/* */

PDA

View Full Version : Quantity or Quality



Thinker
02-25-2009, 11:13 AM
I read a post on this forum which is a clip from a Muslim convert where he waxed lyrical about Muslim land and the Taliban. The author of that piece is David Myatt. That post prompted me to investigate who David Myatt is and that in turn posed the question for me as to whether Islam would be better served if it had a vetting process for would be converts? I also wonder how comfortably some Muslims are with the concept of the Ummah which some believe should provide blind support for anything any Muslim says or does just because he is a Muslim?

David Wulstan Myatt aka Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt is a British Muslim convert. He is a former neo-nazi, he was the first leader of the British National Socialist Movement and was described as the "ideological heavyweight" behind Combat 18. Together with Simon Keeler aka Sulayman Keeler he is a leading light in Ahlus Sunnah wal Jamaah, a British Islamist organization which replaced Al-Muhajiroun, a designated and banned terrorist organization.

I wonder whether people like Myatt take up Islam because it provides the framework (in particular the Ummah described above) enabling them to pursue a way if life which gives them what they need rather than because they have ‘seen the light?’

And, like I said above, I also wonder whether Muslims would be better served if they had a vetting service for Muslim converts i.e. someone who examines their mental state, knowledge if Islam and reasons for converting before allowing them into the fold?

http://www.davidmyatt.info/
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Thinker
02-25-2009, 02:46 PM
Whilst thinking about my questions above and reading through some posts here other questions occurred to me . . . . .

Is it possible for a good Muslim to be a bad person? (By ‘good Muslim’ I mean one who follows Islamic teachings and by ‘bad person’ I mean a person who does bad things to others).

Answering my own question . . . From what I have learned here, I have formed the view that Muslims believe that the Qu’ran and sunnah provide all the answers to all the questions on how a Muslim should lead his/her life. And, as Muslims believe that is the words of God, it must be ‘good.’ It would logically seem to follow that if Muslims follow Islamic teachings in the manner in which they live their life then all actions must be good and consequently it would not be possible for a good Muslim to be a bad person. If we then identify a Muslim who perpetrates some horrific act (e.g. someone teaching and coercing a child to slit the throat of a captive) does that make him a bad person and someone who is excommunicated. Or is my understanding of what I have learned wrong?
Reply

Thinker
02-25-2009, 02:47 PM
Another question. . . .

Do Muslims consider any Muslim no matter what they say or do preferable to a non-Muslim?
Reply

Thinker
02-25-2009, 02:53 PM
Is Jamal Miftah:
1. a good Muslim and a good person
2. a good Muslim and a bad person
3. a bad Muslim and a good person
4. a bad Muslim and a bad person

Now living in Tulsa, Miftah had a column published in the Tulsa World newspaper that called on all Muslims to speak out against al-Qaeda and terrorism. For this act, he was kicked out of his local mosque (the al-Salam mosque) by its leaders.

http://frontpagemag.com/articles/Rea...0-506C8C069723
Reply

Welcome, Guest!
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
aamirsaab
02-25-2009, 02:57 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
I wonder whether people like Myatt take up Islam because it provides the framework (in particular the Ummah described above) enabling them to pursue a way if life which gives them what they need rather than because they have ‘seen the light?’
It's a multitude of reasons for different people. I for instance follow Islam because:
A) I agree with what it teaches
B) The teachings have proven to be better than any other teachings I have seen or learnt through human interaction (i.e not turning the other cheek, being an obnoxious scumbag etc)
C) I practice the teachings and I benefit sociologically and pscyhologically.

So basically, I win.

Is it possible for a good Muslim to be a bad person? (By ‘good Muslim’ I mean one who follows Islamic teachings and by ‘bad person’ I mean a person who does bad things to others).
To be a good muslim is to be a good person. You cannot be a good muslim and be a bad person. Nice and easy.

Another question. . . .

Do Muslims consider any Muslim no matter what they say or do preferable to a non-Muslim?
Nope. Blind loyalty is BS. Being a muslim doesn't mean you get respect instantly - it's not one of those instant-win scratch cards you know. Plenty of muslims I know of that are right prats and don't have my respect (don't worry, it's none of you losers on LI :p). There are also plenty of non-muslims that I know that DO have my respect (for many reasons which I shall not write...cus I'm lazy).

Edit:
Is Jamal Miftah:
1. a good Muslim and a good person
2. a good Muslim and a bad person
3. a bad Muslim and a good person
4. a bad Muslim and a bad person

Now living in Tulsa, Miftah had a column published in the Tulsa World newspaper that called on all Muslims to speak out against al-Qaeda and terrorism. For this act, he was kicked out of his local mosque (the al-Salam mosque) by its leaders.
He'd fit number 1 category based on what you have written. However, like all things, these matters are not always as simple as they seem. I don't have enough background info on Miftah and his situation so I cannot comment further in relation to him being kicked out of his masjid. But, I will err on the side of caution and end with: not everything is black and white.
Reply

Thinker
02-25-2009, 04:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
To be a good muslim is to be a good person. You cannot be a good muslim and be a bad person. Nice and easy.
OK, so does it follow then, in the example I have given above, where a Muslim perpetrates some horrific act (e.g. someone teaching and coercing a child to slit the throat of a captive) he can no longer call himself a Muslim as he is acting contrary to Islamic teachings and is excommunicated? Or, can you be a bad person and remain a Muslim? And if bad people are allowed to remain and call themselves Muslim can they expect the support of other Muslims just because they are Muslim?
Reply

aamirsaab
02-25-2009, 04:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
OK, so does it follow then, in the example I have given above, where a Muslim perpetrates some horrific act (e.g. someone teaching and coercing a child to slit the throat of a captive) he can no longer call himself a Muslim as he is acting contrary to Islamic teachings and is excommunicated?
Well it's not for me to say if that person is excommunicated. However, coercing a child to slit the throat of a captive is a pretty big moral sin!

Or, can you be a bad person and remain a Muslim?
You can get bad muslims and you can get good muslims. Just like you can get bad hindus, jews, sikhs or good hindus, jews, sikhs etc.

And if bad people are allowed to remain and call themselves Muslim can they expect the support of other Muslims just because they are Muslim?
As much as they could were they a member of any other religious demonination.
Reply

Dawud_uk
02-26-2009, 05:57 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Well it's not for me to say if that person is excommunicated. However, coercing a child to slit the throat of a captive is a pretty big moral sin!


You can get bad muslims and you can get good muslims. Just like you can get bad hindus, jews, sikhs or good hindus, jews, sikhs etc.


As much as they could were they a member of any other religious demonination.
:sl:

the prophet muhammad (saws) allowed mujahideen as young as 9 in the armies, is that a pretty big moral sin also?

our determination of what is good and bad is what Allah loves and hates, what is taught to us by the Quran and sunnah not what the disbelievers with their ration have decided for themselves.

:sl:
Reply

aamirsaab
02-26-2009, 08:59 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
:sl:

the prophet muhammad (saws) allowed mujahideen as young as 9 in the armies, is that a pretty big moral sin also?
....
:sl:
Participating in a war and slitting the throat of a captive are two very different things.
Reply

Dawud_uk
02-26-2009, 09:29 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
Participating in a war and slitting the throat of a captive are two very different things.
but killing the prisoners of war is permissable and in accordance with the sunnah, i dont see a difference.
Reply

crayon
02-26-2009, 09:46 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
but killing the prisoners of war is permissable and in accordance with the sunnah, i dont see a difference.
I thought prisoners of war were supposed to be treated well, as well as any regular person, given food, clothes, etc. How is killing them treating them well?
Reply

Dawud_uk
02-26-2009, 10:45 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by crayon
I thought prisoners of war were supposed to be treated well, as well as any regular person, given food, clothes, etc. How is killing them treating them well?
:sl:

the amir of a given battle or if he is available to seek a ruling from, the khalif, has several choices with the prisoners of war.

he can free them, randsom them, or kill them. for the women and children he has the choice of freeing, randsoming or enslaving.

if you doubt the permissability of killing the prisoners of war see how Rasoolullah (saws) dealt with the traitorous jews after the battle of the trench and what the ruling of islam is in accordance with them.

or how after one battle Rasoolullah (saws) assigned Ali (ra) to kill the prisoners, putting another sahabah as his assistant so if Ali (ra) tired the job would still get done.

also read an account of the campaigns of khalid bin al waleed (ra) to see how the sahabah dealt with those who opposed islam after the death of Rasoolullah (saws). there understanding is better than our own on what is or isnt permissable under the rulings on jihad and how khalid bin al waleed attempted to turn the tigres red with blood from all the prisoners who were beheaded after one of the battles.
Reply

crayon
02-26-2009, 10:55 AM
Wa alaikum asalam

if you doubt the permissability of killing the prisoners of war see how Rasoolullah (saws) dealt with the traitorous jews after the battle of the trench and what the ruling of islam is in accordance with them.
And that's the key word. Not every prisoner of war is a criminal, or is hostile, or is lying and deceiving.

also read an account of the campaigns of khalid bin al waleed (ra) to see how the sahabah dealt with those who opposed islam after the death of Rasoolullah (saws). there understanding is better than our own on what is or isnt permissable under the rulings on jihad and how khalid bin al waleed attempted to turn the tigres red with blood from all the prisoners who were beheaded after one of the battles.
Do you mean this one?
The Prophet sent Khalid bin Al-Walid to the tribe of Jadhima and Khalid invited them to Islam but they could not express themselves by saying, "Aslamna (i.e. we have embraced Islam)," but they started saying "Saba'na! Saba'na (i.e. we have come out of one religion to another)." Khalid kept on killing (some of) them and taking (some of) them as captives and gave every one of us his Captive. When there came the day then Khalid ordered that each man (i.e. Muslim soldier) should kill his captive, I said, "By Allah, I will not kill my captive, and none of my companions will kill his captive." When we reached the Prophet, we mentioned to him the whole story. On that, the Prophet raised both his hands and said twice, "O Allah! I am free (or innocent or not responsible for) from what Khalid has done."

So the killing does not apply to all captives, it only applies to certain people, in certain circumstances. It is the exception, not the norm.

As much as I dislike this site, here's a link to it, points 2 and 4 discuss this.
http://www.answering-christianity.co...ers_of_war.htm
Reply

Dawud_uk
02-26-2009, 11:04 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by crayon
Wa alaikum asalam

And that's the key word. Not every prisoner of war is a criminal, or is hostile, or is lying and deceiving.

Do you mean this one?
The Prophet sent Khalid bin Al-Walid to the tribe of Jadhima and Khalid invited them to Islam but they could not express themselves by saying, "Aslamna (i.e. we have embraced Islam)," but they started saying "Saba'na! Saba'na (i.e. we have come out of one religion to another)." Khalid kept on killing (some of) them and taking (some of) them as captives and gave every one of us his Captive. When there came the day then Khalid ordered that each man (i.e. Muslim soldier) should kill his captive, I said, "By Allah, I will not kill my captive, and none of my companions will kill his captive." When we reached the Prophet, we mentioned to him the whole story. On that, the Prophet raised both his hands and said twice, "O Allah! I am free (or innocent or not responsible for) from what Khalid has done."

So the killing does not apply to all captives, it only applies to certain people, in certain circumstances. It is the exception, not the norm.

As much as I dislike this site, here's a link to it, points 2 and 4 discuss this.
http://www.answering-christianity.co...ers_of_war.htm
:sl:

no that wasnt the instance i was referring to, but his campaigns in iraq and syria where he would come to a town or army, giving them three choices, islam, jiziya or the sword.

none of the companions differed in his giving this choice, they were a people at war with islam, completely different circumstances to what you are saying.

besides which, i am not sure this is even appropiate to the discussion as the captive the taliban killed was a spy and judged upon that so even according to your own analysis on when someone can be killed it would still apply would it not?

:sl:
Reply

crayon
02-26-2009, 11:13 AM
Wa alaikum asalam

Well of course, that's what the prophet peace be upon him did as well, to live under muslim rule nonmuslims must pay the jizyah, or else they are considered hostile.

I wasn't discussing what the taliban did, I was just talking about general cases. In the battles before a muslim state was established, and even after if they payed the jizyah, regular non muslim soldiers that were captured were not to be killed.

And yes, if the person was a spy, I guess he would come under the hostile category.
Reply

aamirsaab
02-26-2009, 12:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
but killing the prisoners of war is permissable and in accordance with the sunnah, i dont see a difference.
It depends on the circumstance ultimately.

However, we are missing the vital point of Thinker's question. He asked if it was bad to coerce a 9 year old into slittting a captives throat. As a trainee psychologist, I say it is very bad!

If that captive is indeed to suffer his/her throat being slit (for whatever reason), it should most certainly NOT be done by coercing a child!

I seriously doubt there was anything in the history of Islam (i.e sunnah, hadith etc) that would allow one to coerce a CHILD into slaying a captive. This is the crux of the matter - not if captives can be slayed, but can one coerce a child into slaying a captive (answer is NO).
Reply

Thinker
02-26-2009, 03:38 PM
Actually I asked several questions at one time which may have caused confusion.

The questions I asked was to help me try to understand some things which to me appear anomalous.

The first stated what I believe to be true and that is that anyone can declare themselves Muslim unlike Christianity and Judaism where your have to go through a process and satisfy certain requirements before an official of that religion allows you to become a ‘member.’ So what? Because it impacts on my other questions . . .

1. Are Muslims obliged to support / defend the actions of every other Muslim? I asked that question because I have seen comments from Muslims on this forum criticising Muslim members who have criticised other Muslims saying that Muslims shouldn’t criticise the actions of other Muslims.

2. The question then occurred to me, apart from saying I am Muslim, what must a Muslim do to be accepted by other Muslims as a Muslim? Let’s say for example that I am a closet Nazi and I hate Jews as much as Adolf Hitler did and I decide that, in the political and social climate that exists today, I am going to get nowhere in my quest to kill Jews whilst I am dressed as a Nazi so I declare myself a Muslim and set about my personal Jihad on Jews under the banner of Islam. Surely that can’t be allowable? But if there is no structure within Islam to excommunicate people who bring the religion into disrepute and Muslim can kill anyone they like on their chosen Sheik’s interpretation of the Qu’ran and if every other Muslim is required to support and defend their actions isn’t that a problem to Islam?
Reply

aamirsaab
02-26-2009, 03:48 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
....
2. The question then occurred to me, apart from saying I am Muslim, what must a Muslim do to be accepted by other Muslims as a Muslim? Let’s say for example that I am a closet Nazi and I hate Jews as much as Adolf Hitler did and I decide that, in the political and social climate that exists today, I am going to get nowhere in my quest to kill Jews whilst I am dressed as a Nazi so I declare myself a Muslim and set about my personal Jihad on Jews under the banner of Islam. Surely that can’t be allowable?
You are correct - it wouldn't be allowed. Killing innocents is a sin in Islam. A very big sin!

But if there is no structure within Islam to excommunicate people who bring the religion into disrepute and Muslim can kill anyone they like on their chosen Sheik’s interpretation of the Qu’ran and if every other Muslim is required to support and defend their actions isn’t that a problem to Islam?
We, as muslims, aren't required to support or defend the actions of all muslims. Whilst unity is encouraged in Islam, so to is standing up against injustice (forbid what is evil etc) - especially if it is coming from within.
Reply

doorster
02-26-2009, 03:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by crayon
I thought prisoners of war were supposed to be treated well, as well as any regular person, given food, clothes, etc. How is killing them treating them well?
I believe you thought correctly (Free the captives as an act of kindness or ransom, such as in exchange for your men in their captivity. There is no third option)

Muhammad Asad born Leopold Weiss explains al-Quraan 47:4 thusly:
NOW WHEN you meet [in war] those who are bent on denying the truth, [Sc., "and on barring [others] from the path of God" - thus connecting with verse 1 and laying down the fundamental condition which alone justifies physical warfare: namely, a defence of the Faith and of freedom (cf. in this connection see note on 2:190). In other words, when "those who are bent on denying the truth" try to deprive the Muslims of their social and political liberty and thus to make it impossible for them to live in accordance with the principles of their faith, a just war (jihad) becomes allowable and, more than that, a duty. The whole of the above verse relates to war actually in progress (cf. note on the first part of 2:191); and there is no doubt that it was revealed after 22:39-40, the earliest Quranic reference to physical warfare.] smite their necks until you overcome them fully, and then tighten their bonds; [Lit., "tighten the bond". According to almost all the commentators, this expression denotes the taking of prisoners of war. In addition, it may also refer to any sanctions or safeguards which would make it unlikely that the aggression could be resumed in the foreseeable future.] but thereafter [set them free,] either by an act of grace or against ransom, so that the burden of war may be lifted: [Lit., "so that (hatta) the war may lay down its burdens". The term "ransom" comprises also, in this context, a mutual exchange of prisoners of war (Zamakhshari, quoting an opinion of Imam Ash-Shafi).] thus [shall it be]. And [know that] had God so willed, He could indeed punish them [Himself]; but [He wills you to struggle] so as to test you [all] by means of one another. [I.e., so as to enable the believers to prove by actual deeds the depth of their faith and their readiness for self-sacrifice, and to enable the aggressors to realize how wrong they have been, and thus to bring them closer to the truth.] And as for those who are slain in God's cause, never will He let their deeds go to waste.
smite their necks: could be taken as severing their communications with their command and control centres
Reply

Uthman
02-26-2009, 03:58 PM
Regarding Justice, the Holy Qur'an says:

"O ye who believe! Stand out firmly for justice, as witnesses to Allah, even as against yourselves, or your parents, or your kin, and whether it be (against) rich or poor: for Allah can best protect both. Follow not the lusts (of your hearts), lest ye swerve, and if ye distort (justice) or decline to do justice, verily Allah is well-acquainted with all that ye do." [An-Nisa 4:35]
Reply

Muezzin
02-26-2009, 04:13 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
And, like I said above, I also wonder whether Muslims would be better served if they had a vetting service for Muslim converts i.e. someone who examines their mental state, knowledge if Islam and reasons for converting before allowing them into the fold?
Doesn't really work like that. To become Muslim, one need only recite the Shahadah (i.e. there is no God but Allah and Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him is His messenger), knowing and believing in what one is saying. It's not really a question of allowing someone into the fold, if you see what I mean.

The rest of your questions have been answered in the preceding posts with much more skill and clarity than I could offer.
Reply

Dawud_uk
02-26-2009, 04:32 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by aamirsaab
It depends on the circumstance ultimately.

However, we are missing the vital point of Thinker's question. He asked if it was bad to coerce a 9 year old into slittting a captives throat. As a trainee psychologist, I say it is very bad!

If that captive is indeed to suffer his/her throat being slit (for whatever reason), it should most certainly NOT be done by coercing a child!

I seriously doubt there was anything in the history of Islam (i.e sunnah, hadith etc) that would allow one to coerce a CHILD into slaying a captive. This is the crux of the matter - not if captives can be slayed, but can one coerce a child into slaying a captive (answer is NO).
:sl:

and i dont see any coercion, only encouraging. if i lived in such places i would encourage my children and others to join the jihad and take part in all the military actions they were physically capable of doing.

i agree if a 9yo didnt want to do it then dont force them, if they were willing but needing a little encouragement then that is different and will help teach them necessary skills and mental attitudes just like a kitten being given a half killed mouse to play with.

:sl:
Reply

Dawud_uk
02-26-2009, 04:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Actually I asked several questions at one time which may have caused confusion.

The questions I asked was to help me try to understand some things which to me appear anomalous.

The first stated what I believe to be true and that is that anyone can declare themselves Muslim unlike Christianity and Judaism where your have to go through a process and satisfy certain requirements before an official of that religion allows you to become a ‘member.’ So what? Because it impacts on my other questions . . .

1. Are Muslims obliged to support / defend the actions of every other Muslim? I asked that question because I have seen comments from Muslims on this forum criticising Muslim members who have criticised other Muslims saying that Muslims shouldn’t criticise the actions of other Muslims.

2. The question then occurred to me, apart from saying I am Muslim, what must a Muslim do to be accepted by other Muslims as a Muslim? Let’s say for example that I am a closet Nazi and I hate Jews as much as Adolf Hitler did and I decide that, in the political and social climate that exists today, I am going to get nowhere in my quest to kill Jews whilst I am dressed as a Nazi so I declare myself a Muslim and set about my personal Jihad on Jews under the banner of Islam. Surely that can’t be allowable? But if there is no structure within Islam to excommunicate people who bring the religion into disrepute and Muslim can kill anyone they like on their chosen Sheik’s interpretation of the Qu’ran and if every other Muslim is required to support and defend their actions isn’t that a problem to Islam?
1. to a certain degree yes, and to a certain degree no. i will support my brothers against the disbelievers 100% though even if i dont necessary agree with them 100%.

2. regarding this point, if someone has said their shahadah, fulfils its conditions and avoids its negations they are muslim, they could well be munafiq in their heart but i cant suspect them of this without proof.

saying that there is an islamic concept of excommunication, or rather an different process to achieve the same thing. it is called takfir where someone is declared outside the fold of islam and those muslims agreeing with such a fatwah would then boycott that person other than to try to talk them into returning to islam and they could even be killed if they have been warned and understood such a warning.
Reply

doorster
02-26-2009, 04:55 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Muezzin
Originally Posted by Thinker


And, like I said above, I also wonder whether Muslims would be better served if they had a vetting service for Muslim converts i.e. someone who examines their mental state, knowledge if Islam and reasons for converting before allowing them into the fold?
Doesn't really work like that. To become Muslim, one need only recite the Shahadah (i.e. there is no God but Allah and Muhammad peace and blessings be upon him is His messenger), knowing and believing in what one is saying. It's not really a question of allowing someone into the fold, if you see what I mean.

The rest of your questions have been answered in the preceding posts with much more skill and clarity than I could offer.
:sl:
nonetheless would it NOT be wise to not take them as our leaders the moment they change their allegiance from their old creed to new and such (esp. those whose rhetoric is exactly same as before except that their target audience has changed somewhat)?

:w:
Reply

Muezzin
02-26-2009, 04:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by doorster
:sl:
nonetheless it would it NOT be wise, not no take them as our leaders the moment they change their allegiance from neo-Nazism to HT and such ?

:w:
It would certainly be wise to vet who we allow to lead us.

And that sounded so blindingly, ridiculously obvious, I can't believe I typed it. Do people not run background checks on these guys?
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
02-26-2009, 05:02 PM
when a person is a muslim, he disassociates himself from displeasing Allaah. If this muslim is constantly doing unislamic acts then he should be punishes and reminded to repent and turn back to Allaah.

A muslim will ALWAYS be valued higher in the eyes of the ummah due to the fact that he isnt doing the one greatest sin, associating partners with Allah, but that doesnt mean such a muslim will be let loose and free to cause whatever mayhem he desires.


Honestly Thinker, read the lives of the Prophets/companions, its very self explanatory. You might understand more then you had hoped to.
Reply

Abdullah-Kareem
02-26-2009, 05:37 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
I read a post on this forum which is a clip from a Muslim convert where he waxed lyrical about Muslim land and the Taliban. The author of that piece is David Myatt. That post prompted me to investigate who David Myatt is...

http://www.davidmyatt.info/
I think that you are projecting kaaffir ideas and assumptions onto Islam and Muslims, and particularly onto ibnmyatt.

Perhaps in your investigation you did not find that the past of a revert is irrelevant.

"Asking for details of a persons past and wanting to know what sins they might have committed when they were ignorant about Islam is not right at all. Allah covers peoples' sins and loves to see them covered (i.e. not dragged out into the open). So long as a person has repented, his sins have been wiped out. Islam deletes whatever came before, so why should we ask questions that will only embarrass people? Allah accepts people's repentance without their having to confess or expose their sins to any other person. A number of the sahabah [companions of the Prophet] had committed adultery and murder repeatedly, or had buried infant girls alive, or stolen things, but when they entered Islam they were the best of people. No one needs to be reminded of a shameful past; it is over and done with, and Allah is the All-Forgiving, Most Merciful." Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

Perhaps in your investigation you did not find that we Muslims judge by what is apparent, and that no "investigation" of the person's intentions are necessary or even desired.

Perhaps in your investigation you did not find what ibn Myatt himself had to say on the matter on his reversion:

Many of the kuffar - and some Muslims, imitating the kuffar for whatever reason - have, on hearing about or learning about my reversion to Islam, not only made many assumptions about me, but they have also, almost without exception, described me according to their own prejudiced (and Western) assumptions. Thus, according to them I have simply "swapped one extremism for another", and have moved from one totalitarian "ideology" to another - from National-Socialism to "radical Islam". Thus do they reveal not only prejudice, but also arrogance and ignorance. Prejudice, because there is a pre-judgement based on existing assumptions and/or upon a failure to use Aql, a failure to perceive - a failure to-be - beyond one's hawah; Arrogance, because they assume or believe that the Western, kaffir, world-view and values, are correct and universal; Ignorance, because they are in ignorance not only of the true nature of Deen Al-Islam but also of their own true nature, as fallible human beings, who are but creations of Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala and who but briefly live, in the dunya, in a vast Cosmos, but who have an opportunity of eternal life in Jannah.

Those who understand correctly, those who use Aql, will understand my reversion (Alhamdulillah) as a gift from Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala: a dis-covery of Tawheed; a move toward a knowing of the numinous as the numinous is. Thus, it is rejection of Tawagheet and a simple, unaffected, reliance on, and remembrance of, only Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala. Thus, all the terms that the kuffar (and those imitating them) may use to describe this reversion, and me, are irrelevant.

"You only do we obey and to You only do we turn for help." 1:5 Interpretation of Meaning

"The 'Ibaad of Ar-Rahman [Allah] are those who walk on earth in humility." 25:63 Interpretation of Meaning
Reply

doorster
02-26-2009, 06:03 PM
Many of the kuffar - and some Muslims, imitating the kuffar for whatever reason - have, on hearing about or learning about my reversion to Islam, not only made many assumptions about me, but they have also, almost without exception, described me according to their own prejudiced (and Western) assumptions. Thus, according to them I have simply "swapped one extremism for another", and have moved from one totalitarian "ideology" to another - from National-Socialism to "radical Islam". Thus do they reveal not only prejudice, but also arrogance and ignorance. Prejudice, because there is a pre-judgement based on existing assumptions and/or upon a failure to use Aql, a failure to perceive - a failure to-be - beyond one's hawah; Arrogance, because they assume or believe that the Western, kaffir, world-view and values, are correct and universal; Ignorance, because they are in ignorance not only of the true nature of Deen Al-Islam but also of their own true nature, as fallible human beings, who are but creations of
my reversion (Alhamdulillah) is a gift from Allah Subhanahu wa Ta'ala
is it not reminding you of conversion of Saul into Paul then what he proceeded to do to religion?

was what he did before "seeing the light" much different to what he did afterwards?
Reply

Abdullah-Kareem
02-26-2009, 06:28 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by doorster
was what he did before "seeing the light" much different to what he did afterwards?
What has he done afterwards that contradicts his Islam - that contradicts his submission to only Allah azza wa jal? He has publicly renounced all the tahgoot he formerly accepted - such as and in particular nationalism and racism.

While it is true he may, in the opinion of some Muslims, incline toward some positions that some other Muslims may not themselves agree with - such as supporting the Taliban - it is also true that, in the opinion of some other Muslims (millions?), there is nothing incorrect in supporting those Mujahideen who are fighting the kuffaar who have invaded a Muslim land.

Since you highlighted the term, is it not true to say that - from the perspective of Islam - that "totalitarianism", of whatever sort, is a kaaffir idea, a Taghoot, and that to interpret Islam, or the position of some Muslims, in terms of such a kaaffir idea is incorrect?

Thus, when the kuffaar speak and write of "totalitarianism" in relation to Islam and Muslims they are interpreting it and us incorrectly due to their ignorance of Islam.
Reply

Thinker
02-26-2009, 06:35 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
i will support my brothers against the disbelievers 100% though even if i dont necessary agree with them 100%.
Why?
Reply

جوري
02-26-2009, 06:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Actually I asked several questions at one time which may have caused confusion.

The questions I asked was to help me try to understand some things which to me appear anomalous.

The first stated what I believe to be true and that is that anyone can declare themselves Muslim unlike Christianity and Judaism where your have to go through a process and satisfy certain requirements before an official of that religion allows you to become a ‘member.’ So what? Because it impacts on my other questions . . .

1. Are Muslims obliged to support / defend the actions of every other Muslim? I asked that question because I have seen comments from Muslims on this forum criticising Muslim members who have criticised other Muslims saying that Muslims shouldn’t criticise the actions of other Muslims.
lol.. I got dizzy reading that-- hmmn -- have you read this?
http://www.islamicboard.com/advice-s...e-dilemma.html

if your actions are overtly bad, then it doesn't matter what your religious affiliations! I have encountered many awful Muslims as I have of every other group!
2. The question then occurred to me, apart from saying I am Muslim, what must a Muslim do to be accepted by other Muslims as a Muslim?
Being Muslim isn't about acceptance by your cohorts, rather whether God will accept your deeds.. we are told that there are some Muslim whose prayer and other 'good deeds' won't be accepted on the day of recompense--

Let’s say for example that I am a closet Nazi and I hate Jews as much as Adolf Hitler did and I decide that, in the political and social climate that exists today, I am going to get nowhere in my quest to kill Jews whilst I am dressed as a Nazi so I declare myself a Muslim and set about my personal Jihad on Jews under the banner of Islam. Surely that can’t be allowable?
I think it is easier to be a Nazi than a Muslim now a days, given the current climate against Muslims no? There is nothing in Islam that states, go on hating Jews.. But we are indeed at war with the colonial settler state of Israel. If I were a civilian in Palestine, I wouldn't hesitate to defend my country by whatever means. It is very difficult to conjure up sympathies for Israelis --everything considered!

But if there is no structure within Islam to excommunicate people who bring the religion into disrepute and Muslim can kill anyone they like on their chosen Sheik’s interpretation of the Qu’ran and if every other Muslim is required to support and defend their actions isn’t that a problem to Islam?
oh? How do you figure?
Do read this
THE KHAWARIJ AND THE SECTS DERIVED FROM THEM



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You're browsing:
Sahih Muslim
~> The Book of Zakat (Kitab Al-Zakat)
~> Chapter 45: exhortation to kill the khwarij
Number of hadeeths in this subject: 11, showing 1 - 10
This subject's pages: 1 - 2 -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jump to hadeeth : 2328 2329 2330 2331 2332 2333 2334 2335 2336 2337
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
up Book 5, Chapter 45, Number 2328
Narrator:

'Ali said: Whenever I narrate to you anything from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) believe it to be absolutely true as falling from the sky is dearer to me than that of attributing anything to him (the Holy Prophet) which he never said. When I talk to you of anything which is between me and you (there might creep some error in it) for battle is an outwitting. I heard the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him) as saying: There would arise at the end of the age a people who would be young in age and immature in thought, but they would talk (in such a manner) as if their words are the best among the creatures. They would recite the Qur'an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass through the religion as an arrow goes through the prey. So when you meet them, kill them, for in their killing you would get a reward with Allah on the Day of judgmelat.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
up Book 5, Chapter 45, Number 2329
Narrator:

A hadith like this has been narrated through another chain of transmitters.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
up Book 5, Chapter 45, Number 2330
Narrator:

This hadith has been narrated on the authority of A'mash with the same chain of transmitters, but (these words) are not there:" They pass through the religion clean as the arrow passes through the prey."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
up Book 5, Chapter 45, Number 2331
Narrator:

'Abida narrated from 'Ali that he made a mention of the Khwarij (and in this connection) said that there would be a person among them with a defective hand. (or with a short hand) or a fleshy hand. If you were to exercise restraint, I would tell you what Allah has promised to those who would kill them on the order of Mubarrmad (may peace be upon him). I (the narrator) said to him: Did you hear it from Muhammad: (may peace be upon him)? He (Hadrat 'Ali) said: Yes, by the Lord of the Ka'ba; Yes, by the Lord of the Ka'ba; yes, by the Lord of the Ka'ba.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
up Book 5, Chapter 45, Number 2332
Narrator:

'Abida said: I will not narrate to you except what I heard from him (Hadrat 'Ali), and then he narrated from him.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
up Book 5, Chapter 45, Number 2333
Narrator:

Zaid b. Wahb Jahani reported and he was among the squadron which wall under the command of Ali (Allah be pleased with him) and which set out (to curb the activities) of the Khwarij. 'Ali (Allah be pleased with him) said: 0 people, I heard the Messeinger of Allah (may peace be upon him) say: There would arise from my Ummah a people who would recite the Qur'an, and your recital would seem insignificant as compared with their recital, your prayer as compared with their prayer, arid your fast, as compared with their fast. They would recite the Qur'an thinking that it sup- ports them, whereas it is an evidence against them. Their prayer does not get beyond their collar bone; they would swerve through Islam just as the arrow passes through the prey. If the squadron which is to encounter them were to know (what great boon) has been assured to them by their Apostle (may peace be upon him) they would completely rely upon this deed (alone and cease to do other good deeds), and their (that of the Khwarij) distinctive mark is that there would be (among them) a person whose wrist would be without the arm, and the end of his wrist would be fleshy like the nipple of the breast on which there would be white hair. You would be marching towards Muawiya and the people of Syria and you would leave them behind among your children and your property (to do harm). By Allah, I believe that these are the people (against whom you have been commanded to fight and get reward) for they have shed forbidden blood, and raided the animals of the people. So go forth in the name of Allah (to fight against them). Salama b. Kuhail mentioned that Zaid b. Wahb made me alight at every stage, till we crossed a bridge. 'Abdullah b. Wahb al-Rasibi was at the head of the Khwarij when we encountered them. He ('Abdullah) said to his army: Throw the spears and draw out your swords from their sheaths, for I fear that they would attack you as they attacked you on the day of Harura. They went back and threw their spears and drew out their swords, and people fought against them with spears and they were killed one after another. Only two persons were killed among the people (among the army led by Hadrat 'Ali) on that day. 'Ali (Allah be pleased with him) said: Find out from among them (the dead bodies of the Khwarij) (the maimed). They searched but did not find him. 'Ali (Allah be pleased with him) then himself stood up and (walked) till he came to the people who had been killed one after another. He ('Ali) said: Search them to the last, and then ('Ali's companions) found him (the dead body of the maimed) near the earth. He (Hadrat 'Ali) then pronounced Allah-O-Akbar (Allah is the Greatest) and then said, Allah told the Truth and His Messenger (may peace be upon him) conveyed it. Then there stood before him 'Abida Salmani who said: Commander of the Believers, by Allah, besides Whom there is no god but He, (tell me) whether you heard this hadith from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him). He said: Yes, by Allah, besides Whom there is no god but He. He asked him to take an oath thrice and he took the oath.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
up Book 5, Chapter 45, Number 2334
Narrator:

'Ubaidullah b. Abu Rafi', the freed slave of the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him), said: When Haruria (the Khwarij) set out and as he was with 'Ali b. Abu Talib (Allah be pleased with him) they said," There is no command but that of Allah." Upon this 'Ali said: The statement is true but it is intentionally applied (to support) a wrong (cause). The Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him described their characteristics and I found these characteristics in them. They state the truth with their tongue, but it does not go beyond this part of their bodies (and the narrator pointed towards his throat). The most hateful among the creation of Allah us one black man among them (Khwarij). One of his hand is like the teat of a goat or the nipple of the breast. When 'Ali b. Abu Talib (Allah be pleased with him) killed them, he said: Search (for his dead body). They searched for him, but they did not find it (his dead body). Upon this he said: Go (and search for him). By Allah, neither I have spoken a lie nor has the lie been spoken to me. 'Ali said this twice and thrice. They then found him (the dead body) in a rain. They brought (his dead) body till they placed it before him (Hadrat 'Ali). 'Ubaidullah said: And, I was present at (that place) when this happened and when 'Ali said about them. A person narrated to me from Ibn Hanain that he said: I saw that black man.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
up Book 5, Chapter 45, Number 2335
Narrator:

Abu Dharr reported Allah's Messenger (may peace be upon him) as saying: Verily there would arise from my Ummah after me or soon after me a group (of people) who would recite the Qar'an, but it would not go beyond their throats, and they would pass clean through their religion just as the arrow passes through the prey, and they would never come back to it. They would be the worst among the creation and the creatures. Ibn Samit (one of the narrators) said: I met Rafi' b. 'Amr Ghifari, the brother of Al-Hakam Ghifari and I said: What is this hadith that I heard from Abu Dharr, i. e. so and so? -and then I narrated that hadith to him and said: I heard it from the Messenger of Allah (may peace be upon him).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
up Book 5, Chapter 45, Number 2336
Narrator:

Yusair b. 'Amr reported that he inquired of Sahl b. Hunaif: Did you hear the Apostle of Allah (may peace be upon him) making a mention of the Khwarij? He said: I heard him say (and he pointed with his hand towards the east) that these would be a people who would recite the Qur'an with their tongues and it would not go beyond their collar bones. They would pass clean through their religion just as the arrow passes through the prey.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
up Book 5, Chapter 45, Number 2337
Narrator:

http://www.jannah.com/cgi-bin/librar...book=5&chap=45


another set..

There is a word of truth in what they say but their ends are devious" - Hazrat 'Ali (r.a)
The Khwarij and the Puritanical Revolt
"There will come a time when a group of people will leave our ranks. They will recite the Qur�an with fervour and passion but its spirit will not go beyond their throats. They will leave our ranks in the manner of an arrow when it shoots from its bow." - al-Hadis

by Motiur Rahman

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



"Are men to arbitrate in the affairs of Allah? There can be no arbitration except by Allah."
Origins
After the Battle of Hunain the Prophet (s.aw) gave preference to a number of non-Muslims when distributing the booty in order to attract them to Islam. A man named Hurqus rebuked the Prophet (s.a.w) by saying: "Be just in your distribution O Messenger of Allah." The Prophet was incensed by this remark and responded by saying: "Then who can be called just if I am not just?" To this the Prophet added: "There will come a time when a group of people will leave our ranks. They will recite the Qur�an with fervour and passion but its spirit will not go beyond their throats. They will leave our ranks in the manner of an arrow when it shoots from its bow."

The first antiestablishment tendency in Islam was instigated by a group of people known as the Khwarij in the first century of Islam during the lifetimes of the eminent Sahaba of the Prophet (s.a.w) of the likes of �Ali ibn Abu Talib (r.a.) and Mu�wayiah (r.a) amongst many others. To the Khwarij, the standard of the Sahaba were not good enough (Allah protect us from such accusations), that the Sahaba were not ruling according to the Book of Allah, that legitimate rule belongs to Allah, and that arbitration is a pre-Islamic practice. The term Khwarij (literally 'rebels') first referred to a group of dissidents who rebelled against the leadership of Hazrat 'Ali (r.a) following the Battle of Siffin (ah 37/ad 658) between Hazrat 'Ali and Mu'awiya (r.a), and later evolved into a distinct antiestablishment tendency.

Urwa ibn Udaiyya, along with 12,000 others, seceded from the party of Hazrat Ali (r.a) after the Battle of Siffin. They elected Abdullah ibn Wahb al-Rasibi and Hurqus ibn Zuhair as their leaders. Al-Rasibi was known for his fervour in reciting the Qur�an, nicknamed Dhu al-Thafanat (the one whose kneecaps appeared like two humps of a camel due to his prostration in Salaah). At the time of arbitration between Hazrat �Ali and Hazrat Mu�wayiah (r.a), Urwa ibn Udaiyya said: "Are men to arbitrate in the affairs of Allah? There can be no arbitration except by Allah." In his support he quoted the Qur�an: "The prerogative of command rests with none but Allah. He declares the truth and he is the best of judges" (6:57). Hazrat �Ali commented: �There is a word of truth in what they say but their ends are devious�.

This first group of rationalists were concerned with theological speculations, they were concerned with the nature of legitimate leadership and the conditions for salvation, and the 'status of sinners'. At this point in history, in the interpretation of the Sahaba (r.a) it was unanimously held that the Khwarij had to be tackled, by both parties of Hazrat �Ali and Hazrat Muwayia (r.a), as none considered the Muslims outside the fold of Islam except the Khwarij.

Later, from among the group of rationalists emerged another, the Qadariyya which advocated the freedom of the human will in their doctrine. Opposed to this doctrine were the Jabriyya (determinists), led by Jahm ibn Safwan (d. ah 128/ad 746), who taught that no attributes could be predicated of God except for creation, power and action, since any attribute that could be predicated of creatures was not fit to be predicated of the Creator. Jahm�s teaching went against the Qur�an and the Sunnah, Muslims hold that Allah has ninety-nine (implying endless) attributes. Also, contrary to the Qur�an and Sunnah, Jahm held the Qur�an to be created and not the literal Word of Allah.

All these rationalist groups have some characteristics in common: tawhid and �adl or God�s Oneness and Justice. In their search for tawhid and �adl reason had taken the primary position over revelation; the Mu�tazila had even gone so far as to formulate a creed based upon Greek philosophical reasoning and interpreting the Qur�an and the Sunnah in such a way to make it fit into their line of thinking contravening the apparent meanings of the primary sources of Islam, in the name of the science of ta�wil (interpretation). The Mu�tazila had claimed that reason could explain everything, that revelation were only a back-up for reason, and only through reason we can find validity and proper justification for the Divine Revelation (wahy). This rationalistic project in itself is a bida or heresy � the imposition of human concepts on Divine Justice, the understanding of God through human reasoning � was something far removed from the practise of the Sahaba (r.a) whose motto was �We hear and obey�.

Among the issues the rationalists both from the Khwarij and the Mu�tazila are concerned with is the status of the grave sinner. In this field what distinguishes the Khawarij from the Mu�tazila is that the former hold that any person who committed a grave sin automatically became a non-believer, thus forfeiting all rights and protections afforded by Islamic law, while the latter believe that such a person was in an intermediate position, being neither a Muslim nor an unbeliever. With this charge of unbelief the Khwarij and the proto-Mu�tazila even during the first century at the times of the Sahaba (r.a) have terrorized Muslims and waged war against them, plundering persons and property.

Characteristics of the Khwarij

Those who fight against the Muslims and falsely declare the Muslims as "disbelievers" (takf�r), "pagans" (tashr�k), "misguided" (tadl�l), "innovators" (tabd�`), "pantheists" (ittih�d�, hul�l�), "grave-worshippers" (qub�r�), "cultists" (turuq�), and so forth.

The following are the common between different Khwarij groups:

1) The declaration of kufr (unbelief) on the Sahaba e.g. Hazrat �Ali, Uthman, 'Amr ibn al-`As, Abu Musa al-`Ashari, Mu'awiya, and all those who consented to the process of arbitration.


2) That all perpetrators of major sins were permanently destined for hell.

3) The declaration of either kufr or shirk upon those who differed with them.

4) That it was obligatory to overthrow an oppressive ruler by force.

It is important to remember that to falsely charge a Muslim outside the fold of Islam takes one outside of Islam himself. Allah save us from such sins and accusations. Amin!

http://www.ijma.org.uk/features/khawarij.html
Reply

doorster
02-26-2009, 06:49 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abdullah-Kareem
What has he done afterwards that contradicts his Islam - that contradicts his submission to only Allah azza wa jal? He has publicly renounced all the tahgoot he formerly accepted - such as and in particular nationalism and racism.

While it is true he may, in the opinion of some Muslims, incline toward some positions that some other Muslims may not themselves agree with - such as supporting the Taliban - it is also true that, in the opinion of some other Muslims (millions?), there is nothing incorrect in supporting those Mujahideen who are fighting the kuffaar who have invaded a Muslim land.

Since you highlighted the term, is it not true to say that - from the perspective of Islam - that "totalitarianism", of whatever sort, is a kaaffir idea, a Taghoot, and that to interpret Islam, or the position of some Muslims, in terms of such a kaaffir idea is incorrect?

Thus, when the kuffaar speak and write of "totalitarianism" in relation to Islam and Muslims they are interpreting it and us incorrectly due to their ignorance of Islam.
before I reply to this I am going to try to find out; which member it is that this is second ID of. and if it is not it is a strange coincident that first post these people make is, of this nature, just plain unbelievable. I have, on this site, been bitten by such people many times before; where they egg me on using one ID, then go on to "refute" me using another one.

BTW. I already made an effort to build and post here, a comprehensive picture of this "reformed" neoNazi but I was stopped in my tracks by Muhammad the Admin (as off-topic), last time he deleted around 6 posts of mine regarding this new imaam of "Muslims" mr myatt. what assurance are you willing to provide me that it will not be a wasted effort if I were to take you on ?

if you get banned during an argument, you can always use another ID but If I get the boot, I have to wait for the ban to end before I come back (except in helpdesk).
Reply

Abdullah-Kareem
02-26-2009, 06:51 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Why?
Because that is the Muslim thing to do...

"You who believe [in Allah and The Last Day]: do not befriend nor rely upon those outside [your Deen] for they will lead you astray desiring as they do to harm you: and although hatred issues forth from their mouths what they conceal in their hearts is far worse. Here are Signs, for those who have Aql." 3, 118
Reply

Thinker
02-26-2009, 07:41 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Abdullah-Kareem
Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
i will support my brothers against the disbelievers 100% though even if i dont necessary agree with them 100%.

why?

Because that is the Muslim thing to do...
Would you be offended if a non Muslim discriminated against a Muslim on the basis of his/her religion?
Reply

Hamayun
02-26-2009, 07:54 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Would you be offended if a non Muslim discriminated against a Muslim on the basis of his/her religion?
Look around you mate.... that is already the case.

'Discrimination' is a very small word for what the Muslims are enduring right now.

I think the people of Palestine have a little more than "discrimination" to worry about.

If you mean would I be offended if a person from another faith preferred to hang out with people of his own faith? No.. I wouldn't be offended at all.
Reply

Thinker
02-26-2009, 10:16 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Dawud_uk
there is an islamic concept of excommunication, or rather an different process to achieve the same thing. it is called takfir where someone is declared outside the fold of islam and those muslims agreeing with such a fatwah would then boycott that person other than to try to talk them into returning to islam and they could even be killed if they have been warned and understood such a warning.

Takfir – Interesting – can you (or anyone else) tell me has any Muslim who has been designated as a terrorist / radical / extremist been declared takfir?

OR can you tell me anyone who has been declared takfir?

Thanks
Reply

Thinker
02-26-2009, 10:19 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Hamayun
Look around you mate.... that is already the case.

'Discrimination' is a very small word for what the Muslims are enduring right now.

I think the people of Palestine have a little more than "discrimination" to worry about.

If you mean would I be offended if a person from another faith preferred to hang out with people of his own faith? No.. I wouldn't be offended at all.
Then you will no doubt agree with me that everyone should be treated equally without regard to their colour, ethnicity or creed and so a Muslim should not give preference to a Muslim over another?
Reply

Uthman
02-26-2009, 10:50 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
OR can you tell me anyone who has been declared takfir?
I think takfir was declared upon Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses by Ayatollah Khomeini.

However, I'm not sure.
Reply

Dawud_uk
02-27-2009, 07:13 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Why?
because the last prophet of God commanded me to support me brother whether he be oppressed or the oppressor, when asked how do you help him if he is the oppressor then Muhammad (pbuh) said 'by holding his hand'

so if a muslim is going to do something i disagree with i will try to stop him myself, but i would never turn him over to the kuffar, never.

in matters of war, alliance, friendship even, to side with a disbeliever against a believer is something that will take you outside of islam.

note for the muslims, sheikh anwar al-awlaki has covered this topic in his blog recently in speaking out against those who are siding with the kuffar and calling for alliegence and alliance with them.
Reply

Dawud_uk
02-27-2009, 07:19 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Takfir – Interesting – can you (or anyone else) tell me has any Muslim who has been designated as a terrorist / radical / extremist been declared takfir?

OR can you tell me anyone who has been declared takfir?

Thanks
there have been incorrect classifications of takfir against some believers on this issue by ignorant people, some of whom have repented since that time alhamdulillah (all praise be to God) when their errors were pointed out to them.

you see even if i incorrectly killed 1 person, or 1 million people, that doesnt take me outside of islam.

but i worship one idol, then i become a disbeliever, even if i dont believe it to be permissable, and there is no compulsion like someone holding a gun to my head etc.

some sins are worse than others in the eyes of God.
Reply

Dawud_uk
02-27-2009, 07:22 AM
format_quote Originally Posted by Osman
I think takfir was declared upon Salman Rushdie, author of The Satanic Verses by Ayatollah Khomeini.

However, I'm not sure.
others scholars as well, not just the rafadiyyah,

it is obvious, the man insults Rasoolullah (saws), insults the mothers of the believers, he is a filthy liar and murteed, may Allah cause his lying tongue to swell up and rot.

the only question is whether he was muslim in the first place, he came from a muslim family in name at least.
Reply

Hamayun
02-27-2009, 06:33 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Then you will no doubt agree with me that everyone should be treated equally without regard to their colour, ethnicity or creed and so a Muslim should not give preference to a Muslim over another?
Yes all humans should be treated equally but a person's character has a lot to do with it.

I will not treat a drug addict who spends his childs school money on drugs with the same respect as someone who is noble and generous...

So in theory a good Muslim who lives his life according to Islam would therefore have my respect as opposed to a drunk yob causing trouble in the streets.

Hope that answers your question.
Reply

Thinker
02-27-2009, 06:52 PM
So in summary of the above - is this correct (please correct me if I have misunderstood):

Islam allows, even encourages, anyone to become Muslim (which is done by simply reciting a verse). Islam does not care about the previous history of a convert and as soon as the verse is recited the convert can expect that other Muslims will not condemn any action they may take against a non Muslim including murder. And a convert will not be excommunicated for any crime (including murder and including the murder of Muslims) but may be excommunicated if they write anything negative about Islam of other Muslims.

(And before some of you jump all over me I am talking in general as I know some of you would condemn murder)
Reply

Dawud_uk
02-27-2009, 07:59 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
So in summary of the above - is this correct (please correct me if I have misunderstood):

Islam allows, even encourages, anyone to become Muslim (which is done by simply reciting a verse). Islam does not care about the previous history of a convert and as soon as the verse is recited the convert can expect that other Muslims will not condemn any action they may take against a non Muslim including murder. And a convert will not be excommunicated for any crime (including murder and including the murder of Muslims) but may be excommunicated if they write anything negative about Islam of other Muslims.

(And before some of you jump all over me I am talking in general as I know some of you would condemn murder)
:sl:

yes we encourage all to become muslim, which you do by reciting with understanding and conviction a simple statement in arabic.

yes we dont care about your past, ariel sharon could wake up tomorrow and if he embraced islam i would want to invite him to my house, feed him, give him a warm welcome (lets say his welcome would be less cosy if he didnt embrace islam first)

and i might condemn murder (if that is what it truly was), but i would never take the side of a disbeliever against him even if he was a murderer.

but the point is you are not declared a non muslim for such acts, but there are other acts which you might consider minor (which we dont) which will take you out of islam.
Reply

doorster
02-27-2009, 08:30 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
So in summary of the above - is this correct (please correct me if I have misunderstood):

Islam allows, even encourages, anyone to become Muslim (which is done by simply reciting a verse). Islam does not care about the previous history of a convert and as soon as the verse is recited the convert can expect that other Muslims will not condemn any action they may take against a non Muslim including murder. And a convert will not be excommunicated for any crime (including murder and including the murder of Muslims) but may be excommunicated if they write anything negative about Islam of other Muslims.

(And before some of you jump all over me I am talking in general as I know some of you would condemn murder)
you are one selective piece of work and always manage to blame Islam, no matter what.

Regardless of what any deviants or your stooges say and gave you that Idea, the fact remains that Murder is a sin which does not take one out of Islam, but saying that it is NOT a sin and encouraging it and glorifying it does make one a kafir

What better way to defame jihad, than to make defending one's country a sin joining armed forces an act of tribalism, then when the enemy takes over you tell them that terrorising people is the jihad

My kind of jihad is having strong Armed forces/Ministry of defence/A good up-to date defence industry; all this must be number 1 priority of a Muslim State (peace thru strength)

which you people do not like either and discourage by creating a whole country full of preachers whose sole job seems to be to do your bidding
Reply

Thinker
02-28-2009, 08:19 PM
I accept your criticism and apologies if I have caused offence.

I have to admit, that it in order to learn, it was unnecessary of me to summaries what I had learned here and I ask myself why I did that?

I am old (60) and old enough to have learned that human beings are very easily convinced of anything (absolutely anything) if their interaction is confined solely to others who espouse the same view. There are numerous examples throughout the world and throughout history. An example is North Korea, where the people ascribe God like status to the man who has brought immeasurable hardship upon them. I wonder sometimes if some of the Muslims on this forum live in such a rarefied environment where they interact only with those who share their views. (And by interact I mean discuss and debate those views and alternative views). I believe it is healthy for people to subject their views to rigorous critical and objective analysis and anybody who believes that what they believe is ‘right’ should not be afraid to discuss and defend their views. With regards to my summary when I said that a ‘convert can expect that other Muslims will not condemn any action they may take against a non Muslim including murder’ I knew it would be contentious but I felt justified in saying it because of the numerous occasions I have noted members here chastising others for criticising Muslim e.g. the Taliban. I also accept that the majority of members here would not support the actions of groups like the Taliban.

I believe in equality. I believe that nobody should discriminate against or show preference towards another because of their colour, race, religion, gender etc.. I also believe that people should have the freedom to question and demonstrate the actions of their leaders and any other group (free speech). I am a citizen of a country which enshrines those belief in law. I would like to live in a world where countries and peoples could settle their disputes by talking and if they couldn’t they would wage war according to the Geneva convention, unfortunately that seems unlikely.

Some of the Muslims here want, for themselves, the freedoms and respect for their human rights that I speak of above. That’s OK, but I can’t see any honour in living in the land of the kaffur for those very reasons and at the same time suggesting that because Muhammed, at the battle of the trench, killed prisoner and enslaved their wives and children then it is acceptable for Muslims to do the same today.
Reply

Thinker
02-28-2009, 08:24 PM
Chuck . . . . . You gave me negative feedback, I’d much appreciate knowing what I said that caused you to do that?
Reply

Chuck
02-28-2009, 08:39 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
Chuck . . . . . You gave me negative feedback, I’d much appreciate knowing what I said that caused you to do that?
Multiple possible reasons:
(1) I was in the mood.
(2) After reading your post, that comes to my mind. Just passing my opinion.
(3) Might the way you react to negative posts. I've gotten negative reps so many times, never bothered. Repeat after me "this is just an internet forum" ;)
Reply

جوري
02-28-2009, 08:58 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
I accept your criticism and apologies if I have caused offence.

I have to admit, that it in order to learn, it was unnecessary of me to summaries what I had learned here and I ask myself why I did that?
I am old (60) and old enough to have learned that human beings are very easily convinced of anything (absolutely anything) if their interaction is confined solely to others who espouse the same view.
I really doubt that-- That is a classification by your person of entire peoples with respect to what you believe is their worth and values-- you understand neither or at least your understanding isn't from their point of view.. a point of view is shaped by many things, geo-political, social, and economic situations --When you approach from the outside in, your views are hardly objective-- I call your attention of course to how Mao Xedong thought he was wise doing the peasants a big favor and his policies were the demise of 15 million of them! further more reaching a mature age (of reason) doesn't necessarily denote as well reaching wisdom.

There are numerous examples throughout the world and throughout history. An example is North Korea, where the people ascribe God like status to the man who has brought immeasurable hardship upon them.
How is this an analogy to Islam or Muslims?

I wonder sometimes if some of the Muslims on this forum live in such a rarefied environment where they interact only with those who share their views. (And by interact I mean discuss and debate those views and alternative views). I believe it is healthy for people to subject their views to rigorous critical and objective analysis and anybody who believes that what they believe is ‘right’ should not be afraid to discuss and defend their views.
There is a difference between sharing views and correcting misinformation and having a pre-conceived idea of what people are like and then presenting it as facts. Muslims aren't confined to an occupation, a situation or a location. We just like everyone else come from all over, from China -- Six of Ming Dynasty founder Zhu Yuanzhang's most trusted generals were Muslim, including Lan Yu to modern day Americans such as national Geographic photgrapher,Thomas J. Abercrombie, noted adventurer, photographer and writer for National Geographic magazine to mathematicians like Dr. Jeffrey Lang, to former Jews like Leopold Weiss who translated the Quran and politicians and philosophers like Roger Garaudy-- etc etc etc
You see you end up yourself a victim of what you accuse others of being by having preconceived notions rather than actual facts!

With regards to my summary when I said that a ‘convert can expect that other Muslims will not condemn any action they may take against a non Muslim including murder’ I knew it would be contentious but I felt justified in saying it because of the numerous occasions I have noted members here chastising others for criticising Muslim e.g. the Taliban. I also accept that the majority of members here would not support the actions of groups like the Taliban.
So what? people are allowed to have an opinion that differs from your own. Who is to say that your principles as idealistic as they are, are what is correct? You yourself are a victim of mass hysteria that labels without understanding. Do you think for instance a person wakes up in the morning feeling 'evil' and thus to take it out on the world becomes a suicide bomber? that is a very comfortable belief.. there is always a drive behind actions.. You might not think it justified but then again, you are not living their lives? no?

I believe in equality. I believe that nobody should discriminate against or show preference towards another because of their colour, race, religion, gender etc.. I also believe that people should have the freedom to question and demonstrate the actions of their leaders and any other group (free speech). I am a citizen of a country which enshrines those belief in law. I would like to live in a world where countries and peoples could settle their disputes by talking and if they couldn’t they would wage war according to the Geneva convention, unfortunately that seems unlikely.
If your country of citizenship is England, then I suggest you take a second look at the principles which it enjoined for centuries before asserting such a statement. England has a very barbaric history that can't be swept under the rug because of 20~30 yrs of apparent change of heart!

Some of the Muslims here want, for themselves, the freedoms and respect for their human rights that I speak of above. That’s OK, but I can’t see any honour in living in the land of the kaffur for those very reasons and at the same time suggesting that because Muhammed, at the battle of the trench, killed prisoner and enslaved their wives and children then it is acceptable for Muslims to do the same today.
Really Muhammad enslaved wives and children? from what little gem did you get this info?

I challenge you by the way to prove that Jews existed at all in Arabia or that this battle took place if it weren't for Islamic sources- and I'd be careful who I quote (secondary sources a la mode of Daniel pipes) given that they would be the first to deny that Abraham (P) was in Yathrib at all, it would actually contradict their biblical history even more, but I guess that would be acceptable to assert a moot political motive

cheers
Reply

doorster
02-28-2009, 09:03 PM
format_quote Originally Posted by Thinker
I accept your criticism and apologies if I have caused offence.

I have to admit, that it in order to learn, it was unnecessary of me to summaries what I had learned here and I ask myself why I did that?

............ I also accept that the majority of members here would not support the actions of groups like the Taliban.

I believe in equality. I believe that nobody should discriminate against or show preference towards another because of their colour, race, religion, gender etc.. I also believe that people should have the freedom to question and demonstrate the actions of their leaders and any other group (free speech). I am a citizen of a country which enshrines those belief in law. I would like to live in a world where countries and peoples could settle their disputes by talking and if they couldn’t they would wage war according to the Geneva convention, unfortunately that seems unlikely.

.
I accept your criticism and apologies if I have caused offence.
Thank you!


peace!
edit:
.........I can’t see any honour in living in the land of the kaffur for those very reasons and at the same time suggesting that because Muhammed, at the battle of the trench, killed prisoner and enslaved their wives and children then it is acceptable for Muslims to do the same today
:( You've done it to me yet again (I'll need to read every word, dot and comma twice over lest I become victim of trickery)
Reply

Thinker
03-01-2009, 02:22 PM
Skye,



Thank you the lengthy reply to my post. I’d like to explore a statement I made and your reply.

I said, “Some of the Muslims here want, for themselves, the freedoms and respect for their human rights that I speak of above. That’s OK, but I can’t see any honour in living in the land of the kaffur for those very reasons and at the same time suggesting that because Muhammad, at the battle of the trench, killed prisoner and enslaved their wives and children then it is acceptable for Muslims to do the same today”.

You replied, “Really Muhammad enslaved wives and children? from what little gem did you get this info?

I challenge you by the way to prove that Jews existed at all in Arabia or that this battle took place if it weren't for Islamic sources- and I'd be careful who I quote (secondary sources a la mode of Daniel pipes) given that they would be the first to deny that Abraham (P) was in Yathrib at all, it would actually contradict their biblical history even more, but I guess that would be acceptable to assert a moot political motive.”

Before I reply to that I’d like to expand on some of the other points I made which I might not have explained clearly.

I suggested that human beings are very easily convinced of anything (absolutely anything) if their interaction with others is restricted and gave the example of the population of North Korea. I wasn’t directing this observation at Muslims in particular but at people in general and I was suggesting that interaction with alternative views is healthy and isolation from those views is not healthy. Of course when trying to convince human beings of something to put God into the equation magnifies the result. (You will no doubt know of various religious cults that have committed mass suicide because they had been convinced of, what to those outside, seemed ridiculous. For example the Heaven's Gate members believed that the planet Earth was about to be recycled, and that the only chance to survive was to leave it immediately. So they all committed suicide so that they could be taken up onto a passing space ship). Maybe they were right and we all missed the opportunity to get onto the passing ship and maybe they were wrong. The important point is that they had been deprived of interaction with others and alternative arguments; in their case that was extremely unhealty.

On the subject of human beings (and Muslims, being human beings, are subject to the same frailties) you may have noted in your life that we have great difficulty in denying our clan. Example – I live in a town where there are two football teams, people ascribe their allegiance to one or the other. Once a person defines themselves as a follower of team A, they feel they must support and defend their team and when team A is losing Or for any reason they find it very dificult to switch their allegiance to team B. In my experience that applies to the vast majority of people but of course there are some who will switch teams every year to the cuurent most popular team. Again the suggestion I make here is magnified when it comes to colour, clan or creed.

So what is the point I am trying to make? I am trying to make several points. First I suggest we cannot truly know what we believe to be true is true until we know who we are; we are human beings who, if isolated from alternative views, can be easly convinced of almost anything and we find it difficult to accept an alternative view if it means denying allegiance to our clan.

I suggested the possibility that some of the Muslims on this forum might live in an environment where they interact only with those who share their views and for the reasons stated above I believe that isn’t healthy.
Reply

Thinker
03-01-2009, 02:23 PM
Skye,

On - Killing prisoner and enslaving wives and children.

You asked “Really Muhammad enslaved wives and children? from what little gem did you get this info?”

I got this info from this forum! I first came across it in the thread ‘On Dealing with Muslims who differ with Our Ijtihad’ started by Umm ul-Shaheed. In her first post on that thread she referred to God ordering the killing of the Bani Quraidhah. I asked here where I could find the verse/hadith referring to this suggestion and my posts were deleted!

The next reference to this act came in a post by Dawud_uk n page one of this thread when he said. “if you doubt the permissibility of killing the prisoners of war see how Rasoolullah (saws) dealt with the traitorous Jews after the battle of the trench and what the ruling of Islam is in accordance with them”.

I did some research on the fate of the Bani Quraidhah and found numerous references to it but scant detail other than the Bani Quraidhah were a Jewish tribe who had agreed to not to support Muhammad’s enemies and they betrayed that agreement. The post in the thread from Umm ul-Shaheed suggested that God had ordered their killing, either way it appears from what I can find (and they are all Muslims sources) that all the men were killed and their wives and children enslaved. Now I’m not making a big issue out of 7th Century armies killing prisoners and enslaving wives and children, that was how it was then, the issues I was trying to get my head around was the suggestion the God ordered the killing (Umm ul-Shaheed) and the suggestion that because Muhammad had done this it would be following the sunnah to do the same thing today (Dawud_uk).

Open to the opinions of others, I always accept the possibility that my information might be wrong. Were the Bani Quraidhah men killed; were their wives and children enslaved; did God order that punishment? Perhaps someone could point me towards a reliable source.


Regards
Reply

جوري
03-01-2009, 05:48 PM
Greetings and thanks for the positive rep:

here is fast read on banu quryzah..
my reservations are, that you'll have to read it from an Islamic source or not bother read it all, since the only record of the event is recorded by Muslim Historians.. everything else will be based on someone's opinion and whatever personal motives or feelings..
also with all due respect to brs. and srs here, as I haven't personally examined what was written and can't judge one way or the other.. that the best method to go about understanding an historical even is to either ask a trusted historian or a scholar especially when it comes to jurisprudence.
Islamic Jurisprudence is really a big deal.. to make the assimilation like you going to the doctor for your headache or asking your neighbor of his history of migraines... surely you can see the folly in that?

Note to mods:
I had this saved in my personal files and can't find the original refutation, if someone could link to it, I'd appreciate it..


Quote:
Originally Posted by north_malaysian


I've heard some rumours saying that there are many jews in medina became Muslims.... is it true?

Yes it is true. The notable example is Abdullah ibn Salaam the chief Rabbi. Others like Mukhtayriq upheld their peace treaty with the Muslims and did not break it as the rest of their tribe did. When the Muslims surrounded Banu Qurayzah some Jews came out and disavowed their tribe members who had breached the covenant, so these people were all allowed to go free.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lavikor201


If you were a Jew in Medina you were either brutally executed or sold into slavery with all of your property being given to a Muslim.

Blatantly false. Banu Qaynuqa and Banu Nadir, the two largest tribes, left the city without execution or enslavement. If the Muslims were really out to get the Jews as you claim, then why did Prophet Muhammad pbuh make a peace treaty as soon as he moved in? Why was the Jewish synagogue and bayt al-midras, their institute of learning, preserved? Why did he differentiate between the tribes and not attack them all at once? Why was Banu Qaynuqa allowed to leave in 2AH and Banu Nadir the following year in 3AH? Why was it another two years later after the Banu Qurayzah betrayed the Muslims at the Battle of Al-Khandaq, that they suffered slavery and execution? Sorry, but your anti-islamic drivel crumbles in light of historical facts. You completely ignore the peace treaty, the historical battles, the attempted assasination, the alliance with the coalition to annihilate the Muslims. You haven't responded to a single one of the points I've made.
Quote:
The only ones that weren't were the few traitors to Judaism who converted.
The real traitors were the one's who broke their peace treaty, who allied with pagans against fellow monotheists, and resorted to treachery and stabbing the Muslims in the back.

Quote:
Ibn Ishaq describes what happens as follows
How amusing! You begin right in the middle of the conflict, conveniently after the part of the story where the Jewish tribes continually betrayed the Prophet and he was lenient with them, allowing them to leave the city unharmed. You post only the part that takes place after the Banu Qurayzah allied with the coalition to annihilate the Muslims. I didn't think that you would resort to such manifest distortions, lavikor. Shameful, really.
Quote:
The spoils of battle, including the enslaved women and children of the tribe, were divided up among Muhammad's followers, with Muhammad himself receiving a fifth of the value.(as khums, to be used for the public good).
When you copied this from wikipeda you left out the highlighted part. The fifth goes to the state to be spent for the benefit of the community.

Now let's put things into perspective by comparing with what the Bible says.

Moses and the Israelites kill all the males and take the women and children as slaves
Numbers 31. And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, 2. Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites...3. And Moses spake unto the people, saying, Arm some of yourselves unto the war, and let them go against the Midianites, and avenge the Lord of Midian...6. And Moses sent them to the war, a thousand of every tribe...7. And they warred against the Midianites, as the Lord commanded Moses; and they slew all the males. 8. And they slew the kings of Midian, beside the rest of them that were slain; namely, Evi, and Rekem, and Zur, and Hur, and Reba, five kings of Midian: Balaam also the son of Beor they slew with the sword. 9. And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods. 10. And they burnt all their cities wherein they dwelt, and all their goodly castles, with fire. 11. And they took all the spoil, and all the prey, both of men and of beasts. 12. And they brought the captives, and the prey, and the spoil, unto Moses.”

Moses commands the death of 3 000
Exodus 32: 28 And the children of Levi did according to the word of Moses: and there fell of the people that day about three thousand men.

Judah kills 10 000

Judges 1:4 And Judah went up; and the Lord delivered the Canaanites and the Perizzites into their hand: and they slew of them in Bezek ten thousand men.”

The Israelites killes 12 000 Men and Women
Joshua 8:24-6, And it came to pass, when Israel had made an end of slaying all the inhabitants of Ai in the field, in the wilderness wherein they chased them, and when they were all fallen on the edge of the sword, until they were consumed, that all the Israelites returned unto Ai, and smote it with the edge of the sword. And so it was, that all that fell that day, both of men and women, were twelve thousand, even all the men of Ai. For Joshua drew not his hand back…until he had utterly destroyed all the inhabitants of Ai.
David kills 22 000
2 Samuel 8:5, “And when the Syrians of Damascus came to succour Hadadezer king of Zobah, David slew of the Syrians two and twenty thousand men.

Israelites kill 100 000

1 kings 20:29 and the children of Israel slew of the Syrians an hundred thousand footmen in one
Reply

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

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 7
    Last Post: 06-28-2009, 06:07 AM
  2. Replies: 6
    Last Post: 05-31-2008, 10:39 PM
  3. Replies: 3
    Last Post: 04-23-2007, 04:49 PM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 02-23-2007, 12:33 AM
  5. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 05-21-2006, 08:17 AM
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Holiday in the Maldives

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!