[MaraReenece]

The Puritans were a significant grouping of English Protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries, including, but not limited to, English Calvinists. Puritanism in this sense was founded by some Marian exiles from the clergy shortly after the accession of Elizabeth I of England in 1558, as an activist movement within the Church of England. The designation "Puritan" is often used in the sense that hedonism and puritanism are antonyms.[1] Historically, the word was used pejoratively to characterize the Protestant group as extremists similar to the Cathari of France, and according to Thomas Fuller in his Church History dated back to 1564, Archbishop Matthew Parker of that time used it and "precisian" with the sense of modern "stickler".

Puritans by definition felt that the English Reformation had not gone far enough, and that the Church of England was tolerant of practices which they associated with the Catholic Church. They formed into and identified with various religious groups advocating greater "purity" of worship and doctrine, as well as personal and group piety. Puritans adopted a Reformed theology and in that sense were Calvinists (as many of their earlier opponents were, too), but also took note of radical views critical of Zwingli in Zurich and Calvin in Geneva. In church polity, some advocated for separation from all other Christians, in favor of autonomous gathered churches.

Puritans were liberal when it came to trade and business rules allowing money lending and charging interest (where the Catholic Church used to prohibit it officially). The Puritans are very rigid on dress codes, sexuality and controlling the personal. Some people have suggested that Wahabis/Salafis, Ikhwani Muslimeen and some other Muslims are like these puritans...liberal on riba...but very rigid on personal dress etc. They claim that this is a inner sickness of the nafs where it is split into 2.

[VarenHokalos]

With all due respect to you brother, are you sure you should be taking that many cues from Abdul-Qadir as-Sufi? He is a strikingly ignorant man who should not be taken as a Shaykh, despite the value of certain aspects of his political analysis and certain economic ideas. I ask because everyone who reads what he says ends up writing these exact things.

It's funny how often he promotes this odd false dichotomy (dress codes and economics) due to his hatred of the niqaab.

[MaraReenece]

With all due respect to you brother, are you sure you should be taking that many cues from Abdul-Qadir as-Sufi? He is a strikingly ignorant man who should not be taken as a Shaykh, despite the value of certain aspects of his political analysis and certain economic ideas. I ask because everyone who reads what he says ends up writing these exact things.

It's funny how often he promotes this odd false dichotomy (dress codes and economics) due to his hatred of the niqaab.

So Muslims are not puritans liberal on riba and very strict on clothing? Should we not be more strict against riba because it is more destructive? When the bankers implemented their system of slavery they needed to give the slaves some freedoms an outlet, so they allowed them to gratify their sexual desires and told them they could do whatever they liked as long as they were consenting adults. If they did not do this their economic slavery would have been obvious and unbearable. Puritans tend to accept the bankers system, they are impotent in fighting the economic slavery so instead they assert their power in the realm of controlling the dress codes. How many wahabis/salafis etc. critique riba and bring any alternatives to it? In fact they shoot the messenger and call him ignorant...I think brothers and sisters must examine themselves carefully to see why they might be like this. Did Allah not criticise Riba very stongly is it not one of the kabira crimes and widespread? Why are puritan minded Muslims not prioritising this crime and trying to get rid of it? Men who are powerful would get together and action a change forthwith, they would not be focused on minor issues regarding clothing, or wastage of money at weddings.

[VarenHokalos]

So Muslims are not puritans liberal on riba and very strict on clothing? Should we not be more strict against riba because it is more destructive?

Both riba and dress codes are destructive. Riba is doubtlessly a more evil sin, but it is forced upon people in these times, as the Prophet said would happen. Everyone is covered with its dust. There are many proposed models for Islamic alternatives, yes, but these alternatives are of two sorts;
1) bottom-up, in that they are implemented in small communities. The Murabitun articulate this model for now and it has advantages and disadvantages.
-From its advantages is that it is easier to implement and propagate, and it is not limited by national borders, only by mutual agreement between a series of traders.
-From its disadvantages are that it is extremely precarious. Many countries have laws against this and they could use their laws to seize the assets of these people. In addition, it will always go back into the underlying riba system unless the Murabitun have created a completely self-sustaining network which I doubt strongly. There will always be the need to trade with the outside world and the outside world = riba.

2) Top-down, in that these are plans which are implemented in the large countries by the governments. The issue with this is the powers of the world which organize themselves against such efforts, like the IMF and the World Bank, and in addition - most countries are run by secularists or mushrikeen with very few possible exceptions and they do not care about such things. Many groups have written up possible plans - among them, Hizb ut-Tahrir, and there are many critiques of capitalist economics and the system in general written by a certain strain of 'wahhabi' ulema, among them Shaykh Muhammad Qutb and his pupils from his years at Umm al-Qura. Merely because these things are not translated or made available to you does not mean they do not exist; as is, most of the 'wahhabis' who care about such things are politically active to some extent. Many of the pseudo-secularist murji'a probably do not care about this at all, that is true, but there is more to the story than the Murabitun party line, from which numerous facts are omitted.

Being strict on dress codes does not necessitate being lax on riba, but it might seem that way because numerous groups feel that correcting the dress codes of the people is more in line with what they can realistically achieve in a short time. As said, there are many things written in Arabic by Shaykh Muhammad Qutb and other good ulema.

[haittiweerved]

The Puritans were a significant grouping of English Protestants in the 16th and 17th centuries, including, but not limited to, English Calvinists. Puritanism in this sense was founded by some Marian exiles from the clergy shortly after the accession of Elizabeth I of England in 1558, as an activist movement within the Church of England. The designation "Puritan" is often used in the sense that hedonism and puritanism are antonyms.[1] Historically, the word was used pejoratively to characterize the Protestant group as extremists similar to the Cathari of France, and according to Thomas Fuller in his Church History dated back to 1564, Archbishop Matthew Parker of that time used it and "precisian" with the sense of modern "stickler".

Puritans by definition felt that the English Reformation had not gone far enough, and that the Church of England was tolerant of practices which they associated with the Catholic Church. They formed into and identified with various religious groups advocating greater "purity" of worship and doctrine, as well as personal and group piety. Puritans adopted a Reformed theology and in that sense were Calvinists (as many of their earlier opponents were, too), but also took note of radical views critical of Zwingli in Zurich and Calvin in Geneva. In church polity, some advocated for separation from all other Christians, in favor of autonomous gathered churches.

Puritans were liberal when it came to trade and business rules allowing money lending and charging interest (where the Catholic Church used to prohibit it officially). The Puritans are very rigid on dress codes, sexuality and controlling the personal. Some people have suggested that Wahabis/Salafis, Ikhwani Muslimeen and some other Muslims are like these puritans...liberal on riba...but very rigid on personal dress etc. They claim that this is a inner sickness of the nafs where it is split into 2.

An excellent book defining the puritans and their traits - The Great Theft authored by Abou El Fadl - A Quote from his book below

Nevertheless, the Muslim mainstream is targeted by puritans. The puritan creed is strongly evangelical, and through proselytizing, the puritans hope to convert the mainstream to what they consider to be the true Islam. In my view, this is where moderate Muslims must play a critical role. For the reasons discussed, the juristic class will not be able to play its historical role in marginalizing the puritans. The burden must fall on moderate Muslims to articulate the alternative to the puritan menace. Moderate Muslims must be able to tap into the collective inherited memory of Muslims and remind them that the moderate way is indeed the heart and soul of Islam. The moderates should seek to fill the vacuum of authority by standing steadfast, upholding Islam as it was before it was co-opted and forced to alleviate the puritans’ sense of social and political alienation. Moderates should seek to recapture the purity of the Islamic message as it was before it was twisted and altered by the puritans and forced to cater to the egoism and opportunism of puritanical causes. Moderates should seek to convince the Muslim world that they are the guardians of the true faith, which existed for centuries—long before the modern puritans came along and decided that the Islamic faith needed fixing.

Abou El Fadl, Khaled M. (2009-10-13). The Great Theft (p. 105). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

[haittiweerved]

The Puritans are very rigid on dress codes, sexuality and controlling the personal.

Very true, evidence below -

In the middle of March 2002, Saudi newspapers reported an incident that took place in Mecca, the Prophet Muhammad’s birthplace. According to the official count, at least fourteen young girls burned to death or were asphyxiated by smoke when an accidental fire engulfed their public school. Parents who arrived at the scene described a horrific situation in which the doors of the school were locked from the outside, and the Saudi religious police, known as the mutawwa’un, forcibly prevented girls from escaping the burning school and also barred firemen from entering the school to save the girls by beating some of the girls and several of the civil defense personnel. According to the statements of parents, firemen, and the regular police forces present at the scene, the mutawwa’un would not allow the girls to escape or to be saved because they were “not properly covered,” and the mutawwa’un did not want physical contact to take place between the girls and the civil defense forces for fear of sexual enticement, presumably in the midst of crisis. “Not properly covered” meant that the girls were either missing the niqab, a veil concealing their faces, or the ‘abaya, a cloaklike wrap covering their bodies.

The governmental institution that is responsible for administering the mutawwa’un (known as the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice) denied that officers had beaten any of the girls or civil defense workers, and also denied that the men had locked the gates of the school and trapped the girls inside.1 But witnesses told Saudi newspapers that the mutawwa’un yelled at the police and firemen to stay back and beat several firemen as they commanded the girls to go back into the burning building and retrieve their veils before they would be allowed to leave the school. Several parents told journalists that they had seen at least three girls being kicked and beaten with sticks when they attempted to argue with the mutawwa’un. Several girls did obey the mutawwa’un and returned to the school to retrieve their veils, only to be found dead later.


Abou El Fadl, Khaled M. (2009-10-13). The Great Theft (pp. 250-251). Harper Collins, Inc.. Kindle Edition.

[VarenHokalos]

^Khaled Abu el-Fadl is a Mu'tazilite Qadarite who believes
1) That Allah is not the creator of evil
2) That Allah is not the creator of all good, rather the human consciousness and decision and will is responsible for much good.

Watch the PBS documentary 'Faith and Doubt at Ground Zero' for these statements.

If you want to quote him after that, then have fun...

And as for the second post of yours, no sane person would ever defend those actions if they actually took place.

[MaraReenece]

Well if this is true, he and his book can be ignored.

^Khaled Abu el-Fadl is a Mu'tazilite Qadarite who believes
1) That Allah is not the creator of evil
2) That Allah is not the creator of all good, rather the human consciousness and decision and will is responsible for much good.

Watch the PBS documentary 'Faith and Doubt at Ground Zero' for these statements.

If you want to quote him after that, then have fun...

And as for the second post of yours, no sane person would ever defend those actions if they actually took place.

[haittiweerved]

^Khaled Abu el-Fadl is a Mu'tazilite Qadarite who believes
1) That Allah is not the creator of evil
2) That Allah is not the creator of all good, rather the human consciousness and decision and will is responsible for much good.

Watch the PBS documentary 'Faith and Doubt at Ground Zero' for these statements.

If you want to quote him after that, then have fun...

And as for the second post of yours, no sane person would ever defend those actions if they actually took place.

Thanks for alerting to that. I wasnt aware of his beliefs. His book at points deviates from mainstream but overall I think he does do a good job in categorizing and defining puritanical Islam.

[VarenHokalos]

Thanks for alerting to that. I wasnt aware of his beliefs. His book at points deviates from mainstream but overall I think he does do a good job in categorizing and defining puritanical Islam.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...tc/script.html

His statements are available here on this official transcript, and the documentary is probably still watchable.

[haittiweerved]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...tc/script.html

His statements are available here on this official transcript, and the documentary is probably still watchable.

Wow, a self proclaimed Mu'tazila. Never seen anyone in modern times do that. He has some good coverage on origins, development and creed of wahabbism/salafism in his book but thanks for cautioning about his beliefs on destiny.

[VarenHokalos]

Wow, a self proclaimed Mu'tazila. Never seen anyone in modern times do that. He has some good coverage on origins, development and creed of wahabbism/salafism in his book but thanks for cautioning about his beliefs on destiny.

A lot of the 'progressives' claim themselves to be neo-Mu'tazilah but Mr. el-Fadl is actually true to his claim in regards to beliefs such as this, which is interesting, yes.

As for your continued support of his analysis, don't you think a more thorough investigation of other sources is in order, considering his beliefs? Would you trust 100% a book on the development of Shi'ism by Ayatush-Shaytan Khomeini?

[MaraReenece]

It is undeniable that humanity in general is struggling under a widespread regime of social and economic
injustice. The Muslims have a pressing motivation to induce political change derived from the necessity that the
Shari'ah should be uppermost in the affairs of the world in order that mankind as a whole should have the proper
means to carry out our duty as guardians of the weak and the poor and custodians of the earth’s natural
resources. However, because our ‘ulama and people of intellectual endeavour (with very few honourable
exceptions) have so far failed, at least in recent times, to give the sciences relating to the politics of power the
attention due to them by that very same Shari’ah as fard kifaya (a collective obligation), we are in no position to
interpret the lessons of modern world history or to properly observe the modalities of social, political and
economic change as an important source of obligatory knowledge.


http://themuslimfaculty.org/images/S...transcript.pdf


As long as this is the case, attempts to impinge upon the dominant system in any significant way will continue to
meet with frustration and failure; indeed, they are likely to strengthen it. Hence, the sad irony, or indeed, the
great tragedy, is that it is into the very nihilism generated by the historical failings of modernity that Islamic
movements, political leaders and all manner of activists have blundered half-blindly and ill equipped, unaware
that by allowing themselves to be cast as the opponents of democracy, far from being the catalysts for positive
change they imagine themselves to be, their political role in fact, according to the thesis of Carl Schmitt, is that of
the necessary other, the enemy required by the state to sustain its own unity. In this light, the Islamic nation state
is no more a reflection of authentic political understanding than is Islamic vodka or for that matter, Islamic banking.

It has taken a world banking crisis of historical proportions in 2008 and the almost total collapse of the
international banking system to bring the iniquities and the inequities of the usurious financial system to the
immediate attention of the 99.9% of the population who had hitherto been content to remain dormant,
indifferent or blissfully ignorant of the nature of the system and the political realities of the money power
(referred to as the Sect by Proudhon). When in 2008 the Dean, Hajj Abdassamad, and I addressed an open letter to
the Archbishops of Canterbury and York in response to their published remarks rather timidly implicating the
greed of the international banking fraternity in the current crisis, it was not merely that we wished to avail
ourselves of an opportunity to publicly reiterate our habitual warnings regarding the banking system, we were
responding to the fact that, finally, an establishment voice was attempting to speak up and we wished to supply
them the proper means to do so.
It was suddenly clear for all to see, though understandably still hard for most to believe, that almost all of the
money in circulation is provided not by the State but by the banks which through a combination of fractional
reserve banking and credit manipulation are allowed to create money out of nothing. As the financial crisis has
continued and the fates of Ireland, Greece, Spain, Portugal and the Euro hang in the balance, it has also become
clear that the sovereignty of nation states and the autonomy of elected governments are little more than
elaborate fictions designed to conceal the hitherto hidden power of the bankers whose continued operations
demand countless billions in bailouts and ‘quantitative easing’; who threaten governments with credit rating
reductions; who replace elected leaders with technocratic place men whose brief it is to ensure that the interests
of the banks are prioritised ahead of the national population and the terms of austerity measures strictly adhered
to so that the servicing of debts owed to unelected and nameless banking oligarchs takes precedence over the
provision of health, education and welfare services to the electorate.

[haittiweerved]

As for your continued support of his analysis, don't you think a more thorough investigation of other sources is in order, considering his beliefs? Would you trust 100% a book on the development of Shi'ism by Ayatush-Shaytan Khomeini?

I read even books of non-Muslims about Islam so that is not a big deal to acknowledge a clear piece of writing on a certain topic by a Mu'tazilite. An example of great non-Muslim scholarship The New Cambridge History of Islam, ITs an awesome, well researched and edited book. Or the venture of Islam by MArshall Hodgson. We shouldnt fear perspectives, reasearch and analysis thus of Muslims who are non-traditional.

[johnteriz]

^Khaled Abu el-Fadl is a Mu'tazilite Qadarite who believes
1) That Allah is not the creator of evil
2) That Allah is not the creator of all good, rather the human consciousness and decision and will is responsible for much good.

Watch the PBS documentary 'Faith and Doubt at Ground Zero' for these statements.

If you want to quote him after that, then have fun...

And as for the second post of yours, no sane person would ever defend those actions if they actually took place.

I have just visited his website once some months back, but since you have a habit of exaggeration, I still doubt your allegation. I doubt he is so sstupid enough tto take those simplistic position you throw against him. Perhaps he is making the philosophical point that evil is just the absence of good and some deductions from that which you then potray it in this form. Either way I don't believe your allegation as for now. Just saying.

[siklop]

thanks for the copy and paste ??

whats your point ? or do you not have one ? you want us to read a giant ream of text and figure out your point for you ??

[gennnniiikk]

thanks for the copy and paste ??

whats your point ? or do you not have one ? you want us to read a giant ream of text and figure out your point for you ??

save your emaan, ignore what he and his ilk write

[siklop]

Watch the PBS documentary 'Faith and Doubt at Ground Zero' for these statements.

ha ha PBS documentary is your source of info, cant say im surprised. They are the same cabal formulating your ideology, so no surprises there.

[VarenHokalos]

I have just visited his website once some months back, but since you have a habit of exaggeration, I still doubt your allegation. I doubt he is so sstupid enough tto take those simplistic position you throw against him. Perhaps he is making the philosophical point that evil is just the absence of good and some deductions from that which you then potray it in this form. Either way I don't believe your allegation as for now. Just saying.

How can you kneel in submission to a God who authors evil? I follow a school within Islam called the Mutazila, which said, "No, God doesn't preordain everything. God doesn't write everything somewhere. And God doesn't- is not the creator of evil, is not the maker of evil, and also is not the creator and maker of all good." There are so much good that is the product of my decision, my consciousness, my will as a human being.

All it takes is clicking the link I provide and reading it. I can't even rightly take credit for it, it was pointed out by mureeds of GF Haddad on mereislam.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontl...ws/faith/view/

[siklop]

All it takes is clicking the link I provide and reading it. I can't even rightly take credit for it, it was pointed out by mureeds of GF Haddad on mereislam.

Yes credit is more important than truth, no surprises their either. Keep going son.!!