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)
You IFE boys are starting to sound desperate.
Very good post. Faisal Gazi is also known as SID – the one that comes here and blogs now and again. It seems that he has grown some balls and now is willing to put his name to his tripe. Let’s see how long he lasts.
It was a shame the Guardian closed his comments off, would have loved to have reminded him of Raziq proper, specifically what his family says!
This is a new approach by the secularist, to look “authentic” in front of the non_muslim audience quoting blah and blah. But for me, SID (aka Faisal) shot himself when he confirmed that Raziq was the only Muslim scholar to have brought this propogation of secularism after over 1400 years – even then he did it the year after the Uthmania Khilafa had been destroyed – says it all really.
Keep up the good work – there will be more on Faisal soon – he is a bengali afterall can’t hide forever…lol!
Akhi, this is a brilliant article. May allah SWT reward you for exposing the lies of these people. “They want to extinguish the light of Allah with their mouths, and Allah will strengthen His Light…” [surah saff]. These people are trying to deny Allah SWT attribute as al-haakim and will never succeed.
Just some naseeha bro, when referring to ‘Ar-Raziq’, pls call him ‘Raziq’, as ar-raziq is the name of Allah SWT. This is not a big issue, and i dont want it to become one. however, i feel duty bound to correct, as i will be asked about it in qiyamah otherwise.
jazakumullahu khayran.
You have quoted from al-Raziq’s ‘al-Islam wa Usul al Hukm’ in an attempt 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.”
Note the concluding phrase in that passage: “every conceivable form of leadership or authority over the mu’minin (believers) was encompassed by the rule of the prophet, peace be upon him.”. – This means that any form of government or State is that is appropriate to the conditions of the time and space that Muslims find themselves in is legitimate. And that was the primary point of al-Raziq’s thesis.
Far from contradict the al-Raziq’s authoritative message, it completely confirms it.
Unfortunately (for you) you have tried to make this post show conclusive proof that al-Raziq contradicted himself, when in actual fact you have ended up showing how he was completely consistent and how his proposal for the secular state, insofar as this means a separation of religion from the institutions of the executive, are in compliance with the true traditional teachings of the Prophet.
Furthermore, you say:
I am not going to write about the blog in too much detail or how flimsy Raziq’s arguments are; the scholars in the past have dealt with them word by word.
Scholars of the past like Rashid Rida, the precursor to modernist Islamist scholars, was later to accept every single one of al-Raziq’s conclusions. Although of course, Islamists like the Muslim Brotherhood were at pains to discount al-Raziq’s profound and subtle text and push their own modernist and simplistic theocratic-nationalist agenda.
Zafar says:
But for me, SID (aka Faisal) shot himself when he confirmed that Raziq was the only Muslim scholar to have brought this propogation of secularism after over 1400 years – even then he did it the year after the Uthmania Khilafa had been destroyed – says it all really.
Two points:
1) I didn’t say Abd al-Raziq was the “the only Muslim scholar to have brought this propogation of secularism”, I said he was the first Shari’a scholar to have championed and advocated the secular state – not a secularised society.
2) It should be borne in mind that abolishment of the Uthamani empire was weclomed by the scholars of Al-Azhar as well as King Fuad of Egypt because they were very keen to revive the it in Egypt. But by then the abuses of centuries of despotic and tyrannical rule by the Caliphates and their various sub-caliphates meant that Muslim support of the Caliphate, which amounted to nothing more than a series of tyrannical dynastic monarchies. simply vanished.
Salam Faisal,
Can I first congratulate you on coming out – it was unfortunate that it took an exposure to bring u out and make you blog in your own name, nonetheless I am pleased that you have.
Your exact words are “The first Muslim scholar to formally champion secularism was the Egyptian judge, Shaykh Ali Abd al-Raziq… ”
So my point is valid!
2. You distinguish between a secular state and society, as if to mean that the society lives in its own time and space and has no relation to state. Please do explain this.
3. As for the support by Azhar scholars and Fuad et al, this is NOT the same as supporting secularism, they were against the Turkish Caliphate – not the principle of teh Caliphate, and this is what defeats your entire blog and raziq’s view.
Sid/ Faisal says
“Scholars of the past like Rashid Rida, the precursor to modernist Islamist scholars, was later to accept every single one of al-Raziq’s conclusions.”
Please bring your proof.
It is well known that Rida wrote a scathing rejection of Raziq’s views, and pushed the ulama of al-Azhar to take him to court, which they duly did.
Raziq’s views were actually classified as HERETICAL, and he was thrown out of al-Azhar and stripped of his qualifications.
Many ulama wrote complete refutations of Raziq’s work, some of them even claiming that there was no way a Muslim could have written such a piece of nonsense let alone a supposed scholar, giving rise to the rumour that the British had a hand in its authorship.
whoever wrote it, the piece itself is a shabby work which is self contradictory and completely in opposition to Islamic thought, as judged by everyone at the time EVEN SOMEONE LIKE SAAD ZAGHLOOL who was astounded that any Muslim could say that Islam had nothing to do with politics.
People should do some real research before writing, but of course Sid has a track record of lying here so not much should be expected from him
Finally the other point that the azhar scholars supported the abolishment of the Caliphate in Turkey – this is also wrong. There was some support for the moves in 1922, but the ulama actually all complained about the formal abolishment when it happened in 1924. More inaccuracies it seems.
ws
Previous comment still caught in your moderation filter.
It is well known that Rida wrote a scathing rejection of Raziq’s views, and pushed the ulama of al-Azhar to take him to court, which they duly did.
At the time he did but that was because he was placating the Al-Azhar scholars. Rashid Rida was a Syrian Arab nationalist who was a strong critic of the Ottoman Caliphate and a strong supporter of an independent nation state of Syria! He later published a treatise which proppounded the idea that Shari’a should not be state law – thereby adopting al-Raziq’s ideas.
Finally the other point that the azhar scholars supported the abolishment of the Caliphate in Turkey – this is also wrong. There was some support for the moves in 1922, but the ulama actually all complained about the formal abolishment when it happened in 1924. More inaccuracies it seems.
Of course they complained, they were in a state of siege. They didn’t complain so much after that Tanzimat Reforms though, but that was the real death knell to the legislative role of the scholars. They were in agreement that the Ottoman Empire was a failure by the time it was abolished.
People should do some real research before writing, but of course Sid has a track record of lying here so not much should be expected from him
And in spite of the fact that you have a track record of being unable to put together a sensible argument without degenerating into foulmouthed truculence, I would suggest that you read Abdullahi Ahmed an-Na’im’s Islam and the Secular State.
Sid – have you read Raziq’s “Al-Islaam wa usool al hukm” in its entirity?
Or are you just relying on someone elses secondary research?
And re. Rida – how little you know about him – a shame really – which treatise are you talking about where he suggested what you claim?
And what work of Rida have read first hand? Or is this all secondary research as well?
I ask because though he was a critic of the uthmani’s he did support the Caliphate as an institution and pushed the Turks to uphold it, and as far as his ideas of syrian nationalism etc, are concerned please bring proof/ times. If it was said he was an arab nationalist this is also inaccurate since his arab nationalism was in fact simply a claim that arabic was needed to understand Islam, and that the Turks had done a disservice by neglecting the arabic language. However, he supported the ottomans because they had the power and he was concerned with the protection of Islam.
Sid – shoddy secondary research means nothing – if you want to write about something meaningfully then do some proper study of the subject instead of a few throwaway comments which may excite your friends while chatting over a coffee table but are totally inaccurate when scrutinised.
So Sid – which of the works of Raziq and Rida have you actually read for yourself?
I have a 1966 edition of the Al Islam wa Usul al Hukm which I bought in Cairo some ten years ago. Good to know there are some great secular scholars who are doing lots of good work over there. Not to mention Abdullahi Ahmed an-Na’im in the States.
If it was said he was an arab nationalist this is also inaccurate since his arab nationalism was in fact simply a claim that arabic was needed to understand Islam, and that the Turks had done a disservice by neglecting the arabic language. However, he supported the ottomans because they had the power and he was concerned with the protection of Islam.
Yes but that ony proves he was an Arab supremacist, which he certainly was. He hated the Turkish hegemony of the Ottoman empire. As for his Syrian nationalism, it is quite well known. Surprised you, who claim to be an expert, know nothing about this.
Sid – shoddy secondary research means nothing – if you want to write about something meaningfully then do some proper study of the subject instead of a few throwaway comments which may excite your friends while chatting over a coffee table but are totally inaccurate when scrutinised.
Namecalling aside, have you got any primary research to refute the work of Abd al-Raziq or Abdullahi Ahmed an-Na’im?
looks like a lot of Sharia monkeys got together and are gabbling about on the internet… funnyhow none of you lot are volunteering to go and live under sharia – saudi, afghan or swat valley for u lot, i should say.
Salamu Alaykum. I’m not sure I understand your reasons for objecting to Faisal Gazi’s article, and certainly don’t see why it warrants so much vitriol (”If people like Gazi really want to appease their lost souls…”).
The article brings to light a scholarly attempt to discuss the possibility of practising Islam in a secular environment. Brothers (and sisters) who live in Europe, is this not what we are doing? We are living in a secular society and practising Islam. Should the discussion of how this can best be achieved not be encouraged, instead of quashed with recourse to implied allegations of unbelief? (The kind of allegation we have been warned to avoid, lest they backfire).
Is this really “Islam for Europe”, or “Europe for Islam” ?
Sid, sorry Faisal – still waiting, explain to me how a society lives in the absence of a state?
Good comment Abu Yusuf.
Zafar:
A secular state is one that separates the religious institutions from institutions of executive and legislation. This makes the state neutral in terms of religion, and laws are passed by an independent judiciary. Freedom to practce any religion is maintained while minority rights are protected in conformance with universal human rights.
The coercive enforcement of Shari‘a by the state betrays the Qur’an’s insistence on voluntary acceptance of Islam. Just as the state should be secure from the misuse of religious authority, Shari‘a should be freed from the control of the state. State policies or legislation must be based on civic reasons accessible to citizens of all religions.
Throughout the history of Islam, Islam and the state have normally been separate. In fact, as An-Na’im suggests, the very idea of an “Islamic state” is based on European ideas of state and law, and not Shari‘a or the Islamic tradition. Which is why those who champion the “Islamic State” are merely parroting an idea which has its roots no later than Cairo in the 1950s, by the modernist Islamist radical Hasan al-Banna who gave up the idea of a trans-national caliphate as unworkable, and settled for creating a self-contained “Islamic nation state” of Egypt.
Okay so you don’t believe a society lives in the absence of a state, glad to hear that.
Your point about seperation of religion from state, in terms of Judiciary, Administration, policy etc I understand, but do not accept. These functions can be based on Islamic principles (i.e. the Shari’ah) and not be the ‘nasty’ things you quote.
You say throughout history, Islam and state have been seperate. So 300 hundred years ago, a Muslim living under the Caliphate got his divorce from a court that based its rulings on anything other than Islam? What are you on about…!
The problem is, you fail to see and understand the concept of state, or more precisely the greek/european invention of the nation state. This is an alien concept to Muslims as states were never based on nationalistic tendencies.
As for the argument of a trans-national caliphate – why is it unworkable – America or the united STATES of America is proof that is it workable. Secualarist tendencies has little to do with it working or failing.
@Faisal – a list of some reading
1. Rashid Rida himself wrote a refutation. By the way – Haddad who wrote a whole PhD on Rida does not claim he was a syrian nationalist, and I have read most of Rida’s work (as opposed to you who has read none first hand) and he is not a syrian nationalist. His life actually stands against that, he ended up supporting ibn Saud of Saudi Arabic a few years after the fall of the Caliphate.
2. Sh. Mohammad al-Bagheeti wrote al-Islam wal haqqeeqatul hukm, refuting ali abdul raziq
3. Sh. ibn Ashur wrote a treatise refuting raziq
4. Sh khidr al-Hussein also wrote a book refuting raziq
5. more than 20 azhar ulamwrote a refutation of him as well.
All of these are availablel. They all criticise Raziq for taking Western concepts of state and then measuring the caliphate against them, conflating the Caliphate with a theocratic state, and then stating that such a concept is alien to Islam. This is a straw man argument since the Islamic state is not a theocratic state in the first place in the understanding that the West have, with their separation of “Church” and “State”, which is a separation that does not and has never existed in Islam, since we do not have a “Church” and we do not see religion as separate from politics. So his argument is flawed at the beginning by taking Western concepts out of their environment and then trying to subject Islam to them. A bit like you talking about “universal values”, which are basically European values labled as universal to enforce their hegemony on the intellectual discourse.
As it is, the Caliph does not follow the Prophet in terms of getting revelation rather he is accounted upon applying the laws as left by the Prophet etc. etc.
Basically the writers all make mince meat out of Raziq, which is why his name is until today associated with heresy.
As for na’ims argument – as mentioned above by Zafar – conflating all state structures or concepts with a “nation state” is incorrect.
Writers like Na’im and Effendi are just repacking raziq’s arguments, and as they were rejected out of hand in his day these peoples works are rejected out of hand today.
Thanks for that Abu Abdullah – indeed the straw man arguement these secularists propaganda is “theocratic state” – indeed that is alien.
Zafar:
The problem is, you fail to see and understand the concept of state, or more precisely the greek/european invention of the nation state. This is an alien concept to Muslims as states were never based on nationalistic tendencies.
This is self-contradictory since the Islamist concept of nation-state which you are so excited about is based on the same European principles but with the illusion of Shari’a tagged onto it. Look at all the pragmatic, working Islamist political parties in the world today – they are now all working as Islamicising their own nation states.
As for the argument of a trans-national caliphate – why is it unworkable – America or the united STATES of America is proof that is it workable. Secualarist tendencies has little to do with it working or failing.
Couple of points: USA is not a transnational state – it is a single nation. But even so, it’s interesting that you selected, of all the nation states you could have chosen, the USA. Have you read the First Amendment of the Constitution? It is *the* model in the liberal age of how to separate religion from the the executive and thus enable a secular state. Good choice!
Abd Abdullah:
The “Islamic state” of Hasan al-Banna, which is the model espoused by the Muslim Brotherhood and your parent organisation, the Jamaat-e-Islami, is a post-colonial innovation based on a European model of the state and a totalitarian view of law and public policy as instruments of social engineering by the ruling elites. Premodern Muslim governments did not define themselves as “Islamic states” and although they claimed some Islamic legitimacy, they did not take a single self-evident form of shari’a (since such a thing does not exist) and impose it as the law of the land. Lawmaking in the traditional Muslim world was the job of religious scholars who were, often, independent from the political authority – which helped the evolution of law and limited the powers of the executive. Christians and Jews and Hindus were granted he right to live by their own legal traditions. Premodern Islamic polity, in other words, offered several legal traditions to choose from.
The post-colonial Islamic state, which you and the Hizbut Tahrir champion as the solution de jure, rejected this pluralistic tradition, claiming to know what the Shari’a is and then imposing it on *all* citizens through a dictatorial government. It is no accident that one of main ideologues of the modern Islamist movement, al-Maududi, the founder of Jamaat-e-Islami, openly said in the 1930s that the “Islamic state must be totalitarian, akin to the communist of fascist states”.
Mohammad al-Bagheeti, ibn Ashur, khidr al-Hussein were all govermment scholars who were part of the Al-Azhar establishment which has not been indepedent since the turn of the 19th century, and none of then could not address the following issues that al-Raziq brought to our consideration:
1) The lack of any reference to a State, as we understand it, in the primary texts of Qur’an and Sunnah
2) Given the above, the lack of any evidence that shows that the Caliphate was based on Ijma. Furthermore, the Doctrine of Ijma starts seeing abuse from very early on. An example from early Islam is found in the year 674AD in the events that led to the succession of Yazid, the second Caliph of the Umayyad dynasty. The “consensus” in his case was arranged by his father Mu’awiyyah, who summoned all the Muslim representatives to an assembly and obtained their blessings to Yazid’s succession at the point of a sword. Yazid’s reign was further marked by revolts, rifts and the killing of Husain ibn Ali, who was widely regarded as the rightful successor to the Caliphate. And subsequently after Yazid, the caliphate starts transforming into full blown dynastic monarchy.
3) The fact that the last 1300 years, almost all the Caliphates have been created by force and maintained by despotism. Also they have been little more than monarchies based on dyanasticism.
If the Quran and Sunnah are so clear about the Caliphate, as you claim, why have they been so different, diverse and almost always tyrannical?
Rashid Rida:
If you want to find more on Rashid Rida’s Syrian nationalism just look up the words “rashid rida syria nationalist” in google. You will find some starters there, I’m sure. There are more scholarly expositions of his Syrian nationalist tendencies. In fact, it was because of these tendencies that led him to reject the Shari’a as capable of codification for State law, since his nationalist ideas led him to effectively adopt the secular ideas of separation of Islam from the executive.
By the way, what suggestions do you have for implementing the following: Rule of Law, independence of shari’a scholars and enforcing the executive (the caliph) with the need to abide by the above without degenerating into:
a) The use of lackey (government) scholars as in Saudi Arabia.
b) Full blown Totalitarian state as in Khomeini’s Iran.
Thanks for that Abu Abdullah – indeed the straw man arguement these secularists propaganda is “theocratic state” – indeed that is alien.
Theocratic states are far from alien in the present Islamic world in the present day. The conditions for theocratic state happen when one of the following conditions are met:
1) There is no seperation of the legislative law-making institution from the executive (King or Caliph) and thers is therefore, no rule of law, as such.
2) The balance of power is completely weighted towards the king who uses the religious institution for legitimacy (modern manifestation : Saudi Arabia, who funds the Jamaat-e-Islami in Southasia)
3) The balance of power has shifted towards the religious authority, the religious scholars or clergy, who are then indistinguishable from the Caliphal authority. (modern manifestation : Iran or Talibanised Afghanistan)
4) Islamist organisations such as the Muslim Brotherhood or the Jamaat-e-Islami, who are modernist post-colonial interpretations of classical Islamic governance, which want to make Shari’a the law but are not willing to create separate a legislative institution, such as a body of religious scholars, who are indpendent from and provide constitutional counterbalance to the power-wielding forces of the executive.
Oh how you love to play the slight of hand…choosing America was to show that it is practical, of course the EU would be another example. The Caliphate I look to as workable is one that is federated.
As for the your definition of theocratic, i just don’t accept it. As history shows, thr principles you base you legislation on works just fine when its Islam.
Anyway – back to my orginal point, after 1400 years you could only find on, contardictory, scholar in the 20th century…
Zafar (Iqbal)
From 1789 onwards the Ottomans were adopting secular forms of government. Sultan Selim III began the secular reforms. These secular reforms continued under the Tanzimat reform bill from 1839 as well. The Tanzimat reforms included the abolishment of the Jizya, the adoption of Western Penal, Civil and Commercial codes.
The Ottomans had realised that Secularism was the way forward and the Ottoman Ulema endorsed this opinion.
I know your Islamist mindset won’t allow you to accept this but it’s the truth!
Khurram (Murad)
You were doing so well until you let your prejudice get the better of you in the last sentence. Of course I accept what you’re saying. However, I do disagree that the Ottoman Ulema agreed with it!
But it’s great that you are adding more proof to teh fact that secularism is an alien concept to Islam and that the normative values and principles were from the Shari’ah.
Jzks
Sid
“Rashid Rida:
If you want to find more on Rashid Rida’s Syrian nationalism just look up the words “rashid rida syria nationalist” in google. You will find some starters there, I’m sure.”
I give you references to PhD studies and you tell me to look in Google?
Case closed.
btw – more inaccuracies
ibn Ashoor was a tunisian and so was sh. khidr, neither of them were involved at al-azhar at that time.
And no other than Sa’ad Zaghlool (if you don’t know who he is, look him up on google, since thats your preferred source of academic references) refuted Raziqs arguments.
There is no point in entertaining a discussion with you – your a pseudo academic and insincere anyway – anyone can look at how you interact with other people on Pickled Politics and can see your fake piety when you come here.
Final message you can take it or leave it as you please
1. To rule by Islam is an obligation known by necessity
As an example Sh. Mustafa Sabry said to separate the State from the Religion is apostasy from Islam. Sh. Kawthari said to attempt to separate the State from the Religion is clear disblief. Both of these were huge ulama before Hassan al-Banna even graduated from high school.
3. 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.
4. Islamic values such as the forbiddance of alchohol and the sin of homosexuality are fixed and cannot be changed.
Aslim taslim
Zafar
I don’t expect you to agree with me. I’m just telling you the facts.
The Ottoman Ulema endorsed the Tanzimat reforms, this is a historical fact and well documented, go and do some research first before commenting. This is the way the Ottoman state functioned, all bills had to b endorsed by the Ulema first.
Abu Abullah
Where does it say in the Qur’an that establishing an Islamic State is an obligation? Ruling by what Allah has revealed is ruling with justice and consultation, these are the guidelines the Qur’an has laid out for ruling. Man interprets the Qur’an so it is always going to be mans version of Allah’s law and never just Allah’s law. The prophet (saw) lived in a city and not a state. The prophet (saw) did not even elect a successor. The concept of ‘Statehood’ is a modern concept and alien to Islam.
Empires like the Ottoman were not Islamic states implementing shariah on all. When Sultan Mehmed al-Fatih conquered Constantinople he even considered declaring himself the head of Christianity! the shariah was the last thing on his mind. Also the Ottomans maintained the existing Byzantine system and people of other religions governed themselves autonomously under the Millet system. Shariah was never imposed on everyone.
In Sunni Islam there are at least 7 different versions of Shariah, which version do you want to be imposed on everyone ? Many classical scholars were tortured by Muslim kings (sultans) because they spoke out against having a particular version of Shariah being imposed top down.
Please do some research before you start peddling Islamist ideas that have only come about in the past century or so. If you really want a state imposing a version of Shariah then you are free to migrate to Somalia who are doing this.
I doubt if you will.
Khurram
since you agree the Quran gives the guidlines to rule by ‘justice and consultation’ – what is justice based on?
As for Man’s version of Allah’s law, how inadequate of you – so the clear verses which proscribe the law from both the Quran and Hadith are man’s interpretation?
It’s a good thing khurram agrees that ruling by what Allah revelaed is an obligation and a duty. Faisal Ghazi for one does not agree with that (check elselwhere on this site for his views on this)., and hence any attempt to pass himself off as an ‘islamic’ thinker falls flat on its face and only shows up mere hypocrisy, given that he denies ‘basic articles of faith’ as he puts it himself. Someone in this state will not understand (nor agree – and we ask Allah to guide us all) with the concept of an Islamic state which – cutting all the jargon to a side – is merely a land which believes Allah’s laws to be the best and wisest and implemets this.
If it is a duty to rule with what Allah revealed as Khurram rightly states, then how is this compatible with secularism which denies from the onset any link to religion when it comes to politics? Rather, we believe that Allah’s laws (as prescribed in the Quran and sunnah and understood by the sahaba and their followers) are the wisest and most superior and hence must be implemented and cannot be replaced with something made up by weak and feeble human creatures.
Our source for ruling over a people will be what Allah says, not what people say out of their whims and desires. Consultation takes place within the boundaries of the Quran and the sunnah, and can never overrirde theheavenly commandments and already-established rules as a result. This is what makes the Islamic shoora different to the consultation of a bunch of toms, dicks and harrys sitting around a table and deciding what should be haram and halal for the masses. That right belongs to Allah alone, and it is very revelaing when someone denies Him this right – subhanahu wa ta’alaa.
Faisal says “The balance of power is completely weighted towards the king who uses the religious institution for legitimacy (modern manifestation : Saudi Arabia, who funds the Jamaat-e-Islami in Southasia)”
Where do you get your facts from, please show me the evidence where you got the link between Saudi and Jamaat-e-Islami? Last time i checked the Saudi government supported the Salafis (i.e. wahabbis) who actually oppose groups like Jamaat and Muslim Brotherhood. Also Salafis refrain from particapiting in Physical combat as they have done by rejecteing the legitmate resistance in Plaestine. Please get your facts right Saudi only fund Salafis and their metholodgy of Knowledge (mainly Aqidah) and they believe the King of Saudi is the Amir (Chaliph) but that is rejected by the ideology of Jamaat, and Muslim Brotherhood.
These are know facts which have evidences so why are you making wild accuscations which is baseless. SORT IT OUT SID!
Ah lo and behold SID is back but now actually showing his true colours. And again Sid comes back with his confusion, falsehood, factless, pointless and rather more islamless points. Was this not the man who believes that consumption of riba is OK, and did he not spout and attest words of Kufr by saying that Allahs and his Messengers laws are not supreme over man made laws! And now he starts his rant about Caliphate/Rule etc that it is not obligtory, which if my memory serves correct he went on about before.
When will YOU learn you HAVE LEFT the fold of ISLAM, You have openly admited kufr and still you go on as if you were a muslim
Give it up man!
People who claim to defend Islam should make an effort to learn the basics of ettiquite in Islam.
There is an alarming tendency amonsgt modern muslims to attempt to close an argument by accusing someone of being a kufr.
Please let us remember:
It is reported on the authority of Ibn `Umar that the Prophet (may peace and blessings be upon him) said: Any person who calls his brother: O Unbeliever! (then the truth of this label) would return to one of them. If it is true, (it is) as he asserted.(But if it is not true), then it returns to him (and thus the person who made the accusation is an Unbeliever). (Sahih al-Muslim, v3)
`Abu Zarr reported that the Holy Prophet said: No man accuses another man of being a sinner, or of being a kafir, but it reflects back on him if the other is not as he called him.’ (Sahih al-Bukhari, Book 78, ch. 44)
“Whoever attributes kufr [unbelief] to a believer, he is like his murderer.” (Tirmidhi)
`Withhold [your tongues] from those who say `There is no god but Allah’ — do not call them kafir. Whoever calls a reciter of `There is no god but Allah’ as a kafir, is nearer to being a kafir himself.’
(Tabarani, reported from Ibn Umar)
It is said of Imam Abu Hanifa: “He did not call as kafir anyone from among the people of the Qibla.” (Sharh Mawaqif, fifth part)
‘They say regarding the issue of kufr that if there are ninety-nine reasons for considering someone as kafir, and only one reason against it, the mufti and the judge is bound to act according to that one reason for negating the kufr.’
- Mulla Ali Qari in Sharh Fiqh Akbar
“The aim of these injunctions is that there should be as much caution in calling a Muslim kafir as there is in pronouncing a death sentence against someone. In fact, this matter is even more serious because by killing a person there is no risk of one becoming a kafir, but this risk does exist if one calls a Muslim kafir if that man is not really a kafir. Should there even be an iota of Islamic belief in that man’s heart, the slander of kufr shall reflect back upon the accuser. Hence, he who has fear of God in his heart, and has some realisation of the great danger of being involved in kufr, shall never dare call a Muslim kafir until he has carried out a thorough enquiry and fully ascertained that such a person was a kafir. There is so much caution in this regard that if there is a man whose conduct clearly shows insincerity, and whose condition is openly showing that he is not a Muslim at heart, if even he recites the Kalima with his tongue, it is not allowed to call him kafir and treat him as a kafir.”
-Sayyid Abul Ala Maududi ( Tarjuman al-Quran, issue for month of Jumadi al-Awwal, 1355 A.H., circa 1936, vol. viii, p. 5)
Please be careful.
And also, ask yourselves if dawah or ‘Amr bil Ma’aruf and Nahi anil Munkar’ are compatible with insulting someone.
A simple question to Faisal/Sid –
Akhi Abu Yusuf he clearly made statements of Kufr (please look at previous discussion with him (with the cover name of Sid):
http://blog.islamicforumeurope.com/?p=149#comments
He denied some of the Article of Faith:
SID/FAISAL SAID – ‘Yes, but I have admitted that I don’t beleive in certain articles of faith. I’m not hiding that. I’ve admitted openly right here, right now.’
Sid/Faisal has accepted that he doesnt believe Allah’s law to be superior to man made law. That is a clear statement of disbelief and he has reaffirmed this even after provided evidences from the Qur’an.
So please brothers, dont go the extreme of not acknowledging statements of Kufr as statements of disbelief. It is not trigger happy takfir, rather one that does not acknowledge such things after evidences provided must question his/her faith.
Oops I forgot the question to Faisal/Sid in my previous post –
Do you believe that Allah’s law is superior to man made law?
Siymist,
You said “Don’t go the extreme of not acknowledging statements of Kufr as statements of unbelief”. Is this what you meant to type? It is obvious that a statement of Kufr is a statement of unbelief, becuase Kufr=unbelief.
No, please try and understand the words of the scholars I quoted.
I repeat one of them:
“They say regarding the issue of kufr that if there are ninety-nine reasons for considering someone as kafir, and only one reason against it, the mufti and the judge is bound to act according to that one reason for negating the kufr.”
So try and understand that even if a muslim SAYS something that sounds like kufr, it is not upto you to pronounce takfir on him because there may be something else in his heart which you do not know but which Allah does.
If you want to argue/debate with a muslim about a subject then do so, but do not call him a kufr or say, as the original poster of this article said, that his “soul is lost”. Such things are upto Allah. Please practice humility and adab.
And moreover, do this for the sake of your own souls. Because if there is even “an iota” of belief in that persons heart on whom you pronounced takfir, then the state of kufr will come back to you.
Please take the advice of the hadith and the scholars seriously and do not overlook parts that we want to overlook just for the sake of wanting to appear superior in a debate.
He denied some of the Article of Faith:
SID/FAISAL SAID – ‘Yes, but I have admitted that I don’t beleive in certain articles of faith. I’m not hiding that. I’ve admitted openly right here, right now.’
Primary of which is the false belief that the es Caliphate is an article of faith and obligatory on Muslims – which has been made a false article of faith by caliph-endorsed scholars. Shaykh Ali Abd al-Raziq has categorically shown that is not the case, and that rejecting this as falsehood is entirely in keeping with Islam.
Thank you Abu Yusuf. I suspect most Muslims are like you: sincere and inclusive. These qualities are useful when debating a group of such as this, whose only relationship with their religion is that it provides them with the armour of identity politics.
@ Abu Yusuf – the last sheikh-ul-Islam mustafa sabri said “the separation of religion from state is apostasy from Islam”
This is one quote from many, that secularism is not compatible with Islam.
To repeat from the last post i made -
1. To rule by Islam is an obligation known by necessity
As an example Sh. Mustafa Sabry said to separate the State from the Religion is apostasy from Islam. Sh. Kawthari said to attempt to separate the State from the Religion is clear disblief. Both of these were huge ulama before Hassan al-Banna even graduated from high school.
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.
3. Islamic values such as the forbiddance of alchohol and the sin of homosexuality are fixed and cannot be changed.
Abu Abdullah, the last sheikh-ul-Islam said whatever he said.
My point is, do YOU know whether someone’s soul is “saved” or not, to be able to raise this question as a point of discussion. Did any of Shuyukh who you quote ever behave in this manner?
“They ask you [O Muhammad] concerning the soul. Say: ‘It is one of the things, the knowledge of which is only with my Lord. And of knowledge, you (mankind) have been given very little.”
[Qur'an Al-Israa 17: 85]
Abu Abdullah
Since you are a member of a political Islamic (Islamist) organisation – the Islamic Forum Europe, it will become necessary for you to finish speaking in abstract terms and explain in pragmatic detail, the responsibilities of the various functions of the caliphate after you have successfully and established it here in the UK.
In particular, can you please give us some idea on how your organisation proposes to deal with the following issues:
* What is the relationship between the fuqaha (scholars) and the executive?
* How are new laws to be created in line with Shar’a to be established and added to the legislation?
* How is the Caliph appointed and on what principles?
* How do you propose to recede the powers of the executive should it be required to do so?
* How do you propose to maintain independence of the legislation and in fact, is that even one of your intentions?
* How is the rule of law maintained?
* What are the rights of women, if any?
* What are the statutary rights of non-Muslims in your caliphate?
* Do male and female siblings have equal rights in hereditary laws?
We look forward to your answers.
@Abu Yusuf – we are not in the business of taking the Judgement from Allah.
At the same time – we do not hide away from stating what Islam states. If someone says something that is kufr, and is from the kufr that removes from Islam, and they have had the relevant evidences explained to them – and yet they insist upon their kufr – what would you call them?
What do you call someone who says that the laws of Islam have nothing to do with society? That Allah’s Rule has nothing to do with ruling? That homosexuality is a choice and not in contradiction to Islam?
What you are saying – if I understand you correctly – opens the door for anyone to interpret Islam as they see fit without any recourse.
My question to you is why did Umar bin al-Khattab cut the head of the man who came for his opinion after already going to take the opinion of the Prophet of Allah? Since according to you Umar was obviously “judging what was in his heart” from his words?
@Faisal – I don’t mind answering your questions if they were sincere, but the fact is that you begin with more of your nonsense scaremongering.
Can you please give me a single evidence that the IFE is actively seeking to establish the Caliphate in the UK?
Again – and I hate to be the one to break this to you for the umpteenth time –
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.
3. Islamic values such as the forbiddance of alchohol and the sin of homosexuality are fixed and cannot be changed.
Do you agree with any of the above 3?
Faisal – I don’t mind answering your questions if they were sincere, but the fact is that you begin with more of your nonsense scaremongering.
Can you please give me a single evidence that the IFE is actively seeking to establish the Caliphate in the UK?
Well, you are the one who is telling us that “To rule by Islam is an obligation known by necessity”. In fact you have mentioned it three times already, and have made the point again. So I presume it is of paramount importance to your politics and of those of your group’s.
If you are in a political Islamic group, which the IFE is, I presume that you want to use politics to do try and do just that : to rule by Islam. IN fact this is the first of your principles.
So that leads us to the second of your principles:
“The Caliphate has and is obligatory according to 99.9% of the scholars”
So should it be scaremongering on my part when you are saying exactly that? Why do you try and deny it when you are saying it yourself?
I accept you want to do these things, and that these are your politics. So now, we must ask how youwant to implement certain essential functional aspects of the caliphate by which you wish to rule in the UK.
In particular, can you please give us some idea on how your organisation proposes to deal with the following issues:
* What is the relationship between the fuqaha (scholars) and the executive?
* How are new laws to be created in line with Shar’a to be established and added to the legislation?
* How is the Caliph appointed and on what principles?
* How do you propose to recede the powers of the executive should it be required to do so?
* How do you propose to maintain independence of the legislation and in fact, is that even one of your intentions?
* How is the rule of law maintained?
* What are the rights of women, if any?
* What are the statutary rights of non-Muslims in your caliphate?
* Do male and female siblings have equal rights in hereditary laws?
To clarify the point on caliphate read the book ‘al ahkam al sultania by ABU AL-HASAN AL-MAWARDI’ this will give you all your answers.
The facts you spout about IFE seems like you are a member of the organisation. But i for one know that you are not a member of IFE because i have spoken with their leadership to clarify if you are a member or ever were a member. So you are throwing wild accusations about IFE and their metholodgy without any ground/basis. Stop making up “facts” and going around and spreading this. If you are a true believer then you know that you must always verify information before believing it and spreading it. This becomes backbiting/slander which is not permitted. Also to think bad of your fellow muslims is not right as you must make 99 excuses for them before you start to gunn them down and take the side of the non-muslim over the muslim.
“A muslim is a brother of a muslim…..”
I want to clarify my takfir on Faisal/Sid for all that do not know he (SID) himself declared he is not a beliver (muslim). So if a person openly says that he is not a muslim then i think it is very clear we do not regard him as a muslim because he denys aritcles of faith and does not regard himself as a muslim. If anyone doesnot believe me then i have kindly quoted his statments from another blog on this site the link is below as well.
AAA said:
“Thank you for confirming you believe that Allah’s law is superior to all other laws.”
Sid replied:
“Oh but I don’t. And neither do you. And certainly not your IFE and Jamaat overlords.”
Sid Said:
‘Yes, but I have admitted that I don’t beleive in certain articles of faith. I’m not hiding that. I’ve admitted openly right here, right now.’
Sid Said:
‘I hope you’re on a tracker mortgage’
Sid Said:
‘I don’t believe that certain parts of Shariah are applicable in this day and age. Riba is one of them.’
Sid Said:
‘Yes Shaykh, you’re right. I deny certain articles of faith.’
Sid Said:
‘You can call me a disbeliever’
http://blog.islamicforumeurope.com/?p=149#comments
All of the above prove that he is not a muslim so hoepfully this clears up the confusion about takfir. Remember that SID is here to sew the seeds of disunity amongst the muslims and i would not be suprised if he is funded by the Government to soley achieve this aim. May all procet the Believing Muslims and grant victory to his deen and its followers.
I assume that the prophet did not implement the rules of allah in medina, I suppose median did not exist i think you call that an islamic stste, I guess the verses in the quran relating to laws were never revealed or implemented again i think you call taht politics, I assume the prophet never made truce, treaties and pacts with his enemies I think that would be called polotics today, I guess he never fought any battles/wars i think you call that a military leader = politics.
Amazing obviously Faisal follows a prophet which never did anyting above so it cant be the Prophet Muhammed becasue if you read any of the Seerah books all of the above is mentioned.
Finally in the Quran allah says “Truly if you love allah then follow me(Muhammed) and allah will love you….” This ayah is enouigh proof that to follow the prophets emaple/way is the only way we can be successful and attain the love and mercy of allah.
@ Faisal – since the UK is not a Muslim country, nor is the PM a Muslim last time i checked, the fact that ruling by Islam is obligatory does not mean much to him or the general population. Unless they embrace Islam talking to them about the tenets of the religion is secondary. So it is not neccessary that the IFE, or any other Muslim for that matter, want to use “politics” in this country to get into ruling or to rule by Islam.
So we come back to the same points, which i have to keep repeating because you have not answered any of them yet. To make it easier, I will even remove the first two and leave the last one alone and ask you
3. 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?
Oh and also Faisal to pick up on this one
* Do male and female siblings have equal rights in hereditary laws?
What is your opinion? Given what Allah has told us surah al-Nisaa on the issue?
SID/FAISAL SAID – ‘Yes, but I have admitted that I don’t beleive in certain articles of faith. I’m not hiding that. I’ve admitted openly right here, right now.’
He does not believe that Allahs Law is supreme, i think we seriouly need to ask him to clarify his stance on this matter before we can take the discussion further. He needs to either argue sincerely from a Muslim perspective or a Non-muslim perspective. Not pretend to be one while being the other.
Brother Abu Yusuf, i understand that you do not want people to be making takfir on this blogg, i too. But we need sincerity from the bloggers, they cant pretend, to be Muslim if they have clearly stated in the past that they are not. Please Ask Sid/Faisal to clarify the answer to the question that was posed to him, “does he believe in the supramacy of Allah’s law”, if he does than alhamdulliah, if he does not then this is a clear act if Kufr by Quran, by sunnah and by Ijma.
Kufr that leads one out of the fold of Islam.
I can’t believe it Sid/Faisal Gazi is acting as if he is a Muslim after clearly stating the above.
Sid you need to say the Shahdah again and admit you made a mistake, before we can been take you seriously again. Otherwise you seem like a pathetic hypocrite.
Abu Yusuf,
The issue of stating an act/ statement of kufr is kufr is from Imaan/Aqeedah of a Muslim. It is a serious matter, I advise you study more on this issue and discuss with the scholars.
Faisal/Sid –
Stop avoiding my question and answer it please:
Do you believe that Allah’s law is superior to man made law?
A simple yes or no will do.
Faisal, remember me….
[Deleted by Blog Editor]
Faisal or Sid, answer the Question!
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT GOD’s LAW is SPREME OR NOT
Abu Yusuf get a life stop trying to be hero, study your religion and find out what what the ruling is for the one who denies an article of faith
@Abu Abdullah – if, as you say, you are “not in the business of taking the Judgement from Allah” then Abu Ghazi should realise it was a mistake to talk about the “lost souls” of “people like Gazi” (as if he knows the fate of their souls, when he doesn’t know but only Allah knows the fate of his own soul).
And “Shaykh Wali” should understand that even if, from his point of view, a muslim is confused or in error about certain articles of faith, it is not upto him to call them a kafir (can he prove than there is not a single iota of faith in their heart?).
Retractions of these statements and apologies would seem the best course of action.
Abu Abdullah, you ask “what do you call someone who says that the laws of Islam have nothing to do with society, etc?” Well, I would call him by his name. Why is it necessary to call him anything else? And, indeed, why is it necessary to go against the advice of the Prophet (saws) and the scholars and call the muslim a kafir?
Abu Abdullah says, “what you are saying – if I understand you correctly – opens the door for anyone to interpret Islam as they fit without any recourse”. No, you didn’t understand me correctly. I am just reminding you about correct adab. If you take it upon yourself to explain Islam to others then it would behoove you to follow correct adab, which in this case is very clear: the prophet has warned us not pronounce takfir on muslims, for if they are not in state of 100% kufr, then it is you who will be the kafir. The Prophet came as warner (Quran 46:9), and he did not come for any reason but perfect good character (Muwatta 47.1.8). This is all I am reminding you about
It may seem that it is permissible to use takfir as a rhetorical device or when we are able to hide behind an internet username, but this is a very slippery slope and Allah as as-Sami al-Basir.
Abu Adbullah: the story of Umar ibn al Khattab (r.a.) which you relate is not entirely congruent as an analogy in this case. Killing a man is not the same as pronouncing him a kafir. And as Mawdudi pointed out (see my post above) killing a man is in face less risky than calling someone a kafir, because when you kill someone you do not become a kafir, whereas when you pronounce takfir on someone you are in risk of becoming one yourself.
Nevertheless, the example of Umar ibn Al Khattab (r.a.) is instructive. The youthful Umar ibn Al Khattab (r.a) is well known to have had a propensity for wanting to behead people who had insulted the prophet (saws). He often had to be restrained in this by the Prophet (saws) himself (eg,. The cases of Hatib ibn Abu Balta’ah (Bukhari 9.84.72) and Abdullah Dhil Khawaisira (Bukhari 9.84.67)). And also let me remind you: when the Prophet (saws) died Umar refused to accept his death and told the people “I will cut off the head of anyone who says: Allah’s messenger has died”. Abu Bakr came to the mosque and asked Umar to sit down three times, and then turned to the people and said, “He who worships Muhammad should be informed that Muhammad has died. He who worships Allah should know that Allah is ever-living and does not die”. Umar then became silent. Umar displayed religious fervour, and Abu Bakr exemplified seeing reality as it is (as in the Prophet’s prayer, saws, “O Allah, show me things as they truly are”).
@ Siyamist – Stating an act/statement as kufr may indeed be an act of imaan, as you say, but calling a muslim a kafir is a different matter altogether. Please be very clear about this point. For it is, as you say, a very serious matter.
There is a profound cosmological reason why we are warned against takfr. The Prophet (saws) alludes to this in a different hadith: “Abu Darda’ relates that the Holy Prophet said: When a person curses something the curse ascends to heaven and all the gates of heaven are closed against it. Then it descends to the earth and the gates of the earth are closed against it. Then it turns right and left and when it finds no exit it turns to the one who has been cursed and attaches itself to him he should he be deserving of it, but if not it returns to the one who uttered it”. (Abu Daud).
But to keep things simple: if it is said of Imam Abu Hanifa (rahim Allah) then he never pronounced takfir on a muslim.
Since you assume that I have not studied with scholars, please advise me which scholars I can study with, and for how long, in order that I can know better than Abu Hanifa about this question.
Look at my last post for clarification on my takfir on SID
Br Abu Yusuf, i think you are missing the point, the real issue is that Faisal/Sid has made a statement of Kufr.
Obviously it is not for us to call him Kafir specifically, but anyone who makes such profound statement has committed kufr thus left the fold of Islam, Imam Abu Hanifa would not disagree if you look at his work closely.
If someone is openly impostering to be a muslim when he really is not, should he not be exposed, while does damage to the deen, in pretence that he is a muslim.
For example whould you accept, if Bush or Blair claimed to be a muslim tommorow, and tried to change parts of the Quran with his own words, saying his words are superior than Allahs, would you accept him as a muslim? or would you tell the people that he is a non-muslim, becuse he has done a major act of Kufr by changing the word of Allah, it becomes a duty to tell others and expose him, as otherwise the general masses will accept his words as Truth.
Likewise if Faisal is making such statements then it is a duty to tell people that what he is saying is Kufr and if does not repent he will die as a Kafir.
Do you want the masses to accept his version of islam that claims that Allah Law is not supreme? no of course not, then his lies against Allah must be exposed.
Ask him, Does he believe that the words/Laws of Allah are Supreme?
ask your shaykhs, if someone does not believe in the above, what his status is in regards to belief and non belief.
@Abu Yusuf
Maududi not withstanding RasoolAllah peace and blessing be upon him said that to insult a muslim is fusooq and to fight him is …… kufr.
He also said that if two muslims fight each other both the killer and killed are in the fire.
So your explanation akhi is strange to say the least.
As far as Umar bin al-Khattab cutting the head off the man was concerned – he cut his head off for 1 reason – ridda. Because he came to ask him his opinion AFTER asking the opinion of the Prophet of Allah. When people questioned this “How could Umar kill a Muslim” the ayat was revealed “But no they have no belief until they make you the judge of what is between them…”.
So please reflect. Also – please know that some of us here know this sid character very well, and know his views. That said – I did not say his soul is lost – may Allah guide him from his obvious misguidance.
Abu Yusuf:
Dont get confused. I dont want to dwelve too much into this but….
Calling someone a Kafir by name is one matter, eg. ’so and so is a kafir’. This is the takfir mostly scholars can do.
Saying ’so and so has said a statement of kufr’ is another matter, which is not restricted to the scholars. This is not the same as the first. Rather it is part of faith to do such a thing. This is what many are stating about Sid/Faisal about his clear Kufr comments in previous discussions, which he is not retracting. No one has said Sid/Faisal is a kafir…. rather he has made statements of kufr which he has not retracted even after evidence has been provided from the book of Allah.
I hope I am wrong to assume Abu Yusuf that you deny this too (that he has made statements of Kufr) after the Kufr comments we posted he made before in a previous discussion under the name of Sid? As I state again it is from the sound aqeedah of a Muslim to say a statement of kufr is kufr eg. so and so has said a statement of kufr (note: not the same as ’so and so is a kafir’ or calling someone a disbeliever).
I have provide you the link again the discussion where the blatant kufr statements were made:
http://blog.islamicforumeurope.com/?p=149#comments
Please go through his statements.
His avoidance to my question ‘do you believe that Allah’s law is superior to man made law?’ like many asked in previous discussion in the link I gave is the main issue we should be addressing.
Salam,
There are two aspects of kufr that should be considered:
1. Kufr Naw’ (kufr-type):
That a certain action/belief is kufr – e.g. we all agree that swearing at the Prophet is kufr. We all agree that rejecting an ayah from the Quran is kufr, or making halal haram and haram halal, or worshipping Isa (as), or bowing to an idol, etc. These are all types of kufr we have to acknolwedge as kufr. To say that Allah’s wisdom/commands is not suitable for our times, or that His slavess can make better laws tan Him is a clear act of kufr that goes against a plethora of Quranic evidence. We must agree with this much, and in this sense, Faisa has sadly committed kufr by saying what he did (I do not agree that an apology or any such should be made – faisal should review his comments/beliefs and make his own mind for his own benefit and the matter lies between him and Allah. While we cannot simply damn souls here and there, we are all responsible for our own souls – may Allah guide us all).
2. Kufr ‘Ain (kufr of the individual):
Determining whether the above person who did the action of kufr can actually be declared a kaafir. It requires an investigation by scholars/judges to determine if he was forced, or misunderstands, is sane, etc. After this, takfeer can be made by this authoritative body (as takfeer was made plenty of times in histoiry, even by sahaba – e.g. on the murtaddeen in the time of Abu Bakr (ra)).
In the case of Faisal ghazi, there is no doubt that he has committed kufr (number one), but as for whether he is actually a kaafir or not (number 2) – then best to not go down there here without full authority I believe. It should suffice that his statemetns and belefs in this regard are kufr, and deserve full condemnation, and should be kept in mind before anyone assumes they can engage in an ‘islamic discussion’ with someone who slef-profesedly denies basic tenets of Islam.
[having said this, with all respect to br Abu Yusuf who I think is doing his best to warn brothers of the dangers of easy-takfir - may allah reward him - I would also like to advise br Yusuf to make his condemnation proportional to the evil. Perhaps he was not aware of Faisal's comments/beleifs at the time, but to deny Allah's eternal Wisdom and the superiority of His commands over the feeble minds of men is something that also deserves much more condemnation. Let's be fair in our condemnation.]
Finally, when one observes the misguidance that is so dominant today, the simple but beautifual dua of our Prophet (pbuh) comes to mind:
“O Allah, show us the truth and grant us the ability to follow it, and show us the falsehood and grant us the ability to abstain from it.”
From what I recall, in the previous encounter with Faisal (under his pen-name Sid), he was being pushed to reveal whether he agreed in the superiority of Allah’s laws over man’s because it was the crux of the whole discussion about khilafah.
At the end of the day, the obligation is for Muslims to try and establish a land (which is Allah’s property in the first place) in which Allah’s laws and His Book will be championed as superior. as is His divine right – subhanah. He created us and own the earth, and He has the sole right to tell us what to do with ourselves on His earth: “To Him belongs the creation and the command” (A’raaf). Whether we call this land a caliphate, a khilafah, or any other English/Chinese/Bengalu name is not of much significance.
If Faisal believes that men can tell us what is halal and haram and how we should live our lives, and that Allah’s Wisdom is out-dated (and hence, not wisdom), then of course he won;t understand or agree with the khilafah, at which point this does not become an ‘Islamic discussion’ and will not go anywhere, as the very concept at the root of it all is being denied and ignored.
This is all a diversion anyway.
The point being is that Sid/ Faisal is a pseudo academic who wrote a pretty poor article rehashing the refuted works of a discredited scholar, which would all have been bad enough except that he actually knows very little about the issues and personalities involved.
His main reason for this intellectual dishonesty is because he is desparately seeking any way to justify his crooked deviations and secularism in the guise of Islamic dress and therefore
a. try to misguide other Muslims to his way and
b. please the British government in their attempts to rebrand Islam as a quietest, deafeted religion a la todays Christianiaty, and demonise Muslims who actually talk against foreign policy and for independence from colonialism in the Muslim world as extremists.
He is a cheerleader for people like the government sponsored QF and Shiraz Maher, and subscribes to the opinion that Islam (with its political understanding) is the root of all evil and not Western foreign policy.
Oh dear, and here I was thinking that the IFE were a serious political organisation. But really, it’s not much more than a playgroup for rehabiliated takfiris with learning difficulties.
You make this pronouncement:
So then I ask:
To which your reply is:
“You’re a kaafir, kaafir, kaafir, kufr, kaafir, kaafir, you’re a kaafir, kaafir, kufr, kaafir, kaafir!!”
Well done gentlemen, you have really proved your worth. :D
@Faisal – while your amateur dramatics may impress people at pickled politics, they are a waste of time here.
Again – answer any of the questions posed to you rather than this play actiing – top of the list the last one
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?
Very simple.
Faisal what is the point in you pursuing answer to your irrelivant questions? You ahve brought this attack on your self by openly saying you are a disbeliever and that you reject many ascpects (fundimentals) of islam. So it is pointless in you contunally asking questions to which the answer will not mean anything to you.
We must all understand that if SID calls himslef a disbelier we should not consider him otherwise. This should end and doubt in our minds about him and SID needs to answer our questions instead tof trying to hide behind his own ones. SID has someting to hide!
If ‘kaafir’ was the only word Sid could discern from the many posts above, then we can all see who has the learning difficulties.
Well done Sid, you have proved your worth.
Anyone who has any past experience with Mr Sid Gazi will know his dodging tactics and his stinking hypocrisy:
Posting alist of questions instead of reading up on them himself (book title has been provided) is yet another one of these cheap ways to dodge the topic (under a blog post which is all about him by the way!), that someone like him has no foundation for talking about Islamic politics given his denial of Islamic fundamentals from the onset.
How strange that under his pen-name Sid we saw a loud-mouthed, rude and childish character who turned honorable-Islamic-thinker overnight as soon as his real name was exposed!
What more hpocrisy this man has to speak on Islamic politics when he denies the sovereignty of God, when he denies ‘articles of faith’! And then to think he can further investigate all the nitty-gritty functions of an Islamic State….merely a cheap attempt to save his hide IMO.
Faisal shoudl explain why he goes out of his way so mucch to deny the sovereignty of God, why when God says one thing, he immediately goes around saying the other, why he hurts so much to even accept the idea of the Creator’s supremacy in law-making?
Where on earth is the submission?
“Have you seen those (hyprocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you, and they wish to go for judgement (in their disputes) to the Tâghût (false judges, etc.) while they have been ordered to reject them. But Shaitân (Satan) wishes to lead them far astray.[]
And when it is said to them: “Come to what Allâh has sent down and to the Messenger (Muhammad SAW),” you (Muhammad SAW) see the hypocrites turn away from you (Muhammad SAW) with aversion.
How then, when a catastrophe befalls them because of what their hands have sent forth, they come to you swearing by Allâh, “We meant no more than goodwill and conciliation!”
They (hypocrites) are those of whom Allâh knows what is in their hearts; so turn aside from them (do not punish them) but admonish them, and speak to them an effective word (i.e. to believe in Allâh, worship Him, obey Him, and be afraid of Him) to reach their innerselves.
We sent no Messenger, but to be obeyed by Allâh’s Leave. If they (hypocrites), when they had been unjust to themselves, had come to you (Muhammad SAW) and begged Allâh’s Forgiveness, and the Messenger had begged forgiveness for them: indeed, they would have found Allâh All-Forgiving (One Who accepts repentance), Most Merciful.
But no, by your Lord, they can have no Faith, until they make you (O Muhammad SAW) judge in all disputes between them, and find in themselves no resistance against your decisions, and accept (them) with full submission.”
-surah Nisaa
Faisal no one has called you a kafir explicitly yet, but have said that your statements are that of Kufr, and if you die upon such statements you will die a disbeliever.
So repent NOW! while you still have a chance! Retract your statements!
SAY ” ALLAHs LAW ARE SUPERIOR TO MAN MADE LAW”
SAY “ALLAHs DEEN IS PERFECT”
If you dont, then dont become child like and sobe when people catch you out.
Sid- when does your work permit run out!
Who will you call upon when that runs out heh?
Non but the One who created your misrable sole!
Dudu – I think you should take it easy!
This is not the Spanish Inquisition.
And you cannot make the declaration that unless he retracts his statements he will die a disbeliever! That effectively means you have made takfir on him and think he is a Kafir.
The most you can do is ‘advise’ him to retract his statements of kufr.
salam,
brother very nice discussion. this faisal bai seems quite dangerous, he seems to be trying to extract information or comments from brothers maybe to be to forward to his payrol masters in the whitehall or some tabloid paper.
Well Done for exposing him, i have checked the previous blog he was on, were some people EXPOSED his blantent kufri statments.
keep up the good work.
wasalam.
Shaykh Wiki al Takfiri :
Faisal what is the point in you pursuing answer to your irrelivant questions?
So questions on how to structure and administer a caliphate are irrelevant for an organisation which advocates that a caliphate is “obligatory” and ” a necessity”?
Encouraging stuff from the IFE! ;)
Abdullah al Ghareeb, if you dont call that advice, then i dont know what you call advice.
I am not making takfir on him, but making things clear so that the he understand the seriousness of the issue.
If he does accept then he has non to blame but himself, and Allah is witness to that.
Less not beat around the bush.
Faisal answer my question!
when does your work permit run out?
Correction before it is misuderstood:
“If he does NOT accept then he has non to blame but himself, and Allah is witness to that.Less not beat around the bush.”
Faisal/Sid:
Can you please stop this nonsense about always referring to IFE (encouraging stuff from IFE etc).
You have no evidence that the people you are debating with are from IFE. Whatever the problems with IFE – one thing they cannot be accused of is being takfiris!
This is a platform provided by IFE only. Would it not look stupid if someone quoted you from this discussion and said it was the opinion of IFE?
So keep it real OK.
Abdullah al-Ghareeb,
This blog has is part of the IFE website. The perception is that most of the writers and commenters here are part of the IFE and, in fact, there is no disclaimer here or elsewhere to suggest that this is not true. So if the commenters and the writers on this blog appear takfiri in nature, they appear to be congruent with teh views those of the IFE.
How wrong you are Faisal: you’ve really proved it this time! If you click the button for the ‘about us’ page – the disclaimer is clearly there! http://blog.islamicforumeurope.com/?page_id=2
Second you mention the IFE website – if you look at the bottom of every page, it cleary has a disclaimer! http://www.islamicforumeurope.com/live/ife.php?doc=disclaimer
It was mainly for people like you. Once again you’ve proven how you choose what you want to see! Just like you want to choose what you want to accept from Islam.
How do you know that IFE’s views are takfiri? From the logic of your own argument IFE could be branded as secular because you and your friends comment on this site…
Sorry can’t simplify this anymore – I know there’s a big risk in you not understanding this because logic isn’t your thing…
Abdullah al-Ghareeb
Thanks for links to the disclaimer, I stand corrected.
You might not be part of the IFE, but most of the people who are defending the article by “Abu Ghazi” ost certainly appear to be.
But I am pretty sure that if a blogger says that the caliphate is “obligatory” and ” a necessity” – then that would be congruent with the views of the IFE.
Similarly, if a blogger says
The those views are congruent with the IFE’s.
Would I be wrong to think that?
Diversions and hypcrosy – the name of Sid’s game.
@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?
Please answer.
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, what does it matter if the bloggers on this site are IFE or not, we are talking about principles of the deen. All people who claim to be Muslim MUST accept these principles as a constant in the deen which never change. there is no iktilaf on these issues.
The people i have an issue with is people like you who claim to be muslim but who has confessed disbelief in certain articles of faith.
And as Abdullah said you are anti-islam and more sadly an islamaphobe.
Br Abu Abdullah,
In truth, there is no need for Sid to answe the question as he has already denied the sovereignty of Allah as the One who has the sole right to legislate, that the law-making of old fat men is more wiser and suitable for today, that Islamic rulings are inapplicable today and need to be changed and replaced wwith ‘better’ ones based on human whims and desires.
To repeat what Shaykh Wiki already posted earlier about Sid’s earlier encounter:
AAA said:
“Thank you for confirming you believe that Allah’s law is superior to all other laws.”
Sid replied:
“Oh but I don’t. And neither do you. And certainly not your IFE and Jamaat overlords.”
Sid Said:
‘Yes, but I have admitted that I don’t beleive in certain articles of faith. I’m not hiding that. I’ve admitted openly right here, right now.’
Sid Said:
‘I hope you’re on a tracker mortgage’
Sid Said:
‘I don’t believe that certain parts of Shariah are applicable in this day and age. Riba is one of them.’
Sid Said:
‘Yes Shaykh, you’re right. I deny certain articles of faith.’
Sid Said:
‘You can call me a disbeliever’”
Which is why I find it deplorable that someone of such double-standards and two-facedness can think he can become an ‘Islamic thinker’. Sure, we certainly need Islamic thinkers and guidance in this day and age, but ISLAMIC ones who think and promote Islam based on Islamic knowledge and NOT on their whims and desires.
Faisal/Sid – I am still waiting for an answer to my question.
Why hide? Answer my question.
True point Dudu, too many forget that we are not bound by what group we are a part but rather that all Muslims are fellow believing brethren, only because they unite under the worship of the same One Creator, the same Book and the same Prophet (saw).
Which is why many non-IFE members – like myself – contribute. We are united by our principles, the same thing that Muslims over tens of centuries have been united with.
Those who break from the principles and guidance of the Quran and the Prophet (saw) are the ones who are creating disunity. Perhaps Faisal still sees this as a ‘liberal-left’ thing versus IFE, a ‘versus’ mentality so common in the blogosphere today. But this should not be seen like that, the believers are one ummah – a brotherhood that transcends even the barriers of nations and lands let alone those of blogs, websites and groups.
salam,
Faisal why are you still pretending to be a muslim when you clearly in your own word not?
I dont understand this on one hand you claim not be a muslim but on the other you talk as if you are a muslim scholar? i dont get it man!
its called Schizophrenia. And Faisal Hyde/Sid Jeykles has a mutated form of it.
Nice name Allah’ar Oli.
Faisal my question was concerning relevance to you not relevance to me read my post again and stop get excited straight away without understanding my post!
Now I have answered your question why don’t you answer the question which has been put forward to you on several occasions. Answer the question!!!
Stop dodging the answer by posting other points. Also you seem to only answer posts which you want to answer and ignore others that is really bad adab for a supposed ‘pious Muslim’
once again i will quote what you have said before below just in case you ironically forgot,
AAA said:
“Thank you for confirming you believe that Allah’s law is superior to all other laws.”
Sid replied:
“Oh but I don’t. And neither do you. And certainly not your IFE and Jamaat overlords.”
Sid Said:
‘Yes, but I have admitted that I don’t believe in certain articles of faith. I’m not hiding that. I’ve admitted openly right here, right now.’
Sid Said:
‘I hope you’re on a tracker mortgage’
Sid Said:
‘I don’t believe that certain parts of Shariah are applicable in this day and age. Riba is one of them.’
Sid Said:
‘Yes Shaykh, you’re right. I deny certain articles of faith.’
Sid Said:
‘You can call me a disbeliever’”
Below is an earlier post of mine to which all of Faisal’s questions are answered. So i am rather confused as to why he persists to ask the same questions to which the answers have been give. Just in case Faisal did not see my post it is below,
‘To clarify the point on caliphate read the book Al Ahkam Al Sultania by ABU AL-HASAN AL-MAWARDI this will give you all your answers’ – April 22nd, 2009 at 6:04 pm
RESPECT!
It is as said earlier….
Diversion and hypocrisy – the name of Sid’s game.
Sid- come on giza, be a giza and tell me when your work permit runs out?
Dont worry i wont tell emigration or the home office.
Sid needs to understant that just because this site is run by IFE the bloggers are not necessarly IFE members. Thst is an assumption with no basis or evidence. I think that sid is praying that the posters are IFE members so he can try and pin someting on IFE just because he has noting to report back to his funders (MI5) about IFE.
Its a pity that a so called muslim is trying to extract information which he is going to sell to the kufar, and that he is willing to see muslims who are innocent go to prison. What a shame.
Hey hang on a min isnt spying on muslims haram sorry i actually think it is kufr. And did not allah say take not the disbeliever as an ally over muslims because you will be then made from them on the day of punishment?
Another addition to the list of kufuri acts by sid/faisal
Although I am not of like-thinking to most other people here, wherever I end up finding Sid, I see the same old traits of deception. double-standards, and hypocrisy. I can say that in that much at least I agree with every other contributor here.
I do sometimes wonder whether this fellow is a Muslim at all. Everywhere his trail leads, he can always be found bashing his own people and contradicting the liberal principles he so dearly claims to uphold – and that I do find very lowly indeed.
I recall on PP, while he staunchly defended the right to offend Muslims and the right to allow the rascist Geert Wilders into the UK, he was rigorously opposing the right for the Lebanese Muslim journalist to enter the UK (as well as other muslim individuals). It was embarrassing to watch non-Muslims deplore Sid for his double-standards, while Sid squirmed and writhed in ‘intellectual’ fallacies as excuses.
Nobody likes a two-faced blogger.
Sid may also fail to realise that two0faced secularist supporters like himself who hate all things relgious (in public) will not ony have ‘Islamist’ Muslims to deal with, but all followers of all religions that say something about society.
People are not thick so much to think that just because it Islam under attack for its societal guidance/injunctions that the onslaught will merely be restricted to Islam. The issue of homosexuality has been one such factor that has driven a wedge between all major religions and the types of Mr Gazi.
guys are you sure that Sid is Faisal Gazi, cause i have seen Faisal Gazi’s picture, and i have seen this same person work near to where i work? Frightening to say the least!
I have just checked your personal blog and is not not amazing that no one has even left a comment on your blog? that really must be demoralising that all your effort is not being appreciated. It just goes to show that no one cares about your views and you are a waste of space who is trying to be accpeted by someone. i think you need a bit of romance in your life you need to be loved by someone so you can feel accepted. I am really worried for you faisal you might committ sucide, rememebr that is a big big sin too.
hey metro man, how you doing , long time no hear?
Yeah, Sid has Mutated into this passport nicking illegal immigrant Faisal the “chicken leg” Gazi.
Anyway, i think you need to qurantine the area you work at, you dont want to get infected with the disease of hypocracy and two-facedness!
where did you say you work again?
Abu Abdullah:
Homosexuality and Alcohol are proscribed by the Quran. However, Nasr Hamid Abu Zayd, an Egyptian Muslim scholar who argues eloquently that if the Qur’an is interpreted sensibly in context then it carries a strong message of social justice and human rights.
But as for the caliphate, there are no verses in the Qur’an or Sunnah which uphold anything to do with the Caliphate. The Caliphate has always been a political construct not a religious one.
Aaron:
My position regarding people entering the UK is very simple. Everyone should be let in unless they personally incite violence or are associated with organisations which incite violence and hatred.
Geert Wilders does not incite hatred or violence. Furthermore, I think it is not beyond the ability of British Muslims to debate his stupid anti-Muslim bigotry based on theological and liberal principles. Musawi however is an Islamist who champions suicide bombing and Islamists who use religion to validate their message of hatred.
The reason why you saw non-Muslims “deplored” my view on PP was because those commenters were most probably individuals from the far-left who have formed associations with Islamists in this country on whom they can project their anti-American and anti-Capitalism ideologies not because they support or like Muslims in any way or form, but that they present an easy support base. And many Muslims have become their fellow travellers via the reprehensible ganging of the far-left Trotskyists and far-right Islamists in the failed RESPECT project, unfortunately.
Abu Musa:
My personal blog is new and does not have many comments. But if you judge a post by the number of comments it recieves, come and take a look at the number of comments the very same posts generate on Picked Politics http://www.pickledpolitics.com. And come and debate us over there, if you think you’re up to it.
And as for the rest of you: You’re behaviour does not reflect well on you as Muslims, to say the least. Rule number one of debating – play the ball not the player. Why don’t you go find another place to behave like a bunch of screeching monkies and let the grown-ups do the debating on here. :-)
How does one take an ambiguos statement from one scholar about applying verses in context to mean the abolishment/replacement of specific Quranic and sunnaic commandments? To say that one needs to change the Quranic laws to fit ‘justice and human rights’ is to say that the original rulings (qat’iyyaat- fundamental/clear-cut rulings) revealed from Allah were not fitting justice or did not foresee the ‘context’ of today. Do we not think that our Messenger was the most just and fair of people – more so than any one of us today – and yet ruled and implemented by those qat’i rulings which people are claiming to change today as if they are more fairer than their messenger?
On what Islamically legal grounds is that allowed? Or are we going to change the justice revealed in the Quran to fit the justice human whims have concocted over the last century (what is in fact really injustice)?
The believer hears and obeys. This is the submission of Islam. This is what leads to peace and returns the balance of nature to the world, and gives Allah His due right as Creator of the heavens and the earth.
As for ‘not reflecting good on Muslims’, then I would partly agree that some of the comments are a bit over the top (although i do recall Sid provoking with his accusations of ‘learning difficulties’ etc.). His behaviour on his previous encounter under the name Sid has set a precedence about him – a loud and rude individual, and I think some of the commentors are playing into that Sid (and yet to learn the new ‘reformed’ Sid under the namee Faisal Gazi).
And playing the ball not the player does not entirely work here as the ball here is the player (a lot of the subject matter is that the ‘reformed’ thinker is unfit to even debate Islaamic politics not onlyu because he lacks any deserved credentials but because he denies the very basic foundations at the heart of the matter, i.e. God’s supriority in law-making and the universalty of His commands).
That is something that does not reflect well on a Muslim at all – in fact it is a very ‘un-Muslim’ thing to do.
Rahim
Shari’a is developed by the *interpretation* of the Quran, Sunnah and Ijma. It is nothing to do with the changing of the Qur’an.
“Geert Wilders does not incite hatred or violence” – Sid
What! Are you kidding! He must be calling for ‘lurve’ then!
An ‘Islamic thinker’ who supports Geert Wilders and opposes Muslim journalists – that’s a very low first indeed.
Now I understand what Aaron meant by ‘intellectual fallacies’…
There is quranic and sunnaic evidences for the prohibition of homsexuality – something accepted b ijma’. So what is your point?