[gennnniiikk]

chalo ji.
ek aur.

[IdomeoreTew]

chalo ji.
ek aur.

Translation: Here we go, another one.

[IdomeoreTew]

Wait, so there are people on this forum who are actually against "Islamic State" and think its a bad idea because modernism is the better way?

[VarenHokalos]

*SNIP*

Where exactly did you get wahy from to explain the intent of Islamic law in that way?

When Allah said to cut off the hand of the thief in 5:38, could you please point us to where in that ayah or in any other ayah that clarifies it Allah puts in this exception wherein the modern state is somehow not supposed to enforce this because it would be brutal?

[NeroASERCH]

My experience has been as follows. When such reports appear in the media then after a short while the US/NATO forces take military action against them. These media reports are for creating a mood. Usually the action is there withing ten days. Shorter that period and enough people would not hear the news and thus there might be a reaction against US/NATO action. Longer period after media report is also not conducive because people's mind do not retain info for long. So just wait and watch how the action unfolds.

This is exactly what happens, as for the "Islamists" in question, Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) once said that the abscence of mercy in a thing renders it defective. I think this applies to plenty groups in the current day, groups that have a shall of Islam, not its inside and as a result they give everone else a headache. Allah knows about this group.

Muslims with a political agenda don't need to be hard hearted, just look at Sheikh Abdessalam Yassine in Morocco who is just as much of a Sufi as a promoter of Islam as the political reality http://yassine.net/en/

[Kitdowstyhodo]

If anything of that is true, if I was living there I would be leaving that country and taking my family with me to anywhere that would accept me. Just because you call a government Islamic doesn't make it so. Also there are so many varied opinions of Islam whose Islam should we be ruled by? I'm sorry these people give a bad name to Islam. I hate this violent aggressive tendency amongst many Muslims and it doesn't help us by being defensive and touchy at any discussion of these topics.

If I didn't believe in God because of my own will and I didn't love Islam because of what I've read about it and experienced of it I and I went by some of the posters on here or the Muslims I meet in real life I wouldn't be Muslim. Or I would have apostatized. The harsh, rude, aggressive, sexist, regressive Islam you see being propagated is not the faith I love. And I thank Allah that my eyes were opened well before it could be forever closed by some.

[VarenHokalos]

Your use of the terms 'sexist' and 'regressive' seems quite troubling.

Could you explain what you think is 'sexist' or 'regressive' about Islam as it is being 'propagated,' and how 'the faith you love' differs from that?

[nikolapegayyyaasss]

If anything of that is true, if I was living there I would be leaving that country and taking my family with me to anywhere that would accept me. Just because you call a government Islamic doesn't make it so. Also there are so many varied opinions of Islam whose Islam should we be ruled by? I'm sorry these people give a bad name to Islam. I hate this violent aggressive tendency amongst many Muslims and it doesn't help us by being defensive and touchy at any discussion of these topics.

If I didn't believe in God because of my own will and I didn't love Islam because of what I've read about it and experienced of it I and I went by some of the posters on here or the Muslims I meet in real life I wouldn't be Muslim. Or I would have apostatized. The harsh, rude, aggressive, sexist, regressive Islam you see being propagated is not the faith I love. And I thank Allah that my eyes were opened well before it could be forever closed by some.

meethi meethi cheezon par amal aur karwi cheezon se ijtinaab.

Simple formula of moderate Islam.

The post is synonymous to the phrases I hear from politicians these days 'Islam tou aman ka dars deta hai'

[Dabdklwu]

meethi meethi cheezon par amal aur karwi cheezon se ijtinaab.

'Islam tou aman ka dars deta hai'

Jigar AK-47 please keep to English - we do not want to loose our non-subcontinental audience.

meethi meethi cheezon par amal aur karwi cheezon se ijtinaab.
Acting on sweet things, avoiding bitter once.

'Islam tou aman ka dars deta hai'
Islam is message of peace.

[pharmablogger]

Jigar AK-47 please keep to English - we do not want to loose our non-subcontinental audience.

meethi meethi cheezon par amal aur karwi cheezon se ijtinaab.
Acting on sweet things, avoiding bitter once.

'Islam tou aman ka dars deta hai'
Islam is message of peace.

Wise and humble brother,

[pharmablogger]

"Secular Muslim"? Sounds like 'dead living person'.


Abu Fatimah, you asked for opinions on the news article?
My first reflection was on the unreliability of the source. 'Secular' journalists (most of the media) have been found to be prejudiced against Islam. As well, the entire journalism industry should be downgraded like Spanish banks.

When prize winning journalists like Johan Hari have been found to have plagarized their own works, and top journalists at the NY Times and New Republic have been exposed as liars and cheats, what does that say about lowly reporters from chaotic African and Muslim frontlines claiming to voice the opinions of Ahmed the baker or Arwa, mother of two?
Who is ever going to verify these interviews and opinions?
Who among the Western and secular readership will even bother to question them?
They almost always instigate hatred of Islam- that's the entire purpose of the propaganda angle.



In fact, the article you cited is more a propaganda piece than a reliable portrayal of events. These kinds of reports were done by colonial imperial correspondents as a build up for colonial interventions and invasions.


And look at the kind of reactions it antagonizes in Muslims- hating the very idea of 'Shariah'.

[Longwow]

whilst this article was intended as propaganda, it will be an absolute imaan rush to some

[nikolapegayyyaasss]

Jigar AK-47 please keep to English - we do not want to loose our non-subcontinental audience.

meethi meethi cheezon par amal aur karwi cheezon se ijtinaab.
Acting on sweet things, avoiding bitter once.

'Islam tou aman ka dars deta hai'
Islam is message of peace.

for reminding. But, I had no choice but to speak in urdu as I felt no language can better express my reaction.

[gennnniiikk]

whilst this article was intended as propaganda, it will be an absolute imaan rush to some

[FBtquXT8]

Assalamualaykum,

Where exactly did you get wahy from to explain the intent of Islamic law in that way??

Whilst I was on Mount Sinai, last week. Don't be so ridiculous. You cannot possibly believe that the basic medieval framework of the Shariah is able to deal with the complexities and difficulties of modern existence. This framework can't even be referred to as "medieval" in the usual pejorative way. In nearly every way living medieval Islam was far better.

It is a common Muslim view that the idea of Shariah itself is rich enough- and flexible- to meet the challenge of the complexities of modern existence, if it was permitted to be true to its own deepest principles. The idea of Shariah, that is, capable to fulfil the constitutional requirements of the modern Islamic world.

But there is no avoiding the fact that this must involve a thorough legal reform in Islam itself. The contemporary reality is that, as a result of modern European power meddling in Islamic society, Islamic Law was completely ossified and consequently literalist legalism emerged as the dominant mode of thinking. In fact the Wahabi/Salafi movement was exactly that, a direct reaction to "modernism" which resulted in Islamic law being ossifed.

When Allah said to cut off the hand of the thief in 5:38, could you please point us to where in that ayah or in any other ayah that clarifies it Allah puts in this exception wherein the modern state is somehow not supposed to enforce this because it would be brutal???

I can't since it dosn't exist but, did or did not Hazrat Umar Radi'Allahu Anhu temporarily stop the implementation of such a punishment during a famine? This is not about prescribed punishments changing because of time but having to take into consideration societal conditions, with the modern state it would be a recipe for a type of Islamic totalitarianism.

I don't particulary have anything to say in regards to the punishment of stealing but it's necessary, that the four schools of jurisprudence that advocate reasoning and analogical thinking (qiyas) as ways of legal interpretation assert themselves in the contemporary context. This is not simply a call to Westernization - where reasoning and logic are clearly over-valued at the cost of more profound principles - but a valid call to an extremely long period of paralysis.

[FBtquXT8]

And look at the kind of reactions it antagonizes in Muslims- hating the very idea of 'Shariah'

The majority of Muslims feel about the Shariah as Americans feel about the Constitution of the United States. Present day Muslim opposition to Westernization nearly always takes the form of a desire for the Shariah. It is, in the first instance, the wish that an historical disadvantage be removed. It must be admitted however that most Muslims do not like or have no interest to live under the harshness of old-style, ossified Islamic law- certainly not under the Shariah as it has been practised in Afghanistan or Saudi Arabia. It is not a particular application of Shariah but Shariah itself, the very idea of a layer of Law with constitutional force, that they seek. And therefore an entirely different conception of government.

Thereafter comes the difficulties of reconfiguring the values and principles of Quranic Law to the realities of modernism a constant fight which is and ought to be on-going in a living civilization and that cannot be avoided in any case. This would comprise of a uniquely Islamic path to modernity which - as all the evidence demonstrates is what nearly two hundred years of violence and bloodshed overwhelmingly indicates - is what Muslims want - their own way, their own choice.

Muslims can confidently believe in the humanity, wisdom and greatness of their own tradition, which tradition has expressed its social and political genius throughout its whole history. The task at hand is to support Muslim scholars who seek to recover our heritage of intellectual production, open debate, and inquiry, and to renew the constant development of the Law which once characterized the religion of Islam, and which can and is also essential to characterize Islam in a modern world.

[VarenHokalos]

Assalamualaykum,



Whilst I was on Mount Sinai, last week. Don't be so ridiculous. You cannot possibly believe that the basic medieval framework of the Shariah is able to deal with the complexities and difficulties of modern existence. This framework can't even be referred to as "medieval" in the usual pejorative way. In nearly every way living medieval Islam was far better.

In 'medieval' Islam, they cut the hands off of thieves, stoned adulterers, and killed apostates - as per the rulings of the Nabi . I believe that the laws Allah revealed in the Qur'an, in qat'i texts, cannot possibly be ever described as 'unable to deal with the complexities and difficulties of modern existence.' If you reject the application of these laws, then you're a mushrik.

It is a common Muslim view that the idea of Shariah itself is rich enough- and flexible- to meet the challenge of the complexities of modern existence, if it was permitted to be true to its own deepest principles. The idea of Shariah, that is, capable to fulfil the constitutional requirements of the modern Islamic world. If qat'i texts are subject to invalidation on the basis of human reasoning, then there is no Shari'ah, if you call it 'shari'ah' that doesn't make it so. I can dress up a pigeon in a tuxedo but it will never be a groom.

I can't since it dosn't exist but, did or did not Hazrat Umar Radi'Allahu Anhu temporarily stop the implementation of such a punishment during a famine? This is not about prescribed punishments changing because of time but having to take into consideration societal conditions, with the modern state it would be a recipe for a type of Islamic totalitarianism. This is the most common shubha raised about the punishment and it is easily refuted:

In response, we can confidently say that 'Umar's moratorium on the Hadd punishment for stealing is no more than a myth, for the incident clearly states that when the crime was reported to 'Umar, he ordered that the thieves' hands be cut in the very year of the famine and he only revoked his order upon seeing the thieves in a state of starvation. Hence, 'Umar only applied the principle of avoiding Hudud punishments due to the doubt factor, very much in line with the letter as reported from the Prophet (salallahu alayhi was-salaam): "Avoid the Hudud in doubtful cases." For this reason, if a woman steals from her husband's wealth, since a portion of the man's wealth is meant for his wife, the Hadd punishment is not applied to her, due to doubt, without the need for such a call. Therefore, Umar did not shift any boundaries; rather he carried out the trust bequeathed to him by his two predecessors, the Prophet and Abu Bakr with a full sense of responsibility. I don't particulary have anything to say in regards to the punishment of stealing but it's necessary, that the four schools of jurisprudence that advocate reasoning and analogical thinking (qiyas) as ways of legal interpretation assert themselves in the contemporary context. This is not simply a call to Westernization - where reasoning and logic are clearly over-valued at the cost of more profound principles - but a valid call to an extremely long period of paralysis. Qiyas is only permitted in the absence of a qat'i text. I have seen this kind of qiyas, advocated by mushrikeen who hate what Allah said in His Qur'an, referred to as 'Qiyas ilbeesi.' It is an apt description.

On another note, what's with the plague of Ghamidite mushrikeen on SunniForum these days?

[U2DnBGFE]

There were tribes at the time of Abu Bakr (RA) who thought part of the Sharia did not apply anymore; namely, that of zakaah. Abu Bakr (RA) fought them and called them apostate. Those who think the Sharia is subject to change should have a look at this incident.

[VarenHokalos]

There were tribes at the time of Abu Bakr (RA) who thought part of the Sharia did not apply anymore; namely, that of zakaah. Abu Bakr (RA) fought them and called them apostate. Those who think the Sharia is subject to change should have a look at this incident.

Anticipated response: "That was medieval Islam, in our enlightened times it is necessary that we lick the sweat from the West's dying carcass until we choke on it."

[FBtquXT8]

In 'medieval' Islam, they cut the hands off of thieves, stoned adulterers, and killed apostates - as per the rulings of the Nabi . I believe that the laws Allah revealed in the Qur'an, in qat'i texts, cannot possibly be ever described as 'unable to deal with the complexities and difficulties of modern existence.' If you reject the application of these laws, then you're a mushrik.



If qat'i texts are subject to invalidation on the basis of human reasoning, then there is no Shari'ah, if you call it 'shari'ah' that doesn't make it so. I can dress up a pigeon in a tuxedo but it will never be a groom.



This is the most common shubha raised about the punishment and it is easily refuted:





Qiyas is only permitted in the absence of a qat'i text. I have seen this kind of qiyas, advocated by mushrikeen who hate what Allah said in His Qur'an, referred to as 'Qiyas ilbeesi.' It is an apt description.


On another note, what's with the plague of Ghamidite mushrikeen on SunniForum these days?

Who the hell are you to call me a mushrik? Point me to where I once outright rejected the application of these laws. The important thing has always been the maintenance of Islamic society. There are no instances in Islamic history - at least before the modern era - where Muslims were systematically prosecuted for every transgression; actual transgressions and violations of the social code that were prosecuted were those that threatened social equilibrium.

I quote from Sheikh Gibril:

It is a well-established principle in the Law already from the time of the Companions (Allah be well-pleased with them) that the Shari`a demands we always try to find excuses in order not to enforce the criminal penalty (hadd).

Sayyidina `Umar and Ibn Mas`ud in Sahih al-Bukhari and Ibn Hazm’s Fisal (“Avert the penalties by way of inconclusive evidence as much as you can

Sayyida `Aisha in al-Tirmidhi (“Avert the penalties as much as you can, and if any leeway is found then release the detainee. Truly it is preferable for the ruler to pardon mistakenly than to punish mistakenly”);
Explain how the above would ever be possible with the extraordinary policing powers and technology and science of this day and age? The modern state invades all dimensions of life. How for example, would it be possible to find excuses because of inconclusive evidence with the sheer amount of CCTV cameras avilable?