A guest post by Abu Ghazi
We all enjoy occasional intellectual nourishment in the media – most of the time the papers provide us with enticing food for thought but, unfortunately, with the current war against Islam and all the media hype and distortions surrounding it, we scarcely find good articles with real substance and accuracy.
Since the war ‘against terrorism’ or Islam, we’ve had to endure people claiming to be overnight experts on Islam and the Muslims, from both Muslims and non-Muslim alike. Now, with the subsequent launch of the infamous contest 2 strategy, I’m anticipating more shoddy ‘experts’ of Islam to be given platform. I wonder, to what level the media and the government will stoop down to!
As I opened my email yesterday morning one of the first emails that caught my eye was a link to an article in the Guardian Comments is Free section by Faisal Gazi on Islam and secularism. Who you may ask? It’s Faisal Gazi, a software engineer by day and a writer and a blogger by night. There’s no end to the ramblings of the pseudo experts on Islamic political thought!
He, like ‘extremist secularists’ at the Quilliam Foundation, want to persuade the readers how Islam and secularism are compatible and that the Qur’an and the Sunnah do not stipulate a cohesive and comprehensive system of governance for the Muslims. At the same time Faisal wants to promote his secularist ideas like his western counterparts from the neo-cons that liberal capitalist democracy is the way forward for Muslim countries despite the fact that some experts of liberal democracy themselves do not agree to the notion on imposing ones ideals on another sovereign nation that has its own history and civilisation.
I am not going to write about the blog in too much detail or how flimsy Al-Raziq’s arguments are; the scholars in the past have dealt with them word by word. I am not going to tackle some of the historical inaccuracies Faisal’s article contains. I’m not even going to cite the verses and traditions that are replete with clear and emphatic statements regarding the obligatory nature of the polity in Islam and the explanations, exegesis and the fatawa [legal opinions] of the scholars, past and present, against the demarcation of religion and state in Islam.
I am not even going to cite the comments made by all the scholars past and present about the correlation between Islam and government or to belief and politics, or the religion and the state. Nor am I going to delve into the linguistic meaning of religion [din] itself and how even from this angle we are able to formulate an understanding of politics in Islam. What I will do [albeit briefly] is cite a passage from Al-Raziq’s work ‘Al Islam wa Usul al Hukm’ to show that he nullified and terminated his own thesis thus rendering anyone after him to espouse the same thinking to be inauthentic and flawed from the outset.
Before that, and as a preamble, allow me to remind the readers of the main points by Al-Raziq in his book. In summary he sets for the notion that ‘the government of the Islamic state can be of any kind’- it can be an autocracy or bureaucracy; a monarchy or republic; a dictatorship or constitutional or consultative government; it can be democratic, socialist or Bolshevik; that the Prophet was nothing “but a Rasul for a religious call, purely for the sake of religion, unblemished by any tendency to rule or call for [the formation of] a state”, and that “Islam is a religious unity, and the Prophet called for that unity and had actually achieved it before his death, and that for the sake of that unity he, peace be upon him, struggled with his tongue and his sword and Allah’s help and victory came to him.”
He also says that it should be realised that “al Risalah [the message of Islam] in itself required the Prophet to acquire some form of leadership and power over his people. But this is very far from the leadership of kings and their power over their subjects. Hence, one must not confuse the leadership of al-Risalah with that of the king,” and that “the rule of the Prophet over the mu’minin [believers] was the rule of al-Risalah which is untainted by [any urge to] rule.” [Al-Islam wa Usul al-Hukm, Beirut edition 1966, pp 82, 83, 136, 141 and 142]
Back to the issue at hand, nullifying his own claim, Al-Raziq says, “By virtue of al-Risalah, the authority of the Prophet, peace be upon him, was universal; his order to the Muslims was obeyed and his rule was far reaching. Anything requiring a judgment was bought under the authority of the prophet, peace be upon him, and every conceivable form of leadership or authority over the mu’minin (believers) was encompassed by the rule of the prophet, peace be upon him.” [Al Islam wa Usul al Hukm, p 138-144]
These decisive comments from his book clearly repudiate his thesis and others who may wish to use him as an authority and rely on his arguments. Also this aspect of the rule will not be defunct by Al-Raziq’s other arguments in the part of the book containing the above statement, in which he tried to distinguish between the rule of the Prophet and the rule of arbitrary and tyrannical kings. For these other arguments differentiate the arbitrary and tyrannical characteristics of such kings from that of the Prophet, but do not negate his universal authority as the ruler of the Muslim state which he instituted, governed and oversaw the administrative, economic, spiritual, social and political affairs of the Muslims after his migration to Madina.
Another illustration of Gazi’s complete and utter lack of sound knowledge on Islamic sciences is his comments regarding Ijma’ [consensus]. Both he and Al-Raziq misunderstood the scholars assertion of Ijma’ regarding this issue. None of the scholars claimed that the Ijma’ on the Caliphate was the sole proof however, the Ijma’ is an Ijma’ on the understanding of the evidences – that the various verses in the Qur’an and the authentic traditions of the Prophet [some reaching tawatur] indicate to the obligatory nature of the Caliphate.
We’ve seen how flimsy and self contradictory Al-Raziq’s arguments are. If people like Gazi really want to appease their lost souls then they are better off not employing his manner of argumentation especially since there are reports of Al-Raziq repenting and retracting from his position as transmitted by his family, and given that he refused to reprint the book at later stage in his life, shouldn’t it make you think Gazi?!
“…The truth has come and falsehood has vanished. Indeed falsehood is bound to vanish” (17:81)
Wayne
Yes, but he does not advocate the bombing of Muslims in the places they work and eat. Wilders’ simplistic message of bigotry must be allowed space – we live in a liberal society. But Muslims already have the intellectual and theological tools to fight him back. The problem happens when British Muslims counter him with banning or worse, violence.
i think i hit a nerve there. was it the chicken leg or the passport?!
Suprising that when one is under pressure/criticism that he starts quoting islamic adab, whilst denying fundamentals of the deen, infact the very principles/belief that islam is based on.
I dont think Faisal you are in a postion to talk about Islamic Adab, when you are a self acclaimed “dibeliever”. You should use secular mannerism and courtesies which is full of 4 letter words.
Same old hypocracy!
Let go back to the question-
“Do you believe in the supramacy of Allah’s law?”
@Faisal
You didn’t answer the question. We know that homosexuality and alchohol are proscribed by the Quran. So once again -
Q.Islamic values such as the forbiddance of alchohol and the sin of homosexuality are fixed and cannot be changed.
Do you agree with at least this statement? And therefore that as Muslims we need to keep hold of our values even while living in a society such as the UK?
From your last response though it was not a clear answer it appeared you were saying that you do not agree with the statement, that they are not fixed values and therefore they do not hold today. But instead of having the courage in your convictions you danced around it.
Please answer it clearly.
- And once again for everyone else
There is a point to this, because Faisal knows he does not believe in these values – it proves how Faisal and his like are not anti-Caliphate per se, but fundamentally they are actually anti-Islam.
Faisal- Yes some aspects of sharia was developed via “explanation” of the Quran, but this “explanation” was not done according to ones whims or desire, but rather was according to what the Prophet (SAW) said and how the the salaf (early muslims) “explained” it. I have used the term “explain” is the more accurate term for the explaining or elaboration that was done, or in letter time deduction which analagy etc. interpretation means a subjective undertsanding, this form of undertanding cannot be used for shariah.
explaining was and still not done by some lame man who wants to change shariah to please Society, rather it was done to arrive at the meaning and spirit of the Quran and sunnah.
So when someone like you, who disagrees with certain passages of the quran, or who is advocting something that is not in its spirit, you are doing so without authority, and that, as has been said before is dangerous, as such attitude take one out of the fold of islam. Which by the way you have claimed to have already done.
There is a point to this, because Faisal knows he does not believe in these values – it proves how Faisal and his like are not anti-Caliphate per se, but fundamentally they are actually anti-Islam.
Abu Abdullah, why is it is so important for you to rty and establish me as anon-believer?
Is that more important for than trying to establish how to establish and administer the caliphate. I notice that
1. To rule by Islam is an obligation known by necessity
2. The Caliphate has and is obligatory according to 99.9% of the scholars, and that is probably exaggerating the opposition. The Prophet mentioned this in various narrations, and the companions of the Prophet were agreed upon it.
have dropped off your list of obligations and necessities for the Muslim.
Is that because if you take that espouse the caliphate, the responsibility of answering awkward questions on how to run it are too difficult for you to answer?
No answer again Faisal?
I dropped 1 and 2 because if you don’t believe in 3 you could never believe in 1 and 2. Quite simple really. I never said they were not necessary, rather that they have prerequisites. The issue of your beliefs is important as you are projecting yourself as a Muslim espousing Islamic views, a good old attempt at a trojan horse.
So again, -
“Q.Islamic values such as the forbiddance of alchohol and the sin of homosexuality are fixed and cannot be changed.
Do you agree with at least this statement? And therefore that as Muslims we need to keep hold of our values even while living in a society such as the UK?
From your last response though it was not a clear answer it appeared you were saying that you do not agree with the statement, that they are not fixed values and therefore they do not hold today. But instead of having the courage in your convictions you danced around it.
Please answer it clearly.
- And once again for everyone else
There is a point to this, because Faisal knows he does not believe in these values – it proves how Faisal and his like are not anti-Caliphate per se, but fundamentally they are actually anti-Islam.”
I dropped 1 and 2 because if you don’t believe in 3 you could never believe in 1 and 2. Quite simple really. I never said they were not necessary, rather that they have prerequisites. The issue of your beliefs is important as you are projecting yourself as a Muslim espousing Islamic views, a good old attempt at a trojan horse.
So the belief of the sin of homosexuality and alcohol are prerequisites to the caliphate? Are you sure you’re not creating a very personal hierarchy of your own and projecting them onto others simply because it gives you the satisfaction of allowing you to call them a “kaafir” and this then shifts the weight of responsibility of evaluating your own worth by blaming others of falling short of *your* personal standards.
I’d be very interested to know where is the Qur’an or Sunnah does it say that the the caliphate is obligitory, And furthermore, where does it say that the sin of drinking alcohol is higher than the failure to establish the caliphate?
@Faisal
You are still not answering the question.
The point is very simple.
If someone does not believe in Islam – they will not believe in the Caliphate.
Do you believe in Islam Faisal? Not any old Islam – but the Islam as understood from the question below -
“Q.Islamic values such as the forbiddance of alchohol and the sin of homosexuality are fixed and cannot be changed.
Do you agree with at least this statement? And therefore that as Muslims we need to keep hold of our values even while living in a society such as the UK?
From your last response though it was not a clear answer it appeared you were saying that you do not agree with the statement, that they are not fixed values and therefore they do not hold today. But instead of having the courage in your convictions you danced around it.
Please answer it clearly.
- And once again for everyone else
There is a point to this, because Faisal knows he does not believe in these values – it proves how Faisal and his like are not anti-Caliphate per se, but fundamentally they are actually anti-Islam.”
# Faisal Says:
If someone does not believe in Islam – they will not believe in the Caliphate.
Are you sure about that one? There have been plenty of caliphs who drank alcohol.
Yazid I (680-683): he was Muawiyah’s son. He drank daily and won the title Yazid al-Khumur, the Yazid of wines.
Abd al-Malik (685-705): he drank once a month; but drank so heavily that he had to use ant-vomiting medicine to pacify his drinking bout.
Al-Walid I (705-715): he drank every other day.
Hisham ((724-743): He drank every Friday after the divine service.
Al-Walid II (743-744): Yazid II’s son. He would swim habitually in a pool of wine of which he would gulp enough to lower the surface appreciably. He also shot the Qur’an to pieces with his bow and arrow.
Again not answering the question, but rather throwing up silly irrelevant comments.
I didn’t mention personal conduct, rather their belief.
Again Sid/ Faisal
“Q.Islamic values such as the forbiddance of alchohol and the sin of homosexuality are fixed and cannot be changed.
Do you agree with at least this statement? And therefore that as Muslims we need to keep hold of our values even while living in a society such as the UK?
From your last response though it was not a clear answer it appeared you were saying that you do not agree with the statement, that they are not fixed values and therefore they do not hold today. But instead of having the courage in your convictions you danced around it.
Please answer it clearly.
- And once again for everyone else
There is a point to this, because Faisal knows he does not believe in these values – it proves how Faisal and his like are not anti-Caliphate per se, but fundamentally they are actually anti-Islam.”
To make it easier
Q.Islamic values such as the forbiddance of alchohol and the sin of homosexuality are fixed and cannot be changed.
YES or NO
This is why I asked
* How do you propose to recede the powers of the executive should it be required to do so?
What legislative structures would be in place for you to depose a caliph who drinks in the caliphate that you intend to establish, Abu Abdullah?
Q.Islamic values such as the forbiddance of alchohol and the sin of homosexuality are fixed and cannot be changed.
YES or NO
How do you interpret these verse:
Quran 5:90
”O ye who believe! Intoxicants and gambling, (dedication of) stones, and (divination by) arrows, are an abomination, – of Satan’s handwork: so avoid it that you may prosper”
Quran 2:219
They question thee about strong drink and games of chance. Say: In both is great sin, and (some) utility for men; but the sin of them is greater than their usefulness. And they ask thee what they ought to spend. Say: that which is superfluous. Thus Allah maketh plain to you (His) revelations, that haply ye may reflect.
The verses seem to me to ve saying that alcohol has bad and good effects, but best is to avoid or eschew it.
Best not to make up your own ultimatums, Abu Abdullah.
More shuffling about. I’m not interested in your tafsir of the ayat either. Neither did i ask about alchohol alone, and whether its best to do x or y.
Very simple. Last time
Do you believe in Islam Faisal?
Not any old Islam – but the Islam as understood from the question below -
“Q.Islamic values such as the forbiddance of alchohol and the sin of homosexuality are fixed and cannot be changed.
Do you agree with at least this statement?
And therefore that as Muslims we need to keep hold of our values even while living in a society such as the UK?
From your last response though it was not a clear answer it appeared you were saying that you do not agree with the statement, that they are not fixed values and therefore they do not hold today. But instead of having the courage in your convictions you danced around it.
Please answer it clearly.
- And once again for everyone else
There is a point to this, because Faisal knows he does not believe in these values – it proves how Faisal and his like are not anti-Caliphate per se, but fundamentally they are actually anti-Islam.”
Its strange that you could not answer with a simple yes or no but rather had to throw up smokescreens.
Just like your pseudo academic article suggests – your are insincere and intellectually dishonest.
And you don’t even have the courage in your own convictions, so you are a coward to boot.
Pretty much back at the starting point – aslim taslim
If you’re not interested in my tafsir, what makes you think I’m interested in yours? Or that your tafsir is weightier than mine?
You have my answer, take it or leave it.
Alcohol based on those verses are clearly haram. But the hadith explicitly states that – for the sake of avoiding ciivil strife – there is to berevolution to depose the ruler SO LONG AS HE RULES BY THE BOOK (of Allah), and commits kufr bawwaah (clear kufr) by doing so, according to the hadith.
That is what br Abu Abdullah meant; those (like Faisal) who do not accept ‘ruling by Allah’s Book’ will nevere understand or accept pointt 1and 2 of br a abdullah’s points.
One may also note from that, that drinking alcohol – while severe enough to deserve punishment – is not as severe as not ruling by the Book, or denying it – which is kufr bawwah as the hadith explicitly states.
So Faisal is in no position to even condemn earlier (corrupt) caliphs for drinking alcohol while he commits a greater abomination.
Pathetic. Faisal can’t even answer a simple yes or no question without equivocation.
He doesn’t even have the courage in his own convictions enough to state them clearly here – I didn’t ask him anything other than to answer yes or no, and yet he bottled it.
Proves the point about insincerity. As if it needed further proof in any case.
Iit is unfortunate that people (and this sadly includes a lot of Muslims in the west) can spend years studying and debating the philosophies and writings of non-muslims who are prone to faults and even call to opposing Islam, while the same people cannot even be bothered to educate themselves over the Quran which they will immdeiately admit as ‘the guidance for mankind’.
The verse in baqarah about alcohol having good and bad (the second of faisal’s quotes) were the first to be revealled about alcohol). After that, it was the verse in surah nisaa forbidding us to pray while having drunk alcohol, and after this, it was the last verse in surah maaidah whicch completely forbade it (faisal’s first quote) abrogating all previous commands, as explained by the mother of the believers Aisha (ra).
So it’s not merely ‘best to avoid’ alcohol, but rather ‘obligatory’ to avoid alcohol, as explained by the hadith which curses those who drink it, buy it, sell it, etc. This is something agreed by ijmaa’ (which Faisal alhamdulillah agrees to).
In the very same surah by the way is the verse closing and completing the religion: “Today I have perfected your religion for you, and completed my favour upon you and chosen for you Islam as your way of life…”
So Faisal is in no position to even condemn earlier (corrupt) caliphs for drinking alcohol while he commits a greater abomination.
It is not in my nature to condemn historical figures I have never met. :D
My point was more to do with how to deal with caliphs who break the law of the land.
Drinking is a personal matter, and there are hadeeth to show that the Prophet treated different people who drank with…equivocation. Some he excused, some he had flogged.
RRR:
Are you saying that the Medina verses abrogate the Meccan verses? Can you send a link to a tafsir which categorically suggests this, thanks.
it is true no one is interested in your “tafsir” as you are boosting it to be- it laughable to think yourself a muffassir.
Tafsir is not for the faint hearted like yourself.
We only take tafsir of those who do it in spirit of the quran, sunnah and ijma of the scholars.
Please dont mix your yourself up with heirs of the Prophet, when you quite clearly dont even believe in the Fundamentals of the deen.
Answer the question: Do you believe Allah’s law is superior to man mad law?
two options
1. Yes
2. NO
what are you afraid of!
Chicken leg or Passport, which one?
i mean which one hit the nerve?
it is a shame that one becomes all islamic, start talking about adab when it suites them, but when it does not suite they are willing to change things to please there worldly masters!
Faisal- you are a two faced hypocrite!!
Dudu
I would never presume to suggest I offer a tafsir. I only used the word because Abdullah referred to my reading as atafsir.
More shuffling about. I’m not interested in your tafsir of the ayat either. Neither did i ask about alchohol alone, and whether its best to do x or y.
So read the whole thread and don’t jump to dudurific conclusions.
This is my last comment on this thread – thank you, you have been great hosts.
really, well that is exactly what you have been doing on this blogg, giving your own tafsir!
Please dont go away without answering the quesion!
i knew it, it was chicken leg!
run along weak gazi!
I do not have books at my disposal to find the quote from Aisha (ra), but online you can find Umar ibnul Khattab has said the same, as found in Abu Dawud:
“Imam Ahmad recorded that Abu Maysarah said that `Umar once said, “O Allah! Give us a clear ruling regarding Al-Khamr!” Allah sent down the Ayah of Surat Al-Baqarah:
[يَسْـَلُونَكَ عَنِ الْخَمْرِ وَالْمَيْسِرِ قُلْ فِيهِمَآ إِثْمٌ كَبِيرٌ]
(They ask you (O Muhammad ) concerning alcoholic drink and gambling. Say: “In them is a great sin…)
`Umar was then summoned and the Ayah was recited to him. Yet, he still said, “O Allah! Give us a clear ruling regarding Al-Khamr.” Then, this Ayah that is in Surat An-Nisa’ was revealed:
[يَـأَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ لاَ تَقْرَبُواْ الصَّلَوةَ وَأَنتُمْ سُكَـرَى]
(O you who believe! Approach not As-Salah (the prayer) when you are in a drunken state.) (4:43)
Then, when the prayer was called for, a person used to herald on behalf of Allah’s Messenger , “No drunk person should attend the prayer.” `Umar was summoned again and the Ayah was recited to him. Yet, he still said, “O Allah! Give us a clear ruling regarding Al-Khamr.” Then, the Ayah that is in Surat Al-Ma’idah was revealed, `Umar was again summoned and the Ayah was recited to him. When he reached:
[فَهَلْ أَنْتُمْ مُّنتَهُونَ]
(So, will you not then abstain) (5:91) he said, “We did abstain, we did abstain.” This is also the narration that Abu Dawud, At-Tirmidhi and An-Nasai collected in their books. `Ali bin Al-Madini and At-Tirmidhi said that the chain of narrators for this Hadith is sound and authentic.”
See the tafsir of the maaiidah verse for further information. The matter is clear.
Huh, where did he go?
Regardless that Faisal is gone, on the topic of ijmaa’ , in addition to the plethora of verses explictly stating the clear obligation of ruling by what Allah revealed (which is what all this talk about ‘caliphate’/Islamic rule is about), there is also ijmaa’ on the same issue and has always been until knolwedge fell into the hands of ignorant people – as the hadith warns that towards the end of time, knowledge will be raised with the raising of the ulama, until people will end up taking ignorant heads to ask instead who will answer and misguide and be misguided,
Why do we find it difficult to accept the judgements of Allah and His Messenger (who we claim to love and fear) just as the hypocrites of Maidnah found it difficult:
” 47. They (hypocrites) say: “We have believed in Allâh and in the Messenger (Muhammad SAW), and we obey,” then a party of them turn away thereafter, such are not believers.
48. And when they are called to Allâh (i.e. His Words, the Qur’ân) and His Messenger (SAW), to judge between them, lo! a party of them refuse (to come) and turn away.
49. But if the right is with them, they come to him willingly with submission.
50. Is there a disease in their hearts? Or do they doubt or fear lest Allâh and His Messenger (SAW) should wrong them in judgement. Nay, it is they themselves who are the Zâlimûn (polytheists, hypocrites and wrong-doers, etc.).
51. The only saying of the faithful believers, when they are called to Allâh (His Words, the Qur’ân) and His Messenger (SAW), to judge between them, is that they say: “We hear and we obey.” And such are the prosperous ones (who will live forever in Paradise). ”
(surah Nur)
Faisal you must have selective reading abilities since you have obviously not read other posts who have answered your questions by giving you the exact book and author to which you can find all your answers. So please stop repeating your questions when answeres have been given. But on the other hand you dont seem to answer other bloggers questions. So it is very simple in my eyes you have your answers now answer our questions. YES or NO
I think the answer has already been exposed.
Toi be honeest, Faisal could have gone a long way if he really and sincerely had dedicated some effort and time to studying the Quran and hadith and seeking knowledge instead of merely dedicating them to studying the thoughts of man and secularism (not to say all of man’s thinking is false). Allah has given us all strengths and gifts, its whether we spend them in his service that matters.
All confusions and deviations are ultimately a result of ignorance and lack of Islamic knowledge. The knowledge that we need is all there in the revelation – Allah has revealed all man requires in his life: “Wa have revealed to you that which is an explanation for all things”, and has shown us that – for our ease – we may ask the people of knowedge if we do not know : “So ask the people of knowledge if you do not know”.
Sadly, we either assume that the Quran is insufficient (an insult to its revealer and kufr) or we fail to take the guidance from it/misunderstand it and end up ignorant in our deen. We also are increasingly lacking true scholars especially in the west (may Allah preserve the few we have), or we fail to access or accept their guidance.
“The cure to ignorance is but asking” (hadith). So ignorance in deen is an ailment and has to be cured through seeking autentic knowledge – authentic to mean as it was revealed and explained to us by the Prophet (saw) and understood and practiced by the favoured generation of the sahaba and their early followers.
The two areas in which shaytan attakcs are the heart and the mind; the heart through sowing doubts and confusions, and the heart through temptation and desires. We can cure the first by learning the truth, and we can cure the second by practicing the truth.
May Allah grant us all the tawfeeq.
RRR you have hit the nail on the head or should is say the kufr on the head of faisal!!
What a joke! He wasn’t even man enough to answer my question! A simple yes or no.
The amount of time he avoided it…… and now he’s made a runner!
Assalam,
Brothers keep up the good work defending Islam against the secular extremists. Let the Cyber Jihad begin! Allahu Akbar!
Europe will never become Muslim!! We are democratic, secular and states of right. We have beaten you a couple centuries ago at the Gates of Vienna. We have beaten the Nazi dictatorship in 1945 and, be sure and we will also beat the Islamic religious dictatorship you are trying to impose on Europe (because that’s what you want, right?). Try to develop your societies first and recognize that your rulers rule you through religion and keep you poor and underdeveloped so that they can remain in power. Secularism would be a good idea to have a better life in Muslim countries. We are not decadent, just modern. We are free, we can have our opinion and speak out, we can even have a lawywer in court and women have the same rights as men. Our social system is producing progess: medicines (also for you), puts people on the moon, created the internet (the one you use to preach the jihad againts us) etc. etc, while your social system produced nothing in the last century, except poor countries and anger against everybody who is not Islamic. Without petrol you would not even have any money (by the way we produced the infrastructure for you to be able to extract it in the first place). Wake up, develop yourself and bring some good in the world, give a positive contribution, have fun. It’s not so difficult and I think Allah would have nothing against. Do you really believe all your Imams are saying?
I think it is pathetic Sid attacked people with such vitriol from an alias – only when he was outed on Pickled Politics did he choose to have some balls and use his real name. But he is still a shill for those who would see all practising Muslims deported.
Get a life, Sid/Faisal Gazi. The community neither wants nor needs your ranting.
does sid want to be with the QF? He probably wants money to fund his stay here in the U.K. But, let me tell you Sid/Faisal Gazi, the government wont fund you for that, or will they?
All this talk about the caliphate has got me wondering. Is not one of the signs of the coming of the day of judgment is that the dajal will appear and be fought by the mahdi who will lead the muslim army. And in the end Isa a.s. will come down and kill the dajal and then make allahs law supreme. Then the whole world will become muslims and the jizia will be aboloshed where you wither become mulsim or be killed. If allahs law was not ment to be supreme then why will this be the case then?
Also allah has in numerous ayats and hadith mentioned that his relgion will be victorious and that his laws came to prevale over all other laws. This is a command from allah that we must try to establish the caliphate and allah will then give us victory.
Faisal if you do not accept this then you have rejecetd a major part of our aqeedah and thus continued to delve further into your kufr.
Churchill you really sound like Faisal – Amazing that you use the same arguments and even sentence structure.
Just to let you know was it not islam which brought you the b reakthrough sicence, maths, physics, medecine, oil which you used to do everthing you mentioned. Who beat the Nazis? i thought it was the colonies of the british empire who fought the war and guess waht the majority were muslims.
Yes the muslims have failed to be the pioneers of society for a while but this is due to the muslims self state that they have become engrossed with this world and forgot about the after life. That is why allah took away the blessings from us.
Everything you ahve mentioned are more reasons for us not to turn to securlism since this is all dunya and we do not measure success by what we achieve in the dunya but the akhirah.
Muslims have a lot of enjoyment in their lives when they speak with allh in salah. And they will have the ultimate fun when they live in eternal bliss in the hearafter