This section is online for reference only. No new content will be added. no deletion either...
Go to Current Forums ...with millions of posts
     | Monday, January 08, 2001 - 01:04 am I was wondering, what is the ruling regarding jihad in this time and day.. i always thought that Jihad was compulsory Upon all Muslims. However, to my surprise, I have recently come across an article which stated that Jihad was not possible with an Islamic Imaam, basically we must have an imam (khalif) before we can fight the kuffar. How authentic is this argument? Considering the situation in palistine, cheneya, kashmir what is the role of the muslim ummah? Just a thought...... Your sis in Islam,
|
| | Monday, January 08, 2001 - 10:11 am Muslimah, this is one of the most controversial topics in Islam (today)!! Trust me when I say no amount of discussion will resolve this one (except by the grace of Allah). I do not have the time or resources at hand and my next lecture is in half and hour. The short answer is: there are many types of Jihad. The one you are referring to is fighting (physically), this itself is divided into two categories. one offensive Jihad and one defensive defensive. The defensive one is permissible and a must upon the people being attacked to defend themselves. If they are not able to defend themselves alone; then it becomes a must on the Muslims near by to help them. This obligation is past on from one land to the next until the Muslims are strong enough to stop the enemy. So for example, If Pakistan is being attacked by India, jihad is a must for the Pakistanis and encouraged for all Muslims to help them. Now if Pakistan is too weak to repel the Indians, jihad becomes a must on Afghanistan and the Muslims living nearby, If this is not enough to stop the Indians..then it will continue to become a fard an more and more Muslims! I hope I've not confused you. This is agreed to by all the Muslim scholars> Also bear in mind that this is a fiqh principle. The offensive is where there is a dispute. Some say you need an imam while other say, no you don't need an imam and some say its a must. I have to leave now... But insha Allah I will more tonight with proofs from the Quran, Ahadith and scholars. I also advice anyone who intends to add anything to this discussion to do so in an Islamic Manner. Don't insult the scholars for their views. Asalamu Alaykum
|
| | Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 01:13 am I thought a Jihad was to defend the religion, not to defend adherents of the religion or their property. Also, where does this leave alliances between "Kufaar" states, like the US, Syrians, French, Saudis, Kuwaitis, etc. against another Muslim state (Iraq)???? How about an alliance between Bangledesh (a Muslim State), India against Pakistan??? If Pakistan tries to reintegrate Bangledesh by force and India intercedes on Bangledeshes behalf, then if Pakistan is the aggressor state shouldn't Muslim join the Indian-Bangeldeshi side????
|
| | Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 01:16 am Oh yeah, what defines a Muslim state???? I mean, what about Bosnia?? If the Bosnian Army (which is now SLOWLY becoming a unified national Army) is made up of Croats, Serbs and Muslims - about 40% Muslim, were to go to war against Serbia, does this mean that Muslims should support this quasi-Muslim state??? Or because Bosnia has no one dominant faith, is it considered a non-Muslim state??
|
| | Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 06:32 am Brother JB. There is nothing wrong with what you said. Jazakallaahu kheyran. I will really appreciate if you can present the views of all scholars if not possible some of them on this subject. I also appreciate your open mindedness on the issue. A great way to learn islam is to avoid BIAS and PROMOTING one Idea OF ISLAM WHEN there are many that are all by the Quran and Sunnah. Again, may Allah give you his wisdom and blessings.
|
| | Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 10:53 am Salaams, I agree with bro JB with the commont he made, and would lookforward his next one( pleas can you make more spaces and make it shorter, divide it up if you can, but is up to you) anyway I will say abit of my current opinion about the issue. Coincedentlly, I have read this morning a bit of news that I think happened few weeks ago. It says that a suicade bomber was named as a British born Muslim, a 24 years old university student. The incedent took place in somewhere India, I think , it relates the Kshamir problems. Okey, I do not emmediatelly beleave in whatever I read and hear, especially if it is reported by a westeren reporter, ( and hardly nowadays the muslims) and of course, we all remember how some British muslims where falsely accused and unjustly denied justice in the Yemen ( I am still yet to know where there case ended). Anyway, it made me feel that there is an urgent need for the Muslim scholars to cleaify the meaning of Jihad and its application at any given time. Nowadays there countelles poeple who use jihad in their ways. I think they misguide the young muslims especially boys and make them to belave they know better. Let us look at this case ( if it is true) is there a need for a British born muslim to answer a pysical jihad somewhere in Kashmiir. Certainly there are many other things that he can do for them, including finishing his education and go there and teach the children in need. He could rise money here and send back, certainly that helps alot of children. In the West, there are a lot of things to be done for the young muslim children. Somaetimes you would surprised how a muslim child needs to know the basic teachings of islam. That there is One God and Mohamed pbuh was his prophet and the last one.
|
| | Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 10:55 am MadMac , why do you repeat the same questions? does that mean you wrote but not read---- wondering !!!!
|
| | Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 06:55 pm Asalamu Alaykum Ikhwan: I have a few notes on Jihad. Imam Shaafi'ee May Allah reward him explains to us that Jihad Fard Kifiya. All scholar agree to this. I also have a few statement about the defensive jihad insha Allah I will place it under this one. Author: Imaam ash-Shafi'ee Source: Ar-Risaalah 1. [Shaafi'ee] replied: The public is incapable of knowing this kind of knowledge, nor can all specialists obtain it. But those who do obtain it should not all neglect it. If some can obtain it, the others are relieved of the duty [of obtaining it]; but those who do obtain it will be rewarded. 2. He asked: Will you cite a liarrative or any other rele-vant information as a basis for [using] analogy? 3. [Shaafi'ee] replied: God has imposed the [duty of jihild as laid down in His Book and uttered by His Prophet's tongue. He stressed the calling [of men to fulfil] the jihad [duty] as follows: God has bought from the believers their selves and their posses-sions against [the gift of] Paradise. They fight in the way of God; they kill, and are killed; that is a promise binding upon God in the Torah and Gospel and the Qur'an; and who fulfils his cove-nant better than God? So rejoice in the bargain you have made with Him. That is the mighty triumph [Q. IX, 112]. And He said: Fight the polytheists totally as they fight you totally; and know that God is with the godfearing [Q. IX, 36]. And He said: Slay the polytheists wherever you find them, and take them, and confine them, and lie in ambush for them everywhere. But if they repent and perform the prayer and pay the zakat, then let them free. God is All-forgiving, All.compassionate [Q. IX, 5]. And He said: Fight those who do not believe in God nor in the Last Day, who do not forbid what God and His Apostle have made forbidden, and who do not practice the religion of truth, of those who have been given the Book, until they pay the jizya out of hand and have been humbled [Q. IX, 29]. 4. 'Abd al-'Aziz b. Muhammad al-Darawardi' told us from Muhammad b. 'Amr b. 'Alqama from Abu Salama [b. 'Abd al-Raliman] from Abit Hurayra, who said that the Apostle of God said: I shall continue to fight the unbelievers until they say: 'There is no god but God,' if they make this pronouncement they shall be secured their blood and property, unless taken for its price, and their reward shall be given by God. And God, glorified be His praise, said: O believers, what is the matter with you, that when it is said to you: 'Go forth in the way of God,' you sink down to the ground? Are you so content with this present life as to neglect the Here-after? The enjoyment of this life is little in comparison with the Hereafter. If you do not go forth, He will inflict upon you a painful punishment, and instead of you He will substitute another people; and you will not hurt Him at all, for God is powerful over everything [Q. IX, 38-39]. And He said: Go forth, light and heavy! Struggle in God's way with your possessions and yourselves! That is better for you, did you but know [Q. IX, 41]. 5. [Shaafi'ee] said: These communications mean that the jihad, and rising up in arms in particular, is obligatory for all able-bodied [believers], exempting no one, just as prayer, pilgrimage and [payment of] alms are performed, and no person is permitted to perform the duty for another, since performance by one will not fulfil the duty for another. They may also mean that the duty of [jihad] is a collective (kifaya) duty different from that of prayer: Those who per-form it in the war against the polytheists will fulfil the duty and receive the supererogatory merit, thereby preventing those who have stayed behind from falling into error.But God has not put the two [categories of men] on an equal footing, for He said: Such believers who sit at home-unless they have an injury-are not the equals of those who fight in the path of God with their possessions and their selves. God has given precedence to those who fight with their possessions and their selves over those who sit at home. God has promised the best of things to both, and He has preferred those who fight over those who sit at hoine by [granting them] a mighty reward [Q. IV, 97]. The literal meaning of this communication is that the duty is obligatory on all men. 6. He asked: Where is the proof for your opinion that if some people perform the duty, the others would be relieved of punishment? 7. [Shaafi'ee] said: It is in the communication that I have just cited]. 8. He asked: In what part of it? 9. [Shaafi'ee] replied: God said: "Yet to each God has promised the best of things." Thus God has promised "the best of things" for those who stayed behind and could not go to the jihad, although he clearly specified his preference for those who went to the jihad over those who stayed at home. If those who stayed at home were in error, while others were fighting, they would be committing a sin, unless God forgives them, rather than receiving " the best of things." 10. He asked: Is there any other [proof]? 11. [Shaafi'ee] replied: Yes, God said: It is not for tile believers to go forth all together, but why should not a party of every section of them go forth, to become learned in religion, and to warn their people when they return to them, perhaps they will beware [Q. IX, 123]. [When] the Apostle went to battle he was accompanied by some of his companions while others stayed at home; for 'Ali b. Abi Talib stayed at home during the battle of Tabuk. Nor did God ordain that all Muslims were under obligation to go to battle, for He said: "Why should not a party of every section of them go forth?" So He made it known that going into battle was obligatory on some, not on all, [just] as knowl-edge of the law is not obligatory on all but on some, save the fundamental duties which should be known to all men. But God knows best. 12. Shaafi'ee said: In like manner are other duties, the fulfillment of which is intended to be collective; whenever they are performed by some Muslims collectively, those who do not perform them will not fall in error.If all men failed to perform the duty so that no able-bodied man went forth to battle, all, I am afraid, would fall into error (although I am certain that this would never happen) in accordance with [God's] saying: If you do not go forth, He will inflict upon you a painful punish-ment [Q. IX, 39]. 13. He asked: What is the meaning [of this communication]? 14. [Shaafi'ee] replied: It means that it is not permissible that all men should fail to "go forth"; but that if some go forth, so that a sufficient number fulfils [the collective duty], the others do not fall into error, because the going forth by some would fulfil the [duty of] 'going forth.'
|
| | Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 07:10 pm Qurtubi (the great Mufasir of the Quran) says, and there is Ijma` (consensus) regarding this, that: "When jihad becomes individually obligatory because of the domination of the enemy over a piece of land, or by their occupation of a part of the Islamic frontier, then it at that stage it is obligatory on all the inhabitants of that land to go forth, to go out light and heavy, young and old, each according to his/her capability, those with fathers without their fathers' permission, and also those without fathers. None should linger behind from going out either to fight or to increase numbers, even if the inhabitants of that area are weak, until they know that they have amongst them the capability to stand against the enemy and repel them. In the same way, it is also compulsory for everybody who knows of their weakness against their enemy, and knows that he could join them and help, to go out, for the Muslims are all a single hand against the enemy. This is the status of jihad until the inhabitants of the area have managed to repel the enemy that descended upon the land and occupied it, at which point the obligation is waived from the others." End of Quote I JB ask what are we supposed to do when so much of the muslim world is being attacked?? We live in scary times. Because the muslim are not strong enough to repel the Kufar! Allahu Musta' an
|
| | Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 07:24 pm Imam Ibne Taymiyah (ra) writes: 'The defensive Jihad means to fight to defend our religion and our honour, it is the most important obligation. There is no obligation after Iman considered more necessary to implement than the fighting against an enemy who has attacked to corrupt our world and our Hereafter. There is no condition for this Jihad, not even the necessities to travel or wealth, in fact every individual will confront the enemy according to his ability.' We also understand from the writings of our scholars that Jihad does not only become fardh ayn when the enemy attacks, but also when the enemy is at a distance of a Shara`ee journey (48 miles); Jihad then becomes fardh upon that town. (Nihayatul Muhtaj, p58 v.8) However I came across this from ibn Taymiya which suggest that we can support the by either fighting them or donating money (in other words its not a must that we have to go Ibn Taymiyyah: But if the enemy wants to attack the Muslims, then repelling them becomes a duty for all those under attack and for the others to help them. Allah, He is exalted, has said: "Yet if they ask you for help, for religion's sake, it is your duty to help them." [Qur'an., 8:72] In the same vein the Prophet (salallaahu 'alayhee wa sallam) has ordered Muslims to help fellow Muslims. The assistance, which is obligatory both for the regular professional army and for others, must be given, according to everybody's possibilities, either in person, by fighting on foot or on horseback, or through financial contributions, be they small or large. When the Muslim were attacked by the enemy in the year of the Trench, Allah did not permit anybody to abandon jihad, although He did allow them not to take part in jihad [after the siege was lifted] in order to pursue the enemy. At that occasion He divided them into two categories, those who sat at home and those who marched out, and He criticized those who were asking the Prophet (salallaahu 'alayhee wa sallam) for leave [not to take part in jihad]: "[And a part of them were asking leave of the Prophet,] saying, 'Our houses are exposed'; yet they were not exposed; they desired only to flee." [Qur'an., 33:13] So the latter [form of jihad] consists in defense of the religion, of things that are inviolable, and of lives. Therefore it is fighting out of necessity. The former [type of jihad], however, is voluntary fighting in order to propagate the religion, to make it triumph and to intimidate the enemy, such as was the case with the expedition to Tabook and the like. At any rate i looked at muhsin khans (The full 9 volumes) translation of Ayah 8,72 "Yet if they ask you for help, for religion's sake, it is your duty to help them." and found the hadith of Huthayfah bin yaman in the commentry. I was suprised to it hadith narrated in bukhari , Kitab al-manaqib, hadith #3338 hadith says When people were asking the prophet about the goodness, i was asking about the evil in fear that it may get to me, so I asked "oh prophet of Allah we were in jahiliyah then Allah brought this goodness, will there be any evil after it?" the prophet said "yes there will", I said "will there be goodness after it?" he said "yes and it has some impurities" i asked "and what are its impurities?" he SAW said " people who guide without my guidance, you know of them and deny." I asked "is there evil after this goodness?" he said "yes, there will be preachers who preach for the doors of hellfire, whoever answers them they throw him into hellfire" so i said "oh prophet of Allah, describe them for us" he SAW said "they are from u and they speak from our language." so i asked "what should I do if i witness that?" the prophet SAW said "stick with the group of Muslims and their leader" i asked "what if they had no leader?" he said "if they had no leader or imam, then leave all these groups even if you had to bite on a tree until your death."] This hadith is used by our sheikh Albani to show that offensive jihad is not permissible in our time because we have no Khilaafah (as well as other proofs). However the ayah is talking about defensive jihad, while our sheikh Albani, May Allah have mercy on him, is talking about offensive jihad. Further more this hadith is not used by sheikh Bukhari as a tafsir for the ayah in his book of tafsir! So my question to you is why does sheikh Muhsin Khan use this Hadith for this Ayah? I checked Al-islam.com on the Internet to see if Tabari, qurtubi, or ibn Kathir used this Hadith as a commentry for this ayah and they Have not (ofcourse my Arabic is not the best).
|
| | Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 08:56 pm My Question Is due to my Ignorance and not due to any knowledge I have. I honestly want to know why is this hadith in the Tafsir of Muhsin Khan? As you may notice I am undecided or unsure about a lot of things. I am sure that: 1)The offensive Jihad is fard kifaya 2)That the defensive Jihad is fardh ayn (a must) on those being attacked. If they are weak; im not sure if its a must that we have to go and help them physically or is our financial support enough (as Ibn taymiya says). I also have some notes on why the offensive jihad needs an Imam and also why some say it not allowed at all. Insha Allah i will post this view latter. Please feel free to add, correct or confirm what i've said.
|
| | Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 09:05 pm JB This is not a thesis! can you keep it short, and sweet. Thanks
|
| | Tuesday, January 09, 2001 - 10:15 pm JB You never did answer my questions dude. Also, I don't understand something. On the one hand, Islam is not suppose to support the notion of forced conversion. On the other hand, you cite all these quotes talking about killing polytheists. So which is it?? Do you kill those who don't convert or not?
|
| | Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 07:38 am MAD MAC Mad mac i think you are forgetting the topic; what is the status of jihad. Not which country is Islamic or alliances between states. Why do you call Iraq a muslim state and you call the other middle eastern counties kufaar what is your reasoning?? I pray that if you ever take part in jihad that you will slay only the heads of polytheists. I'm not sure if you know that killing muslims is haraam! So at the time of jihad we fight with the enemy (polytheists) and they (polytheists) fight with us!
|
| | Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 07:57 am A salaam aleikum JB Brother Ja Sa ku Allahu Kahir, May Allah reward you four good deeds and forgive you of your sins. i was wondering..and this is kinda open to all, what exactly we have to do. For example, tossing loose change in the bucket whether it be for palestine Kashmir or anywhere, seems a little ineffective, however, i really know more little that a a little on the subject. also going over personally and joining seems ineffective, as my peronsal contribution soley, without me moblising enough power will also i feel be ineffective. So i am kinda unsure. Also reading that the blood of a scholar is worth tens times that of a martyr (May Allah be pleased with with Marytrs) makes me wonder if the scholars are supposed to be effectively reducing the amount of marytrs we have, (not due to dying in Jihaad not being a worthy casue, but for the safegaurding of our deen) be stratigically doing things by means of political, and military manouevers what you think peeps?
|
| | Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 08:57 am Assaalu Alaicum, Common, If I am with you I think your question is how can we help Muslims that are supressed? If that is what you mean. I think as you said going there in person is ineffective. I think, we muslims that live in the West have a better chance than those in the muslim lands. Basically, those there even if they enjoin relatively peace tehy live under dictotarship and so-called muslim leaders. See the Muslim brotherhood in Egypty they are tortored daily. what can they do about the situation in Palastine. But we here we have a relatively demeocratic movement though it has limits, we can use this in a positive way. instead, complaining about the countries we live in, we should put our efforts to educated ourselves, progress ourselves in the best way we can. display our our best characters, thus making da'a to the poeple we live with. I beleave that the world is changing and at least the West is starting to listen what the other poeple have to say. Moareover, I beleave once the spirit of Islam spreads throughout Eaurope and America, the thing will be changed. Because Islam is for everybody and the Westreners should be seen potential muslims. I beleave the best chances of dawa'a is living with the non-muslims who are good humanbeangs and I beleave thWestreners are ( I mean the mean stream society). Salaams, I will be back as I am stuck now.
|
| | Wednesday, January 10, 2001 - 09:37 am Arewello. I nearly always smile when i see your messages, you manshallah have such a amazing ablity to convey such honestly, like it glows from you. May your iman be shining from your heart and hands on the day of judgement inshallah
|
| | Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 12:24 am ???? Which Middle East countries did I call Kufaar??? I said that Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Syria, Egypt, UAE, etc. were allied with Kufaar states to fight an Islamic state. As for me, I fight who I'm ordered to fight. I couldn't care less what their religious affiliation is. What's that great Army saying. "Kill 'em all. Let God sort 'em out." Now back to the original question: In the gulf war who were Muslims suppose to fight with. The good guys (that would be the kufaar-Muslim alliance) or the bad guys (that would be the Iraqi regime)?? This is a straightforward, simple question which no one is answering.
|
| | Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 05:57 am Mad mac I don't know, neither i would imagine, we shoulda slapped some sense into both of ya'll
|
| | Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 06:17 am MadMac, Who told you thes countries you listed are Islamic governments. First of all Saddam should not be a head of a muslim country. Second, was he right to invide Kuweyt. Third, is Kuweyt right to be an ally with the Us. your question who the muslims suppose to figth with? I will take the muslims you are asking about are the populations of that countries. If yes, I think the same principle applies to them- they do what they are ordered to do- Common, Assalau Alaicum, Smile. I think life thought me a lot of things when sometimes I used to travelled between two big European cities aimlessly and sometimes not -knowing where Iam going and where I come from.
|
| | Thursday, January 11, 2001 - 06:48 am MadMac, May be I have some answer to your questions above. Islam permitts war. in the Quran '' Fight in the cause of God against those who fight you, but do not transgress limits. God does not love transgressors.'' 2; 190 Among the principes of Islam which reveal tolerance toward the enemy in the time o war, is that it allows groups of the enemy who actively fight againgst Islam, to get in touch with muslims and reside in Muslim lands under the shariah, which is know the law of protection. Islam requares the muslims to protect these poeple as long as they are in muslim terrotory. it even offers them certain priveleges and releases them from certain obligations which muslims hvae to observe. You also have to understand Jihad as an Islamic concept can be on a personal level againsgt evil within oneself and indeed this is know the GREATER JIHAD' Salaams
|
| | Monday, January 15, 2001 - 01:06 am Arawello No offense Abai, but that didn't asnwer the qeustion. Who's side should Muslims have fought on in the war with Iraq. The Iraqi side, or the coalition side? This question just requires a simple, one-sentance answer.
|
| | Monday, January 15, 2001 - 07:46 am Hey Man, You think I am that dumb. You asked where the msulims kill those who do not convert. and I explained to you that they do not kill anyone and force anyone to convert Islam. In fact, the shariah protects them after. You said also that you thought that jihad was to defend only the religion( islam) and not property. I explained to you that while the Quran talks about war and pemitss it, the word jihad has another more important meaning. Then, you asked who's side the muslims should fought on in the war with Iraq. then I was explaining to you that the Gulf war was n ot Islamically justified. It was interest against other interest, so the muslims of those countries did not have choice but to obey what their government told them. But I do not understand which other muslims you are talking about? If you mean the world muslims then I have to say this time the muslims are defined by nationalty and not by faith( islam) whcih is wrong but that is what it is. do not think I am that dull, i thought you would get the logics of the answers. Salaams.
|
| | Monday, January 15, 2001 - 05:15 pm Sis Arawello Salama Aleikum Sis may be your new here the form, because MAD COW Diese was around here long time to sake of argue, please don't wasted your time with him
|
| | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 01:45 am So what you're saying is that Muslims should not have fought in the Gulf War?? But break down the logic. Iraq (a state dominated by a Muslim population) invaded Kuwait (another state dominated by a Muslim population). For reasons of national interest, a number of states decided that the Iraqi invasion could not stand. However, from a Kuwaiti perspective, the Kuwaitis were fighting to defend their homes. This form of self-defense is justified in the Qur'an. What the Iraqis did was not justified in the Qur'an. Therefore, the Coalition was fighting injustice - even if it did coincide with self-interest. So I would conclude that a good Muslim would have sided with the Coalition, since it was fighting injustice.
|
| | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 03:13 am did "justice" happen to concide with self interest, or did self interest create justice for reasons of self interest. The Quran permits the defence of private property, however it is not a peicemeal approcah to life, the kuwaitis can't turn around and cry Islam, when they have done their best to ignore it To extend the logic you have broken down, a jihaad is viable on the side of justice?, however you have affirmed that a jihaad is likable to the crusades and that no jihaad can ever be justified, so therefore it is only self interest in which can be a guiding principle for battle, you claim, so how does that make the self interest coincidental, just who are you talking to here?, this ain't no 19 year old from Kansas
|
| | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 04:06 am Thank U bro JB, for posting the article... i found it very informative..may Allah reward U for ur effoets inshaAllah, please don't listen to these people if they don't wanna know they they don't have to join da discussion... I don't understand why these people insist on being negative. I have so much more to say but now time, but inshaAllah i'll make an impute as soon as i can.. PS Araweello keep it up my sis... Salaams
|
| | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 05:02 am Common I did not say Jihad. any fight against injustice is not a Jihad. Most Jihad is not related to military combat anyway. Under your logic, since the Kuwaitis have "ignored Islam" (I'm not sure how you draw that conclusion. The Kuwaitis, taken as a whole, certainly as religious as the citizens of most other Gulf States. The Kuwaiti government is certainly no more aggregious in its objectives than any other Arab government. Ergo, using your logic anyone can invade any part of the Gulf and it's perfectily OK.) they therefore don't have the right, under Islamic law, to defend their homes???? I thought EVERYONE, even lousy Kufaar, had the right under Islamic law to defend their homes. In fact, if a "Kufaar State" was invaded by a state with a Muslim Population (without any cause) then wouldn't the other Muslim States be required to support the Kufaar state??? I have not maintained that no Jihad can be justified. But a Military Jihad must be based on defending the faith (not the faithful). Thus the criteria to fullfill a military Jihad are strict in my understanding of the Qur'an. The personal Jihad, the struggle to support the faith personally, that's a different matter. But it's not based on violence. You will recall that I used the Crusades as an example of a justified Jihad. In that case the Muslims were defending not only Holy Sites, but also the faith which was under siege by Christianity. I didn't just come out of the Mudug myself.
|
| | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 07:44 am To continue where I left off.... Some scholars say that we need an Amir (leader) to do jihad. And this is from common sense. If we look at most books on jihad we read about responding to the call of jihad. The question arises who makes the call for jihad? Can I, JB make a call? Does my call to jihad make it obligatory on all muslims? I think we all agree that I can not make that call. Keep in mind that this is only the offensive jihad because Allah declares in the Qur'an: "To those against whom war is made, permission is given (to defend themselves), because they are wronged - and verily, Allah is Most Powerful to give them victory (22:39) This is common sense. If an army is approaching our land and they intend to slaughter us we do not need permission or an Amir to be present before we defend ourselves. NO! I think its called self preservation. Ibn Qadama said in Al Mughni 8/253: “The absence of an Iman does not postpone the jihad because much is lost in its postponement”. If the people choose an Amir, he must be obeyed. As mentioned in Fath al al Ali al Malik 1/253. we find in Aqeedatut-Tahaawiyyah by Imaam at-Tahaawi a statement about responding to the call of those in charge. 77) "Hajj and jihad under the leadership of those in charge of the Muslims, whether they are right or wrong-acting, are continuing obligations until the Last Hour comes. Nothing can annul or controvert them." Often people use the example of Tar-tar invasions to show that Jihad is permissible without an Amir. We should keep in mind that the mongolians invaded the muslims twice. The first time we had a khalifah and the question of amir does not arise. The second invasion we had no amir because the Tar-tar invasion destroyed the khilafah in the first invasion. Sheikh ul Islam ibn taymiya and other fought the tar tar and won the second war. Also as a result of this victory muslims regained the khilafah Some say this prove that in our time we can wage a war to establish the khilafah based on the above. Personally I think not. because ibn taymiyah and the rest at that time were being attacked if they did not do what they did, they would have been killed. Also their intent was not to establish the khalifah. In there time the enemy was kafir in our time the issue of khalifa is much more complicated. It involves declaring people as kafir and also declaring the blood of muslims halaal! So the issue of jihad and Khalifah should not be linked. A more important question is should recovering lost muslim lands (such as palistine)be considered as defensive jihad (which is fard ayn)? I don't know..... On the surface it seems like offensive jihad now and it was defensive jihad at the time they were being attacked. Sheikh Albani also points out one of the conditions of Jihad is to Prepare ourselves for it. Allah says; "and prepare for them what you can from stength and weapons to strike fear into the hearts of the enemies of Allaah and your enemies". How are we to prepare weapons when all are weapons are from the kufaar. Seriously, and sadly we depend on them for our weapons. We have fallen so far behind in this field that all the kafirs have to do is to put a sanction on us to stop our supply! All are plains are MADE IN USA. even our pilot are TRAINED IN USA. sad indeed. Allaah says in the Noble Quran, "indeed Allaah will not change the state of a people until they change what is in themselves." In the end our weakness is due to ourselves. If you do not change our ways. we will always be weak
|
| | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 07:59 am What does Mudug mean? Anyway, you man, you confuse me. when I mentioned jihadul nafs ( the personal jihad) may aim was to tell you that the physical jihad is overemphesised not only by muslims but the media. thus making the picture of islam bad and something that they are war poeple. And also you cannot compare crusiders with islamic jihad ( we can talk that but not now) what I am explaining is that the proper explanation of jihad and its implications cannot be applied to the contemprory muslim states. you like taking examples how muslims practise islam. i mean you kept saying those are not good and those are. BUT this matter is different. explaining where islam stands in aparticular issue can be entirelly different from what some muslims do or do not. So, your examples of the Kuwaiti, I think is irrelevent. what is important is that their government is not islamic as can be seen in many ways. therefore, the poeple do not have much choose. and of course, they have to defend themselves from the Iraqi soldiers ( who may not even be muslims!) for this matter, I have to tell you that Islamic jihad and Islam cannot be discussion along line with the Gulf war. Common, bro thanks for exxplaing the things I could not. Muslimsister, thanks sister. I will.
|
| | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 09:51 am Arawello Mudug is a region in central Somalia - kind of a barren, desert like place. The only people I know who like it there are people who grew up there. I agree Kuwait doesn't have an Islamic government to wit: No one can tell me what an Islamic government is. and Everyone seems sure there isn't one now.
|
| | Tuesday, January 16, 2001 - 10:24 am MM mudug.lol. I guess i had that one coming, beats me where it is though, but i am sure their assertion that their soil is superior has <uh uhmm coughing >some validity,
|
| | Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 08:01 pm Prominent Muslim scholars have always maintained that jihaad is allowed only under the authority of the State: And the third category of collective duties is one in which [the authority of] the State is a [necessary] condition; for example, jihaad and the implementation of the law of punishments in Islam. (fiqhussunnah, assayyidussaabiq; vol.3, page 30) Writes Ghamidi about the reason for this opinion of Muslim scholars: The reason for this [condition] is that without political sovereignity jihaad becomes fasaad [disorder, chaos, anarchy, etc]. How is it possible that a group which does not even have the right to award punishment to a criminal should be given the right to wage war? (meezaan, qaanuune da`wat; Urdu; page 35) An explanation of this reason can be found in Islaahi’s da`wate diin or us kaa tariiqe kaar (Urdu; Chapter 14, pages 241 and 242): The first reason [for this condition] is that God Almighty does not like the dissolution and disintegration of even an evil system until a strong probablity exists that those who are out to disintegrate the system will provide people with an alternative and a righteous system. Anarchy and disorder are unnatural conditions. In fact, they are so contrary to human nature that even an unjust system is perferable to them....this confidence [that a group will be able to harmonise a disintegrated system and integrate it into a united whole] can be reposed in such a group only as has actually formed a political government and has such control and discipline within the confines of its authority that the group can be termed as aljamaa`ah [the State, or the government]. Until a group attains this position, it may strive [by religiously allowable means] to become aljamaa`ah -- and that endeavour would be its jihaad for that time -- but it does not have the right to wage an `armed’ jihaad. The second reason is that the import of the power which a group engaged in war gets over the life and property of human beings is so great that sanction to wield this power cannot be given to a group the control of whose leader over his followers is based merely on his spiritual and religious influence on them [rather than being based on legal authority]. When the control of a leader is based merely on his spirtual and religious influence, there is not sufficient guarantee that the leader will be able to stop his followers from fassad fil’arD [creating a situation of disorder, chaos, anarchy on the earth]. Therefore, a religious leader does not have the right to allow his followers to take out their swords [that is to wage an armed struggle] merely on the basis of his spirtual influence over them, for once the sword is unsheathed there is great danger that it will not care for right and wrong and that those who drew it will end up doing all [the wrong which] they had sought to end. Such radical groups as desire revolution and the object of whom is nothing more than disruption of the existing system and deposition of the ruling party to seize power for themselves play such games -- and they can, for in their eyes disruption of a system is no calamity, nor is cruelty of any kind an evil. Everything is right to them [ as long as it serves their purpose]. However, the leaders of a just and righteous party must see whether they are in a position to provide people with a system better than the one they seek to change and whether they will be able to stop their followers from doing such wrong as they themselves had sought to root out. If they are not in that position, then they do not have the right to play games with the life and property of people on the basis of their confidence in mere chances and to create greater disorder than the one they had sought to end.
|
| | Wednesday, January 24, 2001 - 09:51 pm JB Good write up man. Wise indeed, an unjust system should not go until there is something better to replace it. Look what has happened to Somalia with the overthrow of Siad Barre.
|
| | Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 02:40 pm JB. This is where my confusion lies Brother. Your points are well taken. On one side, We Read the Quranic verses that require total submission to Allah, the rule by his Book, Following the Example of prophets, Dissasociation from evil people, Avoiding hypocrites and not even sitting with them unless enjoining the Good and forbidding Evil, Joining the good company of those who fear Allah, Fighting the hypocrites and Kuffaars, etc etc. On the Other side, I see an indirect promotion of submitting ourselves to these governments that oppose The Quran either in totality or percentage of it. Furthermore, how are we gonna achieve the establishment of islamic KhILAAFA starting from the individual?. Won't the Individuals grow into communities?. Doesn't this make pointless the efforts of those who are spreading Islam to the corners of the world?. SOMEDAY, MUSLIMS HAVE TO OPPOSE THOSE WHO RULE THEM. I see why the Enemies of Islam killed the KHILAFA so that muslims have to live in such conditions that they are USELESS AND DEVIDED FOREVER to be the prey of anyone who harbours ill feelings against them. WHERE IS THIS STATE THAT SOME SCHOLARS TALK ABOUT?. I heard a lot that establishing Khilafa is not the responsibilty of the individual. If current governments are to establish the islamic laws, I don't see how they will without the practicing Muslims telling them to go back to the Book of Allah. Can we have the ambition of establshing the Law of Allah in the Land of Allah?. may be we should tell people to put their efforts where they can see some RESULTS AND STOP THIS pointless WASTE OF TIME. When Will muslims be liberated from these SLAVERY?. Some opinions KILL the moral of those who love islam. MAD MAC. You have a good eye for details. Indeed, a corrupt government is better than no government. Particularly when those opposing the governmnets have philososphies based on nationalism, tribalism, communism, democratic and so forth.
|
| | Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 03:42 pm Mad Mac, "No one can tell me what an Islamic government is. and Everyone seems sure there isn't one now." Basically, in Islam there's a khalif/Imaam/Amir who leads the muslims ummah (nation) under the banner La illah ila Allah Muhammeden rasullulah. The Khalif rules by the word of Allah and implements the Islamic laws. The reason why there's no true Islamic gov'd is bc muslims are disunited and so we don't have a Khalif. May Allah unite our hearts. "And hold fast, all of you together, to the Rope of Allah (i.e. this Qur'an), and be not divided among yourselves, and remember Allah's Favour on you, for you were enemies one to another but He joined your hearts together, so that, by His Grace, you became brethren (in Islamic Faith), and you were on the brink of a pit of Fire, and He saved you from it. Thus Allâh makes His Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.,) clear to you, that you may be guided." (3:103)
|
| | Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 05:51 pm In many countries nowadays (esp. in the west) secularism is touted as the most fair way to balance what groups of people believe is right and the truth, and the ruling over them by practical means. If you tried to implement different laws to different people a crisis would appear. Groups will gravitate to their own communities and set up their own "virtual mini-states" within the state. This is obviously an untenable situation. Such a scenario would be ripe for fragmentation. So, what is required is some unifying system that everyone can agree on (or rather, agree to disagree on) so that a large community of people can be effectively controled and ruled over. We see this applied in countries like the US, the former soviet union, Indonesia and probably in the future, Europe where there are numerous groups, many at odds with each other regarding this very fundamental problem of right and wrong and justice. And this needed "magic bullet" is seen as secularism. Basically, what it says is that, we agree to have our own beliefs but we shall keep that at a personal level and so should you. So, to keep us together, we shall agree on a system of law that is "fair" to you and to us. And this ruling system is invariably democracy, worldwide. However, there are some very fundamental flaws in secularism and democracy. And this is the issue of right and wrong itself. The issue of fairness and justice. Who decides what? How do we decide? Each group in the state will have their own notions of right and wrong. For example, staunch christians wont want to legalize prostitution. But liberals would. So who's right? In the secular system, we all have to agree to suspend our own (groups') notion of right and wrong and debate these issues together to come up with the laws that we will use to govern ourselves. This is done in democratic nations in institutions like parliament, senate, council of lords etc. Laws are proposed and debated and if the majority votes approve then it is passed or rejected if the opposite happens. So, what this means in practice is that, if your group is small, and your views are at odds with the majority, you will have to swallow the knife and suffer the indignities that result. If you want to stay on in that country of course. This happens to Muslim communities all over the world this very day. The problem with this is that, we must agree that all our beliefs share the same level of truth-ness. That is, even though my beliefs are different from yours, they are at the same level of rightness and importance. So, Christian beliefs are at the same level as Satanic Worship, which is at the same level as Hedonism, which is the same level as Atheism, which is the same level as Islam. (nauzubillah!!!) But this is what secularism _is_ and _demands_ if you wish to use it. So, in a secular democratic country (which every country seems to be falling over themselves to be) if it so happens that the group of Satanic Worshippers become the majority, then laws that are more inline with their beliefs will be passed in parliament! And all other groups will have to abide by them. Even if you are at odds with it. This is why you see countries with even a significant number of Muslims, riba is allowed, pigs are farmed in the millions and alcohol is available to one and all. This is even easier understood when you recall that these apparent Muslim countries have been colonized and indoctrined with the 'proper' attitude regarding the place of religious beliefs. That held by the kuffar. So we get to the situation where the Muslims themselves _prefer_ to rule by kufr than to refer to the Sharia - which is seen (and made to seem) outmoded or backward. So now we need to answer the fundamental question. Who truly has the right to determine what is right and what is wrong? According to secular views, it is Man himself since his beliefs are all 'equal' no matter how opposite they are. So no one single view from a single group should be taken since this would be unfair on the other groups. So only the majority's opinions would be 'fair'. However, here we come to the main problem. Is Man _capable_ of the task? To decide on laws governing humans, you will need tremendous knowledge about the human condition, mentality, human interactions and interdependence between each other as well as the environment and the nature of Man itself. Can we claim this? Even the best minds in all the related fields agree that our knowledge of those fields can only barely scratch the surface and never will really get the whole picture. So we try our best? Is this a fair and just course of action? Obviously not. (recall the above Satanic Worshippers scenario). Left to his own devices, Man will always follow his instincts and dream up all sorts of ways to satisfy them whatever the cost even if it is against their very nature! Like what? Try homosexuality. It is totally against human nature. It serves no purpose whatsoever. Homosexuals cannot propagate the species, thats obvious. But, you see in the west, if you speak against this, _you_ become the evil one. The 'bad guy'. You are the one labeled as intolerant and unfair! Such ridiculous situations can only arise when there is no set rules or basis for laws but where humans can make up their own. What is right and wrong can change as time goes on - even though the nature of humans and their needs do not - as they have not in all human history. And so we come to Islam. When you think about it, Islam is the only ideology that could _ever_ be truly fair and just. Why? Because it's not human imagination or his own whims and desires. Islamic Sharia comes from the Creator. The only one, really, that could (and should) be trusted to be truly fair and just! This is only common sense! (which apparently, isn't so common) Only the Creator of Man, the universe and everything could truly possess all the knowledge required to know what is truly right and what is truly wrong and what is good and what is bad. And this was witnessed first hand by Muslim and non-Muslim alike during the time Khilafah was around (and InsyaAllah, again soon). This, I think is the only explanation for such phenomena as the Christian dhimma who fought alongside the Muslims to repel the invading Christian Crusaders in times past! They witnessed first hand the justice and fairness that Islam brings, compared to the oppression of the feudal lords and kings of the so-called Christian world. InsyaAllah, we shall show the world again, the light of Islam in practice and they can compare it to their oppressive systems of capitalism and democracy. (The oppression of which is highlighted in the report posted by the brother below.) So we see in the world today, wherever there are Muslims and these oppressive systems are implemented over them, there are problems. And there will always _be_ problems - since the differences inherent within the kufr systems and the Islamic creed are so fundamental! Any semblence of 'law and order' (or illusion of such) can only be enforced by more oppressive laws and equally oppressive governments and police and/or army. (go to any Muslim country for examples, from Uzbekistan to Turkey to Saudi Arabia to Indonesia and Malaysia). Muslims (and non-Muslims, for that matter) will only truly find peace and tranquility in Al-Khilafah, the one and only Islamic State. Allah only wants the best for us. Which is why, He ordained the divinely inspired system of Khilafah as implemented by Rasulullah and the Khulafa Arrashideen. He(swt) knows what is best for us, after all! Ya Allah, grant us Al-Khilafah in our life-time! Ameen!
|
| | Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 06:38 pm Secularism and How to Deal with It Secularism is an ideology which either denies that there is a God, prophethood and revelation or declares that the role of these is limited to the personal and inner life of man and that in the political or social sphere of human life, God, prophethood or revelation cannot by their very nature play any fundamental role. Even a cursory glance through the Qur`an and Hadith is enough to show everyone that this ideology conflicts with the very mind and heart of Islam. Yet in all parts of the Muslim world many "Muslims" are consciously or unconsciously accepting this un-Islamic ideology. There even exist political movements that have either established or are trying to establish secularist systems of government in various Muslim countries: Kemalists in Turkey, Baathists in the Arab world, Mujahideen-e-Khalq in Iran, some groups affiliated with the People`s Party in Pakistan. Some "Muslim" secularists openly profess an atheistic outlook. They regard the Prophet Muhammad (may my life be a ransom for him) as no more than a wise man who, like so many other sages of history, made a valuable contribution to human civilization but whose time has passed away and who has no longer any relevance today, at least not as what Muslims believe him to be: the last and the greatest Messenger of God to all mankind for all times to come. Some other secularists among Muslims are less direct, especially those who have yet to gain political power in their countries. They know that they cannot achieve their political goals with a head-on collision with the Islamic ideology. They, therefore, keep their un-Islamic views to themselves and preach their ideology in terms that seemingly do not conflict with Islam. They are munafiqin (hypocrites) in the true sense of the word. Secularists tend to be in close links with minority groups hostile to Islam: Qadiyanis in Pakistan, Bahais in Iran, Alawites in the Arab world and Christian minorities everywhere. Along with these minorities, they provide the linkages through which foreign powers hostile to Muslims manipulate and exploit the Islamic world. DEALING WITH SECULARISM It is evident that secularism represents a definite threat to Islam and Muslims and the believers need to deal with it. In this connection the following points should be kept in mind: 1) Muslims have to abandon their passive acceptance of secularism. At present even those Muslims who are involved in some kind of Islamic work tend to be complacent when it comes to secularism. In fact, they are invariably harder on each other than on secularists. This attitude is, of course, contrary to what the Holy Qur`an teaches. The believers can disagree and hotly argue with each other, as the suhabah (companions of the Prophet) used to do, but they, if true believers, are always more cooperative and kind to each other than to the kafirs (those who reject God). The Book of God says: "Muhammad is the Messenger of God and those with him are strict with the kafirin and kind among themselves. You see them bow down and prostrate (in prayer), seeking God`s grace and His good pleasure..." (48:29) 2) In order to combat secularism, we also need to create efficient and functioning institutions to take care of our needs and to establish just and democratic societies. For as long as the Ummah of believers is in disarray and our societies are under unjust and dictatorial systems, groups promoting kufr in one form or another will continue to flourish among us. 3) Secularism should be combated by the enlightened Qur`anic way, by arguments and by appeal to the signs of God that are shown to man in history, in the world without and within his own soul. The use of force should be avoided except possibly in countries where the secularists are fighting Islam with force, as, for example, in Turkey. When it comes to fighting ideas, the use of force rarely proves useful. Besides, freedom of expression is a right that should be given to everybody, including the secularists. But freedom of expression does not mean that the secularists should be allowed to preach disbelief in mosques and in Muslim prayer gatherings. This freedom means that if some people are bent upon preaching kufr, they should be allowed to create a separate association of their own and for doing so their properties and lives must not be harmed. Freedom of expression also does not mean that believers must silently listen to whatever kufr anyone wishes to preach. If secularists should have the freedom of expression, then so must also the believers. Therefore, whenever the secularists raise their voices of disbelief and darkness, at the very same time some believers must rise among Muslims to raise their voices of faith and light.
|
| | Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 06:40 pm The classic example is the Bosnian war, where Muslims were not only barred from any form of international military assistance, but even totally restricted from arming and defending themselves. The current Islamic resurgence is not a reaction to poverty as many would want you to believe, but an awakening to the reality that Islam offers the solution for today's afflictions. People are converting out of free will, and in droves. The US agenda is centered around the new Green Peril. US congress has already conducted several hearings on the global threat of Islamic fundamentalism. Every documentary on Islam and its glorious past is matched with weeks of movies showing Muslims to be evil, selfish, and ready to do what it takes for some cash. In the aftermath of the cold war, a new perceived threat to Western ideology has emerged. The new "bogeyman" of the Western nations, and the centrepiece of America's foreign policy establishment is the perceived Green Peril, the Islamic Threat. What is the basis behind this threat? What is it about Islam that makes the West's political system geared towards fighting an endless battle against everything Islam stands for? History of Hatred The negative attitudes of the West have been deeply embedded into the Western psyche as a result of centuries of misunderstanding, propaganda and fear. These negative perceptions of Islam have been expressed through every possible medium available, whether through lit, folklore, education, printed material, sound and visual media, and domestic and foreign policies. From the 12th Century onwards, the Church succeeded in portraying the Prophet as a deranged individual with only lust and power on his mind, and the Muslims as bloodthirsty Arab despots with women-laden harems. These images were deliberately propagated through their own distorted translations of the Qur'an, their sermons, and even through the writings of distinguished European poets and writers such as Dante, Shakespeare, Voltaire, Byron and Shelley, and Christian scholars like Ricoldus of Montecroce. It's no wonder, with such a gourmet of anti-Islamic cramming, that Islam was for many centuries viewed in such a distasteful way. Within a century of the Prophets death, Islam had eliminated more than half of Christendom. This was a hard defeat to swallow, and successive attempts at quelling the Islamic tide have been tried for centuries. It wasn't until the eventual capture of the Ottoman empire, and the defragmentation of the Islamic Empire into disorganised, secular and dictatorial countries, that the West's appetite for harnessing Islam was satiated. Then the West, for a while in a history of 1400 years, turned its attention elsewhere, to the Red Threat. But now the spotlight is back on Islam, and in a big way. And here's the proof. Media The most powerful tool in the hands of the West, the media, has been ruthless in its depiction of Islam - TV. Within the first couple of days after the Oklahoma bombing, the media was quick to indirectly point its finger at Muslim involvement, even without circumstantial evidence. This was not an isolated incident. The same fingers pointed at the same people after the TWA flight crash. Even with petty issues, the media is quick to point out the religious background of any Muslim accused of charges. Hollywood too has taken to Islam-bashing. Their latest slander on Islam, "Tactical Combat", victimises the American troops stationed in the Gulf, ignoring the plight of the Iraqi Muslims. "Executive Decision," another recent addition to Hollywood's collection, portrays Chechen Muslims screaming "Allahu Akbar" whilst hijacking a plane. There is no mention of the Russian soldiers who gang-raped young Chechen girls. These movies are only the latest in a line of many, which includes "True Lies" (an Arnold Schwarzenegger flop), and "Delta Force." Any Muslim attempt to counter such blatant Islamic phobias seems to be drowned out. Every documentary on Islam and its glorious past is matched with weeks of movies showing Muslims to be evil, selfish, and ready to do what it takes for some cash. A brief episode on the victims of the Serbian massacres, is matched by hundreds of episodes on 'Muslim' killings of innocent children in Algeria. The classic way to distort the message of Islam is to change or distort its sources. Translations of the Qur'an made by non-Muslims still abound, with ridiculous meanings and footnotes attached. The first translation of the Qur'an into a Western language was done by Robert of Ketton in 1142. This work was commissioned by Peter the Venerable, a Christian abbot, who was often quoted as saying "I approach you [the Muslims] not with arms but with words; not with force but with reason; not in hatred but in love."1 Interestingly enough, he also released his work called "The Abominable Heresy or Sect of the Saracens." Other translations included George Sale in 1734, followed by Rodwell in 1861, Palmer in 1880 and Wherry in 1882. Terms used by Western scholars such as Mohammedan only serve to further instill the wrong notions of the canons of Islam. Books of history studied in Universities are written by non-Muslim orientalists biased by their own religious persuasion. Even lecturers in Islamic studies are usually themselves non-Muslims with warped understandings of Islam, and contradictory to the beliefs of the majority of Muslims. A great number of universities in Australia, for example, are known to teach outrageous concepts that the Hijab is not compulsory but a cultural phenomena, interest is acceptable in transactions if it is variable, and many of the laws in Islam concerning women are cultural, or the result of Umar bin Khattab's (r.a.a) persuasion upon the Prophet (s.a.w). Using heavily biased authors in the curriculum who Muslim Scholars strongly disagree with and have refuted, such as Fatima Mernisi, is a sad reflection on the motives or ignorant qualities of academics in these institutions. Even books written attempting to highlight the so-called contradictions of the Qur'an are deceptive and ridden with lies and quotes taken out of context. In his book "The Islamic Invasion: confronting the World's fastest growing religion2," Robert Morey extracts various verses from the Qur'an and sayings of the Prophet (s.a.w) , then misquotes them to support his own crude motives. A Muslim reading such works would laugh at its unacademic merits and blatant deception. For a non-Muslim however, he could easily be ensnared by the arguments. Here are some of his 'proofs' against Islam, and the clear negation of his arguments: He claims that the Prophet (s.a.w) was racist by calling black people 'raisin heads.' (p. 182). The Hadith however gives a totally different meaning! "Listen and obey (your chief) even if an Ethiopian whose head is like a raisin were made your chief." [Bukhari] He worshipped the Black Stone in the Ka'bah (p. 189), although the Prophet (s.a.w) has never mentioned the worship of anything other then Allah. He ridicules the Prophet's (s.a.w) cleanliness, stating that he was so paranoid that he would wash himself after going to the toilet. Any civilised person would laugh at such an accusation! He claims the Prophet (s.a.w) tried to commit suicide (p. 77). He doesn't give us any reference for this unknown event. It is only another of his forged attempts to ridicule Islam. He tries to discredit the Qur'an by using the Bible as his source. How he can use the Bible which itself is riddled with contradictions is beyond me. Military The US military machine, along with its European cronies, has never backed out of an opportunity to quell any Islamic resurgence, or even their right to defend their honour, land and religion. The classic example is the Bosnian war, where Muslims were not only barred from any form of international military assistance, but even totally restricted from arming and defending themselves. Any country which appears to be on the verge of representing the interest of Muslims and adopting the Qur'an as its law, is converged upon from all sides. When it was no longer in the interests of the Western Nations to support the Afghan Mujahideen, internal turmoil was instigated to spoil any hope Muslims had for an Islamic State, and stop any financial support, and Muslims on their return to their countries were arrested, tortured, imprisoned and even killed. The Pakistani government has been a willing agent in this vile role, passing along names and men to the respective Arab nations where they are instantly captured. Even a country like Saudi Arabia, which actively supported the Afghan Cause, is now in the stage of arresting anyone who had any connection with the Mujahideen. The US government is meanwhile doing its own dirty work of tainting the images of Muslims by providing logistical support to these countries, and setting-up Muslim leaders to disgrace the Muslim population. The imprisonment of Dr. Omar Abdul Rahman is a case in point, a blind cleric leader who was accused of the World Trade Centre bombing. Causes for Alarm What pushes The Washington Post to print articles stating that "Islamic Fundamentalism is an aggressive revolutionary movement as militant and violent as the Bolshevik, Fascist and Nazi movements of the past."3 What makes popular columnists scream out that there is an "urge to identify Islam as an inherently anti-democratic force that is America's new global enemy now that the cold war is over"4? Or cause Australian politician Graeme Campbell to declare that "I don't want the Islamic people in my country, and certainly not fund. If that makes me a racist, then I am a racist.5" Apart from the incessant brainwashing that has gone on for centuries, the answer is more sinister than that. The US agenda is centered around the new Green Peril. US congress has already conducted several hearings on the global threat of Islamic fundamentalism6. Turkey has become a counter-surveilling force in Central Asia, US commitments have expanded in Saudi Arabia, Sudan has already been on the sanction list, and the socialist military dictatorship of Algeria was shored up. Regional Powers Need for US Support Just as the Third World countries exploited the US's obsession with the Red Menace during the Cold War, the same behaviour is now being repeated by any country who could profit from the perceived Green Peril. The Gulf War gave countries like Egypt, Turkey, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, and India the opportunity to take advantage of the West's fear of Islamic Fundamentalism. Israel was able to draw away more US funds for its military apparatus, justify its attack on Iraq's nuclear installations, and whinge about its victimisation through continued live screenings of scuds landing on Tel Aviv. Turkey was quick to choke the flow of petroleum from the Iraqi pipelines, and gave full access to the US military aircraft from its Incirlik air base. In return, Turkey was seeking its dream of integrating with the European Community. Egypt was in need of US financial, military and intelligence support to keep its unpopular regime propped-up. It had $7 billion of its debt to the US wiped out and promises of playing a greater role in the security of the region. The Saudis were keen to keep their alliance with the US for its own internal security. India was interested in orienting itself with the West in the post Cold War era, and present itself as a countervailing force to the 'Islamic menace' in Asia and Pakistan.7 Oil Muslim societies are finding themselves the targets of Western domination because of the world's most sacred reserve: oil. The control of oil and its supply route has been a central theme in most of today's wars, and one of the underlying reasons for the US interests in the Gulf. Any efforts by a country with a Muslim populace to secure their own oil resources has been faced with stern action by the West, in both military and propaganda form. This has been the case with Libya and Iraq. The sad result is that it's not the tyrant governments that are punished, but the general populace, who are branded as radicals, a 'threat to peace and stability,' and bombarded with trade sanctions or bombs and bullets. Zionism The disparagement of Islam has been to a large extent the workings of Zionists. Its history stretches back to the time of the Prophet (s.a.w), the treaties they broke with him, the lies they issued concerning the character of the Prophet, and later even inventing their own Hadith. The turning point came about when, in 1901, a delegation of Jews offered the then Khalifah, Sultan Abdul Hamid II, money, weaponry and the payment of the State's debt in return for Palestine. His refusal set the Zionist ball rolling. With the land of Palestine usurped, and its people thrown from their land, the Zionists have had to play dirty to win-over the hearts of the Western world. It's yearly monotonous mourning over the Holocaust is one of its ploys to turn the world's attention away from its own venomous history of massacres. Their infiltration into Hollywood, the Media and Congress has given the Zionist cause a vantage point from which to exploit its tactics of scare-mongering. 'Israel' continues to receive world sympathy, funding, and support at the expense of the blood, land and reputation of Muslims. With no scapegoat like Islam to justify its horrific record on human rights, the Zionists would be out on a limb. They need the Fundamentalism monster to build up on their nuclear arsenal, now that there is no Arab threat. Marketing No matter how perverse this sounds, Islam sells. Spice up an explosion or hijacking with the hint that Muslim 'fundamentalists' are involved, and this becomes front cover news. Add a poor script and cheap effects with the notion that nuclear-brandishing Muslim radicals are out to establish world-wide harems, and you have a seller. Arm a political campaign with the slogan of fighting Islamic militancy, and you have a chance of being elected. The Bush administration used this ploy when they were experiencing the lowest presidency rating in the history of US politics, which soared after the Gulf War. Salman Rushdie was able to sell a book which the critics themselves dumped. As Julian Samuel, a celebrated literary analyst puts it: "[ The Satanic Verses ] is a kind of refined and erudite compromise constructed for the soft folds of a safe and international literary aristocracy which sees at least one of its aims as the production of a literature heavy, dank and resonant with slickly manipulated surrealism, but with a great deal of it anchored in perfunctory riskless experimentation. Tragic." He continues, "The book is boring because the attempt to create diegetic density is fey and, often worse, unexperimental," and that "the book is lame, inconsequential; dramaturgically, it produces nothing memorable."8 In fact, Salman Rushdie had a line of dismally performing books. The only way the Satanic Verses sold was by enraging the Muslim communities sense of honour over their religion, which was only natural, and along with the media, turned his book from a weak story line laced with derogatory remarks on the honour of the Prophet and his wives, into a high-volume seller. Nike was another company hoping to profit from Islam. Their issue in 1997 of Air Nike, with the Air written in a way resembling "Allah" in Arabic, was met with disgust and protests from the Muslim communities. In America they were eventually withdrawn, although in Australia they continue to be sold, and Nike Australia has ignored repeated pleas for the removal of this highly offensive product. In America, Anheuser-Busch's Budweiser beer TV commercial in December 1994 featured a female actress with "Bismillah Ar Rahman Ar Rahim" written in Arabic across her chest on a revealing tank top outfit. Islam has always served as a useful marketing instrument. It worked during the Crusades, to unify an extremely fragmented and fragile State and religious system. It allowed the Church to once again exert some control over its masses, and justified its exorbitant taxes. The loss of the Islamic dignity has come about through the loss of the Khilafah, for it was the Khalifah who threatened to send an army of men whose length would reach between Baghdad and the doors of Rome if a single Muslim woman was not freed from the hands of the Roman army. Even during the last days of Sultan Abdul Hameed's reign, he did not waver in his defense of Islam. A play based on the writings of Voltaire was being staged in France and Britain titled "Mohammad or Fanaticism", deriding the character of the Prophet (s.a.w) through the Zayd/Zainab issue. When the Khalifah was informed of the play, his ambassador to France warned the government of the serious political repercussions which would follow if it was continued. France promptly stopped the play, so the group went to England. When the same warning was issued to England, the reply was that the tickets were sold out, and banning the play would be an infringement on the freedom of its citizens. So the following edict was issued by the Sultan, saying in no unclear terms: "I will issue an edict to the Islamic Ummah declaring that Britain is attacking and insulting our Prophet. I will declare Jihad..." Upon receiving this ultimatum, the claim for freedom of speech was forgotten, and the performance quickly stopped. This may be the only solution Muslims have ever had, with hindsight as testimony. A Threat to Christianity and Western Lifestyle Islam is now the fastest growing religion in the world. Its followers, unlike the media would like to portray them, are not converting out of poverty or force. Rather, they come from a variety of nations, status, financial sp, and educational attainments. And there is nothing, even after years and centuries of brainwashing, to suggest that this trend will stop or even decelerate. With more barren churches being sold off, and usually bought by Muslims to be converted into Mosques, the more hatred and fear becomes apparent. The evangelistic movements in Africa are being thwarted by the works of Muslim charity organisations and the appearance of Mujahideen groups. The flawed nature of Christian doctrines are now memorised by many Muslims (thanks to the likes of Ahmad Deedat), who are able to challenge any priest and leave him dumbfounded on the spot. To protect their evangelical or lifestyle interests, the game has turned dirty. Several books, articles, videos, and conferences have been rolled out to try to discredit Islam, the character of the Prophet (s.a.w), Islamic history, or anything which identified itself with Islam. The sad part is all the deception and lies which has been attached to this. On the other side of the same coin, Western nations are concerned over their current way of life. The governments enjoy their financial gains and positions of power. Large corporations which thrive on the misery of others would cease to exist if the population turned to Islam. Criminals fear Islam because of its punishment system. People involved in gambling, illicit sex, and alcohol hate Islam because Islam does not tolerate such vice in society. Politicians hate Islam because it would take away their power. The general population hate Islam because they've been only taught so. That is why so many think-tanks have been set up. The Zionists for example have their "Freeman Centre for Strategic Studies", which rolls out numerous publications warning the general public about the Islamic menace. That is why on January 26, 1995, Clinton issued an executive order asking Congress to approve wiretapping, expedite deportation, prohibit fund-raising, and allow sweeping conspiracy charges of suspected terrorists in the US. The US House Speaker, Newt Gingrich, told a conference of the Armed Forces Communications and Electronics Association that American military and intelligence officials must draft a strategy to fight the worldwide rise of Islam. Future Trends There is nothing to suggest that Islam, on a long-term basis, will be immune from the assaults of its enemies. The Muslims are still governed by tyrants, who act with injustice and in no way represent the tenants of Islam. Yet, the general mass still view these rulers as appropriate examples of Muslims, and the way Islam governs people. Muslims are still copping abuse from everywhere. CBS's "Eye on America" report claimed that Chicago Muslims are drug dealers, insurance frauders, and gang-bangers. PBS's "Jihad in America", which was produced by Israeli agent Steven Emerson, claimed that all Islamic fundamentalists in America are potential terrorists. Reader's Digest, a well known and respected international periodical, slandered Islam and Muslims through a series of scandalous articles, including December 1993's "Terrorist Among Us," January 1994's "All in the Name of Islam", and January 1995's "Holy War Heads our Way." During the Bosnian War, thousands of Muslim children were adopted by Christian families, who forced the children to adopt their religion. Even when the original family has tried to reclaim their children, the British courts have refused and assigned them to the permanent care of Western parents. It is up to the Western nation to take a step towards understanding the religion of Islam in its entirety. As Hadar argues, Islamic Fundamentalism should not be considered "a disease that spreads willy-nilly to infect whole populations."9 A Green Saviour? The media should reflect a more sincere approach in understanding what Islam stands for, the victimisation of the Muslim masses, and appreciate how Islam has played a pivotal role in the development of current civilisation. Instead of slandering the qualities of the Prophet (s.a.w), the West should realise the high moral standard he called for. They should realise that Islam ruled for 1400 years wherein Christians and Jews lived in safety and comfort. They weren't tortured for their beliefs as the Muslims were in Spain during the Spanish Inquisitions. They weren't thrown to the lions as happened in Rome with the Christians. They weren't thrown out of their houses and left in slums as happened in Palestine only 50 years ago. Even Christian Scholars cannot refute the fact that Christians and Jews were doing financially well and progressed in society, some even taking high-ranking administrative positions under Muslim rule. The current Islamic resurgence is not a reaction to poverty as many would want you to believe, but an awakening to the reality that Islam offers the solution for today's afflictions. People are converting out of free will, and in droves. If Islam was a threat to the well-being of women, then you wouldn't have a conversion rate of 4 women to 1 man. If the Qur'an is truly full of contradictions, then at least one book would have been released with some solid evidence, without the need to resort to deceptive measures. Islam has always been a solution to humanity, at the individual and group level. Islam guards the honour and rights of each sex. It solidly prohibits any factor which could harm anyone is society, and its laws don't change to accommodate any current trends, election prospects, or the whims of the leaders. Racial discrimination is something the West has only come to terms with in the late 60's, where in Australia, Aborigines were given the right to vote in 1967. Yet Islam gave all nationalities equal rights. Corruption, theft, deceit, fornication, sexual abuse, and disrespect to parents and elders are all not tolerated. Islam forbids discrimination in judging, and had a superior Justice system which the West is adopting progressively. No person is given favours, there are no concessions available from any leader, president, army official or police chief. Women have custody rights if it is considered preferable for the child. A person is considered innocent before proven guilty, and guilt needs to be firmly established. The Economic and Administrative segment of Islam is also way ahead of Western standards. Whereas Islam has always prohibited anti-competitive behaviour in the market, it took 1300 years for the West to follow suit, with the Sherman Act in the US during the late 1800's, and the Trade Practices Act in Australia in the late 1970's. The current Welfare system in Australia was only introduced in the 1970's, and is continuously changing, usually in an adverse way for the recipients. Yet Umar bin Khattab, the second ruler after the Prophet (s.a.w), had introduced a more equal and supporting welfare system (when western societies were still grappling with the harsh serf system, a sort of slavery where only the land owner significantly profits). It reached a point where under Umar bin Abdul Aziz, there was no one who would accept money from the state due to their well-being. It's only a matter of time before the Islamic contracts begin to replace the current interest system, which has devastated numerous economies, most recently those of the Asian region. Today's rulers are untouchables. They live in comfort, security, with pride, and do little for the people they are supposed to represent. Their wages exceed the minimum wage in Australia by at least 10 times, 50 if you include their perks. They live great distances from their people, and don't feel or experience their needs. With the best food, clothing, travel, and pension, they have it made. Yet the Prophet (s.a.w) would never fill his stomach, he would fast, eat just like others ate, if not worse, he traveled on a camel or horse, and would allow others to ride with him. His door was always open for anyone who needed help, and he felt shy to ask them to leave. If there was war, he fought along with his men. He didn't stand behind a desk and issue commands, and take credit for any victories. He did his own cooking, mending and shopping. He lived amongst the peo, to the extent that no one would recognise which person was the Prophet (s.a.w), and died amongst them. Even his successors took it upon themselves to imitate the characteristics of the Prophet (s.a.w). Abu Bakr died with so few possessions left behind, that his successor Umar bin Khattab said "you have left me with such a hard example to follow, O Abu Bakr." Umar bin Khattab would wander the streets at night in search of anyone in need, or who was being oppressed or was not given his or her rights under the Islamic State. If the people are happy with the way things are, and fear a leader with the qualities as the Prophet (s.a.w) or his successors, then it is clear why Islam is a Peril for them. If they want a leader like the above, then it only baffles the mind as to why they fear Islam, and the adherents to its tenants. As for Muslims, our task is a hard and uphill battle. On an individual level, we should always seek to maintain the highest caliber of character and morality. On a society level, we should continue to provide pure and easily accessible material on Islam, through any media channel available. If we see a wrong being committed, our duty is to correct that wrong, no matter the consequences. With the demise of the Khilafah, this role is now even harder. For non-Muslims, they cannot see Islam and its vibrant system in action on a large scale. They cannot compare its superiority with other models because it is not being implemented. Only the return of the Khilafah could put a significant dent into the anti-Islam movement, and raise awareness to the world community on what Islam stands for.
|
| | Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 06:41 pm Clash or Peaceful Existance? Are Muslims and the West bound to clash? Dr Jafar Sheikh Idris, professor of Islamic studies, Institute of Islamic and Arabic Sciences, Washington, gives an answer which supports the idea of peaceful coexistence. Is it possible for the inhabitants of our global village to live peacefully together and reap the fruits of science and technology whose pace of advancement is ever increasing? Or are their religious, cultural and civilization differences bound to create clashes and wars among them? The matter is so important that it behooves Muslim intellectuals and statesmen to give it serious thought. Western intellectuals are very much concerned with this question. But they are by no means agreed on the answer. One view is that the clash between Western civilization and others is inevitable, nay that it is already under way. Another view is that the real clash is within Western culture itself. A third view is that people all over the world are heading toward Western political liberalism and economic capitalism, and that these systems constitute the end of history in these respects. A fourth view is that peaceful coexistence among people of different cultures and civilizations is possible provided they adopt secular pluralistic democracy. What is the Islamic standpoint on this important and urgent issue? This paper is an attempt to give a brief answer to that question. But I am not speaking here as a social scientist who describes and explains actual reality; rather I am attempting to describe only theoretically what I consider to be the Islamic standpoint on this issue in our present circumstances. And my short answer is that it is a standpoint that is unequivocally on the side of peaceful coexistence. But to live peacefully with others you need sometimes to be fully prepared for war against them. REASONS FOR PEACEFUL COEXISTENCE 1. Rationality is an inseparable part of the Islamic religion, and its rationality does include that important ingredient of judging actions by their consequences. but it is of course a rationality which is guided by other Islamic values. The preferred action is always the action which results in the greatest good, or the least evil. The main goods to be achieved in Islam for example, are ones which would be acceptable, in their general sense, to most people. These are: Spiritual well-being, mental well-being, human life, human wealth and honor. Judged by this rational standard and those values, peaceful coexistence and cooperation is definitely to be preferred over wars and clashes in normal circumstances. 2. While some religions, secular ideologies and psychological theories teach that the human person is born evil; while some teach that he is born neutral between good and evil and it is society which directs him one way or the other; and while yet others believe that there is no such thing as human nature; while some brazenly racist and others are discriminatory in other respects, the Islamic position in the words of its Prophet is that every child is born good. Whatever his or her present beliefs or cultural milieu, every human person is a potential Muslim. In viewing people of other beliefs and cultures, Muslims should not forget to see the original nature which lies behind the facade of those cultures. 3. The best favor that a Muslim can therefore do to a non-Muslim is to invite him to Islam, to persuade him or her to come back to their original nature. But in doing so a Muslim is required to bear in mind certain facts, and to abide by certain principles, among which is the fact that since faith is a matter of the heart, no one can be compelled to accept it. This is understood from the verse which reads, "And invite to the way of your Lord with wisdom, and good admonition, and argue with them in the best of ways". How can this be achieved except in a peaceful atmosphere? 4. God tells his Prophet that however keen he is on people accepting the faith, most of them will not. All the same, He tells His Prophet that he is sent as a mercy to them, and that his main task is to never tire of inviting them to the truth. 5. Peaceful coexistence among people belonging to different religions and civilizations makes it easy for them to exchange material and intellectual benefits. It also helps them to cooperate in solving the problems which face them as inhabitants of a global village: Drugs, diseases, pollution, etc. But his ideal picture of peaceful coexistence and cooperation cannot be realized if the West lives in constant fear lest its hegemony be lost, and therefore do its best to prevent others from developing. 6. No rational person who has an idea of the amount of destructive weapons available in the world and the extent of the damage they can cause would hesitate to be against all kinds of wars, local or worldwide. To avoid wars however we must try to eradicate as many of their causes as we can. We must thus stand for justice and against all kinds of unfair treatment and aggression. 7. Muslims should play a big role in this because they are qualified to do so. Islam is a religion which does not compromise on moral values like truth and justice. Believers in Islam are urged to be allies to each other irrespective of race or time or place. 8. Muslims, in my view, have a special stake in peace. If peace prevails, Islam will have a better chance of being heard and accepted in the West, and elsewhere. Many people in the West and other parts of the world are coming back to religion so much so that what is called fundamentalism has become a universal phenomenon. People have discovered that science much as it is respected and valued by them cannot replace religion. REASONS FOR BEING POWERFUL Islam is however too realistic a religion to be pacifist. It is one thing to want to live peacefully with others, but quite another to make them have the same attitude toward you. On the whole, people of every culture desire to be more powerful than those who are culturally opposed to them. They take all steps which they deem necessary for the preservation of their cultural identity, and for the subjugation of others. In his new classic paper on clash of civilizations, Huntington tells us with unusual candidness that, "The West is now at an extraordinary peak of power in relation to other civilizations. Apart from Japan the West has no economic challenge. It dominates international political and security institutions, and with Japan economic institutions." And: "In the post-Cold War, the primary objective of arms control is to prevent the development by non-Western societies of military capabilities that would threaten Western interests. The West attempts to do this through international agreements, economic pressure and controls on the transfer of arms and weapons technologies." Muslims are therefore enjoined to be materially powerful so as to deter those who might resort to aggression against Muslims or who are prone to use force to subjugate others. Material power can and should thus be an ally to the cause of spiritual development and not a contradictory of it.
|
| | Thursday, January 25, 2001 - 11:11 pm Alyisa I understand what a Khalifate is. The problem with the Khalifate is that the Khalif is a person. There is nothing to prevent him from saying he is ruling in the name of Islam and then doing whatever the hell he wants. In short, he's a dictator. As long as he can couch and justify his dictatorship with the Qur'an, it's fraught with abuse. This is what happened with the grossly corrupt and backward Ottoman empire. Attaturk has often been criticized for destroying the Khalifate, but the truth is it destroyed itself through it's own corruption. Even if the Qur'an is devine, those who interpret it are not. Anonymous The basic problem with your thesis on secularism (and there's a lot to be said for it) is that people must be "ruled." In fact, the job of government is to stay out of the way as much as possible. I don't want to be ruled. I don't want rulers. No elites. If you are an elected lawmaker you are in a position to vote on laws, but that's it. Otherwise you ain't special. It is completely possible to have regional governments with differing values under the banner of a single state. Look at Massachusets and Texas. Two states in one union with very different laws and values. Look at Bayern and Schleswig-Holstein. Two states in one republic with very different laws and cultural values. Here's another problem with the "Islamic" state. What about areas that the Qur'an doesn't refer to? Traffic laws, the internet, etc. There's a host of modern developments which have to be regulated that the Qur'an doesn't mention. If you can't fall back n the Sharia then who decides what's right?? Here's another problem. There's about 6 billion people on the planet. About 1 billion are Muslims. What to do with the other 5 billion that don't want to live under Sharia??? The only other thing I take umbrage with is the notion that the US is anti-Islamic. Just as Islam tries to persuade countries to follow the US example, so do Muslims try and conert people to their way of thinking. Through discussion there's nothing wrong with this and the US does not object to it. The US conern about Islam is the mlitant variety that believes it's OK to blow up anything that's kufaar. That's where this fear of Islam comes from. It's not Islamic ideology that's feared, it's violent Islamic movements which are seen as fanatical and anti-US. The movement that you describe would certainly not be a closed or aggressive society, and hence would not be feared. It would allow a live and let live approach, and that's all that's needed. Even you yourself said you would embrace Democracy. In general I agree with your principal that a country can be governed by Islamic principals if it establishes a governmental system that both prevents abuse by government officials and also prevents tyranny of the majority. Basically you have a good write up here. That's all I have time for now. Be cool, I'll be back.
|
| | Friday, January 26, 2001 - 12:37 am Americans!, lol. You know what Huntington agenda setter for adminstrations galore said the problem was for americans trying to anaylsis the political development of other nations?, he said that americans when asked about government, they automactically think about how to limit it rather than how to develop legitimacy and order. I am not a big fan of him, his ideas were popular for a while, but now we more back with the democracy first campagin. hmmm this message isn't gonna make me more popular.
|
| | Friday, January 26, 2001 - 05:50 am http://www.themodernreligion.com/index2.html
|
| | Friday, January 26, 2001 - 06:07 am The regimes ruling in Islamic lands nowadays are all un-Islamic. That is they are regimes of Kufr because their systems are not derived from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saw) (except for some portions of it). It is forbidden for a Muslim, who believes in Allah andhis Messenger (saw), to help, participate in or be a part of these regimes. Rather he must work with utmost diligence and speed to dismantle it and establish the system of Islam in its place. Allah (swt) said: "And those who do not rule with that which Allah has revealed, are indeed the Kaffiroon." [TMQ 5:44] The ruling regimes are fostering and protecting munkar, nay they are the head of munkar. The Messenger (saw) commands all Muslims "Whoever of yousees a Munkar, let him change it with his hand. If he cannot, then (let him change it) with his tongue. If he cannot, then (let him change it) with his heart and that is the weakest of belief." Therefore, what is requested of you, O Muslims, is not only to refrain from assisting or participating in the regime, but to change it. Change with the heart is possible for every Muslim through hating Kufr and Munkar and renouncing it by saying: O Allah this is a Munkar that we are not pleased with. Change with his tongue is also possible, for every Muslim in many different situations: amongst his family, relatives, friends, and neighbours. As for the one who applauds these regimes, praises their rulers and supportsthem, he does not even harbour an iota of Iman in his heart. Beware O Muslims, do not belittle the issue for it is a matter of Iman and Kufr! Is it legal (Halal) for a Muslim who fears Allah to contest elections within these regimes of Kufr? Yes, if he announces publicly, simultaneously with his candidacy, that he does not believe in this system, that he will not become a part of it or coexist with it whether he is elected or not, that he will not help a candidate who believes in the system neither individually nor as a part of an electoral list and that he does not want more than to use the podium of Parliament to deliver theword of Haqq and to call upon all Muslims to eradicate the Taghut (rule of Kufr) from its roots (via intellectual actions and means). It is not enough for a candidate to just believe in this idea but conceal these onditions. He is obligated by the Shari'ah to declare it publicly, for an individual becomes a suspect and a subject of charges as soon as he announces his candidacy under these regimes. If he keeps himself a subject of suspicion and charges, he is sinful. It is illegal (Haram) for a Muslim, in this case, to elect him, help him or congratulate him if he wins. The duties of a Member of Parliament include legislation, vote of confidence in cabinets, ratification of treaties, election of a Republic's President and holding the regime and its institutions accountable. Only the last action is legal (Halal) for a Muslim Member of Parliament to practice. All other functions are illegal (Haram). Legislation cannot emanate from sources outside the Book (Qur'an) and Method (Sunnah). The Sovereignty belongs to Allah, i.e., He is the Legislator. Nothing is legal but that which Allah has made legal (Halal) and nothing is illegal but that which Allah has made illegal (Haram). Allah (swt) said: "They took their Rabbis and Priests for gods instead of Allah." [TMQ 9:31] The Messenger of Allah (saw) was reading this verse when Adee ibn Hatem At-Ta'ei entered wearing a cross around his neck. Adee said: They did not worship them. The Messenger of Allah responded (saw): "Yes (the followers did), they made illegal what is legal and made legal what is illegal and they (the followers) followed them. This is their worship of them." Then Adee became a Muslim. So that who legislates, making things legal and illegal without Allah's permission, is transgressing against Allah and making a god of himself. And those who follow him in this matter has rendered the one followed a god instead of Allah. So wake up, O Muslims! The Member of Parliament who gives confidence to a cabinet ruling with Kufr, ratifies treaties based on Kufr laws or elects a President who rules with Kufr is an accomplice with them in their crime. A Muslim individual who helps that Member of Parliament in getting there, is an accomplice with him in his crime. A Muslim's main concern, whether he is a Member of Parliament or not, is the vital cause of the Ummah, which is saving the Ummah from the claws of the West's idolatry (the so-called Western Culture) and guiding it to the light of Islam through there-establishment of the Khilafah. In lieu of this, we see the Members of Parliament these days work as street builders and endorsers of transactions for their constituents, despite the fact that a Parliament Member's interference in the work of the judiciary or other government departments is a transgression. We read these days that a block of Jordan's Members of Parliament (The Islamic Action Front) are threatening to submit their resignation from the Parliament if the Jordanian government does not retract its decision to raise the price of read. We ask: why didn't they resign when Jordan signed for peace with the enemy?! Why don't they resign because of the belief they hold that the system is a Kufr system, or is the price of bread more important?! Would the regime care if they resign or continue their resignation (submission)?! Let the candidates who humiliate themselves to win Parliament seats, regardless of the means, take a lesson from the existing Members of Parliament. They found that their existence there is meaningless. They found that what they thought of as shrewdness and understanding of realities was in fact nothing but a mirage and a clearcut case of short-sightedness. It was the regime's enslavement and exploitation of them and of Islam - in whose name they sit in Parliament. When those Members of Parliament, who promised to put Islam in the position of policy-making, fail many people will think that Islam itself failed and not only the individuals who participated. Some candidates try to find a pretext or a Fatwa for their actions on the legal basis "The least of two evils". Based on this, the Arabs supported Peres against Netanyahu in the Jews' elections, deeming Peres and Netanyahu as evil but Peres as the lesser of the two. Thus, it became obligatory for the Arabs to elect Peres. In Russia's elections, Yeltsin and the Communist Zyuganov were deemed evil but Yeltsin was the lesser evil so it became obligatory for the Muslims to support Yeltsin. Here they say; if X gets elected he would be evil and if Y gets elected he would be evil but X is lesser so it is obligatory to elect X and so on. This is definitely not Fiqh nor Ijtihad. The legal basis is not applicable here. Why is Peres' evil less than that of Netanyahu, for example? Who said that X is less evil than Y? These are mere desires. The legal basis is only applicable when a legal text defines one of two evils to be lesser than the other and where there is no way out but one of these two evils. In elections, there is a way out which is for the candidate to obey the laws (of Shari'ah) from the outset of his candidacy to the end. This is viable and possible. The use and abuse of the legal basis of "The least of two evils" as a pretext is thus invalid here. Actually, a Muslim has another stand which is not to elect and not to sink into the abyss of evil. It is untrue that a Muslim cannot work (whether for the vital cause or small issues) but through the Parliament. It is untrue that his work from within (Parliament) is always more effective. Indeed in most cases his participation in Parliament is a false testimony, a sedative against work and change and a release valve for the Ummah's pent-up drive, especially if he fears Allah (in the people's opinion). The best position is for those individuals who fear Allah to avoid this as long as they are going to be a tool to deceive others. We witnessed a couple of years ago that the Islamic Salvation Front's winning of the elections in Algeria did not lead it to the establishment of the Deen. Rather, it led (the Front) to jails because those who hold authority (and power) do not allow it to be transferred to their enemies. We are currently witnessing in Turkey that the power brokers did not give the cabinet to the Refah Party until it swore to and gave guarantees that it will adopt secularism and do everything the way those who hold power desire and require. So the solution does not come from within the Parliaments, rather it comes by taking authority through the seeking of support from those who have strength. The despair of the Muslims (or some of them) of Islam's resumption of its victories; this despondency drives them to resign themselves to the regimes of Kufr. It's time for this despondency to go away. It's time for the Western concepts and standards, which pervaded our culture and made us run after benefits and selfishness, to be destroyed. It's time for us to establish our Khilafah, apply our law (Shari'ah) and elect the Members of the Ummah's Assembly under the Islamic State instead of elections in a Kufr domain under Kufr systems. "It is He who has sent His Messenger with the Guidance and the Deen (Way of Life) of Truth to make it victorious over all ways of life, even if the disbelievers detest it." [TMQ 9:33] Military Dictatorship has no place in Islam http://www.themodernreligion.com/index2.html The Function of Power in Islam http://www.themodernreligion.com/index2.html America needs a "Horse Whisperer" http://www.themodernreligion.com/index2.html Is democracy really the 'natural' political system of Europeans? http://www.themodernreligion.com/index2.html Some Views on Dictators http://www.themodernreligion.com/index2.html http://www.themodernreligion.com/index2.html
|
| | Saturday, January 27, 2001 - 12:09 am Anonymous You sure are prolific dude. OK, I've heard this comment before, that there are no Islamic regimes. The Taliban, I assume, is considered to be to the right of Ghengis Khan even by you guys (maybe esspecially by you guys). But once again, we have avoided the nuts and bolts of how an Islamic regime functions and how it avoids becoming a theocratic dictatorship with all of the abuses of power that that entails. Your references to the ISF in Algeria I find disturbing. True enough the FIS nullified the elections (before they took place actually). But the subsequent behavior of the ISF was barbaric in the extreme - totally in violation of all Islamic principals. It murdered people frequently for simply wearing western dress (I'm pretty sure the Sharia does not support the death penalty for wearing western dress). They killed thousands of children, many times decapitating them. So if looking for an Islamic example, the ISF is not the place to turn. They're a bunch of animals. If they don't go to hell, then none of us do. They're worse than kufr. They know what Islam preaches and they violate it's teachings in heinous ways anyway.
|
| | Saturday, January 27, 2001 - 01:19 am MAD. Your post is very impartial. If the Algerian government was clean they would have allowed independent verifiers in to their country so that the world could see the so called barbaric killings done allegedly by ISF. The algerian government trained soldiers to terrorize people and dressed them as practicing muslims so that people have to blame islam and its affliates for the bararic killings. I can't believe a muslim practicing person would kill a child or throw the unborn out of the womb. You have to believe in someother blood thirsty ideology to do that. I have seen a very detailed report in NYT long time ago about the government involvement. The french algerian government were united on that and never admitted anybody to their country. Even to this day, it is hard to go anywhere without the governmnet's permission. They created fake insecurity so that independent journalists would not venture into the country to dig out what went wrong. All regimes in islamic countries use the same tactics when they want the support of the western governments. A lot of the distrust between muslims and nonmuslims is due to the GOVERNMNETS AND KINGDOMS who demonize their islamic people so that THEIR BRUTAL REGIMES can survive for years to come. And the west is readily interested always to support any government that fights against islam even if the supported is claimant of islam. I wonder when will islam get a fair treatment?. It will never get. You are an intelligent officer yourself MAD. A lot of the SCREW UPS IN ISLAMIC COUNTRIES ARE PLANNED RIGHT UNDER YOUR NOSE. WHAT A FAKER. You don't fool me Irish Boy.
|
| | Saturday, January 27, 2001 - 05:37 am Khilafah is one of the most important issues in Islam, many versus in Quran and many Hadiths of the Prophet ordered Muslims to establish such a system. Ruling by Islam is the most frequent issue discussed in Quran after the belief and creed. Therefore, Khilafah was discussed by many Muslim scholars, the following are the definition of some of them to Khilafah. 1: A representation, of the one who has the right to adopt the divine rules, aimed at protecting the Deen and ruling the world (Dunia) with it. 2: Succession of the Prophethood aimed at protecting the Deen and ruling the world (Dunia). 3: it as: A total leadership for all the Muslims aimed at implementing the Shariah of Islam and carrying the Message of Islam to the world. In summary, Khilafah is the political system in Islam. It is responsible for implementing the Islamic system (be it social, economic, educational, foreign policy,...) and maintaining its implementation. It is also responsible for spreading the message of Islam to the world. Khilafah is the Islamic state which the Prophet (pbuh) sought to create and worked for in Mecca, for a period of thirteen years, until he (pbuh) established it Medina. The evidence for the duty of establishing the Khilafah is confirmed in the Quran, the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh), the consensus of the Sahabah and Shariah principle. The consensus of the Sahabah means that the Sahabah unanimously accept a certain issue as being a divine rule as they understood it from the Prophet (pbuh). The Sahabah consensus as such is considered a third source of the divine rules (after Quran and Sunnah). All the companions (Sahabah) agreed throughout their lives upon the obligation of appointing a Khalif. Although at times they differed about the person to be appointed, they never disagreed that a Khalif should be appointed. So what happened in Saqifat Bani Sa'ida after the death of the Prophet (pbuh) is an evidence that appointing a Khalif is obligatory. There was a discussion about who should be the Khalif but they all agreed their should be a Khalif. This example will be discussed in more details in a different message when I discuss the way to appoint the Khalifah. Evidence From the Shariah Principle The establishment of our religion (deen) and the implementation of the divine law in every aspect of life is an obligation (Fard) proven through authentic and conclusive evidences. However, the establishment of the deen and implementation of the divine law cannot be achieved unless there is a ruler who possesses the authority to do so. Accordingly, the fulfilment of the duties to implement the divine law and to establish the deen cannot be accomplished unless there exists the ruler. In this context the Shariah principle states: "That which is Necessary to accomplish a duty (Wajib) is itself a duty (Wajib). Therefore, according to this divine principle the presence of a Khalif is compulsory. Due to the absence of the authority of Islam via the abolishment of the Khilafah, rules of Islam continue to be incomplete and mutilated. However, with the knot of Islamic ruling intact, the rest of the knots of Islam would be preserved. Conversely, with the undoing (abolishment) of the knot of the Islamic ruling structure, the knots of Islam would be thereby abolished. The claim that the Islamic form of government is not explicitly defined in Islam is not justified by any daleel. It is true that the details of the Khilafah structure are not given in the Quran. But the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh) explained the Khilafah structure with great details. In the Quran Allah (SWT) established that his laws have to be used in the process of ruling. Through the Sunnah of his Prophet (pbuh), Allah showed how the ruling is to be organized. Besides the Khilafah, there are many issues outlined in the Quran in a general form, and the Sunnah defined their details. The prayer is an outstanding example. In the Quran, Allah (SWT) orders us to pray. But how to pray, when to pray, and how many times to pray were explained in the Sunnah. In the same manner, Allah (SWT) in the Quran ordered the Muslims to employ His (SWT) rules in the ruling system. The Prophet (pbuh) explained the details of the ruling system, the form of government, the duties of the Khalifah, the duties of the people towards the Khalifah, the functions of the State, the structure of the administration, and all related matters. Allah (swt) has determined the form of government in Islam to be the Khilafah system. It is the only system for ruling the Islamic state. The State system is built upon eight pillars: 1. The Khalif. 2. The delegated assistants. 3. The executive assistants. 4. The Amir of Jihad. 5. The Judges. 6. The governors of the provinces (Wilayat). 7. An administrative system. 8. The consultative assembly (majlis ash-shura). 1. Khilafah is the political system in Islam. It is responsible for implementing the Islamic system (be it social, economic, educational, foreign policy,...) and maintaining its implementation. It is also responsible for spreading the message of Islam to the world. Khilafah is the Islamic state which the Prophet (pbuh) sought to create and worked for in Mecca, for a period of thirteen years, until he (pbuh) established it Medina. 2. The establishment of Khilafah is an Islamic duty. There is a consensus between Muslim scholars about this issue as Al-Qurtubi said in his Tafseer. I quoted several scholars from different schools of thoughts in Islam (Sunnah, Shia, Mu3tazilah,...), they all say it is Fard. Establishing the Khilafah is Fard Kifayah (collective duty) upon Muslims, however all of them are in sin if they do not fulfil this duty. 3. The evidence for the duty of establishing the Khilafah is confirmed in the Quran, the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh), the consensus of the Sahabah and Shariah principle. I quoted many Ayahs and Hadiths which proves this. Thus, the state is a necessity for the application of the laws of Islam and it is the legitimate way specified by Allah (SWT) to apply Islam and to carry it to the rest of the mankind, (due to the fact that Islam is a universal deen -way of life). Numerous verses and Hadiths dealing with the rule indicate that the state is the responsible body for the implementation of these laws. If that is true then would you imagine that Allah is asking us to implement Islam without a state. Allah (SWT) says in the translation of Quran: a. 5:48 "So judge between them by that which Allah has revealed, and follow not their desires away from the truth." b. 4:105 "Lo, we reveal to you the scripture with the truth, that you may judge between mankind by that which Allah shows you." c. 4:49 "So judge between them by that which Allah has revealed, and follow not their desires, but beware of them lest they seduce you from just some part of that which Allah has revealed to you." d. 5:44 "Whoso judges not by that which Allah has revealed, such are disbelievers (Kafir)." e. 5:45 "Whoso judges not by that which Allah has revealed, such are the wrongdoers (Dhallem)." f. 5:47 "Whoso judges not by that which Allah has revealed, such are the evil livers (Fasiq)." g. 4:65 "But no, by the Lord, they will not believe (in truth) until they make you judge of what is in dispute between them, And find in their souls No resistance against Thy decisions, but accept Them with the fullest conviction." Hadiths: a: Imam Muslim narrated from Abu Hazim who said: "I was with Abu Hurairah for five years and I heard him narrate from the Prophet (pbuh) that he said: The Prophets used to rule Ban Israel. Whenever a prophet died another prophet succeeded him, but there will be no prophets after me; instead there will be Khalifs and they will number many. They asked: what then do you order us? He said: Fulfil allegiance to them one after the other. Give them their dues. Verily Allah will ask them about what he entrusted them with." This Hadith is a clear statement of the fact that the form of government in Islam, after the Prophet (pbuh) is the Khilafah. This understanding is supported by numerous other Hadith that indicate the only system of government in Islam is the Khilafah. b: Imam Muslim narrated from Abdullah bin Omar who said: "One who dies without having bound himself by an oath of allegiance (to an Amir) will die the death of one belonging to the days of ignorance (Jahilyah). Thus the Prophet (SWA) made it compulsory that every Muslim should have a pledge of allegiance (baya) on his or her neck. The pledge of allegiance is not given to anyone except the Khalif. c: Muslim narrated from Abdullah bin Amr bin Al-As who said the Prophet (SWA) said: "He who swears allegiance to a Khalif should give him the pledge of his hand and the sincerity of his heart (i.e, submit to him both outwardly as will as inwardly). He should obey him to the best of his capacity. If another man comes forward (as a claimant to Khilafah) disputing his authority, they (the Muslims) should behead the latter". The Hadiths inform us that those who run the affairs of Muslims are Khalifs (some times Amir). Therefore, this is a command to establish or appoint them. The Hadiths also include the prohibition upon Muslims separating themselves from the authority, and consequently, an obligation upon Muslims to establish an authority, i.e, ruling. Furthermore the Prophet ordered the Muslims to obey the Khalifs and to fight those who dispute their authority as Khalifs, which in turn means a command to appoint a Khalif and to protect his Khilafah by fighting who dispute his authority. Many other Hadiths regulated the relationship between the Ummah and the Khalif (or amir), when should they obey him and when they should not. He also explained when he should be changed even by force. Many more such verses show that it is obligatory to implement Islam. Many other Hadiths show the same thing. Many other verses asks the Muslims to have a certain economic system, and a certain social system and... The question now is what is the difference between these verses and the one which says: "Establish worship."? [24:56] How can you say that Muslims are free to practice their religion in a secular state by only practising the worship and not practising any other thing. This means asking the Muslims to believe in part of their religion and disbelieve in the other part. This was described in another verse in Qur'an. In the translation of the verse [2:85] Allah says: "Then is it only a part of the Book That you believe in, And do you reject the rest? But what is the reward for those Among you who believe like this But disgrace in this life? And on the Day of Judgement They shall be consigned To the most grievous penalty. For God is not unmindful Of what you do." More evidences can be found in the full series of articles. 4. The claim that the Islamic form of government is not explicitly defined in Islam is not justified by any daleel. It is true that the details of the Khilafah structure are not given in the Quran. But the Sunnah of the Prophet (pbuh) explained the Khilafah structure with great details. 5. The ruling system in Islam is based on four principles: a. The supremacy is to the Sharia and not to the Ummah. b. The authority is to the Ummah c. Appointing one Khalif is an obligation on all Muslims. d. The Khalif has power to adopt the divine law. 6. The State system is built upon eight pillars: a. The Khalif. b. The delegated assistants. c. The executive assistants. d. The Amir of Jihad. e. The Judges. f. The governors of the provinces (Wilayat). g. An administrative system. h. The consultative assembly (majlis ash-shura). 7. There are four opinions among Muslim scholars regarding the issue of choosing the Khalif. a. By selection (bay'ah). b. By nomination. c. By force. d. By divine text. It was shown that the bay'ah is only legitimate method to appoint the Khalifah because Khilafah is a contract of consent and selection. So the consent of the person who is given the bay'ah to hold the Khilafah and the consent of those who give the bay'ah are essential. Thereupon, it is clear that nobody becomes a Khalif unless the Ummah appoints him in this post, and he cannot have the authority of Khilafah unless he is contracted to it. This method of appointing the Khalifah (bay'ah) is proven by the Quran, the Sunnah and the consensus of the Sahabah. 8. The detailed study of the bay'ah of the first four Khulafah gives us the outline for a method to choose the Khalifah in our contemporary times. First of all no one can become Khalifah without the bay'ah (pledge) of the people. This bay'ah is valid if it is taken without any force. The matter of bay'ah proceeds after debate to establish suitable candidates, then one of them is elected as a Khalifah, then the bay'ah is taken for him from the people. 9. The issue of who are the Muslims who appoint the Khalifah was examined. It was shown that the divine rule is to establish the Khalifah by any gathering whose appointment of the Khalifah achieves the consent of the Muslims by any indication that proves this consent, wether this indication is the pledge of the majority of the influential people, the majority of the representative Muslims, the silent acceptance of the Muslims regarding the group that give the pledge, their harry to show obedience as a result of the pledge or by any similar means, as long as they were provided with the full facility to freely express their opinions. 10. The actions occurring this century in elections, such as secret ballots, polling boxes and counting votes and the like, all these are styles to perform the selection by consent. Therefore, these styles and means are not part of what the divine laws are sought for. And they are treated as matters which the general text has permitted, and there is no special evidence to forbid them, so they are mubah. So Muslims have the right to select these or other styles. Any style which leads to enabling the Muslims to carry out the Fard of appointing the Khalifah by consent and selection, Muslims are allowed to use, unless there is a divine evidence which prohibits it. 11. From the above we can choose the following manner in our contemporary time in appointing the Khalifah. a. The Muslims members of the Majlis ash-Shura (who are the representative of the Ummah and are elected themselves by the Ummah) check and determine the number of the candidates to stand for election for the post of the Khalifah, these names are subsequently announced and the Muslims are asked to elect one person from this list of candidates. b. The results of the election is to be announced and the person who has attained the majority of the votes is to be announced to the Muslims. c. The Muslims must hasten to give the bay'ah to the candidate -who has attained the majority of the votes- as the Khalifah to follow the Quran and the Sunnah of the Messenger of Allah (pbuh). d. Once the bay'ah has been accomplished, the name of the candidate who has become the Khalifah together with a statement that he is qualified with all the agreement conditions necessary for holding the office of Khalifah is announced to the people so that the news of his appointment reaches the whole of the Ummah. 12. The above mentioned manner to appoint the Khalifah can be applied if there is Khilafah. But if the there is no Khalifah at all , as is the case in our present time, then every country in the Islamic world is eligible to elect a Khalifah and thereby establish a Khilafah on condition that the country fulfils four criteria: a. The authority in that country must be self determined depending on Muslims only, not on any disbeliever state or disbeliever influence. b. The security of Muslims in that country must be through the security of Islam and not the security of Kufr, i.e. the protection of the country internally and externally must be in the name of Islam from the Muslims power in its capacity as a purely Islamic power. c. The country must commence immediate implementation of Islam completely, comprehensively and radically and also engage in delivering the Islamic call. d. The elected Khalifah should fulfil the conditions of the Khilafah contract, even if he is lacking the preferable conditions, because what matters is the contract conditions. Therefore, if that country has fulfilled these four conditions, then the Khilafah has been established by the bay'ah of that country alone and it was convened with it alone as well, even if this country does not represent the majority of the influential people who represent the Islamic Ummah.
|
| | Monday, February 19, 2001 - 03:05 am Assalamu Alaykum ALERT, What is this.. ARE you saying that Jihad is not the way for our Ummah at this time of era.. You must be one with dunya in hands to Say that.. ARe you waiting for a Kalifa.. How are you going to form Kalifa without power, without land.. All the Arap land is own by USA and w know that, Suhanallah.. Wick up Ummah and Fight teach your kids how to read maps and fight. Have Guns at home just incase you are attact.. Wallahi if you don't Go to Jihad it will come to you at your door.. For the Kufar will kill you whether you want ot fight them or not! Get ready for it before it cames to your Door... time is short... Assalalamu Alaykum
|
| | Monday, February 19, 2001 - 11:50 am Anonymous, that was impressive. I don't have time to read it all now, but I will tommorrow. Formerguest Dude, you're another conspiratorial theorist in the works. Allow me to let you in on a little secret. All the political leaders in Algeria are shitheads. There aren't any good guys in the pile. The supposed Muslims are ••••, just like the government. It's not some great conspiracy plot by the white man to keep the brothers down, it'S just good ol' fashion power grabbing at the expense of the locals. Happens all over the world, in Algeria it just took on a more virulent form, that's all. Why would you think that just because people claim they are Muslims that means they're something special. Hello, anyone home????? An Algierian can claim he's the second coming and then screw his sister. Claiming doesn't mean you are. Look at Chechnya. Or Bosnia. In Bosnia you'll be hard pressed to fund a Muslim that has actually read the Qur'an or gone to a Mosque. My Muslim cleaning woman used to sun bath nude on the roof. And if you want to see scantily dressed woman, go to the Muslim quarter of Sarajevo. I kid you not. For every Hijab you see there are 30 mini-skirts with see through bra-less shirts. I could go on but you get the point.
|