Does Islam allow Muttaween style policing?

[Nerd]

"Muttaween" or the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice patrol the streets of Saudi Arabia "enforcing dress codes, strict separation of men and women, salah prayer by Muslims during prayer times, and other behavior it believes to be commanded by Islam" wikipedia.

Is it Islamic to have a Police to check on people; to see whether they pray? or conduct other religious duties?

[Umar001]

Unless individual's of this board can provide articles from scholars I don't think we have anyone of the calibre to provide an answer to that question.

[------]

:salamext:

I don't see what the problem with that is, to be honest.

[Nerd]

But is it Islamic to have a police to enforce, religious duties on it's believers?

I believe (even though it's irrelevant, let me state it here): If I want to Fast, which I very much do, then it should be up to my willingness to do so, not because of the fear of government endorsed religious police. More over, I believe a religious police undermines The followers faith in God.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Umar001]

Yea but for example, some maybe too lazy to pray, but if they are encouraged they do and due to that their faith increases.

[Asper]

Yea but for example, some maybe too lazy to pray, but if they are encouraged they do and due to that their faith increases.

this is true. But there is a difference between some doing their duties as muslims out of fear of Allah subhana wa ta'ala, and some doing their duties out of fear of fellow men placing you in prison or worse.

[------]

:salamext:

I dont even know why people are complaining to be honest. I think its kool

[Nerd]

:salamext:

I dont even know why people are complaining to be honest. I think its kool

It's not a matter of this concept being "Kool" or not, the question is whether it is Islamic to have a religious police to enforce religious duties on its followers.

[------]

:salamext:

There are no scholars on this forum, so I doubt u'll get ur answer.

[Abdul Fattah]

Personally, I do see a big problem with this.
1. First of all, if we look at the example of the prophet (peace be upon him); if Islam had decreed something and some people did not follow that, in many cases he did not act upon it. (did not enforce those rules)

2. We are not prophets, so even in the cases where the prophet did enforce something, we have to question whether we have the same authority. having authority does not simply mean being on a pay check by the government. Having authority here means that there is an ayaah in the Qur'an or a hadeeth that tells us that we should enforce this or that specific rule in our country, and punish those who don't follow it. Again in many rules these police enforce, this is missing. We have to understand that there are two types of rules. There are rules which each person should be free to follow or not by his own will, and which people will be judged upon by God. And there are rules which Allah (subhana wa ta'ala) told us in the Qur'an or trough the prophet (peace be upon him) to enforce. Now, I'm not saying that Islamic judges in an Islamic juridical system don't have any liberty at all to punish smaller crimes which don't have a prescribed punishment for in religion. However one needs to be careful not to limit individual and personal freedom unless there is just cause. For example it's justifiable to limit personal freedom in drinking alcohol, because a person who drinks not only damages his own body, but can also becomes a hazard for society. If on the other hand a person wants to have a pet cat, I don't see justification to make that the police's business to prevent that.

3. Some of the rules they enforce don't even have any Islamic ground. so not only are they enforcing something that needn't be enforced and that they don't have the authority for, on top of that they spread wrong Islamic rules.

All this being said, I'd like to stress that I don't oppose the concept of a police enforcing rules. And I don't have a problem with police forces enforcing both strictly juridical as well as religious rules (on the condition of course that this is made legal by law of that country). However I do object to the specific rules that they force right now, because I find that many of those specific rules are completely unjustifiable.

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

:salamext:

I don't have a problem with the idea in general. After all, if one can change an evil with his hand, he should do it - as the well-known hadeeth states.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

its in saudi, im sure the sheikhs would have raised concerns if this wasnt allright?

[Abdul Fattah]

its in saudi, im sure the sheikhs would have raised concerns if this wasnt allright?

No offence brother, but it's such an attitude that allows bidah into religion. We shouldn't just rely on a judgment "just because it's a sheik". People are fallible, they make mistakes all the time. It doesn't necessarily mean they are bad people, it does mean though that we have to be more skeptic. I'm really disgusted by this double standard where salafi on one hand criticize other divisions or sects for accepting what their scholars say without proof but at the same time (some of) those scholars present things without proof to.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ lol :)

i understand what your saying bro but lol, what i meant is if theres a whole council of people far more knowledgable then us it makes me a feel a bit silly that we talk about it here. I mean its public knowledge, its a "force" after all. I guess the common laymen can raise concerns if it passes by the sheikhs which is possible but i really didnt think such an open and wide spread issue can pass them.

Also i thought the sheikhs consult the best of the best in matters such as this? which is what gives me comfort in placing my trust in them.


no double standard here bro, a bit o reliance and trust is all :)

[Abdul Fattah]

^ lol :)

i understand what your saying bro but lol, what i meant is if theres a whole council of people far more knowledgable then us it makes me a feel a bit silly that we talk about it here. I mean its public knowledge, its a "force" after all. I guess the common laymen can raise concerns if it passes by the sheikhs which is possible but i really didnt think such an open and wide spread issue can pass them.
Also i thought the sheikhs consult the best of the best in matters such as this? which is what gives me comfort in placing my trust in them.
no double standard here bro, a bit o reliance and trust is all :)

selam aleykum
I disagree, if this council really has this much more knowledge then us, it should be able to present not only it's ruling, but also present us their source for ruling! and I do think this trust and reliance is misplaced, and I do think it's a double standard! My stand is very clear: A scholar has no authority other then his knowledge. So we should only accept his ruling if he can present his sources. In fact many scholars of the past specifically warned their students and followers not to accept anything they said except when they provided proof for it. I don't see why the Saudian council of sheiks should be any different.

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

No offence brother, but it's such an attitude that allows bidah into religion. We shouldn't just rely on a judgment "just because it's a sheik". People are fallible, they make mistakes all the time. It doesn't necessarily mean they are bad people, it does mean though that we have to be more skeptic.

Perhaps if you knew there was a difference of opinion akhee, or if you asked another scholar and they said otherwise. Otherwise, it's the opinion of a scholar versus that of a layman.

[------]

:salamext:

AbdulFattah is right. I agree.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

@ abdul fattah i understand what your saying, and i also think proof is required for actions in islaam.

if an architect doesnt notice the flaws of his blueprints its ok for his students to point it out to him :)

but are we even qualified to be called students...

[Abdul Fattah]

@ abdul fattah i understand what your saying, and i also think proof is required for actions in islaam.
if an architect doesnt notice the flaws of his blueprints its ok for his students to point it out to him :)
but are we even qualified to be called students...

Selam aleykum
Again, no offense brother, I'm not trying to attack you personally; but I resent the cultural status that sheiks have nowadays (whether they want that status or that status is given to them without their consent) where only a certain type of "student" is qualified to question. Again if we look at history we see examples of great leaders like Abu bakr being questioned during their khutbah by a layman woman and Abu bakr admitting his mistake. If you ask me, it's not a matter of us being qualified students to question, but rather the other way around. If a sheikh cannot defend his claims even to the questions of a layman, can you still call him a sheik?

[Ibn Abi Ahmed]

:sl:

I believe Sister Crayon mentioned the way these religious police act, and I assume we can fairly agree that since she lives in Riyadh, she has better experience in the way the masses are treated by them:

http://www.islamicboard.com/929033-post11.html
http://www.islamicboard.com/929205-post18.html

I have no problem with them, but I think they ought to do their job with the Prophetic methodology of correcting people because that would produce the most benefit. Does anyone know, are they given a class by the scholars on how to correct people?

[Malaikah]

I disagree, if this council really has this much more knowledge then us, it should be able to present not only it's ruling, but also present us their source for ruling!

:sl:

Brother just because we haven't seen/read the evidence used to justify having these police, doesn't mean the evidence doesn't exist out their somewhere!

For all we know the Saudi shaykhs could have written pages and pages with proof from the Quran and sunnah about why it is justified. So unless you can prove that they haven't done that, your argument is baseless.

[IbnAbdulHakim]

^ oh bro i wasnt saying theres anything wrong with asking questions?! lol

but i think the point was people asking us questions lol

and my point was, if the sheikhs of saudi are letting this happen in the holiest of places then perhaps it is permissable in islaam and my logic was because they preach encouraging good and forbidding evil, they seem quite strict in implementing sunnah and adhering to the ways of the pious predecessors.

there is no double standards here, if anyone else had the same level of knowledge and support as the saudi sheikhs (ie they can communicate with all sheikhs and can be corrected etc) then when something has happened for a long time, it just seens like the most sensible answer is they deem it permissable.

im not saying that they are right, but they have a right to their ijtihaad!

with this you must agree..

[Abdul Fattah]

Perhaps if you knew there was a difference of opinion akhee, or if you asked another scholar and they said otherwise. Otherwise, it's the opinion of a scholar versus that of a layman.

selam aleykum
I'm not "stating my opinion". And neither should the scholars. There is no room in Islam for personal opinions. I'm simply pointing out that the correct attitude is to only accept rulings by scholars if they have proof to back that up. As for the specific rules in question, I doubt it's very wise to go in depth and discuss whether or not Islam forbids having cats as pet or woman driving for example. My point is simply that to date I have seen no prove for such claims, so until I do see that I hold it to be untrue.

[S_87]

are police allowed then or are they bidah too? should there be guards to guard places like the haramain or is that too bidah?
while the religious police may not be up to standards today in general, isnt promoting virtue and preventing vice good?
and isnt it part of their duties to bust drug gangs/pornography/indecent behaviour etc?

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

selam aleykum
I'm not "stating my opinion". And neither should the scholars. There is no room in Islam for personal opinions. I'm simply pointing out that the correct attitude is to only accept rulings by scholars if they have proof to back that up. As for the specific rules in question, I doubt it's very wise to go in depth and discuss whether or not Islam forbids having cats as pet or woman driving for example. My point is simply that to date I have seen no prove for such claims, so until I do see that I hold it to be untrue.

Then why don't you ask a Saudi shaykh, or get someone who speaks Arabic to? Their numbers are well-known, and I have even posted some of their numbers in the seeking knowledge section. Otherwise, I don't see the use of arguing about something that none of us clearly have knowledge of, especially from an Islaamic viewpoint.

And as my signature states: the deen is in the narrations and not the opinions.

And it is upon this principle that the 3ulamaa give verdicts. Whether or not the evidence is known to us, is another issue.

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum
Yes of course, sister
In my first post I clearly stated:

All this being said, I'd like to stress that I don't oppose the concept of a police enforcing rules. And I don't have a problem with police forces enforcing both strictly juridical as well as religious rules (on the condition of course that this is made legal by law of that country). However I do object to the specific rules that they force right now, because I find that many of those specific rules are completely unjustifiable.

[------]

:salamext:

while the religious police may not be up to standards today in general, isnt promoting virtue and preventing vice good?
and isnt it part of their duties to bust drug gangs/pornography/indecent behaviour etc?

and my point was, if the sheikhs of saudi are letting this happen in the holiest of places then perhaps it is permissable in islaam and my logic was because they preach encouraging good and forbidding evil, they seem quite strict in implementing sunnah and adhering to the ways of the pious predecessors.

I agree.

[Abdul Fattah]

Then why don't you ask a Saudi shaykh, or get someone who speaks Arabic to? Their numbers are well-known, and I have even posted some of their numbers in the seeking knowledge section.

Selam aleykum
Good idea, maybe someone in this forum will volunteer....
So far I haven't had any opportunity to ask such questions or to have someone ask in my behalf. Just because their numbers are well known means it's accessible for everyone. Bisides I doubt it's picknick to justify why people can't have cat pets for example over the phone, not to mention the more complex issues. Not only that but this person remembering everything, and translating it well enough to me. So no offense, but I think your approach is a bit naive. In the end I remain in my position, unless they make their alleged "proofs" more accessible (namely accessible to me) I refuse to accept them. I don't see why this is making everybody dance on their toes, it's the most logical thing if you ask me. I'd even bet most of these sheikhs would understand and acknowledge my attitude as healthy if they are fair.

[S_87]

hmm i remember a sermon which speaks about virtue and vice in general. Not about the current virute and vicers but read anyway, ill post the main parts:

Condemning of Vices
Shaykh Salaah al-Budayr
27 Rabee‘ul-Awwal 1426 (6 May 2005)

Dear Muslims! At the end of the Time, there will be an increase in the intrigues, and the forces of falsehood shall have evil designs. The pious and faithful Muslims would increasingly be seen as strangers; not of their lands but as regards their religion. Everything has its sign and the sign of weakness of religiosity is shameless and impudent committing of immoral acts.



Strangeness of Islaam lies in diminishing it, violating its teachings, abandoning its commandments, taking its injunctions for granted, failing to help its cause and scorning its sanctities. It also includes committing major sins, being negligent to the point of committing sins and acts of debauchery with impunity, social and moral degeneration, disrespecting the law of Islaam and its regulations, publicly perpetrating heinous deeds and all that is unjustifiable in the eye of Islaam.

Other manifestations of strangeness of Islaam in this age are prevalence of obscene and indecent people and obliteration of the practise of promoting virtues and preventing vice so much so that nothing remains of this practise but its figure. There is also widespread submission to desires, corrupt intentions, deviant opinions, and erroneous fatwas; compromising views of the indulgent, contradicting the texts of the Qur’aan and the Sunnah and going against the consensus of the Ummah.

All this is done under the guise of noisy misinterpretations, fake slogans of reform and change and philosophies that are not backed by the teachings of Islaam, being created by light-headed hypocrites who are foot-soldiers of Satan and enemies of Islaam, chastity and virtue, and advocates of licentiousness and misguidance. The Messenger of Allaah said the truth when He predicted, “Islaam started as a strange religion and it shall return into a strange religion as it was. Blessed be the strangers.” (Muslim)


Blessed are you, those who hold fast unto the teachings of Islaam at this time of trials! Blessed are you, those who are acting by the Sunnah of the noble Prophet, Muhammad at this time of crises!

Fellow Muslims! Strangeness of Islaam in the lands of the Muslims started when sinners flagrantly committed sins and mischief while some people look elsewhere with indifference and others supporting them, to the detriment of the Islaamic teachings. Ibn Battaal said, “Committing sins openly is tantamount to mocking the right of Allaah, His Messenger and the right of the righteous Muslims. It is also a kind of rebellion against them.”

Fellow Muslims! Failing to speak against flagrant sinners is a blemish on the followers of Islaam. It is an indication of their flawed allegiance to the religion of Allaah and their fighting to elevate His Word and the Sunnah of His Messenger. It is a sign of their weak faith and their defective trust in Allaah. Allaah says,

The believers, men and women, are Auliyâ' (helpers, supporters, friends, protectors) of one another, they enjoin (on the people) Al-Ma'rûf (i.e. Islaamic Monotheism and all that Islaam orders one to do), and forbid (people) from Al-Munkar (i.e. polytheism and disbelief of all kinds, and all that Islaam has forbidden); they perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât) and give the Zakât, and obey Allaah and His Messenger. Allaah will have His Mercy on them. Surely Allaah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.”

In the above verse, Allaah regards promoting virtues and preventing vices one of the first and most prominent characteristics of the believers. The Messenger of Allaah said, “He who amongst you sees something abominable should modify it with the help of his hand; and if he has not strength enough to do it, then he should do it with his tongue [by speaking against it], and if he has not strength enough to do it, (even) then he should (abhor it) from his heart, and that is the least of faith.” (Muslim)

Ibn Mas‘ood narrated that the Messenger of Allaah, “Never a Prophet had been sent before me by Allaah towards his nation who had not among his people disciples and companions who followed his ways and obeyed his command. Then there came after them their successors who said whatever they did not practise, and practised whatever they were not commanded to do. He who strove against them with his hand was a believer: he who strove against them with his tongue was a believer, and he who strove against them with his heart was a believer and beyond that there is no faith even to the extent of a mustard seed.” (Muslim)

Dear brethren! The one who fails to speak against vice when it is being flagrantly committed and the one who covers the sinner up will share in the consequences of that sin. Allaah says,

“And fear the Fitnah (affliction and trial, etc.) which affects not in particular (only) those of you who do wrong (but it may afflict all the good and the bad people), and know that Allaah is Severe in punishment.”

(Al-Anfaal 8:25)

It is a trial in which the sin committed by the insolent sinner and the consequent is felt by both the pious and the impious. This is because; the sin was not condemned when it was being perpetrated.

If someone says: Why then are those who did not commit the sin included in the punishment? The answer is: They approved the sin or failed to speak against it when it was being committed.

The Messenger of Allaah said, “If a man commits sins among a people and they are able to stop him but they fail to do so, Allaah will afflict them with a punishment before they die.” (Aboo Daawood)

The Prophet also said, “If the people see a wrong-doer and they do not stop him from persisting in his wrong-doing, Allaah will include them all in punishment.” (Aboo Daawood and at-Tirmidhee)

This is a serious threat. We pray that Allaah forgive us, show His mercy upon us and guide those who have went astray among us.

Imaam al-Qurtubee said, “Every country in which there are four, its inhabitants are protected from affliction: A just ruler who does not wrong anyone, a scholar who remains on the path of guidance, men who promote virtues and prevent vice and encourage learning knowledge and the Qur’aan and women who are covered and do not displace their adornment as the women of the age of ignorance do.”

Fellow Muslims! It is only those who clearly speak against the evil that will be saved. The flagrant sinners who impudently violate the command of Allaah and those who fail to speak against them will be the losers. Allaah says,

“So when they forgot the reminding that had been given to them, We rescued those who forbade evil, but We seized those who did wrong with a severe torment because they used to rebel (disobey Allaah).”

(Al-A‘raaf 7:175)
In the above verse, there is a great warning for us against being like the mentioned people, so that what will not face similar consequences.

Allaah says,

“If only there had been among the generations before you, persons having wisdom, prohibiting (others) from Al-Fasâd (disbelief, polytheism, and all kinds of crimes and sins) in the earth, except a few of those whom We saved from among them. Those who did wrong pursued the enjoyment of good things of (this worldly) life, and were Mujrimûn (criminals, disbelievers in Allaah, polytheists, sinners, etc.). And your Lord would never destroy the towns wrongfully, while their people were right-doers.”

(Hood 11:116-117)

Only a few among them were saved because they spoke out against the corruption.

O you who publicly commit sins, you have been afflicted with loss since the day safety is removed from you and you fell into the abyss of destruction. The Messenger of Allaah said, “All the sins of my followers will be forgiven except those who commit a sin openly or disclose their sins to the people. An example of such disclosure is that a person commits a sin at night and though Allaah screens it from the public, then he comes in the morning, and says, 'O so-and-so, I did such-and-such (evil) deed yesterday,' though he spent his night screened by his Lord (none knowing about his sin) and in the morning he removes Allaah's screen from himself.” (Al-Bukhaaree)

Fellow Muslims! Stop those who openly exceed the limits of Allaah and admonish those who publicly commit sins. Do not condone the sins. Spare no effort in preventing the sinner from committing more sins before it is too late.

The Messenger of Allaah said, “If a sin is committed in the land, the one who witnessed it but spoke against it is like the one who was not there when it was being committed, and the one who was not there but approved of it is like the one who witnessed it.”

Ibn Rajab said, “He who witnessed a sin but disliked it in his heart is like the one who did not witness it – if he was unable to stop it with it tongue or his hand. He who did not witness it but approved of it is like the one who witnessed it and was able to stop but failed to do so. This is because approving sins is one of the greatest forbidden things.”

Brethren in faith! Woe unto those who keep the company of the sinners, are happy about their prevalence, are pleased with their falsehood, help them, publicise their sinfulness or increase their ranks. Whoever seeks to increase the rank of some people is also one of them; and the one who is pleased with the deeds of a people is an associate of them.

Being pleased with sin is a sinful act, and being pleased with disbelief is also an act of disbelief. Allaah says,

“And it has already been revealed to you in the Book (this Qur’aan) that when you hear the Verses of Allaah being denied and mocked at, then sit not with them, until they engage in a talk other than that; (but if you stayed with them) certainly in that case you would be like them. Surely, Allaah will collect the hypocrites and disbelievers all together in Hell.”

(An-Nisaa 4:140)

Woe unto those who expose themselves to the wrath of Allaah and His punishment. Woe unto them on a day that they will reap the consequences of their evil deeds. The end of their evil deeds shall be a loss. May Allaah guard us against the path of the losers! May He make us among the rightly guided!

“O you who believe! Fear Allaah (by doing all that He has ordered and by abstaining from all that He has forbidden) as He should be feared. [Obey Him, be thankful to Him, and remember Him always], and die not except in a state of Islaam (as Muslims) with complete submission to Allaah.”

(Aal ‘Imraan 3:102)

Dear brethren! It is surprising that we are in an age in which the one who speaks against the evil will have no companion but many critics; and the one who condones evils will have many friends and few enemies. We are in an age in which people feel disgusted about anyone who dares to condemn sins. He is accused with lying, harmed and horrendously attacked. His mistakes are never forgiven, his virtues are never mentioned and his good deeds are never appreciated.

Let those who seek the Hereafter endeavour to be among the righteous and bear whatever harm they experience in the way of Allaah with patience. Ibn Katheer said, “Anyone who stands for the truth, commands what is good or prevents the evil shall be harmed. The only remedy for this is to have patience for Allaah’s cause, remain steadfast with Him and seek refuge in His glory.”

Allaah says,

“Enjoin (people) for Al*Ma'rûf (Islaamic Monotheism and all that is good), and forbid (people) from Al*Munkar (i.e. disbelief in the Oneness of Allaah, polytheism of all kinds and all that is evil and bad), and bear with patience whatever befall you. Verily! These are some of the important commandments ordered by Allaah with no exemption.”

(Luqmaan 31:17)

Dear Muslims! The fruit of listening is abidance. Be among those who listen to the word and follow the best thereof

[Malaikah]

In the end I remain in my position, unless they make their alleged "proofs" more accessible (namely accessible to me) I refuse to accept them. I don't see why this is making everybody dance on their toes, it's the most logical thing if you ask me. I'd even bet most of these sheikhs would understand and acknowledge my attitude as healthy if they are fair.

It is because of your approach. You are making it sound like they have no proof for their opinion when the reality is you don't know whether or not they have proof! There is an important difference between the two.

You are criticizing them for this even though you don't even know why (or if) they allowed it.

At the end of the day, they are scholars and they ARE entitled to their opinions, regardless of whether or not we agree with them.

Furthermore, if you want to know why or if they allowed it, you have to look for the answers, you can't expect them to just come to you.

[------]

:salamext:

I don't see why this is making everybody dance on their toes, it's the most logical thing if you ask me.

Bro has got a point.

[Nerd]

Here is the link to the official website of the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice.

[------]

:salamext:

The Above page in English

[Malaikah]

:sl:

Is that translation an automatic computer type one? (i.e. not by a person?) It is utterly shocking...

[They translated Jinn as elves!! :D]

[------]

:salamext:

^ Google...

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum Amani
Thx for your detailed post. while I agree with the general message of the sermon, and while I acknowledge that it's more general and you didn't present it as a defense in favor of this police, I 'd like to still take the time point out that while at first glance this lecture might be antagonistic to my views, it could just as well be interpreted the other way.

Dear Muslims! At the end of the Time, there will be an increase in the intrigues, and the forces of falsehood shall have evil designs. The pious and faithful Muslims would increasingly be seen as strangers; not of their lands but as regards their religion...
Strangeness of Islaam lies in diminishing it, violating its teachings, abandoning its commandments, taking its injunctions for granted, failing to help its cause and scorning its sanctities. It also includes committing major sins, being negligent to the point of committing sins and acts of debauchery with impunity, social and moral degeneration, disrespecting the law of Islaam and its regulations, publicly perpetrating heinous deeds and all that is unjustifiable in the eye of Islaam.

I agree 100% and the best way to avoid this is to stick as close as possible to the sunnah of the prophet (peace be upon him) hence the first argument I presented in this thread is that police forces should only enforce rulings which the Prophet (peace be upon him) also enforced.

Other manifestations of strangeness of Islaam in this age are prevalence of obscene and indecent people and obliteration of the practise of promoting virtues and preventing vice so much so that nothing remains of this practise but its figure. There is also widespread submission to desires, corrupt intentions, deviant opinions, and erroneous fatwas; compromising views of the indulgent, contradicting the texts of the Qur’aan and the Sunnah and going against the consensus of the Ummah.
All this is done under the guise of noisy misinterpretations, fake slogans of reform and change and philosophies that are not backed by the teachings of Islaam, being created by light-headed hypocrites who are foot-soldiers of Satan and enemies of Islaam, chastity and virtue, and advocates of licentiousness and misguidance. The Messenger of Allaah said the truth when He predicted, “Islaam started as a strange religion and it shall return into a strange religion as it was. Blessed be the strangers.” (Muslim)
Ibn Mas‘ood narrated that the Messenger of Allaah, “Never a Prophet had been sent before me by Allaah towards his nation who had not among his people disciples and companions who followed his ways and obeyed his command. Then there came after them their successors who said whatever they did not practise, and practised whatever they were not commanded to do. He who strove against them with his hand was a believer: he who strove against them with his tongue was a believer, and he who strove against them with his heart was a believer and beyond that there is no faith even to the extent of a mustard seed.” (Muslim)

Which is why I stressed the need for proves in fatwa's.

Fellow Muslims! Strangeness of Islaam in the lands of the Muslims started when sinners flagrantly committed sins and mischief while some people look elsewhere with indifference and others supporting them, to the detriment of the Islaamic teachings. Ibn Battaal said, “Committing sins openly is tantamount to mocking the right of Allaah, His Messenger and the right of the righteous Muslims. It is also a kind of rebellion against them.”

I think it would be more prudent not to assume a single thing is the cause of strangeness in Islam. there could be many reasons why people alienated from Islam. Flagrant sins might be one of them, but there might be many others. For example, being overly severe in controling people might cause an aversion against Islam within the population and thus cause more damage then good.

Fellow Muslims! Failing to speak against flagrant sinners is a blemish on the followers of Islaam. It is an indication of their flawed allegiance to the religion of Allaah and their fighting to elevate His Word and the Sunnah of His Messenger. Dear brethren! The one who fails to speak against vice when it is being flagrantly committed and the one who covers the sinner up will share in the consequences of that sin. Allaah says,
“And fear the Fitnah (affliction and trial, etc.) which affects not in particular (only) those of you who do wrong (but it may afflict all the good and the bad people), and know that Allaah is Severe in punishment.”

(Al-Anfaal 8:25)

Yes, I agree 100% We should try and always speak up to any wrong we see.

It is a sign of their weak faith and their defective trust in Allaah. Allaah says, The believers, men and women, are Auliyâ' (helpers, supporters, friends, protectors) of one another, they enjoin (on the people) Al-Ma'rûf (i.e. Islaamic Monotheism and all that Islaam orders one to do), and forbid (people) from Al-Munkar (i.e. polytheism and disbelief of all kinds, and all that Islaam has forbidden); they perform As-Salât (Iqâmat-as-Salât) and give the Zakât, and obey Allaah and His Messenger. Allaah will have His Mercy on them. Surely Allaah is All-Mighty, All-Wise.”
In the above verse, Allaah regards promoting virtues and preventing vices one of the first and most prominent characteristics of the believers. The Messenger of Allaah said, “He who amongst you sees something abominable should modify it with the help of his hand; and if he has not strength enough to do it, then he should do it with his tongue [by speaking against it], and if he has not strength enough to do it, (even) then he should (abhor it) from his heart, and that is the least of faith.” (Muslim)

It's a fine line between helping someone and forcing someone.

It is a trial in which the sin committed by the insolent sinner and the consequent is felt by both the pious and the impious. This is because; the sin was not condemned when it was being perpetrated.
If someone says: Why then are those who did not commit the sin included in the punishment? The answer is: They approved the sin or failed to speak against it when it was being committed.

again, it's a fine line between condemning acts and making acts juridically prosecutionable.

The Messenger of Allaah said, “If a man commits sins among a people and they are able to stop him but they fail to do so, Allaah will afflict them with a punishment before they die.” (Aboo Daawood)

The Prophet also said, “If the people see a wrong-doer and they do not stop him from persisting in his wrong-doing, Allaah will include them all in punishment.” (Aboo Daawood and at-Tirmidhee)
This is a serious threat. We pray that Allaah forgive us, show His mercy upon us and guide those who have went astray among us.

Is someone able to tell me the strength of these hadeeth? Also, if this is the default position, are there exceptions, or is this always valid?
The remainder of the text, while interesting and true, is irrelevant here.

Selam aleykum Malaikah

In the end I remain in my position, unless they make their alleged "proofs" more accessible (namely accessible to me) I refuse to accept them. I don't see why this is making everybody dance on their toes, it's the most logical thing if you ask me. I'd even bet most of these sheikhs would understand and acknowledge my attitude as healthy if they are fair.

It is because of your approach. You are making it sound like they have no proof for their opinion when the reality is you don't know whether or not they have proof! There is an important difference between the two.

I could also say that you make it sound as if they have prove despite that you don't know whether or not they have it. I still hold it to be false until I find proof that shows otherwise.

You are criticizing them for this even though you don't even know why (or if) they allowed it.

No, I criticized the rulings, I didn't criticize them. after that people started to comment on my posts, and in my counter-comments I told them I disagree with believing these scholars by default. I understand how if you didn't read the whole tread that might have looked as "me criticizing the scholars" but if you'll look more carefully, you'd see that such is not the case.

At the end of the day, they are scholars and they ARE entitled to their opinions, regardless of whether or not we agree with them.

Of course everyone is entitled to have their opinion; but just because you're a scholar doesn't mean you can present your opinions as though they are Islamic. Even itjihad has certain criteria and must have some ground.

Furthermore, if you want to know why or if they allowed it, you have to look for the answers, you can't expect them to just come to you.

Like I said, all my inquiries and searches so far have been in vain.

selam aleykum Brok3n and hi Nerd;
thx for the links, I 've searched the English translation but found no rulings.

[Malaikah]

I could also say that you make it sound as if they have prove despite that you don't know whether or not they have it. I still hold it to be false until I find proof that shows otherwise.

Odd... shouldn't we go by the default, which is that scholars will usually give a fatwa using proof? Shouldn't we also assume good of our fellow Muslims, isn't that their right over us? Wouldn't we therefore assume they did have evidence for their claim (since that is to think good of them)?

[Abdul Fattah]

Odd... shouldn't we go by the default, which is that scholars will usually give a fatwa using proof? Shouldn't we also assume good of our fellow Muslims, isn't that their right over us? Wouldn't we therefore assume they did have evidence for their claim (since that is to think good of them)?

Selam aleykum sister
I strongly disagree. In general yes, you have to assume the best of your fellow muslims. But like I said, I'm not questioning scholars, I'm questioning their rulings. There's also practical reasons to consider. According to your logic you'd have to accept every single ruling until you've had the chance to see if it's not well supported after all. This is what I meant with the hypocracy of some salafi who criticize other divisions for blindly following their scholars while in fact some salafi actually do the same. (not saying that you are one of them, just making an observation)

anyway, I think this thread is due for a lock?

[------]

:salamext:

^ Nice response bro... nuff respect *need to spread reps*

[Malaikah]

According to your logic you'd have to accept every single ruling until you've had the chance to see if it's not well supported after all.

No, that isn't true at all. It is very common for conflicting opinions to exist in Islam while both of them have strong evidence for their claims. Does that mean they are both right? No. Therefore thinking good of them and assuming they have evidence is not the same as thinking their understanding or application of the evidence is ultimately correct.

This is what I meant with the hypocracy of some salafi who criticize other divisions for blindly following their scholars while in fact some salafi actually do the same. (not saying that you are one of them, just making an observation)

For someone who isn't accusing me, or anyone else here, of being a salafi, I don't see the relevance of mentioning salafis in this discussion at all.

Simply assuming that a shaykh passed a ruling based on some knowledge that he has doesn't even come close to blind following at all! You don't have to follow an opinion to be able to admit that the shaykh has evidence for his claim.

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum sister

No, that isn't true at all. It is very common for conflicting opinions to exist in Islam while both of them have strong evidence for their claims. Does that mean they are both right? No. Therefore thinking good of them and assuming they have evidence is not the same as thinking their understanding or application of the evidence is ultimately correct.

So then you admit that I shouldn't accept it afterall "just to think nice of them"? Aren't you contradicting yourself here?

For someone who isn't accusing me, or anyone else here, of being a salafi, I don't see the relevance of mentioning salafis in this discussion at all.

Doesn't this police force enforce what salafi scholars tell them to? Isn't this therefor relevant?

Simply assuming that a shaykh passed a ruling based on some knowledge that he has doesn't even come close to blind following at all! You don't have to follow an opinion to be able to admit that the shaykh has evidence for his claim.

I disagree. Either the ruling is certain and has solid evidence, or the ruling has no evidence and is itjihad. Which is only based on indications. so an opinion never has evidence in the first place. If it would have evidence, then the evidence would "force" a Muslim to accept the ruling (since it's undeniable). So yes, you do have to follow a ruling if you accept that it has evidence.

[Malaikah]

So then you admit that I shouldn't accept it afterall "just to think nice of them"? Aren't you contradicting yourself here?

No, I'm not. Read it again if you still don't get it.

Doesn't this police force enforce what salafi scholars tell them to? Isn't this therefor relevant?

No! It is totally irrelevant whether these scholars are salafi or not!

I disagree. Either the ruling is certain and has solid evidence, or the ruling has no evidence and is itjihad. Which is only based on indications. so an opinion never has evidence in the first place. If it would have evidence, then the evidence would "force" a Muslim to accept the ruling (since it's undeniable). So yes, you do have to follow a ruling if you accept that it has evidence.

That's is false - evidence is not always solid. Evidence varies in strength or may be open to many interpretations. If it was as simplistic as you are proposing then there would essentially be no room for differences of opinion in Islam.

[Abdul Fattah]

No, I'm not. Read it again if you still don't get it.

Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best ^_^

No! It is totally irrelevant whether these scholars are salafi or not!

As far as I know, the salafi take proof very serious and agree that you shouldn't accept rulings by authority of scholars, but only by proofs.
Hence the relevance.

That's is false - evidence is not always solid.

Evidence that isn't solid isn't really evidence. You're playing with words. either a ruling has scriptural proof or it doesn't, there's no in between.

Evidence varies in strength or may be open to many interpretations.

If it's weak, it's not evidence. If it relies on interpretations it's not evidence.

If it was as simplistic as you are proposing then there would essentially be no room for differences of opinion in Islam.

Exactly! thats' what I said several posts ago, there is no room for personal opinions in Islam.

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

:salamext:

Abdul Fattah. I'm interested in how much you know about usool al-fiqh?

Exactly! thats' what I said several posts ago, there is no room for personal opinions in Islam.

I think you need to distinguish between personal opinions, and opinions based upon evidence. There could be a single verse, or hadeeth - and scholars could interpret that verse or hadeeth in several different ways. Does this make the evidence weak? No. But both opinions could be using strong evidence, by looking in to the linguistics, and other verses/hadeeths to provide explanations. I'm afraid it really isn't as simple as you propose it is.

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum

:salamext:Abdul Fattah. I'm interested in how much you know about usool al-fiqh?

Not even going to answer that; let's just say Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best ^_^

I think you need to distinguish between personal opinions, and opinions based upon evidence. There could be a single verse, or hadeeth - and scholars could interpret that verse or hadeeth in several different ways. Does this make the evidence weak? No.

I disagree, an argument is as weak as it weakest spot. If it relies on interpretation, then that interpretation of this verse is the only "proof" not the verse itself! there's actually rules on how to make tafsir, so there is a lot less room for interpreting verses then you suggest.

But both opinions could be using strong evidence, by looking in to the linguistics, and other verses/hadeeths to provide explanations. I'm afraid it really isn't as simple as you propose it is.

No, interpretations is either done by the rules of tefsir in which case it is strong but then there is agreement on it (since there is strong undeniable evidence for it). Or it is not done according to rules of tefsir and it is weak.
In the end there is only 1 Islam!!!!

Can people get back on topic please, or could mods close the thread otherwise?

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

Selam aleykum

Not even going to answer that; let's just say Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best ^_^

Ok. Don't answer. But I will remind you of the words of Imaam Bukhaaree in his Saheeh:

العِلْمُ قَبْلَ القَوْلِ وَالْعَمَلِ

Knowledge precedes speech and action. This is not an attack, but a naseehah (advice). So please do not perceive it as otherwise.

I disagree, an argument is as weak as it weakest spot. If it relies on interpretation, then that interpretation of this verse is the only "proof" not the verse itself! there's actually rules on how to make tafsir, so there is a lot less room for interpreting verses then you suggest.

Ok... I don't think I quite understand. So now Scholars can't interpret texts? Why else are they forgiven, if they make ijtihaad and err? Everything has an understanding, akhee. Even the companions of Allaah's Messenger salAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam disagreed on some matters, due to their different understanding of texts. What would you to them - there is no room for opinions in Islaam? Of course there are rules on making tafseer or commentary of texts, and I can assure you the Scholars are more aware of this than you are.

No, interpretations is either done by the rules of tefsir in which case it is strong but then there is agreement on it (since there is strong undeniable evidence for it). Or it is not done according to rules of tefsir and it is weak.
In the end there is only 1 Islam!!!!

Akhee, if 'Ulamaa disagree on subsidary issues, such as issues of fiqh where there is no ijmaa', this does not mean they are making a new Islaam! Ofcourse there is only one correct opinion. But in matters where there is strong evidence for either ruling, we apply balance and harmony and ease, because the other person isn't following their desires! They're following an opinion of a Scholar, which is based upon evidence which they believe to be correct. Ofcourse you will have your own opinion as to which of the two rulings is correct, but that is simply your opinion.

Disagreement on the fundamental issues is another matter, though. Diverting from the fundamental matters of Islaam which are agreed upon by the companions, is splitting away from the Jamaa'ah.

Can people get back on topic please, or could mods close the thread otherwise?

I think this is on topic. But if you wish to end the discussion, then very well.

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum

Ok... I don't think I quite understand. So now Scholars can't interpret texts? Why else are they forgiven, if they make ijtihaad and err? Everything has an understanding, akhee. Even the companions of Allaah's Messenger salAllaahu 'alayhi wa sallam disagreed on some matters, due to their different understanding of texts. What would you to them - there is no room for opinions in Islaam? Of course there are rules on making tafseer or commentary of texts, and I can assure you the Scholars are more aware of this than you are.

See the thing is, there's a difference between making tafsir and making fiqh. When making tafsir, one cannot use his own interpretation. It is forbidden! When making fiqh, there is itjihad which allows ruling based on weak indications. Weak indications is not the same as interpretation of Qur'an. In fiqh you can rely on tafsir, but only on tafsir that is done according to the rules of tafsir. So it's not because you're suddenly dealing with itjihaad that interpretation of the Qur'an is suddenly allowed. That are two completely different things. Also note that itjihad is weak and as soon as contradicting evidence comes the itjihad should be disregarded.

Akhee, if 'Ulamaa disagree on subsidary issues, such as issues of fiqh where there is no ijmaa', this does not mean they are making a new Islaam! Ofcourse there is only one correct opinion. But in matters where there is strong evidence for either ruling, we apply balance and harmony and ease, because the other person isn't following their desires! They're following an opinion of a Scholar, which is based upon evidence which they believe to be correct. Ofcourse you will have your own opinion as to which of the two rulings is correct, but that is simply your opinion.

Well the thing is, in such a case of weak rulings where there is no consensus on, you have insufficient grounds for action. It's one thing to make itjihad because there's demand for a ruling, but it's another thing to enforce an itjihad fatwa onto the population!

I think this is on topic. But if you wish to end the discussion, then very well.

Thank you, and Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best, may he forgive us both if we made any mistakes.

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

:wasalamex

Akhee, I think you've misunderstood me. Let me make myself clear:

When the Messenger of Allaah salAllaahu 'alayhi wa Sallam returned from the battle of al-Ahzaab and took off his armour, Jibraa'eel came to him and said: "We (i.e. the angels) have not yet put down our weapons, so set out for Banee Quraydhah." The Messenger of Allaah ordered his Companion to leave for battle and said: "None of you should pray 'Asr except at Banee Quraydhah." [Saheeh al-Bukhaaree, Eng. Transl. (2/34)]

The Companions understood this command differently. Some thought that the command implied that they should hasten towards Banee Quraydhah, so that they would arrive there by 'Asr. Other companions understood this to mean that they should not pray 'Asr until they reach Banee Quraydhah. Hence, when the time for prayer came, the first group prayed 'Asr in its time, whilst the latter delayed it until they reached Banee Quraydhah, hence praying it out of its time.

Is there only correct opinion here? Well, whilst commenting on this opinion, shaykh 'Uthaymeen states that the verses regarding the fixed time for prayers are abundant and clear, whilst this hadeeth is vague - so therefore the unambiguous texts should be referred back to the clear texts. Therefore he states that the correct position was with those who prayed 'Asr in its time.

Is there any rebuke upon the companions who delayed their Salah? Absolutely not. The following hadeeth holds true for this incident: "If a judge gives a ruling upon Ijtihaad and is correct, he will attain two rewards. And if he performs ijtihaad and errs in his ruling then he secures one reward," [Agreed upon]

There are certain requirements of Ijtihaad, but this is not the place to state them.

However, you make it seem as if there is only one interpretation of a verse - and that there are never any disagreements? Correct me if I am wrong. I will state one example where Scholars have disagreed on the meaning of an ayah:

"... and if you are ill or on a journey, or come after answering the call of nature, or you have been in contact (laamastumu) with women and find no water; then perform tayammum with clean earth..." [5:6]

The scholars differed on the meaning of 'laamastumu' - contact. Some understood it to mean touching in the unrestricted sense, whilst Ibn 'Abbaas understood this to mean intercourse, and there are also other interpretations of this ayah. IMO, the correct opinion is that of Ibn 'Abbaas radhiyAllaahu 'anhu, due to other supporting evidence.

So, a Scholar can apply the rules of tafseer, and still make a mistake. Is a Scholar who utilises this tafseer in order to apply a ruling, believing it to be correct, then making a new religion?

Thank you, and Allah subhana wa ta'ala knows best, may he forgive us both if we made any mistakes.

Ameen.

:wasalamex

[Nerd]

Back to the topic people: Is there any Quranic verse or a Hadeeth recommending or commanding us to spy and ensure that the followers undertake Religious rituals??? Force them to do so, and if not threaten them with harsh punishments?

For me, its undermining the faith of its followers, I have a hard time justifying logically the need of a religious police such as the one the exist in Saudi Arabia

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

Back to the topic people: Is there any Quranic verse or a Hadeeth recommending or commanding us to spy and ensure that the followers undertake Religious rituals??? Force them to do so, and if not threaten them with harsh punishments?

For me, its undermining the faith of its followers, and have a hard time justifying logically the need to a religious police such as the one the exist in Saudi Arabia

If you want the evidence for this, it's really best to ask someone who's qualified to give you an answer. You're only going to get 'I think...' and 'I feel...' answers otherwise. Allaahu A'lam.

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum

When the Messenger of Allaah salAllaahu 'alayhi wa Sallam returned from the battle of al-Ahzaab and took off his armour, Jibraa'eel came to him and said: "We (i.e. the angels) have not yet put down our weapons, so set out for Banee Quraydhah." The Messenger of Allaah ordered his Companion to leave for battle and said: "None of you should pray 'Asr except at Banee Quraydhah." [Saheeh al-Bukhaaree, Eng. Transl. (2/34)]

The Companions understood this command differently. Some thought that the command implied that they should hasten towards Banee Quraydhah, so that they would arrive there by 'Asr. Other companions understood this to mean that they should not pray 'Asr until they reach Banee Quraydhah. Hence, when the time for prayer came, the first group prayed 'Asr in its time, whilst the latter delayed it until they reached Banee Quraydhah, hence praying it out of its time.

Is there only correct opinion here? Well, whilst commenting on this opinion, shaykh 'Uthaymeen states that the verses regarding the fixed time for prayers are abundant and clear, whilst this hadeeth is vague - so therefore the unambiguous texts should be referred back to the clear texts. Therefore he states that the correct position was with those who prayed 'Asr in its time.

Yes, I know all of this already, could you show me how any of this defeats my arguments? Or are you just sharing this because you thought I didn't know this? Really I don't understand your motive here, help me out. You said that you wanted to make yourself clear by posting this, but if you ask me, all you're doing here is going off topic again. Honestly, how does this relate to anything you and me discussed.

Is there any rebuke upon the companions who delayed their Salah? Absolutely not. The following hadeeth holds true for this incident: "If a judge gives a ruling upon Ijtihaad and is correct, he will attain two rewards. And if he performs ijtihaad and errs in his ruling then he secures one reward," [Agreed upon]

Yes, again, I know all of this already; and I never claimed otherwise, is there a point you're trying to make here? Or again just trying to educate me?

There are certain requirements of Ijtihaad, but this is not the place to state them.

As you wish..

However, you make it seem as if there is only one interpretation of a verse - and that there are never any disagreements? Correct me if I am wrong. I will state one example where Scholars have disagreed on the meaning of an ayah:

Of course scholars can disagree, but that doesn't mean both scholars are right. Again, how does any of this relate to the topic at hand?

So, a Scholar can apply the rules of tafseer, and still make a mistake. Is a Scholar who utilises this tafseer in order to apply a ruling, believing it to be correct, then making a new religion?

Now you're just fighting strawmen arguments. Did I say anywhere in my post that scholars are "making a new religion". Or is there another hidden point here I fail to see?

Seriously sister, this has turned more into a fight where you're trying to discredit anything I say rather then a debate. Again I'd seriously advice you to stop it.

[Nerd]

Since it is done in Saudi Arabia, we are led to believe it without contemplating its validity or logic or anything for that matter. Blind faith prevails everywhere.

[MinAhlilHadeeth]

Seriously sister, this has turned more into a fight where you're trying to discredit anything I say rather then a debate. Again I'd seriously advice you to stop it.

You have taken my posts rather personally, and although I don't completely understand why (as this wasn't my intent)- I do apologise. 'Afwan.

I'm out of this discussion.

:wasalamex

[Abdul Fattah]

Since it is done in Saudi Arabia, we are led to believe it without contemplating its validity or logic or anything for that matter. Blind faith prevails everywhere.

Yeah I know, that was one of the reasons why I responded so strongly and took the topic off topic. There isn't supposed to be blind faith like this, the scholars in Arabia even claim so themselves. But sadly people are inclined to do that eitherway.

[Malaikah]

For me, its undermining the faith of its followers, I have a hard time justifying logically the need of a religious police such as the one the exist in Saudi Arabia

By the same logic doesn't having normal police undermine the faith of believers too? And in a much more serious way? I don't see anyone complaining of the audacity of police to assume that we are going to commit major crimes...

[Nerd]

By the same logic doesn't having normal police undermine the faith of believers too? And in a much more serious way? I don't see anyone complaining of the audacity of police to assume that we are going to commit major crimes...

Nobody complained, after all it is the Committee for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice. It's just a simple inquiry into the validity of such a POLICE FORCE within the ISLAMIC SHARIA. That
suppress religious practices of other religions. And also ban the sale of pets such as cats,

We do need a religious Police force, to spy on us, beat us up to make sure we carry-on our religious rituals. How else can you ensure a population full of hypocrites obeying the Islamic teachings? :?

[arabianprincess]

i guess. but its not in all suadia .. but in certian places ... my cousin .. went there n she was at another city.. n she didnt see no police she even went out .. with out the face coverin thing... but probably in the main city like el rayid... anyways... i do understand ur point .. but as it was said if u see somethin wrong then change it .. if u cant by ur hand if not talk to them if not.. with ur heart as in .. el du3a.. n thats the weakest... so it is a good thing after all...

[------]

:salamext:

This thread is going around in circles. Someone close it.

[------]

:salamext:

How else can you ensure a population full of hypocrites obeying the Islamic teachings?

I BEG YOUR PARDON?!

[Nerd]

:salamext:



I BEG YOUR PARDON?!

Isn't that why we have a Religious Police?? Is it not the logic behind creation of such a Police?

[Malaikah]

Isn't that why we have a Religious Police?? Is it not the logic behind creation of such a Police?

How can you talk like that about your fellow Muslims? You are basically accusing them of trying to promote hypocrisy in their society. How offensive!

Did you ever think that maybe they want to protect the public??? Maybe they don't want sin to become wide spread publicly, maybe they don't want people to see others sinning left right and centre and then thinking its alright.

[Er, I'm assuming you are a Muslim? If not, then just ignore...]

[Umar001]

For me, its undermining the faith of its followers, I have a hard time justifying logically the need of a religious police such as the one the exist in Saudi Arabia

And you feel the need to justify it because....

Since it is done in Saudi Arabia, we are led to believe it without contemplating its validity or logic or anything for that matter. Blind faith prevails everywhere.

Now that's just stupid, are you telling me that you need to know the reason as to why a medicine works, what process it goes through, which chemicals balance what, and everything before you trust a respected Doctor, and take your medicine.

A patient in an emergency room is brought in, Doctor wants to give him certain medicine but the patient protests insisting that he needs to know why and how they work, the patient dies before the Doctor can explain. Blind faith would have provailed there.

What the people have told you here is that, since we trust the Doctors in Saudi, we trust that they would speak against something totally un Islamic, we then hold the position that if this was an un Islamic thing they would have spoken out against it. Is that an illogical position?

[Nerd]

How can you talk like that about your fellow Muslims? You are basically accusing them of trying to promote hypocrisy in their society. How offensive!

Did you ever think that maybe they want to protect the public??? Maybe they don't want sin to become wide spread publicly, maybe they don't want people to see others sinning left right and centre and then thinking its alright.

I have mentioned before "We do need a religious Police force, to spy on us, beat us up to make sure we carry-on our religious rituals" countering the hypocritical elements within a society...

But when the same police, Suppresses the religious rituals of people following another religion thats totally another story... please refer to the link I provided regarding the matter

[Nerd]

And you feel the need to justify it because....

Because Muslim's are NOT supposed to blindly follow everything, one reason why Muslims are the weakest among all other's is the fact we have given up on our faculty of thinking.

We do require proof and justification when, a group of our brothers/sisters ban cat's as pets refer to this link http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14738358/

[Umar001]

Because Muslim's are NOT supposed to blindly follow everything, one reason why Muslims are the weakest among all other's is the fact we have given up on our faculty of thinking.

We do require proof and justification when, a group of our brothers/sisters ban cat's as pets refer to this link http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14738358/

Who is following everything blindly? That is the problem.

Can the lay man can follow scholars blindly to some extent? Or should the scholar provide every bit of evidence in all matters, such that if there is a ruling the scholar will need to teach the lay man the rules of usool and the evidences of the hadith being saheh such that he will have hours of lectures.

You disagree with that article?

[Nerd]

What the people have told you here is that, since we trust the Doctors in Saudi, we trust that they would speak against something totally un Islamic, we then hold the position that if this was an un Islamic thing they would have spoken out against it. Is that an illogical position?

How would you feel, if you live in a Jewish state and there was a Jewish religious police that prevents you from daily congregational prayers??

I simply have a hard time believing that Islam would allow such acts against fellow brothers from other religions. refer to this link http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=5869

However I respect you position :)

[Umar001]

How would you feel, if you live in a Jewish state and there was a Jewish religious police that prevents you from daily congregational prayers??

I wouldn't want to live there. But to be honest why would I expect them to cater for a person that they believe is doing wrong!?

I simply have a hard time believing that Islam would allow such acts against fellow brothers from other religions. refer to this link http://www.asianews.it/view.php?l=en&art=5869

However I respect you position :)

You mean the ones that Islam also says lie against God? I mean balance things out, sure they are our brothers but if someone lies against God are we going to be happy and let them do that? Of course not, I'd prefer they didn't do that, not because I hate them but because I care for them, I want the best for them, saying God is three or God has a son is not, in my view, whats best for them.

[Nerd]

I wouldn't want to live there. But to be honest why would I expect them to cater for a person that they believe is doing wrong!?

why wouldn't you? is it not your right to pray to the lord that you believe?

You mean the ones that Islam also says lie against God? I mean balance things out, sure they are our brothers but if someone lies against God are we going to be happy and let them do that? Of course not, I'd prefer they didn't do that, not because I hate them but because I care for them, I want the best for them, saying God is three or God has a son is not, in my view, whats best for them.

That's you opinion, but Islam is a religion of tolerance thats why Jew's and Christian's lived in harmony in the Islamic state Prophet peace be upon him built!!

[Umar001]

why wouldn't you? is it not your right to pray to the lord that you believe?

But what I believe is my right is not what others might believe is my right. Just because I believe I am right and I have rights does not mean other people have the same belief.

That's you opinion, but Islam is a religion of tolerance thats why Jew's and Christian's lived in harmony in the Islamic state Prophet peace be upon him built!!

What is my opinion? That Jews and Christians lie against God?

And to warn those (Jews, Christians, and pagans) who say, "Allāh has begotten a son (or offspring or children)." (Al-Kahf 18:4)

No knowledge have they of such a thing, nor had their fathers. Mighty is the word that comes out of their mouths [i.e. He begot (took) sons and daughters]. They utter nothing but a lie. (Al-Kahf 18:5)

Or do you mean that I lie when I say that we shouldn't be happy with someone who lies against God. I don't know, being unhappy with someone does not mean we cannot tolerate them.

[Abdul Fattah]

Selam aleykum
Al habeshi, I have to agree with Nerd here.
Doesn't no compulsion in religion hold that you shouldn't ban other religions, or arrest people for owning a bible and so on? Is that the sunnah of the prophet (peace be upon him); is that how he treated Jews and Christians in medina?
I also do disagree with the article about cats and dogs. I've had pet cats before and I don't see any problem with it as long as you take good care of 'm and allow them to run free. Especially when they go as far and say that the only reason for having pets is blind emulation of the west, thats' just ridiculous, there are many reasons to have a pet. It has many psychological advantages like keeping a light friendly mood in the house; many pets have a habit of greeting you or welcoming when you come home which makes you feel really good after a hard day; it also helps isolated lonely people; helps learning kids responsibility, and eventually learns them to cope with death (pets don't live forever) and so on...

[Umar001]

Selam aleykum
Al habeshi, I have to agree with Nerd here.
Doesn't no compulsion in religion hold that you shouldn't ban other religions, or arrest people for owning a bible and so on? Is that the sunnah of the prophet (peace be upon him); is that how he treated Jews and Christians in medina?

Wa Alaykum Salam brother,

We have to understand 'no compulsion in religion' how it was enacted by the Prophet and understood by the companions, so that leads to the next part you mention. 'Is that the sunnah of the prophet (peace be upon him)' I say, that I don't know how the prophet dealt with the Jews and Christians in depth. But we have to ask, is it possible that the Prophet allowed some stuf due to the circumstances? Maybe not driving out Jews and Christians because of the Circumstances of the time, for example, the Prophet didn't place the Qur'an into one book, due to the circumstances, he did not continue taraweeh due to the circumstances. If I am not mistaken he did not place the Ka'ba back to where the foundations lay due to circumstances.

But later on scholars done those things the Prophet did not due, although he may have had desire but didn't do due to circumstances, is it possible that removing other religions from those areas is one of those things? I don't know, but I guess scholars would. :thumbs_up

I also do disagree with the article about cats and dogs. I've had pet cats before and I don't see any problem with it as long as you take good care of 'm and allow them to run free. Especially when they go as far and say that the only reason for having pets is blind emulation of the west, thats' just ridiculous, there are many reasons to have a pet. It has many psychological advantages like keeping a light friendly mood in the house; many pets have a habit of greeting you or welcoming when you come home which makes you feel really good after a hard day; it also helps isolated lonely people; helps learning kids responsibility, and eventually learns them to cope with death (pets don't live forever) and so on...

I agree there maybe benefits, but also, do you conceed that it could be people there following the west? I think it could be, why do I say that, because when I go places like africa and so forth I see the ways animals are treated, very different from the west. Now, for people to start acting like the west, holding chihuhuas (sp) like accessories and so forth is acting like the west.

Now, I cannot tell you the situation in Saudi, I have not been there, but if there is a possibility, which I think there is, that the people there are doing it to act like the west, then shouldn't we assume the best of our Scholars and think that they know the situation on their doorstep well enough and know the principles well enough to asess the situation?

[S_87]

I have mentioned before "We do need a religious Police force, to spy on us, beat us up to make sure we carry-on our religious rituals" countering the hypocritical elements within a society...

But when the same police, Suppresses the religious rituals of people following another religion thats totally another story... please refer to the link I provided regarding the matter

yes they make mistakes without a doubr but lets stop them. who cares if drugs prostitution pornography alchohol etc is not stopped

[S_87]

Thx for your detailed post. while I agree with the general message of the sermon, and while I acknowledge that it's more general and you didn't present it as a defense in favor of this police, I 'd like to still take the time point out that while at first glance this lecture might be antagonistic to my views, it could just as well be interpreted the other way.

i wasnt speaking about the current ones in general so..

It's a fine line between helping someone and forcing someone.

im not concerned with statements like this

should policemen in saudia also be taken off the street?

[IbnAbdulHakim]

i think we can leave the christians and jews and stuff alone as long as they pay jizya.

but muslims must behave like muslims right? i mean when you enter islaam its like you enter into a promise? you basiccally signed the contract to act a certain way, so why shouldnt the people be allowed to enforce that?


thats how i see it...

[Malaikah]

then shouldn't we assume the best of our Scholars and think that they know the situation on their doorstep well enough and know the principles well enough to asess the situation?

:sl:

Exactly! Not to mention not criticising them based on an article of unknown authenticity!

[Umar001]

And you feel the need to justify it because....




Now that's just stupid, are you telling me that you need to know the reason as to why a medicine works, what process it goes through, which chemicals balance what, and everything before you trust a respected Doctor, and take your medicine.

A patient in an emergency room is brought in, Doctor wants to give him certain medicine but the patient protests insisting that he needs to know why and how they work, the patient dies before the Doctor can explain. Blind faith would have provailed there.

What the people have told you here is that, since we trust the Doctors in Saudi, we trust that they would speak against something totally un Islamic, we then hold the position that if this was an un Islamic thing they would have spoken out against it. Is that an illogical position?

I made a mistake/left something out. To continue from the bold underlined bit.

And even if there was something unislamic going on, and we don't see the Scholars speaking out against it then one could also assume that they have done this out of wisdom. I.e. when undertaking an action one has to forsee the result of this action. Example:

Imagine you have very bad Muslims, they drank alchol and killed other Muslims. Now, these bad Muslims started just drinking alchol, but we do not hear scholars speaking against this, we ask why? And the scholars say, it is the lesser evil to let these guys drink, because as long as they are drunk they wont kill Muslims, which is a greater evil.

You see what I mean? It maybe that the scholar forsee something, in their wisdom, which we do not forsee, and if we ask them they may tell us, but due to their forseeing this they wait until a better situation arises for action to be taken, they proceed to take the lesser of the two evils.

And Allah knows best.

[Nerd]

Yep, wouldn't Muslim's feel infuriated if in America, there was a Christian Police that prevents Muslims from fasting and praying in congregation? Furthermore, ain't it a joke to see Police with their Guns and baton's herding people to churches?

People, if they truly believe in the teachings of a religion they would abide by them willingly, because they love the God, and they fear the wrath of a God.

Now what happens, here when we introduce a police to make sure you pray or fast, YOU BE RATHER PRAYING AND FASTING CAUSE OF YOUR FEAR OF THE PUNISHMENT BY THE POLICE BUT NOT OF GOD. DEFEATING THE PURPOSE OF THE PRAYER.

[S_87]

^^ so you think saudi should be an open society where people can do what they want or do you think there is a limit to what they mutawween should do?

[Umar001]

Yep, wouldn't Muslim's feel infuriated if in America, there was a Christian Police that prevents Muslims from fasting and praying in congregation? Furthermore, ain't it a joke to see Police with their Guns and baton's herding people to churches?

What we do as part of our religion shouldn't be based on how we feel, everyone knows the famous quote of Ali about if religion was based on logic....

And Muslims may feel angry, but they would understand why the Christians are doing that.

People, if they truly believe in the teachings of a religion they would abide by them willingly, because they love the God, and they fear the wrath of a God.

Not really, in theory yes, but in practice people become lazy, shaytan wispers. Ask individuals, do they sin more when they are with people or when they are alone? Alot of us weak people, sin more alone, because sometimes we are down, emotionally/psychologically, and many other reasons.

Now what happens, here when we introduce a police to make sure you pray or fast, YOU BE RATHER PRAYING AND FASTING CAUSE OF YOUR FEAR OF THE PUNISHMENT BY THE POLICE BUT NOT OF GOD. DEFEATING THE PURPOSE OF THE PRAYER.

No, I mean that may happen in some cases bro, and I understand that, but we cant control people's intentions, just like the Hippocrates at the time of the Prophet done things for the wrong reasons! But there will be some Muslims who are lazy or easly mislead who when pushed or even when around practicing people do pray more often and do not commit sins, not because they worship these people but because these people remind them to fear God and Obey God. Do you not agree taht this can happen?

[Nerd]

Wa Alaykum Salam brother,

'Is that the sunnah of the prophet (peace be upon him)' I say, that I don't know how the prophet dealt with the Jews and Christians in depth. But we have to ask, is it possible that the Prophet allowed some stuf due to the circumstances? Maybe not driving out Jews and Christians because of the Circumstances of the time, for example, the Prophet didn't place the Qur'an into one book, due to the circumstances,

It saddens me to know that we have no respect for anything other than Islam even when our scripture specifically demands that we maintain mutual reverence with the other faiths. By treating each other with dignity, respect and tolerance.

[Malaikah]

I thought non-Muslims were not even allowed to live in the general Arabian peninsula in the first place?

[Umar001]

It saddens me to know that we have no respect for anything other than Islam even when our scripture specifically demands that we maintain mutual reverence with the other faiths. By treating each other with dignity, respect and tolerance.

What part of the quoted statement do you disagree with?

I respect people, for goodness sake my Mum and rest of the family are Christians, I do respect them. But there are different degrees of respect, love, hate, dislike and so forth.

I agree with what you say about treating each other in a good way, I believe in that, but do you believe in the rest of your scripture? Do you!? Do you believe what the Prophet said about Jews and Christians who hear about him but do not end up believing, what happens to them? Have you not read what Your God saysabout the Skies and their nearly shattering because of what people utter against God, that he has a son. These are the Skies and Mountains that nearly tearn and fall, yet you happily accept such sayings, without a shiver in your heart?

And they say: "The Most Beneficent (Allah) has begotten a son (or offspring or children) (as the Jews say: Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say that He has begotten a son (Iesa (Christ) ), and the pagan Arabs say that He has begotten daughters (angels, etc.))."

Indeed you have brought forth (said) a terrible evil thing.

Whereby the heavens are almost torn, and the earth is split asunder, and the mountains fall in ruins,

That they ascribe a son (or offspring or children) to the Most Beneficent (Allah).

But it is not suitable for (the Majesty of) the Most Beneficent (Allah) that He should beget a son (or offspring or children).

Are we supposed to then be loving (in the special way) to people who Allah hates and have earned His anger?

So brother, I have answered you, now you answer me that please.
and Allah knows best.

[Nerd]

“Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who believes in God the Almighty, and believes in the Day of Judgment, and leads a righteous life, will receive their due recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve" Chapter 2 The Heifer, Verse 62

[Malaikah]

From tasfir ibn kathir.

`Ali bin Abi Talhah narrated from Ibn `Abbas, about,


﴿إِنَّ الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ وَالَّذِينَ هَادُواْ وَالنَّصَـرَى وَالصَّـبِئِينَ مَنْ ءَامَنَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الاٌّخِرِ﴾


(Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day) that Allah revealed the following Ayah afterwards,


﴿وَمَن يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الإِسْلَـمِ دِينًا فَلَن يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ وَهُوَ فِى الاٌّخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَـسِرِينَ ﴾


(And whoever seeks religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers) (3:85).


This statement by Ibn `Abbas indicates that Allah does not accept any deed or work from anyone, unless it conforms to the Law of Muhammad that is, after Allah sent Muhammad . Before that, every person who followed the guidance of his own Prophet was on the correct path, following the correct guidance and was saved.

[Umar001]

“Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who believes in God the Almighty, and believes in the Day of Judgment, and leads a righteous life, will receive their due recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve" Chapter 2 The Heifer, Verse 62

Of course, I agree with that, but you dont seem to understand my question, do you agree with this:

And the Jews say: Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allahs Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!
09:30

And to warn those (Jews, Christians, and pagans) who say, "Allah has begotten a son (or offspring or children)."
No knowledge have they of such a thing, nor had their fathers. Mighty is the word that comes out of their mouths (i.e. He begot (took) sons and daughters). They utter nothing but a lie.
18:04-05

Do then those who disbelieve think that they can take My slaves (i.e., the angels, Allahs Messengers, Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), etc.) as Auliya (lords, gods, protectors, etc.) besides Me? Verily, We have prepared Hell as an entertainment for the disbelievers (in the Oneness of Allah Islamic Monotheism).
18:102

Why do you turn away, simply answer please.

[Nerd]

Of course, I agree with that, but you dont seem to understand my question, do you agree with this:

And the Jews say: Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allah. That is a saying from their mouths. They imitate the saying of the disbelievers of old. Allahs Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!
09:30

And to warn those (Jews, Christians, and pagans) who say, "Allah has begotten a son (or offspring or children)."
No knowledge have they of such a thing, nor had their fathers. Mighty is the word that comes out of their mouths (i.e. He begot (took) sons and daughters). They utter nothing but a lie.
18:04-05

Do then those who disbelieve think that they can take My slaves (i.e., the angels, Allahs Messengers, Iesa (Jesus), son of Maryam (Mary), etc.) as Auliya (lords, gods, protectors, etc.) besides Me? Verily, We have prepared Hell as an entertainment for the disbelievers (in the Oneness of Allah Islamic Monotheism).
18:102

Why do you turn away, simply answer please.

Your question was, are we supposed to love them in a special way??

Let quote what I have said here "It saddens me to know that we have no respect for anything other than Islam even when our scripture specifically demands that we maintain mutual reverence with the other faiths. By treating each other with dignity, respect and tolerance can only we co-exist."

And yes, Jew's and Christian's believe something very different from what we Muslim's believe in; Different God etc etc. However that does not mean, we should treat them like animals or slaves and suppress their rights to worship who they believe is God.

And Not me, or you have the final say on the ultimate fate of anybody. RE-read the Quran; what God had to say about this:

“Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who believes in God the Almighty, and believes in the Day of Judgment, and leads a righteous life, will receive their due recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve”

[Nerd]

What we do as part of our religion shouldn't be based on how we feel, everyone knows the famous quote of Ali about if religion was based on logic....

And Muslims may feel angry, but they would understand why the Christians are doing that.

It is part of religion to suffer and fear the Police? A police that denies basic rights for a Muslim such as his/her right to pray in congregation?

Didn't our Prophet, migrated to another country when he and his followers were denied their right to conduct their religious rituals within Mecca? Why did not Our prophet peace be upon him, stayed in Mecca instead and endured the suffering if it was indeed what our religion prescribes?

Am I wrong when I say, that Islam is a religion of TOLERANCE? which made it possible for Jews, Christians and Muslims to live in peace and harmony respecting each other?

[Umar001]

And Not me, or you have the final on their ultimate fate of anybody. RE-read the Quran; what God had to say about this:

“Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who believes in God the Almighty, and believes in the Day of Judgment, and leads a righteous life, will receive their due recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve”

You know what brother there is no point in discussing anything with you, you either dont want to or just simple dont understand.

Your question was, are we supposed to love them in a special way??

This is the question:

And they say: "The Most Beneficent (Allah) has begotten a son (or offspring or children) (as the Jews say: Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allah, and the Christians say that He has begotten a son (Iesa (Christ) ), and the pagan Arabs say that He has begotten daughters (angels, etc.))."

Indeed you have brought forth (said) a terrible evil thing.

Whereby the heavens are almost torn, and the earth is split asunder, and the mountains fall in ruins,

That they ascribe a son (or offspring or children) to the Most Beneficent (Allah).

But it is not suitable for (the Majesty of) the Most Beneficent (Allah) that He should beget a son (or offspring or children).

Are we supposed to then be loving (in the special way) to people who Allah hates and have earned His anger?

So brother, I have answered you, now you answer me that please.
and Allah knows best.

Yes or no, you haven't answered, respecting someone isn't the same as loving them!

And yes, Jew's and Christian's believe something very different from what we Muslim's believe in; Different God etc etc. However that does not mean, we should treat them like animals or slaves and suppress their rights to worship who they believe is God.

Noone said treat them like animals. Also, what right? You speak as if someone has given mankind a right to worship others besides God or worship God how they want. Rather, the rights are given by God alone. Now tell me, is God happy that they worship a man or others besides God? Did God tell them, You have the right to worship who you want!

I agree, God let them have freedom to a certain extent, just like we have freedom to a certain extent, the extent of our rights is established by God, that's what I claim to follow.

And Not me, or you have the final on their ultimate fate of anybody. RE-read the Quran; what God had to say about this:

“Surely, those who believe, those who are Jewish, the Christians, and the converts; anyone who believes in God the Almighty, and believes in the Day of Judgment, and leads a righteous life, will receive their due recompense from their Lord. They have nothing to fear, nor will they grieve”

And now you read the Qur'an, but don't read it and just interpret it on your own! Read this thread

Read what people of knowledge say.

http://www.islamqa.com/index.php?ref=2912&ln=eng

Read what your sister quoted you;

From tasfir ibn kathir.

`Ali bin Abi Talhah narrated from Ibn `Abbas, about,


﴿إِنَّ الَّذِينَ ءَامَنُواْ وَالَّذِينَ هَادُواْ وَالنَّصَـرَى وَالصَّـبِئِينَ مَنْ ءَامَنَ بِاللَّهِ وَالْيَوْمِ الاٌّخِرِ﴾


(Verily, those who believe and those who are Jews and Christians, and Sabians, whoever believes in Allah and the Last Day) that Allah revealed the following Ayah afterwards,


﴿وَمَن يَبْتَغِ غَيْرَ الإِسْلَـمِ دِينًا فَلَن يُقْبَلَ مِنْهُ وَهُوَ فِى الاٌّخِرَةِ مِنَ الْخَـسِرِينَ ﴾


(And whoever seeks religion other than Islam, it will never be accepted of him, and in the Hereafter he will be one of the losers) (3:85).


This statement by Ibn `Abbas indicates that Allah does not accept any deed or work from anyone, unless it conforms to the Law of Muhammad that is, after Allah sent Muhammad . Before that, every person who followed the guidance of his own Prophet was on the correct path, following the correct guidance and was saved.

Who out of her own mercy even highlighted the part in bold for you!

Don't come here and read one verse and leave everything else out, not respond to it, and just talk about that one verse, which you interpret in a way which is not the correct way anyway!

Now, it is clear me and you are not going to agree, it is also clear that this thread has come a long way. So we have both made our points, let us leave it at that and the individual can make their own mind up about what the verse says/means.

And Allah knows best.

Your brother,
Eesa

[Nerd]

In summary, its is alright and it is in fact Islamic to storm into a congregational prayer ceremony of any other Faith other than Islam, and bring it to a halt and persecute the mass.

It is alright and it is In fact Islamic to ban cats as pets.

And it is not undermining the faith; when a police is present to ensure that Muslims does their daily prayers and stay away from Haram things and deeds. It is in fact a method to boost faith of (hypocritical) Muslims, who need a materialistic threat to be present in order for them to obey the Islamic Sharia

Christians and Jews should never be loved by a Muslim

Allah Knows the best... May Allah Forgive us for all

[Umar001]

In summary, its is alright and it is in fact Islamic to storm into a congregational prayer ceremony of any other Faith other than Islam, and bring it to a halt and persecute the mass.

Depends.

It is alright and it is In fact Islamic to ban cats as pets.

Depends.

And it is not undermining the faith; when a police is present to ensure that Muslims does their daily prayers and stay away from Haram things and deeds. It is in fact a method to boost faith of (hypocritical) Muslims, who need a materialistic threat to be present in order for them to obey the Islamic Sharia

Everyone is rewarded according to intentions.

Christians and Jews should never be loved by a Muslim

Most stupid comment I have ever heard.

[Nerd]

Most stupid comment I have ever heard.

:-[ I was simply agreeing with you (atleast thats what I thought I was doing), since you asked me "Are we supposed to then be loving (in the special way) to people who Allah hates and have earned His anger? "

But I suppose you meant something else, would you care to enlighten me on this matter brother? :)

[Nerd]

As for the Comment, you have made about banning Cat's as pets:

“O ye who believe! Forbid not the good thing which Allah hath made ‘lawful’ for you, and transgress not. Lo Allah loveth not transgressors. Eat of that which Allah hath bestowed on you as food ‘lawful’ and good, and keep your duty to Allah in Whom ye are believers.” (Surah: Al-Ma'idha: Verse: 87-88)

Which verse in the Quran, or a Hadith specifies that Cat's are Haram as Household pets?

[Malaikah]

Nerd, my problem here is that you have no real understanding of WHY they forbade them as pets. You approach is shockingly simplistic. By the same logic you should be arguing against laws that forbid speeding on roads because there is nothing in the Quran that says we can't drive a car as fast as we want.

First go read the fatwa itself [no, a bias news article does not count] then come back and tell us why they are wrong to forbid the pets.

Anyway, it seems clear that they did not forbid is on the basis that there is something wrong with cats themselves, but the ban was based on something indirect - but we con't know that unless we read the fatwa itself.

[//-Asif-\\]

Assalaam Alaikum All.

Interesting topic of discussion, good points raised by both sides has me a bit mixed on the whole thing. I mean, doesn't the Qur'an say:

There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing.(2:256)

So there we have it, right there in our Holy Book disallowing forcing anyone to do anything in religious matters. If they are grabbing people by the collar and pushing them down to pray,threatening them with prison time,beatdowns or something of the sort it defeats the whole purpose of a Muslims duty as "just a plain warner". I don't really know if they are doing that or not, but any type of coercion with threats and gun and nightstick wielding should be unacceptable.

I think it is sort of good to have a police for things like shutting down places where alcohol is being sold or if someones out on the street selling porn or some un-Islamic act like that, but it shouldn't be abused to the point where Police walk into someones house to check if they are praying on time. That should just be encouraged, not forced.

If someone is committing sins of that kind (choosing not to fast etc.), it would be best to encourage them and talk to them. If they continue let them be punished by God personally on the Day of Judgment for his/her neglect.That's the way I see it.

[Malaikah]

There is no compulsion in religion, for the right way is clearly from the wrong way. Whoever therefore rejects the forces of evil and believes in God, he has taken hold of a support most unfailing, which shall never give way, for God is All Hearing and Knowing.(2:256)

As far as I know, this refers to people entering a religion, not to fulfilling the commands of the religion.

So there we have it, right there in our Holy Book disallowing forcing anyone to do anything in religious matters.

But did not the Messenger of Allah say something along the lines of commanding children to pray when they reach the age of 7 and by the age of ten, if they don't pray then hit them [lightly]?

If someone is committing sins of that kind (choosing not to fast etc.), it would be best to encourage them and talk to them. If they continue let them be punished by God personally on the Day of Judgment for his/her neglect.That's the way I see it.

In the privacy of their own homes, perhaps. But what right do they have to eat in public during Ramadhan when they should be fasting?

[barney]

Wouldnt "No Compulsion in Religion" cover it?

It seems hard to reconcile the Verse that says this with the behaviour of the MFPOV&POV in Iran and under the Taliban, where showing an ankle brings on beatings and torture.

[Malaikah]

As I already mentioned no compulsion in religion refers to entering Islam, not practising Islam.

And claims of torture for showing ankles is pure exaggeration.

[barney]

And claims of torture for showing ankles is pure exaggeration.

AFP, March 2, 1999


KABUL, March 2 (AFP) - Taliban soldiers here Tuesday forced some two dozen youths to get a haircut, while the religious police beat women for showing their ankles, witnesses said.

The soldiers herded 25 young men into a center near the Ministry of Justice where barbers went to work on their heads, they said.

"They took me inside and gave me a haircut without any explanation," Ahmad Jawid told AFP.

Rubbing his freshly mowed head, Jawid said each was made to pay 3,000 Afghanis (around eight cents) to barbers employed by the center.

Cobblers at a nearby pavement said the haircut operation had been going on for several days now and people avoided passing through the area.

A stick-wielding policeman was seen jumping off a van and lashing two passing women on their backs with a one-meter (yard) tree branch, while pointing toward their ankles.

The officer then entered garment shops and beat two other women in the same fashion before chasing them out of the market.

The women did not say a word as other shoppers and shopkeepers looked on.

The Islamic militia has banned western fashion and barred women from jobs and education, besides making it compulsory for them to cover themselves from head to toe outside the home.

The religious police of the Ministry for Promoting Virtue and Preventing Vice keeps a constant vigil to ensure compliance with the regulations by the citizens in Kabul, which was once a liberal city.

[crayon]

I'm not going to get into this discussion, because if I do I'll never come out.

I just wanted to say that it is not haram to keep cats as pets, but it is haram to sell or buy them. I actually only just found this out a while ago.

"It is permissible to keep cats but it is not permissible to buy or sell them; they may be given as gifts or given away. That is because of the hadeeth of Abu’l-Zubayr who said: “I asked Jaabir about the price of dogs and cats. He said, ‘The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) forbade that.’” (Narrated by Muslim, 1569). "

islamq&a

[wth1257]

:salamext:

I dont even know why people are complaining to be honest. I think its kool

There is nothing cool about innocent girls being killed in a fire because they wern't wearing the Hajib when they tried to get out and the poloice forceing them to go back.

I'm not a Muslim, but I do have great respect for Islam and it's beauty, such a beautifull religion should not be represented by the Saudi family and their police, not to cast judgement on the entire family, but many of them do horrid things.

[wth1257]

AFP, March 2, 1999


KABUL, March 2 (AFP) - Taliban soldiers here Tuesday forced some two dozen youths to get a haircut, while the religious police beat women for showing their ankles, witnesses said.

The soldiers herded 25 young men into a center near the Ministry of Justice where barbers went to work on their heads, they said.

"They took me inside and gave me a haircut without any explanation," Ahmad Jawid told AFP.

Rubbing his freshly mowed head, Jawid said each was made to pay 3,000 Afghanis (around eight cents) to barbers employed by the center.

Cobblers at a nearby pavement said the haircut operation had been going on for several days now and people avoided passing through the area.

A stick-wielding policeman was seen jumping off a van and lashing two passing women on their backs with a one-meter (yard) tree branch, while pointing toward their ankles.

The officer then entered garment shops and beat two other women in the same fashion before chasing them out of the market.

The women did not say a word as other shoppers and shopkeepers looked on.

The Islamic militia has banned western fashion and barred women from jobs and education, besides making it compulsory for them to cover themselves from head to toe outside the home.

The religious police of the Ministry for Promoting Virtue and Preventing Vice keeps a constant vigil to ensure compliance with the regulations by the citizens in Kabul, which was once a liberal city.

:raging:

"True piety is thid:
to beleive in God, and the last day,
the angels, the Book, and the Prophets,
to give of one's substance, however cherished,
to kinsmen and orphans,
the needy, the traveller, beggars,
and to ransom the slave,
to perform the prayer, and to pay the alms."