Quilliam director attacked

The Quilliam-obsessive Islamists over at TraditionalIslamism have already produced not one but five consecutive posts on this. The last one, entitled ‘Who shall we really believe?’ ends with the line:

“Wonderful, the fairy tales that we get from the Quilliam traitors!”

“traitors” to what exactly?

This lie has already been repeated and exposed on MANY other sites. However for those interested in TRUTH this should be of interest

Good to see Spittoon has started to attract ‘troofers’…I feel like I’ve spotted the first cuckoo of Spring!

Q: Did u look in the mirror?

Rashad me old mate, it’s the high level of comments like that which make the blogosphere thrive!

How interesting.

The author seems to have no problem in quoting freely from Ed Hussain but the minute someone suggests a different version (mind you, with eyewitness statements which would form the strongest employable tool in a legal sense), some readers seem to have a problem with this. As per usual, the name-throwing of ‘Islamist’ and ‘HT troll’ seems to say more of the comment-writers intellects than of anyone else’s. Surely it’s time we stopped stooping to the level of banter we read in the papers?

… A bit of sincerity wouldn’t hurt. If we are going to discuss matters properly, there is a nobler standard that can be used.

If I was to accept your tremendous decency displayed in your post, my friend, I would dispare at the level of opposition HT faces as being childs-play.

I am not commenting on this chaps testimony, but I will draw attention to the following: that the actions of a single person, in any corporation, organisation or entity, cannot be interpreted to represent as a whole the behaviour of every single person of that movement. Surely when it comes to seeing one black person mug someone in London, your consciousness and logic would kick in and you would remind yourself ‘Oh no, not ALL black people can be like this.’ This seems to be an attitude you conveniently put aside when it comes to someone you don’t like, namely HT. Are you a person of principles or do you decide what to believe as you go along?

It is this attitude that has been created by the past few years of media frenzy over Muslims in general: it’s unacceptable for normal people to be stopped and searched at the rate apparent Muslims are, but it’s okay when it comes to those Muslims.

Can we please raise the level of discussion and intellect.

Thank you for demonstrating your intellectual ability.

I was attempting to induce a friendly atmosphere here where we can discuss in a civil manner. It seems that you do not believe in an honest and civil discussion amongst those who disagree. It would surprise me truly if this is how you are when discussing in person. On that note, if you live in London, maybe a few of us can meet for a coffee and have these discussions? Middle of next week would be great for me.

Obviously, if I was to use your approach of inductive reasoning and apply it to people, I’d see one black person, then another and then another and, as per your implementation of this to people, would conclude with the same darn judgements of those evil BNP lot!

So maybe I can expect you to pass racial stereotypes now, or maybe your selectiveness will stop you from descending to that level.

No one’s asking you to subscribe to Islamism, thank you very much indeed.

Your assumption that I am unaware of inductive reasoning smacks of haughty arrogance. You can easily take into account other issues when talking to Islamists, but hey, you have already decided on your conclusions so what’s the point, right?

What do you mean when you say that your hypothesis about black people is negated by facts you can take into account such as biology? I am interested in what you intend by this biology business. Please elaborate what biology of black people has to do with the hypothesis of black people mentioned earlier (which, by the way, isn’t my own but one given only as example).

You say you have had your fair share of discussions with Islamists, among others and you object to meeting with someone you’ve exchanged a few posts with. Real world discussions take place in person, not over a screen.

It is apparent to me that you are not interested in changing your views and accepting the possibility that you may be wrong, something clear in the holier-than-thou attitude weaved between your sentences. In that case, the only reason I can induce from you posting is to spread your hate and dislike but not be willing to accept you may be wrong.

There are plenty of other places to spew hatred – this blog is hopefully one where we can discuss matters in a civil and respectful manner. I will welcome open discussion without the childishness thus far displayed.

Wow, you do impress me by ignoring my own posts.

Firstly, I did not attempt to bring you into the racism issue – I was and still am interested by what biology of black people has to do with what was mentioned earlier. You mentioned it, and I would like to know what you intended.

Now, as for your post at 1235, there was no reluctance whatsoever in engaging in it. My immediate post after clearly highlighted the principle that one bad apple does not spoil the bunch. It is this principle you would use when seeing a black person, for example, attacking someone. But it is this same principle you convenienty put aside when it comes to HT.

Even if Maajid was hit/pushed aside at the face in close proximity when Maajid was in squaring-up proximity with Muqeem (choose which narrative you will but I am sure you will choose it based upon your own bias), you cannot take this one example of someone who was provoked as representative of the whole of HT. And anyone here will know that stepping into the immediate space in front of an ex-boxer is a silly move to make, in the least a provocative gesture, whatever their political affiliation. You are unable to look at this situation by excluding the fact that he was HT (remember that stuff about ‘taking into account other facts’ that you mentioned?). Maybe you should consider that it’s a silly move to make with an ex-boxer trying to exit the situation but being prevented, PERIOD. But alas, your bias will prevent you from considering this even as a possibility.

If you have ever seen HT march in person (not over the screen), you will know they are physically do not behave in an intimidating manner at all. Then again, your bias has already decided the matter, so this raises my earlier question, why are you here when you have already decided that you’re not willing to change your opinions?

It must be helpful for you to say I hide behind a prolix and off-topic bluster. Need I remind you that I made an open invitation for members of this forum to discuss these issues in person in a coffee shop? Some hiding that is!

Firstly, the assumption that I am a peaceful man is correct, but the assumption I belong to any organisation has missed the mark. I am not a member of HT – I appreciate your assumption but in this case, an apology would be best before other members on this blog incorrectly label myself and devalue any of my opinions purely because of that.

Secondly, anyone who knows HT understands that they are not violent in the manner we understand, that is, in the way AQ is. This is the charge many governments make against HT and they are yet to substantiate these allegations whilst their torture cells are filled with peaceful HT members.

Now, when you say HT is not a peaceful organisation, I will remind us all that the word ‘violent’ is incredibly useful to play word games with. Are the US and UK governments ‘violent’ because they used their armies in Afghanistan, Iraq and now Pakistan? Are governments ‘violent’ because they use their armies? Are citizens ‘violent’ because they urge their governments to use military action against a foreign power, as was the case in the immdiate aftermath of 9/11?

The answer is no, of course using armies can be described as ‘violent’ but it is conventional violence, not in the same way that AQ does but in the way of 21st century warfare. Hence neither a government, organisation nor an individual can be accused of being ‘violent’ when using the state’s army. So if you have an organisation calling for the armies of the Muslim countries to intervene in the massacre of Gaza (Shikwa – you insisted this was something new on HTs part but it has been part of it’s call for decades), is that organisation ‘violent’? Listen to the talks in full and this is what you will understand, instead of selectively quoting parts and not quoting others.

As for stepping in front of a former pugilist; if you’ve somehow forgotten, boxing and other martial arts is a popular sport these days. They teach you self-control, yes, but they also teach you not to allow someone into your immediate space. As per the eyewitness testimonies, Maajid was not punched (which, I presume, if you were to be punched in the face by an ex-boxer you would have a broken nose at least and some blood) – he did step into the personal space of someone who clearly did not want him to and would not let him leave. If it were someone who wasn’t HT, I wonder if you would still be as judgemental as you are now and insist it was definitly an attack.

Please, a bit more rational and critical thinking and a bit less bias?

Thank you for the coronation. It must be an award none of your previous Islamist acquaintances have been afforded.

I would reply to your questions, but your bias and unwillingness to accept that you may be wrong makes this a waste of time. Anyone objectively following these comments will know that I have already stated my opinions. This isn’t about whether it’s right for someone to hit/punch someone in the head, no doubt a subject you would love to talk about as it’s an easier one to win. You are unwilling to take into account other facts.

You earlier wrote that you take into account other factors if you were to see a black person attacking someone. Yet in this case, you make no such allowance – the Islamists ARE wrong and so in this case, this one Islamist (who you do not know personally so how dare you cast a judgement on his personality) MUST have been the guilty one. Some objective-mindedness that is. You know, looking at the world in such an arrogant way will only build up illogical hate inside and I don’t advise it.

Also, you have said you are unwilling to talk about governments and yet you still want to discuss the language used by Dr Waheed in your selective post (selective in that you have forgotten to mention that his call was to the armies of the Muslim world to intervene). Well, you can’t have it all your way. Either you accept that people are well within their rights to call for state armies to be deployed in war zones or you don’t.

I, for one, am not interested in discussing with biased individuals who have arrogantly decided that they must be right. Your questions are not an attempt to get to the core issues – your questions are all about reaffirming your outlook. You will not be wasting any more of my time.

No, I am not an old chap. And I did not admit he was in the wrong.

Your absolute arrogance and selective self-deception proves that you only look at realities in the way you want to see it, as opposed to the objectiveness a civilised ‘old chap’ would. On the one hand, you consider ‘other factors’ when it comes to black people and on the other hand, you ignore the possibility when it comes to someone who has a political affiliation that you do not like. I would hate to walk in your shoes, to let someones political affiliation affect how I judge him/her as a person.

You see, your preconceived stance makes you look at the situation as if the guy deliberately got up and hit Maajid, and yet you do not know them both well enough to be able to get off your high-horse and issue an objective judgement. The reality is that Maajid approached the guy and was, over a period of time, demanding recognition and refusing to walk away as a civilised person would. He persisted for so long that Muqeeb got up and attempted to exit the situation (again, what a civilised person attempting to exercise self-control would do). Maajid still did not get the hint and ended up being pushed aside at the head when he stood in Muqeebs way. Now, if he had been punched by an ex-boxer in a deliberate attack, do you not think there would have been a broken nose in the incident? Certainly some level of medical attention would be required after a deliberate attack from an ex-boxer.

Your arrogance will, of course, blind you from seeing this. You believe what you want to and don’t use your intellect to critically analyse reality.

I did not distort any opinions, rather I looked at an issue with critical thinking. It would serve you well to do the same. And I hope you have the sense as well to never walk into the immediate space of an ex-boxer, taunt him even after he politely asks you to leave and then attempt to stand in the way of his exit – you may then have a laugh when you hear of people defending you after you ‘asked for it’.

You need to remind yourself of the incident.

No one is denying that there was physical contact between Maajid and Muqeeb. If you read both statements and critically analyse them, this is clear. The point of dispute is whether or not it was a deliberate attack linked directly to HT leadership somehow in the way Quilliam has attempted to portray. So of course I would not deny there was some physical contact – both the men involved, as well as the eyewitnesses, attest to this.

Now, no doubt you will discard the eyewitness attempts (‘They MUST be wrong – they agree with the wrong guy’). This is the lack of objectiveness on your part to which I allude. So please don’t accuse me of ducking issues, my posts show anything but the case.

Shikwa, I absolutely agree with you about the ‘self-righteous indignation and false piety’ – there is something of the stroppy teenager in ‘Abd al-Azeez, moaning that the world isn’t fair and everyone is just biased against him.

Well ‘Abd al-Azeez, sorry old chap, but the world just aint like that. Let usk now when you’ve moved on from 1924 into the present day.

Maybe he’s at halakah? Pining for a concept of the Ummah that never existed…

Abd al Azeez – you are right a single act by a single individual in an organisation should not be generalised to reflect the entire organisation. But in this case we are talking about fanatical ‘we want to conquer the entire world through jihad and kill millions’ HT. Not any normal organisation.

Granted they don’t all go around punching people but they are working for a state that would use violence to expand its borders and use medieval punishments and tortures. So spare us the sympathy and be honest.

In the name of Allah, sovereign over the heavens, Earth and Parliament and every law, even though he invented the principle of sovereignty only after he revealed he was sovereign, and it is my duty to believe without questioning how, Master of the universe and laws of Khilafat, Lord of the seven heavens and Khilafat, Creator of life, and Khilafat, I bear witness that he who is Muslim is political, and he who is not political is deficient in his faith, and I bear witness that the Khilafat is the system of Islam, and Islam is political, and he who rejects this rejects Salat because Salat is political, and I finally bear witness that zikr is political and the Khilafat will implement zikr on the heavens and earth, and Khilafat… to proceed:

I testify the absolute truth, because our Pakistan is dar-e-kufr and so lying is a noble good deed of Islam when at war with kufr, and the Khilafat will implement Islamic lying on the heavens and earth to defend the good name of Islam from the enemy who are trying to destroy it by their lies, like as Allah says, they will try to falsify news to put out the light of Islam, so we must lie to protect Islam from them, because kafir can never speak truth, it is not written in their religion to speak truth except in our Islam we are always truthworthy, which is why we lie, to make sure that only the haq prevails, which is the truth, and so we are truthworthy.

Being an eye witness to the hitting of Majid Nawaz, I tell the truth, Allah who is your witness. Majid Nawaz will next star in 007 movie next because he is clearly better than the new man who looks too upset. Majid Nawaz likes smiling, even when he is hitted by supreme Islamic strength of Islamic fist of Allah’s deputy on Earth, sahaba like man, he still smiles. Maybe one day he will convert to Islam and be a good source of happiness for sahaba-like Khilafat man to learn how to smile more.

I saw Majid Nawaz Sahib, and I swear by God who is political, that I saw him sit down and be surrounded by Sahabah like men of Khilafat movement, who then talked Khilafat to him and told him that Allah was political. Majid Nawaz sahib, who took offence to being preached Islam, because he is a kafir who hates Islam more than sahaba-like men of Khilafat movement love death, then stood up and asked to be introduced to the leader of the Khilafat movement so he could invade his private space by expressing the peace greetings which was clearly the shaytans attempt at making the Khilafat leader weak in his eman by making him soft on Kufr and the Kafirs by forcing him to say salam to the shaytan. This plan was to make the Sahaba like men weak in their eman by showing that shaytan is a muslim, to make them become kafirs, so the supreme Islamic fist had to save muslims from this life and death matter by declaring noble jihad on Majid Sahib.

So Majid Sahib stood and held his hand out to make peace between sahaba-like men and him, but no peace and no compromise with Israel was shouted out, and Khilafat men declared the noble jihad against Majids kufr attempt at compromising Islam by trying to make peace with the islam and the kufr.

But even then see how Sahaba like Khilafat man was patient, he still didnt hitted Majid Sahib until the kufr was clear and the hujjat was established upon him. Then he stood up and warned Majid Sahib, who still hand his hand out in serious trying to compromise islam by make peace with Islam and kufr, which is insult to all muslims in the world. So Sahaba like man tried to show nobility of islam and patience by walking away from this kufr, but Majid Sahab was so insisting on making peace when war is the only option for Israel that he walked onto the pure and paak supreme islamic fist that was extended outwards only to say to Majid Sahib that we muslim are peacful, here, look at my fist, it is only used to tickle your chin for charity purpose. But Majid Sahib was so impatient in his kufr that he walked very fast into Sahabi fist and was so drunk on his alcohol that he must drink because all kafirs drink it, that he fell over the sofa backwards, but even this was a shaytan trick because Majid Sahibs plan was to kick Sahabi man with his leg when he pretended to fell backward, but he missed and fell. So Majid Sahib got up again and insisted on his kufr greeting of peace, so Sahabi man, decided that it is not good for islam to be violent, but kufr is violent and we will show the world that islam is peace, so he left the cafe shop in peace, and was proud that he made no compromise and peace with the kufr.

walhamdulillahe rabbul alamen

Salam

EXCLUSIVE – Tayib has revealed all in an exclusive letter to this blog:

http://traditionalislamizm.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/ht-member-attacks-quilliam-director/#comments

Abd al Azeez – just as I thought an Islamist with a HT background. Most sufi’s, wahabi’s and tablighi’s don’t understand the concept of the Caliphate in the same way that HT do and neither do the Shia. To suggest otherwise is disingenuine. Most Muslims don’t consider Islam to be a political ideology either. This is an Islamist fantasy which many have repeated often enough to themselves and are now convinced of it.

You speak of nuance, what about a nuanced discussion about the various different interpretations of concepts such as caliphate, leadership of Muslims and sharia law. Things are a hell lot more complex then you have made out.

As for the Pak incident, none of us where there. I don’t know Maajid like you do but I did used to know Tayyab and Maajids account sounds like just the kind of thing he would do.

And fittting into neat boxes – is it not Islamists like you who like to fit anyone whp disagrees with you into neat simplistic boxes. Scholars who oppose Islamism become ‘government stooges’, anyone against your warped political outlook becomes a ‘neo-con’ and Muslim who challenge you become ‘agents of the west’.

Abd al-Azeez

What a silly person you are!

Sufis, Wahabis and Tableeghis don’t believe states such as Ottomans, Abbasids and Mughals were caliphates, but HT do. Don’t try and lump everyone in the same basket as some sort of defence against yourself. Sufis, Tableeghis and Salafis have declared HT to be heretics and outside the fold of Islam for dening things such as the ‘punishment of the grave’ (Azhab ul Qabr)!

Does HT still believe pornography is allowed because the image you are seeing is not 3D but 2D?

All chicken in the UK is Halaal because we are in a non-Islamic country?

HT is seriously a joke and it’s supporters are a even bigger joke. You trying to make common cause with other Muslims – They hate HT and it’s Ilk.

So, I write using reason and ibn Khaldun and Zaloom reply as if they are replying to my post and what I wrote in it. Firstly, no one has claimed that all the groups broadly share the exact same approach to an Islamic State and how it would emerge, so to say that I am lumping things together is understanable, IF you look at the issue as one where I said that every single group shares the exact same approach to reviving the Islamic State. The essential point here is, of course, that I claimed no such thing. Please re-read my post objectively, taking out your own biases that seem to impair your judgement instead of believing of it what you want to believe and approach this using reason.

In response to the issues about all the groups, I said simply that they all believe that the Caliphate is the political system of Islam as legitimised by the Prophet and carried out by his companions. All the groups I mentioned, with the exception of the Shi’a who believe in a variation that nonetheless still includes submission of political and religious authority to an Imaam, believe this. All you need to do is ask them – NOT throw in your own biased arguments of ‘Well, how can Caliphate work today?’ or ‘But the Caliphates an old system’ etc, but to simply affirm as to whether these groups accept that the Caliphate is the legally affirmed political system of Islam.

I take this opportunity to remind you that sincerity before God is a sincerity that does not involve other people. Say what you want, believe as you will, but ultimately we all answer to God and ultimately, we ourselves are the ones who really know why we believe something or why we are biased against it. Maybe it’s a past experience or run in with some nasties from people who called themselves HTs – maybe it’s a public encounter of some sort that you feel unable to accept and now obliged to stand against every single thing that HT do. I myself have had run-in with people calling themselves HT (another hint to you guys that I’m not what you think I am!… but, this hasn’t blocked my ability to look at the issues on their own merit. If people were to look at Muslims the same way as you look at those who call for Caliphate, HT and other, then you would know why so many people hate Islam because of the actions of a few, as subjective and half-hearted a reason as that is). Whatever it is, sincerity to yourself is the opposite of self-delusion, telling yourself to take one course of action for one reason which you tell yourself on the surface, whereas in reality it is another issue that drives you which you do not want to accept.

Raziq, your approach would seem to be the one most closest to an objective one; simply asking for only the legal evidences of Islam that establish that the Caliph is the legal representative of Islam. But if you have asked for these evidences with only a view to refute them, then I would wonder what the point is of me answering if you have already decided that any answer affirming Caliphate is unacceptable. If, however, I am wrong and I hope that I am and that you are objectively looking for the answer and willing to accept whatever it may be, then there’s a benefit in replying. As for the evidences, so as to prevent the possible approach I have just mentioned, I would say approach a range of mainstream scholars and ask them simply as to whether the Caliphate is the political system of Islam. Do not confuse this question by asking them whether HTs or so and so’s method is the right one – the point is to simply establish whether or not the Caliphate is the political system of Islam. The reason I suggest approaching a scholar instead of myself giving the answer is purely because any answer I give, because other contributors here have already tried to lump me into a box that automatically reduces the validity of my answer.

Normally, when you debate with someone of a different political persuasion, you do not look down on the opponent even before the discussion has started because of your own disdain at what you think your opponent believes. A rational person would wait until hearing the core views and the main evidences before replying, not like ibn Khaldun.

Ibn Khaldun, my advice to not employ guilt-by-association and guilty-until-succumbing seems pertinent to yourself as well as to the writer of this article, Shikwa. Until such a time you hear me calling scholars ‘government stooges’ and throwing the titles ‘neo-con’ and ‘agents of the West’, you cannot accuse me of saying something I haven’t said. Are there any other words you want to put into my mouth?? How dare you attribute words to me that I have not said, and then condemn me for guilt-by-association? You are the type of person who would have setup Guantanamo Bay if you were in the right place at the right time and American and have tortured unknown numbers of people for the flimsiest, even for the lack, of evidence. You are not objective and have your own internal issues and inferiority complexes to deal with.

Please read my post again carefully; I have not at all said I have an HT background. Your guilt-by-association is, again, breathtaking! If you were to ever be a head of state, you’d rank amongst the worst dictators for this policy.

At the end of the day, all of you disagreeing with me are yet to accept the origin of the problem of this article, that you cannot pass judgement on a whole organisation by simply scrutinising the questionable action of one member and conflating this stereotypical approach by lumping in those Al-Muhaajis into the same fold. You would never launch such a generalisation against the beloved white man, you would never say that all Labour supporters believe in the forceful subjugation of other countries by use of murder and rightly so – it would be wrong to issue such a judgement. But equally, your inferiority complexes make it okay to go after any Muslim, HT or not, who believes that the Caliphate is the political system of Islam. Just like your role models from Quilliam, you choose to be extra harsh on those Muslims (who are more than just HTs) and yet you choose to not apply the same judgements on others. Your guilt-by-association is only one example of this.

Please, be sincere and honest with yourselves as to why you really have chosen to oppose those who believe Caliphate is from Islam. If it’s because you hate what some HT members have done, then that’s your observation. But that doesn’t mean you can now discard everything they believe in just like you wouldn’t, hopefully, turn away from the 5 obligatory daily prayers simple because those HTs pray them too.

Can I pick up an autograph in the lobby?

COMICAL HT COUP STORIES

I swear by Allah my mushrif said to me that they were going to do a coup in Iraq- but the army general fell asleep!!!!

I also heard of one brother from HT saying they were going to do a military coup but the army general was wearing a suit not an army uniform!! (?)

I heard once they planned to do a coup but the army general got caught ironing his uniform on his day off!!!

Lol..these guys are deluded..making up stories to keep moral up

In 1995 HT predicted Uzbekistan was going to be declared the Khilafah in a couple of days!——What happened ?

Any brothers come up with any more hilarious HT stories?

Abd al-Azeez

You never answered any of my questions?

Abd al-Azeez I have studied this topic in great detail and I can tell the ‘Caliphate’ is not the political system of Islam. Infact Islam does not have a political system. The Idea of a Statehood is not mentioned in the Quran.
The Prophet (saw) lived in a city and not a State. I suggest you read the history of islam from a more objective point of view and not just HT rubbish.

Also this is not just my personal view, I have checked with Hanafi, Sufi and Tableeghi scholars and they all agree.

The problem are these Islamist Ideas and not Islam.

!

Shikwa, for someone who tries to come across as intelligent, you really shoot yourself in the foot when you attribute words to me that I have never said and accuse me of believing things because, in your mind, I belong to a group that says those things.

You believe in guilt by association. You don’t really believe in innocent until proven guilty, but of course, were you to be judging a white non-Muslim in a case, you would insist nothing less than the principles of Western civilisation which you conveniently let go of when it comes to talking to Muslims you don’t agree with.

Ibn Khaldun, what can I say. You again put the words of others in ‘my box’ into my mouth when you have not even heard them. If I were to do the same, you would all raise the same objection I am (How can you attribute to me what I have not said? Typical behaviour of you Islamists.). As for answering your questions, I believe the answers are all there – you have chosen not to see them.

And as for those who you who believe I hate using smiling faces (something which again, I have never stated and again, which you insist on attributing to me without any proof), I can happily admit that I am a smitten fan of the digital smiley. … Better than using expletives anyday to add to the argument.

Abd Al-Azeez – answer me this: Did your mother not give you enough love as a child?

Because that is the only reason I can think that you are persisting in your little crusade on here.

I suggest you crawl back under the rock you came from and learn how to answer a direct question.

Abd al-Azeez

Let me make it simpler for you. Lets start with the basic Islamist argument of ‘One Unified Caliphate’ system existing until the evil Western governments destroyed it and replaced it with Kufr law.

One Unified Caliphate?

The following hadith reported by at-Tirmizi on the authority of Safeenah who said that the Messenger (saw) said: “The Khilafah in my Ummah after me will be for thirty years. Then there will be Mulkan ‘aduudan (hereditary rule) after that.” [Similar narrations are also to be found in the Sunan of Abu Dawud (2/264) and Musnad of Ahmad (1/169)

During the last 50-60 years the Idea that one unified ‘Caliphate’ state existed for 1350 years has been put forward by a couple of Islamist groups. This Idea is not correct and simply wishful thinking.

Throughout Islamic history there have been many Caliphs appearing in different parts of the Muslim world at the same time. For example:

After the tragedy of kerbala Abdullah B. Zubair declared himself Caliph and the people of Makaah and Medina offered allegiance to him. This resulted in a battle with Yazids forces.

In the year 929 C.E the Muslim world had three Caliphs, the Abbasids in Baghdad, the Fatamids in North Africa and the Umayyads in Spain.

In the 17th century we had the Ottomans, the Mughals and the Safavids all with their own Sultan/Caliph. All these empires existed at the same time and independently of each other.

In the Ottoman empire there were no elections or consensus of the Ummah when it came to choosing a Caliph as is Sunnah of the Prophet (S.A.W). The Ottomans defeated the Mamluks and became Caliphs by default. The Ottoman Sultanate was hereditary passed down through the family. No Ottoman Sultan claimed the Caliphate until the Ottoman empire was in serious decline. And when they did claim to be Caliphs it was only in a honorific sense. Read history independently.

Did these so called latter day Khilafah’s protect the life and honour of Muslims ? In 1492 when Ferdinand and Isabella were killing and ethnically cleansing Muslims in Spain the Ottoman Sultan never sent forces to save them despite the Spanish Muslims asking him for help. The Ottomans never helped fellow Muslim Tipu Sultan when he asked for help because they didn’t want to upset the British. The Mughals never gave bay’ah to the Ottomans and considered themselves superior Sultans. The Abbasids slaughtered the Umayyads. Muhammad Ali Pasha of Eypgt rebelled against the Ottomans and tried to Conquer Istanbul and declare himself Sultan/Caliph. It was actually the western powers which defeated him and saved the ‘Caliphate’. The Ottomans never uled with Shariah, they had ‘French’ penal codes and ‘Commercial’ codes. The Arabs never accepted non-Arab as a Caliphs as they believed the Caliph should be from the Quraish or at least an Arab. During the First World War the Arabs rebelled against the Ottomans to claim Sultanate/kingship for themselves.

This fanciful Idea of one unified ‘Caliphate’ for 1350 years that looked after Muslim interests worldwide never existed and is a distorted view of Islamic history.

I am prepared to discuss any of the points mentioned above with evidence from historical sources and even Islamist books.

Game on!

For more refutations of Islamism see:

http://counteringislamism.blogspot.com/

The vast majority of Islamists are hypocrites and Abd al-Aziz has revealed himself to be just that.

Ibn Khaldun, people like Abd Al-Azeez much prefer to ‘engage’ with schoolkids…after all, da’wah is so much easier with people who don’t answer back!

Still, he’s yet another example of the sloppy, faux-intellectual posturing that we’ve come to expect from HT and their ilk. Is anyone really surprised?

Should the caring Dr Evil be allowed to practice?
Methinks a complaint to the General Medical Council should do the trick since he is bringing the profession into disrepute.

Mehedi – what is Khilafah and what is the correct Minhaj?

The habit of identifying oneself with a single cult or political/religious group or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognizing no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Hizbut Tahrir is power-hunger tempered by self-deception.

Faisal,

HT is an Islamic group and to understand the fard nature of establishing Islam the first basic requirement is to believe in Islam and Muhammad (SAW).

HT does plenty of dawah to non-Muslims, opening the doors to Islam.

Mashallah, there are plenty of non-Muslims who are aware of our rich Islamic history. For sure there were as many ups and downs, but the Islamic heritage of civility and peace is clear as day.

As for the statement:

..”able to convince any non-Muslims to buy into the concept of creating a global Khilafa in which they are second and third class citizens?”

Of the many books written with a similar undertone, one such example by a none muslim is:

The Fall and Rise of the Islamic State
Noah Feldman

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8598.html

Please research the breadth and depths of non-muslim academia, before implying such shallow remarks.

Abu Wanabe,

With respect, but I beg to differ with your sweeping statements.
“In the past there were Muslim kingdoms and Empires, never states.”

According to the oxford dictionary a “State” is:
“The territory, or one of the territories, of a government.”

Or

“A politically unified people occupying a definite territory”

The Arabic word that is used to refer to the Khilafah is “Dar Al Islam”, which is land of Islam.

From an English perspective, since “Dar Al islam” consist of a government which has a territory or consists of a politically unified people, the term “state” is apt in this translation.
During the time of Muhammad (SAW) and the four caliphs, there was only one Islamic state.

For sure as time went came to pass there were divisions amongst Muslims leading to breakaway Islamic states, but there was clearly a period where one state existed.

If we take land mass into account, then the largest Islamic state with one caliph to ever exist was that of the Ottoman era.

Clearly this was one Islamic state, which eventually declined. References for this period of history are many in number, so checking it will not be difficult.

So your statement “HT is trying to establish a mythical entity which never existed in the first place.”  is clearly incorrect.

Your statement:

“We no longer live in an age if expansionist empires based on supremacist understandings of faith but rather in an age of sovereign states that believe in the rule of law.”

Is clearly incorrect. If you look at the actions of America, Russia and much of the west, in action, they are behaving no differently to so called “Empires” of the past. They broke UN resolutions and invaded and occupied countries at will. Israel is another example of an expansionist entity with its settlement expansion into Palestinian land. This expansion is occurring with the blessing of the so called international community.

Another incorrect statement:

“As for Islamic duty – well its not really about Islam since Islam is not clear on issues of statehood and rulership. We merely have differing ijtihads”

The differing ijtihads are not about the requirement for one caliph who rules by quran and sunnah, as no classical scholar (including Imam juwayni al Haramain) ever agreed to having more than one caliph who know of each other. This is as clear as day. Please provide proofs of classical scholars who have agreed the contrary.

Rather the differing ijtihads are about the method to re-establish Islam and HT is the first to say those Islamically legitimately number many.
Yet another incorrect statement:

“So how can they claim it is a duty of all Muslims, its not, its just one opinion which most scholars reject, and i’m sure if Nabhani was alive he would reject too.”

In Surah Al Anfal verse 73
“And those who disbelieve are allies to one another, (and) if you do not do so there will be Fitnah (wars, battles, polytheism, etc.) and oppression on earth, and a great mischief and corruption (appearance of polytheism).”

About which the great Mufasir Imam Tabari says:

“The best interpretation of the above verse is,

And those who disbelieve are allies to one another, (and) if you (Muslims of the whole world collectively) do not do so (i.e. become allies, as one united block with one Khalifah – chief Muslim ruler for the whole Muslim world to make victorious Allâh’s Religion of Islâmic Monotheism), there will be Fitnah (wars, battles, polytheism, etc.) and oppression on earth, and a great mischief and corruption (appearance of polytheism).”

It has been mentioned in Sahih Muslim by ‘Arfaja who said: ‘I heard Allah’s Messenger SalAllahu alaihi wasallam saying: “When you all (Muslims) are united (as one block) under a single Khalifah (a chief Muslim ruler), and a man comes up to disintegrate you and separate you into different groups, then kill that man.”

in Sahih Muslim: Narrated by Abu Sa’id Al-Khudri radiAllahu anhu: Allah’s Messenger SalAllahu alaihi wasallam said:

“If the Muslim world gave the Bai’a (pledge) to two Khalifah (chief Muslim rulers, the first one who was given the Bai’a (pledge) first will remain as the Khalifah, then kill the latter (the second) one.”

In the Sirah of Ibnu Ishaq that Abu Bakr said on the day of Saqifa: “It is forbidden for Muslims to have two Amirs for this would cause differences in their affairs and concepts, their unity would be divided and disputes would break out amongst them. The Sunnah would then be abandoned, the bida’a (innovations) would spread and Fitna would grow, and that is in no one’s interest.”

These are just a few narrations which scholars of the past and present use to make the case for the requirement of the Khilafah.
Notable scholars of today such as Nuh Amin Keller, Abdullah Bin Bayah, Shiekh, Habib Ali Al-Jifri, Sheikh Qardawi, back HT’s position that the requirment of a Khilafah is Fard, although some of them disagree with some elements Sheikh Taqi ud Din’s ijtihad. Clearly, not an issue.

Another incorrect statement:
“Since when did HT ever start caring about what most Muslims want. Most Muslims can’t stand HT and they have been booted out of every Mosque in the UK.
Most Muslims would not even share a platform with HT.”

All of the 100’s of thousands of muslims that make up HT are muslims from the Ummah. They joined this group to work with their brothers to bring hope and justice back from the clutches of tyranny.
I don’t think you read the post above, but there are countless examples of none HT affiliates who speak alongside HT or on their platform e.g. as per the article above, Dauod Abdullah and Mossim Beg.
Another incorrect statement:
“Most Muslims around the world believe in Democracy, as found by the same Maryland poll you quoted, so please don’t misrepresent ‘most muslims’ because I’m not that stupid….”

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/346.php?nid=&id=&pnt=346&lb=brme

75% believe:
“require Islamic countries to impose a strict application of sharia,” and to “keep Western values out of Islamic countries.”
67% would like to
like to “unify all Islamic counties into a single Islamic state or caliphate.”

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/346.php?nid=&id=&pnt=346&lb=brme

If you read the full report it states that the 67% number regarding democracy needs to be understood in the context of what a vast majority of Muslims understand democracy to be. Many think Umar Bin Al Khattabs rule was a democracy. Clearly it was not as that system consisted of one Caliph with the sources of Islam as its basis as opposed to sources of humanistic legal discourse. So the term “democracy” has many different meanings across the Muslim world.

Please avoid making incorrect statements as they show a lack of reading and depth.

Faisal,

Not only have I read his book, I have had the honour of meeting him.

The point being made was that there are many none-Muslims who understand the concept of islamic state, which existed in the past and has the potential to exist in the present. As opposed to those who use the term “Islamism” incorrectly.

I have had the honour to meet Noah Feldman and asked him about his views on HT. He thinks they are credible in the Muslim world but would get more if they contested elections, although recognised the fact that many parties which took part in elections ended up becoming no different to secular parties due to the rules in place in parliament.

1)Elections in the developing are not a good measure of public opinion. If you go to the villages of Pakistan, you will find that the Nazim pays villagers a pittance to vote for secular party X. I have seen this first hand when I was there. This has happened since the inception of Pakistan and as such is the reason why the same old leadership emerges in Pakistan every other generation. I agree that people over the Muslim world have different understanding of Shariah. But when asked in a neutral poll, over 65% said they want the Muslim world unified under one Caliphate and over 75% said they want to live under “strict” shariah.

2)You are referring to the concept of “Nation” state which is another kind of “state”. Clearly, Noah Feldman and HT along with countless other academics and Historians refer to the Khilafah as “Islamic State”.

3)By the definition of “State”, the ottoman khilafah was a State. It was also an Islamic state, evidence of which can be found in Istanbul library where millions of scrolls show laws emanating from Islamic sources and executed by the Khaleef of the day. I agree that the Ottoman Islamic State became un-Islamic and corrupt which along with many other factors lead to its downfall.

4)Don’t use petty semantics. The actions of these “States”, with their “New World Order” agenda, are clear as day and have lead to the deaths of millions of people, as a result of conflict and economic subjugation.

5)Abdullah Bin Bayah does not reject the notion of an Islamic State and its obligation:
in
http://www.themodernreligion.com/world/muslims-living.html
Sheikh Hamaz Yusuf translates (Who also agrees with this view):
“..In addition, there is another type of set of rules in Islam that is known as al-ahkam as-sultania, and these are rules related to governmental authority, to the state..they relate to the establishment of imams, not only the greatest imam, who would be the khalifa but also the aaimma who will be in the masaajid”
Habib Ali Jafri: He believe categorically that it is an obligation for the state to implement shariah:
In the following clip he states clearly:
http://www.youtube.com/v/c9-tuy2XvOU&rel=1&fs=1&showsearch=0&hd=0

“The issue of Tahkim of Allah and the Tahkim of the Sharia, yes it is necessary for the Muslim State and the unity of the Muslims under the Khilafa is an obligation”. In Habib Ali’s view the khilafah only existed for 30 years, which various scholars differ on. Clearly Imam Ahmad, Juwainy called the leaders “Khaleef” which came after 30 years.

Nuh Amin Keller in his famous audio transcript available via a simple search, also believes in the obligation of an Islamic State and brands those who do not or reject it as “heretics”

Abdul Hakim Murad clearly believes in the notion of an Islamic State as mentioned in the following Khutbah:

http://cambridgekhutbasetc.blogspot.com/2009/01/gaza-sakina-through-long-view-of.html

He says:
“..Many of them jumped up and said if you pay us enough we will fight against Khalifat Rasul Allahi Salu Allah Alehi wa Salaam. From that time disaster after disaster has descended upon the heads of the Arabs of the Middle East. Perhaps that also is a sign.”

Ali Goma, another inspiration in his book Masail al Khilafah, considers it as an obligation i.e. the Caliphate. In fact he considers it’s abolition as one of the biggest calamities! Ali Goma now wants the implementation of the Sharia, a Caliphate.

Please get your facts right.

6)HT are not outcasts. Mashallah every evening they have circles in mosques and centers up and down this country and around the world. They respect the opinion of other Islamic groups and work together to do good. HT is from the ummah and works for the Ummah to bring justice and remove tyranny so that the ummah and the world may live peacefully. Mashallah, it, like many other Islamic groups has a sound understanding of Islam and strives on a global level, with other Islamic groups to bring the world out of darkness into light.

I leave you with quote from Imam Juwayni, who exposed the Mutazilite Abd Rahman Ibn Kaysan for holding the view that the caliphate was not obligatory.

“It is narrated from Abd Rahman Ibn Kaysan that the caliphate is not obligatory and that it is allowed to leave people in their differences…with nothing to bind together the disparate views. This man has attacked the consensual agreement and has replaced the rights with the ability to infringe the rights …..and this cannot be considered anything but a violation of the obligatory obedience on our neck towards the consensus and an infringement of the Sunnah that is followed and this Ijma’a is preceded by an Ijma’a that sun has set on East and West with the agreement of the scholars in all continents …….and there is no need to waste a discussion after it has become so clear. The deterrence that Allah has given to the Sultan is greater than that he has given to the Qur’an.”
[Ghiath Al-Umam, Imam Juwayni]

Raziq,

Please quote the seerah correctly. You say:

“The Prophet (saw) sought Nusrah from non-Muslim tribes along with giving them dawah to his call, in other words they were expected to support his message along with accepting Islam without any of their own conditions.”

Emm, like the others, you seem to answer your own question without realising it. Ofcourse the main condition for any Nusrah was that they embrace Islam. In today’s reality we have people of Nusrah who are already muslim and are being pursued on a daily basis. Inshallah Karim, may Allah (SWT) make the pursuance successful.

Muhammad (SAW), with the help of Allah (SWT), used Nusrah to assume power in Medina. When society in the Muslim world is analysed, the people of Nusrah mainly reside in the military.

As for the creation of a power vacuum resulting from the removal of a government authority, everything depends on the make up society to determine who will fill that void. This discussion is reality specific, so cannot be answered in a general way. But it is a good point as it is a potential scenario which could arise, but to date, in my reading of such events, there has always been a powerful force to immediately fill any void – namely the military.

Abdur Rahman

Please read the question properly before replying. The Prophet (saw) seeking nusrah from non-muslim tribes is different to HT seeking nusrah from only ‘Muslim armies’. Why don’t HT also seek nusrah from non-Muslim armies and give them dawah at the same time? that’s what the Prophet (saw) did (if you strictly want to follow his method) unless you believe that the Muslim armies today are infact non-Muslims?

Dawah and seeking support are two different points and you seem to be confusing the two. Some in power did support the Prophet (saw) without embracing Islam i.e. Abu Mutalib (Prophet’s uncle)

The three stages; Culturing – Interaction – Nusrah

There’s plenty of arguments against this approach, one prominent one being that it is not permissible to abandon other obligations that are fard both individually and upon the ummah whilst one “prepares the ummah”.

Many shabab in Uzbekistan, Indonesia, Egypt, etc, have suffered immensely for their dawah and (in my view) misguided approach. Those at the top of the leadership in this country in essence abandon the ummah so that they can focus on preparing areas outside the “majal”.

The Prophet (saw) was confronted by particular circumbstances and our circumstances today have to be analyzed compared to those. If the Prophet (saw) was already the ruler of Qurash before prophethood and he had their full support would he be seeking Nusrah or giving Nusrah to Islam?

Interestingly, all my main rebuttle articles are still awaiting moderation, yet other articles, similar in length, but clearly lacking coherency, are displayable.

If you guys are willing to debate these issues then be fair in posting all content. If not, then you are clearly cowards, and this site is a farce.

I am posting this again as it has not appeared:

1)Elections in the developing are not a good measure of public opinion. If you go to the villages of Pakistan, you will find that the Nazim pays villagers a pittance to vote for secular party X. I have seen this first hand when I was there. This has happened since the inception of Pakistan and as such is the reason why the same old leadership emerges in Pakistan every other generation. I agree that people over the Muslim world have different understanding of Shariah. But when asked in a neutral poll, over 65% said they want the Muslim world unified under one Caliphate and over 75% said they want to live under “strict” shariah.

2)You are referring to the concept of “Nation” state which is another kind of “state”. Clearly, Noah Feldman and HT along with countless other academics and Historians refer to the Khilafah as “Islamic State”.

3)By the definition of “State”, the ottoman khilafah was a State. It was also an Islamic state, evidence of which can be found in Istanbul library where millions of scrolls show laws emanating from Islamic sources and executed by the Khaleef of the day. I agree that the Ottoman Islamic State became un-Islamic and corrupt which along with many other factors lead to its downfall.

4)Don’t use petty semantics. The actions of these “States”, with their “New World Order” agenda, are clear as day and have lead to the deaths of millions of people, as a result of conflict and economic subjugation.

5)Abdullah Bin Bayah does not reject the notion of an Islamic State and its obligation:
in
http://www.themodernreligion.com/world/muslims-living.html
Sheikh Hamaz Yusuf translates (Who also agrees with this view):
“..In addition, there is another type of set of rules in Islam that is known as al-ahkam as-sultania, and these are rules related to governmental authority, to the state..they relate to the establishment of imams, not only the greatest imam, who would be the khalifa but also the aaimma who will be in the masaajid”
Habib Ali Jafri: He believe categorically that it is an obligation for the state to implement shariah:
In the following clip he states clearly:
http://www.youtube.com/v/c9-tuy2XvOU&rel=1&fs=1&showsearch=0&hd=0

“The issue of Tahkim of Allah and the Tahkim of the Sharia, yes it is necessary for the Muslim State and the unity of the Muslims under the Khilafa is an obligation”. In Habib Ali’s view the khilafah only existed for 30 years, which various scholars differ on. Clearly Imam Ahmad, Juwainy called the leaders “Khaleef” which came after 30 years.

Nuh Amin Keller in his famous audio transcript available via a simple search, also believes in the obligation of an Islamic State and brands those who do not or reject it as “heretics”

Abdul Hakim Murad clearly believes in the notion of an Islamic State as mentioned in the following Khutbah:

http://cambridgekhutbasetc.blogspot.com/2009/01/gaza-sakina-through-long-view-of.html

He says:
“..Many of them jumped up and said if you pay us enough we will fight against Khalifat Rasul Allahi Salu Allah Alehi wa Salaam. From that time disaster after disaster has descended upon the heads of the Arabs of the Middle East. Perhaps that also is a sign.”

Ali Goma, another inspiration in his book Masail al Khilafah, considers it as an obligation i.e. the Caliphate. In fact he considers it’s abolition as one of the biggest calamities! Ali Goma now wants the implementation of the Sharia, a Caliphate.

Please get your facts right.

6)HT are not outcasts. Mashallah every evening they have circles in mosques and centers up and down this country and around the world. They respect the opinion of other Islamic groups and work together to do good. HT is from the ummah and works for the Ummah to bring justice and remove tyranny so that the ummah and the world may live peacefully. Mashallah, it, like many other Islamic groups has a sound understanding of Islam and strives on a global level, with other Islamic groups to bring the world out of darkness into light.

I leave you with quote from Imam Juwayni, who exposed the Mutazilite Abd Rahman Ibn Kaysan for holding the view that the caliphate was not obligatory.

“It is narrated from Abd Rahman Ibn Kaysan that the caliphate is not obligatory and that it is allowed to leave people in their differences…with nothing to bind together the disparate views. This man has attacked the consensual agreement and has replaced the rights with the ability to infringe the rights …..and this cannot be considered anything but a violation of the obligatory obedience on our neck towards the consensus and an infringement of the Sunnah that is followed and this Ijma’a is preceded by an Ijma’a that sun has set on East and West with the agreement of the scholars in all continents …….and there is no need to waste a discussion after it has become so clear. The deterrence that Allah has given to the Sultan is greater than that he has given to the Qur’an.”
[Ghiath Al-Umam, Imam Juwayni]

HA HA you hypocrite!

Emotional? What you mean like picking up a gun and trying to military overthrow democratic people who think differently to you, and calling them kuffar if they believe in democracy??

It is you who has lost your way you kharijite scum, and I say to you loud and clear, your pathetic display of “adab” means nothing to me, stop hiding behind “adab” as your last display of islam, when I have clearly knocked your bullshit arguments for six… YOU CLEARLY CANNOT ANSWER why I am on Kufr, all you can do, like a weasel, is to keep insisting that your opinion is Islamic.. well guess what: WE DON’T GIVE A SHIT ABOUT YOUR OPINION, we care about why you call ours and the entire Ummah (most vote in democracies) KUFR!!!! So stop hiding behind your pathetic “adab”, you can pray and recite beautiful Quran all you like, but my Prophet (alayhi salam) still tells me to fight you, so go get a life, as I said, before we end yours you filth!

I will still recite bismillah and pull the trigger if I caught you dare trying to remove democracies with your violent kharijite methodology. Good luck! Because with us believing men and women around to challenge you, you will need it!

I have posted my response twice. Strange it has not been shown.

O Abdal Rehman,

O Ye who defiles the good name of our Lord!

You are the coward who cannot step up to my challenge to you… prove that disagreeing with your OPINION that the world can be united under one Khilafah is Kufr. Prove that my opinion that it is still impossible today is KUFR! (like Imam haramayn’s opinion that it was impossible in his day, in the quote YOU quoted!)

Prove that in fact disagreeing with any of your arguments is Kufr…

Stop pretending to be polite devout, when you are simply a violent kharijite (military coups are VIOLENT you fool!), and answer my questions…

(and yes, I am violent, I utilise violence to stop your totalitarian theo-political violence of military coups… I am not ashamed that I will fight you fighting my ummah, because I am with my prophet (alayhi Salam) and my ummah. You are with no one but yourselves and your jihadi brethren terrorist scum, baby killers.

Your post has only not been shown because of your own inadequacies. This site is not moderated you plank of wood!

Now answer my questions you kharijite filth!

Abdur Rehman You ignorant Kharijite fool!!!

I don’t disagree with any of your “political” critique of these governments. Polotically they are bad. But you have made this into a religious argument… just like the Khawarij.

I asked you, and I ask you AGAIN, that IF I disagree that we are allowed more than one ruler, or that any of the countries you mention are corrupt and despotic but NOT ruling by Kufr… and that in PRINCIPLE secularism and Democracy are NOT KUFR… does this make me a kafir? Are ANY of the above views Kufr?

This is the point, this is why I call you a Khariji, because you turn your political critique into a religious baton to beat me with and Takfir on me. I believe in secularism and democracy AND Islam. Do you believe I am on Kufr?

STOP TRYING TO IGNORE THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM! And don’t say we agree to disagree, because THAT IS MY POINT!!! YOU DON’T, you label my opinion as Kufr, and would try to military overthrow me if i was in power. So the only solution for people like you is to do as our Prophet (alayhi Salam) said, kill you if you dare step up!

Now stop trying to hide behind your false piety, false morals and side-stepping arguments and answer my question your Kharijite scum! You are not pious, you are a deviant! Are you really THAT thick you don’t even get my point? Maybe I shouldn’t fight you, maybe I should just section you instead!
You fool!

Answer my question!!!!

ALL: Is it just me or is this kharijite trying to play holier than thou??

Our discussion began because you attacked my general post calling HT and Jihadi scum Kharijites… and you began defending HT. The discussion is about WHY I am calling them Kharijites, and it is because they say us Muslims are on Kufr.

So, to prove why I am calling you a kharijite, I ask you again:

…this is why I call you a Khariji, because you turn your political critique into a religious baton to beat me with and Takfir on me. I believe in secularism and democracy AND Islam. Do you believe I am on Kufr? Do you believe secularist and democratic regimes are on Kufr and need to be overthrown by FORCE (khariji methdology) via a military coup.

STOP TRYING TO DODGE THE QUESTION AND ANSWER IT YOU KHARIJI SCUM!

HA ha!!!

HILARIOUS!! He fails to answer again!

Why don’t you answer my questions instead of trying to throw nuance at me, when in reality you are an uncouth Khariji?

STOP DODGING MY QUESTIONS!!! your failures are so hilarious!

In answer to your side step (and to prove to you that I have the guts to stand by my views):
By the definitions YOU believe are Kufr, whatever they are, I believe in Secularism and democracy. I believe in Secularism and democracy in its true meaning, after study and research and conviction.

I also believe in Islam.

Now, is Secularism in the sense you understand (ie: in it’s real meaning) Kufr?

Is Democracy by your understanding (the true meaning) Kufr?

And two non-theoretical questions for you:
Am I on Kufr for believing fully in democracy and secularism in their true meanings (ie: in the meaning you think it is Kufr to do so)?

Do you agree that today the military removal by coup of every single Muslim ruler is legitimate and Halal because they are ruling by Kufr?

There I just answered your questions, now go ahead pronounce your Takfir on me you khariji dirty filthy scum who I will kill if I catch trying to forcefully remove my government.

A Rehman

You have been FISTED by the FIST OF THE NORTH STAR!

RIP

Ok so you believe in social secularism as opposed to political secularism?

i.e. You don’t believe in the definition where secularism rejects all kinds of faith, but you believe that Islam should not be taught in a societies education system?

Abdul Rahman

I’m still waiting boy!

FistOfTheNorth,

Ok so you believe in social secularism as opposed to political secularism?

i.e. You don’t believe in the definition where secularism rejects all kinds of faith, but you believe that Islam should not be taught in a societies education system?

Raziq,
Your question has already been answered.
The Prophet saught Nusrah from None-Muslim tribes, because there were no Muslim tribes which had the Nusrah. This is clear from all Seerah books.
Today the reality is different. We have Muslims who have Nusrah capability, so the priority is to seek it from them.
Some in power did support the Prophet (saw) without embracing Islam i.e. Abu Mutalib (Prophet’s uncle)  Incorrect. The Support of Abu Mutalib was not on the basis of ruling, but on the basis of individual protection. The support from the tribes of Aws Khazraj and Ansar, was on the basis of rulership.
“If the Prophet (saw) was already the ruler of Qurash before prophethood and he had their full support would he be seeking Nusrah or giving Nusrah to Islam?”
Clearly, this is a hypothetical question. Muhammad (SAW) was not leader of the Qureish before Prophethood. Muhammd (SAW) on many occasions asked the Qureish to give him authority as commanded by Allah (SWT), but they refused to do so. Allah (SWT) then helped Muhammad (SAW) with authority in Medina.
Please Read the Seerah carefully, otherwise the confusion in your hypothetical questions will continue to persist.

You are good at checking quotes? What actually are you on? All your references are from 1994 khilafah conference special pull out glossy magazine!!

Mawardi even mentions that there is ikhtilaf on this issue though in his view abbarrent but not kufr.

Shawkani actually states only someone of mediocre intellect would say one caliph for the whole world, and would not be capable of understanding the evidence! Go check!! You’ll find it even on wahabi sites but am sure you can read sayl ul-jarar and honestly translate it for us….

What did nawawi say if you can’t account the ruler or if doing so created trouble? Sabr! Patience! Oh but you islamists only use Islam when it suits your political agenda, not otherwise.

I never said kufr!!! Lame. Hizb do and that is the discussion!

Maryland survey says Muslims want khilafah, say the hizb. They also want democracy! So says the pole!

No one buys hizb anti democracy crap. Except you!

Oh by the way, who said democracy was Islamic and secularism, well according to the hizb, the mufti and ulema of the ottomans did!! Go figure out how to square that up!

Bloody ignorants!

Abdul Rehman – I can see that you are enjoying debates with others but why have you still now answered by questions that I posed 2 days ago?

I am rather disappointed by the arguments posed by posts on this site. They really do lack intellectual rigour.

I honestly thought you guys will actually have evidences that match up to references, which back up your points of view. But none of you have shown any of that. Even junior pupils studying G.C.S.E history at minimum quote relevant and correct references to back up their arguments.
What that shows, clearly, is that you are happy to believe in your own thinking, resorting to abuse, as per above and other posts when even the slightest intellectual challenge is put forth.

No one is stopping you from deluding yourselves, so feel free to carry on.

Abu Yusuf,

You are infact one of the juniors I was thinking about when writing that last point. You are un-initiated so that is no fault of your on. You are still finding your way, which is fine. Inshallah in time you will find the answers which are proving so elusive.

My advice to you is simple – Have an open mind. Don’t get indoctrinated by those who make political correctness the object of their life. And remember TI website is there for you whenever you have sincere questions.

FistOf TheNorthStar,

You are another one of the juniors I was thinking about when writing the post above. You have clearly shown that you are full of emotion. Name calling is ingrained in every nuance of your voice. This is a very bad habit. One which I hope you do not use in reality, as it will not get you far.
My only advice to you is to read the Quran and sources of text with a Scholar to give you guidance.
Also, please heed the advice of our classical scholars, such as Imam Ghazali (RA), about patience and curing the heart of ill feeling.
For sure you can be firm in debate, but don’t get emotional as that prevents value added discussion.
If the above is too complicated to fathom then I will put it simply: Grow Up.

Abu Yusuf,

You obviously have a young mind which is easily influenced. Don’t let self confessed propogators of stupidity influence your naive mind.

The offer still stands. I am sure you will take it up when you reach a point of realisation.

Abu Yusuf,

The offer still stands.

Abdur Rahman

Please don’t quote prats like traditional islamist (Tanveer Balal, Zafar Iqbal and Shareef are all well known idiots)

Why don’t you ask T.I to explain why he left HT? and what he believes is the correct method to establish a Khilafah?

See: http://traditionalislamizm.wordpress.com/

Anything above GCSE English Literature and Zalloum loses interest and dismisses it under the cloak of quoting traditional islamists – this is the problem with the shayateen, they like the sound of their own voice, and they’re not prepared to listen to anyone else. You may as well name this site http://www.BS.org
with the words ‘it may look foul, but the stink sure does get the message across!’

You jammy bastards

What retards T.I and his pals are…..tut tut

The stupid munafiqs can’t answer simple questions about themselves.

Anything beyond primary school level English is too much for them : )

A. Rahman – after waiting 2 days for your point by point rebuttal I was rather disappointed both with your responses and your desire to resort to personal insults. Let me illustrate this point:

1) You believe free and fair elections are not a good indicator of public opinion yet are prepared to use relatively small polls as good indicators of public opinion. Very strange. Granted they both have thier flaws but surely democratic elections which involves millions and millions of people are more representative than polls which speak to 500 or so people over the phone from an office in Vienna. Yes some rural Pakistani’s may not know what they are voting for but that is hardly a premise on which to dismiss the entire elections. Rather a desperate attempt to ignore reality. Doesn’t the fact that Islamist groups recieve very few votes indicate where the public stands? If the people really wanted ‘Khilafah’ so much don’t you think they would not vote for secular parties or refuse to go along with the village vote. I have also been to Pakistan and believe me not all village people are completely politcially naive, some of them are more astute than Hizbi’s in the UK.

Furthermore, since when did the Hizb give a toss about public opinion, you believe in a top down revolution whether the people like it or not. If you are big fans of what people want then accept the results of free and fair democractic and elections and shut up.

2) What is your obsession with Noah Feldman. Okay so one Western academic bought into the Islamist view on Muslim history, big deal because most Western academics don’t. And since when were Western academics your reference point. Many Western academics say the Quran is violent, would you go along with that too, actually don’t answer that last point. The fact is Muslim empire in tha past were not states in the modern sense just as the Roman Empire was not strictly speaking a ‘state’. The Ottoman empire had the ‘millet’ system where each faith community had access to their own legal system. This is not allowed according to HT so by your own defintion it was not an Islamic state at all and certainly not after the tanzimat reforms. So please stop using the 1924 line because we both know it is nonsense.

3) Of course Western nations have conducted wars which have led the killing of millions but again why should you have a problem with that. Your last leader clearly stated that the ‘islamic state’ should expand its borders even if it leads to the death of millions of Muslims. I condemn all people who kill mercilessly and you only condemn the West, very hypocritical.

4) With your scholarly quotes, either you just don’t understand what these guys are talking about or you are wilfully decieving yourself. Saying that a state should implement shariah, or shariah should be a source of legislation or even saying that shariah should be the only source of legislation does not mean that they support the HT concept of an Islamist state. As mentioned before Saudi, Iran, Sudan, Pakistan and other before them all claim to ruling by shariah or say shariah is the primary source of legislation. So according to that defintion we already have Islamic states. But what HT want is not agreed upon by many scholars at all, i.e. uniting the entire Muslims world into one state under one ruler to implements one form over shariah over them and forcibly expands borders through Jihad. So you confusing many issues here.

Furthermore, the quotes which you have kindly provided don’t illustrate the point which we were initially discussing, i.e. consenses for having one politcial leader over all Muslims. The AH Murad qote is completely irrelevant to our discussion, the Hamza Yusuf quote again doesn’t confirm or deny anything. You have conveniently chosen to ignore this point and moved onto implementing shariah, nice trick but it didn’t work with me. So my questions still stands. Scholars today and in the past have never reached a consensus on one leader for the Ummah. Ibn Taymiah and Imam Shawkani both said more than one leader was permissible and this issue is discussed in ‘Ahkam Sultaniyyah’ were again the issue of consensus is challenged. Islam clearly has views on politcial matters but there is no consensus on hardly any point. Some scholars believe that Islam is completely secular, so you must respect that has a legitimate ijtihad too. So you are merely trying to unite the world behind one view, one ijtihad and that is why you will never succeed.

5) I have asked this question twice before but just for you I will ask it once again. Please spare me the HT propaganda and give me the name of one Mosque in the UK that is prepared to host HT? I’m sure that is not difficult since you guys are such a popular party.

Eagerly await your responses.

You’re right Abu Wanabe Arab. The funny thing is, we both know that Abdul Rahman is reading the website right now and is just dying to get stuck in with his comments again but his Hizb has now banned him from talking to us. He’s just like all those nutters before him, first Abd al-Aziz, and then ‘me/munir’. We’ll just have to await the next Islamist nutter, although I am starting to feel sorry for the way in which we destroy all these guys in just a matter of hours so they never return again.

Ps, we know you’re reading this Sharif Hafezi and all the other boys at TI. Get stuck in my brothers.

Your right guys, I have never had so much fun since my school days when we used to go behind the bike sheds. Must be so disappointing for them to see a growing number of Muslims who are vocally critical of their fascist apocalyptic ideology.

Abdur Rahman

You still haven’t replied to my last post. Just incase you missed it (highly unlikely) here it is again;

The Prophet (saw) gave Dawah individually because this was the beginning of revelation. He (saw) then went public after establishing a small group. Today we have over one billion Muslims and revelation has ceased. So do we still need to go back to issues that were linked to gradual revelation in a time when it is complete?

What proof do you have that any of the early Sahabah thought they were fullfilling the three stages of establishing an Islamic state?

Historically dawah, nasihah, amr bil marouf etc to individuals and establishments, Muslim and non-Muslim has been continuous, just taking different forms depending upon the circumstances Muslims have faced.

As far as seeking support this is clearly an action undertaken by the Prophet (saw) in order to establish a power base to confront his enemies with. You seem to ignore the point that the Prophet (saw) was confronted by particular circumstances and our circumstances today have to be analyzed and compared.

If the small band he built up during the individual dawah stage were powerful enough to offer support would he (saw) still continue to seek nusrah?

If those who migrated to Abbasinia spread enough influence among the Christians to establish a state or to invade Arabia would the Prophet (saw) still continue to seek support from the tribes?

Seeking nusrah from the tribes was the practical solution in the tribal system of the arabs. Abu bakr (ra) was chosen to accompany the Prophet (saw) for practical reasons, his knowledge and influence of the tribes, the rest (almost all) of the Sahabah had nothing to do with these meetings, and their work of dawah, nasihah, forbidding evil were obligations in there own rights.

The Prophet (saw) built a mosque once, but do we have to work in a similar way when building a mosque today?

He (saw) made hijirah once, again do we have to follow him in the way he made hijirah?

He (saw) employed different tactics in every battle he was involved in. Must we adopt one complete set of circumstances (from one battle) and fight in this way today?

Not hypothetical questions but common sense.

I’m still waiting for your response!

Let’s give him a question he’s been trainred to answer. Brother Abdul Rehman, please tell us, what’s the “vital issue” for Muslims today?

I’ll give you a clue, it begins with a ‘K’, doesn’t it?

Well, Abdul Rehman did keep mentioning the Sun to me, repeatedly. So maybe he just likes those page 3 girls?!!

Raziq,

“The Prophet (saw) gave Dawah individually because this was the beginning of revelation. He (saw) then went public after establishing a small group. Today we have over one billion Muslims and revelation has ceased. So do we still need to go back to issues that were linked to gradual revelation in a time when it is complete?”

We follow Muhammad (SAW) in thought and action. Clearly, Muhammad (SAW) took certain steps to attain authority with the help of Allah (SWT). As Muslims, we want to emulate those steps in today’s reality. The reality today is that, yes, population size of society has increased, but the problems remain the same: Injustice, Oppression, Tyranny and corruption. Muhammad (SAW) introduces Islam at a state level. We must do the same.

What proof do you have that any of the early Sahabah thought they were fulfilling the three stages of establishing an Islamic state?

The implicit point being made in your question is incorrect. It also shows you have not read many scholarly accounts of the Seerah.
All the classical scholars and commentators of the seerah, split Muhammad (SAW) life into 3 or 4 stages. The private stage of Dawah, public, assuming authority and then implementation. The Sahabah followed each stage. Whether they knew it was a “stage” is irrelevant. The stage occurred and had an effect. That is what is relevant.
Textually, this is a methodology for bringing change in a society. Rationally, this methodology also holds true. If you look at any revolutionary movement, from Ghandi’s none-violent civil unrest, to Martin Luther Kings civil rights movement, they all underwent similar steps. I have read their history. I advise that you read it too. This will show you that the method to bring radical change employed by Muhammad (SAW) , our example and best example to mankind, is timeless in this context.

“You seem to ignore the point that the Prophet (saw) was confronted by particular circumstances and our circumstances today have to be analyzed and compared.
If the small band he built up during the individual dawah stage were powerful enough to offer support would he (saw) still continue to seek nusrah?
If those who migrated to Abbasinia spread enough influence among the Christians to establish a state or to invade Arabia would the Prophet (saw) still continue to seek support from the tribes?”

These are hypothetical questions. Those events did not happen, so no point entertaining it. As for a comparison of realities, it is clear that in Muslims countries, change is needed from the grass roots in parallel with those who have Nusrah. HT works on both these fronts as did Muhammad (SAW).

“Seeking nusrah from the tribes was the practical solution in the tribal system of the arabs.”
In general, the concept you fail to grasp is that a society consists of influential actors. Without the support of influential actors, sustained radical change has no chance. Grass roots support in itself is not enough and vice versa. This is a very obvious point which I am surprised you miss.

“The Prophet (saw) built a mosque once, but do we have to work in a similar way when building a mosque today? “
“He (saw) made hijirah once, again do we have to follow him in the way he made hijirah?
He (saw) employed different tactics in every battle he was involved in. Must we adopt one complete set of circumstances (from one battle) and fight in this way today?”

The analogy implied in your questions is incorrect. Clearly there are areas where Islam allows us to use our minds as points of reference and other areas where its sources show that Allah (SWT) and his Messenger Muhammad (SAW) provide guidance.

I think you need to employ some common sense and read more seerah books with the guidance of a sheikh. You then need to do some anthropological reading, which might help you understand the dynamics of change in society. Maybe then we can have a fruitful discussion.

Brother Abu Wanabe,

Firstly I would like to thank you for your measured tone. This is a welcome relief.

But with respect, I disagree with much of what you have written.

1) Point 1 re-inforces my point that the term “Islamism” is subjective. You seem to have your own definition. Those who coined the term have their own.

2) An Islamic state existed in the past which ruled a large land mass. There were other states which called themselves Islamic also in the past. The point which you seem to miss entirely, is that HT are calling for the obligation of politcal union, as outlined by the Quran, Sunnah and quoted classical scholars. Just because this political union declined or broke up, is not a basis to accept divided states. Please quote the classical ulema who say more than one Caliph is permitted. I await your references. Seriously, I will read up.

3) The notion of “merging political views with religion” is very secular in its nature and actually nonesensical. None of the major religions are apolitical. All major religions have views which impact the management of society. Of all these, Islam, Mashallah, has clearly addressed guidelines and limits for positions of commandment.

4) HT has not been kicked out of any mosque. Alhamdollillah it is active in many mosques. Please stop false slander dear brother.

Moreover, logic can prove anything given your chosen context or intention. This is why “actions are judged by intentions”. It is also why abdel rehman’s arguments, in the final analysis, always boil down to “context”. He can most amazingly prove that all muslims are Islamists by taking recourse to this argument of “context”.

Given that the intention is the main principle, we should look at the intentions of H.T. before anything else. And it is clear that their overriding intention is to gain power. They want to gain power over the current ruling governments. They use “whatever means necessary” and whatever argument befits the situation to try and achieve this. They may say they want to help the brothers in Palestine and Chechnya, but why aren’t they over there helping them them? Why are they here registering domain names and arguing the toss with people like us who they hold in such obvious contempt? Power.

The’re aim and intention to gain power in this world overrides everything. They have a veneer of overtly exoteric Islamic mores to try and disguise this. They don’t realise that this insincerity is plainly obvious to most right thinking people.

They don’t understand that “this world is like a prison to the true believer”, that a muslim should “be in this world as a traveller”, and that they can plan and plan but that God is the “best of planners”.

abdul rehman, don’t bother replying because there is nothing to discuss.

1) By concluding you have won something, does not mean you have won it. This is the problem with you guys. You have deluded yourselves into thinking you are right but your above posts and articles on this site show that you have no respect for intellectual discussion, but would prefer to mock and slander. Mock and Slander are the diversionary tactics which you guys have employed from the outset. The posts and articles are proof of this.

2) You do not know what existed in the past. You have not quoted any book of history. You also have not actually provided any references for the scholars you have mentioned. Provide those if you are confident in your beliefs. Read back and check the references I have provided. Like I said earlier, even students of G.C.S.E history know how to provide references.

3) The 2 examples you give are incorrect. Even if I give the truthful reality, you will attempt to twist it with the self justifying lens by which you view reality. HT has never said that voting is haraam. As you very well know, HT has elections for its own representatives. The clear issue at hand refers to voting for people who will vote to bring laws from un-Islamic sources into existence. I ask again, which classical scholar justifies the creation of executable societal law by voting? Which classical scholar justifies the creation of executable societal law from un-Islamic sources. Again, please provide references and I will read up. But like in all your other posts, you will not. Because you very well know I will check them. You obviously fear the fact that they will be checked.

4) Alhamdolillah HT has circles in many mosques in Britain and around the world. Yes, all readers are invited to go to http://www.hizb.org.uk, where you will find much evidence.

What you guys are doing is extremely dangerous and divisive. In today’s age where Islamaphobia is rampant, where muslim’s around the world are suffering oppression and tyranny looking for a way out, you brand anyone who peacefully goes against the status quo as “Islamists”. You slander sincere Muslims, who have given much more to the Ummah than false words on a website. You mock sincere Muslims who have dedicated their lives to dawah, but clearly don’t realise what the consequence of such mocking will be in Jahanam. You propagate impurity and out of political correctness to appease secular liberalists, try to change accepted principles of Islam which out rightly condemn homosexuality. There is no classical scholar, or Islamic source which condones homosexuality.
You pat yourselves on the back, which is yet more proof of self perpetuated ignorance.

Hizb Ut Tahrir works within Muslim communities within Britain to help elevate levels of education amongst youth and old. HT works with the youth to get them off drugs, embrace education and builds within them a yearning for Ibadaat, to worship Allah (SWT) in every aspect of our lives and love Muhammad (SAW), his family (RA) and companions (RA). HT speaks out against the foreign policy of western nations, which clearly meddle in the affairs of Muslim, unifying themselves and using sights like this to create discord and disunity amongst Muslims. HT works diligently in the Muslim world, in accordance to the method of Muhammad (SAW) to peacefully remove the tyrannical regimes, which have sworn to protect their own pockets, oppress their peoples and spread tyranny. HT works with many Scholars, none-Muslims, Islamic groups which have a difference of opinion, media outlets, newspapers, Mosques, Community groups and a myriad of grassroots institutions to bring about this change.
Alhamdolillah, the certain truth, is to say that while you guys mock and slander on a website cowering behind pseudonyms, the members of HT and other Islamic groups continue the work of Islam in public, transparently without fear for material loss.

This is why you are the laughing stock of all serious Muslims, thinkers, activists and dawah carriers.

Abdul Rehman – why the stubborness when you have shyed away from debating the key points and have simply introduced a whole new set of debates. You are really making a fool of yourself now and introducing yet more emotion and anger.

1) Who said anything about winning or losing. I merely stated that the fact the you chose and continue choose to evade the issues we began discussing leads me to conclude that my argument is stronger. Any neutral observer will also come to the same conclusion. You now want to divert attention away from the topic and onto the site in general. Nice try but I am really not that stupid.

2) Which history book did you quote? Which particular historical statement of mine would you like proof of? The fact that various Muslim empires co-existed? The fact that the Ottoman had a plural legal system? Which one?

3) HT have said that participating in democratic elections in Haram, whilst the majority of scholars in the world today say it is allowed. Simple. Would you like me to provide you with a list of scholars who say so? Again why have you chosen to pick on this particular point whilst ignoring all the other far more key point. You are the diversion master.

4) You still can’t name a single Mosque in the UK that hosts HT. yes I know they have circles here and there, who is denying that. I AM TALKING ABOUT MOSQUES.

This discussion started off semi-sensible and serious but you have just resorted to angry name calling, emotional outbursts and have completely avoided the key topics which we began discussing and simply moved onto new issues once the issues were nailed. How do you expect me to respond now? You still have not even made an attempt to pick up on any of the last points I raised and then you make a case for not losing. What else can you call it?

The links you gave to prove that there is consensus on one leader didn;t even discuss the issue at all. You may as well have gave me links to a Micheal Jackson video. They were completely irrelevant. How can you call yourself a truth seeker when you don’t stick to the topic, move the goals posts and then play victim of the grand conspiracy. The only conspriacy here is my attempt to get you to discuss the damn topics.

This is so frustrating, just when I thought I had found a senisble HT person to discuss with you turn out to be just as irrational and deluded as the rest, you don’t even know how to conduct a discussion. Good luck in your quest for world domination.

Abu Wanabe,

I am still waiting for your references. Please provide them if you believe sincerely what you write.

Like I said: “..please provide references and I will read up. But like in all your other posts, you will not. Because you very well know I will check them. You obviously fear the fact that they will be checked…”

Otherwise carry on writing self justifying paragraphs.

Alhamdolillah like many members of the Ummah, HT refers to the Quran, Sunnah and other Islamic sources for guidance.

HT works in the community to alleviate suffering and oppression. There are countless examples of this Alhamdolillah.

Abdul Rehman – I have already asked you which issue you would like references for and you have not responded. So once again which issue would like specific references for and I will go one better and produce a whole article of references? Just specify the topic.

Hey, Abdul Rehman, you accuse us of ‘cowering behind pseudonyms’ so, why don’t you reveal your identity and I’ll reveal mine.

Oh, and save us your false piety. Everyone here knows you for the swine you are and your weasel words won’t work.

Ps, I knew you wouldn’t be able to stay away.

Abu Wanabe,

The self glorifying lens with which you read and write has clearly blinded your ability to read anything.

As any neutral reader can observe, on countless occasions I have asked you to produce references from Classical Scholars who conclusively state that more than one Caliph is permitted. I have also asked you to quote serious historians who say that a “Caliphate” or “Islamic State” never existed. You have made these claims, so back them up with references.

I will check every reference with great detail, in arabic where needed.

But like on all occasions, you fail to do it, shifiting the goal posts and moving onto different topics. This is childish behaviour frankly.

As for your article, based on the above performance, any G.C.S.E student will be able to rebutt its claims, as you seem to reference your imagination, as opposed to any classical scholar or serious academic text.

abdul rehman,

The references have been given, but you have either overlooked or ignored them. Try reading the previous articles.

Your recurring references to GCSE’s only serves to show your own immaturity, and frankly its getting a little embarrasing. Most of the people you’re talking to here are too old to have done GCSE’s. We did O-levels.

In any case, if “any GCSE student” can rebutt Abu Wanabe’s article as you say, then why don’t you just rebutt it and get it over with. You haven’t done that yet. So look, based on the premise of your claim, either one of three things is logically true:

1. You can rebutt Abu Wanabe’s article easily (in which case, your next post should be a rebuttal of said article).
2. You are making false claims.
3. You have not done your GCSE’s yet.

Which one is it?

Meanwhile, I still haven’t received a shred of evidence from you, taken from the Quran and Sunnah, to prove that suicide is a legitimate means of martyrdom – one of the tenets of HT which they have publicized in their leaflets.

rasheeda bilaal, that was very, very well said. All of it.

Abdul Rehman – this is getting beyond a joke. You are just repeating my words without producing an argument. It is clearly you who have continuously changed the topic and still failed to answer my questions. You then state that I haven’t given references without specifiying what you want references for. You now claim I have refused to give references for the ‘one leader’ issue. On top of that you make lots of personal and emotional remarks. I had to guess I would say you cannot be older then 17 since your immaturity and child like debating style gives that away.

Okay so after evading all other discussion points, i.e. how to gauge Muslim public opinion, empires vs states (i still think you don’t even understand that distinction), Mosques who host HT and politcial violence, you want to focus on just this one topic and want references. Can I ask which relevant reference did you give? Your two or three dodgy links were completely irrelevant to the discussion. Especially the AH Murad one, that was laughable.

Nobody is denying that there is such a concept as an ‘islamic state’ or a ‘caliphate’ but rather the discussions in this area centre on the fact that Muslims have differing defintions of ‘Islamic States’ and ‘Caliphates’. So a mere mention of the term is not proof of anything since when most people use those terms they are not refering to what HT is refering to by using that term Only Al Qaida types groups have the same defintion as you guys. On the basis you have yet to supply a single reference to support any of your assertions, other then your new found friend Noah Feldman who is also critical of you, I don’t see why the onus is suddenly on me to do so. I have been debating these issues for over 15 years my friend so I can spot an amateur a mile off so don’t expect your sly diversion tactics to work here.

If you had bothered to read my previous posts I had gave you details of a number of Muslim scholars who don’t hold the view that Muslims in this day and age require one single political leadership. Here is a list;

Sheikh Ali Abdul Raziq in his book the Islam Wa Us’ul al Hukm
Abdullah an Naim in Islam and the State
Imam Mawardi discusses the issue in ‘Ahkam Sultaniyya’ and clearly explains that some scholars don’t hold this view. There is a whole chaper dedicated to this discussion.
Ibn Tammiyyah, Imam Shawkani also agree with this view as do virtually all the scholars of Al Azhar today.
Even the Taliban and Mullah Omar don’t hold this view since your beloved HT approached them and they rejected their advances are are happy to stick to Afghanistan.

Is that enough references for you or do you want me to really embarass you by diggin up some more? In fact, give me a few days and I will produce a whole article on this very topic and post it on this site. how is that? Then you will be free to pick as many holes in it as you like. But based on the evidence so far you will simply change the topic.

It seems the only thing keeping you in HT is your anger about Western foreign policy and your desire see the Muslim world re-assert its pride. Therefore, your mind is desperate to believe that HTs way is the true Islamic way since it is such a thought which gives you comfort. Just because an argument might appeal to you it doesn’t mean that it is Islamically sound. You are obviously new to the Hizb so let me tell you. HT will offer you nothing more then shallow slogans which channel your anger and frustration. They will make you think you are past of the solution and that your efforts will bring about change.

But guess what, it’s all an illusion. Their slogans have no substance and if your probe beyond the surface you will find what you have already been told here, i.e. they are merely one ijtihad. There is no Ijma on any of the issues that HT claim to be the true Islamic way. It is anger dressed up as intellectual ideas. That is why so many people leave when they have been through the party books.

All you need is an open mind. Don’t take it from me contact the leading Ulema of the world today, consult the leading scholars of islamic history and ask them these questions. you will realise that you have been fooled.

Good luck and am i here if you require any help or direction. Salam.

Abu Wanabe,

As expected, you have provided vague references without any clarity.

You said:
“Sheikh Ali Abdul Raziq in his book the Islam Wa Us’ul al Hukm
Abdullah an Naim in Islam and the State
Imam Mawardi discusses the issue in ‘Ahkam Sultaniyya’ and clearly explains that some scholars don’t hold this view. There is a whole chaper dedicated to this discussion.
Ibn Tammiyyah, Imam Shawkani also agree with this view as do virtually all the scholars of Al Azhar today. ”

I have read the books you have mentioned in arabic. I have them in my library. Please tell me the page numbers which mention the conclusive legitimacy of having more than one caliph? I assure you there is no such evidence and all you have quoted, as per my previous post have said the contrary.

Like I said before, it is easy to create a fantasy world out of ones imagination in which scholars say what ones mind wants them to say. But the public record is no fantasy and requires patience and a depth of understanding to pursue the knowledge it contains. You have clearly shown that you do not possess patience or a depth of understanding to pursue knowledge sincerely as you fail to quote from the public record with exact references.

Yet again you have shown that your research capability is very naive and at most junior level. You always lack academic level detail, which is why you quote vague references.

The above references are frankly laughable.

Grow up.

rasheeda bilaal

Aleikum Salaam,
Thank you for your post. I would like to address some of the points you have kindly raised:

“I do not see them as being correct on their articles of faith, their tawheed is incomplete and questionable to say the least, as they distance themselves from those on Ahle-Hadeeth”

With respect, I am glad you implicitly state the sentence as your opinion. The members of HT are Muslims. They believe in the Quran, Sunnah and all other legitimate Islamic sources. Mashallah, they all have a sound understanding of the aqeedah. Like many other Islamic groups, HT refer to the Islamic sources for guidance. The Islamic sources consist of many ahadith. The hadith have been categorized by classical scholars on the basis of chain of narration and meaning. HT clearly references mutwatir, ahad and other accepted classifications of ahadith and interpretations of classical scholars for guidance on conducting actions at both an individual and societal level.

“What is more dangerous is that they have turned all their attention to accusing the rulers. ‘this one is an American (stooge), that one is a British (stooge)’ – and so on and so forth as if there was no-one else in the world except America and Britain and as if it were America and Britain who were running the affairs of creation.

“And this causes people to turn away from the correct understanding of their Deen and away from Allah’s way of changing the affairs. They think that if they change the ruler they will attain what they desire – and this is contrary to the natural way laid down by Allah with regards to changes which come about amongst the creation:

As has been mentioned on many other posts, HT works at all levels of society around the world to help in the challenging task of building model Muslim communities outside the areas where there is a Muslim majority and working to bring about a peaceful, sustained, yet radical change within Muslim societies under very challenging circumstances. In non-Muslim dominated countries, HT engages in dawah to none-Muslims as this is an Islamic duty. The aim is to show the beauty of Islam as an individual and societal way of life.
HT engages the youth who have left school or college and resorted to criminal activities involving theft and drugs. They do this in two ways. The first involves engaging the parents and through official drug forums, giving advice about how to manage their children who have become victims of drug addiction thus reducing local demand for drug traffickers. The second is to engage the drug traffickers themselves. The aim is to show them the error of their ways and show them the beauty of the deen, by encouraging them to “Try Islam”. This has been an excellent local campaign with some motivating results Alhamdolillah. The campaign involved finding respected ex-drug traffickers who have embraced the deen and with them approaching existing traffickers, simply inviting to come pray salat at the mosque, recite some Quran and listen to beautiful ahadith.
Alhamdolillah, there are countless accounts where these engagements have been successful.
HT with other Islamic groups engages prisoners who society has forgotten. Those who have nothing left are assigned brothers, who under prison supervision teach Quran, in congregation recite ahadith and just show warmth as even though they committed crimes, Allah (SWT) is the most forgiving.
HT engages students at college and universities. Both as dawah carriers and where possible mentors to give careers advice. Mashallah along with a rich Islamic Cultural heritage, like many other Islamic groups, HT has a rich set of educated sisters and brothers. There are many students, who simply want guidance on career and what work opportunities exist in society. Sisters and Brothers take time out to give a hand. Some are impressed and join HT, others do not which, Alhamdolillah is perfectly ok. The aim is to help where possible, regardless if they join.
HT engages none Muslims and Muslims in society, poor, middle class and affluent. It organizes circles, knocks on doors to invite, invites people to their homes to hear our message and work with us to build a model Muslim community which is respectful, confident in its identity and at ease with its surrounding community.
HT engages many mosques, to give advice on halaal sources of finance, media management and how to leverage technology for dawah purposes.
HT engages thinkers and academics to show them how Islam has solutions to many problems which overwhelm society today, socially, economically and politically.
HT talks to the local Muslim Ummah. Together via workshops, and individual meetings, we analyze our weaknesses in our adherence to Islam and our pursuance of education. Together we confront our local economic situation and work out ways to get our sisters and brothers jobs, so that the challenges of daily life are reduced.
HT speaks out against the policies of those none-Muslim countries which are belligerent and have a track record of belligerency towards the Muslim Ummah and Islam. It is important that their policies are intellectually exposed for their belligerent nature. Without a doubt, many of our problems are self inflicted and this is clearly recognized and as per above, plus many many other actions, work is being done to address such problems. But equally, many of our problems are the result of neo-colonialist policies, which use tools like the IMF, world bank and so called none governmental organizations to subjugate our economies to infinite debt and the forced implementation of structural adjustment programs which are in the interest of the creditors. As a result our farmers have to sell their produce at a loss, because imports from the creditors are not taxed. Our workers are forced to work for a pittance to pay off the debt which their incompetent government forced on their necks. On average our children lack education because the debt does not allow high class free education. Our societies cannot benefit from industrial strength technology like civilian nuclear reactors because the conditions of the debt implicitly forbid inward investment.
The incompetency of our governments at a macro and micro level, have far reaching effects on all constituents of society. If our governments were not corrupt and incompetent, they would invest the 100s of billions they have received to date, in their people, providing high class free education, health shelter and building environments to engender sustainable growth on all fronts. Governments have the ability to do this. But our governments have a track record of not doing any of this. They subjugate the poor by sleeping with the land barons. They trick the sincere workers of change in the political system, by piling them with mountains of bureaucracy and red tape, stopping them thinking about the radical change which is needed to bring progress for the very people they sincerely work for. They ban any kind of opposition, Islamic or none Islamic. They are openly secular, to appease the creditors so that more subjugating loans are secured in the future. Governments, no doubt have access to resources which can be leveraged to bring sustained changed. Working in partnership with the governed brings success. But this partnership can only come about if both partners are ready to embrace each other. Our people suffer much, economically, politically and militarily. On average they can just about make ends meet so do not have time to think about this crucial partnership which can bring success and progress to society. They do not care who is in power. The evidence for this is the multitude of coups which have taken place in many our countries, yet apart from small resistance the vast majority simply get up the next morning and continue their struggle to make ends meet. So the people as a partner need to be embraced and only then will they have the capability of embracing. Only the government has the ability to initiate a sincere embrace with all its resources, institutions and individual / societal investment programs. But our governments have failed to embrace our people year on year, decade on decade, generation on generation.
Like many other Islamic groups, HT works on the grass roots level to build a critical mass of Muslims who make Islam the basis of their life and works to peacefully bring a sincere and radical change bringing into existence a sincere Islamic government which will view embracing its people not only as an Islamic hukm, but a family like prerogative.

“Verily never will Allah change a condition of a people until they change what is within their souls [Ra'd 13:11]”

The whole verse is as follows:

“For each, there are angels in succession, before and behind him.They guard him by the Command of Allâh. Verily! Allâh will not change the good condition of a people as long as they do not change their state of goodness themselves. But when Allâh wills a people’s punishment, there can be no turning back of it, and they will find besides Him no protector. [Ra'd 13:11]”

Ibn Kathir’s tafsir of this verse mentions a narrations of Ibn Abi Hatim:
“Ibn Abi Hatim narrated that Ibrahim said, “Allah revealed to a Prophet from among the Children of Israel, `Say to your nation: every people of a village or a house who used to obey Allah but changed their behaviour to disobeying Him, then He will take away from them what they like and exchange it for what they dislike.” Ibrahim next said that this statement has proof in Allah’s Book,

“Verily, Allah will not change the (good) condition of a people as long as they do not change their state (of goodness) themselves.”

Ibn Abbas’s Tafsir of this verse is as follows (Taken from the translation by Mokrane Guezzo)
(For him are angels ranged before him) He has angels who succeed one another: the angels of the night succeed the angels of the day and vice versa (and behind him who guard him by Allah’s command) and who drive him to the things destined. (Lo! Allah changeth not the condition of a society) the blessing and safety of a society(until they (first) change that which is in their hearts) by failing to give thanks; (and if Allah willeth misfortune) a chastisement or destruction (for a society there is none that can repel it) there is none that can repel Allah’s decree concerning them, (nor have they) for those whom Allah wants to destroy (a defender) who can save them from Allah’s chastisement; it is also said that this means: none can give them a refuge to which they can escape (beside Him) beside Allah.

Shiekh Taqi Ud Din Nabhani, founder of HT, understood that the implied injunction in this verse needs to be applied at every level of society.
At an individual level, our concepts and emotions control our actions. We must try our best to make Islam the basis of our thoughts, likes and dislikes. But on average an individual does not live in isolation. Rather an individual lives in and is influenced by individuals around him, their collective thoughts and the government which is charged to maintain a just and progressively sustainable environment. Allah (SWT) revealed a way of life which addresses our relationship with His Majesty, Lord of the Universe, our individual concepts and emotions, prescribes how as individuals we relate to each other, command and relate to those who command all on the basis of maximising the worship of Allah (SWT). Because the object of life is indeed just that:

Allah (SWT) says in the Quran:

“And I (Allâh) created not the jinns and humans except they should worship Me (Alone).”
(Az- Zariyat-51: 56)

Ibn Kathir explains the meaning of this ayat, referencing other collections:
“The meaning of this Ayah (51:56) is that, Allah the Exalted, the Blessed created the creatures so that they worship Him Alone without partners. Those who obey Him will be rewarded with the best rewards, while those who disobey Him will receive the worst punishment from Him. Allah stated that He does not need creatures, but rather, they are in need of Him in all conditions. He is alone their Creator and Provider.”

Thus the “state of a people” has many dimensions and the worship of Allah (SWT), Lord of all creation, must occur on all dimensions, if we are to receive the mercy, forgiveness, bounty and firm foothold Allah (SWT), Lord of the Alamin, has promised. The dimensions manifest at an individual, collective and authoritarian level. This is why HT works on all 3 fronts, to address, account and change the individual concepts and emotions which lead to sin. To address and account and change the common thoughts and relationships in society which lead to sin. To address account and change the government which perpetuates sin in society. Muhammad (SAW), Rahmatul Alamin, worked, amongst many other areas, in these areas and so we follow his timeless example for guidance.

“What is required of every Muslim is to practise the religion of Allaah as much as he is able to. The imaamah (Islamic political leadership) has been prescribed for the purpose of establishing the religion of Allaah.”  Agreed

“No one should think that the fact that there is no imaam at any given time in any given country means that we can be negligent and introverted and not practise or establish any aspect of the religion. Among the people of misguidance during this age and at other times there are those who say that we do not need to establish any of the symbols of Islam until a khaleefah has been appointed over the Muslims and the Islamic state has been established. This is one of the worst kinds of misguidance, and believing this leads to abandoning Jumu’ah prayers, prayer in jamaa’ah, Hajj, jihaad, collecting zakaah, prayer for rain (istisqaa’), Eid prayers, appointing imaams for mosques, calling the adhaan and other things, which amounts to cancelling the rulings of Islam.”

I agree there are people who make this interpretation. They are incorrect in their opinion. The members of HT follow the fard and Sunnah of Muhammad (SAW), with or without a Khilafah.

To add to what you have kindly written, Abu Hafs Umar al-Nasafi (RHA) in his Akaid mentions:
“The Muslims simply must have an Imam, who will execute the rules, establish the Hudud, defend the frontiers, equip the armies, collect Zakah, punish those who rebel and those who spy and highwaymen, establish Jum’ah and the two ‘Eids, settle the dispute among the servants (of Allah), accept the testimony of witnesses in matters of legal rights, give in marriage the young and the poor who have no family, and distribute the booty”.”

Imam Al Juzairy in his Fiqh Ul Mathahib Ul Arba’a mentions:
“The Imams, scholars of the four schools of thought (Shafi’i, Hanafi, Maliki, Hanbali), may Allah have mercy on them, agree that the Imamah is an obligation, and that the Muslims must appoint an Imam who would implement the deen’s rites, and give the oppressed justice against the oppressors”.

“Moreover, how can an Islamic state be established without an ideological foundation and a society of Muslims who been educated in the religion and have learned it thoroughly?”

The seeking of knowledge is a fundamental action prescribed in all Islamic schools of thought. But a critical mass of knowledgeable Muslims with thorough learning is not enough. What is crucial is that their hearts and minds are devoted to the worship of Allah (SWT), Lord of all that exists, and they have a desire to win the interceding du’a’s of Muhammad (SAW) on the last day. For sure this comes with knowledge. But like some of the companions, some only knew 3 -4 verses of the Quran. Yet their desire for worshipping Allah (SWT) and love of Muhammad (SAW) was unparalleled. The point here is that it is crucial the critical mass have a desire to do the fard and sunnah and take practical steps to implement what they learn individually and at a societal level. If practical steps are not taken, as demonstrated to us by Muhammad (SAW), “establishing a Khilafah in our selves” will have very little effect. Mashallah in the 1.5 billion Muslims in existence today, there are many “critical masses” who think like this. In time, if they continue on the path of Allah (SWT), their foothold will Inshallah be made firm. Remember about this Ummah, Allah (SWT) says:

“You are the best community raised up for mankind.”
“you enjoin that which is good”
“and you forbid that which is wrong”
“and you believe in Allâh..”

(Al-Imran 3:110)

Ibn Kathir tafsir on this verse mentions:

“Qatadah said, “We were told that `Umar bin Al-Khattab recited this Ayah [3:110] during a Hajj that he performed, when he saw that the people were rushing. He then said, `Whoever likes to be among this [praised] Ummah, let him fulfill the condition that Allah set in this Ayah.”’ Ibn Jarir recorded this. Those from this Ummah who do not acquire these qualities will be just like the People of the Scriptures whom Allah criticized, when He said:
“They did not forbid one another from the Munkar which they committed. ..”[5:79].
At an individual level, we forbid munkar which we commit and our family and friends commit. At a societal level, we forbid the munkar committed by our governments and the implementation of their policies. To forbid is to change when a capability to enact change exists as mentioned in Sahih Muslim:

“On the authority of Abu Saeed Al-Khurdari, who said: I heard the messenger of Allah say:
Whosoever of you sees an evil action, let him change it with his hand; and if he is not able to do so, then with his tongue; and if he is not able to do so, then with his heart; and that is the weakest of faith.”

HT along with many other Islamic groups believe, with the help of Allah (SWT), The Most Powerful, they have the capability to remove the munkar in society with their hands and tongue by following the method of Muhammad (SAW).

“And is we imagine that the ruler would change – whilst the nation do not believe in this Deen – then what would happen is that these people will cause a revolution as had happened, for example in Russia”

The Ummah, which is classified as the best Ummah ever raised up amongst mankind does believe in the Deen Mashallah. There are many societal factors, as mentioned above which keep them subjugated, economically deprived and without education. Yet still, the Hajj increases in number, year on year, Mosques around the world are getting fuller in and out of Ramadan, the yearning for Islamic Shariah is increasing as quantified by polls. Secular parties are increasingly using the Islamic card to win elections. There will always be good in this Ummah Alhamdolillah, even though it faces huge problems.
As for the relationship with the Imam. HT believes that the ummah is ready to have a relationship with the institution of a Khaleef, who strives to sincerely implement Islam justly, leaves no stone unturned in addressing their daily problems, frees them from false debt, enacts policies which create a sustained environment to freely worship Allah (SWT), enacts economic policy for sustained revenue generation and helps a majority Muslim society be at one with itself at all levels, through social cohesion, education and military protection.

“..Take employment law, unemployment benefits etc in Britain, that we here take for granted because we were british born, now compare the System to say an advanced (supposedly Muslim) state such as Dubai or the whole UAE, they do not have employment laws to look after an individual, they dont have benefits, chances are that if you’re an Expat and you take your employer to court because you were unhappy that he forced you into working overtime on the notion that he’ll expel your sponsorship..”

Islam has clear guidelines about company structure, the rights of employees and management. These were practiced for over a thousand years and were a benchmark for business around the globe. I agree that from an information technological perspective the West has much to offer. We should acquire as much knowledge to contribute to society while we are here and also take back to the Muslim world and Inshallah the Khilafah when the time comes. But I don’t believe the west has much to offer with respect to justice, authority, accountability and economic progress. The events of late, from the credit crunch to the expenses scandal highlight many holes in their political philosophy, which creates a huge divide amongst rich and poor and requires a generational boom and bust to correct the false economy created from fiduciary economics. Islamic principles exist to guide us in these matters. In my opinion, all countries in the middle east are secular in these areas, using Islam as a token system to appease the masses who want to live by it. True practice of justice resulting to progress is yet to be seen in the era of the “Nation” state.

“Although they are two separate entities, We can be both British and Muslim at the same time, so long as they don’t overlap eachother and become mixed, so long as we don’t compromise our faith and so long as we don’t become too destructive against our British identity, such thinking will enable the Muslims to make huge leaps by identifying their strengths and those strengths of their country and enabling and promoting such strong ideas to strengthen Islam as a whole for the benefit of the collective – our Ummah.” Alhamdolillah, Agreed.

Jazak Allah Khere.

Suicide is clearly haraam according to many textual evidences found in the Quran, Ahadith and scholarly works. Killing innocent people is clearly haraam on a similar basis.
In my opinion, sometimes acts of martyrdom are confused with suicide. If someone straps a bomb to themselves and blows themselves up for no reason but to do just that, then that is clear cut suicide. It is no different to a person stabbing them self with an “iron weapon” as the result is the same. But let us consider a very real scenario.
I remember watching the news about the Israeli offensive against Gaza. Many Palestinians pledged to defend their homes and families against the tanks and troops which were coming to destroy, evict and kill them on live TV. One reporter visited a Palestinian family. They had no RPGs, guns or grenades. But they had homemade explosives which they intended to use against the enemy – just like any human being would do. The reporter re-visited the family a couple of days later finding that 2 male family members had been “martyred” using the homemade explosive against one of the bulldozers which was going to rip their house apart. The mother mentioned how one of her sons jumped from a balcony of a different apartment onto the bulldozer and detonated the explosive destroying the bulldozer, which according to her saved the family. Her other son also jumped from a balcony onto a group of soldiers, detonating the bomb, killing a few. In my opinion, those sons were martyred Inshallah. They were defending their family and land from an aggressor who clearly came to destroy them. Someone could argue that their action had very little effect. But for the family, the effect was more than enough. But one should also remember the impossible situation they find themselves in. They see their mothers and sisters in-front of them, subjugated and in tears crying to Allah (SWT) for help. They cannot imagine the horrors that may ensue should the Israelis enter their home. So they are compelled to take up arms and use any means necessary to defend their family. I believe anyone of us would do the same in a similar circumstance.
The western media would classify the above action as suicide and an act of terrorism. But clearly, “one man’s freedom fighter is another man’s terrorist”. Western media is hypocritical in this area. I have read countless reports where British or America, citizens or soldiers “put themselves in harm’s way to protect fellow citizens or troops”. This “putting themselves in harm’s way” can manifest as running into an enemy bunker with a bomb to blow it up, to flying “one way missions” into distant lands with no chance of return. There are also plenty of western films, serious and fictional, glorifying “martyrdom operations”.

Islamic sources contain many texts which talk about fighting from a defensive and even offensive posture. Some have context, others classical scholars have defined as general and applicable at all times. These cannot be neglected when analysing the plight of those who have very little and crucially *no other alternative* when it comes to defend their loved ones:

“And fight in the way of Allaah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allaah likes not the transgressors” (al-Baqarah 190)

“Will you not fight a people who have violated their oaths (pagans of Makkah) and intended to expel the Messenger while they did attack you first? Do you fear them? Allaah has more right that you should fear Him if you are believers” (al-Tawbah:13)

“Fight against them so that Allâh will punish them by your hands and disgrace them and give you victory over them and heal the breasts of a believing people.” (AT Tawbah: 14)
“Those who believe in Allâh and the Last Day would not ask your leave to be exempted from fighting with their properties and their lives, and Allâh is the All-Knower of Al-Muttaqûn” (AT Tawbah: 44)

“Those who believed (in the Oneness of Allâh – Islâmic Monotheism) and emigrated and strove hard and fought in Allâh’s Cause with their wealth and their lives are far higher in degree with Allâh. They are the successful” (AT Tawbah: 20)

“Verily, Allâh has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties; for the price that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allâh’s Cause, so they kill and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him in the Taurât (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel) and the Qur’ân. And who is truer to his covenant than Allâh? Then rejoice in the bargain which you have concluded. That is the supreme success” (At-Tauba:111)

“Let those (believers) who sell the life of this world for the Hereafter fight in the Cause of Allâh, and whoso fights in the Cause of Allâh, and is killed or gets victory, We shall bestow on him a great reward.” (An Nisa: 74)
In terms of Hadith about Martyrdom :

(Bukhari) Narrated ‘Abdullah bin ‘Amr bin Al-’As:
I heard the Prophet saying, “Whoever is killed while protecting his property then he is a martyr.”

(Bukhari) “Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, “By Him in Whose Hands my life is! Were it not for some men amongst the believers who dislike to be left behind me and whom I cannot provide with means of conveyance, I would certainly never remain behind any Sariya’ (army-unit) setting out in Allah’s Cause. By Him in Whose Hands my life is! I would love to be martyred in Al1ah’s Cause and then get resurrected and then get martyred, and then get resurrected again and then get martyred and then get resurrected again and then get martyred. “

(Muslim) “It has been reported on the authority of Jabir that a man said: Messenger of Allah, where shall I be if I am killed? He replied: In Paradise. The man threw away the dates he had in his hand and fought until he was killed (i.e. he did not wait until he could finish the dates).”
(Muslim) “The tradition has been narrated on the authority of ‘Abdullah b. Qais. He heard it from his father who, while facing the enemy, reported that the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) said: Surely, the gates of Paradise are under the shadows of the swords. A man in a shabby condition got up and said; Abu Musa, did you hear the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say this? He said: Yes. (The narrator said): He returned to his friends and said: I greet you (a farewell greeting). Then he broke the sheath of his sword, threw it away, advanced with his (naked) sword towards the enemy and fought (them) with it until he was slain.”

Al-Qurtubi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said in his Tafseer (8/15):
When jihad becomes inevitable because the enemy has overrun one of the (Muslim) regions, then it becomes obligatory for all the people of that region to mobilize and to go out to fight, whether they are light (being healthy, young and wealthy) or heavy (being ill, old and poor), each according to his abilities, with or without the permission of his parents. No one who is able to go out, warrior or helper, should stay behind. If the people of that country are unable to fight their enemy, then those in nearby and neighbouring countries have to go out to fight, in whatever numbers are required to show support, so that they will know that they have the strength to stand up to them and ward them off.

So there are clear injunctions which allow Muslims to take up arms against an aggressor. If in an impossible situation, Muslims are allowed to use any means to defend their property and family. Sacrificing oneself to save others by killing those who come to kill your loved ones is not suicide. On the contrary, in my opinion, it is martyrdom.
I would also like to make a general point about using violence as a means to bring change. Muhammad (SAW), during the meccan stage, with complete reliance on Allah (SWT), used non-violent intellectual and political means to bring about change in society. The command for physical jihad came in the Medinan stage. There is great wisdom in this, which acts as a blueprint for bringing about, non-violently, much needed change in the Muslim lands today.
The western regimes talk about the “velvet revolution” and “bringing sustainable peace” to society. But, hypocritically, they are the ones who clearly use violence to bring their version of “change” in Muslim lands. When Muslims defend themselves from attack, they are branded suicide bombers or terrorists. When western forces take the offensive and attack Muslim lands, they are branded heroes, martyrs and bastions of democracy. The Western media creates narratives and loaded definitions to shape public opinion about “Muslim Terrorists”, “Coalition Forces” or the “Israeli *Defence* Force”. As a consequence they force some prominent Muslims into a defensive politically correct posture. In some cases this results in statements which condemn legitimate defensive acts of martyrdom as terrorist or suicidal.
In my opinion, we should read about the struggles, socio/politico reality and ascertain the reasons for why someone would strap a bomb to themselves, run into an army unit and detonate, as opposed to just condemning them to hell fire.

Abu Wanabe Arab

You seem to be saying that Muslims believe in democracy from the fact they participate in the political process ie elections, in many Muslim countries.

Should you not be concluding that they believe in elections, when it is quite obvious that they are highly suspicious and questioning of the actual political system and those who run it (esp. given the high levels of systemic corruption that seem to plague most of the Muslim world).

Many non-Muslims in the history of the Caliphate participated in the Islamic political systems (e.g., Egypt, India, Turkey etc) – is it valid to conclude they believed in the Islamic political system? Or rather they found it beneficial?

Abu Wanabe Arab

I have already grown up thanks. Again your constant need to resort to personal insults is a very bad quality and doesn’t help the discussion

The irony of this, given your user name, is probably lost on you

Abu Wannabe Arab

I do not find it persuasive that people who participate in elections believe in the system – it is not possible to conclude that without taking a survey.

I have spoken to many Muslims who vote in the UK – I have yet to find one who believes in the system, all stating it is non-Islamic – they vote for pragmatic reasons, ie to benefit their communities in some way or other.

Most Muslims I have spoken to from across the Muslim world want to get rid of the systemic and endemic corruption that characterises their political systems (that were left as legacies of colonial occupations in most cases) and want systems that work for them whatever they may be.

Likewise, non-Muslim minorities who participated in Islamic systems in history did not believe in them as they did not believe in the Islamic way of life – they pragmatically participated in them for their own self-interests or the interests of their communities.

BTW I did not state there was one political system in history. You appear to be confusing issues.

Furthermore, the point I was making on this discussion was that democratical elections which involve millions of people are a far better indicator of public opinion than a survey conducted by a western company using a small sample of about 500 people. Neither is perfect but one is clearly better than the other.

The problem some individuals have is that they reach a conclusion first and then work backwards to find evidence to support it, hence reliance on small unreliable polls over huge elections involving millions.

Regards.

AR – The discussion here is do the majority of Muslims want the HT vision of a caliphate, it seems you now too have admitted that they don’t. Thank you, I knew we would get there eventually.

Truth can be starting you in the face and you can not see it as did the people of Mecca…

The difference, of course, is that the people of Mecca were faced with the Last Prophet and Messenger of Allah (saws). Whereas the people of Spittoon are faced with…

I have yet to see any of you take the philosophy of HT and intellectually dismantle it – I have yet to even read of anyone having done it…

Here’s a fairly good attempt by Shaykh Gibril Haddad:

http://mac.abc.se/home/onesr/ez/in/it1/On_Hizb_ut-Tahrir.txt

Shafa,

Don’t let appearances astonish you.

(Btw, I’m familiar with those articles of the shaykh)

Interestingly I’ve had a look at the so called Shaykh and this is what people are saying of him:

With all due respect to GF Haddad but many have found him little inconsistent in some issues. Some of his articles don’t articulate well or are consistent.
Let me give you simple examples:
1- The Aqida of Imam Abdul Qadir Jilani
GF Haddad first said that book of Imam Abdul Qadir Jilani is tampered because it has the phrase “bi-dhaat” then later on he came up with another article saying that it was authentically reported from Imam Abdul Qadir Jilani and he tried to find some excuses.
2- The posts on al-zawiya forum and soundvision forum by rabita on GF Haddad which he couldn’t respond and he came up with excuses like the author is malamati sufi and Allah forgive these malamati sufis.
Based on this one may say that the claims of GF Haddad on Deobandis and Barelwis must be verified and researched again. Also, he doesn’t speak Urdu and most of the literature in Urdu. So his research could be not accurate/
I agree, Shaykh Haddads views are sometimes very peculiar, not to say we dont respect him but certainly inconsistencies lie in his approach. Look at his unwarranted attack on Umar Ibrahim Vadhillo on his website. It seems Sidi Haddads answer is just plain name calling and things. Hardly actions of a scholar is it? On the other hand Sidi Vahillo has shown nothing but good manners and adhab.
Secondly, ready Shaykh Ninowys refutation of Shaykh Haddad regarding some of his incorrect statements about the Ghumari Shaykhs (may Allah have mercy on them). Ive never seen such better scholary work refuting someone. Pure adhab by Shaykh Ninowy, and again not a leg to stand on for Sidi Haddad.
Anyway point being take his things with a pinch of salt and you should be OK…

Someone pointed out to me what is attributed to Shaykh GF Haddad’s refuted Huzoor Mufakire Islam presentation, and implicitly leads to many accusations. He also called him someone who does Talbis!!! Insha’Allah I will show you that the Talbis of Iblis has been the ally of brother GF Haddad in this. I have always thought (based on his own website and recorded audio’s) that Shaykh GF Haddad rushes to issue judgments without sufficient knowledge, -Allah guide him and us-, but I didn’t expect him to slip like that. I pray that he corrects that slip, as we think good of him insha’Allah.

Shaykh GF Haddad claims that Imam Abul Hasan Al Ash’ari in that ” The passage in Maqalat al-Islamiyyin refers to the positions of the Muslims as a whole, including the Mu`tazila, Shi`a and Khawarij, and not just Ahl al-Sunna.” A-By reviewing many pages before and many pages after in the book of Imam Abul Hasan (ra), any beginnger can tell that when Al Imam mentions “Ikhtalafoo” = “they disagreed”, he mostly means Ahlus Sunnah. When the Imam wants to include the Shia, or Mutazilah, he usually names them specifically, as he did in a page before page 340 when talking about the fights amongst the Sahaba (ra). In fact, in that passage Al Imam Abul Hasan, did not mention the whole Ummah, and did not indicate anything, except Ikhtalafoo= They disagreed. Shaykh GF Haddad claims that in the paragraph above, Imam Abul Hasan was also including the ” including the Mu`tazila, Shi`a and Khawarij ” . WHERE IS THE DALEEL FOR THIS BROTHER GF HADDAD????

I would like to know from Shaykh GF Haddad, which of the Khawarej sects that are known to us in the old books, favour Ali even remotely. In fact, their whole off-shoot was based on their split from Ali and declaring him as Kafir. But then, you make them here agree than Ali is one of the four best people!!!!!!

It is so shallow, it would be embarressing to even respond to it! The comments of his critics are right – he doesn’t look into a subject before addressing it.

..

Abu Yusuf

Why are you selective in your rendering of ahadith and omit the following ahadith (plus many others) which are on the same topic? Is it because they go against you? Surely the correct understanding is the one that reconciles all their meanings together which is what Nebhani claims to have done, whether you agree with him or not – the first hadith provides the context that we should only obey those rulers who apply sharia – not the current tyrants who apply nationalism and secular ideologies.

The Prophet (saaws) said, “The Israelis used to be ruled and guided by prophets: Whenever a prophet died, another would take over his place. There will be no prophet after me, but there will be Caliphs who will increase in number.” The people asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What do you order us (to do)?” He said, “Obey the one who will be given the pledge of allegiance first. Fulfil their (i.e. the Caliphs) rights, for Allah will ask them about (any shortcoming) in ruling those Allah has put under their guardianship.” Bukhari

The Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) said: In the near future there will be Amirs (rulers) and you will like their good deeds and dislike their bad deeds. One who sees through their bad deeds (and tries to prevent their repetition by his hand or through his speech), is absolved from blame, but one who hates their bad deeds (in the heart of his heart, being unable to prevent their recurrence by his hand or his tongue), is (also) safe (so far as God”s wrath is concerned). But one who approves of their bad deeds and imitates them is spiritually ruined. People asked (the Prophet): Shouldn’t we fight against them? He replied: No, as long as they say their prayers. Muslim. and in other versions as long as they establish salat.

“The master of martyrs (sayyid al-shuhada) is Hamza, and a man who stands up to a tyrant ruler and gives him nasiha (advice). And so the ruler kills him”

“Allah does not punish the individuals for the sins of the community until they see the evil spreading among themselves, and while they have the power to stop it, do not do so.” (Ahmad)

We should always remember that Allah(swt) says “Do you believe in part of the book and reject the rest?”

Ali

Please can you dig up your sources/citations for the hadeeths you have just quoted, many thanks akhi

Ali, googler and Javed,

Thanks to Ali for adding those beautiful ahadith. I will attempt to answer all your questions and to clear up some misunderstandings, whilst trying to avoid dispute as this is the month of Ramadan.

The first hadith Ali mentioned is from Sahih Bukhari, Book 56, no. 661:

Narrated Abu Huraira: The Prophet said, “The Israelis used to be ruled and guided by prophets: Whenever a prophet died, another would take over his place. There will be no prophet after me, but there will be Caliphs who will increase in number.” The people asked, “O Allah’s Apostle! What do you order us (to do)?” He said, “Obey the one who will be given the pledge of allegiance first. Fulfil their (i.e. the Caliphs) rights, for Allah will ask them about (any shortcoming) in ruling those Allah has put under their guardianship.”

About this hadith, Ali says that it “provides the context that we should only obey those rulers who apply sharia – not the current tyrants who apply nationalism and secular ideologies.” This is not entirely correct. The context which this hadith sets is the arena of the present age in which there will be no more Prophets after Muhammad (saws), and in his place their will be successors instead (Khulafah, pl. of Khalifah: one who replaces someone who has died or left).

One important thing to note here is that it is Allah who puts the citizenry under the guardianship of the Khulafah (“Allah will ask them about [any shortcoming] in ruling those Allah has put under their guardianship”), and it is not the citizenry who puts the Khalifah into power. This is the point which is lost on most HT adherents, and it is, in fact, what HT has in common with modern movements like secular democracy.

Another thing to note is that this particular hadith does not make any mention of what to do if the rulers do not apply shari’ah. (The second hadith Ali mentioned does deal with that question. I will come to that shortly).

You may well ask, (as others before you have) how is possible that we can sit back and wait for Allah to put somebody in power? Well, it is not a question of “sitting back” or “just having sabr” but of choosing where one concentrates one’s field of activity. For the modern who has lost taqwa, the sense of the sacred, there is only worldly ideologies and political systems. However: -

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “Whoever is mainly concerned about the Hereafter, Allah will make him feel independent of others and will make him focused and content, and his worldly affairs will fall into place. But whoever is mainly concerned with this world, Allah will make him feel in constant need of others and will make him distracted and unfocused, and he will get nothing of this world except what is decreed for him.”
Narrated by al-Tirmidhi, Hadith No. 2389

This is a subtle point, and this hadith hints at an something which requires the meeting of the whole of one’s being with Islam to properly comprehend.

The second hadith quoted by Ali is from Sahih Muslim, no. 1854, and states:
Umm Salamah narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “Leaders will be appointed over you. You will recognize some of what they do and reject other aspects. The one who dislikes [that situation] will be innocent [of sin]. The one who objects to it will be safe [with respect to his religion]. But the one who is pleased and follows [will have his sin upon him].” They said, “O Messenger of Allah (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him), shall we not fight them?” He said, “No, not as long as they pray”.

About this hadith, Ibn Taimiyyah said, “This clarifies that the leaders, who are the rulers and those in charge of the affairs, are to be disliked and rebuked whenever they bring an act of disobedience to Allah. However, one does not remove his hand from obedience to them. Instead one obeys them for the sake of Allah. [It also shows] that some of them are good and some of they are evil”
Minhaaj al-Sunnah, vol. 1, p.117

Al-Nawawi noted about this hadith, “This contains evidence… that it is not allowed to rebel against the caliphs simply due to impiety, as long as they do not change any of the foundations of Islam”
Sharh Saheeh Muslim vol. 12, pp.243-244

Also, the consensus amongst scholars in the past has been that “as the long pray”, or “as long as they establish prayer” as some versions have it, does mean that the rulers themselves pray, but rather that allow others to pray and do not actually forbid the act of prayer. (See Ahmed Zarruq, al-Nasiha al-Kafiya, 144

(Sadly, in this context, the Chinese government is the one which the Ummah should be uniting against, as they actively were prohibiting the Uighur from praying in their mosques)

The third hadith you quoted by Ali:
Al Hakim has reported in the Hadith narrated by Jabir that the Prophet (SAW) said, “The master of the martyrs is Hamza, and whoever is killed speaking truth in the court of a tyrant ruler”.

I have seen these quoted many times on HT and pro HT websites. I would be interested if you could provide me with reference to this as I cannot find it in the Sahihain (ie., Bukhari & Muslim). It is apparently related by Abu Dawud (according to the internet sites), and was quoted by Taqiuddin an-Nabhani, in “The Ruling System in Islam”,5th Edition, London, Khilafah Publications, 1996, p 289.

Be that as it may, I think the point you are trying to relay is that one should not remain passive in the face of an unjust ruler – and it is a common misunderstanding of HT members that those who oppose would prefer to do just that.

However, this is a misunderstanding of what about opposers of HT’s cause are trying to say. Scholars and most educated muslims are well aware of a very similar sahih ahadith such as:

The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said, “The best jihad is a statement of justice in the presence of an unjust ruler”
- recorded by al-Tirmidhi, Abu Dawood and ibn Maajah. Declared as hasan by Al-Mundhiri in al-Targheeb wa al Tarheeb vol. 3, p. 168.

It is well know that a muslim should definitely not stand by passively in the face of injustice.

However, you should be aware that the consensus amongst traditional scholars is precisely what Ibn Taimiyyah said about this matter: “No one should order good or eradicate evil unless he is knowledgeable of what his is ordering and knowledgeable of what he is eradicating, gentle with respect to his ordering and gentle with respect to his forbidding, calm with respect to his ordering and calm with respect to his forbidding”
al-Fataawa, vol.28. p.137
(emphases mine).

Another point to be made about the hadith about Hamza, “as-Sayyid al Shuhada”, is that he although Hamza (r.a.) presented his complaint to the tyrant ruler and was killed as a result, he did not kill himself in an act of suicide. Nothing in the Quran or Sunnah or the whole body of traditional fiqh implies that killing oneself can lead to martyrdom.

To answer Ali, I hope this shows that it is not me who has been selective in my reading of ahadith but, rather, that in order to follow the HT line of reasoning (which is essentially the same as the Mu’tazilah, the Khawaraij and the Zaidiyyah positions, with a few modern accretions) one has to distort the meanings of certain ahadith beyond what was understood by traditional scholarship. One must also ignore other ahadith entirely (for example, the ones I posted in my previous post).

Much could be said about the root causes behind HT ideas, their Khawarij precedents and anti-traditional intentions, but this would mean not writing a “comment” but an article or a chapter of a book. Suffice it to say that one is faced with a choice between, on the one hand, the traditional understanding of Islam which is founded on taqwa and a divine message about the hereafter but which, in its full flowering, lead to a multi-faceted culture and one of the greatest civilisations seen by mankind, and on the other hand a one-dimensional exclusivistic ideology defined against modern secularism and Euro-American hegemony whose success is measured only in those terms. You should choose wisely.

Whoever’s emigration is for Allah and His Messenger then his emigration is for Allah and His Messenger. Whoever’s emigration is for some worldly gain which he can acquire or a woman he will marry then his emigration is for that for which he emigrated’.”
- Bukhari, Muslim

(Apologies but I will probably not be able to respond to questions for the
next three weeks as I will be busy with other things)

???

AR,

Sorry about the confusion caused by my last post. If you can’t understand the simplest things, I’m afraid I can’t help you.

Perhaps if you were less busy copying and pasting contemptuous and mostly incorrect remarks about Shaykhs from other websites you would start to acquire some real understanding.

AR
My position on this point is the same as traditional scholars and mujtahids like Ibn Taimiyyah, al-Nawawi and Shaykh Ahmed Zarruq.

If you had read what I quoted of them you would have seen that their position is that it is not permissable for a muslim to disobey against the rulers or rebel againt them unless they prevent the populace from praying or pervert Islam in some other way. The ruler’s lack of Islam is not a sufficient reason. Also, the one who stands up against the rulers must be well versed in Islam and in the what he is standing up against and must do so with gentleness.

That is, by definition, the very antithesis of what the word “Islamist” describes.

If you agree with the traditional scholars, then you are not an Islamist.

If you still have not understood then I really do not have the time to teach you how to read.

AR

I want to ask you a question. If there is no difference between an Islamist and a traditional muslim, then why do you need to join this 20th century movement called Hizb ut-Tahrir?

You didnt answer the question
If Islamists say the the same thing as traditional scholars then why do you want to join HT?

Don’t lose sight of that question. And I’ll ask you another: Name one Islamist who quotes Ahmed Zarruq to back up his/her arguments.

Give me an example of a ruler you would like to change.