful du'aa, it brought the whole of he masjid al haraam to tears.
Assalam . . . Hash

:cool: Jazak-Allah.

Wassalam . . .

Hashim

9th February 2005, 15:53

I think sheik mohasiany is out and about, imaaam of a big mosque in saudi arabia now.

Ahmed Waheed

9th February 2005, 16:02

Assalam . . .

:cool: Alhamdulillah!

Wassalam . . .

Hashim

9th February 2005, 16:06

Ahmad, can you get me the arabic text to that du'aa? Is it possible?

Hashim

9th February 2005, 16:08

If you can, PM me with it.

Ahmed Waheed

9th February 2005, 16:14

Ahmad, can you get me the arabic text to that du'aa? Is it possible?
Assalam . . .

:cool: I will Insha-Allah try to get it; :p once I've heard it (I only get access to internet at college, and flash objects can't be loaded. ;) I've downloaded it and will listen to it Insha-Allah).:cool: :cool: :cool: :cool: :cool:

:cool: That's why I only post on week days an fixed times . . .

PS: I do hope the administrators add more smilies . . .
:) :mad: :p ;) :( :D :confused: :o :rolleyes: :cool: :eek: :c: :drool: :nod: :evilright :lol: :spidey: :werdup: :hammerhea :kissywiss :bigcool: :borgsmile :bounce: :LOL: :woot:

Wassalam . . .

Hashim

9th February 2005, 16:20

Isn't that enough! There were atleast 20 different ones there!

Ahmed Waheed

9th February 2005, 16:22

Isn't that enough! There were atleast 20 different ones there!
Assalam . . .

:) :mad: :p ;) :( :D :confused: :o :rolleyes: :cool: :eek: :hijacked: :alien: :c: :drool: :nod: :evilright :lol: :spidey: :werdup: :hammerhea :bigcool: :kissywiss :borgsmile :bounce:

The More The Better!

:strong: :lparty: :musicband :skullshad :hmm: :walking2: :goodvsevi :yikes2: :raisether :bighug: :nekkidboy

Wassalam . . .

Ahmed Waheed

9th February 2005, 16:27

If you can, PM me with it.
Assalam . . .

:confused: btw What does PM mean?

Wassalam . . .

Hashim

9th February 2005, 16:30

Private message, for example, clich on my name and go on privte message.

Ahmed Waheed

9th February 2005, 16:34

Private message, for example, clich on my name and go on privte message.
Assalam . . .

:cool: OK. No probs.

Wassalam . . .

Nadeem

9th February 2005, 19:47

Why don't yo close your mouth, open your eyes and stop being nadeem for at least 25 years. Stick to one thread, the one in islamic discusions, under the suicide bombers thing thread, and face me there. Don't let your deviated words spread to even this thread, please.Salaam Hash,
You can SHUT YOUR vile poisonous mouth instead as you still haven't grown up yet and it looks like you NEVER will!:toofunny:
So I say goodbye and good riddance in my last ever post to you.:mad:

Wasalaam.

Nadeem

9th February 2005, 20:09

Will u jokers stop squabbling like a married couple! Seriously, i think u should get married bros.Salaam Haroon,

Why don't you ask your beloved Hash to dialogue properly instead of causing unnecessary trouble??:confused:
I was trying to dialogue in a fair manner but he was deliberately provoking me without presenting any evidence for his false childish arguments.:)
Just read the dialogue between us and you'll easily see who the real culprit is!:)
So I see you are a supporter of same sex marriage eh?:toofunny: Just kidding brother.

Wasalaam.

Guest

9th February 2005, 20:15

Well arent we all here to modernise Islam anyway?:p, lol that was cruel, j/k

Nadeem

9th February 2005, 20:32

Salaam Haroon bhai,

I notice you keep returning to this thread,maybe waiting for a reply from me.
Well I don't really have more to say at the moment.:cool: :)

Wasalaam.

Ratatosk

9th February 2005, 20:37

Salaam,

Well arent we all here to modernise Islam anyway?

Peace, my friend. Could you please expound on the above quote, no? I have tried my utmost to fathom what the above quote means, taken into account various parameters; intercultural matters, interfaith issues, jurisdictional and ethical notions, but my grasp of the above quote is still very weak. Please, Sheikh Haroon, what does the term 'modernise' mean to you in the above quoted statement? If need be, we can take it slowly -- inch by inch -- if that is indeed what's needed. I really do want to understand the above. Whether you thought about it or not when posting, it really brings certain issues to the forefront at this point in our history. It is my sincere wish that we could focus on this issue.

peace

Nadeem

9th February 2005, 20:48

Well arent we all here to modernise Islam anyway?:p, lol that was cruel, j/k
Peace Ratatosk,

Glad to hear you again but you must realise that Haroon was ony joking back with me.Read the last words of his quote.:)

Peaceful regards.

Ratatosk

9th February 2005, 21:14

Salaam,

Peace, Nadeem. Thank you for your concern. However, I did read the whole post, with the 'cruel' bit and all. However, the issue is quite central, anyhow.

peace

Hashim

10th February 2005, 16:52

I think what sheik haroon means, is that people like nadeem who try and modernize islam and water down islam, sheik haroon is referring to thrdr kind of people, like nadeem. Basically modernizing islam, is having a more relaxed and and secular stance with islam. We should avoid and isolate this dangerous conceppt as it makes the muslim a weak muslim!

Guest

10th February 2005, 18:45

Peace Ratatosk.

We can start off with Hash's words..

Ratatosk

10th February 2005, 19:26

Salaam,

Hash's words? Alright then;

people [...] who try and modernize islam and water down islam

It seems that the notion of 'modernizing Islam' is closely linked to 'watering down Islam', no? Am I to understand that these two concepts are indeed one and the same?

modernizing islam, is having a more relaxed and and secular stance with islam

The way I understand the above, is that the mentioned 'modernization' -- also seemingly meaning 'watering down' -- of a religion being a no-no, the factual opposite is to be practiced. Am I correct in this assumption?

If this is the case, the opposite stance (the one that is condoned) is to not be relaxed. Further, the opposite is to not have a secular stance. As the notion 'secular' by definition means 'pertaining to the world', the assertion becomes a bit strange when scrutinized more closely. Factually, what is said is, more or less, "believers that pay heed to notions of this world are weak"; refering to the last assertion 'it makes the muslim a weak muslim'.

Issues pertaining to this world are issues such as territorial matters, education, logistics, governance, trade, healthcare, et cetera. These matters are not islam-specific, but rather secular matters, no? All in all, what the 'watering down islam' assertion thus means, is that if a muslim cares about these quite secular issues s/he is a weak muslim. I do understand that this 'weakness' does not mean physical weakness, but spiritual weakness. Still, I have tremendous difficulties in understanding how on earth these notions could be mutually exclusive. I for sure can have strong opinions for and against trade policies, but still have strong opinions about spiritual matters. For me, one does not exclude the other. In short, for me the whole 'watering down' caboodle doesn't make sense. None, whatsoever. Further, I can't even see any inherent 'danger' in having opinions about matters pertaining to the world. The issue becomes even more hazy when I clearly can read that Hash seems to be quite adamant about certain matters that pertain to the observed reality that surrounds us, ie the world.

These are only some thoughts regarding what was written. Please do not see this as an attack of any kind. I am only trying to understand.

peace

Nadeem

11th February 2005, 00:26

Salaam all,

I'd just like to clear myself of Hash's false charge against me of trying to modernise Islam.:(
I have never ever tried to modernise the faith and if anyone can provide evidence that I have ,then I would like to see it.:)

Wasalaam.

Ansar Al-Haq

11th February 2005, 01:51

I am witness that Nadeem is free of such accusations.

The_Other_Admin

11th February 2005, 03:41

First lets make it clear what people consider watering down Islam, give examples please.

What I gather from the conversation may mean two things:
1. Allow things which are prohited in Islam like alcohol, smoking, etc...
2. Removing alterations to Islam that have been done in the past and bringing back people to correct Islam. For example, Taliban banned women from teaching which was wrong in the light of Quran and sunnah... do you consider someone correcting this mistake as watering down Islam?

Ratatosk

11th February 2005, 05:19

Salaam,

Allow things which are prohited in Islam

Ok, so if 'watering down' a religion means accepting actions that are prohibited by religious decree, why the roundabout way of saying so? There already are literally thousands of expressions for the same thing; shirk, bidaah, haraam, et cetera. Why yet another way of saying it? I can not think of any other reason than a purely rethorical one. What such a rethoric boils down to is simply another way of saying the person's actions are shirk, only disguised under layers of double-talk and obfuscation, no? Btw, Chuck, hasn't the smoking thing been dealt with in another thread? The way I see it, the 'teaching thing' is an issue of intepretation, just the same way as the 'smoking thing' is. For another quite illuminating example, check out the music thread (http://forums.understanding-islam.org/community/showthread.php?t=4).

Anyway, this is my understanding of the 'modernizing' issue. Naturally, without any real examples or actual references these are merely extrapolations regarding the presented rethoric. I only want to understand what the notion is all about. Bear with me.

peace

The_Other_Admin

11th February 2005, 09:49

Ok, so if 'watering down' a religion means accepting actions that are prohibited by religious decree, why the roundabout way of saying so? There already are literally thousands of expressions for the same thing; shirk, bidaah, haraam, et cetera. Why yet another way of saying it? I can not think of any other reason than a purely rethorical one. What such a rethoric boils down to is simply another way of saying that what the person is doing is shirk, only disguised under layers of double-talk and obfuscation, no? Btw, Chuck, hasn't the smoking thing been dealt with in another thread? The way I see it, the 'teaching thing' is an issue of intepretation, just the same way as the 'smoking thing' is. For another quite illuminating example, check out the music thread.

This is a very complex issue and it has different levels of categories and 'watering down' a religion depends on which category you are speaking about.

------
I. Categories (list may not be exhaustive):
1. Explicit prohibition of something in a scripture.
2. Clear directives and the reasoning behind prohibition in a scripture without explicit identification of any particular object/action.
3. Consensus developed by the scholars.
4. An authority introduces something.
------

Watering down a religion means to me accepting actions that can be objectively proven wrong. For example:
1. Accepting the use of objects/actions in category I.1. is watering down a religion in my opinion.
2. Forgoing reasoning in category I.2 is watering down a religion IMO, but scholars have the right (or should have the right) to classify or declassify an object/action with this reasoning. If scholars in 15th century had put eating mushrooms (made up, of course) in prohibited list, than scholars today should be allowed to take it out from the prohibited list if they can prove this with modern science and research that all mushrooms shouldn't be in this list and only the poisonous ones belongs there.
3. Category I.3. is a matter of consensus, therefore, if today’s scholars change their consensus, it is not watering down a religion to me.
4. Category I.4. is not based on the right reasoning in the first place, therefore, it is the duty of the scholars to research objects/actions in this category and publish their assessment. In any case, their recommendations won't be watering down a religion IMO.

The way I see it, the 'teaching thing' is an issue of intepretation, just the same way as the 'smoking thing' is. For another quite illuminating example, check out the music thread.

I see a difference between objective and subjective reasoning. For example, Quran doesn't restrict women from teaching, Prophet (P) never forbade women from teaching, thus, and I don't see how anyone can prohibit teaching by women objectively.

Regarding music in general something are obvious and other depend on subjective reasoning, therefore, obvious shouldn't be treated same as something derived from subjective reasoning. For example, music in a hareem (i don't know the exact spelling) or hareem in general is something obviously wrong in Islam. On the other hand, decent music can be considered as a gray area and it should be kept that way and treated differently.

Lastly, everything boils down to acceptance and implementation of religious decree, I think it needs a lot of work and the methodology should be improved to make it unbiased and independent of any cultural, political or out-of-religion traditional influence.

IMO, scientific community has developed very good frameworks and standards for accepting and rejecting scholarly papers (research). I believe same can be done for religious scholars.

Ratatosk

11th February 2005, 19:24

Salaam,

Peace, Chuck, thanks for the clarification. Your post was quite illuminating about some of the issues pertaining to jurisprudence. However, there are some things that still are nibbling at my Temporal Cortex. I know that you explicitly stated that your list is not exhaustive, and I understand that it is very difficult to display an exhaustive list in a short post. That said, even if your list was quite short, consisting of only four cathegories (explicit scriptural prohibition, prohibition reasoning, scholarly consensus and authoritive introduction), it still left some issues lingering. Your first example in the list, scriptural prohibition, is undisputed. However, the following examples are, even in the strictest possible sense, open to intepretation. Moreover, reasoning by consensus is always a matter of opinion, isn't it? The matter gets quirkier if the consensus isn't clear cut.

Regarding the 'watering down' bit, your first example of scriptural prohibition being undisputed, the rest of the examples are pretty much the reasons for the current uneasiness, no? As some of these are matters of opinion, I personally think that the most constructive way to deal with these matters is not one of personal attacks or Ad Hominem's, no? We have seen an abundance of those, and I won't care to elucidate on that particular, but it is my sincere wish that we will refrain from such a custom. A j'accuse mindset will not build bridges, nor will it bring unity where it is much needed. A more constructive way would be one of simple curiosity, for instance. Mutual Admiration Societies are a dime a dozen, anyways.

peace

Nadeem

11th February 2005, 20:12

Salaam,

I am real surprised that a simple joke by Sheikh Haroon has sparked such deep contemplative discussion.Wow!:) :cool: :werdup:

Wasalaam.

The_Other_Admin

12th February 2005, 04:16

Your post was quite illuminating about some of the issues pertaining to jurisprudence. However, there are some things that still are nibbling at my Temporal Cortex. I know that you explicitly stated that your list is not exhaustive, and I understand that it is very difficult to display an exhaustive list in a short post.

I said it 'may not' be exhaustive, because my human mind is limited. However, I believe these 4 categories the main categories.

That said, even if your list was quite short, consisting of only four cathegories (explicit scriptural prohibition, prohibition reasoning, scholarly consensus and authoritive introduction), it still left some issues lingering.

We can talk about these issues.

However, the following examples are, even in the strictest possible sense, open to interpretation. Moreover, reasoning by consensus is always a matter of opinion, isn't it? The matter gets quirkier if the consensus isn't clear cut.

I don't see much of a difference in consensus and matter of opinion, so it is about things that are matter of consensus/opinion and which are not, and to me they are clear cut.
Category I.1 and rules in I.2 are not matter of consensus within a religion. On the other hand, objects/actions in I.2 and everything in the rest of the categories is a matter of opinion. The problem occurs when people don't differentiate between matter of opinion and things that are not a matter of opinion, and I believe people need to be educated to see difference between the two.

Regarding the 'watering down' bit, your first example of scriptural prohibition being undisputed, the rest of the examples are pretty much the reasons for the current uneasiness, no?

Yes, and I’ve explained why.

As some of these are matters of opinion, I personally think that the most constructive way to deal with these matters is not one of personal attacks or Ad Hominem's, no? We have seen an abundance of those, and I won't care to elucidate on that particular, but it is my sincere wish that we will refrain from such a custom. A j'accuse mindset will not build bridges, nor will it bring unity where it is much needed. A more constructive way would be one of simple curiosity, for instance.
Of course, personal attacks are wrong, but scholarly research doesn’t mean personal attacks and scholarly research shouldn’t be attacked by this. If a scholar sees something wrong he/she should be able to research and publish the findings.

Mutual Admiration Societies are a dime a dozen, anyways.

Islam allows people with other beliefs to live their way, and a good Muslim should respect the differences in other beliefs, and I believe this extends to sects within Islam. However, I’m speaking within a belief system. For example, if Hamza Yusuf writes a research that smoking is in the same category as alcohol than he should have the right to publish his research and people in his belief system should have the right to accept/reject/practice this research. It shouldn’t be a concern for people in other belief system.

12th February 2005, 08:08

I will play the devils advocate :evul:

Haroons understanding of modernising Islam is compromising (in matters of religion), assimilating and intergrating to the max, its like robes are wrong, natural tooth stick is wrong, following the prophet is wrong (these are exacurated examples, but his own words once explained in messenger)

I think I can give an example here (http://forums.understanding-islam.org/community/showthread.php?t=130). There is a difference in opinion about following Sunnah and the definition of Sunnah, Haroon feels that the Admin team are Sunnah killers (http://forums.understanding-islam.org/community/showthread.php?t=130&page=3&pp=15).

He also feels that signing treaties, becomming allies with the "west" is compromizing his religion.

Feel free to correct Haroon.

Ron

12th February 2005, 11:16

MF,

We're still waiting on those who disagree to show some sort of proof or come with some sort of arguement. As of yet I haven't seen anything. So I think you should be asking them not us.

Regards

Hashim

12th February 2005, 11:29

This discussiomn is intresting, yet VERY simple. If a muslim, infact i will take a stab in the dark, any religous beliver (christian jew hindu etc), comprimizes, modernizes, or has a more relaxed and subtle attitutde towards their deen, they have watered down their religion.

And MF, as for haroon saying 'signing treaties, becomming allies with the "west" is compromizing his religion.', not only comprimizing his religion but also betraying the muslim ummah, btraying himself, and turning his back on the quran and sunnah and islam itself!

Guest

12th February 2005, 11:36

MF

There is no need for you to tell others what i "feel", i am here to do that. Firstly, i have never said that signing treaties with the "west" is modernising Islam, neither have i raised anything on alliances. Alliances are noble and for everyone's good, when done with justice and truth, so what would i have against them?

However, what i do believe is that, abandoning the ways and practices of the Prophet Muhammad (saw) are sure signs of this modernising. Whether the robes or the natural toothbrush or the beard were preferences of the Prophet (saw) or a rules; that is not the point. The point is that the image of a Muslim is held with these ways: the ways of the Prophet (saw). I find it hard to imagine a person who says that he loves the Prophet (saw), and yet disregards the Prophet (saw)'s clothes, practices and customs.

Take the clothes, the long robes. When the Prophet (saw) wore them, they may well have been a geographically induced fashion, but look at the decency of the clothes. You can wear the most loose fitted jeans you like, they will still not look as modest as the robes of the Prophet (saw). You can dress up, head to toe, in your best suit, you will not look as modest as with the robes of the Prophet (saw). It is for every Muslim to be as modest as possible, and one of the ways as recommended by many scholars, is modest clothing. We have already discussed the beard, and yes, the UI team's response is incredibly modernising and condescending with regards to the beauty of this prophetic custom.

Intergration and assimilation are all very well if it is for da'wah purposes, but let me remind you all, that those same people that you try to mix in with, to be accepted into their crowds, those very same people scoff at your culture, at your religion and at the ways of your Prophet. Why should we abandon our image (which the beard and the robes are an essential part of) when they do not abandon theirs? Why should we intergrate with them, why dont they do something back, and intergrate with us? Why must we do all the giving and they do all the taking? It really seems to me that the ideals of the UI team are either weak, or confounded, or deragatory to Islam and its Prophet, or all three.

You may continue and assimilate to your heart's content, but the way of the noble Prophet (saw) is the best way, and the customs of the Prophet (saw) are the best customs. If the Prophet (saw) had a preference, why should we not strive to gain that preference in our own lives? Indeed he is a mercy to mankind, and indeed his actions are not his, but from Allah, so why hesitate? Why doubt? Have faith in Allah, and trust His messenger and step fully into Islam, step fully and stand firm on that Deen which the Prophet (saw) worked so hard for. It is not part of the Muslim character that they overrule the Prophet (saw)'s ways as being mere preferences and hence not to be followed. It is not part of the Muslim character that they issuing denouncing statements against the Prophet (saw)'s ways.

May Allah be with us all, and unmodernise the modernisers.

Hashim

12th February 2005, 11:45

AMEEN!!!!!

I think the UI team need to desperatley take some lessons from the load-islam.com forum team (administartors and wak up from this modernizing mentality!

Ron

12th February 2005, 11:49

Hash,

I would really appreciate it if for once in your own words you would enlighten us about something accorind to your understanding. I have yet to see you dialog, it's been more like you want to give your opinion and move one. I tried to have a conversation with you but you simply shut me down. I want there to be dialog, you know a bit of give and take based on factual information. Let me give you an example of what you've posited without any backing of facts thusfar:

1. I asked you who Mus'ab Al Zaraqwi is...you said it didn't matter you liked his ideas and that they were Islamically based. You have no proof of this. Show us one scholar of now or then that would support beheadings of innocent people, suicide bombings in crowded streets amongst women and children who have nothing to do with the fighting, killing children such as the ten year old boy at a bakery (since when did a bakery pose such a threat), killing a journalist and his 3 year old son in his car in an ambush attack. Show us one piece of factual information from Islam that supports your ideas.
2. Your understanding of Jihad is neither supported by 4 schools of thought nor by the Salafi scholars.

Then you make comments such as the whole watering-down issue. Meanwhile you have not shown us anything in fact to prove your point. Because someone doesn't think like you doesn't mean that they've watered Islam down. But just as you can easily accuse someone of watering down couldn't we accuse you of bid'ah? You add to the religion what is not there. And you claim certain things wrong when it is obvious that you have no understanding of the facts.

All I ask is that you have a discussion with some sort of basis for your points. I hope you will understand.

Regards

Guest

12th February 2005, 11:55

Ron

The situation regarding Al Zarqawi is parallel to Osama. Neither you nor i know what the man is truly about. That DOES NOT give you scope to slander him or to say that he is wrong. You yourself asserted that we shouldnt side with a man who covers his face like Zarqawi, ironically ignoring the incredibly likely possibility that that man you saw on TV or whatever, may even be an American, out to get Muslims to split apart even further, and fight each other. Divide, conquer and rule. That is their system. You know this, u are much older than i am, hence more wise, and you should be able to see right through that.

Ok, let's say we did see his face, so what? You look at the lord of the rings for example, the actors before and after make up are almost totally unrecognisable. Is it much harder to make a guy with a beard on some shaky, dodgy film?

Hashim

12th February 2005, 12:04

How can i dialogue with someone who is so midernized and will only term my diologue as extremist? Seriously, please visit www.load-islam.com and have a look around, now that is a islamic forum, and that is a proper admin. Take some lessons, i urge you. It will surely benefit the UI forum i assure you!

Now back to some of your points that you raised, first of all allow me to to comment on 4 schools of hought etc. Now i have made my stance, and many othes agreeded with me, that i do not follow a madhab and it is by no means a obligation to follow a madhab. And here is no evidence from the quran and sunnah to suggest that it is a obligation. And many members of this forum agree with this. Now, the ahlul hadith, or the salafi's as you stated, are upon the clear path and the siratul mustaqem. They are upon the path of he pious predessers and speak only from the quran and the sunnah, and fight he innovations and bidah and of its dangrous manifestations.

Your first querie about al mus'ab al zarqawi. I made it clear, that i agreeded with not voting in the elections, as opposed to al sistani stance on this issue. As for the man, i could be wrong. He COULD be a resistance fighter and a mujahid fighting the occupation, but to be honest he could just well be another propaganda bogey man. Now allah most majestic knows best. Think about it, every time, in the run up to the assult on falluja, every time the US carpet bombed evily the entire city, the exuse for civilan deaths was 'we were aiming for zl zarqawi'. So there mass bombings were justifed to the world. Think about it. As for the bakery and shia mosque bombings, give me proof that it was him and not american forces stiring up hate for the resistance!

Guest

12th February 2005, 12:08

Exactly, these guys are either blind, or have shoved unsaturated margarine in their eye sockets.

Hashim

12th February 2005, 12:10

Ha ha, ahhh..just what you need on a sataday, a good old laugh! Sheik haroon, are you any good at cricket by any chance?

Guest

12th February 2005, 12:12

I play cricket all the time. I have one major flaw though. I simply refuse to stand in that silly batsmen position, slightly bent over, refuse totally. Instead, i hold the bat up as if to strike someone's head off with it;) - Hence why i get bowled out pretty quickly, lol!

Hashim

12th February 2005, 12:15

Thats good news because me and some mates have a 6 a side cricket team, we play every sunday indoor in saltley school lesiure center thing and sometimes we have a few players less! So maybe next time we have a man down, we can call you in with your shahid afrid batting styles and you can hit a few sixers!

Guest

12th February 2005, 12:21

Lol! I think u'd be safer without the new recruit to be honest;)!

Ron

12th February 2005, 12:21

Haroon,

The point is that the image of a Muslim is held with these ways: the ways of the Prophet (saw). I find it hard to imagine a person who says that he loves the Prophet (saw), and yet disregards the Prophet (saw)'s clothes, practices and customs.
Do you ride in cars? Do you use the computer? Or do you ride camels? Or live in a desert? Do you wipe with stones or toilet paper? Do you really wear the kinds of "robes" the Prophet (P) wore or are you wearing the modern Arabian thawbs? This is an emotional point you make not having any basis in religion. Anyone can love the Prophet but he/she doesn't have to immulate him in everything. As a matter of fact the Prophet himself didn't like people copying his every move. He wanted individuals to be themselves, that's how one gets closer to God as individuals not as some carbon copy of the facade. We are not to be mirrors of the Prophet and empty shells on the inside. So I daresay you are quite wrong. There are people that love the Prophet with tremendous love yet don't have look like an Arab in Saudi because even they don't dress like the Arabs in 7th century Arabia.

Take the clothes, the long robes. When the Prophet (saw) wore them, they may well have been a geographically induced fashion, but look at the decency of the clothes. You can wear the most loose fitted jeans you like, they will still not look as modest as the robes of the Prophet (saw). You can dress up, head to toe, in your best suit, you will not look as modest as with the robes of the Prophet (saw). It is for every Muslim to be as modest as possible, and one of the ways as recommended by many scholars, is modest clothing. We have already discussed the beard, and yes, the UI team's response is incredibly modernising and condescending with regards to the beauty of this prophetic custom.
The Prophet wore his clothes because that's what they wore then. How do you know what the Prophet would have worn in 2005 in the U.S.? You give opinions as if they are facts. Check your history on the whole robe thing, also on the pants thing you know the whole shirwal. Let's see how accurate your statements are. You say so many things I've yet to see a quote from the Qur'an or Hadith about any of it. As for the beard what is the UI teams opinion on this? What makes it so condescending? I'm sure if you can refute it you'll do so based on facts.

Why should we abandon our image (which the beard and the robes are an essential part of) when they do not abandon theirs?
Essential part of an image? Is this the Prophet's message or Haroon's understanding of it? The Prophet said modesty. The Qur'an says modesty. The Ahadith all speak of modesty. Haroon says robes of the Gulf states. Who's image is it really?

Why must we do all the giving and they do all the taking? It really seems to me that the ideals of the UI team are either weak, or confounded, or deragatory to Islam and its Prophet, or all three.
As of yet I haven't seen you write with any information. Are you hiding your knowledge? Where are your refutations? If you see someone doing something wrong aren't you supposed to fix it? You are either making jokes here or insulting people. I have yet to see your wisdom and enlightenment that is based on Islam. If I said, "Haroon's opinions are weak, confouding or deragotry to Islam" someone would surely ask why and how. Prove it. Show us your knowledge. I asked you to invite your scholars here but you said they were too busy. Well get them to help you out. Besides there are no scholars here what do you have to worry about.

If the Prophet (saw) had a preference, why should we not strive to gain that preference in our own lives?
Who said don't do that? Just don't make it part of the religion because it wasn't then and it's not now. And don't use it as a crutch to point out who the not-so good Muslims are. Besides you're not even following all the customs of the Prophet it's more like you are a Pakistani trying to be Arab, a modern one no less.

Have faith in Allah, and trust His messenger and step fully into Islam, step fully and stand firm on that Deen which the Prophet (saw) worked so hard for.
Stepping fully into Islam is what? You again are including customs that don't belong in the religion. This is bid'ah and you should be tread carefully.

It is not part of the Muslim character that they overrule the Prophet (saw)'s ways as being mere preferences and hence not to be followed. It is not part of the Muslim character that they issuing denouncing statements against the Prophet (saw)'s ways.
This is simply ignorance of the truth. Do inform me what qualifies you to be a sheikh? Where is your knowledge? You are making slanderous statements in an effort to malign people. Have the decency to refute the points made at the site rather than go off on your emotionally-charged aspersions. You can make a few people cheer for you but can you really converse Islam?

I look forward to your post. I am willing to dialog with decency. Hopefully you will show your knowledgable side.

Regards

Ron

12th February 2005, 12:30

Haroon,

The situation regarding Al Zarqawi is parallel to Osama. Neither you nor i know what the man is truly about. That DOES NOT give you scope to slander him or to say that he is wrong. You yourself asserted that we shouldnt side with a man who covers his face like Zarqawi, ironically ignoring the incredibly likely possibility that that man you saw on TV or whatever, may even be an American, out to get Muslims to split apart even further, and fight each other. Divide, conquer and rule. That is their system. You know this, u are much older than i am, hence more wise, and you should be able to see right through that.
This is hypocritical. You never-cease to insult me or slander me because I don't dress like you then you go on to say the above? The actual person Zaraqawi is a Palestinian criminal in Jordan. Supposedly he left Jordan and is now in Iraq. How true that is doesn't matter to me. Besides where did I say he was the person doing anything. I asked who he was...Hash had no answer. Can you tell me? And if it is an American acting like him can you tell me why you approve of Hash agreeing with him? How can you justifiy the act of an American posing as a Muslim trying to divide Muslims. Why don't you tell Hash that whoever that person is is wrong. Don't worry about losing a fan, worry about the truth.

Ok, let's say we did see his face, so what? You look at the lord of the rings for example, the actors before and after make up are almost totally unrecognisable. Is it much harder to make a guy with a beard on some shaky, dodgy film?
Is this really an argument? I'm really surprised that you even wrote this. Osama gets on tv and says he did it. You say we don't know if it's really him but at the same time you believe the media when it is says he's a mujahid. Double standards or what is going on?

Regards

Guest

12th February 2005, 12:32

Ron,

You dont seem to have provided many facts on your own behalf, so i see it as no compulsion to delve into tomes to prove a point; a point which you blindly ignore. Modesty and shame, are clearly not understood to be modesty and shame in your opinion are they? More like intergration and assimilation. And as for knowledge, well i have yet to see your knowledge Mr Administrator. Apart from reiterate the words of Mr Amjad on the main site, where is the "knowledge" that you have? Your above post is crammed with opinions, the same opinions that you tell me to steer clear of.

Besides you're not even following all the customs of the Prophet it's more like you are a Pakistani trying to be Arab, a modern one no less.

Well, its better than an Arab trying to be an American, nonetheless.

This is bid'ah and you should be tread carefully

Ha, an amusing comment. The UI ideals are practically recognised all over the cyberworld as being modernised and innovative. So by me calling for modesty, i am innovating? o............k.

Well get them to help you out. Besides there are no scholars here what do you have to worry about.

If there are no scholars here, then i hardly see the need for them to come and disprove a few hot heads who modernise Islam.

This is simply ignorance of the truth

What truth? The truth of Ronnie Hasan? Now there's a "truth" which is better off in the trash with the falsehood of polemics rather than in the divinely inspired Islam.

Hopefully you will show your knowledgable side.

Hopefully you will show your islamic side.

Regards

Hashim

12th February 2005, 12:37

Guest

12th February 2005, 12:38

Ron,

I prefer the idea of him being a mujahid above him being a terrorist. That is my preference.

Osama gets on tv and says he did it

Oh stop reiterating MF, who knows what truth there is behind any of those films.

How can you justifiy the act of an American posing as a Muslim trying to divide Muslims.

When did i justify such a person? Is this another "truth" of yours Ronnie Hasan? If the man is a Muslim, then i leave it to Allah to decide whether he is good or bad, not a man sitting on his comfortable chair in the middle of America, thinking he has it in him to fight for Islam.

Don't worry about losing a fan, worry about the truth.

Now im wondering whether u really are 30 or not. That is the most stupid comment ive seen u put on this forum yet. Hash is not my "fan", he is my brother. Just like the other UI team (who will be shortly coming to you defence im sure) are your brothers. Put then again, they could just be sucking up to u. You know, the authoritative position thing.

Guest

12th February 2005, 12:39

One of the signs of the Hour would be that u wud not be able to tell the difference between a muslim and a non Muslim, so hey, lets join in with Ron and his cronies and dress up like the indecent people.

Ron

12th February 2005, 12:42

Hash,

How can i dialogue with someone who is so midernized and will only term my diologue as extremist? Seriously, please visit www.load-islam.com and have a look around, now that is a islamic forum, and that is a proper admin. Take some lessons, i urge you. It will surely benefit the UI forum i assure you
You don't know me. You say I'm modernized? You haven't even shown your knowledge of Islam but you make opinions. Please be wiser. If you can't dialog with someone with a differing opinion why do you dialog so that you all say "YES" to each other? Why are you even here?

Now back to some of your points that you raised, first of all allow me to to comment on 4 schools of hought etc. Now i have made my stance, and many othes agreeded with me, that i do not follow a madhab and it is by no means a obligation to follow a madhab. And here is no evidence from the quran and sunnah to suggest that it is a obligation. And many members of this forum agree with this. Now, the ahlul hadith, or the salafi's as you stated, are upon the clear path and the siratul mustaqem. They are upon the path of he pious predessers and speak only from the quran and the sunnah, and fight he innovations and bidah and of its dangrous manifestations.
Even the greatest of Salafi scholars disagree with your views. Can you show me where then you get the bid'ah from? Check the Saudi scholars and see what they are saying.

Your first querie about al mus'ab al zarqawi. I made it clear, that i agreeded with not voting in the elections, as opposed to al sistani stance on this issue.
Don't back track. Disagreeing with the whole vote thing is one issue. It's a whole other to blow people up because they want to participate in it. Isn't that really what you agree with, killing a person because they vote? Is that Islamic? If it is then show it and stop with your personal opinions, it would be no less than innovation.

He COULD be a resistance fighter and a mujahid fighting the occupation, but to be honest he could just well be another propaganda bogey man.
If he "COULD" be either then how in the world could you agree with his mission and method and beliefs? It makes no sense whatsoever. Read your words again.

As for the bakery and shia mosque bombings, give me proof that it was him and not american forces stiring up hate for the resistance!
Witnesses were there and saw the people and heard them yelling, "Allahu Akbar." Maybe they were dressed in costumes and they fooled the Iraqis into thinking they were Arabs. Anyone using the words "Allahu Akbar" should fear God and know that to use it in such a manner would be grave. Now it's your turn to prove that they weren't Arabs or Muslims doing this. I can almost be sure you will ignore it and say other things not related.

Regards

Hashim

12th February 2005, 12:42

Thats it haroon, that is exactly just it. Can you even dare to contemplate even considering comparing load-isalm.com with the UI forum??!! Don't worry, we stick to the sunnah and the qur'an. After all as allah all exalted says in the glourious qur'an, 'he who imates a people he is of them'.

And by the way 'ron', if you don't mind from now on i will refer to you as hasan, i think this is your surname and better than calling you 'ron'.

Guest

12th February 2005, 12:46

Witnesses were there and saw the people and heard them yelling, "Allahu Akbar."

Oh so now its becoming difficult for the great US to send men with scarves wrapped around them shouting "Allahu Akbar" in an Arabic accent?

Hashim

12th February 2005, 12:49

I assure you, i am right in my stance against bid'ah. This is of the dirtest and foukest sin's which will lead to one's demise on the day of judgment! There are countless hadith and proof fropm the qur'an that show that we must stay away from bid'ah! This is a virus and a curse upon the muslim! I don't be.ive you, you are supposed to be a admin yet you attack me for attacking bidah!!!!! There is not one single salafi (ahle hadith) schiolar across the globe, throughout history who defends bidah in any way! This is impossible and shows your lack of knolege.

And for the last time, this musab al zarqawi thing. You are so, so, so SO, confused and slow. I agree with the concept that voting is wrong, i agree with this concept. If this man also believes in this concept, good for him! So i am agreeing with the concept, but the man is not behind this concept. He did not make this concept up!!

hasan

12th February 2005, 12:50

This is hilarious :toofunny:

Hashim

12th February 2005, 12:50

Completing and utterly confused! These resistance fighters are fighting the occupation, not themselves! Come on man, what is wrong with you ron!

Hashim

12th February 2005, 12:51

Hilarous is a understatment!

Hashim

12th February 2005, 12:53

Hasan is his surname right?

Guest

12th February 2005, 12:54

Hey look, im off now. Ill see u l8er. And Ron, do behave yourself, that's a good boy.

Hashim

12th February 2005, 12:55

Was slaam, brother. May the peace and blessings of allah all mighty be upon you.

Hashim

12th February 2005, 12:58

Haroon and hasan (ron) have gone, i might aswell do one aswell. Salam brothers.

hasan

12th February 2005, 12:59

Hasan is his surname right?

too much, please stop, my eyes are watering :toofunny:

minzz

12th February 2005, 13:32

Ron, if you bump into amn in the street wearing a thawb and beard, then you bump into another muslim wearing nike total 90 tracksuit, with a clean shaven face (no beard), who is adhering to the teachings of islam and who is not. Who is sticking to the deen and who is the one who has become modernized. Use my two examples and contemplate them throughly!
Not that you were addressing me but I just thought I'll post in Ron's defence.
If you make opinions based on pure appearance then you might be able to make an opinion about it.

Just like the other UI team (who will be shortly coming to you defence im sure) are your brothers.
;)

xp²

12th February 2005, 14:10

Salaam,

Sometimes we all have to stop and ask ourselves, why we do what we do, and in the way we do it. Do we have the right intentions? What is the goal or purpose in any activity, and which method is best?

I mean, when the Bush administration delivers democracy, liberation, and freedom to the Middle East, under the barrel of a gun, and we all raise an eyebrow. Shouldn't we also try to avoid doing the same?

If we are aligned with the truth, the truth is our strength. If we are at odds with it, the truth becomes our enemy, when we cling to the ego. The ego doesn't like to admit it was wrong, it feels shameful, and embarrased.. and will go to any length to defend itself.

If one desires truth, over his own ego... he will be humble enough to be open to other ideas and perspectives. If the ego is of more importance, it will only increase in arrogance in the face of truth. Truth can stand on it's own, it doesn't need to be delivered with a sword. Falsehood fears truth, and will try to bark louder than it to conceal and distract. Even in the times of Prophet, there would be certain people who would holler and make noise, in an attempt to prevent the Quran's recital from being heard. They knew they couldn't come up with their own literary masterpiece to refute the Quran, so they used these cheap tactics. I believe the Quran has referred to some people as empty/hollow palm trees, and there may be some variations of this saying in other cultures, like "an empty vessel makes the loudest noise". Or "The big drum makes a loud noise, but it is hollow inside".

I think in these discussions of touchy topics, there has to be a level of emotional-detachment for any serious progress. It would not have to be this way, if there was a little courtesy, respect, and politeness. Disagreement is not necessarily bad, it is a good thing, and makes this world tick. What made this forum one of the most attractive Islamic boards, is the level of maturity and decency in dealing with that disagreement. It is our duty to guard that quality, because it is Islam. When it is there, it is so beautiful and attractive, that it even causes some who have a dislike for Islam to think it is unreal, and not possible, a piece of propaganda. They would love to see muslims at each others necks, just so they could say, see, see, I told you so.

My suggestion is, what is in the past, leave it in the past. If there is something which hurted you, try to forgive and overlook, as the Prophet told us. It would be an amazing display of strength, courage, and character, to do that, and start fresh. Instead of going to others as a teacher to teach, we should all go to each other as students to learn. That way, we are comfortable to accept what we like and to reject what we don't, and there are no hard feelings because a teacher didn't fail to teach, but we failed as students to learn.

Maybe we could have an arbitrator appointed for such discussions.

Peace.

Nadeem

12th February 2005, 15:08

Nadeem

12th February 2005, 15:23

I am witness that Nadeem is free of such accusations.Salaam Ansar,

Many thanks dear brother,I knew I could rely on you for fair back up.:p :)

Wasalaam.

12th February 2005, 16:25

There is no need for you to tell others what i "feel", i am here to do that.

I played the devils advocate because you let Hash answer Ratatosks question instead yourself, then I saw Chuck giving his view on what he thought what was ment with watering down, so I decided to tell what I thought, I see you opened up since that post.

Firstly, i have never said that signing treaties with the "west" is modernising Islam, neither have i raised anything on alliances. Alliances are noble and for everyone's good, when done with justice and truth, so what would i have against them?

Yes you did and I can prove it, but who cares, it wasnt about this detail.

I think you are beeing a bit hard on Ron.

Guest

12th February 2005, 17:20

You played the devil's advocate, and soon you will join him.

Hashim

12th February 2005, 17:46

HA, ha, classic post! That was a good twist haroon, 'soon you will join him!'

12th February 2005, 18:59

lol

Ron

12th February 2005, 21:01

Haroon,

You dont seem to have provided many facts on your own behalf, so i see it as no compulsion to delve into tomes to prove a point; a point which you blindly ignore.
Point out what needs backing of proof. If you show me an opinion I gave and it needs backing then show it to me and I'd be happy to give it to you.

Modesty and shame, are clearly not understood to be modesty and shame in your opinion are they?
Who defines modesty, you? Why don't you cover your face when walking down the street that's more modest isn't it? If you claim that Islam defines then show it. You are making the claim you should provide the proof.

And as for knowledge, well i have yet to see your knowledge Mr Administrator.
You're the one calling yourself a "sheik." We can pull up nearly 1400 of your posts what do you think the percentage of "knowledge" is coming from you? I think your most of them are in the jokes section. This is not a challenge. I made that statement because you call yourself a sheikh and you have people who you influence, according to you. I want to know why you haven't posted your knowledge. Why haven't you taught us? What is holding you back from giving us enlightenment? As for me I'm only a student. I'm no sheikh, no imam, no scholar. I am still learning. One of the reasons I'm here is to learn from others. There are so many wise people here and everyone has something to give. As of late you've been full of insults towards me and others and I just never understood why. Nevertheless, I tried to patch things up with you and you never accepted that invitation. So the knowledge can be shared or you can waste your time doing this.

Apart from reiterate the words of Mr Amjad on the main site, where is the "knowledge" that you have?
Are you claiming that you are you're own teacher? Are you a scholar? Whose words are you parroting when you side with murderers? Surely not God's nor the Prophet. So when you sit their and make such statements think about yourself.

Your above post is crammed with opinions, the same opinions that you tell me to steer clear of.
So show me and ask me what evidence to what points you'd like to have.

Well, its better than an Arab trying to be an American, nonetheless.
Wearing certain clothing doesn't make a person an American, a citizenship does. Someone could wear all the robes and whatever else they'd like and they can never be an Arab. Your retort failed. Just think about it.

Ha, an amusing comment. The UI ideals are practically recognised all over the cyberworld as being modernised and innovative. So by me calling for modesty, i am innovating? o............k.
Thanks for the information regarding the popularity. You never did tell me, do you ride camels? You know riding a car would be considering modernizing. Maybe you sit on chairs rather than the floor...a nice sofa perhaps? Stop making your bid'ah positions an element of Islam.

If there are no scholars here, then i hardly see the need for them to come and disprove a few hot heads who modernise Islam.
Now the "modernizers" are hot-heads? You obviously have no response so the only thing you can do is insult others.

What truth? The truth of Ronnie Hasan? Now there's a "truth" which is better off in the trash with the falsehood of polemics rather than in the divinely inspired Islam.
The truth that is not inspired by the bid'ah you follow. You are putting things in the religion that is not there and you are supposed to be a sheikh. It's offensive. Worst of all you judge people accordding to these innovations of yours.

Hopefully you will show your islamic side.
Since you have your own version I won't ask you to show me that.

I prefer the idea of him being a mujahid above him being a terrorist. That is my preference.
First you say he's an American agent now you want to call him a Mujahid. Make up your mind. You don't even know anything about the guy or that he even exists but you want to honor him. What can one say about such an opinion.

Oh stop reiterating MF, who knows what truth there is behind any of those films.
You get your information from the news and filter to your liking then you say "...films"? Couldn't the same be true of your side? It's quite apparent you operate on double standards.

When did i justify such a person? Is this another "truth" of yours Ronnie Hasan? If the man is a Muslim, then i leave it to Allah to decide whether he is good or bad, not a man sitting on his comfortable chair in the middle of America, thinking he has it in him to fight for Islam.
You don't know the man and nor do I. The point are the actions of those who blow up cars in crowded streets and behead people. Are you in support of such people? Is this the Islam you preach at your mosque? That's what we're talking about here not some guy we don't even know. How can you even make a decision on this point. First you say if he's American he's trying to divide the Muslims. But if he's Muslim then let God judge him. Again a double standard. He's not to be judged but you judge me.

Now im wondering whether u really are 30 or not.
I don't know where you got my age from. However I didn't lie about my age. Why does a sheikh need to lie about their age?

That is the most stupid comment ive seen u put on this forum yet. Hash is not my "fan", he is my brother. Just like the other UI team (who will be shortly coming to you defence im sure) are your brothers. Put then again, they could just be sucking up to u. You know, the authoritative position thing.
Who said I was talking about Hash? Are you assuming? I'm not your brother? Have you ousted me from the folds of Islam?

One of the signs of the Hour would be that u wud not be able to tell the difference between a muslim and a non Muslim, so hey, lets join in with Ron and his cronies and dress up like the indecent people.
Thank you.

Oh so now its becoming difficult for the great US to send men with scarves wrapped around them shouting "Allahu Akbar" in an Arabic accent?
I suppose the U.S. is doing the same in Pakistan when someone blows up Shia Mosques no matter who's in it. Are you implying Iraqis are that stupid that they can't tell an Arab man from an American? Stop with the excuses. Is it so hard to believe there are bad Muslims out there? What did you think Saddam was...a saint?

Its the admin thing, gone to his head.
Very witty. Ever heard of the pot?

Hey look, im off now. Ill see u l8er. And Ron, do behave yourself, that's a good boy.
Are you really 18 or 23? Why did you want to make yourself seem older? Maybe just to call me boy?

As for fighting you may have missed a previous post of mine to you:

Salam Haroon,

I missed your post.

Quote:
So are u telling me that you sitting here on an internet forum, issuing fatwas against the brothers and sisters who fight, and are the mujahideen in Palestine, in Iraq, in Afghanistan e.t.c., have the courage to stand for the "truth"?

I don't issue "fatwas." And I never spoke against anyone who fights in the way of God. That's simply a lie. I have seen the videos of the "resistence" when they hold up a head of a human being and say in Arabic, "pick up the Qur'an..." while laughing in the background and reciting God's words. You sir are the one who dishonors the very word mujahid by labelling such depraved men with such an honorable title. Your insults don't come from a position of knowledge or reality so they do little. If you were actually willing to converse I'd be happy to get into a dialog with you. Instead you have your emotional outbursts and lash out. The "truth" escapes you and when it is near you it walks by without a notice from you so how can you claim such things about me? There's very little worse than than the misinformed pointing finger.

Quote:
What truth are u expounding on?

I'm dealing with Islam, not some fabricated interpretation of religion. And definitely not some emotional ties that go against the very religion I profess. There are those that don't appeal to the emotions of people or simply slide in where they fit to maintain their popularity, rather they're the ones that actually take the flag of Truth and wave it regardless of the situation. And of course as a result they're the ones that endure the insults and the accusations.

Quote:
You seem to have missed the truth that YOUR brothers and sisters are being slaughtered, unjustly.

You didn't miss the "truth" in Darfur? Or when Saddam was in power? Or in Algeria? Or in Syria? etc... It's simply hypocritical. Call it as it is. Both are wrong. A stranger killing me is no worse than my brother, after all I would be dead any way. So the killers are in the wrong that's a given. Is this your show of piety? You cry over "your" brother's deaths because the bullet is American? It's a farce. You use this highly charged, emotionally laden argument to keep your position. Please let's not accuse me of missing the truth as you are not the bearer of it.

Quote:
You seem to have missed the truth that sitting on an internet forum isnt gonna help where the help is needed.

Where are you sitting? I hope your chair is comfortable enough.

Quote:
You do nothing but sit there asserting that the Muslims are to blame because they "leave their doors open".

I'm amazed by the fact that you still have not grasped this analogy. Let me simplify it for you. We, the Muslims, were the superpower of the world for a thousand years but let people take it away from us. We left God's path. We turned away from Him and followed our materialistic allurements. Had we not done this there would be no Palestine, Afghanistan and surely no Iraq problems. How you cannot understand this is simply confounding. Are you happy with the state of the Ummah? Is it because others are doing it to us or is it our fault? Even if you say the blame is on both that's more fair than the typical song and dance to appeal to the public. For once let's be truthful and tell it like it is. Have the courage. Tell people to get back to God and see how it changes.

Quote:
If those are the best words of encouragement you've got for those strong people out there, fighting for Allah, then u might as well keep them.

Not words of encouragement as you seem to misunderstand, words that indicate where we were and where we are.

Quote:
well keep them. Its like i said before, i cant see u fighting on the battlefield for Islam.

I could care less what you can or cannot see. God sees, that's all that matters. All this war talk we'd think you're a vet. Would you mind telling me when was the last time you were on the "battlefield?" I don't mean playground here shooting cap guns. Do let me know. Funny thing is you don't know the first thing about me but you can "see."

Quote:
Maybe sitting on ur internet forum spreading ur "truth" is ur way of fighting, who knows?

It's obvious you don't know...

Haroon you have presistently attacked me. You have a personal dislike towards me. I have no problem with that. However, this is a forum. If you are interested in dialog I'd sure would like to discuss things with you. We can discuss the topic of your liking. However, I would prefer that if you cannot set aside your bitterness towards me then there's no point in posting vitriol.

Regards

Ron

12th February 2005, 21:24

Hash,

I would appreciate that you give me the respect of calling me by my first name. I call you by the name you want to be called so I'd appreciate the same in return.

Regards

Guest

12th February 2005, 21:25

Ok Ron, we will have it your way. Please be so kind then, as to fill in the gaps of my knowledge with the truth u say i walk blindly by - it would be appreciated. I look forward to your next post. Feel free to address what you wish.

xp²

12th February 2005, 21:45

Be nice now, Ron.

I think it is a big step that Haroon hasn't responded in haste, and has allowed a chance for maybe some peaceful dialogue.

Let see how this goes.

Hashim

12th February 2005, 21:46

Look, name me a single sahabi 9companion, a single taai'ibeen, a single taai'boon, a single scholar or single pious muslim hroughout the entire islamic history with the name 'ron'. So it looks stupid on a islamic forum calling someone 'ron'. But if that is what you feel comftable with, then fine, i will call you ron.

Hashim

12th February 2005, 21:48

Haroon is a peaceful guy, but when he is provoked what do you expect? It is the people who provoke haroon that you need to address xp.

Guest

12th February 2005, 21:49

Peace my friend. Let's give Ron a chance to enlighten us with his knowledge. Im sure we can only benefit from it.

Ansar Al-Haq

12th February 2005, 21:58

33:58 And those who annoy believing men and women undeservedly, bear (on themselves) a calumny and a glaring sin.

Ron

12th February 2005, 21:59

Salam All,

Yes the peace has begun.

Abu Bakr, Omar, Uthman, Ali and even Ahmad and Muhammad are all Arabic names. They existed before Islam. After Islam came about if the names were good and were not against Islam they became what we would call "Islamic names." So if a Muslim is named Michael or Ronnie or Robert then those are ok too if the people themselves are Muslim. I really think that we have to separate the Arab/Arabic from Islam/Muslim. We are expected to be Muslim not Arabs. Not everyone needs to have an Arabic name. Please discuss this with me and tell me what you think.

Regards

Ron

12th February 2005, 22:02

Please please no more. Let's just stop it here. Let's all forgive each other and turn a new leaf please. Take a breath and as we say, "sallu al Nabiyyi."

xp²

12th February 2005, 22:16

It is the people who provoke haroon that you need to address xp.

And who did I address?

Serious question.

Hashim

12th February 2005, 22:19

Look man brothers forget all this stuff, we can talk about this tomorrow or later on tonight, but i need to get my phone sorted! Get over to general conversations, and jump into my thread...QUICK!

Ansar Al-Haq

12th February 2005, 22:30

Please please no more. Let's just stop it here. Let's all forgive each other and turn a new leaf please. Take a breath and as we say, "sallu al Nabiyyi."
http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/36/36_2_42.gif

Shirley

12th February 2005, 22:44

Salaam alaikum,

We are expected to be Muslim not Arabs.

Taking on an Arabic name can make life easier for a revert. I did it myself. People had trouble pronouncing my English name, and it helps avoid repeated explanations along the lines of.... yes, I'm Muslim, yes I'm Irish... yes I AM Muslim... But I use my Arabic name less and less as time goes on... it begins to feel un-necessary. There is nothing wrong Islamically with my English name (it means meadow), so why not use it? Bottom line - if Shirley is Muslim, then Shirley is a Muslim name! :nod:

The_Other_Admin

14th February 2005, 07:03

I find it hard to imagine a person who says that he loves the Prophet (saw), and yet disregards the Prophet (saw)'s clothes, practices and customs.

I suppose you are the follower of sunnah but sunnah doesn't support this kind of logic.

That he went with Allah's Apostle to the house of Maimuna, who was his and Ibn 'Abbas' aunt. He found with her a roasted mastigure which her sister Hufaida bint Al-Harith had brought from Najd. Maimuna presented the mastigure before Allah's Apostle who rarely started eating any (unfamiliar) food before it was described and named for him. (But that time) Allah's Apostle stretched his hand towards the (meat of the) mastigure whereupon a lady from among those who were present, said, "You should inform Allah's Apostle of what you have presented to him. O Allah's Apostle! It is the meat of a mastigure." (On learning that) Allah's Apostle withdrew his hand from the meat of the mastigure. Khalid bin Al-Walid said, "O Allah's Apostle! Is this unlawful to eat?" Allah's Apostle replied, "No, but it is not found in the land of my people, so I do not like it." Khalid said, "Then I pulled the mastigure (meat) towards me and ate it while Allah's Apostle was looking at me."

On another note, the custom of handshaking was prevalent in Yemen. When some Yemenites came to see the Prophet (PBUH), they displayed their practice of handshake. He liked it and used it, thus it has become part of Muslim culture (see Abu Dawood).

Now you have 2 examples from hadiths: in first, he (pbuh) allowed his companian to do something that he (pbuh) didn't prefered himself personally; in second, he (pbuh) adopted something from a foriegn culture that he (pbuh) liked. What these hadiths mean to you?

Haroon this has to do something with the way people treat you in UK when they see you wearing traditional Islamic cloths? If thats the case than it is wrong for people to treat you this way, and you have the right to defend your position... but don't make a specific cultural practice part of Islam because, it is not, and it will be a great disservice to Islam.

------

Ron, if you bump into amn in the street wearing a thawb and beard, then you bump into another muslim wearing nike total 90 tracksuit, with a clean shaven face (no beard), who is adhering to the teachings of islam and who is not. Who is sticking to the deen and who is the one who has become modernized. Use my two examples and contemplate them throughly!
Don't judge book by the cover, you don't know whether the person in tracksuit will be in better position than the person thawb in afterlife... read my reply to Haroon.

Guest

14th February 2005, 15:11

Salaam Chuck,

Thanks for your reply, i understand what you say, but i retain my stance. The way i see it is quite simple. The Prophet had a liking, and the Prophet doesnt like things that are of no use. The preference of the Prophet is the best preference you can find. Hence why i try to follow him in everything i can.

Regards

Hashim

14th February 2005, 15:49

newsX

15th February 2005, 00:14

Hi there dear Hash,

Sorry for my long absence, but I am back from a long vacation.

Well, I am re-reading all the old threads, and I'd like to take you up on a few points:

You said:

that iran is the main terror place, etc ( all the usual rubbish ) and iran is going to be invaded!

I'd like to know where, in his State of the Union speech, did he talk about 'invading' Iran? Can you pinpoint where this piece of breaking news is?

You said:

I agreedd with the second view, that voting is bad.

In what way is 'voting' bad? Is 'voting' prohibited in Islam?

You said:

The west not only encourages and edges on, or tries to create sectarian violence, but the west also hipes it up in the media.

I find it appalling that you are trying to imply that sectarian violence is not endemic within the Islamic fold. I believe the so-called 'war' between shia and sunni is centuries old, starting from a time when america or britain did not yet exist. If I am not mistaken, the Arabs (or early Saudis) were directly responsible for thousands of shia deaths in kabala too. I think that this rift should not be swept under the carpet nor blamed on forces that did not first initiate it. It is hypocrtical, to say the least.

You said:

You see the sunni and shia mujahid fighting together, as one unit, against the invaders. So you think when the time for prayers come, they will start bickering about who will lead the prayer! No, no, this is not the case. Al-jazeera, and other sources, have broadcast and shown dozens of pictures, vidoes and live coverage of the fighters, when the time for prayer, put down their weapons, and join ranks and proclaim 'allah huakbar'and proceed with the prayer.

Provide the source, please.

May allah azzawajjal forgive me if i err, i relise that i was wrong to mock nadeem.

Dear Hash, you err in mocking at all. However, I am glad to see that most of those you mock do not fall down to your same level.

Muslims around the world need to realize that democracy is just another man-made system that has many faults and defects, and only leads to corruption of the society.

I don't know if I am correct or not, but the impression I received from reading about Islamic history, is that scholars and clerics within the early empires were always creating 'systems' that were in accordance with the spirit of the koran and the hadith. I do not think that scripture alone would be enough to answer all of society's problems, in all times. Perhaps ansar can correct me if I am wrong.

In reality democracy and dictatorship are simply tools of American imperialism.

Agreed, to a certain extent. However, don't you also agree that the people who are the so-called 'tools' (the dictators, in this case) are even worse? I think there is a verse in the koran that says that whatever problems arise always come from oneself. The onus, and thus the real jihad, should be on one's own mindset and ego.

Have you not wondered why, despite all the heartfelt condemnations of evil americans and zionists, the muslims still suffer under despots, unemployment, poverty, illiteracy and extremist teachings?

I strongly believe it's because the real enemy is within the community, not without. You are the product of your own government's propaganda. They want you to believe that the troubles Muslims live under is the fault of westerners and zionists. As long as your attention is turned toward a meaningless threat, they get to stay in power for that much longer.

It is simple chuck, our life is islam, our every stepand every breath is in accordance with islam, our identity is islam. Also, by wearing tracksuit for example, you are following the trend so to speak. But as a muslim, the prophet (peace be upon him) is our role-model, and we implement his sunnah, his teachings, in our lifes.

I fail to see how wearing a tracksuit attacks a person's Muslim identity. Muhammad was an Arab. What he wears cannot conceivably be a western-tailored track suit, hence.

Do you suppose eskimos, with the thick animal pelts and beardless chins, would make for lesser Muslims?

Thanks

newsX

15th February 2005, 00:17

;)

Hash, you really need to take a sincere look at reforming your views with the Qur'an and Sunnah.

Salaam

Hi there ansar al-haq,

I am very interested to know: in what way do you think hash should reform his views. Can you elaborate?

The_Other_Admin

15th February 2005, 04:04

It is simple chuck, our life is islam, our every stepand every breath is in accordance with islam, our identity is islam. Also, by wearing tracksuit for example, you are following the trend so to speak. But as a muslim, the prophet (peace be upon him) is our role-model, and we implement his sunnah, his teachings, in our lifes.

The problem here is that the understanding you have for Islam is the Islam taught by Prophet (pbuh) or it is influenced by cultural developments around you.

Thanks for your reply, i understand what you say, but i retain my stance. The way i see it is quite simple. The Prophet had a liking, and the Prophet doesnt like things that are of no use. The preference of the Prophet is the best preference you can find. Hence why i try to follow him in everything i can.

I understand what you are saying, but did the Prophet (pbuh) teach this? Did he ever say that all of his preferences are always the best preferences (are you ignoring the hadith about date farmers)? How do you know if Prophet (pbuh) was living in this century, he won't wear a track suit or deliver a sermon in english suit?

Ron

15th February 2005, 05:36

Salam Haroon,

Thanks for your reply, i understand what you say, but i retain my stance. The way i see it is quite simple. The Prophet had a liking, and the Prophet doesnt like things that are of no use. The preference of the Prophet is the best preference you can find. Hence why i try to follow him in everything i can.
I know that was to Chuck however I want to interject somthing. It is completely fine to want to be like the Prophet as much as you can. If you want to wear the same style of clothing, headdress, wash yourself they way he did etc...All that is fine. However, can we please agree that imitating the Prophet (P) in every little thing is not a part of the religion that he brought to the world? If we at least agree to this point then we would make great headway. Even if you think that it would be more honorable to wear such clothing you would still agree that no one would be breaking any religious tenenets for not wearing them. Correct?

As for dragging your clothing, it's basically right there in the words. Whether it drags or whatever the case the point is whoever wears anything they should not feel conceited about it. It's the same concept as the working out dialog we had. Have a good looking body is not harram but showing it off in an indecent manner is. If Abu Bakr could wear clothing like that then everyone can.

Regards

Guest

15th February 2005, 09:04

Salaam Ron, Chuck.

Even if you think that it would be more honorable to wear such clothing you would still agree that no one would be breaking any religious tenenets for not wearing them. Correct?
Yes, ok i see that. It is modesty which is the thought to be kept in mind with regards to clothing, and of course, its not even arguable, that the most modest clothes are robes, or clothes consisting of such sufficient amounts of cloth, that it doesnt hint at any arrogance or showing off, from the person of any kind. Im sure u can achieve something of the sort with western clothing, but im sure u agree that western clothes cant match robes in modesty at all.

I keep emphasising, strongly, the need for modesty, modesty and more modesty.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 8:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "Faith (Belief) consists of more than sixty branches (i.e. parts). And Haya (This term "Haya" covers a large number of concepts which are to be taken together; amongst them are self respect, modesty, bashfulness, and scruple, etc.) is a part of faith."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 520:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The main source of disbelief is in the east. Pride and arrogance are characteristics of the owners of horses and camels, and those bedouins who are busy with their camels and pay no attention to Religion; while modesty and gentleness are the characteristics of the owners of sheep."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 97:
Narrated Haritha bin Wahb:

Al-Khuzai: The Prophet said, "Shall I inform you about the people of Paradise? They comprise every obscure unimportant humble person, and if he takes Allah's Oath that he will do that thing, Allah will fulfill his oath (by doing that). Shall I inform you about the people of the Fire? They comprise every cruel, violent, proud and conceited person." Anas bin Malik said, "Any of the female slaves of Medina could take hold of the hand of Allah's Apostle and take him wherever she wished."

showing it off in an indecent manner is
Can u possibly show off in a decent manner?

I agree that the robes of the Arab nations are not compulsory, nor an active part of the religion itself, but i continue to say, that u will not find clothes more modest in any nation's dress.

Regards

The_Other_Admin

15th February 2005, 12:58

I keep emphasising, strongly, the need for modesty, modesty and more modesty.

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 1, Book 2, Number 8:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

The Prophet said, "Faith (Belief) consists of more than sixty branches (i.e. parts). And Haya (This term "Haya" covers a large number of concepts which are to be taken together; amongst them are self respect, modesty, bashfulness, and scruple, etc.) is a part of faith."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 4, Book 54, Number 520:
Narrated Abu Huraira:

Allah's Apostle said, "The main source of disbelief is in the east. Pride and arrogance are characteristics of the owners of horses and camels, and those bedouins who are busy with their camels and pay no attention to Religion; while modesty and gentleness are the characteristics of the owners of sheep."

Sahih Bukhari, Volume 8, Book 73, Number 97:
Narrated Haritha bin Wahb:

Al-Khuzai: The Prophet said, "Shall I inform you about the people of Paradise? They comprise every obscure unimportant humble person, and if he takes Allah's Oath that he will do that thing, Allah will fulfill his oath (by doing that). Shall I inform you about the people of the Fire? They comprise every cruel, violent, proud and conceited person." Anas bin Malik said, "Any of the female slaves of Medina could take hold of the hand of Allah's Apostle and take him wherever she wished."

No body is arguing with that.

Can u possibly show off in a decent manner?

I agree that the robes of the Arab nations are not compulsory, nor an active part of the religion itself, but i continue to say, that u will not find clothes more modest in any nation's dress.

Whats your definition of modest clothes?
Why do you think Arab dress is the most modest dress in the world?

Guest

15th February 2005, 16:05

Salaam Chuck.

Without intending to be rude in any manner, i believe that too much of the body is revealed with regards to western clothes, and many asian clothes. Take for example, the jeans or the trousers, they are immodest, because they show the features of parts of you which shouldnt be shown. To be honest, it is not just Arab clothing im talking about, its all lengthy, flowing clothes, which make it hard to distinguish parts of your body which shouldnt be distinguished. Also, robes are easier to pray in, look more honourable to pray in, and rarely give rise to times when your clothes would embarass you. You may find this a bit vain or unnecessary, but what often tends to happen, as people tell me, is that since their western tops and their western bottoms are made to their respective sizes, they get moved around such in salaah, and especially sajdah, so as to cause embarassment and uneasiness to the person wearing them. He feels uncomfortable and rather than his attention being where it should be, instead he becomes self conscious and is more concerned about his exposed privacy. I cant put it any simpler than that. It is not something which people tend to discuss very much, but it is an issue which can be resolved, simply by wearing longer clothes. And what better clothes to wear, than robes?

Regards

Osman

15th February 2005, 16:26

They're also really comfortable and not only when praying. :)

Hashim

15th February 2005, 19:46

Newsx

Over the past few weeks, statements issued by President Bush and his officials have ripened speculation that America is about to change the regime in Iran. During his State of the Union speech on Wednesday, Bush declared, “Today, Iran remains the world's primary state sponsor of terror - pursuing nuclear weapons while depriving its people of the freedom they seek and deserve...To the Iranian people, I say tonight: As you stand for your own liberty, America stands with you”. On 21/01/05 during his inauguration address, Bush said, "We will persistently clarify the choice before every ruler and every nation: The moral choice between oppression, which is always wrong, and freedom, which is eternally right. It is the policy of the United States to seek and support the growth of democratic movements and institutions in every nation and culture, with the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world.” This statement was widely interpreted by the world’s media that Bush is to adopt an interventionist approach in ending regimes that promote tyranny and replacing them with pro-American democratic regimes. The immediate focus of this doctrine appears to be Iran. Earlier in the day, US Vice President Dick Cheney described Iran as the number one trouble spot in the world. He said, "You look around the world at potential trouble spots, Iran is right at the top of the list."

In fact Iran is part of a growing list of countries, which America has earmarked for regime change. On 18/01/05 Condoleezza Rice, while speaking before the Senate said, “We must remain united in insisting that Iran and North Korea abandon their nuclear weapons ambitions, and choose instead the path of peace... There remain outposts of tyranny and America stands with oppressed people on every continent... in Cuba, and Burma, and North Korea, and Iran, and Belarus, and Zimbabwe... We cannot rest until every person living in a "fear society" has finally won their freedom.“

America has not ruled out the use of force to change the regime of Iran. On 18/01/05, in a television interview with NBC News, US President George W Bush said, "I hope we can solve it diplomatically, but I won't ever take any option off the table.” In addition to this, Bush’s new cabinet is extremely loyal to his vision of ending tyranny around the world. The neo-conservatives remain strong as ever in and around government. Commenting on Bush’s inauguration speech, Robert Kagan a leading neoconservative said, "This is real neoconservatism… It would be hard to express it more clearly. If people were expecting Bush to rein in his ambitions and enthusiasms after the first term, they are discovering that they were wrong."

Pentagon is virtually dominated by neoconservative elements such as Douglas Fieth, Paul Wolfowitz and John Bolton -all of whom retain their positions. The appointment of Miss Rice as US Secretary of State signals a shift in the alignment of the State Department towards neoconservative policies. Under Colin Powell there was an open rift over Iran between the State department and Pentagon. Powell along with the CIA favoured engagement and the use of American soft power to bring about regime change in Iran. But with the arrival of Rice at the helm of the State Department and the purging of senior analysts in the CIA the use of force is likely to be the preferred option as opposed to diplomacy. Furthermore, the recent announcement by Rumsfeld that special units under the auspices of the Department of Defence will collate intelligence shows Bush’s determination to make intelligence gathering and analysis support his vision.

All of this indicates that US policy towards Iran remains one of regime change and she has never been interested in disarming Iran or curtailing its nuclear ambitions. Instead Iran’s nuclear programme has been used as a cover to justify America’s desire to change the regime in Iran. America and her surrogate Israel have been leading the call. Undeterred by the intelligence debacle over Iraq’s WMD, America has continued to cite uncorroborated intelligence reports that Iran was exploiting its nuclear programme to produce weapons. On 18/11/05 Colin Powel the then US Secretary of State said that intelligence showed Iran had been actively working on adapting its missiles to carry nuclear warheads. His statement was based on a statement issued by The National Council for Resistance in Iran - an exiled opposition group. The group claimed that Iran had built a secret uranium enrichment site just north of Tehran. The timing of Powell’s statement was intended to derail the agreement between the EU and Iran over its nuclear programme. But the US failed to stop Iran concluding an agreement with France, Germany and Britain. The three countries have consistently argued, based upon their own interests, that the diplomatic route had not yet been exhausted and ultimately would prove more effective than the threat or even imposition of international sanctions. America poured scorn over the agreement and refused to support it. Richard Boucher, US State Department spokesman said,” We haven't sprung new faith in Iran's willingness to do this", adding, "the US remains as sceptical as ever that Iran lives up to the terms of this agreement." Thus America and Israel have continued to make spurious accusations against Iran without providing any proof to substantiate the claims. On 24/01/05, Mossad chief Meir Dagan warned that by the end of this year, Iran will have reached the point of no return in its technology for manufacturing nuclear bombs. “Three to four years later”, he told the Knesset Foreign Affairs and Defense Committee, “the Iranians will be able to build a nuclear bomb”.

The EU has acknowledged US and Israeli concerns but has dismissed the use of force in preference to engagement with Iran. In this respect the EU has opened up trade talks with Iran much to the annoyance of the Americans. The trade talks which began earlier this month are part of an agreement reached with Iran over its promise not to pursue nuclear weapons. Meanwhile the Americans have continued their tirade against Iran accusing it of violating human rights, interfering in Iraq, running a clandestine nuclear program, supporting militant groups etc. This has prompted several member states of the EU to seek reassurances from American officials regarding Washington intention towards Tehran. The visit of Jack Straw to the US on 24/01/05 was to press Washington to clarify its intentions over Iran. After meeting his counterpart Ms. Rice, Straw said, “The issue of a military option simply wasn’t raised today.” In other words he did not receive a firm answer from Washington over the use of force against Iran. It has also been reported in the media that Straw has prepared a dossier on Iran which lists several reasons why use of force against Iran will not bring about regime change. The dossier also highlights the merits of constructive engagement with Iran. Britain’s position towards Iran is in marked contrast to her efforts to wage war against Iraq. Against Iraq, Britain issued two dossiers in support of the invasion and was America’s partner in waging the unjust war.

The shift in position over Iran is due to several reasons. First, Britain cannot afford to stand by America and watch her openly destroy the international system of multilateralism, which she sees as the key way of achieving her own colonial interests. Second, Tony Blair is facing an election and cannot risk losing support amongst the electorate most of whom are opposed to the war against Iraq and are sceptical of US intentions. Third, Britain will be assuming the presidency of the EU in June and it is imperative for Britain to be aligned with her European partners then the US.

Nevertheless there still appears to be some discussion amongst cabinet officials how best to approach Iran. In an interview with the Financial Times, Blair sent conflicting signals by not ruling out an eventual US attack on Iran's facilities when replying 'Yes' to whether it may be theoretically the only way to stop Iran acquiring a nuclear weapon. The British premier was also seen distancing himself from his Foreign Secretary Jack Straw, who last year insisted that US military action, was "inconceivable." This may have been brought about by Lord Browne [1] who said,”Right now it is impractical for BP (to invest in Iran) because 40% of BP is in the US and we are the largest producer of oil and gas in the US," he explained. "Politically Iran is not a flyer. One day I hope it is," he went on.

In addition to EU, Russia and China have also added their support to the EU’s approach in dealing with Iran. Hence America stands isolated on this matter at present. The longer the delay to act the more difficult it will become for America to take military action against Iran.

Yet, there are indications that America has begun military preparation to attack Iran. In the New Yorker magazine, Hersh says that American Special Forces have conducted reconnaissance missions inside Iran for six months. He also quotes US intelligence officials revealing that Iran is the Bush administration's "next strategic target". America has also started arming the Mujahideen Ul Khalaq the Iranian opposition group based in Iraq. The group is officially designated a terrorist organisation but despite this America is keen to use the group against Iran. Recently, America has imposed sanctions on Chinese firms selling technology and military hardware to Iran. American has also taken exception to the EU’s decision to lift an arms embargo fearing that such weapons may be used in Taiwan or even by Iran.

Whatever rationale America brings to justify its invasion of Iran the world will not believe it. America’s argument about Iran posing a nuclear danger to its interests is miniscule compared to the nuclear threat posed by North Korea. Similarly, human rights abuses in countries like Uzbekistan, Burma, North Korea and Zimbabwe are far worse then Iran. Also from the standpoint of tyranny, Belarus, North Korea and Cuba are the obvious candidates. The main reason for attacking Iran is to secure the huge oil and gas deposits and then use them to control the world energy supplies. Furthermore, it is to secure the security of Israel.

Ansar Al-Haq

15th February 2005, 21:17

Am I posting in the wrong section :confused:

Guest

15th February 2005, 21:43

I think most people post things in the wrong section:p!

Ansar Al-Haq

15th February 2005, 21:53

:lol:

And they post in the wrong language too! :confused:

newsX

16th February 2005, 00:43

Dearest Hash,

I appreciate your response, but I'd appreciate it if you were more original. Unless you were the author of the article in:

http://www.muslimaccess.com/discussions/forum/display_topic_threads.asp?ForumID=9&TopicID=1114&PagePosition=1

I seriously think that you need to give credit where credit is due. Plagarisation is a grave issue in most democratic countries.

That said, it's a pretty astute article.

However, I take issue with the fact that you have left almost three-quarters of my post unanswered.

Hashim

16th February 2005, 11:06

okay post your queries the 3/4 i missed out and i will answer as soon as possible.

Ron

16th February 2005, 11:57

Salam Haroon,

Yes, ok i see that. It is modesty which is the thought to be kept in mind with regards to clothing, and of course, its not even arguable, that the most modest clothes are robes, or clothes consisting of such sufficient amounts of cloth, that it doesnt hint at any arrogance or showing off, from the person of any kind. Im sure u can achieve something of the sort with western clothing, but im sure u agree that western clothes cant match robes in modesty at all.
Since we agree on the principle of modesty I see no reason to argue about our opinions as to what is more modest. However, these "robes" you mention are they the thawbs that Arabs wear today? Is that what the Prophet (P) wore? We need answers to these questions before we accept that wearing robes would be best. Please check on it and let me know.

Can u possibly show off in a decent manner?
What I meant was that if you have a nice body you can wear nice clothes and be presentable as opposed to wearing clothes that reveal things that it shouldn't.

I agree that the robes of the Arab nations are not compulsory, nor an active part of the religion itself, but i continue to say, that u will not find clothes more modest in any nation's dress.
The first part of that statement is exactly the point of my discussion. If it is not compulsory it should not be pushed as if it is. Also no one should look down at those who choose not to dress like Arabs. Even if you think that is more modest it still does not give anyone any right to say we should dress this way or not dress that way. What is not in our religion should not be made to seem as if it a part of it. Also, those that do dress like Arabs should not think that they are closer to God even if they do believe that this is how the Prophet dressed. The reason I mention this is that people get caught up in the image rather than what is deep inside. Surely anyone could wear a robe and grow a beard but that is not where piety is and I know for sure that you know that.

If it is not a mandatory thing in our religion let's not make it seem so. That's really been my only point about this issue.

Regards

Guest

16th February 2005, 12:15

Salaam Ron,

Ok, i agree with that. Do you think it might be easier for one to actually practice Islam if they are wearing such clothes? I mean, whether you like it or not, these clothes are seen as part of the Islamic image; a good thing i would say. Similar to the image of hindus is that they were their lungi or whatever its called.

Regards

Ron

17th February 2005, 00:31

Salam Haroon,

Do you think it might be easier for one to actually practice Islam if they are wearing such clothes?
Not necessarily. Since modesty is what counts the actual style of clothing is not what is important but rather where the heart, mind and spirit are. As I said before just about anyone can wear robes and grow beards not everyone can reach deep inside of themselves and follow the path.

I mean, whether you like it or not, these clothes are seen as part of the Islamic image; a good thing i would say.
They are seen as an "Islamic image" true, but wrongfully so. If it is not part of the religion then it shouldn't be regarded as such. Islam doesn't expect a military style assimilation. God has given us the variations in our ethnicities and our looks etc... because that is the beauty of life. We are not robots that have to look alike. Having tastes and preferences within the Islamic framework is a beautiful thing why should we limit ourselves to Arabic styles and cultural standards?

Please understand that I do not want to make it seem as if I am against people dressing in robes or whatever. If that's what a person wants to wear so be it. Dress in whatever so long as it is Islamically acceptable.

I appreciate that you are understanding me.

Regards

xp²

17th February 2005, 00:57

Salaam,

If I could just point out, there is a similarity between the issue of robes, and "sitting in dark rooms chanting Allah hu". While not part of the obligatory practices of Islam, it is okay to do them, aslong as one doesn't give any false impressions that it was part of the religion.

:)

newsX

17th February 2005, 02:51

okay post your queries the 3/4 i missed out and i will answer as soon as possible.

It's in post #218.

Hashim

17th February 2005, 10:20

No but xp, the point is that these people who this innovated form of zikr, they claim it is a act of ibadat, a act of worship. A way to get closer to allah azzawajjal!

Hashim

17th February 2005, 10:20

Newsx, i understand but could you please just briefly post what you want to know.

Guest

17th February 2005, 16:21

Salaam Ron,

Fair enough, i see your stance, and have re-thought my own, and adopted yours. And Allah subhanahu wa ta'ala knows best.

Regards

Guest

17th February 2005, 16:38

Salaam Ron.

One thing though.

As for dragging your clothing, it's basically right there in the words. Whether it drags or whatever the case the point is whoever wears anything they should not feel conceited about it. It's the same concept as the working out dialog we had. Have a good looking body is not harram but showing it off in an indecent manner is. If Abu Bakr could wear clothing like that then everyone can.
Yes it did slip below his ankles, but does that mean that he didnt keep trying to it back up? Surely that is part of that package isnt it? Otherwise, the Prophet (saw) could just as easily have said "Dont be conceited, and dont show it in your clothes or your ways", or something similar, yet he didnt. He clearly said "that which is below the ankles is in the Fire of Hell" - which shows us that we must at least try to keep it above the ankles.

Abu Hurairah (RA) reported: the Messenger of Allah (SAW) said to a man who was performing Salat while his lower garment was trailing, "Go and perform your Wudu' again.'' That man went and came back having performed it. The Messenger of Allah (SAW) said (again), "Go and perform your Wudu'.'' Someone present said to Messenger of Allah (SAW): "O Messenger of Allah! You ask him to perform his Wudu' and then you kept silent (without saying the reason for it).'' He (SAW) said, "He performed Salat while his lower garment was below his ankles. Allah does not accept the Salat of a man who trails his lower garment.'' [Abu Dawud]

Abu Hurairah (RA) reported: The Prophet (SAW) said,

"What is below the ankles of a lower garment is condemned to the Fire (Hell).'' [Al-Bukhari]

Abu Dharr (RA) reported: I heard the Prophet (SAW) saying,

"There are three to whom Allah will neither speak on the Day of Resurrection nor will look at them nor purify them (i.e., of their sins), and they will be severely tormented.'' When he repeated this (statement) thrice, Abu Dharr (RA) said: "They are doomed and destroyed! (But) who are they, O Messenger of Allah (SAW)?'' He said, "One whose lower garment trails, one who boasts of kindness shown to another; and one who promotes sale of his business by taking false oaths.'' [Muslim].

Regards

Guest

17th February 2005, 16:42

Salaam again Ron,

I keep finding these ahadith and quotes:

My Shaikh, Abu al-`Abbas, ibn Taimiyyah, may Allah (subhannahu wa ta`aala) bless his soul in Paradise, used to mention a beautiful secret behind the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) wearing the Dhu-abah. He said that the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) started wearing a Dhu-abah) in the morning following his seeing the vision he saw in Madinah. He saw the Lord of Might, the Blessed the Most Honored, and He said, in a `Hadeeth collected by at-Tirmidhi (3223) [3] and graded authentic by al-Bukhari, "O Muhammad! What is it that al-Mala-ul-A`la (angels in heaven) are disputing about?" The Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) said, "I said, 'I do not know.' So Allah (in that dream) placed His Hand between my shoulders and I learned the knowledge about whatever is between the heavens and the earth.'" [4]

Ibn Taimiyyah said, "So from that time, the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) let the Dhu-abah hang between his shoulders." This (ibn Taimiyyah's wonderful statement) is a type of knowledge that the tongues and hearts of the ignorant ones deny. I never saw anyone, except ibn Taimiyyah, mention this statement about the Dhu-abah.

Footnotes
[1] Letting the two sides of the turban hanging between the shoulders.
[2] This is why Jabir (radiyallahu `anhu) did not mention the Dhu-abah. Al-Bukhari narrated that Anas ibn Malik (radiyallahu `anhu) said that Allah's Apostle (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) entered Makkah in the year of its Conquest wearing an Arabian helmet on his head."
[3] Refer to Saheeh Sunan at-Tirmidhi (2580), by al-Albani.
[4] This does not meam that the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) had knowledge in everything just as Allah does, as the ignorant claim. Rather, the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) only learned the major incidents and news that were between the heavens and the earth. To totally dissipate the Sufi creed about this subject, we offer two Ayat and a `Hadeeth. Allah said, Say: "None in the heavens and the earth knows the Ghaib (unseen) except Allah, nor can they preceive when they shall be resurrected" [27:65], and, Say [O Muhammad (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam): "I posses no power over benefit or hurt to myself except as Allah wills. If I had the knowledge of the Ghaib (unseen), I hould have secured for myself an abundance of wealth, and no evil should have touched me. I am but a warner, and a bringer of glad tidings unto people who believe" [7:188]. Further, al-Bukhari and Muslim narrated that `Abdullah ibn `Abbas (radiyallahu `anhuma) said that Allah's Apostle (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) said, about the Day of Judgment, "The first human being to be dressed on the Day of Resurrection will be Abraham. Lo! Some men from my followers will be brought and then (angels) will drive them to the left side (Hellfire). I will say, 'O my Lord! (They are) my companions!' Then a reply will come (from Allah), 'You do not know what they did (A`hdathu) after you.'" If the Prophet (sallallahu `alayhi wasallam) had knowledge about all matters of the Unseen, then why would the angels tell him on the Day of Judgment, "You do not know what they invented (in Arabic, A`hdathu [another word for Bid'ah]) after you."

Guest

17th February 2005, 16:54

Salaam again Ron,

Ill make this the last (promise:)):

Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: “Whosoever loves my tradition, indeed loves me and whosoever loves me will be with me in Paradise.” (Tirmizi)

Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: “One who is averse to my tradition, is not of me (has nothing to do with me).” Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: “One who imitates a nation is of them.” (Bukhari)

The covering of ankles is Haraam and a major sin by the unanimous agreement of the great and true Ulema and Mashaaikh. Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: “The hanging of clothes below the ankles in pride is forbidden.” (Bukhari)

Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: “Even if there is no pride, the covering of the ankles is forbidden”. (Bukhari)

Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: “This is the sign of pride. And to adopt the habit of pride is forbidden. Therefore the covering of the ankles is forbidden.” (Bukhari)

By covering the ankles one is deprived of the Mercy of ALLAH. ALLAH will not cast His Mercy on such a person. (Mishkaat)

Hashim

17th February 2005, 18:33

Wow i thought it was just makruh, but know we know it is haraam.

Ron

17th February 2005, 22:37

Salam Sheikh Haroon,

Yes it did slip below his ankles, but does that mean that he didnt keep trying to it back up? Surely that is part of that package isnt it? Otherwise, the Prophet (saw) could just as easily have said "Dont be conceited, and dont show it in your clothes or your ways", or something similar, yet he didnt. He clearly said "that which is below the ankles is in the Fire of Hell" - which shows us that we must at least try to keep it above the ankles.
Nothing in those ahadith says anything about him picking his clothing up. Actually if you read it carefully the Prophet basically tells him the allowance of it because he wasn't showing off. In that I see the proof that it could have been worn in those times so long as the intention was not to be conceited.

Even the ahadith you have shown bring them along with the ones you already quoted it all makes perfect sense. To let your clothes trail was a sign of istikbar (grandiose attitude). They all share this same feature.

Regards

Ron

17th February 2005, 22:43

Salam Haroon,

Ill make this the last (promise):
It's ok, we're learning so that shouldn't ever stop.

Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: “Whosoever loves my tradition, indeed loves me and whosoever loves me will be with me in Paradise.” (Tirmizi)
I love the Prophet's tradition. But can you explain what he is talking about? What tradition? Is it Islam or what is written in the ahadith?

The covering of ankles is Haraam and a major sin by the unanimous agreement of the great and true Ulema and Mashaaikh. Nabi Sallallahu Alayhi Wasallam said: “The hanging of clothes below the ankles in pride is forbidden.” (Bukhari)
All of them relate to this: pride not clothing.

Regards

Guest

18th February 2005, 08:15

Salaam Ronnie.

You seem to have missed out some of the ahadith.

“Even if there is no pride, the covering of the ankles is forbidden”. (Bukhari)

“This is the sign of pride. And to adopt the habit of pride is forbidden. Therefore the covering of the ankles is forbidden.” (Bukhari)

Aren't these pretty clear cut? You find almost the exact same version of these ahadith in Muslim, Abu Daoud and Musnad of Ahmad too.

All of them relate to this: pride not clothing.
Well the ahadith above beg to differ. If a stud/masayr is walking around with his "cool" walk and his indecent clothes, flexing in the middle of the city centre, but states, "no, its what is in the heart that matters, and i am really a decent, humble, modest person", then will that cut it? We need actions, physical actions, to get to the stages of purity.

Brother, i must reinstate that it is not just "what is in the heart" that is important. Of course, a lot of the meaning and sincerity is within/from the heart, but that does not mean that we can cut out the physical part. I mean, take salaah for example. From an onlooker's point of view its an exercise; "how does that bring you closer to God?", he says. "Is it not all from the heart?" The real and honest answer to that is no, it is not all from the heart. Practical implementation is vital to gain any type of spiritual, emotional fulfillment and satisfaction. Otherwise, we can just sit and meditate on the idea of God-God-God, but will it bring us closer to Him? Is it what Islam teaches? No, it is a two way thing. Action with heart. Heart with action. Another example of how everything comes in pairs:).

Regards

Ratatosk

18th February 2005, 10:01

Salaam,

Peace, Sheikh Haroon. Please allow me to toss my two cents into the brew, no? I sincerely hope you'll not take this the wrong way. I understand your point of view, I really do, and somehow I sense it as very honest. Personally, I do not hold a similar view, however. I think that the question is about how one understands piety, modesty, honesty, faithfulness and other asundry matters surrounding our journey back to God.

I have this nagging sensation, though; it seems to me that this thread mostly evolves around -- and injects a lot of importance into -- "what meets the eye", no?

If a stud/masayr is walking around with his "cool" walk and his indecent clothes, flexing in the middle of the city centre, but states, "no, its what is in the heart that matters, and i am really a decent, humble, modest person", then will that cut it?

Aren't you overdoing it a bit here? I understand what you are trying to convey, but the contradictions in the above example; aren't they a bit too blatant to be of any use pertaining to the discourse at hand? I understand the example (at least I think I do), but the actions described in it are a bit contradictory, no? Theatrical showing off is hardly on par with covering one's ankles. I think. The way I see it; true piety and true modesty hasn't got much to do with a particular configuration of fabrics, nor has it got much to do with attention seeking theatrics.

We need actions, physical actions, to get to the stages of purity.

Sheikh Haroon, my friend, it is this that I have some difficulties to properly assess. For instance; a pious buddhist, amidst his/her marathon meditation session doesn't seem to be doing much. I admit that it's also quite an extreme example in itself, and I'm probably stretching the analogy to the breaking point, but what I'm trying to relay is that such a stance differs quite manifestly from the proposed "look like it, be it" notion.

Brother, i must reinstate that it is not just "what is in the heart" that is important. Of course, a lot of the meaning and sincerity is within/from the heart, but that does not mean that we can cut out the physical part.

Modest actions flow from a modest heart. A truly modest person will probably not flex in the middle of the city centre. However, it is what's in the heart that is the absolutely most important. If we have dark and destructive thoughts in our mind, if we have a hardened and blackened heart, then we are off the tracks. No matter how much we show our ankles.

I mean, take salaah for example. From an onlooker's point of view its an exercise; "how does that bring you closer to God?", he says. "Is it not all from the heart?" The real and honest answer to that is no, it is not all from the heart. Practical implementation is vital to gain any type of spiritual, emotional fulfillment and satisfaction.

To the subject, this is naturally true. However, my understanding of the issue is that this is exactly the point. Though actions can bring the subject closer to God, these are actions for the subject. Unless the actions are explicitly stated as fard, they can not be imposed. Therefore I can not agree with this. That doesn't mean that I wouldn't understand the assertion. I only disagree with some of the issues that the described implementation entails.

Otherwise, we can just sit and meditate on the idea of God-God-God, but will it bring us closer to Him? Is it what Islam teaches?

It is manifestly not what Islam teaches. At least not in the sense that it would be fard, or anything of the ilk. However, I can not see any action that brings us closer to God as anything but halal, as long as the actions are not explicitly and manifestly against the teachings in the noble Qur'an.

No, it is a two way thing. Action with heart. Heart with action. Another example of how everything comes in pairs.

I agree with the general gist, although I see it a tad differently. As I stated previously, I believe true actions flow from a true heart. What I'm sloppily trying to say is that these actions would come naturally to anyone in genuinely honest and truthful submission to Allah. To stretch the analogy to everything coming in pairs is perhaps not applicable to this instance. Sometimes, stuff comes along all by its lonesome. Like my craving for another cup of coffee. Yup, I'm off to the vending machine. On the double.

peace

Ron

18th February 2005, 14:30

Salam Sheikh Haroon,

You seem to have missed out some of the ahadith.

“Even if there is no pride, the covering of the ankles is forbidden”. (Bukhari)
Yes I'm so sorry, I did miss that hadith, I don't know how. My dear brother this is not a hadith nor is it a saying of the Prophet (P) nor is it in Bukhari. This at best is the understanding of the person who wrote the article. I believe you probably got it here: http://www.jamatuddawa.org/english/articles/islam/the_covering_of_ankles.htm This person has taken the liberty to do something that the ahadith scholars would shun. It is inappropriate for him to have done such a thing. It makes the person who reads it believe that he has faithfully quoted a hadith and thereby quoted the Prophet himself. The Prophet did not say those words. Those words are not in Bukhari. In other words it's a fake or misrepresentation or something else. So it is invalid. I'm so disappointed (not at you) that someone would do such a thing even if the goal is for a good purpose.

“This is the sign of pride. And to adopt the habit of pride is forbidden. Therefore the covering of the ankles is forbidden.” (Bukhari)

Aren't these pretty clear cut? You find almost the exact same version of these ahadith in Muslim, Abu Daoud and Musnad of Ahmad too.
I already mentioned that the first hadith is not real. As for the second you underlined the very important part "Pride." It totally supports what I have been saying. The point here is to gather all the ahadith you can about a topic and study it thoroughly to get the picture of what is being said. So even if one or more hadith doesn't mention the pride thing but the others do we need to understand it in context. The first hadith is not mentioned in any of the other great scholars works that you've named.

Ratatotsk tackled your objections similarly to the way I would have so I see no need to. Basically it's the same concept. However, I do want to mention that when I spoke of the "heart" my intention was never to eliminate the physical aspect. That's why modesty is so important to me...walking and talking right etc...of course there's a physical aspect to Islam. "Doing" inculcates within us a conciousness and awareness of righteousness. This helps our spirituality. They both work together to bring us closer to God. So modesty in of itself is the physical act and that strengthens the spirit but the actual style of clothing does not. Islam is not about a tailor's job, it is about the mindset of humanity. Rather than cloaking them in specific outwear, it cloaks them with inner wear. Inside and out, Islam does both meaningfully.

Regards

Guest

18th February 2005, 16:32

Salaam.

Peace Ratatosk.

I have this nagging sensation, though; it seems to me that this thread mostly evolves around -- and injects a lot of importance into -- "what meets the eye", no?
A Muslim should look presentable and neat. A figure for da'wah.

For instance; a pious buddhist, amidst his/her marathon meditation session doesn't seem to be doing much. I admit that it's also quite an extreme example in itself, and I'm probably stretching the analogy to the breaking point
Well a Muslim standing in prayer for half an hour doesnt seem to be doing much, but who knows what connection he has made with his Lord?

The way I see it; true piety and true modesty hasn't got much to do with a particular configuration of fabrics
Well, i believe that the particular configuration of fabrics helps.

Modest actions flow from a modest heart. A truly modest person will probably not flex in the middle of the city centre. However, it is what's in the heart that is the absolutely most important. If we have dark and destructive thoughts in our mind, if we have a hardened and blackened heart, then we are off the tracks. No matter how much we show our ankles.
Dear friend, look what i wrote: "Of course, a lot of the meaning and sincerity is within/from the heart, but that does not mean that we can cut out the physical part."

Unless the actions are explicitly stated as fard, they can not be imposed.
What about the sunnahs and that waajibs?

However, I can not see any action that brings us closer to God as anything but halal, as long as the actions are not explicitly and manifestly against the teachings in the noble Qur'an.
I amusingly just thought of a quote from someone. The definition of bid'ah is: "Any action, statement or practice which is undertaken to get close to God, but which is not found in the Qur'an or sunnah". Hence ur statement of "I can not see any action that brings us closer to God as anything but halal" is incorrect, because many things that are undertaken, tend to be to please Allah, and the primary fault in them is that they are newly invented matters.

What I'm sloppily trying to say is that these actions would come naturally to anyone in genuinely honest and truthful submission to Allah.
Im sure that many people have genuine honest and truthful submission, but does that mean that they dont make mistakes?

To stretch the analogy to everything coming in pairs is perhaps not applicable to this instance.
I can't for the life of me, see why not.

Regards