For those unfamiliar with the term, entryism is a strategy whereby members of one group join another with the intention of taking it over surreptitiously or just to manipulate the latter into serving the interests of the former/leach off its reputation. For example, throughout the seventies there were repeated attempts by Scientologists to join Mind (then the National Association for Mental Health) to try and influence policy regarding psychiatric treatment.
It has also become a favourite tactic for Islamists. Shikwa recently documented the efforts of one Majed Iqbal, a Hizb ut-Tahrir member from Rochdale, to use his role as a writer at the ‘Asian Leader’ to push HT’s agenda. He has even managed to appear on Sky News and the BBC’s ‘The Big Questions’ passing himself off as an impartial observer.
But Iqbal’s entryism goes further. On his blog he happily boasts of his writing for the Asian News, a reasonably reputable newspaper serving people of Asian background in the north of England. For example, on his blog he has an entry entitled ‘ASIAN NEWS ARTICLE- Manchester Muslim Women gather to discuss challenges in Britain today‘. This entry reveals that he is the author of an article which appeared in the Asian News on 26th June this year without a named author and under the title ‘Muslim women stand for Islam‘.
Over a 150 Muslim women gathered in Manchester do [sic] discuss the challenges facing them in modern day Britian calling for an Islamic state as the solution to the world’s global problems.
The seminar organised by the women branch of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain, Dr Nazreen Nawaz, was held at the Pakistani Community Centre on Stockport Road, Longsight.
Women’s media representative of Hizb ut-Tahrir Britain told the audience Muslim women were under pressure to constantly re-evaluate their Islamic identity and to question whether their Islamic beliefs fit into British society and to adopt values that are at odds with their religious convictions.
That the Asian News thought it best not to name Iqbal as the author of this ‘report’ can be understood when you realise just how blatantly this is HT propaganda; “Stand for Islam” is the name of an HT campaign. No wonder Iqbal rather coyly changed the report’s title on his own blog lest anybody notice the way in which he is using the Asian News to evangelise for a global Islamist party.
Another egregious example of Iqbal using the Asian News to propagate HT’s ideology can be found in an article contributed by Iqbal in February last year. ‘If elections in Pakistan ever changed anything -they’d be abolished‘ is standard HT anti-democratic propaganda. Laughably, Iqbal even tries to enlist Winston Churchill in his quest against democracy (and for the caliphate).
Pakistan needs systemic change not cosmetics. It requires sound structural ideas based on its History, Heritage and Faith.
The power for the people, by the people and over the people remains as an absurd concept and a joke. This could not be put into any better words than those of the famous British Political personality, Winston Churchill: “Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government.” (1874 – 1965), Hansard, November 11, 1947.Changing the deck chairs on the Titanic would not have saved it from drowning.
The complete contempt Iqbal has for the Asian News’ readers is evidenced not just by his shameless propagandising, but also by his assumption that they would be unable to identify this butchering of one of the most famous quotations in the English language. Does he really think that northern Muslims are too stupid to know that it concludes “…except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time”? Sorry Majed, that does include the Caliphate.
Other articles contributed by Iqbal for the Asian News include ‘This is a goodbye kiss from the Iraqi people, dog‘; ‘The Jewel of Medina- Is this Sherry Jone’s idea of ‘honouring’ Islam?‘; ‘Are British Muslims ‘attention seekers?’‘; ‘Can Muslims take a joke?‘; ‘Dutch MP’s anti- Quran film: Is this the road to integration?‘ and he even managed to get the HT-esque line “We live in a society where “Prophets” are sidelined to pub jokes and their messages caricatured while “Profits” remain the benchmark of any activity in life” into a piece about ‘The obesity epidemic – cashing in on the problems‘.
More blatantly, an article contributed by Iqbal and entitled ‘Rochdale residents make a stand against Musharraf’s UK visit‘ is accompanied by photos of what is clearly an HT rally.
HT rally Iqbal tries to pass of as being representative of Rochdale's residents.
There are plenty of other examples of Iqbal using the Asian News to further HT’s interests. Here an Asian News article shamelessly plugs Iqbal’s SRE Islamic campaign (previously shown here to be an HT front) and here is a plug for an event he organised about extremism and Islam. Here he is quoted in an Asian News article and here, here, here and here are letters from Iqbal which were published by the Asian News.
At no point in any of these examples does the Asian News acknowledge that their contributor, interviewee and correspondent, Majed Iqbal, is a member of Hizb ut-Tahrir. When it is explained who he is, he is described only as a “local Muslim activist and blogger”.
This cannot continue. The Asian News must not accept another contribution from him unless it is clearly disclaimered as being a contribution from an HT member. No newspaper should allow itself to be used as the mouth piece for any group, certainly not one as deeply unpleasant as Hizb ut-Tahrir, unless the readers are clearly warned of this fact.
What I am advocating here is not “McCarthyism”. If Iqbal had maintained a commitment to journalistic standards of impartiality along with his involvement in HT then I would not be concerned with his case, but he has been taking his readers for a ride for over two years now and it must stop.
55 Comments
‘Standards of impartiality’ LOL. HT don’t know what that is, they are only taught by their brain-dead Mushrifs to repeat HT propaganda.
I am a new visitor to your website and as a muslim, having read the introduction page. I have flirted with HUT and find their view very acceptable regarding liberal democracy. I just want to ask the muslim posters on this website if they are muslim. Why are they for liberal democracy as posted ont he introduction page and if they are not, ignore my question ?
Bismillahi, alhamdulillahi nahmadoo wa nasta’eenuoo wa b’ad:
Observer -
I am a muslim and proud alhamdulillah! My religion is Islam, and my politics is liberal democracy. I make claim not Islam founded democracy or even any political system. I only say Islam was silent on political system like it was silent on computer science. Any politics of Prophet alayhi salam was him alayhi salam acting as a man and leader, not as prophet. majority of muslims in world and ulema say this too. this is what my ulema teach me.
HT and other khawaarij are muslims too, their religion is Islam, but their politics is dictatorship which is also man-made like democracy. The difference is they claim that their dictatorship is Islam. I claim not that my democracy is Islam. I claim only that Islam allows my democracy.
Observer, you are confused by ignorant khawaarij enemies of Islam inside HT.
Hi Observer
I am a Muslim and am all for Liberal Democracy. I don’t believe that Islam defines my political stance. However, I do think the basic principles of Islam are more in line with liberal democracy rather than ‘totalitarianism’.
I don’t understand how you can find HTs views on Liberal Democracy appealing. Do you believe in totalitarism? Do you believe in one ruler for life? Do you believe it is the right of the state to enforce religious practise?
Abu Wannabe Arab states:
“I am a Muslim and am all for Liberal Democracy.”
“I do think the basic principles of Islam are more in line with liberal democracy rather than ‘totalitarianism’
“I don’t believe that Islam defines my political stance.”
Before I dissect these statements, lets define some terms using neutral sources:
“Democracy”
U.S. president Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) defined democracy as:
“Government of the people, by the people, for the people”
“Liberal Democracy”
“modern Western political system: a political system that has free elections, a multiplicity of political parties, political decisions made through an independent legislature, and an independent judiciary, with a state monopoly on law enforcement”
“legislature”
“is a type of representative deliberative assembly with the power to pass, amend and repeal laws”
“Totalitarianism”
“Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life, the individual is subordinated to the state, and opposing political and cultural expression is suppressed: “A totalitarian regime crushes all autonomous institutions in its drive to seize the human soul” (Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr.)”
Right, so back to Abu Wanabe statements:
“I am a Muslim and am all for Liberal Democracy”
Abu Wanabe is a Muslim who is blinded by his desire for political correctness and acceptability, so much so that he makes statements without actually realizing what they mean.
The concept of a “Liberal Democracy” as an idea is appealing. But the point stands that it is just that – an idea, implicitly utopian. There is no country in the world which has ever implemented this utopian idea. Please name one? (It will not be difficult to rebut any western country you name).
This is because Liberalism as Francis Parker Yockey put it, in his book Imperium: The Philosophy of History and Politics:
“[Liberalism] with its compromising, vague attitude, incapable of precise formulation, incapable also of rousing precise feelings, either affirmative or negative, is not an idea of political force. Its numerous devotees, in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries have taken part in practical politics only as the ally of other groups”
That said, Junior Abu “Wanabe Academic” actually does not believe in Liberal Democracy. This is because a Liberal democracy has specific limits on specific freedoms. Any GCSE student of politics knows that it consists of laws against defamation, where defamation in this context is defined as :
“the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government or nation a negative image”
As any reader can see, there are countless examples on this site, supported by Abu Wanabe, which consist of unsubstantiated defamatory material.
“I do think the basic principles of Islam are more in line with liberal democracy rather than ‘totalitarianism”
Again, using big terms to sound academic. He is clearly a student of Majid Nawaz or Rashad, who exhibit “wanabe academic” traits.
Unlike the utopian dream of “liberal Democracy”, which has never been implemented – ever – Islam, which comprises the Quran, Sunnah and various sources of Islamic jurisprudence , was implemented over a 1400 year period, as documented by none Muslim historians.
More examples of Abu Wanabe’s junior “wanabe academic” responses, is the use of the term “totalitarianism.” Totalitarianism has nothing to do with religion. To state implicitly “The basic principles of Islam are not in line with Totalitarianism” implies that the writer thinks Totalitarianism” can have a religious dimension – By definition it does not. Just like you ask others to research the term “Neo Conservative”, you need to research, not Google, the terms you write, blindly due to the desire for political correctness and acceptance.
Clearly, Abu Wanabe does not see the difference between Islam and Democracy as defined by Abraham Lincoln and western institutions.
Like any GCSE student of politics will tell you, within a political democracy, the legislature, as defined above, does not refer to Islamic sources of Jurisprudence when originating and passing laws for society. Furthermore, the process of voting is used to bring a law into existence (which is completely different to voting for a person, which is Islamically permitted if the person stands for an Islamically legitmate cause). Within Islam there is no evidence (please state one) which states that people can vote to bring a law, which is binding upon society, into existence.
As Rene Guenons put it in his masterful essay about “The Illusion of Democracy”:
“One of the false cornerstones of “democracy” is the vote, which ideally should be a collective judgment on the art of governing. Still, no one could sincerely defend the eccentric idea that a majority is intellectually qualified and has sufficient knowledge about administration and government to the point of exercising judgment on these matters.”
“Maintaining due proportions, such equalitarian supposition would equate claiming that everyone is qualified, for example, for deliberating on a medical matter. A real situation, such as that of a person hit by a car, could well illustrate such absurdity. A person has just been hit and is seriously injured. A dozen curious onlookers anxiously observe the event. What is the plausible criterion for determining which among them can help the injured person? Naturally, those qualified to do it, that is, doctors or nurses. A voting would be entirely preposterous, for a majority is never qualified for medical, as well as administrational, functions.”
“I don’t believe that Islam defines my political stance.”
Fair enough, Islam, [or to put it precisely, the word of Allah (SWT) and the sunnah of Muhammad (SAW) and the principles formulated by generations of Islamic scholarship] does not define “your” political stance. But the word of Allah (SWT) definitely defined the political stance of Muhammad (SAW) and his Companions and generations after that. In fact the word of Allah (SWT) defined the political stance of all Prophets preceding Muhammad (SAW) as well. A Muslim believes that the Quran is the word of Allah (SWT). A Muslim also believes that Muhammad (SAW) is the messenger of Allah (SWT). A Muslim also believes that it is paramount to follow the example of Muhammad (SAW). So when the Allah (SWT) mentions in the Quran that mankind and jinn were created for but one purpose, to worship Allah (SWT) in all aspects of life, we make sure our political stance is in line with that worship. When Allah (SWT) commands Muslims to follow the way of Muhammad (SAW) in our personal and societal affairs, as Muslim we will make sure our political stance conforms to the examples set forth by Muhammad (SAW). So we will condemn homosexuality, lewdness, injustice, tyranny, freedom to offend, heresy and all that is clearly defined as Munkar.
Again, I have a feeling that you don’t actually know what a “political stance” actually is. So like the above, blinded by political correctness and the desire for acceptance, you continue to use terms which make you look rather juvenile.
A Rehman – it seems just like the idiots at Traditional Islamism, you seem to be suffering from Rashiditus.
Definition – Rashaditus is an illness which infects particularly stupid HT people who see Rashid’s hand in everything. They have dreams of Rashid and mention his name every time they talk.
It seems I really upset you with that post. What’s up worried your house of cards may come crashing down? Whoever disagrees with your insane Islamism can’t possible understand politics, HEY? HT have a monopoly on politics do they? Why can’t you just say you disagree with me? Rashid and the Quilam gang are not the only ones who believe in liberal democratic values as Muslims, millions around the world yearn for it and abhore your totalitarian nonsense.
Your post, apart from taking pops at me every sentence, is just classical HT bollocks which I’ve been hearing for years. And since the last time we had a debate I comprehensively whupped your ass and you ran off without giving any sensible responses to the points, I don’t know why you still bother. Except to convince yourself that your cult is a actually a serious political party.
The idea that just because we cannot have absolute liberal democracy therefore the idea can’t work is so ridiculous and unrealistic that it hardly deserves further comment. No political system is perfect nor has been implemented in a perfect way. Same goes for your Islamist ideology – when was that ever implemented ‘perfectly’ as outlined by HT? Quoting a few western writers who are critical of liberal democracy is hardly proof that it is unworkable. I can quote you a few Muslim writers who are critical of Islamism, so that means that is unworkable now according to your logic ?
Liberal democracy is the lifeblood of groups like HT. Do you not see the irony here? You can only get away with the things you say because you live in a liberal democracy, learn to appreciate it mate and of course its not perfect, no political system is.
Islam did not define a system of government, it provided guidance for all aspects of life. That is why Muslim empires in history each differed in their governance. The Ottomans had the Millet system, the Safavids had the Divan system and the Moghuls only used Shariah for some criminal cases whilst letting regional tribal cheifs decide other more general matters. Each claimed to be guided by aspects of Islam whilst their political decisions were based on power, greed, interests of the people, wealth all the usual things. The Ottomans changed their governance after the Tanzimat reforms and incorporated French legal codes into their governance structure. So your 1400 year myth is exactly that, a myth.
I think you need to think about the difference between ‘guide’ and ‘define’. Two very different things. Islam defines how I pray, it guides how I conduct financial transactions. Islam defines how I fast, it guides how I view politics.
Learn the distinction, read about political science independantly from Halaqa and we might just make a politician out of you.
So I am a Muslim, I believe in Liberal Democracy and I don’t see any contradiction between those two statements. You are a prat and you believe in an Arab cult which wants a totalitarian state which will claim to be Islamic. There is no contradiction there either.
If you want to get your ass whupped in a debate again may I suggest you take one point at a time, and this time please admit that you were wrong instead of simply changing the topic.
abdul rehman,
Thanks again for the funny post.
Through the thickets of your personal attacks on Abu Wanabe Arab, which I can only assume are based on a sense of comedy, I notice that you present an amusing array of sources. Lets go through them:
1. Abraham Lincoln, who famously said, “Those who deny freedom to others, deserve it not for themselves; and, under a just God, can not long retain it,” would probably not think very highly of an autocratic government which tries to enforce a uniform set of religious beliefs on its people, or which punishes them for minor infrigements of custom like the wearing of hijab or the keeping of facial hair. In this respect , Mr. Lincoln would probably agree with the Quran, which says “There is no compulsion in religion”, and with Muhammad (saws) who said, “Allah will not have mercy on the one who does not have mercy on people”. He probably wouldn’t have been an avid fan of H.T. either.
2. Francis Parker Yockey was a self proclaimed neo-fascist and anti-semite who believed in preserving the racial purity of Europe. Very much doubt that he would be favourable to establishment of Khilafah there as well.
3. Rene Guenon (not Rene Geunons) was, in my opinion, the most brilliant writer of the 20th century. He was also a convert to Islam, changing his name to ‘Abd al-Wahid Yahya, and a sufi. He married the daughter of his Egyptian shaykh in tasawwuf and lived in Cairo for the latter half of his life. He believed in the transcendent unity of religions, the primacy of esoterism (or spirituality to be less precise) over exoterism (ie., literalism), and that tasawwuf is the only path to the true understanding of Islam. To be honest, I am surprised you even have heard of him. It’s a good thing that you have. But I doubt very much whether you have substantially read any of his works, for if you were to absorb any of their meaning you would very swiftly stop being a representative of groups like H.T.
So your post presents the reader with two options: either be very confused or be very amused. I choose the latter.
Abu Wanabe,
It is great to read comments, which further reinforce your amateurish nature.
“Definition – Rashaditus is an illness which infects particularly stupid HT people who see Rashid’s hand in everything. They have dreams of Rashid and mention his name every time they talk.” Like Rashad Ali, we have another definition inventor here.
“believe in liberal democratic values as Muslims, millions around the world yearn for it and abhor your totalitarian nonsense” Please provide statistical evidence for this. The last major poll conducted by the University of Maryland clearly showed a majority of polled Muslims opting for Strict Shariah and a Caliphate which unites the Muslim world. Again, as mentioned in my last post, your use of the term “Totalitarian” is incorrect.
“And since the last time we had a debate I comprehensively whupped your ass and you ran off without giving any sensible responses to the points, I don’t know why you still bother.” This is a funny statement indeed. Abu Wanabe wants to be a debater. What he forgets is that to debate such issues, one needs to be sincere and have a minimum intellectual capacity to understand even the simplest concepts. Time and time again you have shown your amateur ways, from degrading people, to responding with emotional insults. He wants to be a debater – Ha!
“The idea that just because we cannot have absolute liberal democracy therefore the idea can’t work is so ridiculous and unrealistic that it hardly deserves further comment.” -> Further evidence that Abu Wanabe has no intellectual capacity to debate such issues. There is a clear distinction between the utopian idea of “liberal democracy” which you are “for” and the political democracies which actually exist. You accuse others of believing in “fantasist” ideas, but fail to analyse your own, self proclaimed, utopian beliefs.
“ No political system is perfect nor has been implemented in a perfect way. Same goes for your Islamist ideology – when was that ever implemented ‘perfectly’ as outlined by HT?” -> Like Rashad, you like inventing points which were never made. No one mentioned “perfect implementation”. Carefully read, without your lens of political correctness, what was written before and you may learn something new. Please stop getting emotional.
“Quoting a few western writers who are critical of liberal democracy is hardly proof that it is unworkable.” -> No proof has been presented to show the unworkable nature of democracy. That requires an article in itself. Again this shows how naive you are on these matters. Clearly you don’t even know what a “proof” is.
“Liberal democracy is the lifeblood of groups like HT. Do you not see the irony here? You can only get away with the things you say because you live in a liberal democracy, learn to appreciate it mate and of course its not perfect, no political system is.” -> Liberal democracy does not exist. How can something which does not exist be the life blood of anything? Again your naivety and desire to be a “wanabe academic” , blinded by political correctness, causes you to ask amateurish questions. The irony is that you support defamation of people, yet claim to believe in the idea of “Liberal democracy”.
“Islam did not define a system of government, it provided guidance for all aspects of life.”-> Lets be precise. Islam, amongst many legal sources, consists of the Quran, Sunnah and Scholarly jurisprudence. Time and again I have quoted classical scholars who define the structure of an Islamic state, so I won’t repeat myself. You know the posts. Like I have already mentioned in my other posts, there are clear injunctions in these sources about how an Islamic government is to be run. As Muslims who submit to Allah (SWT) we would like to follow Allah (SWT)s injunctions and the sunnah of Muhammad (SAW) about how a government should be run. Just like there was a method for praying salat, there is an Islamic method for structuring a government and executing laws. Just like there is difference of opinion on Salat, there is a difference of opinion on how an Islamic government should be structured. But clearly, there are core aspects about Islamic government which the majority of classical scholars have outlined. Namely, and as proven from textual evidences in my previous posts, that there has to be one Muslim Caliph and he must rule by what Allah (SWT) has revealed i.e. Islam. He must implement the Islamic hudood unless a reality exists in which the implementation of such hudood can be lifted. This is what the vast majority of the polled Muslim Ummah want. For sure there are differences of opinon on some of detail, but there is no difference of opinion on this core aspect. HT have their own ijtihad on some of the detail. The caliph may decide not to adopt HT’s ijtihad on the mubah areas if he has other valid Islamic opinions. Again, your amateurish intellect has always failed to grasp this point.
“That is why Muslim empires in history each differed in their governance.” -> All Islamic states had one Caliph who claimed to rule by the sources of Islam. There were periods when two rulers claimed to be caliph at the same time, but Islamic scholars who wrote about this period had a clear criteria on defining which Caliph was the rightful ameer ul mumineen.
“The Ottomans had the Millet system, the Safavids had the Divan system and the Moghuls only used Shariah for some criminal cases whilst letting regional tribal cheifs decide other more general matters. Each claimed to be guided by aspects of Islam whilst their political decisions were based on power, greed, interests of the people, wealth all the usual things. The Ottomans changed their governance after the Tanzimat reforms and incorporated French legal codes into their governance structure. So your 1400 year myth is exactly that, a myth.” -> An amateurish understanding of history, taken from google and your failed academic masters, leads to amateurish conclusions. The historical record is vast in depth and has clear examples of a consistent Islamic structure in place with a Caliph who stated clearly that he ruled by Islamic sources for a 1400 year period. There are many examples of imperfect rule and more examples of progress, justice and institutional transparency. Your mention of the Tanzimat reforms and the Ottomans incorporation of the French legal code is naïve and again amateurish. You clearly have no idea about the history of both scenarios. Do you know what “Tanzimant” actually means? The Shariah penal code was never “abolished”. Please provide evidence of this?
Tanzimat linguistically means to “Ordering” or “regulating”. In ottoman history it has been said to refer to edicts of the Hatt-I Humayun in 1856 (The imperial reform edict) and/or the Hatt-I Serif of Gulhane in 1839 (The Impeiral reform edict) . It also refers to the sum of the reformation period from 1839 to about 1881. In the Hatt I Humayun as in the previous Hatt I Serif of Gulhane, there was no idea of abolishing the hudood of the Shariah. These reforms promised equality of Ottomon subjects with regards to taxes, government position and military service and re-affirmed the greater representative participation of Non Muslim subjects in provincial councils. At no point did the administration of the caliph abolish the Islamic hudood. They introduced these reforms in the last years of the Ottomon Khilafah because it was declining and the un-Islamic concept of nepotism had set in. The Tanzimat reforms in the period 1856 – 1875 were lead by Ali Pasha and Fuat Pasha, both students of Rashid Pasha. Where are previous Tanzimat talked mainly about economy, employment and schooling, this period took emphasized the Islamic concept of equality between non-Muslims and Muslims. But the two pasha’s took these reforms further by calling for the introduction of the French Penal Code with regards to equality of non-Muslim and Muslims.
R Peters in his book Crime and Punishment in Islamic law states:
“Whereas the Penal Codes of 1840 and 1850 were very much a continuation of
traditional Ottoman legislation in criminal matters, the 1858 Penal Code was different, it
was clearly of French inspiration especially in its structure, system and general
notions….”
More so
“…many sections dealing with the specific offences are translations of the French Penal Code of 1810.”
“In spite of its Western origins, however, its introduction did not entail a clean break with the past, as for example the 1883 introduction of the French Law did. The code can be regarded as a legislation of ta’zir and siyasa within the context of an Islamic legal system, especially since it refers the adjudication of private rights arising from homicide and wounding to Sharia justice. “
Raymond Peters also kindly provided us with a translation of an important part
of the 1858 Ottoman Penal Code:
“Article 1 of the code reads
“This Code contains and guarantees the measure of punishment for ta’zir offences,
the defining and enforcement of which belongs, according to the Sharia, to the
political authorities. The reason is that offences committed against private persons are
violations of the public order and, that, therefore it is the duty of the state to punish
them in the same way as the punishment of offences committed directly against the
state. However this Code will under no circumstances infringe upon individual rights
acknowledged by the Sharia”
What the Code indicates, at least formally, is the continuation of the sharia criminal code. In cases that do not reach the strict criteria that are required for hudud, one then goes to the mixed courts or the Nizamiya courts later on and the Penal Code comes into play.
Even still Still Ruth Miller in her Apostates and Bandits: Religious and Secular Interaction in the Administration of Late Ottoman Criminal Law in a very good article provides some statistical insight into the distribution of different cases, including the criminal ones, between the shariah, mixed and “secular courts” in this crucial period, 1840-1908.
Let us just deal with the period 1851-1858. I quote
“…out of a total of fifteen documents including twenty cases involving murder
wounding and corruption, 62% contain Şer’i writs and 39% do not. Further 35% are
legitimized upon Şeriat, 12% upon the code and 41% upon both and 12% neither”
She goes on
“…Finally when looking at the sentences passed 57% are religious, 21% are secular,
and 21% are siyasi”
We must remember that the notion “secular” refers to punishments that are based on
the Kanun i.e. related to curf and taczir. We really do have an overlap between the
concept of “secular” and “siyasi” in Ottoman literature. So how did the procedure
take place? Ruth Miller continues on and says:
“Following the initial review, the situation of the naibs is also examined by the office of
Şeyhülislam. Finally the central council decides upon the punishment (banishment) for
the müdür, in keeping with the criminal code. Simultaneously, the office of the
Şeyhülislam decides upon punishment (less severe banishment or dismissal) for the
naibs in keeping with the spirit of the criminal code. What is therefore occurring in this
later decade is again a blending of the nizami and Şer’i jurisdiction…”
“In general, it stipulated that for all blood cases-murder and wounding …the heirs or
the police would first appear in a court of arbitration so that it could be established
without question that Şer’i jurisdiction did not override nizamin jurisdiction. If it did then
the question of diyet or kisas would be decided in the arbitration court.”
Clearly in this period we do not have an abolishment of the sharia Penal Code even practically. Ok what about the period where we had the introduction of certain aspects of the Napoleonic code?
Well in the period 1859-1876 we have:
“47% contain Şeri’i writs and 53% do not. As for legitimization, 16 % are by the
requirements of Şeriat alone, 19% are by the requirements of the code alone, 62% are
legitimized upon both, and 4% are legitimized by neither.
Finally as for sentences passed
“20% are Şer’i sentences, 76% are sentences from the code and 4% are siyasi sentences”
Clearly the Sharia is not abolished even with the introduction of the scenarios you mention.
Again our lack of historical depth, resulting from the emulation of your ideological masters, leads you to amateurish ill informed conclusions.
Abu Wanabe said
“Islam defines how I pray, it guides how I conduct financial transactions.” -> The sheyookh on the board of HSBC amanah finance can explain clearly how Islam “defines” financial transactions. Again your lack of understanding is on clear display. You obviously have no idea about Islamic contract law!
“So I am a Muslim, I believe in Liberal Democracy and I don’t see any contradiction between those two statements.” -> Yep, as any read can see, blind political correctness, resulting in amateurish conclusions will lead you to make such statements.
Abu Yusuf,
Thanks for the extra, “googled” info.
abdul rehman,
I have read all of rene guenon’s books, some of them more than once, and they are now gathering dust on my bookshelf. If want to borrow any of them to read, please feel free. You would probably benefit from actually reading the books of the writers you quote.
Your last post was typical of your habit of avoiding the question and resorting to abortive little derogatory remarks. Whatever group you are trying to be an ambassador for (be it H.T., or whatever), you’re doing a seriously poor job.
Why don’t you just give up and admit defeat?
Oh, I see you have already done so on this thread:
http://www.spittoon.org/archives/67
Abu Yusuf,
Alhamdolillah, I only quote from books which I have read from front to back and have, well maintained, in my library.
JZK for your offer on lending the books. But no need.
As for “abortive derogatory remarks”, they are the currency of this site, which you clearly support.
abdul rehman,
1. Which book did you get the Rene Guenon quote from?
2. Have you read this book from front to back?
(remember, Allah is your witness).
abdul rehman,
No need to answer that question. I was at first puzzled about which book this alleged quote from Rene Guenon came from, as it seemed to vary quite a lot from Guenon’s very distinctive writing style and sentence structure. Also, the quote sounded very unlike Rene Guenon in it’s content as he almost always employed metaphysical principles to state his case. I don’t recall any writing of Guenon’s where he takes recourse to “doctors and nurses” to make his argument.
The truth, abdul rehman, is that the passage you claimed to have taken from a book by Rene Guenon which you have read “from front to back” was not written by Rene Guenon at all. Face it, you copied and pasted those words from here:
http://www.reneguenon.net/Ingles/InglpontualLivro.html
and the words were written by one Luiz Pontual who cites Guenon as one of his major influences.
Oh dear.
abdul rehman, how long will you persist in this nonsense and falsehood? How long will you accuse people of taking arguments from google when this is all you do yourself all along. If you’re going to copy and paste from the internet, at least cite your sources correctly.
Let me give you a real quote from Guenon, which he used to have printed on the frontispiece of some of his earlier books: “Vincit Omnia Veritas” – The truth shall conquer all.
Now, how about replying to my last question to you?
http://www.spittoon.org/archives/67
1) I have purchased a list of essays which range from critiques and justifications of democracy. Rene’s essay on the illusion of democracy was one.
2) I have his book “The Crisis of the Modern World”. ISBN 0900588-50-0 and have read it cover to cover. His critique of democracy in this book starts on page 73 “The most decisive argument against democracy..”
Abdul Rehman,
1. How skillfully you avoid the question.
I asked you “Which book did you get the Rene Guenon quote from?”. And you don’t say which book, you just say “I have purchased a list of essays which range from critiques and justifications of democracy. Rene’s essay on the illusion of democracy was one.”
Okay, so let me tell you that you bought Luiz Pontual’s book from reneguenon.net for $28, and thats where you got the quote from.
This still does not change the fact that the quote was not written by rene guenon. It was actually written by Luiz Pontual. Get your references right.
2. I’m glad that you have read the The Crisis of The Modern World. This was one of his earlier works where he “cleared the air” of modern misunderstandings. I myself don’t believe democracy is the best possible solution for mankind, for the very reasons that Rene Guenon states. However, I would argue that a Khilafah enforced on the populace against their will by an unlightened group of brigands who claim to represent Islam, but who reject some of its most important traditional principles, is an even worse solution by many magnitudes. You will find reasons for this in many of Rene Guenon’s other books, most notably: “The King of the World”, “Traditional Forms and Cosmic Cycles”, “Spiritual Authority and Temporal Power” and “Insights into Islamic Esoterism and Taoism”.
Again, if you want to borrow these books from me all you have to do is ask.
Rehman – like I said pick one issue at a time and we can go through another ass whupping with you. So where do you want to start?
There is no point trying to discuss man, life and universe in a single forum exchange.
BTW – what happened to the other Abdul Rehman, it’s great sharing names isn’t it. You seem more upset about Rashad then he was, whats up still upset that he left your cult.
Abdul Rehman, could you please clarify why you previously posted as Shahid Malik and said you would not be coming back, then did come back and started posting as Abdul Rehman.
Also, from your style and IP address it seems that you are not the same person as the previous Abdul Rehman who posted comments on the Spittoon. As a courtesy to that Abdul Rehman, please will you adopt another name (‘Abdul Rehman 2′, perhaps?) so as to allow the two of you to be distinguished.
Kind regards,
Yossarian
Abu Yusuf,
Rene Guenon did write an essay called “The illusion of democracy”. I have it here.
Dear brother, I think we got off to a bad footing. Forgive me if I have offended in anyway. I detect sincerity in your tone and for that I am thankful.
JZK for your offer.
Yossarian,
Shahid Malik is a good friend of mine and actually came round my house to discuss the spittoon! Me and him have profound disagreements, but we both agree that this site is full of insincere people.
He is a proponent for some of the things you guys state. But left because of your derogratory comments and immature statements, which I pointed out on my PC. He respects brother AR Jaffar and couldnt help himself when reading your attacks on him, so decided to post a comment from my house stating his intentions.
I don’t blame him.
As for my ip adress changing, well I have a different ip address for my 3g data laptop, work and home!
Abu yusuf,
Here are my quotes:
“One of the false cornerstones of “democracy” is the vote, which ideally should be a collective judgment on the art of governing. Still, no one could sincerely defend the eccentric idea that a majority is intellectually qualified and has sufficient knowledge about administration and government to the point of exercising judgment on these matters.”
“Maintaining due proportions, such equalitarian supposition would equate claiming that everyone is qualified, for example, for deliberating on a medical matter. A real situation, such as that of a person hit by a car, could well illustrate such absurdity. A person has just been hit and is seriously injured. A dozen curious onlookers anxiously observe the event. What is the plausible criterion for determining which among them can help the injured person? Naturally, those qualified to do it, that is, doctors or nurses. A voting would be entirely preposterous, for a majority is never qualified for medical, as well as administrational, functions.”
Here is Rene Guenon’s quotes:
“One of the false foundations of the democracy is the vote, that should be ideally a collective judgement of the art of governing. Now, nobody, sincerely, would defend the peculiar idea that the majority would be intellectually qualified and with enough knowledge on what is administration and government to be in conditions of exercising a judgement. ”
“Kept the due proportions, such supposition igualitarist would be equal to affirm to that everybody is qualified, for instance, on a medical ubject. A real situation would illustrate very well such absurd. A person is seriously wounded. Dozens of onlookers observe afflicted the event. Which could be the plausible criterion to determine who can help the wounded? Naturally, the ones that are qualified for such, that is, doctors or nurses. A voting would be entirely irrelevant, because the majority is never qualified for the medical function, as well as it is not for the admistration. ”
The sentence structures are indeed different, but the meanings are clearly the same and correctly attributed to Rene Guenon. I quoted the former as it is easier to understand than the latter.
abdul rehman,
Let me try and make it simple for you to understand:
Neither of those quotes were written by Rene Guenon.
They are both taken from a book by Luiz Pontual called, “Do you Still Believe in Democracy”, from Chapter 1 “The Democratic Illusion”.
The first quote you probably copied and pasted from here:
http://www.reneguenon.net/Ingles/InglpontualLivro.html
The second quote is a slightly modified version of Pontual’s writing which has done the rounds on the internet under the mistaken belief that it was written by Rene Guenon. This is why you should not believe everything you read on the net. You probably copied and pasted it from here:
http://www.prometheism.net/euvolution/illusion.html
Do you really think Rene Guenon or his publisher would allow non-sensical passages like “Kept the due proportions, such supposition igualitarist would be equal to affirm to that everybody is qualified…” to be printed without editing?
Please.. enough of this twisting and turning. I really hope that one day you DO get to read the works of Rene Guenon. In the mean time, how about answering this question:
http://www.spittoon.org/archives/67
Guenon was a staunch monarchist and a spiritual elitist and it stands to reason that he would oppose democracy for what it stands for.
I’ve read this critique of democracy before and I’ve always thought it was Guenon’s weakest line of reasoning. The “real situation” he uses to illustrate the absurdity of democracy is a strawman.
In a real situation, if the person was seriously wounded, the dozens of onlookers would *choose* from amongst them doctors and nurses who would be qualified to deal with the wounded person. Failing that they would *select* from amongst them people to transport the wounded person to a hospital. That decision is in itself a form of election by the group.
And that is almost always what happens is such situations.
Faisal,
This is probably not the place to discuss the ideas of Rene Guenon
However, Rene Guenon was a “monarchist” and “spiritual elitist” only in the same sense that Plato, who also criticised democracy, was. That is, he believed that the person best qualified to be the overall ruler was someone who had achieved spiritual enlightenment, ie., a “Philisopher-King” in Platonic terminology, or a “Rajarshi” (Raja+Rishi) in Hindu terminology. For Guenon, this followed from the understanding that the physical world proceeds from the spiritual world, and that the spiritual has primacy over the physical. Needless to say, this view has been all but eradicated in the modern world, where even the word “spiritual” (let alone “enlightenment”) is almost everywhere grossly misunderstood.
Rene Guenon was a lone but brave voice. But he wasn’t a “monarchist” and a “spiritual elitist” in the sense that he loved the Queen or that he thought “my religion is better than yours”, or “religious people are better than non-religious people”. Far from it. He was much much more intelligent than that.
I agree Abu Yusuf, best to leave Guenon alone if you’re trying to use him to back up Hizb-ut Tahrir’s Khilafah system. But who’s going to tell Abdul Rehman that?
My point was that Guenon criticised the Modern world for not being Traditional. But if you come from the premise that the true meaning of spiritualism has all been lost in the Modern world, then I think it’s incorrect to suggest that Democracy is not fit for it!
Faisal,
Also, as I said above (still awaiting moderation), that that “Doctors and Nurses” analogy was not actually written by Guenon but one Luiz Pontual who is trying to explain Guenon’s metaphysical expositions by transposing them to a physical example. However, such transpositions don’t always work and end up in, as you have shown, logical inconsistencies. It’s a but like trying to transpose a 3-D image to 2-D .. you necessarily lose some of the form, if not the meaning.
This is another reason why I think people like abdul rehman are so dangerous. They seem to make it their function to misunderstand spiritual truths and, once misunderstood, they will propogate these distorted meanings to divert as many more people as possible from the truth. Whether they do this knowingly or not is not clear.
I think you’re right. In a sense, the modern world deserves democracy.
Abu Yusuf,
You state:
“Also, as I said above (still awaiting moderation), that that “Doctors and Nurses” analogy was not actually written by Guenon but one Luiz Pontual who is trying to explain Guenon’s metaphysical expositions by transposing them to a physical example. ”
Reading a few of guenon’s books, does not make you an authority on defining what he did and did not write.
I have quoted from Guenon’s article above. He did come up with the doctor and nurses analogy:
“Kept the due proportions, such supposition igualitarist would be equal to affirm to that everybody is qualified, for instance, on a medical ubject. A real situation would illustrate very well such absurd. A person is seriously wounded. Dozens of onlookers observe afflicted the event. Which could be the plausible criterion to determine who can help the wounded? Naturally, the ones that are qualified for such, that is, doctors or nurses. A voting would be entirely irrelevant, because the majority is never qualified for the medical function, as well as it is not for the administration”
Luiz Pontual quotes the exact same paragraph, but puts in more understandable sentence structures, nevertheless retaining the meaning.
Abu Yusuf, this is why people like yourself are so dangerous. You make up inaccurate points to justify your position. Clearly, this is amateurish behavior. I take back what I said about detecting a sincere tone from you. You, like the other cowards, hide behind a pseudonym and implicitly support the public slander of Muslims. Allah (SWT) is indeed our witness, you did nothing about addressing this munkar, so be prepared to answer for that on the last day.
” but puts in more understandable ” –> is meant to say:
” but puts *it* in more understandable”
abdul rehman,
You don’t get it do you? It seems you don’t even understand the simplest thing and when someone tries to explain it to you time and time again you continue to persist in falsehood.
It should be obvious from the links I sent, to anyone who cares to use his/her eyes and brain, that Pontual wrote that article and not Guenon.
Look, I really don’t enjoy embarrasing you. But I have to point out falsehood when I see it.
But let me give you a chance now to embarrass me. Please tell me the name of the book or journal where you saw this alleged article of Guenon published. (Guenon’s articles were published in ‘Le Voile d’Isis’ and ‘Studies in Comparative Religion’ in the 20′s, 30′s and 40′s. I obtained all the back issues of the Studies from the personal collection of the publisher a few years ago and can ask a friend to look up a reference in Le Voile. As mentioned earlier, I have all his books so can check the reference in his books).
All you have to do is state the year of publication, ISBN number if any, and page number where this article was published. Can you do that?
By the way, my name became Abu Yusuf after the birth of my first son Yusuf.
May Allah have mercy on us all.
abdul rehman,
By the way, after the editors of this website posted that ridiculous article directed at you with that bollywood movie clip, I wrote to them suggesting that it was over the top and tasteless. I don’t know if I managed to influence them, but shortly after that the article was deleted.
I really don’ t care what you think about me, or where you direct your frustration while writing online posts.
But could you please answer my question:
http://www.spittoon.org/archives/67
Abu Yusuf, is your real name Abdul Rehman? If not, then why are you using it?
Rene Guenon, not only wrote books, but essays and letters. You obviously don’t have them all, as you don’t have this essay.
The website from which I purchased these essays no longer exists. Well not in the place it used to be. There is no ISBN number as it is a simple binding.
Keep looking and you will find it!
JZK for advising Spittoon.
I have answered that question in the post above. To quote:
“..Killing innocent people is clearly haraam on a similar basis.”
Killing innocent people is haraam in any scenario. HT do not say it is allowed to kill innocent people to seek martyrdom. Please provide your evidence if you have any? If your talking about defending oneself from an army, then an army is not innocent people. If your talking about fighting those who take your property by force and live in it, then such people are not innocent from an Islamic and Humanitarian perspective.
abdul rehman,
Rene Guenon wrote long befoe websites existed.
The website you ordered this essay no longer
exists? Haha
I’m asking you for the details of the publication where
this alleged article by Guenon was printed and,
as expected, you cannot provide them.
You have just lost all credibility. Not that you
had much to begin with.
I’m talking about suicide bombing in public places
which indisciminately kills civilians, not just military.
Look back at your HT leaflets. Or does that website
no longer exist either?
Ha,
You are the one with the credibility problem. The essays were purchased about 6 years ago. You foolish person, purchasing Rene Guenon’s essay from a website does not mean websites had to exist during his time!
Stop bickering, grow up and find a job – Do something practical with your life.
abdul rehman,
I will credit you with enough intelligence to understand this:
1. You are right, if the essay was purchased from a website the website did not have to exist during Guenon’s time.
2. Guenon’s essay had to be published somewhere in order for the editor of the website to have sold it 6 years ago.
3. Therefore, you should be able to give me the details of the publication where the essay was ORIGINALLY printed.
If you cannot provide me that, at least give me the name of the website.
Can you give me the name of the website?
Originally purchased the bidning from http://www.classicalessays.com –> no longer works.
I have also found another website which has, word for word Rene’s essay, which I have in paper form. These were not written by and has nothing to do with LP.
http://www.geocities.com/integral_tradition/illusion.html
It also has many of his other essays:
http://www.geocities.com/integral_tradition/texts.html
It is difficult to actually find some of his letters and essays today. You seem content with googling and wiking, to conclude the non-existance of such essays and letters – thats speaks volumes about your credibility.
Grow up.
.
And now my comments are being moderated. I have not used foul language, or made insulting remarks, like the cowards on this website, yet my comments are moderated. Shame on you all.
I will post this again as it was ignored twice:
Originally purchased the bidning from http://www.classicalessays.com –> no longer works.
I have also found another website which has, word for word Rene’s essay, which I have in paper form. These were not written by and has nothing to do with LP.
http://www.geocities.com/integral_tradition/illusion.html
It also has many of his other essays:
http://www.geocities.com/integral_tradition/texts.html
It is difficult to actually find some of his letters and essays today. You seem content with googling and wiking, to conclude the non-existance of such essays and letters – thats speaks volumes about your credibility.
Grow up.
abdul rehman,
Please don’t start crying. Its very unbecoming.
It appears that any post that contains a web link now goes into “waiting for moderation” until one of the editors comes and approves it. I’ve been faced with this as well.
Sabr.
I will post this again as it was ignored twice:
Originally purchased the bidning from www[dot]classicalessays[dot]com –> no longer works.
I have also found another website which has, word for word Rene’s essay, which I have in paper form. These were not written by and has nothing to do with LP.
www[dot]geocities.com/integral_tradition/illusion[dot]html
It also has many of his other essays:
www[dot]geocities[dot]com/integral_tradition/texts[dot]html
For the sake of transparency, I will look for the reciept and try to contact the publisher for details. Am sure it will be beneficial.
You seem content with googling and wiking, to conclude the non-existence of such essays and letters – that speaks volumes about your lack of academic textual credibility.
Grow up.
abdul rehman,
1. You must have heard of http://www.archive.org which archives every single website and its changes in a historical database that goes back to 1996.
If you have not, then let me give you a demonstration. You can see the changes in current HT website which was launched back in 2005 if you click on this link:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://hizb.org.uk
So I searched for “www.classicalessays.com” in http://www.archive.org and guess what? “Sorry, no matches”. The website apparently never existed.
I also checked domain-history.domaintools.com and alexa.com which are widely used tools to check domain registration histories. And guess what? http://www.classicalessays.com has never been registered
So what’s going on abdel rehman? Could it be that this is a fictitious website you just made up? Certainly seems like it.
2. With regard to the link on http://www.geocities.com/integral_tradition/illusion.html
I have already tried to explain to that this website contains a mistake. Let me try and explain again:
The article was originally written by Luiz Pontual and posted here:
http://www.reneguenon.net/Ingles/democracy.html.
and here:
http://www.reneguenon.net/Ingles/InglpontualLivro.html
The article is actually the first part of Pontual’s book, which he self-publishes and sells from his website for $28.
The owner of the geocities link you sent copied and pasted Pontual’s writing and erroneously attributed it to Rene Guenon because, probably because he got it from “www.reneguenon.net”. Very sloppy and very misleading. Unfortunately, you got mislead.
And seriously speaking, you must understand that if it really was an article by Rene Guenon, then it must have an original publication source that can be cited. Otherwise it is simply not creditable.
Please don’t take any of this personally. I am taking the time to point out the truth to you, and hoping that you will find the humility to accept that you made a mistake.
Allah’s Messenger (peace be upon him) said: “Whoever has an atom’s worth of kibr (pride and arrogance) in his heart will not enter Paradise.” So a man said: What about a person who loves (i.e. takes pride in) wearing beautiful clothes and beautiful shoes? So he replied: “Indeed Allah is beautiful and loves beauty. Kibr is to reject the truth, and to despise the people.” (Sahih Muslim, 1/65)
I expect this post to take a long time to reach you sice it contains many links and will go into “waiting for moderation”.
All of your credibility was on clear display when you resort to shallow mocking of sincere Muslims:
Faisal Ghazi
Sing with me kaafirs!
Were going to party
Khilafah, jihadis, forever
Come on and sing along!
Were going to party
Khilafah, hizbis, together
Come on and sing my song!
They’re jamming in the street
All night long! (all night)
[Sorry Lionel Richie]
Shikwa:
“Inshallah, one day I will be this fat”
Abu Yusuf
Posted July 10, 2009 at 2:29 pm | Permalink
“You do istanja like so…”
To which Faisal Ghazi replied:
“haha”
Faisal Ghazi
Posted July 10, 2009 at 3:39 pm
GLOBAL ISTANJA
The Need & the Method
Did Rene Guenon’s writings teach you to mock Muslims Abu Yusuf? You obviously have a very twisted interpretration of sufi doctrine and his texts.
abdul rehman,
They taught me a sense of perspective, how not to take ourselves too seriously and to laugh when there is something to laugh about.
I sent a reply to your post about “classicalessays[dot]com” proving that this website never existed. It is awaiting moderation.
Abdul Rahman – When you write that “All of your credibility was on clear display when you resort to shallow mocking of sincere Muslims”, what exactly is your point?
Just because individuals are “sincere” it does not mean that they are above mockery. Likewise, just because a person is sincere it does not mean that his words and deeds do not cause harm to Muslims.
To take an extreme example – Osama bin Laden is undoubtedly “sincere” but that does not mean that he is right, that he is not harming Muslims or that he should not be criticised or mocked.
Peace.
abdul rehman,
Posts have been moderated now. Please scroll up and read my post about “classicalessays.com”.
Incidentally – and before you point this out – I was not intending to compare Imran Waheed to Osama bin Laden!! Ws.
Abu Yusuf,
That website did exist. Why it does not appear on that website is a limitation of that website. Also they do not claim to have info on all urls. Read their about section. Some URLs are registered, but then if a company goes bust and cannot afford registration, the url is released. I suspect this may have happend to classicalessays[dot]com
Once i find the reciept, I will post its details for your sake.
Your istinja remark shows your juvenile nature. Please apply the meaning of the ahadith to yourself, before invoking it upon others.
Al Qanaas,
The point is clear. People like Abu Yusuf et all, try to be serious and quote scripture. Yet their insincere unIslamic juvenile behaviour is on clear display.
The currency of this site is to degrade and defame. They are traders of this currency.
abdul rehman,
Come on, you have to admit, that istanja joke was quite funny. I would laugh if someone said that about a picture of me.
Why can’t you cite the source where Rene Guenon article was originally published?
abdul rehman,
Anway, fabricated websites and uncredited sources aside, all of this is just a digression (albeit a rather entertaining one).
The only reason that I was engaging with you at all is because I wanted to get an answer from an HT representative about the question of whether or not HT promotes suicide bombing (the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians and oneself) as a legitimate act of martyrdom.
I didn’t get one conclusive answer from you about that. All you had to say was something like this:
It’s a shame I have to read this from The Guardian and not get it directly from an HT adherent.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/dec/24/religion.uk
Oh well.
Anyway, try and read some real Rene Guenon writings some time. Inshallah, you will benefit.
Salamu ‘Alaykum wa Rahmatullai wa Barakutuh.
Abu Yusuf,
Actually I don’t find it funny. It is very unIslamic and speaks volumes about your character.
The essay I have does not quote a source. But the publisher should be able to provide this. I will get that info Inshallah.
Walaikum Salaam warahmatullah wabarak tuh
Remember, those you mock will have a case against you on the day of judgment, Inshallah.
Not if God has a sense of humour!
A website that sells “classical essays” but doesn’t quote the source? I’d get a refund if I were you.
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practise to deceive!”
Abu Yusuf,
Again your lack of textual historical awareness is on clear display.
You have obviously forgotten the *fact* that the British government tried to proscribe HT but failed, because HT have a track record of working peacefully, under huge pressure, to bring much needed change in the Muslim world. In the first PMQs John Reid MP, spoke clearly in response to David Cameron’s question about proscribing HT saying:
“..We will have egg on our faces if we try them in court again..”
Mercer on Newsnight said the same to Jeremy Paxman.
You and the writers on this site thrive on speculation and use the media as a source to make claims. This is your problem and this is why no one takes you seriously.
abdul rehman,
I’m afraid it’s clear to everyone who reads the above that you lied about your sources and dreamt up the name of a non-existent website to try and back up your argument. You were given numerous chances to back down, but insisted on keeping up the sham and just made it worse for yourself.
So any further attempts by you to defame somebody’s character or to criticize their lack of intellectual rigour will simply be futile. Don’t even bother. You’ll be a laughing stock.
And the need to lie in order to back up your arguments doesn’t reflect very well on HT, does it?
You just got – what’s the phrase again? ah, yes – you just got your ass whooped! Fourty lashes!
Don’t blame me. You brought it on yourself.
Abu Yusuf,
You have revealed your true colours. Using shallow emotional language speaks for itself.
Keep patting yourself on the back. Any neutral reader can see right through it.
That is the story of the people who run this site, they, like yourself, thrive on self proclaimed glory.
Grow up and find a job
Faisal Gharwala,
You should not post such comments. No need to stoop to the level of these guys.