It’s not often I write a post in response to a comment – but there’s always a first time! I’ve been following the dialogue between Azad Ali and ‘Sid’, and the interjections by ‘Abdullah’ on the issue of Aqeeda. While Sid’s main discussion with Azad is an an area of legitimate debate, he (assuming Sid is a he) has seriously erred on the issue of whether the Mumbai terrorists were Muslim or became Murtad (apostate).
I sincerely hope Sid is a real person and not the result of Azad Ali’s escapades with his ‘Habibi’ et al. It wouldn’t be the first time certain ‘reformists’ enter into discussions with Muslims, introducing doubt with the objective of ‘modernising’ Islam. Assuming Sid is indeed a Muslim, then there are serious gaps in his Islamic knowledge.
In response to “Abdullah’s” comment on Aqeeda: “…the Khawarij believe (Aqeeda) that major sins (Kabira) like murder leads to apostasy. That is rejected by Sunnis and almost all other sects. So Sid unless you are a latter day Khawarij – I’d suggest you withdraw that point promptly, lest you inadvertently become an apostate for rejecting basic aqeeda!”
Sid replied: “I think it is the terrorist who murders dozens of innocents in a murderous killing rampage who has rejected basic aqeeda. And if that leads to apostasy, as you suggests that it does, then so be it. And it the terrorist is an apostate at the point of committing a terrorist act, it stands to reason that he should be legally denied an Islamic burial.”
Firstly, there is no scope for Sid to ‘think’. Sid did not, and will not have an opportunity to ask them about their Aqeeda – and conclude that they rejected it. Secondly, it’s very clear ‘Abdullah’ did not say that major sins lead to apostasy. As we can all see, Abdullah said the Khawarij believe this. Not only that, Sid missed the whole point!
That surely is the reason for him to urgently read up on Islamic history. For his benefit: the Khawarij were the first and very extreme Islamic sect, who even declared the Khalifa Ali to be an apostate for agreeing to mediation in his conflict with Mu’awiya. They were known for their ‘extremism’ in religion, and the modern day Kharijites are often called Takfiris (those who declare others to be apostates). Since the punishment for apostasy is death, they would often do the killing to implement this.
It is well known that modern terrorists claiming Islamic legitimacy have (more often than not) a ‘Takfiri’ mindset. People with such mindsets view Muslim rulers to be apostates for not ruling according to Islam, their agents (army, officials etc) are also apostates for implementing their rule. Hence the frequent attacks on soliders and government officials in Muslim countries. Groups that probably fall into this category would be the likes of GIA (Islamic Armed Group – Algeria), Gama Islamia and the suitably named Takfir wal Hijra (both Egypt). It is interesting to note that Ayman al-Zawahiri (Al-Qaeda No 2) was the former leader of Gama Islamia.
In the UK, Abdullah al-Faisal (’Shaykh Faisal’ as he referred to himself) was a Takfiri, the deluded self-declared intellectuals of Hizbut Tahir (HT) and the dimwitted thugs of Al-Muhajiroon (and their derivatives) were also quick to declare Takfir. And this wasn’t restricted to Muslim leaders, remember the ‘vote today become Kafir tomorrow’ slogan of HT?
Back to the main issue, my dear brother Sid will by now see that it isn’t a good idea to declare Takfir on others. Great Islamic scholars would hesitate a hundred times before declaring someone a Kafir/Murtad, because they knew the Prophet said that when a Muslim declares another to be a Kafir, one of them surely is (Hadith: Bukhari). They didn’t want to be a Kafir for wrongly declaring someone else to be one!
Please note Sid, the correct and ‘moderate’ position is to refrain from making Takfir. The Aqeeda of the Ahl al-Sunnah is that committing major crimes does not make one a Murtad – no matter how serious the crimes. To believe otherwise is not really up for discussion. As such the Mumbai terrorists must be given an Islamic burial. To believe, and or propose otherwise is extreme, and would follow the logic of the Takfiris. Somehow, I don’t think Sid wishes to be grouped with the likes of HT or worse Al-Qaeda!
Excellent! really clear and to the point… Sid, i pray you see the sense in this very well written piece
Firstly I would like to put your fears to rest. I am indeed a real person, a real muslim man, even.
Let’s look at the exchange between Abdullah and myself. Abdullah said:
…the Khawarij believe (Aqeeda) that major sins (Kabira) like murder leads to apostasy. That is rejected by Sunnis and almost all other sects. So Sid unless you are a latter day Khawarij – I’d suggest you withdraw that point promptly, lest you inadvertently become an apostate for rejecting basic aqeeda!”
Here is a question of simple ethics regarding the actions of two Muslims:
1) A Muslim terrorist who takes an AK47 and opens fire on the diners of a restaurant thereby killing children, women and men simply because *he* has deemed them to be kufar.
2) The Muslim man who refuses to bury the terrorist accordance with Islamic rites or even refuses to have his corpse enter the burial ground.
Now the question I put to you is – which of the two is more guilty of rejecting basic aqeedah?
In the three comment exchange between Abdullah and myself on a previous thread, he made the assertion that I was in danger of becoming a Khariji apostate because I had inadvertantly questioned the terrorist’s aqeedah. My reply to him was based on the premise that if rejecting another’s aqeedah is all that it takes to become an apostate then the question must be asked “Is terrorist who mows down dozens of innocent men, women and children, or tortures a mother and father in front of their young child before killing them, is also very much rejecting basic aqeedah”? And if the answer to that question is a resounding “YES” then he must have been an apostate, by Abdullah’s theological postulation. In which case any Muslim would be correct to deny the apostate ergo terrorist an Islamic burial.
I don’t have to *think* that or speculate on the spiritual condition of a dead man’s soul, I am simply using the logic Abdullah has presented, and which you have taken pains to back up in this post.
It is interesting that you are so concerned with trying to cast aspersions on my aqeedah but in all the posts and comments referencing the Mumbai terrorist atrocities neither you nor your peers have made one single statement comment on the moral depravity of he Mumbai terrorists. If you are serious about being perceived as sensible Muslims or even humane individuals, I would have thought that at least one statement from the this blog and its writers denouncing the perverted ideology of Islamist terrorism and condemn the actions of the terrorists would be in order.
Instead, the only thing you can come up regarding the Mumbai terrorists is this:
As such the Mumbai terrorists must be given an Islamic burial. To believe, and or propose otherwise is extreme, and would follow the logic of the Takfiris. Somehow, I don’t think Sid wishes to be grouped with the likes of HT or worse Al-Qaeda!
Now this last comment is either an attempt at humour, crass though it is, or it is petty mischief making. Either way, it belies your intentions to have a sincere and frank discussion but rather brings to mind the old English adage “pot calling kettle black”.
But given your inability to verbalise any condemnation of terrorists, and no matter how much you evade the question of the ethics of terrorism, it would be imprudent to call *you* HT or Al-Qaedah but one could easily come away with the suspicion that you are their fellow travellers.
My dear brother Sid. It seems you’ve been getting the wrong end of the stick, once again. With respect and without meaning to be patronising, I am finding it very difficult to engage with you. You either misunderstand the point or take it the wrong way totally. To have a meaningful exchange we need to be on the same wavelength.
I thank you for your comment, and since I intend this to be my last contribution on this matter – I’m going to try and address all the points in your comment above.
I’d like to address your last point first. “But given your inability to verbalise any condemnation of terrorists, and no matter how much you evade the question of the ethics of terrorism, it would be imprudent to call *you* HT or Al-Qaedah but one could easily come away with the suspicion that you are their fellow travellers.”
[Whilst deciding whether to laugh or cry] I’m pretty confident that almost everyone reading my post will conclude otherwise! The whole post was premised on the assumption that terrorism was wrong and criminal. Furthermore, statements such as modern terrorists ‘claiming’ Islamic legitimacy (meaning it’s not legitimate in Islam!) and the derogatory references to them as Takfiris, and the not so pleasant references to HT and Al-Muhajiroon, would to almost everyone (except you that is) mean that I do not follow their ideology. That’s a bit like saying (after reading our exchanges on this blog) that we share the same opinions! I hope you can see the problem with that. Anyway, just to make it very easy for you to understand: terrorism is bad/evil, killing of innocent people is NOT Islamic.
As for your first point: “Here is a question of simple ethics regarding the actions of two Muslims:
1) A Muslim terrorist who takes an AK47 and opens fire on the diners of a restaurant thereby killing children, women and men simply because *he* has deemed them to be kufar.
2) The Muslim man who refuses to bury the terrorist accordance with Islamic rites or even refuses to have his corpse enter the burial ground.
Now the question I put to you is – which of the two is more guilty of rejecting basic aqeedah?”
[Bear with me people, it's painful for me too] Sid, is this a joke? What has ethics got to do with this? A Muslim who kills others just because they are not Muslims, is clearly a terrorist, the actions are sinful and criminal. Assuming they were captured alive, these terrorist must be punished with the full force of the law. The Muslim who refuses to bury the dead terrorists is also wrong in his ‘action’. The key word here is ‘action’ – both are wrong actions, though one is much more severe, criminal and sinful. Both these actions do not have be linked to their Aqeeda. Both are mistaken in their understanding of Islam. We do not know if both rejected their ‘basic’ Aqeeda – we haven’t asked them! What I think you mean is which action is more sinful or worse. It’s clear that is is killing innocents which is the more sinful.
For the record Sid, no one is trying to ‘cast aspersions’ on your Aqeeda. You should try to understand the context and not take everything literally! All I know is that you are a Muslim. As a Muslim, you have not fully grasped many issues related to our Deen. Furthermore, you also seem not to see the logic of basic arguments.
The rest of your comment is related to this confusing of actions and Aqeeda. I urge you to re-read my post first. Secondly, let me give you a contemporary analogy: the American soldiers who abused and tortured Iraqis at Abu Ghuraib prison (many of whom were innocent family members of suspected insurgents) – did they lose their nationality because of those actions? No – and rightly so. If these soldiers were court-martialled and sentenced to death – their bodies would’ve been passed on to their families in the US for burials according to their religion. They certainly would not had a military funeral, because what their actions were morally wrong (sinful) and criminal (resulting in the court martial). But that did not mean they had their US passports confiscated – they were bad Americans, but Americans nevertheless. In their mistaken belief that they were helping their country, or carrying out what was expected of them – they committed crimes.
Similarly, these Muslims committed mass murder in the mistaken belief that they were doing something right. That doesn’t mean we take away their Muslim ‘passport’ or refuse to bury them with Muslim rites, an Islamic funeral isn’t exactly a state funeral! We must condemn their actions as un-Islamic – but why complicate matters with the question of whether they are Muslims? This not only brings up the issue of their burial but also inheritance. According to many of the Islamic schools of Fiqh, the Muslim family of non-Muslims cannot inherit from them. So you see Sid, we should always think before we utter things. It’s clear you and the people who refuse to bury the bodies (on the grounds that they weren’t Muslims) haven’t thought it through.
Finally, you mention humanity – civilised societies are judged by how they treat their enemies, their criminals (including terrorists). What benefit is there is refusing to bury a dead body? We should respect the dead bodies of our enemies as well as friends. That is the right thing to do and the Islamic thing to do.
Finally, you mention humanity – civilised societies are judged by how they treat their enemies, their criminals (including terrorists). What benefit is there is refusing to bury a dead body? We should respect the dead bodies of our enemies as well as friends. That is the right thing to do and the Islamic thing to do.
I see you have not been able to engage with the import of my rebuttal to your post.
Do you agree that using terrorists have denied thier victims aqeedah by killing Muslims and non-Muslims alike, and therefore by Abdullah’s theological postulation, makes them an apostate.
I am not suggesting we deny the apostate/terrorist a Muslim burial, you can martyrise him for all I care. What I am saying, is that from a theological point of view, the terrorist is an apostate and a Muslim who denies him his last rites is theologically correct to do so.
Would you agree with that?
Please Sid – let’s just leave it here. I’ve tried to be polite and patient, but there are limits! You DO NOT understand the issues – and as is very clear from the above, do not have the intelligence to understand it.
How can one ‘deny’ someone’s Aqeeda? Perhaps you mean ‘accuse’ them of rejecting the Aqeeda! Some lessons in the English language are in order also.
I’d suggest finding some other issue to comment on. A tip – stick to easy topics.
Sid,
Go sit with a scholar and stop using your logic!!
“…what I am saying is that, from a theological point of view, the terrorist is an apostate…”
Sid, it is clear that you are still insisting that the people who carried out the attacks have left the fold of Islam due to their wrong actions. This is the khariji approach and is itself a deviation in ‘Aqeedah. If a person truly believes that another individual is kafir, while that individual is really a Muslim, then such a person has left the fold of Islam. Its a serious matter.
Essentially, when discussing takfir, actions need to be separated from beliefs, (while affirming that iman is composed of speech, belief and action.) Your error seems to be on this point and both brothers Amin and Abdullah have reiterated this several times.
It is possible for someone to commit an act of kufr, but yet remain a Muslim (eg somone who worshipped at the grave without knowing that this is shirk, or someone who has abandoned his prayer while realising that he is doing wrong etc). So, it is defintely possible for someone to commit sins (even if they are huge) and yet remain Muslim. Allah can choose to forgive whomsoever He wills.
However, when a person abandons any aspect of the creed or denies those things that are known by necessity in the Religion, then he has left the fold of Islam. I think these are basic requirements for a Muslim to understand before engaging in accusations and before questioning the faith of fellow Muslims.
Amin, on the same topic, its also important to clarify that while Ahlus Sunnah dont make generalised takfir of others, takfir is something that the qualified scholars of the Religion should utilise when required. Also, regarding the rulers of the Muslim countries, many of them believe that the Shari’ah is not applicable in society today and American liberal capitalism/democracy is a better alternative. Therefore, without specifying individuals it needs to be affirmed that those who believe that there is a way of governing and ruling that is better than that which was revealed in the Qur’an, than they are kafir.
It is possible for someone to commit an act of kufr, but yet remain a Muslim (eg somone who worshipped at the grave without knowing that this is shirk, or someone who has abandoned his prayer while realising that he is doing wrong etc). So, it is defintely possible for someone to commit sins (even if they are huge) and yet remain Muslim. Allah can choose to forgive whomsoever He wills.
I think you and others are missing the point here:
The issue here is that you and others are consistently ignoring the single point made by Abdullah. And that is this: if someone denies a Mulsim’s basic aqeedah, the accuser is guilty of Takfir, and is himself in danger of becoming a murtad (apostate).
My only point is this: if a terrorist kills, in his campaign of indiscrminate violence – which is the fundamental nature of terrorism, kills amongst others Muslims who are innocents because he considers all victims as kufar, is the terrorist not also guilty of denying his victims’s aqeedah?.
And therefore, by that token, does not that make the terrorist a murtad at the point of killing these muslims. Not because he has killed an innocent, non-combatant but because of his intention. And that intention is the killing of kufar.
Since the nature of terrorism is indiscriminate, and by the nature of his killing if he kills a Muslim, it follows that that a terrorist has denied the aqeedah of his victims.
Hence it is obvious that the terrorist is the takfir. And therefore, a murtad.
This is the basic principle that commenter Abdullah made in a earlier post.
Now instead of debating this issue, all I am seeting fom the writers and other commenters on this blog, is a rush to contextualise and apologise the takfiri nature that is fundamental to terrorism.
This is a sickness at the heart of Islam. What is curious is that so many here and elsewhere are so ready to overlook it.
So the question I must ask those who wish to excuse terrorism, or, in some obvious cases, to excuse it – what is it about a 17 year old punk ass idiot who kills and tortures people that is so Islamic?
All I can say is duh! Sid. You really have lost the plot. A Hadith says that if you call a Muslim a Kafir – either he really is or you will be for calling him one wrongly. This is meant to warn us not to willy nilly call others Kafirs.
The terrorists who killed innocent people in Mumbai – some of whom must’ve been Muslim, perhaps they considered them to be collateral damage (like the US military does in Afghanistan…)? The point is we don’t know.
We can’t call them Takfiris – and then do Takfir on them. That would be really ironic stupidity Sid. No one here is apologising for the Takfiri nature of terrorists. Everyone except you is criticising it except you who wants to do Takfir on the Takfiris!
You say you don’t want to deny the terrorists a Muslim burial – but then call them Murtad/Kafirs? What a consfused individual.
You seem to have an agenda Sid – that is whether it makes any logical or Islamic sense, you want to say they are apostates because of their terrorism. You seem not to understand that one is a criminal matter and the other mainly a theological issue related to their afterlife!
You really have shown your hand: “this is a sickness at the heart of Islam”. This reminds me of Ayan Hersi, who says she is a Muslim but wants to change the Qur’an. She was proven to be a liar in her private life and lived the life as a non-Mulsim. Or how about Irshad Manji, the lesbian who says the Qur’an and Shari’a should be changed. She too aparently is a moderate Muslim.
To be a Muslim, one has to accept the basic rules and norms. You can’t say ‘I feel it should be like this’ – Islam isn’t the modernist Christianity where Hell doesn’t exist and the Virgin birth of Jesus wasn’t literal.
Just as we wonder why those people who don’t like the principles of Christianity don’t leave… Sid there is no compulsion is religion. If you don’t like islam and Muslims… you don’t have to be a Muslim. This is the West, you won’t be sentenced to death for apostasy! I’m not saying you have to leave Islam – just that you accept the fixed principles.
All I can say is duh! Sid. You really have lost the plot. A Hadith says that if you call a Muslim a Kafir – either he really is or you will be for calling him one wrongly. This is meant to warn us not to willy nilly call others Kafirs.
And all I can say is, marvellous! How erudite of you.
There is nothing I have said that has not been already expressed by the commenter Abdullah. But for some reason, you seem to be unwilling or unable to engage with the ideas at hand:
You seem to have an agenda Sid – that is whether it makes any logical or Islamic sense, you want to say they are apostates because of their terrorism. You seem not to understand that one is a criminal matter and the other mainly a theological issue related to their afterlife!
My agenda is to try and counter terrorism and Islamist extremism. You pay lip service to the prophet’s words of the “Middle Nation” but you are scurrying around trying to excuse every action of the extremists. You think you are Muslims but you can’t even debate a theological point.
Just as we wonder why those people who don’t like the principles of Christianity don’t leave… Sid there is no compulsion is religion. If you don’t like islam and Muslims… you don’t have to be a Muslim. This is the West, you won’t be sentenced to death for apostasy! I’m not saying you have to leave Islam – just that you accept the fixed principles.
Is this is the best you can do when met with a different point of view. First you preach to us that terrorists should be excused, lionised and martyrised and then tell those who don’t agree with that nonsense to leave Islam.
That’s pretty shameful. It shows a complete intellectual breakdown, an inability to engage with non-extremist poinst of view and moral arrogance that I find quite quite appalling.
I am a Muslim like many Muslims who reject yours and your fellow travellers interpretation of Islam. There is growing number of us who are not going to
excuse terrorism and pretend that its part of islam because it gives us a cheap “revolutionary” thrill.
You will have to engage with us before you engage with non-Muslims. And you will not be able to delete us out of your blogs, ignore us, censure us out, pretend you speak on our behalf or pretend terrorists speak on our behalf.
Anyway, I leave you with this question, which you have unwilling and unable to answer thus far:
Are you seriously saying that the Muslim imam who refused to grant the terrorists their last rites and give them a full Muslim burial is a takfiri and a murtad?
Whereas the Muslim terrorist who killed dozens of innocent men, women and children (some of whom were Muslims) because to him they were all kufar in an orgy of violence is not a takfiri and not a murtad?
Lol. Sid thanks for exposing your true background and objective. So you really are a reformer. Wow. Which parts of the Qur’an do we need to change?
Duh Sid – the people who refused to bury the terrorists made a mistake. Their reasoning was wrong. They are probably better Muslims than you, I’m pretty sure they don’t have your agenda.
You won’t be censored here I don’t think. So far you’ve been allowed to say whatever you wished right… Thank you to the Blog Editor and owners for allowing us this free entertainment fron Sid. With the credit-crunch this is cheap fun.
Btw, you said you were a Muslim – are you sure you’re not Irshad Manji? Or a member of this obscure group of ‘former-Muslims’? This is how stupid they are: they were disillusioned with Islam and so renounced it (fair enough, that’s their right), but they want to reform Islam now!
Irshad Manji first said she was an atheist and doesn’t beieve in God. When she was ridiculed for trying to suggest changes to Islam as a apostate – suddenly now she claims to be a moderate Muslim. Are we that thick!
Why don’t they start their own religion or group like the Nation of Islam or whatever else chooses their fancy. Live and let live.
Please note Azad Ali – your friend Sid has revealed his true colours!
Duh Sid – the people who refused to bury the terrorists made a mistake. Their reasoning was wrong. They are probably better Muslims than you, I’m pretty sure they don’t have your agenda.
And I’m sure they don’t have yours either.
Is this the same Sid who posts at Pickled Politics? The Sid who recently wrote: “David T who writes at Harry’s Place is one of the few bloggers who I find myself in complete, unqualified agreement with almost all the time.”
http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/2472
I only ask.
you know brothers it’s not a problem to me if you brothers call people in ht dim-witted…although i do not think this is the case! But i do take offence to you calling them takfiri..this is actually not correct. This is not the truth.
further i wish you all a happy eid
Asif. Think you should check the text very carefully – no one has called HT dimwitted, ONLY the author of the post called Muhajiroon dimwitted.
Remember the idiots who are now serving prison terms for their stupidity because I doubt they even thought about what they were saying. The grovelling excuses in court were a laugh – didn’t mean it gov!
On your point of HT not being Takfiri – what does Vote today become a Kafir tomorrow mean then? Was it a joke – and not the very serious (wrong) belief that voting makes one a murtad. We should always think very carefully before we talk and make pronouncements.
Dear br Abdullah,
Ideally i would like to hear a senior public figure in ht correct this perception and confirm that Ht does not consider someone to be kafir if they vote to elect a representative in ruling system that is not Islam (i.e. democracy).
I know that HT would not be calling someone kafir for voting although certainly i agree that they consider that if a muslim who involves himself in legislating other then from the ruling of Allah (SWT) then the individuals action is one of committing sin. This is a very reasonable and respectable and strong position.
in reference to ‘vote today become a kafir tomorrow’ – i have not come across such a slogan from ht. maybe a little more detail/evidence would be helpful including the time period. ht does not hold such an opinion that one is a kafir if he/she votes – that is something i am certain of.
I wish to also say that many jamaats make many mistakes due to humans managing and running them and they should always correct themselves as soon as they become aware because the purpose behind all this is to worship allah (SWT).
Asif. Let’s focus on the spirit of your last sentence that everyone makes mistakes.
Forgive me if it comes across as impatient – but I’ve been around HT for around 15 years and it’s always the same story. Whenever a policy becomes discredited – HT members and supports deny any knowledge of it. Or HT members say that it may have been uttered by supporters, but that it’s never been policy etc etc etc.
Committing a sin and becoming a Kafir are very different matters. As for specific evidence about the ‘vote today become Kafir tomorrow’ slogan – it must’ve been the 2005 elections, seen leaflets and big banners outside East London Mosque. I haven’t kept a copy just in case HT deny it in the future! Perhaps someone else elaborate more on the leaflets please…. Btw let’s not wait for someone senior in HT to correct this perception.
I for one am not stupid; many political parties and governments have policies floated on the principle of deniability – but HT’s way of going about it is so lame and when repeated year after year is silly.
I’m trying to figure out which angle you’re coming from – perhaps you are very new to the HT scene and don’t sincerely know that this was a policy, or you could be one of the members who try to deny that HT ever said this and that even though we all know it was the case, and have debated and argued with the self-declared intellects which proposed those stupid policies.
A true story: A brother asked a prominent HT member (who is a shopkeeper in East London), what this voting nonsense is and whether the HT guy’s dad voted. The HT member admitted that he couldn’t convince his dad not to vote. Upon which the brother said (in Bengali) so that would make you a ‘Kafiror fua’ (son of a kafir – it sounds much better in Bengali).
Dear br Abdullah,
I am not from East London but one thing i have always known is that usually the brothers from whitechapel (IFE) can not identify the difference between HT or al-muhajirun and to be honest they dont care to as it is convenient. And this is a great injustice. To be fair on them, I have also noticed that al-muharijon brothers also conveniently do not say anything when some one accuses them (whilst they are misbehaving) of being part of HT because they enjoy the tarnish upon the HT reputation. – I once saw this at a tariq ramadhan event in LSE where he accused the hecklers of being ht with binary mentality but these brothers who were not from ht did not deny it.
2005 is a very recent time, I am fully aware that such a slogan as ‘vote today become a kafir tomorrow’ has not existed nor does such a takfiri mentality exist within ht. I have pointed out to you that you have NOT got your facts correct, if you continue now without checking you are slandering and committing sin. I suggest you go to the ht executive team and ask them and get a proper response because what you are doing is slander. And this is a disrepute for your organisation.
Your true story does not lend any strength towards your argument. Did the prominent ht member agree that he is the son of a kafir, as the brother suggested, because his father votes? most likely not. HT as an organisation and its members do not consider an individual to be a kafir because he/she votes.
HT does not consider it Islamic
” And this wasn’t restricted to Muslim leaders, remember the ‘vote today become Kafir tomorrow’ slogan of HT?”
This has never been an HT slogan. Maybe muhajiroon
Also – HT is not takfiri at all. In fact HT also considers shiite Muslims as well, which is unusual amongst many of the groups today
Faizal on the other hand seems quite extreme in his takfir, and the muhajiroon appear these days to be a cult with a strong takfir leaning
But to put HT in amongst all this is unjust – i suggest the author corrects the inaccuracies
wasalam
oh and I think Sid is a real person – and i think he hangs out at Pickled Politics with Sunny Hundal and others. If it is the same Sid he is/ was an Ed hussein supporter, so its no wonder they like to brand anyone with the “extremist”/ “radical” brush in an attempt to push divisions in the community
ws
Asif. Perhaps you’re blessed not to live in East London. But if you don’t live here, you wouldn’t have known the antics of HT around here. Then again, there are at least two factions of HT (more according to some) – so perhaps you belong to the more civilised part? I have noticed that one of the groups claiming to be HT is much more normal.
I take your point about confusing HT and Al-Muhajiroon. But Asif I’ve already told you I’ve lived around them for 15 years and seen the transformation from when Bakri was the the Mujtahid Mutlaq to the time he became a traitor.
Please – trying to prove what HT said in the past is like trying to prove the pope is a catholic! Obvious historical factsto many people but always denied by HT, and I fell stupid even trying to prove it!
Asif – the story about the HT ‘member’, proves that they thought that way – ie it was their policy. He is still there if you want to meet him? It doesn’t mean I think his dad became a Kafir for voting.
Tariq Ramadan should choose his words carefully, Muhajiroon thugs are so stupid they wouldn’t have understand that! Credit where due – HT may be deluded self-declared intellectuals, but they are not the dimwitted thugs that Al-Muhajiroon obvioualy are. They called themselves the Saved Sect – more like the stupid sect. And I’m not going to try and prove that one!
I remember just before the building of the LMC during the planning stages few brothers from HT confronted us claiming that construction of this building will delay the caliphate’s coming! You see, this silly mentality was inside some HT guys – I hope they have changed!
Dear brothers
You were having an important discussion on reformation of islam. Along the way you made an important and significant error calling ht takfiri- thats all i tackled. I am not tackling whether you call ht intellectuals, dimwits or deluded, or silly mentality.
we need to work together and share and transfer klnowledge. constructive competition is healthy not destructive competition. we can not afford to not accomodate each other and look after each other.
my respect for many of the brothers here is high.
i have had a significant presence in east london: being bengali, wife from leyton, studied at qmw hence i can pick up things quite well about the whitechapel environment.
i think lmc is good, we need to build a model community: strong, independent and steadfast upon islam.
my best wishes
Hang on, how do we actualy know these terrorists were even muslims!?
Asif: I saw a HT brother outside ELM tonight distributing leaflets for a demo on Sunday! I asked if he was going to the major demo organised by a coalition of many organsiations. Naturally it was a no, because they don’t recognise Israel, and since that demo is using the ‘word’ Israel in the leaflet (end Israeli massacre etc) – they can’t participate.
What a shame your rosy picture of the new cuddly HT is not true after all. It’s the same old HT. Self-deluded isolationists… I don’t want to waste my words on them.
salams to abdullah and all the ht bashers
i ask you bros one thing. plz get your facts right before you start attacking ht. as this is probably the only way you guys seem to take the limelite. it was not ht who came up with the slogan ‘vote today become kafir tomorow’.
rather it was the saviour sect, an offshoot of muhaljiroun. so the ignorant author of this article should get his facts correct before making stupid comments. and this applies to the commenters as well. the hatered you have for the bros in ht has overtaken you to the point that you have nothing good to say about the continous struggle for this deen.
if you want to hear gossips and the behaviour of ymo/ife then i can give you many stories that i personally have come across (i live in whitechapel). but unlike you guys i will not publically disgrace the actions of these guys and attribute them to the ife movement.
this is the problem with you guys. in case you dont know ht is one of the biggest political movement in this country (islamic). they probably far out number many islamic groups in this country inc ymo/ife/mab/isb/ etc. so i dont think all these guys at ht have got it wrong.
Dear brother Abdullah,
I did not create a rosy picture of HT for you. I just told you that they do not go around calling people kafir – a very important point. you must not make slander like that!
I would like to raise a queston to the brothers of IFE:
the following event sounds incredibly dodgy: Muslim Women: Pioneering Change in 21st Century Britain at London Muslim Centre Saturday 10th January 2009
- due to the speakers involved and their secular inclination: Tariq Ramadan, Usama Hasan. They use the western liberal democracy as a benchmark to jusdge and mould the truly advanced civilisation of islam (whisch is no longer implemented). Islam is unique and more advanced then capitalism unfortunately the muslims lack confidence.
my dear spiritual salafi with a political outlook, are you with me on this one?
br Abdullah,
as I am aware the ht brothers carry out demonstrations outside us embassy in indonesia or someother muslim country. what do you think of that?
Further i see an ht leaflet that has the word israel in many places (from the leaflet) :
e.g. ‘..Israel’s massacre in Gaza’
e.g. Israel’s ‘Foreign Minister’ Livni informed Hosni Mubarak regarding the impending massacre before it happend
(this contradict your point above about ht not going to a demo because the leaflet of the demo uses the word Israel) please take a look:
http://www.hizb.org.uk/hizb/who-is-ht/htb-national-events/action-for-gazza-demonstration-to-call-on-arab-armies-to-defend-gazza.html
Infact I think HT are a little clever in wisdom in terms of who they call for help to end the oppression and injustice. You just have to be a salafi and refer to the quran and sunnah to know how to correctly engage the spirit and the matter.
They are applying a clever pressure.
some thaughts, I agree to, please tell me what you think?:
We have to make lots of dua’as for our brothers and sisters in gaza (Palestine), but that is not enough! Our prophet (SAW) did not just make dua’ah and leave out action. For example when the prophet (SAW) went to battles, these were not just making dua’ah for the result but the prophet and his companions also carried out actions.
Now who are capable of doing actions and duty-bound to do actions? It is the muslim rulers who manage/control all our material resources, e.g. army, oil, weapons, humanitarian products, etc. Some of them help America out of credit crunch/economic crisis; other muslim leaders are kept in existence to secure interest for the western governments. These leader don’t help (what they do is insignificant and token gestures) and instead we try to help our brothers through charities (this is also insignificant compared to what Gaza needs and what muslim states can provide)
We must apply pressure upon the Muslim leaders to go to the aid of our brothers. We can only call on the muslims to help. It is allah (SWT) who gives victory and results.
We must make the non-muslim community aware of the reality, the truth. For this you need to do your research, your homework, understand the facts and history and the Islamic viewpoints. Our call is determined by Islam and not by any other standards such us that corrupt standards of the western world which tells us give up Palestine.
What about our imams in the masjid, when are they going to lead in more then just the salah? They need to stand up for Islam. They need to be the guardians of muslim community, protect the steadfast of Islam, and lead in the advancement of Islam. Their Friday khutba need to motivate the muslim community, advise us on how to articulate our views and the reality to the wider non-muslim community whom we interact with daily in our day-to-day activities. The media and the government know what they are doing and this includes a distortion of the truth (i.e. for elitist interests), our muslim community needs to correct this distortion with the truth – our imams in our masjids have the greatest opportunity to generate this action from our community. Our imams in the masjids should make aware to the muslim community that the muslim rulers can do something about the oppressed situations of our muslim brothers. The call and pressure needs to be applied on the muslim rulers by muslims across the world – the imams of the masjids have a task to generate this call from our community. We need confident, eloquent and courageous, well informed imams in our community along with good supportive management committee members.
In summary, our imams should:
[1] Bring the congregations to make dua’ah for our brothers and sisters in Gaza
[2] Encourage the community to call on the people with power to come to aid of their brothers and sisters in gaza. The rulers and other influentials can do much if they want to. (we need to apply the pressure)
[3] Encourage donations of money, products that will actually reach the muslims in Gaza through muslim organisations/individuals. (trust a muslim but also be accounting).
[4] Encourage the muslims to engage (with politeness and best of manners) with the non-muslims about the oppression and injustice on the people of Palestine. (this is dawa’ah that will bring non-muslim to consider Islam, increase your chances to communicate with relevance and bring the non-muslims towards Islam)
[5] Discourage any secular route towards solution – disobedience to Allah (SWT) will fail us in this life and the next. (And further you may not realise but you would be playing by their game where they (those against Islam) have the leverage to win).
The truth is Allah (SWT) has made this ummah extremely wealthy. As nation states in fragmentation we will remain weak. The ummah is one, the natural order and as prescribed by Islam is that the leadership is singular. One can not neglect this call, without being sinful – the call to establish the borderless single muslim ummah as delivered by prophet (SAW). The borders and nation-state rulers are obstacles in the path towards the application of Quran and Sunnah, the shariah and the removal of oppression and tyranny.
to be honest br Abdullah ..I think we are friends!
Assalam
I dont see what the problem is HT brothers organzing their own demo, although i ve never been interested in HT, I was thinking of going to the HT demo on sunday rather than the national one as it represents the muslim voice more strongly.
But anyway anyone is allowed to book halls in LMC which you cant blame the IFE brothers for which it may or may not represent their own views. But its organized by a group and called INSPIRE ( http://www.wewillinspire.com/events/). Whos are supported by mcb so it kinda worked it way around back to IFE.
@ Asif: On your first point – mention of Israel was the explanation given by the brother handing out the leaflet! He said because today’s demo was ‘calling on Israel’ that’s why HT wasn’t participating. Instead we should be calling on Muslim countries and ‘armies to support Gaza.
As if the ‘Muslim Armies’ would help… they are controlled by corrupt leaders. The demo today was trying to pressure all powers, and muslim leaders to intervene and stop the Israeli massacre.
So if HT doesn’t have a problem with the demo today – why wasn’t it participating? Surely better to do things together.
@ Ahmed Tahir: “I dont see what the problem is HT brothers organzing their own demo, although ive never been interested in HT, I was thinking og going to the HT demo on sunday rather than the national one as it represents the muslim voice more strongly”
Come on Ahmed Tahir – please don’t patronize me. Either you are lying, or deluding yourself or plain stupid. How can you not be interested in HT, but claim they ‘represent the Muslim voice more storongly’? To conlclude that, you must’ve at least read about HT, and been interested enough to conclude positively about them. So much so that you’re going to their demo instead of the ‘national’ one.
This is my whole point – HT can’t even see the contradictions in their own statements or stances! Become part of the mainstream Muslim organisations. And what’s the point you’re making about ‘inspire’?
@ Joshim – don’t know where you’re coming from my friend. I don’t want to hear any gossip about ife/ymo or HT members and supporters! Any points i’ve made are about policy and public utterances – and not the personal/private conduct of individuals. Let’s leave that kind of gossip to the Jahils heh! I’m only interested in conduct of people when they’re carrying out their groups activities, or stating their policies. Whether they’re private sinners – is not really my agenda. That’s between them and Allah – unless it’s sooo public that they’re disgracing others.
Brother i was with ymo and very dedicated for a while until it became inactive. i didnt mean more strongly in numbers but just the fact more muslims will be visible. I have been doin dawah with my uni isoc since. But i have been thinking about joining brothers from HT to do grass roots circles for them insha Allah in the bricklane area.
what is your definition of mainstream muslim organizations?
who do you see as mainstream muslim organizations?
Is it wrong not to be a a part of them?
I think brothers we should stop there and stay friendly.
Abdullah, please read my point made above on Gaza (i know its a little long) – something to help towards focus.
There are many good brothers in ife and i can see that from the blogs and comments.
Taher: YMO doesn’t have a God-given right to be the only promoters of truth. So you can join HT without the need to explain why you left ymo or the fact that you were affiliated with ymo!
Also – I think you owe everyone reading this blog an apology for lying about your non-interest in HT! You have just admitted that you have been “thinking about joining HT for a while”. Not only that, but to “DO circles FOR them”. You have just stated in clear words that your previous statement was a total lie. I’m not holding HT responsible for this – just you as an individual.
Brothers
whilst we discuss this futile discussion that will bring no benefit to our faith….Gaza is being invaded and our brothers are being brutally attacked outside the Israeli emabassy!
Can we rather talk about things that unite us and are a common concern then things that create fitna.
I said ” although ive NEVER been interested” as meaning before i was never interested, sorry i did not explain it well then. then i went on to say i will be going to their demo. Please awnser my questions on my previuos post, which is more important then my linguistic mistakes.
Brother Asif you are totally correct, we should keep it freindly, but i want to know from bro abdullah what mainstream is. It easy to critisize other muslims for no reason so he should awnser my questions then i can commence with a debate with him.
Taher: I’m going to take bro’s advice and agree that this is a discussion for another time. Does feel a bit petty with the current Gaza crisis.
On the point of keeping it friendly – I agree, but friendliness is based upon honesty. And you are really taking the mick for playing around with words. For those who know me, I have some experience with words… and can confidently state that your statement:
“I dont see what the problem is HT brothers organzing their own demo, although i ve never been interested in HT, I was thinking of going to the HT demo on sunday rather than the national one as it represents the muslim voice more strongly.”
Was constructed to give the impression that you are not affiliated with HT and are a neutral observer. Clearly it transpires that you are not neutral. The ‘never’ in that sentence doesn’t imply ‘previous’ (before), as opposed to a different current state of mind. I’d say 99% of people would understand that sentence to mean that you ‘trying’ to say that you were not part of HT.
I say ‘trying’ because person with half a brain, would also see the crude way of expressing support by saying ‘as it represents the muslim voice more strongly’.
Like I said before, we’re not stupid – so please don’t go there. Second if you want to play semantics – do know who you’re dealing with. Although I’ve got a lot to improve (my English) – I have the basics to know that you’re NOT too well versed in ambiguity.
please just awnser my questions?
Brother I dont see y your attacking me personally.
ok alhamdulillah lets leave it, by the way i know you brother abdullah, i know your very intelligent and every one in the community gives you the respect you deserve.
Thats if you are the brother abdullah everyone knows.
Taher: Mainstream groups are IFE, MAB, BMI, ISB etc. That is those groups that are not takfiri, accept that we are ‘British’ Muslims. It means promoting justice for Muslims here and also abroad. So those who recognise the right of Palestinians to resist Israeli occupation etc.
It doesn’t include sell-outs like the Quilliam Foundation nor the thugs of Muhajiroon – ie avoiding both extremes. I was hoping HT would join the mainstream and stop the silliness of rejecting everything British (Muslims cannot be British etc), but at the same time conveniently holding onto their British passports. Just an example. Please – I don’t want want to start discussion on this. Was only to answer your question. Maybe another time.
Btw: Abdullah is not my real name – so I don’t think you or others would know me. I don’t crave respect nor do I think I deserve it.
Also not attacking you personally per se. But generally truth does hurt.
Br Abdullah,
I respect IFE and I respect MAB because I see many of the individuals stand up for Islam to correct distortions. I have concerns about ISB because they promote organisations and people that twist Islam and attempt towards a secular and liberal framework, e.g Usama Hassan, Tariq Ramadhan, Emel, Sarah Joseph.
I have concerns about the phrase ‘British Muslim’ because there is a tug of war going on as to what sort of meaning to attach to it. Even the British Government has come along to give British Islam/British Muslim a distinct meaning: an islam that has evolved and gone through the reformation like the church.
You see the FCO taking Ed Hussain, Usama Hassan etc to Egypt to promote British Islam in the summar of last year.
If British Muslim simply means that I am a muslim and have taken up citizenship in UK, then that is simple and not interfering with my faith as I can continue to support my ummah, the muslims through out the world. Certainly as citizens we are stakeholders.
By British Islam, I can not accept Islam to be reformed. I can not accept usama hassan promoting hijab is no longer fard obligation for our sisters. I can not accept tariq ramadhan bringing out a distinct shariah for muslims living in the west. I can not accept Sarah Joseph saying palestine is not our concern.
We have to be careful and not let our deen to be taken away from us.
well said br asif
fully agree with your analysis
Save all arguments why don’t all muslims just go home and leave the UK?
[...] Ali has certainly holds despicable political views. I once had a long exchange of comments on his blog in which he refused to condemn the Mumbai terrorists because they were, in [...]
[edited..]
btw, did u just c what sid did just there?
damn! As slick as the 2-faced come, man. He started this whole thread, then the comments, and when he got the boot up his backside, he disappeared while you bredrin started fighting each other!
That’s just how the brits colonised the world. they used snakes like sid from the ‘natives’ to create dissention/division amongst the population, slip out and away in the darknes of the night to allow for the true natives to kill each other off and carve their homelands into halves.
Abdullah really shouldn’t have kicked it off with HT. It was uncalled for, but knowing you dude… you just couldn’t help it. It in your blood, blud.
[...] » To be or not to be – is the criminal discourse Between the Lines [...]