View Full Version : Chickens coming home to Roost
Assalamu-alaikum:
I'd liketo open a debate on the following article. May Allah reward all those who'll participate insha-Allah.
Wa-salaam,
Mobin
Article published in the TheIconoclast_1 at yahoogroups.com
Chickens coming home to Roost
=============================
All over England Muslims seem to be taking to the streets, and riots are breaking out. Oldham, Burnley Leeds and Bradford…where next.
The Press where largely critical of the rioting youths, only partially blaming the Police whom through their heavy handedness had made a drama into a crisis.
Recently Muslims had cleverly voted for a Sikh to be their MP or failed to vote at all, thus rejecting the Muslim who opposed her in this election.
They were paid back for their incompetence when the riots broke out. The MP asking the Government to introduce Water Canons, to fire at the Muslim protesters, a step that even the Police had said they did not need.
The leaders of the Mosques one by one, damned the Muslim youth and sided with the authorities. The hypocrites that the Muslims allowed to lead them, were now selling them to the highest bidder. I sat there watching it all unfurl and I felt troubled. Troubled at why I felt happy?
You see for 9 months as I saw Palestinians being gunned down. At that time I saw the equally biased press blame the victim. I had begged and pleaded with people to complain to the Press and ask for fair coverage. The Jews had sent thousands of emails to all journalist, editors, and newspaper bosses to ask for Israel's side to be told.
But the vast Majority of Muslims couldn't be bothered. It wasn't
their problem. Too busy to write a single mail, a single plea for
fairness for the hundreds murdered.
Filled with contempt I asked them to Lobby their MP in this election. Hardly anyone even bothered. In my own constituency, we carried a campaign to remove the Vice-Chairman of the Friends of Israel. Thousand of Muslims turned out to re-elect him.
Lastly I asked them to become committee members of the Mosque, to rid the mosques of the incompetents to transform an empty prayer hall. To activate the mosque, to change it, make it a hive of activity in defence of the Ummah.
My emails went out, and I was rewarded with silence. Simply put the Muslims were saying, good idea..go do it yourself !!!
Well now it was pay back. The society, who would not defend others, was under attack itself. The papers were now, not blasting some innocent Palestinian, they were blasting us. The MP's were not condemning Palestinian's, oh no, they were now turning on us. And the institution that would organise the communites defence, the mosque, well it hadn't changed, it was still lifeless.
Inaction had turned full circle. The seeds we had sown, were now being harvested.
The Muslims who were too busy to act for others were now themselves in the front line.
When the Palestinians needed a friend, we deserted them. Too busy! Well what goes around comes around. It seems now WE need friends in the Media and in Parliament, in the Mosques. If we had tried 9 months ago for the Palestine, maybe now we would have them to help us.
It seems the chickens have come home to roost.
Asghar
as-salaamu alaykum,
Interesting article, but I think it just goes to show thast putting ones faith in a kufr system (like a parliament) is not the solution to our problems. No matter how much we lobby and "butt kiss" and suck up and compromise our beliefs and try to emulate the Jews, it is not going to lead us to victory. It is nothing but a waste of our time. Instead we need ot devote our resources to the revival of the Muslims, not to trying to apply band-aid solutions to a problem which every day grows further and further out of control.
Ibrahim.
as salaam alaikum
I'm not sure that the brother should find pleasure in the situation. Because it is dealing with fellow muslims.. although it is understandable after all that he has called them to do and suddenly the same things they wouldn't act upon happened to them.
Odd how Allah brings understanding to some people.. i guess some don't really get it until it is at their door step. And sadly it shows an overall lack of "brotherhood" (Or sisterhood) in our ummah. And unfortunately even after such a situation many muslims still won't grasp the true concept of brotherhood and the rights other muslims have on us.
I also would like to mention here that perhaps brother Ibrahim it is the teaching of not supporting such a system in any way that has lead them to be in a situation where the sikh woman won the election? And seeing what she has done in the situation.. no surpise to hose the muslims down with water was suggested.. that this would work against the premise that Mulsims living under a non muslim system should not become active participants in the system??? just a thought
ma salaam
nzingha
as-salaamu alaykum sister Nzingha,
I'm not sure quite what you meant by your statement to me, but I understood it as something along the lines of "See someone else got benefit out of this kufr system to our detriment".
If this is correct, then I'd like ot remind you that the Muslims do not take their understanding of things from the percieved benefit they see in them, we take them from Qur'an and Sunnah, and these two sources indicate to us that voting in a democratic system is haram.
If this isn't correct, then please disregard my messages.
I am sure you are well aware of my views on the voting issue anyway :)
Ibrahim.
Om_Mohammed
21-07-2001, 07:43
Assalaamu alaikum.
Welcome back into action here, brother Ibrahim.
I know that this is a sore subject with you, and continues to be a point of argument between us in particular. However, let me attempt to explain my viewpoints and understanding with ease and rationality.
First of all, in lobbying the existing government which ones lives under...it is not necessarily 'kissing butt'...or whatever that expression was that you used. It is (lobbying) in fact, expressing one's desire for and necessity for recognition and change within that society. Haven't we been told in the Quran that Allah will not change the situation of people until they change it for themselves? That means that we have to work to change our situation, including praying for Allah to help us in doing so, and asking Allah for guidance as to how to go about it.
Also, there is many hadiths which tells us that we are to live peacefully and agreeably under the command of the leaders (those in the position of governing others)...as long as they do not command us to go against Allah's law, then we are to abide by the 'law of the land'. That is most generally the situation in many non-muslim and even muslim countries nowadays. Although there are many man-made-laws which are in disagreement with Allah's Laws (i.e.-permitting drinking of alcohol, for one), yet they do not command persons to abide or follow it (there is no command which enforces that people MUST drink alcohol). Therefore, the choice is up to the individuals, with the temptation there. Get what I mean?
Anyways...my whole point is like this: The Prophet(SAAW) himself did live for a time under the government and authority of those who were not following his directives to Islam, and they even aided him, he seeking their help and protection. I am not suggesting that we seek the help and protection from the non-muslim governments and authorities. However, I do suggest that...to live amicably within society as a whole...that we work within that society, much as the prophet himself did long ago, and work with that society peacefully, as did the prophet, and lobby and work for recognition of and dignity of and the forming and changing of laws of the land, to conform to the Laws of Allah. There is a way to do that, InshaAllah.
Om Mohammed.
Concerned
23-07-2001, 16:56
Please see: http://www.amconline.org/newamc/imam/fatwa.shtml
It's entitled: Fatwa Concerning The Participation of Muslims in the American Political Process
Much of the reasoning applies to Democracies in general
In the event you have difficulty viewing it, I'm including a copy below: (sorry, it is long)
By Dr. Taha Jaber al-Alwani
Chairman of the North American Fiqh Council
President of the Graduate School of Social and Islamic Sciences
We have received from the American Muslim Council the following inquiry:
INQUIRY:
“You know that the American Muslim Council is in the midst of a voting registration campaign for the forthcoming American
elections. In the course of this campaign, some American Muslims have expressed severe doubts as to whether it would be
religiously permissible for them to participate in the political system of this country, The United States of America. Several
reasons were cited for this doubt.
Some argue that participation would ally some Muslims with others they have little in common with in matters of belief. It may
also divide Muslims in the United States, and harm the interests of the Muslim community. This would be in contradiction to the
Qur’anic injunction that Muslims should support each other.
Others argue that participation in our system may be viewed as rukun (acquiescence) to the unjust. The Almighty said in the
Qur’an: “And do not acquiesce to the unjust…”.
Yet others argue that the participation of Muslims in our secular political system, which is increasingly denuding the public
square from all symbols of faith, would desensitize Muslims into accepting the current status-quo and interacting with it, to the
detriment of all people of faith in this society.
Additionally, some Muslims, who escaped dictatorial regimes in their countries of origin or left to avoid bad economic
conditions, live in the hope of going back to Dar al-Islam (Land of Islam) once the situation improves. This state of affairs is
not uncommon among first generation immigrants, Muslim or otherwise. In our case, however, we are concerned about the
fact that it leads to voting apathy. In particular, some Muslims in this group argue that voting can be justified only for extreme
necessity.
We would like your Eminence to clarify this matter for us with a lucid statement which, with proofs and arguments, may bring to
an end the conflict among American Muslims over this vital issue.
May Allah reward you with His blessings.
Aly Ramadan Abuzaakouk
Executive-Director of the American Muslim Council
REPLY
In an independent research entitled “Introduction to Minorities Jurisprudence: Founding Views” (the “Introduction”), to
published this fall in a special issue on Islam by the Journal of Law & Religion, we dealt with the principles and rules that should
govern the vision of the contemporary jurist (and the contemporary Muslim in general) on this topic. The connection of this
fatwa to the Introduction is akin to that of a derivative principle (a branch) to a fundamental principle (a root), or of an example
to the general rule. The understanding, therefore, of the Introduction and the orthodoxy of prevailing principles and
argumentation contained therein, is necessary for a better understanding of this fatwa and the foundation on which it rests.
Overview of Basic Principles:
Among the legal and methodological principles we reached in the Introduction are the following:
1. All of humankind is one family that belongs in its entirety to Adam, and Adam is from earth. This Humanity is divided into
two nations: “A nation that responds”, ÃãÉ ÅÌÇÈÉ and “a nation that summons” æÃãÉ ÏÚæÉ.
2. Islam is a global religion, not restricted to any one ethnic group or geographical area.
3. The Qur’anic discourse is global and should not be restricted to a limited geographical place or a narrow social group.
4. The Muslim ummah is a benevolent one that evolved to bear witness to humanity.
5. The principle of “righteousness and equity, ÇáÈÑ æÇáÅÍÓÇä mentioned in the Holy Qur’an, is the greatest general principle
by which to measure the relationship between Muslims and others. All other matters should concede to this principle.
6. We should avoid being limited by juristic terminologies regarding the issue of international partitions. Terms, such as “Dar
al-Islam” (The Land of Islam), were not mentioned in the Revelation in the geographical sense. They are but juristic and
administrative terms, the use of which was imposed by the circumstances of the old science and the nature of relationships
among countries, nations and peoples at that time.
7. To properly understand the particular examples found in the inherited body of jurisprudence, they should be examined in
light of the general principles mentioned herein. By so doing, we can transcend the particulars and merge them into the
general principles of the Qur'an, namely, its universal message and goals.
8. The existence of Islam in any country which is not part of the original Muslim World, should be viewed as a new and
developing existence which falls in harmony with the universality of Islam and its message of hope.
9. The nature of contemporary international realities, which are characterized by both the interrelation and transcendence of
borders, should be taken into serious consideration.
10. Current international legal instruments and domestic laws, which address human rights and civil rights, should be relied upon
to protect and educate Muslim minorities. For example, Article 21 of the International Declaration of Human Rights states
that each individual has the right to participate in the administration of his or her own country’s public affairs, whether
directly or via representatives.
11. The principles of justice included in such documents should be followed as they are in harmony with thesermon of
theMessenger ( Õáì ÇÇááå Úáíå æÓáãPeace Be Upon Him) to his followers at his Farewell Pilgrimage and to “the
alliance” which he attended at Ibn Jud'an’s house. In addition, all legitimate means, including political participation, should
be utilized to safeguard these principles of justice.
12. The lessons derived from the early Islamic experience, in particular the emigration to Ethiopia, should be fully understood.
13. There should be a transition from negative reasoning about what is permissible to positive reasoning in carrying the
Message to the people of our society.
American Particularities
America has particularities that need to be considered in order to issue the most appropriate legal ruling. Among these
particularities are:
1. The United States is a country of immigrants who are of different races and various cultures. It is not wholly identified by
any one people or immigrant culture. In particular, American culture does not exclude non-Europeans.
2. The United States is a young country whose civilization and culture have an open nature, unlike ancient civilizations that
tend to have definitively established characteristics. This makes the American culture more open to the contributions of
Islam and Muslims.
3. The United States is a country of freedom that looks primarily after the rights of all of its citizens, of all religions and races,
despite the problems in application that manifest themselves from time to time.
4. The United States has peoples among whom racism is relatively less manifested due to their intellectual background and
the historical experience of its Protestant majority.
Based on these principles and particularities, we can deduce the following conclusions with respect to the participation of
Muslims in American political life:
Conclusions:
First, it is the duty of American Muslims to participate constructively in the political process, if only to protect their rights, and
give support to views and causes they favor. Their participation may also improve the quality of information disseminated about
Islam. We call this participation a “duty” because we do not consider it merely a “right” that can be abandoned or a
“permission” which can be ignored. It falls into the category of safeguarding of necessities and ensuring the betterment of the
Muslim community in this country.
Second, every legitimate means or tool that helps achieve these noble goals is similarly judged. This includes:
1. The nomination of any competent American Muslim for election to any post where his or her presence may ensure either
bringing benefits to American Muslims and other citizens or preventing harm to them. These posts range from those of
mayor, state governor, and membership in educational and municipal councils, all the way up to membership in the U.S.
Senate and House of Representatives.
2. Self-candidacy by an American Muslim, if the initiative for his/her nomination is not undertaken by the community, or if
election laws require this form of candidacy. (Refer to the statement by Ibn Hajr on the question of becoming an Amir (or
coming into power) in the “Introduction”.)
3. Adopting a non-Muslim candidate if he/she would be either more beneficial or less harmful to the American Muslim
community and the rest of the country.
4. Providing financial support to a non-Muslim candidate. God the Almighty has permitted righteous conduct and good
relations with non-Muslims in exchange for nothing. So how much more so is such support permitted if clear and tangible
benefits were to result from such behavior?
5. Obtaining American citizenship. Such citizenship emphasizes the true diversity of this country and is a necessary condition
for participation in the political process.
6. Both registering to vote and participation in elections and voting are means to a goal. Hence, they are subject to the same
legal ruling as their intended goal.
Limitations and Specifications:
1. Protection of Muslim civil rights in this country and the enjoyment of positive interaction with other Americans requires
American Muslims to engage in acts of deliberation to reach consensus on general principles, and to tolerate disagreement
on particulars and disputed matters. We find a good example to follow in our ancestors who migrated to Ethiopia. They
met and deliberated together about the best way to respond to the critical situation they faced.
2. The children of the Muslim minority must have a fair opportunity to develop and deepen their faith in God and Islam.
Otherwise, their interaction with others may lead them to compromise on the basic tenets of their religion merely to keep up
with a prevailing custom or sweeping current. Ja'far, by refusing to bow to al Najashi -The King of Abyssinia- (his two
Quraishi opponents did as necessitated by custom) provides a good example for such situations.
3. The Muslim minority needs to have a fair opportunity to express clearly in its own voice the immortal truths of Islam and its
advanced system of human values. The example of Ja'far helps in this regards. In his eloquent speech to al Najashi, Ja'far
summarized the main Islamic virtues and explained the difference between them and those of the pre-Islamic life (the
Jahiliyah). By applying this method, Muslims not only gain the understanding of the rest of the people, but also their good
will.
4. Both the art of persuasion and the science of public relations have an important role that should not be ignored. The words
by which Ja'far ended his speech are appropriate here: “We came out to your country, we chose you from all others, we
wished to be in your neighborhood, and hoped, O King, not to be treated unjustly in your country”.
Objections:
As for the objections mentioned in the inquiry and raised by some of our brothers and sisters, they can be summarized in five
points which are discussed as follows:
The First Argument:
Participation would ally some Muslims with others they have little in common with in matters of belief. It may also divide
Muslims in the United States and harm the interests of the Muslim community. This would be in contradiction to the Qur’anic
injunction that Muslims should support each other.
This argument is based on an incorrect presumption resulting from two errors:
First, The argument casts pragmatic considerations as matters of belief, although there is a vast difference between the two.
The fair dealing of Muslims with others and their cooperation with them produce neither blind allegiance (wala’ ) to these others
nor special exceptions (bara’ ) for them. For, this is not originally a matter of belief but is instead a pragmatic decision
involving the proper implementation of the principles of “righteousness,” “fairness and equity,” success and constructive
behavior.
Second, the argument confuses the limited meaning of the concept of “alliance” (wala’ ) referred to in the Qur’an, with a
broader all-inclusive one. The type of alliance warned against in the Qur’an is that which harms the interests of the Muslim
community. This meaning is mentioned repeatedly in the Qur’an in such a way as to leave no confusion.
The Almighty, threatening the hypocrites, said: “To the hypocrites give the glad tidings that there is for them (but) a grievous
penalty. Yea, to those who take for ‘awlia’ (allies) unbelievers (those who do not believe in God) rather than believers.”
(Qur'an 4:138-139). He then warned the believers: “O you who believe! Take not for awliya’ unbelievers rather than
believers.” (Qur'an: 4:144). Confirming the warning in another verse, the Almighty said: “Let not the Believers take for awliya’
Unbelievers rather than Believers.”(Qur'an: 3:28).
But the meaning of specific Qur’anic verses is determined by various factors, including the context, reasons for revelation, other
verses related to them, and even the sunnah of the Prophet (( Õáì Çááå Úáíå æÓáã. For example, we know that the Prophet
befriended the Christain Ethiopian king al Najashi. We also know that the Prophet executed an alliance with the Jews of
Madinah giving them rights similar to those of Muslims. Most importantly, we know that the Qur’an refers to Christians and
Jews as “People of the Book,” and not as “Unbelievers.” So, even if the meanings of certain words are construed broadly, the
above-cited Qur’anic verses do not prohibit Muslims from building alliances with the vast majority of Americans.
But to gain insight into the proper interpretation of the Qur’anic verses, it is important to examine the explanation provided by
major scholars. In interpreting these Qur’anic verses,ö Al Tabari said: “This is a prohibition from God to his servants the
believers, against acting like the hypocrites who take for awliya’ unbelievers rather than the believers even where such
behavior harms the interests of the community.”( Tafsir al-Tabari, vol. 9: 336). Al Tabari added, that the verse means that
believers should not take the unbelievers as back-up support and partisans, against their own community, showing them the
vulnerabilities of the Believers.”( Tafsir al-Tabari vol. 6: 303).
As stated in these Qur’anic verses, then, the blameworthy alliance is that which is given to support those who do not believe in
God against the interest of one’s own believing community. This is a far cry from the actions of those who cooperate with
non-Muslims (believers as well as unbelievers ) within the limits of “righteousness and equity” while continuing to work for the
good of the Muslim community.
The Second Argument:
Political participation is a type of rukun (acquiescence) to those who do wrong. This is prohibited by the Qur’an where the
Almighty warns against such acts by His words: “And do not acquiesce to the unjust …”( Qur'an: 11:113).
It is wrong to understand rukun, as used in the above verse, to include all types of cooperation. There is no evidence for that.
Rukun in fact means “to acquiesce to the unjust” or “to be satisfied with their doings” or “to return to idolatry,” These three
meanings were derived by Al Tabari from the salaf (the worthy ancestors). (.”( Tafsir al Tabari vol. 15: 500-501). Again,
these meanings are a far cry from an act of participation intent on promoting public interest and protecting the Muslim minority
from injustice.
The Third Argument:
Participation of Muslims in our political system is an acceptance of the secular (i.e., faith-less, non-believing) status quo.
This argument is based on misunderstanding of the American system, as well as faulty logic.
First, the Framers of our American system did not intended it to be “faith-less” or “non-believing,” but rather faith-neutral.
Ideally, our political system is not intended to oppose religious values but to be unaligned with those of any one sect or religion.
Second, passivity and withdrawal from life are what brings about acceptance of the status quo by deed, which is far more
effective than words. Positive participation, on the other hand, is what showcases Islamic values and morals to civil society.
Indeed, it is what refutes any “faith-less” secular status quo by offering people an illustration of the blessings of faith.
The Fourth Argument:
Participation of Muslims in our secular political system, which is increasingly denuding the public square from all symbols of
faith, would desensitize Muslims into accepting the current status-quo and interacting with it, to the detriment of all people of
faith in this society.
Methodologically, this argument contains two errors:
First, it transfers a conceptual confusion that occurs in countries that have Muslim majorities to countries where Muslims are a
minority. The two contexts are quite different and entail different obligations. While Muslims in Muslim countries, are obligated
to uphold the Islamic law of their state, Muslim minorities in the United States are not required either by Islamic law or
rationality to uphold Islamic symbols of faith in a secular state, except to the extent permissible within that state.
What is required of Muslim minorities in a secular society is the support of the Islamic existence of their community and the
service of public interest through serious participation in public life. They are also required to work hard towards building a
coherent, stable and flourishing Islamic community capable of properly representing Islam to the majority, and building bridges
with other faith communities. Only then can the discussion of the place of faith within our secular society become possible.
Such was the methodology of the Prophets (Peace be upon them), and such was that of our
Prophet (Peace be upon him) who began by building first the Islamic community, then the Islamic
society, and then the Islamic system.
Second, this argument narrows the scope of participation to the political sense. It would be more precise to consider each
contribution towards enhancing the values of truth, goodness, and justice as a brick in the construction of a fair and equitable
system. If the Muslim minority, through its positive participation in the making or influencing of political decisions, manages to
promulgate a law against the use of drugs, for example, then it would have promoted the values of truth and goodness shared
by many. This is in accord with Islamic values that require Muslims to serve their communities.
The Fifth Argument:
Participation contradicts the intent of a temporary stay in this country and an eventual return to Dar al Islam (the Land of
Islam).
This argument is based on historical perspectives and outdated juristic terms, such as “Dar al Islam "The Land of Islam” and
“Dar al Kufr "The Land of Disbelief ” or “Dar al Islam” and “Dar al Harb "The Land of War”. We have shown in the
“Introduction” that these terms stand on a weak foundation from a legal perspective and are not applicable to contemporary
international realities whether from a realistic perspective or a manaati one (one based on the underlying cause upon which the
legal ruling hukm hangs. Refer to the Introduction for further explanation).
We can also add here that this argument ignores the highly significant fact that Islam established its first society in a land of
immigration, namely, “Al Madinah al Munawwarah”, and not in the original land of the Message (“Makkah al Mukarramah").
The Prophet (Peace Be Upon Him) did not agree to move to Makkah after his enemies lost their
battles of aggression against him. He held on to the land of his immigration, and addressed its people who gave him support
and victory, saying: “To live is to live with you and to die is to die with you”.
Concerned
23-07-2001, 18:52
It is true that Muslims should not copy non-Muslims for the sake of conformity. However, this does not mean we avoid the use of phones, computers, cars, planes, trains, kitchen-ware, weapons and cloth. We do not follow their fashions, but we use the tools of society to advance our cause. To not lobby, because non-Muslims lobby, makes as much sense as not producing movies and newspapers, because non-Muslims are very engaged in that form of communication, as well. Lobbying means communicating with leaders to convince them to adopt your proposals. It's true that the Prophet (peace be upon him) warned that in time Muslims would copy everything the non-Muslims do, so much so that were they to go into the burrow of a poisonous snake, Muslims would follow, so we should be careful with our actions as we are the vice-gerrants of the Creator, but we should not be so petrified that we do nothing at all. The Prophet (peace be upon him) was very busy in the public eye, trying to use any and every form of communication, to spread the Truth.
It's important to note that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was very practical and did not oppose political activities. For 13 years the early Muslims in Mecca endured boycotts, persecution, torture, murders and other injustices. In a Hadith we are told that when we find injustice we are to correct it first by our hand, but if we are unable we should correct it by our voice and if we can not, then we must at least feel bad for it in our hearts, and that is the weakest form of faith. Unfortunately, like today, the early Muslims were too weak to oppose the injustice by their "hand". The next available option was their "voice". Recall that the Prophet (peace be upon him) met with the dictatorial-leaders of Mecca on many occasions attempting to form agreements, he asked Muslims to exert any influence they might have to prevent the on-going persecution, when those efforts failed he sent a group of Muslims to seek refuge in the Christian empire of Ethiopia where their first daunting task was to convince the king to allow them freedom of religion, he formed alliances with non-Muslim tribes, in signing a Treaty he agreed to drop the title of Prophet, once Islam was accepted in Mecca he sent envoys to every major empire asking their leaders to accept Islam. All these are examples of how Muslims used their "voice" to oppose injustice and all these are a form of lobbying. Meeting with leaders to convince them to adopt your proposed legal agreements (laws and treaties) is lobbying. Forming strategic alliances with groups that agree to help you advance your position is lobbying. Just as our "hand" can now be extended to include our weaponry and wealth, our "voices" are now extended by technology and newly centralized governmental powers to include the media, petitions, voting and lobying. The Prophet (peace be upon him) participated heavily in the politics of corrupt dictatorships, in an attempt to change them. In order to fix an injustice, you usually must interact with it. Interaction does not neccesarily, imply acceptance. If you want to clean a dirty pot, and don't have an industrial dishwasher, you may have to put your hand in the pot and scrub very hard. In the Quran we are told of Pharoh, a man that set himself up as God to be worshipped, the worst example of Men on Earth at the time. The Prophet Moses (peace be upon him) when preparing to speak with Pharoh was advised by Allah (swt) to speak softly, slowly and kindly. The Prophet (peace be upon him) met with those that persecuted Muslims, he formed alliances agreeing to support and defend non-Muslims that had previously killed Muslims (with money, weapons and a Muslim army prepared to fight and die for them), he lived under dictatorial rule and attempted dialogue with dictators (dictatorship is far from an Islamic government). If the Prophet (peace be upon him) did all these things, who are we to shun his example. What type of Muslims are we? Are we so proud now that we find the example of our Prophet (peace be upon him), to be below our dignity? Remember that no heart with an ounce of Pride will enter Jannah and that the first sin commited was Satan's refusal to follow the command of Allah (swt) to bow to Adam (peace be upon him), out of mistaken Pride. In a sense Pride has been the root of all subsequent sins.
We are in agreement about unifying the brotherhood. But too often Muslims shun and attack others who interpret the Quran differently, because they believe that they are misguided. Anyone that accepts the Quran agrees with over 90% of Islam, regardless of interpretation. It makes no sense to shun and attack these supposedly mis-guided people , while accepting people of the book without question. The Prophet (peace be upon him) didn't shun or attack anyone's belief. In fact he would kindly greet and give gifts to his neighbor, who everyday laid thorns in his path, threw garbage on him, poured camel dung on him while he prayed at the Kabba and insulted him loudly in public. When stoned nearly to death by the children Taif, he declined the offer to have the town destroyed, for the hope that perhaps these children's children may accept Islam. When a non-Muslim urinated in the corner of the his Mosque, he stopped his companions from treating him roughly and gently and privately explained to the errant urinator that he was in a holy place and that there were other more appropriate locations for urination. When his companions were mis-guided about sonmething or argued with him, he did not raise his voice, but rather he took them aside and explained calmly the reasons for their mistake. Even when the companions would continue to argue with him, he did not lose patience simply explaining again and again, for as long as it took. If a believer's prayers are not accepted, when he avoids a fellow Muslim for over 3 days, what treatment should we expect whole groups of Muslims avoiding eachother? Remember it is not for us to judge who is a believer and who is not. We should follow the example of our Prophet (peace be upon him) by being more tolerant, partient and loving towards all creation, especially our fellow vice-gerrants of the Creator. We should advise, not argue, offering counsel, not complaint, listening more and not blaming anyone (blaming is judgemental, Allah (swt) is the judge and we should not try to supercede Him, with our own judgement). At least we can take comfort that Allah (swt) is pushing us to unite, the more we allow are differences to divide us the more He provides with a common enemy to unite against. I only hope we overcome our foolish pride and unite before those common enemies slaughter all of us.
as-salaamu alaykum sister,
Jazak'Allah khyr for your welcome back, it is great to be able to post again.
Haven't we been told in the Quran that Allah will not change the situation of people until they change it for themselves?
I believe it says change what is *within* themselves.
That means that we have to work to change our situation, including praying for Allah to help us in doing so, and asking Allah for guidance as to how to go about it.
Yes, we do need to action ourselves, but limiting ourselves to being "one voice" within their system is not the solution. Did you read my post about the action of KHalifat ul-Muslimeen Sultan Abdul Hameed II? It is sad to think that today we have been reduced to simply protesting, or nicely asking the kuffar to have mercy on us, or requesting them to be kind to us. Was this the action of the Muslims when they were being oppressed and boycotted in Makkah? Did they beg and compromise their deen because of "prevailing circumstances"? No, of course they didn't, theyu worked even harder! Harder to estabvlish the Islamic system, not to become comfortable living under Kufr. And I assure you, the move towards lobbying is just another step towards becoming comfortable under kufr.
Also, there is many hadiths which tells us that we are to live peacefully and agreeably under the command of the leaders (those in the position of governing others)
Sister, do these hadiths mention what leaders? What commands? I think if you read about the explanation of these ahadith, you'll find they refer to a ruler who implements Islam, not "general ruler". There is no obedience to the creation where there is disobedience to Allah (Swt), please look at the ahadith in context and in conjunction with the explanation of the scholars.
as long as they do not command us to go against Allah's law, then we are to abide by the 'law of the land'.
In France do they not forbid sisters from wearing Hijab in public institutions? Same in Turkey. In most countries do they not make it haram to marry more than one wife? Do they not fill our eyes with pictures and scenes of haram everywhere? Do they not push our children to eat pig, to drink alcohol, and to engage in pre-marital sex? Of course many of these things are not forced, but they are very heavily encouraged, by the people and by the educational/social systems. Do they not execute us for engaging in Jihad (egypt)? Do they not prevent us from many of the things which give us life (ie. islam)? We cannot continue to live under kufr, and we must realise this, and understand that lobby pressure groups are nothing but a means to control us under kufr. I am sure you know the hadith about the lizards hole, do you think because the Jews derive some benefit from this process we necessarily will too?
Anyways...my whole point is like this: The Prophet(SAAW) himself did live for a time under the government and authority of those who were not following his directives to Islam, and they even aided him, he seeking their help and protection.
How many lobby groups did he form under this system? He did not compromise with it one bit! He completely rejected their system, and called them to abandon it and to implement Islam and make him judge over them! Never did he consider any compromise at all, even when he sought the rulership from one tribe, who placed one tiny condition that the leadership pass to them after his death... did he accept??? Of course not! Yet those who seek to lobby, would compromise much more, for much less in the blink of an eyelid, using muslaha (percieved short term benefits) as their justification! Indeed you have raised an excellent point here, in that we ahve the seerah of the rasul (Saw) and how he worked under the kufr system. He did not take second best, he did not work for a half way solution, nor did he recognise the authority of the kufr regime of his time, he outright rejected it, and called them also to reject it. Remember the sun in one hand and the moon in the left? Why is it thast we today would be willing to compromise so much, for so little?
I know you don't think lobyying etc. is a compromise, but it always leads to it, it is always the first step, I see it so often in my own city, where Muslims first, with a good intention seek to have soemthing changed to assist themsevels, and it does not take long before they are willing to change things to get a "halfway solution" with the kuffar. Do you not see there is no dealing justly with these people? They will not give up until they turn you away from your deen, and this "lobbying" is just a very effective means fo achieving this.
that we work within that society, much as the prophet himself did long ago, and work with that society peacefully, as did the prophet
The prophet (Saw) did not work within the framework of the society, he worked against it, and called for it's dismantling. When they asked him if he would accept them implementing some of his religion and some of theirs.. did he accept? NO! Did he say to himself "well some Islam is better than none"??? No! Did he say "Some Islam is at least a step in the right direction"??? Of course not! sis, we must investigate the seerah of the prophet (saw) thoroughly, and we will find there is no room for this lobbying/compromise.
and lobby and work for recognition of and dignity of and the forming and changing of laws of the land, to conform to the Laws of Allah. There is a way to do that
As above, this is not the method of rasul'llah (saw). This is in fact in direct contradiction to his sunnah.
I am sorry if I appeared harsh sister, but so much has been written about this topic, and I suggest maybe I could offer you some articles/books about this issue, in order for you to evaluate the daleels and examples of why this is an invalid action according to Islam. If you'd like I can get a list of good materials on this subject?
wa'salaam
Ibrahim.
>as-salaamu alaykum sister Nzingha,
wa alaikum salaam
>
>but I understood it
>as something along the lines
>of "See someone else got
>benefit out of this kufr
>system to our detriment".
>
lol i'm sure you would understand it as such :)
>we take them
>from Qur'an and Sunnah, and
>these two sources indicate to
>us that voting in a
>democratic system is haram.
>
I wouldn't go that far.. there wer of course many ways to choose an islamic ruler brother and democracy doesn't necessarily have to be out.
>
>I am sure you are well
>aware of my views on
>the voting issue anyway :)
>
yes i am that is why i mentioned it :)
btw you never did comment further on our exhchange in the dawah section.. wondering how it all fits in
ma salaam
nzingha
as-salaamu alaykum sis,
I wouldn't go that far.. there wer of course many ways to choose an islamic ruler brother and democracy doesn't necessarily have to be out.
Actually, if we investigate the meaning of democracy, we'll find it's definitely in contradiction with Islam. Democracy is a lot more than a means for electing a leader, and any such view of democracy like this is very simplistic. Democracy is a complete system of living, much like Islam is a complete system of living. However, democracy is a system of living that is in complete conflict with Islam. For instance, one of the foundations of democracy is the concept of secularism, which is totally the opposite of the Islamic aqeedah, another is the concepts of freedom, freedom of speech, dress, association, religion etc. All of these freedoms are not afforded in Islam.
So in reality Islam and democracy are not compatible, anymore than Islam and communism are compatbile.
As for the daw'ah forum discussion, I will look back there.
wasalam.
Ibrahim.
Nzingha (Guest)
29-07-2001, 08:16
>as-salaamu alaykum sis,
>
wa alaikum salaam
>
>For instance,
>one of the foundations of
>democracy is the concept of
>secularism, which is totally the
>opposite of the Islamic aqeedah,
>another is the concepts of
>freedom, freedom of speech, dress,
>association, religion etc. All of
>these freedoms are not afforded
>in Islam.
>
I don't know if one has to understand democracy in Now westrn formed ideals. Keep in mind these ideals of western democracy weren't always what they are now.
All the freedoms are very much limited.. and regulated.. just as it would be in an Islamic state.. there is not such thing as total freedoms in any land brother. And democracy doesn't necessarily equae to secularism.. there are muslims for democracy but are not for secularism.
ma salaam
nzingha
Still Concerned (Guest)
29-07-2001, 14:04
Sorry...I posted 2 rather long responses to Ibrahim's first post on this discussion, before I realized the order in which things are read here. My Posts are listed under the name Concerned and are numbered 5 and 6, towards the top of this page.
The first starts with the phrase:
'Please see: http://www.amconline.org/newamc/imam/fatwa.shtml '
The Second starts with the phrase:
' It is true that Muslims should not copy non-Muslims for the sake of conformity '
Please read them and comment.
(If these instructions have been to confusing to follow, I'll re-post them)
Concerned,
as-salaamu alaykum,
It's important to note that the Prophet (peace be upon him) was very practical and did not oppose political activities. For 13 years the early Muslims in Mecca endured boycotts, persecution, torture, murders and other injustices.
I am most certainly not asserting that the solution to our problems is apolitical. Indeed, I believe political revival is what this ummah is in need of. But please do not confuse politics in Islam with kufr politics. The basis of Islamic politics is "amru bi'l-maruf wa nahi an al-munkar". The politics you are supporting though is politics of legislation by man, and this is indeed a dangerous form of politics.
Ibrahim.
http://bozo.ugh.net.au/~alias/images/shehsig02.gif
Sister Nzingha, as-salaamu alaykum,
I don't know if one has to understand democracy in Now westrn formed ideals. Keep in mind these ideals of western democracy weren't always what they are now.
Democracy is a political system sis, the word itself is Greek and comes from the two terms "Demos" (Man) "Kratos" (Rule), so in effect democracy means "Rule of man". We know in Islam that the rule is for Allah (swt) alone, and that no human nor group of humans has the right to legislate (determine haram/halal). This right is reserved for Allah (swt) alone, and we all know of the hadith in which the prophet (saw) explained the sheirk of the Jews and Christians being that they accepted and obeyed the legislation of their clergy. We do not want to follow them in this issue.
So we cannot just state that democracy isn't necessarily what the West claims it to be, because it is a political system invented and developed by the West. It embodies what they have developed it to embody, and it is a cmplete ideology which means that it is in competition to Islam, not simply a mechanism that Muslims can take advantage of, whilst still believing in implementing the Islamic ideology.
If we look at the definition of Democracy and Republic, we'll find that what many Muslims attempt to explain as Democracy, is in fact Republic. A republic is a system in which elected officials represent the people.
As an example of the difference, you could have a "Democratic Republic" or you could have an "Islamic Republic", but an "Islamic Democracy" is not possible, as both are ideologies themselves. It's akin to a "Capitalist Communism", doesn't make sense. Islam is an ideology which implements a Theocracy (Divine Rule) not a Democracy (Mans Rule).
The only reason I can see for Muslims chantign the slogan of "Democracy" is for the benefits and protections it could afford from the West. The West loves to nurture those who call on this slogan, but I assure you, the only nurturer for us is Allah (Swt) and the implementation of His system in its entirety is the nourishment.
Ibrahim.
http://bozo.ugh.net.au/~alias/images/shehsig02.gif
LAST EDITED ON 31-07-01 AT 02:54 AM (GMT)[p]DISCLAIMER: This post contains references from non-Islamic sources only, and is my own analysis of an English term/ideology. It is not supposed to provide any Islamic perspective nor opinion regarding this issue. Instead it is supposed to contrast definitions/explanations of Democracy with well known Islamic concepts/rules.
Nzingha just to continue,
Regarding the Freedom issue:
All the freedoms are very much limited.. and regulated.. just as it would be in an Islamic state.. there is not such thing as total freedoms in any land brother.
I would like to provide for you (and any others interested or who support Democracy) some definitions of Democracy, if you can find alternative definitions, then please feel free to bring them forth.
From [link:http://www.infoplease.com|Info Please]:
democracy [Gr.,=rule of the people], term originating in ancient Greece to designate a government where the people share in directing the activities of the state, as distinct from governments controlled by a single class, select group, or autocrat. The definition of democracy has been expanded, however, to describe a philosophy that insists on the right and the capacity of a people, acting either directly or through representatives, to control their institutions for their own purposes. Such a philosophy places a high value on the equality of individuals and would free people as far as possible from restraints not self-imposed. It insists that necessary restraints be imposed only by the consent of the majority and that they conform to the principle of equality.
From this definition (which is rather brief I agree) we can gather that Democracy is more than just "electing a head of state" or a "general call for human rights" as some Muslims unfortunately have been led to believe. Democracy is in fact a philosophy or an ideology all of its own, and the central tenets of this ideology are freedom, equality and independance. All of these things are contrary to Islam, and I will now give examples of why.
Freedom: Islam does not afford the individual freedom, instead Islam sets clearly defined boundaries, and informs the individual these are the limits to which the individual may go. There are 3 main "Freedoms" espoused by Democracy and they are:
1) Freedom of Religion, this is the cornerstone of Democracy, as modern Democracy was largely the result of a rebellion against the Church in Europe (Rennaisance). Democracy and Secularism are natural partners because of the fact they both see the human as the ultimate caretaker of his/her own destiny. This concept is in complete contrast to Islam, because Allah (swt) is the ultimate caretaker of our destiny, and we therefore govern our affairs according to His rule, rather than the rule of man (as in Democracy). In Islam the individual does not have the right to choose his religion, as an example the Apostate is to be executed for choosing freedom in his religion. Any system (such as Islam) which punishes the individual for changing his freedom has therefore violated the cornerstone of Democracy.
2) Freedom of Speech, Although no existing Democracy has complete freedom of speech, it is considered one of the most important signs of a true Democracy. This includes (but is not limited to) the right to criticise the rulers, produce works of art, write books and to display anything, to dress and express oneself the way one sees fit, with the restriction that it not be offensive/degrading to others. But who decides this level of offensiveness/degradation? In the Democracy, in true Egalitarian fashion, the individuals, collectively decide this for themselves. Any system (for example Islam) which prohibits freedom of speech, would be considered unDemocratic. Under Islam, even if the majority felt blaspheming was acceptable, the punishment would still stand for the one who blasphemes or slanders Allah, his Messengers, the Sahabah etc.
3) Freedom of Association, this is perhaps one of the most conflicting traits that Democracy contains. In Democracy, it is considered essential that the individuals in society be free to associate with whomever they please. So a system (for instance Islam) that prohibits the free mixing of the sexes would mean that every facet of society would all of sudden become unDemocratic. If two consenting adult individuals cannot associate with one another in private in the manner in which they see fit (collectively, or Democratically as we would say) then their basic rights of Democracy have been breached.
We should understand that although no complete freedom exists in any implementation of Democracy, advocacy of Democracy means moving further towards such freedoms. Nothing is associated more with the process of "Democratisation" than the institutionalisation of fredoms. The freedoms that Democracy promotes are a result of the human beings capacity to change. If the society changes its views (or more rightly if someone/group changes the views of the society) then the Democratic process would allow the society to implement these new changes via legislation. So if every single Muslim were a perfect robot-Muslim, then the 'Democratic Framework' could indeed work, as it would mean society would remain 100% Islamic, and therefore no legislation to alter the laws of the Creator would occur. But we know this is not the reality of the human being, and we know that the human being is easily manipulated into accepting and even calling for views which were perhaps a short time ago unacceptable to themselves.
Equality: In Islam, there is no equality, in the sense that all creations of Allah (swt) can be treated as groups, that require seperate rulings. For instance, the human beings are divided into two gender groups in Islam, and different rulings, rights, reponsibilities etc. exist for these two seperate groups. There is no equality between them, although that is not to say one is greater or lesser than the other. The human beings can also be divided into two groups regarding their marital status, for those who are married, sexual relations are permitted with their spouse, whilst for those whose status is single, no sexual relations may occur whatsoever, so the two groups do not have equality, not to say one is lesser or greater. And the less of inequalities goes on, for every spectrum of human difference.
Independance: As has been mentioned above, modern Democracy grew out of a desire to be free from the oppression of the Thocratic rule of the Church in Europe. The people themselves sought independance from tyrants, from forced practise of religion and from a system which was not compatible with the needs and wants of each and every individual, or at best the majority. So a system was formulated (Democracy) in which the individuals, both seperately and collectively, would have a "voice" in which to decide how the society addresses and rules regarding them. So in effect the ruling system is moulded around the needs and wants of the society, and this is the diametric opposite of the Islamic system, in which the individuals and the society mould themselves around Islam. In Islam, we are dependant upon our Creator (swt) and we are required to organise our lives according to His commands/injunctions.
From [link:www.lectlaw.com|Lectric Law Library]:
DEMOCRACY - That form of government in which the sovereign power is exercised by the people in a body, as was the practice in some of the states of Ancient Greece; the term representative democracy has been given to a republican government like that of the United States. The exercise is usually accomplished by free and fair voting and/or consensus.
Again we find that the definition is centred around the rule/sovieriegnity of humans and freedom and fairness. How can Islam be compatible with a system whose very name and meaning refer to the ultimate soveriegnity of the human being?
From [link:www.reapinc.org/Defdem.html|General Definition of Democracy]:
Robert Dahl, Professor of Political Science Emeritus at Yale University and author of five books on democracy states:
In general terms, a democracy is a form of government in which the people have the right to control their own destiny. In a democracy the people have the final authority, they have the right to make or at least influence decisions that affect their everyday lives. The term itself comes from the Greek words demos, meaning "people," and kratos, meaning "authority."
As we can see, Democracy is defined by thie leading political scientist as a system in which the human is controlled the master of his own destiny, in which the final authority rests with the human being and in which they are permitted to decide how their society will function. As I stated already, this would be fine if we were all pderfect "Robot-Muslims" but we're not, nor are we meant to be. We need the guidance and system of our Creator (swt) not Democracy.
Ibrahim.
http://bozo.ugh.net.au/~alias/images/shehsig02.gif
vBulletin® v3.6.7, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.