PDA

View Full Version : Yvonne Ridley about Tariq Ramadhan



SirZubair
06-19-2006, 09:04 AM
Im not looking foward to it.

In all honesty,i am tired of hearing/reading her opinions.

I didnt have a problem with her until she decided to publicly attack Tariq Ramadan (last year i think?),to me,she is a person who needs to learn Adab,as sami yusuf pointed out.

I guess you can say she falls into my category.

wa'salaam.

p.s that is my opinion.

Please,think twice before starting an arguement with me...
Reply

Login/Register to hide ads. Scroll down for more posts
Far7an
06-19-2006, 09:06 AM
:sl:

Out of curiosity, what did she say about Tariq Ramadhan?
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
06-19-2006, 09:07 AM
Oh bro Z, i've thought long and hard about that!
But I agree she can be a lil harsh, but she seems to be spot on to me. That's just my opinion though.
Reply

SirZubair
06-19-2006, 09:09 AM
I've PM'd you the link akhi.
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
lolwatever
06-19-2006, 09:09 AM
Originally Posted by SirZubair
Im not looking foward to it.

In all honesty,i am tired of hearing/reading her opinions.

I didnt have a problem with her until she decided to publicly attack Tariq Ramadan (last year i think?),to me,she is a person who needs to learn Adab,as sami yusuf pointed out.

I guess you can say she falls into my category.

wa'salaam.

p.s that is my opinion.

Please,think twice before starting an arguement with me...
i don't see much of an elite rational mind there lol no offense, if that's how we judge people than Umar would hav beheaded the person who stoodup and told him off publically in his khutbah.... and he would hav told off khawlah when she was advising him...

instead he said 'there is no good in us if we don't listen, and there is no good in you if you didn't say that'. Politeness is good, but sometimes being stern isn't that bad..
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
06-19-2006, 09:11 AM
Originally Posted by SirZubair
I've PM'd you the link akhi.
Hey I wanna see it too....
Reply

SirZubair
06-19-2006, 09:14 AM
Originally Posted by lolwatever
'there is no good in us if we don't listen, and there is no good in you if you didn't say that'. Politeness is good, but sometimes being stern isn't that bad..
But calling a scholor 'a so-called-scholor' in public is crossing the line.

wa'salaam.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
06-19-2006, 09:18 AM
Whoa just read it.... that is harsh.
But I don't paticularly liek Tariq Ramadan, still wouldn't speak about him like that though. But some of the stuff he says is just like....*confused*.
This is gonna get off topic so... yeah....
Reply

lolwatever
06-19-2006, 09:19 AM
lol i don't believe in lucky stars..
yeh respecting scholars is important, but making a harsh comment against an individual isn't a criteria to demote or promote a person as unscholarly as he or she may be...

Ibn Taymiyah had alot of critics and he prob kenw he was the most knowledgeable person in his time, buthe never used their criticisms and even slurs against him as evdence to disregard them...

Yvonne sounds like a new Muslim, dont really know her that well... but if we keep isolating people like that becasue of what htey think about individuals, then you're gonna split from her, and them i split from you and then everyoen splits up over individuals, nothing even to do with Islam...

As if Tariq ramadhan is a khalifah or something.

salam
Reply

Far7an
06-19-2006, 09:21 AM
Originally Posted by SirZubair
But calling a scholor 'a so-called-scholor' in public is crossing the line.

wa'salaam.
Sister Yvonne won't be the first to criticise Mr. Ramadhan about this. It can be really frustrating for the Muslims when our own scholars are siding with the politicians and saying, "Yes, yes you're right... They are over reacting".

But I agree, maybe she would have been better off if she didn't reply in an SP manner.

Perhaps we should email our thoughts to Sister Yvonne instead of chatting away here? That way someone will benefit inshaaa'Allah.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
06-19-2006, 09:23 AM
Originally Posted by Far7an
Sister Yvonne won't be the first to criticise Mr. Ramadhan about this. It can be really frustrating for the Muslims when our own scholars are siding with the politicians and saying, "Yes, yes you're right... They are over reacting".

But I agree, maybe she would have been better off if she didn't reply in an SP manner.

Perhaps we should email our thoughts to Sister Yvonne instead of chatting away here? That way someone will benefit inshaaa'Allah.
Too true. We may even fall into backbiting.
Anyone know what her email is?
Reply

lolwatever
06-19-2006, 09:24 AM
lol someone invite her to the forum... she can tell us what she thinks of all this herself hehe
salam
Reply

SirZubair
06-19-2006, 09:26 AM
Originally Posted by lolwatever
As if Tariq ramadhan is a khalifah or something.
First you compare me to Umar r.a,..then Tariq ramadhan to a khalifah...

..are you feeling ok? Maybe you need to go lay down for a few minutes before you resume posting... :rollseyes

No,he isnt a khalifah.

But atleast he is someone that shows more respect to others than sister yvonne.I would rather listen to someone who is rational minded rather than someone who lets their emotions get the best of them.

Wa'salaam

-Zubair

p.s No,im not having a 'bash' at sister yvonne,..i dont think she is a bad person.

I think she needs to learn ALOT more about islam before she goes out and shouts out her opinion.
Reply

Far7an
06-19-2006, 09:27 AM
Originally Posted by Umm_Shaheed
Anyone know what her email is?
pr@islamchannel.tv
Reply

SirZubair
06-19-2006, 09:31 AM
Originally Posted by Far7an
Sister Yvonne won't be the first to criticise Mr. Ramadhan about this. It can be really frustrating for the Muslims when our own scholars are siding with the politicians and saying, "Yes, yes you're right... They are over reacting".
Sidi farhan,..if that is the case,..then i am sorry,...but i am one of those people that will side with those politicians and say "yes,yes,you're right,...they are over reacting"

Ofcourse muslims all around the world had a reason to be upset,but there are ways of dealing with it.

Burning down buildings,killing people,holding banners in one of their hands which say "Islam means peace" and holding another banner in the other hand which says "behead all those that insult islam.." .. isnt the right way of dealing with the issue.

Muslims all around the world could have fought this issue in a better way..

Such as?

Going out there and teaching people the truth,then the entire 'anti-muslim' 'anti-muhammed' propoganda would have fallen on deaf ears.

But no....we couldnt do that could we...we had to go out there and burn buildings...

wa'salaam

-Zubair
Reply

lolwatever
06-19-2006, 09:31 AM
lol wats with khalifah's and Umar being examples that we're not suppose to use...

are they like not human or angellic or something.. they're the people we lookup to and try to follow, not scholars. We respect scholars because of their link to evidence, we dont respect the evidence because a certain scholar mentioned it... no need to get all emotional bro.

Showing respect isn't the benchmark by which we measure scholarworthiness.. alot of saudi scholars are very good at showing respect to the royal families but that doesnt maek them worth anything in the sight of Allah....

Someone who is harsh but speaks their mind with the little they know is much more better and respected than a scholar who knwos alot and respects everythign under the sun but behaves like a dog.. a suckup.. as Allah describes them in surat (i thinkk al-an'3am) (yes he does call certain scholars dogs because of their hiding knowledge and decieving people)

You can judge whether that applies to tariq or not, i dont know much about him and i'm not really that intersted either..

salam
Reply

SirZubair
06-19-2006, 09:34 AM
lol wats with khalifah's and Umar being examples that we're not suppose to use...

are they like not human or angellic or something..
I never said they are 'angellic or something',you were simply making no sense. Deal with it.

Originally Posted by lolwatever
You can judge whether that applies to tariq or not, i dont know much about him and i'm not really that intersted either..
Seeing that you are the sort of person that makes his/her mind up about people without knowing anything about them...you are not worth my time or energy.

Wa'salaam.

-Zubair
Reply

lolwatever
06-19-2006, 09:36 AM
lol bro i didn't make a judgement about anyone... Tariq might be a great bro for all i care.. i was just talking from point of principle.. i left it to you to do the applied math.

salam

ps: bro far7an lol u flooded my inbox sith 'post moved' pm's! lol salam
Reply

SirZubair
06-19-2006, 09:42 AM
Before i start to ignore you..


Someone who is harsh but speaks their mind with the little they know is much more better and respected than a scholar who knwos alot and respects everythign under the sun but behaves like a dog.. a suckup.. as Allah describes them in surat (i thinkk al-an'3am) (yes he does call certain scholars dogs because of their hiding knowledge and decieving people)
Are you refering to Tariq Ramadhan?
Reply

lolwatever
06-19-2006, 09:43 AM
that verse wasn't revealed because of tariq ramadhan.. it's a global rule

Bro.. maybe you can tell me if it's referring to him?
I hope it isn't.

Why are you so upset at me for? lol sorry if that elite thingy got you cracking

salam
Reply

SirZubair
06-19-2006, 09:44 AM
Can anyone tell me what is wrong with Tariq's advice to the world :

"When you live in such an environment as a Muslim, it is really important to be able to take a critical distance and not react so emotionally. You need to hold your Islamic principles, but be wise enough not to overreact to provocation."
?
Reply

Far7an
06-19-2006, 09:44 AM
:sl:

Thread split.
Going out there and teaching people the truth,then the entire 'anti-muslim' 'anti-muhammed' propoganda would have fallen on deaf ears.
Akh Zubair, there were many who did exactly this. And it is mainly these people who felt 'betrayed' by scholars such as himself. Were they over reacting? No, they were voicing their displeasure over the caricatures. Many Muslims in the UK held events and put up stalls in Universities and Colleges.. Many of them (through the mercy of Allah) were successful.

I agree with you that there were Muslims who acted in a manner which was not helpful at all.

May Allaah guide us all to that which pleases him.
Reply

lolwatever
06-19-2006, 09:46 AM
bro zubair tell me the context he said that in and what he was referring to inshalah ill tell u wat i think of it..

on its face value sounds good, if the attack is just personal, then yeh deffo we shouldnt overreact to provocations (you know.. say someone gets cynical over another person's nick and the othe rperson over reacts and decides to ask them to thank their lucky stars and then ignore them etc..)

salams mate
Reply

SirZubair
06-19-2006, 09:47 AM
Originally Posted by lolwatever
that verse wasn't revealed because of tariq ramadhan.. it's a global rule

Bro.. maybe you can tell me if it's referring to him?
I hope it isn't.

Why are you so upset at me for? lol sorry if that elite thingy got you cracking

salam
My senses are coming back.

I apoligise.

No,its not the 'elite thingy' that got me cracking,..it is the constant lol's :grumbling

I never said those verses were revealed for tariq ramadan :hiding: Its just that,since you quoted it,i had to ask you what that was in reference to.

Kapish? :statisfie
Reply

virago
06-19-2006, 09:48 AM
Out of curiosity, what did she say about Tariq Ramadhan?
That's what I was woncering about...
Reply

SirZubair
06-19-2006, 09:50 AM
Originally Posted by Far7an
:sl:

Thread split.


Akh Zubair, there were many who did exactly this. And it is mainly these people who felt 'betrayed' by scholars such as himself. Were they over reacting? No, they were voicing their displeasure over the caricatures. Many Muslims in the UK held events and put up stalls in Universities and Colleges.. Many of them (through the mercy of Allah) were successful.

I agree with you that there were Muslims who acted in a manner which was not helpful at all.

May Allaah guide us all to that which pleases him.

Akhi,that i dont understand. He wasnt refering to those who demonstrated in a peaceful manner.His advice was to the brothers and sisters out there who were seeking Blood,spilling blood,not the ones who were doing exactly what Tariq ramadan wanted.

Heck,forget about what Tariq wanted,..what Muhammed s.a.w would have wanted.
Reply

SirZubair
06-19-2006, 09:51 AM
Sorry,i should have provided this Link earlier.

Here :

http://icssa.org/muslim_leaders.htm
Reply

lolwatever
06-19-2006, 09:54 AM
hehe no worries bro Zubair all over, sorry the lol's got on your nerves... i do hav a lol disease.. it's even infected my avatar

salamz :)
Reply

SirZubair
06-19-2006, 09:55 AM
You know what i've just realised?

I am behaving no-better than Sister Yvonne ridley.Right now,im doing exactly what she seems to love doing.

So im calling it quits.I've already climbed down to the level im accusing her of being on,i dont want to go down any further.

Wa'salaam

-Zubair
Reply

seek.learn
06-19-2006, 10:16 AM
Salaam o alaikum,

MashaAllah. I respect you for having been self critical and honest enough to accept it out loud. Truly respect that.

We all are humans only struggling to do our best. Even sister Ridley. And we all do wrong.

May Allah forgive us, grant us the strength to accept our shortcomings and work to improve them, as you have done admiringly brother Zubair. And may He (SWT) guide us all. Aameen.

Alaikum Salaam
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
06-19-2006, 10:45 AM
Originally Posted by SirZubair
You know what i've just realised?

I am behaving no-better than Sister Yvonne ridley.Right now,im doing exactly what she seems to love doing.

So im calling it quits.I've already climbed down to the level im accusing her of being on,i dont want to go down any further.

Wa'salaam

-Zubair
You can carry on the conversation with out exploding can't you? Lol.
I think we should continue this in a respectful manner. Remember my post on Adab everyone... if ya seen it!
So yeah....
Reply

SirZubair
06-19-2006, 10:51 AM
Originally Posted by Umm_Shaheed
You can carry on the conversation with out exploding can't you? Lol.
I think we should continue this in a respectful manner. Remember my post on Adab everyone... if ya seen it!
So yeah....
Yes i have seen it :) and i am working on my adab,..which is all the more reason for me to not take part in this discussion. (i think i've said enough).

I can accept people critisising me,..or other scholors.

I have no problems with that,..but putting someone down like that,..im sorry,but i find that to be absolutly disgusting.

Wa'salaam.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
06-19-2006, 10:59 AM
Yeah akhee we have all said it was a little harsh. But sometimes when I see what Traiq Ramadan says..... :grumbling:.
Like making ijtihaad on the punishment of a thief..... *sigh* (we gotta look at the qur'an with new eyes you see).
So I can see why Yvonne Ridley is mad at him. If you like akhee you can email her with some polite advice?
W'salaam
Reply

SirZubair
06-19-2006, 11:04 AM
Originally Posted by Umm_Shaheed
Yeah akhee we have all said it was a little harsh. But sometimes when I see what Traiq Ramadan says..... :grumbling:.
Like making ijtihaad on the punishment of a thief..... *sigh* (we gotta look at the qur'an with new eyes you see).
So I can see why Yvonne Ridley is mad at him.
Maybe it is best to Email him and ask him what he meant by that?

Because at times,what we think people mean/are trying to say is no-where near what they are actually trying to say.

I wont make a comment on 'what he meant',because i dont KNOW what he meant.But i have a fair idea about what i THINK he meant.but once again,i wont make any comments,since i dont know for a fact.

Originally Posted by Umm_Shaheed
If you like akhee you can email her with some polite advice?
W'salaam
I will insha'allah consider doing that in the near-future (if she carried on with this behavior.)
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
06-19-2006, 12:21 PM
Ok cool.
Reply

Lina
06-19-2006, 03:32 PM
:sl:

Subhan'Allah.

Abu Ad-Darda narrated that Prophet Muhammad (pbuh) said:

"The one who rebuts another from backbiting has protected himself from the fire."

We should defend our brothers in sisters in good times and bad and refrain from backbiting in such a way when we not only injure ourselves but others aswell.

May Allah subhanahu wa ta'la lead us onto sirat al mustaqeem Insha'Allah.

(And when they hear Al-Laghw (dirty, false, evil vain talk), they withdraw from it and say: "To us our deeds, and to you your deeds. Peace be to you. We seek not the ignorant.)(28:55)

"...no one believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself."(Muslim)

Subhan'Allah.

:w:
Reply

lolwatever
06-19-2006, 09:03 PM
hey but i don't think its backbiting when something is outside in the public domain and it's to do with knowledge, facts and stats..

Umm like soemtomes people might tell prophet 'so and so doen that' and the prophet would suss them for that even though they not around, ofcourse the diff is, he'd say the same when they do come by him... because its a knowledge matter and people will get decieved or misinformed if they don't learn.

especially for scholars, hey.. im not implying that tariq is better than yvonne or visa versa, barely know who either of em are.. but im just saying.

if u look in the history no one critcised people for making academic criticism of individuals behind thier backs, scholars or not scholars.
Reply

Sis786
06-20-2006, 08:17 AM
Ok who is Tariq Ramadhan is he the Scholar from Eygpt and what did Sami Yusuf have to do with this
Reply

SirZubair
06-20-2006, 08:48 AM
Originally Posted by Sis786
Ok who is Tariq Ramadhan is he the Scholar from Eygpt and what did Sami Yusuf have to do with this
No,he isnt a scholar from eygpt.

Here,check out his website :

http://www.tariqramadan.com/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=6

MuslimWays,..wrong thread.

That letter has been posted twice,in the appropriate thread.

For those that are confused,i kicked up a storm in the thread Regarding Sami Yusufs letter to Yvone Riddley,..and then i asked Far7an to start a new thread,and remove my posts from the Sami Yusuf thread and post them here.

I dont think i need to explain it any further.

Wa'salaam
Reply

ma541
06-20-2006, 08:56 AM
who is tariq ramadhan?????????
is this yvonne from islam channel u talkin aBOUT
Reply

SirZubair
06-20-2006, 09:01 AM
Originally Posted by ma541
who is tariq ramadhan?????????
is this yvonne from islam channel u talkin aBOUT
I have provided a link for his website in the post above your post.

Instead of me telling you who he is,go to his website and find out for yourself.

It is always best to go to the source init..
Reply

sonz
06-20-2006, 09:10 AM
salama

chk this article out

‘No Thanks’ to Tariq Ramadan


Abuz-Zubair

It is known and widely accepted amongst the Muslim jurists that Islam came as a source of blessing and as a mercy to Mankind with the objectives of preserving the five essential human needs in any society; namely religion, life, dignity and lineage, wealth and intellect. Therefore, in order to establish and protect religion, the Shariah obliges the society to establish the various acts of worship in isolation as well as congregation, just as it sanctions the punishment for apostasy, or Jihad in defence of the faith; in order to preserve life, the Shariah sanctions the right of retribution (Qisas), prohibits suicide and calls for the aversion of any harm that may lead to the loss of human life; in order to preserve dignity and lineage, the Shariah legislates marriage, forbids fornication and sanctions the Hudud punishment for it; in order to preserve wealth, the Shariah legalises trade while prohibiting usury, and forbids the destruction and usurpation of wealth, and sanctions the Hadd punishment for theft; and in order to preserve the intellect, the Shariah forbids all intoxicants and sanctions the Hadd punishment for consuming alcohol. By sanctioning these measures, the Shariah vouches for our worldly as well as religious interests, and upon consideration, one would notice that these interests are only preserved for a far superior objective, namely to attain success in the hereafter, by living our lives in accordance with the Law. In other words, the public interests recognised by the Shariah are not merely those of benefit in a purely worldly sense; rather these interests are only acknowledged by the Shariah if a union of both the ephemeral and eternal interests exists therein. For example, one may consider the practise of usury of worldly benefit yet due to the fact that it is to our detriment in the hereafter, it would therefore never be regarded to be ‘public interest’.

When our interests became worldly

During the past two centuries, the Islamic nation has witnessed unceasing catastrophes in succession; from the colonisation of Muslims lands, the fall of Khilafa, the loss of the third holy site and the spread of secularism resulting in the abandonment of the Shariah in courts, leading to mass distortion of certain key concepts that had defined the Islamic civilisations for centuries, such as the concepts of worship, divine destiny, the temporal life and the afterlife, civilisation, Jihad, cultivation and education, morals and manners, etc. The concept of ‘Islamic Public Interests’ were similarly reduced to ‘Public Interest’ without ‘Islamic’, which became the source of confusion for those who espoused the idea of the ‘letter’ contradicting the ‘objectives’ of Shariah. Such calamities that befell us caused some Muslims to lose hope and embrace defeatism, to an extent that many prominent figures, such as Taha Husain would openly and explicitly proclaim that the way to revival is nothing but following the footsteps of Europe and to be their counterparts in civilisation.
In contrast, the religious clergy at the time were heavily dominated by those who viewed the doors of Ijtihad to be forever barred, and this view – much to the frustration of the defeatists – failed to provide answers and solutions to the speedy transformation the Muslim world was going through. This naturally gave rise to the modernists, who not only challenged the religious clergy who had monopolised the religious education for centuries, but went as far as questioning everything that the Muslims had agreed upon for the past 1400 years. Hence, they attacked the authority of the Sunnah, challenged the understanding of the first three blessed generations, attempted to distort many passages of history, and even the Qur’an they did not spare, for they called for freestyle re-interpretation of legal texts pertaining to commerce, inheritance, marriage and divorce, the Hijab, and the Hudud, within the context of the modern world.

It is important to note that Modernism since its inception has never been a uniform methodology of thought; rather, many prominent personalities and heroic figures in our history in fact received their tutelage under the heavy influence of the Modernist school, just as modernism equally gave rise to numerous secularists, who dedicated their career to warring against the Shariah. In the context of modern history, Egypt has been a major battleground between the Modernist-Islamists campaigning for the Shariah on one hand, and the Modernist-Secularists protesting against the Shariah on the other. Amongst the latter, there were arguably few who made their thoughts manifest and called for secularism openly in the style of ‘the French Revolution’, and understandably, their calls fell on deaf ears due to the deeply rooted veneration for religion in the hearts of the masses. Most of the secularists, however, chose to become the fifth column by referring to their call by a name other than secularism and at the same time providing justifications for secularism from Islamic precepts, thereby successfully becoming the ‘colonialists within’.

Modernism and Secularism: Post 9/11

After the events of 9/11, Islam and Muslims across the globe and in particular in the West came under a fierce ideological attack. There is no doubt that the West realised the revival of Islam as a political entity on an international level, and feared the imminent return of the Shariah, and since has doubled her efforts in secularising Islam by using the ‘fifth column’ to shed much of its political, cultural and spiritual aspects, and regionalise our faith by calling for a European and an American version of Islam which preserve only the values and the beliefs that are in line with the post-9/11 Western agenda.

This effort was specifically noted on March 18, 2004 with the release of the RAND Corporation Report on the adapted strategy to divide and rule the Muslim population in the West and back in their home countries. The report categorised the Muslims into the ‘fundamentalists’ represented by the wahhabist/salafist, the ‘traditionalists’ represented by the Ash’arites and the Sufi mystics, the ‘modernists’ and finally the ‘secularists’. The report then laid out its strategy to pit each group against the others , causing division on one hand, and to provide strategic state support to the last group, namely the secularists on the other, in order to help them win acceptance amongst the rest of the Muslim population.
Interestingly, exactly a year after the report was released, Amina Wadud lead the first Friday congregational prayer, in a public event organised entirely by the secularist extremists, attended by no more than a hundred men and women, but nevertheless, given wide media coverage, with the objective of sending shockwaves throughout the Muslim world, either in an attempt to encourage the Muslims to challenge and question their faith, or merely as an exercise to test the waters.

Only twelve days after the Amina Wadud incident, came yet another attack on the Shariah, this time by a prominent professor and ‘Islamist’, Dr. Tariq Ramadan, who made ‘An International call for Moratorium on corporal punishment, stoning and the death penalty in the Islamic World’. This article comes as a response to the latter call.

But before we begin…

There are many valid objections that the bulk of Islamists have raised, which includes the modernists, the so-called ‘traditionalists’ and the ‘salafists’ that need answering, such as; Firstly, for anyone to make such a call at a time when there is already a moratorium in place on most of the Shariah, including the Hudud in nearly all Muslim countries, places a great question mark on the motive.

Secondly, the professor’s field of discussion has always been around the theme of ‘European Islam’, integration and identity. What is it that abruptly caused him to write on such a global issue?

Thirdly, the world today is witness to some of the most heinous crimes against human rights and the rule of law, such as indefinite detention without trial, rendition to countries known for practising torture, the use of evidence extracted under torture, the ignominy of Guantanamo Bay where detainees are beaten, their eyes gouged out of their sockets and fingers broken, where the best justice they can hope for is military tribunal, while yet others still are held in unknown locations as ghost detainees, men, women and children tortured out of sight and out of mind, a phenomenon which has captured the hearts and minds of the human rights activists internationally; one wonders why would an ‘Islamist’ ignore such ongoing brutality, and choose to focus instead on the Hudud that exist more in theory than in practise?

Fourthly, indeed the misapplication of the Hudud and the lack of justice is a fundamental problem that leads to a complete collapse of any society. But the question here is, if there are instances where the Hudud is applied in certain Muslim countries where its pre-conditions are not being fulfilled, what then is the most viable and effective way of addressing such a problem? Does the remedy lie in writing to the ruling and the religious authorities and urging them to restore justice and apply the required conditions of Hudud and petitioning them to this end? Or is it by publishing a call for a suspension of the Hudud in the Western media outlets in various languages, and thereby, unknowingly aiding them in their objective of removing Shariah from our lives? Hence, it comes as no surprise that none of the Islamist media outlets published the call, and that the only ones to rejoice in this appeal, such that they decided to publish it, were the liberals and Socialists.

Any Muslim with a living conscience who contemplates the aforementioned questions realises the answers and the underlying dangers without any need for articulation.

First things first:

The theologians are in agreement that anyone who seeks to alter any aspect of Islamic law, which is established by explicit legal texts from the Quran and the Sunnah and agreed upon by the Muslim scholars, is guilty of infidelity (Kufr), irrespective of whatever his motives and justification may be, even if it be Islamic. Islamic history demonstrates the consensus amongst the scholars with regards to the disbelief of any individual or a society that lifts an agreed upon aspect of Shariah. For instance, after the Prophet’s demise, many factions from amongst the Arab tribes either clearly apostatised, or refused to give the Zakah. Abu Bakr, the first righteous Caliph fought them all without distinction under the pretext of a ‘war on apostasy’. al-Juwaini, in the 4th Islamic century, also pointed to a faction of Muslims (who could possibly be described as secularists) who wished to add to the Hudud in favour of public interests (Maslaha). He subsequently declared that they were outside the fold of Islam by adding or subtracting from the Shariah, merely based on what they considered to be in the ‘public interest’. Al-Ghazzali, the great 4th century scholar, wrote extensively in refutation of the so-called ‘esoterics’ (al-Batiniyah) and declared their infidelity for abandoning various aspects of Shariah. During the 7th Islamic century, the invading and rampaging Mongols embraced Islam but refused to implement the Shariah, due to which Sheikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah pronounced their disbelief and rallied the Muslims to defeat them. The last two centuries saw the ‘moratorium’ on Shariah in many Muslim countries, and the response from the scholars, as always, has been decisive and in line with the previous religious authorities.
What is important to note here, is that the verdict has not only been directed to the ruling authorities; rather it equally engages the subjects, irrespective of their political leanings, be they capitalists, socialists or Islamists, and therefore, calling for secularism albeit with an Islamic justification still does not exclude the so-called ‘Islamists’ from the ruling. A cessation of the Hudud punishments due to the consideration of other interests, is no different to a cessation on other aspects of the Shariah, such as the law of inheritance, for both entail the abolishment (Ilgha’) of the Shariah, irrespective of whether it is permanently or temporarily (Ta’liq), and are therefore acts of infidelity; and this is what makes it inconceivable for such a call to emerge from an ‘Islamist’. Similarly, the fact that a moratorium on the Hudud is temporary in its nature does not change the Islamic verdict for revoking well established aspects of Shariah, for the cessation entails the replacement of well established Islamic measures with man-made laws. In reality, it would lead to a permanent lifting of the Hudud since such a debate would not cease after decades of discussion. This shows that the call is grossly at odds with the fundamentals of Islam as well as its practical implementation; and that is of course – provided that the Hudud are being applied, which certainly is not the status quo.

‘From Islam’s objectives (Maqasid): Self-destruction’:

This is the doctrine – in a nut shell – of those secularists who claim to have grasped the objectives of Shariah, such that they are able to determine which of the legal texts (Nusus) from the Quran and the Sunnah conflict with Allah’s interests, and thereby render the legal texts null and void. They claim that Islam only came to serve our interests (Masalih), and therefore, if ever an interest is in conflict with a legal text, then the legal texts are not strong enough to withstand the conflict and thus they collapse. In other words, a ‘legal ruling’ (Hukm Shar’i) to them is that which is based on textual evidences and the consensus of the Muslims, only if it is not in conflict with their interest (Maslaha). As is apparent, this approach opens the door to the destruction of the entire Shariah since it renders the rulings based on explicit legal texts and consensus open to abrogation by anyone’s interpretation of interests.

The doctrine of favouring interests over legal texts was pioneered by the 8th century Hanbalite scholar, Najm al-Din al-Tufi who claimed that the Islamic interests are stronger as proofs and able to override legal texts. However, his rational arguments to support this claim were full of inconsistencies, the pinnacle of which is his claim that legal texts actually contradict Islamic interests, while at the same time arguing that the legal texts were only revealed to serve Islamic interests. His textual proofs were some of the narrations from the companions where he has assumed that they ignored the legal texts in favour of ‘Islamic’ interests. What is worth noticing here is that al-Tufi restricted his doctrine to the realm of transactions and governmental affairs (Mu’amalat), despite the fact that the legal texts he presented as proofs for this make no such distinction, and are applicable to aspects of worship as well. Hence, Amina Wadud’s understanding of this doctrine seems to be more in line with the legal texts brought by al-Tufi in support of his argument.

The Unholy Resurrection:

al-Tufi has always remained isolated along with his doctrine throughout Islamic history, and his opinion has always been discarded as strange (Shadh) and shunned by the Islamic nation due to its rational inconsistencies and lack of support from legal texts. However, the post-colonialism era in the Muslim world witnessed a well-organised mass rebellion against the Shariah, in the name of Islam and Muslims. The secularists either knew that their call to challenge the legal texts would go unheeded, or that they simply wanted to progress in the footsteps of Western liberalism while maintaining their ‘Islamic’ identity; to this end they adopted an ‘Islamic’ approach to further their unholy cause, and al-Tufi’s doctrine on ‘public interests’ (Maslaha) was precisely what they were seeking.

Hence, the Islamic world saw al-Tufi’s doctrine being revived and discussed for the first time in seven centuries. The resurrection of this unholy doctrine from its ruins came as a relief for many secularists posing as Islamists who resolved to preserve the ‘objectives’ of Shariah by the shedding of the ‘letter’. This led individuals like 'Ali 'Abd al-Razzaq in the early 20th century to call for the abolishment of the Khilafa because, in his opinion, the Khilafah has always been a calamity for Islam and Muslims, and a source of all evil and corruption, as he likewise called for a suspension of Jihad since he considered that Jihad had only been a tool for the kings to expand their dynasty, and not to call to Allah. 'Abdullah al-'Alayali demanded a temporary removal of the Hudud, since the objective (Maqsad) behind these Hudud is the prevention of crime, and if the objective (Maqsad) could be reached through means other than 'cutting, maiming and dismembering', the Hudud should not be applied. Muhammad 'Ammarah openly invited people to embrace secularism, as according to his beliefs one would only be required to follow (what he refers to as) the Prophet's legislative tradition (al-Sunnah al-Tashri'iyah), which governs the aspects of worship in its narrowly defined sense. As for what he refers to as non-legislative traditions (Sunnah Ghair Tashri'iyah), such as the Prophet’s actions, statements and decisions in politics, war, peace, society and the justice system, then the only way one can emulate him in these aspects is by abiding by the only maxim the Prophet adhered to as a leader, namely the consideration of ‘public interests’ (Maslaha); therefore, that which was considered a Maslaha in his time, might not be considered a Maslaha in our socio-political context, which is why we need to separate the religious orthodoxy from the state, and simply adhere to whatever the Maslaha dictates.

There are some issues, however, where the proponents of this doctrine make a U-turn and become the guardians of religion by upholding the ‘letter’ over the ‘objectives’. However this only occurs in response to the militants randomly targeting innocent Western civilians in the name of serving their view of Islamic ‘public interests’. Surely, one could only wish that the proponents of this doctrine that ‘the objectives’ given preference over ‘the letter’, remained faithful to their view at all times, but their inconsistencies in the application of their principles are the strongest of proofs against their arguments.

Did ‘Umar call for a moratorium?

The question in fact should be: Does ‘Umar have the right to call for a moratorium on any aspect of Shariah? Does the Prophet have the right to place a moratorium? When one glances at the Prophetic narrations with respect to the application of Hudud amongst the early Muslims, it becomes clear that the right of legislation was exclusively maintained for Allah alone, and why would it be otherwise, when that is considered the twin-half of faith? To quote one example, once a companion caught a thief and brought him to the Prophet. When the Prophet ordered the Hadd of theft to be applied to him, the companion pitied the thief and decided to forgive him, but the Prophet in response rebuked the companion for not pardoning the thief before he came to him, for when a case reaches the ruler, then there is no alternative but the application of the Hadd punishment. The Prophetic traditions tell us of incidents where the Prophet would intercede on behalf of the murderer with the victim’s family to spare the murderer from the act of retribution (Qisas), but never did he have the right to prevent any family from demanding and carrying out retribution, and this is in spite of him being the Messenger of Allah. Therefore, if even the Prophet himself did not have the right to call for the suspension of the Hudud, how can anyone besides him be given that right? For the same reason, how can it be thought of a righteous Caliph like ‘Umar to call for a cessation of the Hudud for which he has no authority?

Nevertheless, the secularists often cite the incident when ‘Umar ibn al-Khattab, the second righteous Caliph, supposedly suspended the punishment for stealing in the year of famine. They claim that since theft became so rampant at that time that Caliph Umar saw it befitting to lift the Hadd punishment on stealing altogether, as opposed to leaving half of the nation amputees.

In response, we can confidently say that ‘Umar’s moratorium on the Hadd punishment for stealing is no more than a myth, for the incident clearly states that when the crime was reported to ‘Umar, he ordered that the thieves’ hands be cut – in the very year of the famine – and he only revoked his order upon seeing the thieves in a state of starvation. Hence, ‘Umar only applied the principle of ‘avoiding Hudud punishments due to the doubt factor’, very much in line with ‘the letter’ as reported from the Prophet: ‘avoid the Hudud in doubtful cases’. For this reason, if a woman steals from her husband’s wealth, since a portion of the man’s wealth is meant for his wife, the Hadd punishment is not applied to her, due to doubt, without the need for such a call. Therefore, ‘Umar did not shift any boundaries; rather he carried out the trust bequeathed to him by his two predecessors, the Prophet and Abu Bakr with a full sense of responsibility.

Objectives of Shariah: between saving one life, and saving the society:

What makes this entire debacle even more ironic is that Hudud have been under a moratorium for a considerable length of time in nearly all Islamic countries since Islam was restricted to the four corners of the mosque by the secularists. In fact, most of the Hudud if they are ever applied, tend to be at the behest of secularist despotic rulers in the Middle East, who carry out the so-called ‘Hudud’ on their political opponents (most of them just happen to be Islamists) along with their families in the name of Islam, as was done to the members of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt during Nasir’s reign. If we were to accept, for argument’s sake, that the Hudud that are supposedly being applied in the Muslim countries have excluded the rich and the privileged, then the call for a suspension of the Hudud still does not solve the dilemmas of social exclusion and equality before the law, and that is the crux of the problem and not the Hudud. On the other hand, the call becomes the exact recipe for social chaos where the values of religion, human life, dignity, property and intellect are devalued, precisely the objectives Allah decided to preserve through the implementation of Hudud.
Surely, the abolishment of the entire Shariah that we have witnessed even prior to 1925 deserves the largest share of the blame for the devaluation of the five bare essentials, such that we hear about mass murders taking place in Muslim countries with absolutely no apparent motive or explanation, immorality is spreading like wildfire, the crime rate has been on the increase as ever and the consumption of alcohol is slowly but surely on its way to becoming socially acceptable, if it already is not the case in many Muslim countries; and as for drug abuse, then it needs no mention that its impact on the future Muslim generations has been far more detrimental than alcohol. Hence, considering the current social chaos and the ever-diminishing moral values due to the absence of most of the Shariah in Muslim countries, which Islamist in his right mind would wish to remove the little we may have left of the Shariah, especially at a time when the Shariah is noticeably making a return after its absence for almost a century?

The secularists would argue that to temporarily lift the Hudud is perfectly in line with the objectives of Shariah – that is to preserve life – if it involves lifting the Hudud even to save one innocent soul. The argument only sounds reasonable to those who lack a deep understanding of the Shariah objectives behind the legislation of each of the Hudud with its respective set of rigorous conditions and impediments. This is because what they do not realise is that they may be saving the lives of a handful of innocent people by halting the Hudud, whereas on the other hand, they are opening the floodgates for all kinds of crimes and vices in the society, along with the mass devaluation of human life on a social scale, and that is a far worse outcome than a handful of innocent victims losing their lives or limbs. The ever-increasing crime rate and immorality in the Muslim countries, since the abolishment of the Shariah in its entirety, is perhaps the greatest proof against the practicality of the call for moratorium on Hudud.

Hudud: a part of the problem or the solution?

Some secularists argue that since poverty is rife, ignorance is prevalent and the level morality is lacking and slowly fading away in the Muslim countries, it follows that the application of Hudud in our current social context would result in mass executions and amputations, and hence, they declare that a moratorium is needed until the society is revived through educational and spiritual processes, not before poverty is defeated and moral values are restored, particularly when the Hudud are not the sole factor in defining a society to be Islamic. Upon analysis, we find that their argument is based on two misconceptions; firstly, that it is possible to revive a society morally and spiritually without the need of Hudud; and secondly, that the application of Hudud in a corrupt society leads to mass executions and amputations, and not to the restoration of social peace and security.

In response to the first misconception, we may confidently assert that those troubled with this argument simply have not grasped the objectives of Shariah behind the legislation of the Hudud. This is because the Hudud are primarily sanctioned for the prevention of crime, in as much as they are a measure to keep the society in shape morally, spiritually, socially and economically; although there is no doubt that the Hudud alone cannot completely rid the society of all evils, for surely the combination of morality, theology and spirituality has been the bedrock of any Islamic civilisation. The point being made here, however, is the Hudud are an essential component of the comprehensive Islamic solution for social reform. Allah promises the righteous in this world with a prosperous hereafter, as it also reminds them of the severe torment as a deterring factor from committing vice; similarly, Islam promises those who follow the moral and spiritual code of Islam, a prosperous and happy life in this world, just as it sanctions the Hudud and other measures as a deterring factor from committing crimes. Hence, a reform must be composed of both of these two components, for one without the other is bound to fail. It is also true that Hudud is not the Shariah in its entirety, but it nonetheless is a fundamental aspect of the construction of the entire Shariah, such that its absence renders a society to be un-Islamic, just as the presence of Hudud without other essential components of Shariah does not necessitate that a society is Islamic.

In response to the second misconception, it is inconceivable that the application of the Hudud with all its applicable conditions and impediments would fail to reform a corrupt society and result in mass amputations. In fact, anyone who objectively analyses the Hudud system in Islam will no doubt agree that it is the wisest and the most effective solution to criminality and to moral decline by being a two-edged sword, because it efficiently decreases the crime rate on the one hand by the harshness and the fear factor, and on the other hand, the preliminary conditions for the Hudud make it more than difficult for the punishments to be applied. If we look at the Hadd punishment for adultery, for instance, the punishment for which is stoning to death, applicable equally to both male and female, we find that such punishment cannot be carried out except in two cases. One such case is for four upright men known for their integrity (‘Udul) to testify in the court that all four of them literally witnessed the penetration. Such a condition is nearly impossible to fulfil, for in most cases it is inconceivable for four righteous and upright men, who are known for their integrity to be bystanders while unmarried couples engage in sexual intimacy. They are also required to testify that they literally ‘witnessed the male organ in the private part of the female’, for if they do not, then there is always the doubt factor that the couples may have been caught in an act of intimacy not reaching the level of intercourse, for which they deserve a punishment at the discretion of the judge, but the Hadd is not to be applied to them. Moreover, those who agree to testify against a person in a court always carries the risk of the Hadd of slander, if their testimony were to fail due to other factors; as well as the fact that a Muslim society is encouraged not to report such crimes, in order to hide the sins of others, and preserve the marriage in hope that the person will repent, unless of course, the person is a criminal by profession who will not be stopped by anything except the Hadd punishment. Hence, it is nearly impossible for a case to be proven against anyone through four testimonies in a court, but nevertheless, the punishment is there as a deterrent for anyone who even thinks about destroying people’s families.

The other case where a man or a woman may deserve the Hadd punishment for adultery is by self-confession in the court, and that is for the man or the woman to explicitly confess to adultery four times by stating that penetration did occur, for anything less than that does not merit a Hadd. If later on the person changes his mind and retracts the confession even during the process of the stoning, then the Hadd is not to be applied, and similarly if one runs away due to fear while being stoned, he is not to be chased after, rather he is to be left alone. Interestingly, the cases where adultery is proven by testimony are very difficult to find in our history, unlike the cases proven by self-confession. Such incidents were always regarded to be the proof for the society reaching the pinnacle of moral values, and the ultimate awakening of the social consciousness and the sense of personal accountability. This is why most of these incidents only occurred during the golden age of the Islamic civilisation when the Prophet was in our midst. Those who were driven by their conscience to confess for such crimes were regarded to be the saviours of those who need no salvation, such that the Prophet spoke of the woman who demanded the Hadd for herself, that her repentance would suffice the entire near-utopian Madinan society. Such incidents were hardly repeated after the demise of the Prophet, except when in the 12th Islamic century, when Sheikh Muhammad ibn ‘Abd al-Wahhab responded to the woman who demanded the Hadd, the news of this incident alone sent shockwaves around the corridors of power in the peninsula because it signified the success of the Sheikh’s Da’wah and the sincerity of his followers.
We do, however, accept their argument that when we hear of a Hadd being applied today (and that is if it is applied), it is possible that the rigorous aforementioned conditions are not met, and that is surely wrong by agreement. But the question remains, what then is the solution? Is the solution to correct the wrong by demanding the application of Hudud along with its conditions and impediments? Or is it by multiplying the injustice by lifting both, the Hudud as well as its conditions and impediments?

Conclusion

The Islamists are in agreement that our decline is primarily due to our own disregard for the application of Shariah, and that the only way to a social reform is precisely to adhere to the teachings of Islam in all aspects of human life, from worship to politics. This recent call emerges in manifest opposition to the agreed upon solution. Although, the call itself is more theoretical than practical, since the Shariah is already absent in most Muslim countries, it still poses a great threat to the Islamic thought process, known traditionally as the Principles of Jurisprudence (Usul al-Fiqh) as well as fundamentals of Islamic theology, which categorically regards ruling with other than the Law of Allah as tantamount to witchcraft. The call today is only directed at the Hudud based on a false Islamic justification, and tomorrow the same justification will be brought to dismantle the rest of the Shariah laws related to inheritance, marriage and divorce, commerce, and indeed, even theology will not be spared.
This begs the question: How should the Muslims respond to such a call? For surely it is only a part of a global secularisation campaign against Islam. We need to realise that there is a concentrated effort being made in this regard by promoting various secularist and modernist individuals and institutes. This necessitates that we recognise that we have come under an immense ideological attack externally and from within, and the way to withstand this attack is for us to further educate ourselves with regards to our way of life and its application in the modern world. We must remember the causes that gave rise to the modernist approach in the beginning of the last century. Modernism came as a reaction to the failure of the religious clergy in finding solutions to modern day problems, since the doors of Ijtihad for them were closed. We must realise the need to revive the Islamic Jurisprudence (Fiqh) by its implementation in the real world, and finding solutions to new problems. This cannot happen except by opening the doors of Ijtihad, but only to those who are legally qualified for Ijtihad, and it should be never be made into a tool in the hands of the secularists to alter the Shariah into whichever shape or form they wished. There is a pressing need today for the mainstream Muslim scholars and thinkers to tackle fundamental questions about identity, citizenship and integration, preserving and practising our faith in Western countries, before they are answered for us by the unqualified.

Finally, every member of the Muslim community is to regard himself a soldier guarding the breach in the frontline, and therefore everyone is equally responsible for openly rejecting and condemning such calls and attempts to redefine our faith. We are likewise required to rally behind our scholars and thinkers in support of our faith in these pressing times, in order to fail all Western attempts in isolating our champions of faith into the ‘wahhabists’ or the so-called ‘traditionalists’ fringe. We must realise that we as individuals are as much a part of the game as the scholars, and the latter would not be able to do much without our support. Only we are responsible for making our voices heard loud and clear, and to show that we wholeheartedly reject all attempts to alter the ‘objectives’ or the ‘letter’ on which the Shariah is based, for if we do not fulfil our responsibility now, the future generations may never forgive us.

http://www.islamicawakening.org/view...rticleID=1222&
Reply

SirZubair
06-20-2006, 09:16 AM
http://www.tariqramadan.com/rubrique...que=44&lang=en

Read his articles and make up your own mind.

DOnt let someone else do it for you.Especially articles posted by the Forum Pessimist. :)

wa'salaam.
Reply

sonz
06-20-2006, 09:41 AM
Originally Posted by SirZubair
http://www.tariqramadan.com/rubrique...que=44&lang=en

Read his articles and make up your own mind.

DOnt let someone else do it for you.Especially articles posted by the Forum Pessimist. :)

wa'salaam.
hey sirzubair

here is his article about the moratorium on his own website.

An International call for Moratorium on corporal punishment, stoning and the death penalty in the Islamic World

http://www.tariqramadan.com/article....echerche=hudud

if u call showin the truth pessimism then so be it.

and arent u forgetting that most of the muslims in this world objected what he called for.

read this

Tariq Ramadan's Call for a Moratorium Storm in a Teacup






By Dina Abdel-Mageed
Staff writer – Muslim Affairs


After September 11, the question of what Islam is really about became the subject of many fiery debates. With photos of Bin Laden chasing Westerners everywhere, Tariq Ramadan, with his trimmed mustache and neatly pressed suit, presented a different face of Islam.

Ramadan was thrust into the limelight in 2004, after the US Department of Homeland Security (DHS) revoked his visa. Ramadan, a prominent Islamic intellectual and the grandson of Hassan Al-Banna, the founder of the Muslim Brotherhood, was supposed to teach religion, conflict, and peace-building at the University of Notre Dame. According to Russ Knocke, a DHS spokesman, the decision was justified on the basis of “public safety and national security interests,” (Pipes, 2004). The incident raised many questions about Tariq Ramadan in particular and Muslims in Europe in general.

Some people argue that the young philosophy lecturer is attempting to bridge the gap between European and Islamic values. In his own words, Ramadan believes that “We need to separate Islamic principles form their cultures of origin and anchor them in the cultural reality of Western Europe” (Trying to…, 2004). Ramadan, who wrote his doctoral dissertation on Nietzsche, “[enjoys]the support of thinkers and intellectuals of the caliber of the late Edward Said, Naom Chomsky, Francois Bugart, Edgar Morin and Norman Finkelstein,” (Sid-Ahmed, 2004). Lecturing in the United States, France, Switzerland, and Belgium, Ramadan has been attempting to create “a coherent European Muslim personality,” urging Muslims in Europe to stop isolating themselves from the rest of society, and to get rid of the “unhealthy schizophrenia” and “inferiority complex” they live with (Bechler, 2004). Ramadan “has authored and co-authored over 20 books and over 700 articles,” and his “Western Muslims and the Future of Islam,” was considered one of the best non-fiction books of 2004 by the Christian Science Monitor (Ramadan calls…, 2005).

But Ramadan has also been harshly attacked by the Western media. “The campaign against him has acquired dangerous proportions reminiscent of the Inquisition,” with the French media calling him an anti-Semitic, reactionary Islamist (Sid-Ahmed, 2004). American writers, such as Daniel Pipes and Lee Smith, accuse him of being “a cold-blooded Islamist” and the “Trojan horse of jihad in Europe” (Pipes, 2004).

In terms of the Muslim world, Tariq Ramadan has long been “absent from our public discourse” (Sid-Ahmed, 2004). Nevertheless, as a result of his recent call for a moratorium on corporal punishment in the Muslim world, Ramadan now find himself in the eye of a religious and political storm.

At a time when already little is Islamic about the Muslim world, the last thing Muslims expected was a call for a suspension of the remaining vestiges of Shari`ah in the legal systems of Muslim countries. However, on March 30, 2005, Ramadan issued his call for a moratorium on corporal punishment. According to Ramadan, “these penalties are applied almost exclusively to women and the poor, the doubly victimized, never to the wealthy, the powerful, or the oppressors.” He argues that, regarding hudud, or Islam's prescribed penalties, “positions remain vague and even nebulous, and consensus among Muslims is lacking…” Muslims today, according to Ramadan, seek to apply Islamic penalties or hudud merely for the idea of application itself rather than the aim or maqsid of such an application, which gives them a sense of fidelity to Islamic teachings.

Ramadan’s call is based on the argument that “political systems and the state of the majority Muslim societies do not guarantee a just and equal treatment of individuals before the law," and that by maintaining a superficial relationship with scriptural sources, "we betray the message of justice of Islam.”

Ramadan find himself in the eye of a religious and political storm.


A notable feature of Ramadan’s call is the absence of any juristic opinions to support his views. Ramadan refers to “the majority of the `ulamaa’s [religious scholars]” without specifying names or citing juristic proofs. At the same time, the `ulamaa’s responses to his call were negative. “When this call comes from a respectable scholar like Dr. Tariq Ramadan, it may encourage others to disrespect the laws of Allah,” Muzammil H. Siddiqi, President of the Fiqh Council of North America and former President of the Islamic Society of North America (ISNA), told IOL.

Sano Koutoub Mustapha, an Islamic scholar of the Islamic Fiqh Academy of the Organization of the Islamic Conference (OIC), also disagreed with Ramadan, saying: “If we call today for an international moratorium on corporal punishment, stoning and the death penalty, then tomorrow I am so worried that they may ask Muslims to suspend their Friday prayer.” And Tariq al-Bishri, the former head of Egypt’s State Council and a prominent Islamic thinker, described the moratorium initiative as “juristically baseless.”

Interestingly, Ramadan addresses several questions to Islamic religious authorities around the world at the end of his proposal. Judging by the overwhelmingly negative feedback to the proposal itself, it would seem to have been prudent for Ramadan to have discussed the issue with the `ulamaa' before, not after, issuing such a controversial call.

Ramadan’s proposal surprised many people; the issue of implementing or suspending hudud, applied as they are in a very limited number of countries and in limited circumstances, is peripheral at best. Hence, the call, coming from a European Muslim, is largely irrelevant to many Muslims. Commenting on the proposal, Ahmed al-Rawi, chairman of the Islamic Organization in Europe, wondered “where on earth such hudud are applicable? They are not implemented in all Muslim countries and there are some reservations on the application of these hudud in Saudi Arabia.”

In point of fact, the current situation in the Muslim world is the selective application of Shari`ah, in which hudud do not play a significant role in the first place. The part of Shari`ah that is applied in most Muslim countries is largely related to family, or civil law. It’s also important to note that, in Islam, one of the main functions of hudud is deterrence.

Parallels can be drawn between this controversial proposal and the heated debate over the death penalty that occurred before the execution of Timothy McVeigh in 2001. “For most Americans the execution of Timothy McVeigh... [was] an act of justice, the desired retribution for the greatest act of domestic terrorism in America’s history.” Responding to the argument that the implementation of the death penalty is biased, many people “opposed a moratorium, arguing that it would make more sense to remove the bias from the system rather than to suspend the implementation of a theoretically just penalty” (Ahmad, 2001). Many Muslims used the same line of reasoning in responding to Tariq Ramadan.

Problems in the application of a law cannot be solved by freezing it. By Ramadan's logic, any unjust application of a law, Islamic or otherwise, should be solved by suspending the law altogether. “Dr. Ramadan should have called for better and more comprehensive application of the Shari`ah. He should have criticized more openly and clearly the misapplication of the hudud in some Muslim countries,” said Siddiqi.

Commenting on Ramadan’s call, Dr. Emad Shahin, a professor of political science at the American University of Cairo, said: “Such a call can be understood in the light of two contexts: a general one and a particular one. Concerning the general context, the calls for reviving Islamic thought and discourse regarding many issues, including education, youth, and women, have turned into a phenomenon.” He argues that such calls are manifested from time to time in the form of intellectual debates that attempt to prove that Islam is compatible with Western values. In this context, we have heard many intellectuals set out to prove that Islam is “democratic,” in the sense that it is compatible with Western democratic values, and have also recently seen a Friday prayer lead by a woman in the United States.

Moving to the particular context, Dr. Shahin added that while Ramadan's initiative could be understood in light of the general circumstances, "Ramadan’s environment as a European has a great influence on his call,” as he is effectively proposing a “European Islam.” Shahin believes that Ramadan is trying to find a place for European Muslims inside Europe; he wants Muslims in Europe to live in harmony with Western values, which would give them the chance to live peacefully without being discriminated against.

The call highlighted the thorny relationship between political and religious authorities in Islam.

But the initiative, according to Dr. Shahin, comes as part of what he considers a “dismantling of Islam.” By being selective while dealing with Shari`ah, “we are tearing Islam apart from within,” he explains. While agreeing with Ramadan that Shari`ah cannot be reduced only to hudud, Shahin maintains that hudud are an integral and essential part of Shari`ah, and cannot be ignored simply because they represent only one aspect of it. “The marginalization of certain aspects of Shari`ah can have grave consequences in the future,” Shahin adds, raising the rhetorical question: “Should Shari`ah be twisted to suit societal behavior or should it be the guide for it?”

Dr. Shahin describes the initiative as the latest manifestation of an apologetic attitude adopted by Muslims, whether in the West or in the Muslim world. He attributes the Western fear of Tariq Ramadan to the fact that “he is very appealing to Europeans, taking into consideration the growing Islamic influence in Europe.”

The proposal by Ramadan, who was ranked by Time magazine as one of the 100 most influential people in the world, brought many controversial issues to light. It highlighted the dilemma facing Muslim intellectuals; they are either accused by the West of being “terrorists” or “extremists,” or accused by the Muslim masses of being “too moderate” or “westernized.” Ironically, in some cases, including Ramadan’s, they face accusations from both sides. This situation has left many scholars bewildered, resulting in either extremely aggressive or extremely apologetic attitudes. It also brought up the historically thorny issue of the relationship between political and religious authorities in Islam.

Tariq Ramadan captured Europeans' attention with his televised debate with Nicolas Sarkozy, the French interior minister and future presidential hopeful. During the debate, Sarkozy surprised Ramadan by a question about Islamic penalties, such as stoning and amputations. Surprisingly, Ramadan’s response had to do with ijtihad, or personal reasoning, and its role in “[coming] forward with alternatives to such practices” (Sid-Ahmed, 2004). Considering Ramadan’s proposal in light of this incident raises many questions and concerns.

Thus, it is important to examine Tariq Ramadan’s initiative in its proper context. Despite Ramadan’s denial that the proposal had anything to do with the West, the initiative seems to be part of Muslims' efforts to find a place for themselves in an increasingly hostile world. However, where such efforts impinge on the fundamentals of Islam, such efforts should be based on clear-cut juristic evidence and extensive prior consultation with the community of `ulamaa'.

While it is likely that Ramadan’s call will be welcomed and manipulated by the West, in the Muslim world it is expected to generate little more than vociferous verbal assaults on Ramadan, and a heated, ultimately fruitless debate.

http://www.islamonline.net/English/V...rticle01.SHTML
Reply

SirZubair
06-20-2006, 10:01 AM
Originally Posted by sonz
if u call showin the truth pessimism then so be it.

and arent u forgetting that most of the muslims in this world objected what he called for.
No,i call you a pessimist because i dont recall you posting a single article (in the past few months that i've been a member) which has made me smile,..every article has been dark and gloomy.

Smile once a week buddy,seriously,it is good for the heart..

Originally Posted by sonz
and arent u forgetting that most of the muslims in this world objected what he called for.
You mean the people that wrote the articles?

They dont make up the entire/most of the muslim population.

Please,until you have some facts to back that up with,dont carry on with this.

Originally Posted by sonz
read this
No thanks. I can easily find articles online written by people who support Brother Tariq,but i wont bother. I'll let you do that yourself.

p.s wasnt it you that posted :

Originally Posted by sonz View Original
salama

mashallah that is the islamic spirit

Ibn Māzin said,

“The Believer seeks excuses for his brothers, whilst the hypocrite seeks out their faults.”
...just thought i'd remind you :)

wa'salaam.
Reply

sonz
06-20-2006, 10:12 AM
Originally Posted by SirZubair
No,i call you a pessimist because i dont recall you posting a single article (in the past few months that i've been a member) which has made me smile,..every article has been dark and gloomy.
i post bad articles?

http://www.islamicboard.com/search/search-id/272842/

see all my topics and point out the bad topics. and this had nothing 2 do with topic so stay on topic.

You mean the people that wrote the articles?

They dont make up the entire/most of the muslim population.

Please,until you have some facts to back that up with,dont carry on with this.
zubair where were u when he made that call??? dont u watch tv when most of the scholars denounced him for making that call.

didnt u read the article from islamonline where it says "POLITICAL AND RELIGIOUS STORM"

do u even understand what he even called for do u accept his views blindly???

i bet u didnt read what i posted but u except me to read what u post




No thanks. I can easily find articles online written by people who support Brother Tariq,but i wont bother. I'll let you do that yourself.
and please

post 1 article supporting the call of moratorium. just 1. u wont find it cuz the majority of muslims rejected his call.

masalama
Reply

lolwatever
06-20-2006, 10:59 AM
EDIT: lol ill take it back
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
06-20-2006, 11:23 AM
Ok name calling is beneath us all, so let's all stop acting like kindergarten students.
W'salaam
Reply

IbnAbdulHakim
06-20-2006, 11:30 AM
Originally Posted by SirZubair
Im not looking foward to it.

In all honesty,i am tired of hearing/reading her opinions.

I didnt have a problem with her until she decided to publicly attack Tariq Ramadan (last year i think?),to me,she is a person who needs to learn Adab,as sami yusuf pointed out.

I guess you can say she falls into my category.

wa'salaam.

p.s that is my opinion.

Please,think twice before starting an arguement with me...
:sl:

bro forgive me but i dont kno much bout tariq ramadan or the attack on him, can u tell me a bit inshaAllah?

:w:
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
06-20-2006, 11:41 AM
Here:
http://www.tariqramadan.com/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=6
Reply

SirZubair
06-20-2006, 05:38 PM
Originally Posted by sonz
zubair where were u when he made that call??? dont u watch tv when most of the scholars denounced him for making that call.
No,i didnt see that.I dont watch much tv.

Could you provide me a link for that?please?

Originally Posted by sonz
i bet u didnt read what i posted but u except me to read what u post
No,im a cabage,i dont understand anything.... :rollseyes

Originally Posted by sonz
i bet u didnt read what i posted but u except me to read what u post
I dont expect anything from you Akhi,the link is there for anyone that wishs to read his articles and give him a fair chance,instead of letting someone else make up their minds for them.

You have the same choice as everyone else,do as you will.

Wa'salaam.
Reply

hia
06-20-2006, 10:21 PM
SirZubair i don't know what that sister said about tariq ramadhan, but i do know the prophet (SAW) told us not badmouth a muslim to another incase we may dislike or hate them. she may have made an error, but she's human after all. And we are not to dislike each other.your doing exactly what she did to tariq but to her unintentionally.

if your unhappy with a muslim/muslimah approach them not others, it only causes more problems and dislike and breaks unity. And we should make 70 excuses for our muslim brothers/sisters before passing judgement.

muslims do what they do (allah 3alim if it correct) because no-one wants to listen! media our against us, politicans (i remember when july 7 bombings happend tony blair clearly said "these people act in the name of islam" without knowing any information about their backgorung!) and majority of muslims.

funny how it wasn't mentioned muslims gave charity for the 7/7 bombings? and how documentaries of reverts and islamic teachings apperars so late at night? and afternoon on channel 4, itv, bbc islam and terroism documentaries are repeated regularly.

so i understand why they do what they do, they feel everythings caving in on them. i'm not to judge their actions wether its correct or not thats for ALLAH to decide.
Reply

Ibn Abi Ahmed
06-20-2006, 10:34 PM
:sl:

Just a reminder first for myself and then for everyone Inshallah.

Refrain from backbiting, as the backbiting that you may/are doing is a sin of greater magnitude then what you are accusing so and so of doing.

"And backbite not one another. Would one of you like to eat the flesh of his dead brother? You would hate it (so hate backbiting). And fear Allah. Verily, Allah is the One Who forgives and accepts repentance, Most Merciful.'' (49:12)

"And when they hear Al-Laghw (dirty, false, evil vain talk) they withdraw from it.'' (28:55)

1528. Abud-Darda' (May Allah be pleased with him) said: The Prophet (PBUH) said, "He who defends the honour of his (Muslim) brother, Allah will secure his face against the Fire on the Day of Resurrection.''
[At-Tirmidhi].


:w:
Reply

SirZubair
06-21-2006, 06:31 AM
I will shut up now.

I've said too much.

wa'salaam.
Reply

sonz
06-21-2006, 07:51 AM
salama

chk this response from admin of http://www.islamicawakening.com/ abuz zubair


As a Muslim artist, I regularly seek clarification and advice from world-renowned scholars on art, music, singing and culture
Correction: You only refer to those who you know will give you the green light to carry out what has been regarded to be fisq for last 1400 years of Islamic civilisation.

If you were sincere in seeking the truth about musical instruments, you should have asked other than those whom you know will agree with your desires.

The least that could be said about what you are doing that it is from the shubuhat – the grey areas – about which the Prophet said, whoever leaves them is safe, and whoever indulges in them, has indeed, indulged in Haram!

Be informed that the subject of music is one of the most controversial topics in Islamic Jurisprudence
It is controversial to modernists like you and your scholars who bend over backwards to justify for themselves what has been recognised as Haram for centuries.

For the vast majority of the Ummah, which includes the four schools, it is not controversy as you would like to depict it.


Yes eminent scholars of our past have opined such. However, I respect and follow the opinion of other eminent scholars – classical and contemporary, who permit singing and the use of musical instruments. The well-established jurisprudential rule states that ‘in matters where there is ikhtilaf (differences of opinion) there is to be no condemnation of either opinion.’ This is from the beauty of the religion of Islam. The diversity of our cultural, legal and social traditions is something we are in dire need of celebrating not condemning. So let’s agree to disagree on this one.
So what if some eminent scholars of the past, and the bulk of liberal and permissive modernist scholars at present justify your pop culture?

There were eminent scholars of the past who deemed certain forms of Riba to be Halal.

There were companions who continued to eat during Ramadan – beyond Fajr – until the sun rise.

There were companions who did not deem eating ice while fasting as prohibited.

There were scholars who deemed the temporary marriages as lawful.

There were scholars who deemed anal intercourse with one’s spouse lawful.

Likewise, there were scholars who deemed listening to musical instruments as lawful.

However, as the scholars said, the one who compiles all the errors of the scholars to act thereupon, all the evil in the world will be gathered in him.

Imagine a religion with all the above prohibitions made permissible. Would it look anything like Islam to you? I think not!

Would you consider such permissive opinions tolerable under the pretext of respecting the difference of opinion, cultural diversity that you would like to celebrate?

Or would you admit that there are differences that are tolerable, while others are not?

The obsessive fascination of fans towards any celebrity - be it in arts, music, politics, media, etc - to the point of hysteria and hero-worshipping is definitely unhealthy not to mention un-Islamic. Of course, as Muslims, we are required to abide by certain etiquettes in whatever situation we may find ourselves in. However, I definitely did not see girls dancing or behaving indecently in any of my concerts. To state otherwise is a gross exaggeration if not an outright fallacy.
Hello? Sis Yvonne actually described what she saw:

The reason I am expressing concern is that just a few days ago at a venue in Central London, sisters went wild in the aisles as some form of pop-mania swept through the concert venue. And I'm not just talking about silly, little girls who don't know any better; I am talking about sisters in their 20's, 30's and 40's, who squealed, shouted, swayed and danced. Even the security guys who looked more like pipe cleaners than bulldozers were left looking dazed and confused as they tried to stop hijabi sisters from standing on their chairs. Of course the stage groupies did not help at all as they waved and encouraged the largely female Muslim crowd to "get up and sing along." (They're called 'Fluffers' in lap-dancing circles!)
The source of all this adulation was British-born Sami Yusuf…
And if indeed that did take place then let’s deal with it in the true Prophetic tradition - a tradition that imparts love, mercy, tolerance and wisdom. Let me share with you the story of the Bedouin who came to the Prophet’s mosque and started urinating in the mosque itself
The Prophet only told the companions not rush towards the Bedouin for a different reason, for if they were to run towards him whilst he is urinating, he would have spread his urine all over the mosque in a state of confusion and chaos!

Sisters in their 20’s, 30’s and the 40’s, behaving as the ‘fulffers’ do in lap-dancing clubs, calls for harsh criticisms not only against those who propagate Fahisha like yourself, but also against your corrupt modernist scholars who give you an Islamic justification for this. Sister Yvonne deserves commendation for her efforts here!

Had you listened carefully to the songs in my latest album which is actually entitled ‘My Ummah’ before hastily passing judgements, you would have noticed my modest attempt at addressing issues facing the global Muslim community
I did recently look at the front cover of your ‘Ummah’ album, and I must say, quite like the rest of the pop icons and celebrities, you did well pretentiously posing yourself as someone deeply concerned about the Ummah. But we, the consumers are too used to the tricks of the trade, practised by pretentious and capitalist artists like yourself.

This leads me to another important issue which you raised – that of identity and culture. Who are we? How do we define ourselves? What do we stand for? Let me remind you again – I am a British Muslim. Proud to be Muslim and proud to be British! Why? Because this is what Islam teaches me to be – loyal towards my faith and my country.
So you have two religions, Islam and your Britishness; as you always have two holy books that you must remain faithful to, the Quran and your red passport.

Do not attribute such nonsense to Islam, for this is just the making of your modernist scholars who have been at pains for the last century to drag us closer and closer to the West, straight through the lizard’s hole, as the Prophet foretold.

Yes, we might be culturally British, since we feel more comfortable with the ‘British Muslim’ culture than any other, but it has nothing to do with loyalty with any particular government! Ask an Englishman, a Welshman or a Scotsman how British he feels. Ask Yvonne how British she feels. You will never become as white as her even if you apply bleach to your face for every wudu!

In this sense, the Prophet was a Makkan, yet, his loyalty lied with Islam and Madina! Hence, his entire post-Hijra life was spent fighting Makkah, until he finally conquered it. You, on the other hand, are comparing yourself to the Prophet, Makkah to Britain, and then suggesting that we should, unlike the Prophet’s attitude to Makkah, instead join the British Army engaged against our brothers abroad, or the Metropolitan racist police force, engaged against our brothers at home! You then have to gall to speak on Islamic jurisprudence?!

At a time when leading Muslim scholars and thinkers have reached an advanced stage in crystallising theories of citizenship and positive integration into Western societies, any discussion of renouncing parts of our identity is simply ridiculous, dangerous and destructive – especially for someone who has no other homeland.
Can scholars and thinkers other than your own ever be ‘leading’? Have you ever broadened your mind to listen to the other side of the argument on the topics of identity and citizenship?

Moreover, you do not even seem to understand what it really means to be British! In fact, even an Englishman would not know that.

But I can tell you this ‘matey’, that one of the most common traits about being British that I like (and perhaps take pride in), is being yourself, speaking your mind, in-your-face attitude, and lack of patriotism. This is why you get all sorts of loonies in this country, from the far right to the far left, and guess what? They are 100 times more controversial than Abu Hamza, why? Because they have in them the real Britishness!

You guys are British wannabes, or have a completely different idea of what Britishness is about. Your attitude is more suited for a country like North America, where your patriotism might receive some appreciation.

Such emotional fist-pumping and chest-pounding about renouncing our British identity may seem attractive to a minority of Muslim youth, but as Muslims in positions of influence like yourself, we should not play to these base instincts. Rather, we should try to be more far-sighted and responsible in our discourse and not sacrifice this in the pursuit of tabloid-style sensationalist journalism.
Wake up and smell the coffee, Mr. Yusuf. Sister Yvonne only came up with such ‘emotional fist pumping and chest-pounding’ article because she is more of a genuine British than you are. She is brave, courageous, daring and uncaring about you and your government’s sensitivities.

Pakis and Arab Muslim migrants to Britain, where most of the first generation, and vast majority of the second generation have succumbed to fear, there are those who find Sister Yvonne’s courage very inspiring.
But Yvonne, let us be fair and not forget that it was in Britain that the world witnessed the largest anti-war demonstration – a testimony to the moral consciousness of the British public
Indeed! The British public! What has that got to do with the British government agenda of assimilation, which you are trying to promote?! What has that got to do with patriotism and nationalism which you are encouraging in the name of this brutal British government?!

Actually the real debate that needs to take place is how are we to shape this emerging British / European / Western Muslim identity and what direction it should take. I see my work a humble contribution towards that end
This is Tariq Ramadan speaking, and not you, Mr. Yusuf. And God forbid that you play a part in shaping up our future in Britain

You are critical of my mention that the Metropolitan Police is inclusive of Muslims. By God, who are you depending on to protect and safeguard our streets?
By God, we depend on God! Don’t you?

How do you expect these guys to protect you when they have been given the license to kill you on sight?

Although, I agree that there can be, and there should be, cooperation between the Muslims and the Police on fighting crime, drugs, etc. But the Police have done a lot of damage to community relations. Just go to stoppoliticalterror.com and see the list of case studies in which police are involved in abuse and brutality against Muslims!

We have a serious problem with the entire infrastructure where Police are being commended for their job for beating up a innocent Muslim, or even worse, awarded with an OBE for shooting him in the shoulder!

When modernists like you turn a blind eye to our wounds and suffering, and instead cheer with the crowd that you are British and proud, no wonder the majority of the Muslims view you and your likes as house-salves.

We have three options as a community: [1] To assimilate and lose our cultural, ethnic and even religious roots. [2] To ghettoise and divorce ourselves from society and face extermination. [3] To positively integrate and contribute to society whilst remaining loyal to both faith and country. I – like the vast majority Muslims – have chosen option three.
All well and good from the outset, but why don’t you tell us, to our horror, the extent of this integration which you are seeking? Would you also tell us what happens when loyalty to faith and country become at odds? What if a Muslim Met police officer is forced to arrest a Muslim on suspicion? What if a Muslim RAF pilot is ordered to bomb his brothers and invade a Muslim country, which your ‘leading’ scholar, al-Qaradhawi allowed him to participate in?
Maintaining balance and adopting the middle way is the key in these troubled times of ours. Extremism and extremists have no place in Islam and in our civil societies. “Perished are the extremists” is a famous Prophetic tradition. Extremism is not a problem unique to Islam
This is another problem with you liberals and permissive people that whoever you disagree with is instantly called an extremist. In fact, often Muslims are disgusted at backside-licking house-slaves like yourselves on appear on the TV every now and then to sing the praise of the government and distance themselves from the ‘extremist fringe’, where in reality, you are the ones who are a fringe, extremists in your liberalism.

As for what moderation is or isn’t, then that depends on the Quran and Sunnah. Whatever is within the Quran and the Sunnah is moderation, and whatever does not exist therein, is simply extremism.

So this is the yardstick to judge what is or isn’t extremism. But for that, you will need to know what the Quran and Sunnah is all about, before you can begin to throw petty labels such as ‘extremism’ at the majority of the Muslims to kiss the hand that feeds you.

I know you wrote your article with sincerity and zeal, but on a more personal level, I was deeply pained and saddened by the hostile tone and the vulgar style of your language that was brimming with sarcasm and was clearly un-Islamic, indecent and a gross violation of the beautiful teachings of our beloved Prophet who said “I was not sent except to perfect your manners.” Using words such as “astagfirullah dude,” “lap-dancing,” ‘whooping and dancing,” and describing the volunteer stewards as “pipe cleaners” and “bulldozers” are inappropriate to say the very least. What shocked and even angered me was the way you shamelessly insulted our pure innocent sisters who were supporting a charity concert by describing them as “fluffers”! (Incidentally, these very sisters managed to raise over £100,000 for orphans all over the world.) I – like the vast majority of those who read your article – was blissfully ignorant about the very existence of this disgusting obscene word, and I would question the wisdom of introducing it to the vocabulary of your readers. As to my performances, I always consciously endeavour to be responsible, respectable, modest and dignified on stage.
Sister Yvonne describe your fahisha as it is ought to be described, and in fact, very much in line with the Prophetic Sunnah, much to your surprise.

Wasn’t it the Prophet – SallAllahu ‘alaihi wasallam – who said that any woman who leaves her house smelling of musk, is indeed, a prostitute?!

How about then, for a group of sisters to jump up on a chair and start dancing? Tell us this straight, Mr. Yusuf, isn’t this what the fluffers do in lap-dancing clubs? Wasn’t sis Yvonne accurate in her description?

So what if these sisters raised £100,000 by dancing on the chairs? What will they do tomorrow, strip to raise £1,000,000?!

After all, day by day, you guys are becoming more and more liberal and permissive, in your bid to lead us straight into the lizard’s hole. This is a fact you must learn and accept.

As I said previously on many occasions, your problem has nothing to do with jurisprudence, or the understand of the Quran and Sunnah.

Your only problem is a slave mentality and a defeatist mindset, which the bulk of the modernist movement, and you as a ‘pop star’ in particular are diseased with, who remains in awe of the Western pop culture on one hand, struggling to hold on to his religion on the other, trying to fuse between oranges and apples.

That’s you in the spotlight, dear bro, losing your religion…

wasalam


http://forums.islamicawakening.com/s...p?t=823&page=7
Reply

SirZubair
06-21-2006, 07:59 AM
Wrong thread akhi.

The Sami Yusuf thread is located HERE

:)

Wa'salaam.

-Zubair
Reply

lolwatever
06-21-2006, 08:03 AM
ps: the verse i mentioned about dog-ness is in a'3raf not an'3am. no im not trying 2 ignite a fight.. just thought i'd reference it properly
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
06-21-2006, 11:28 PM
Originally Posted by SirZubair
Wrong thread akhi.

The Sami Yusuf thread is located HERE

:)

Wa'salaam.

-Zubair
Still made some good points. Some people think that aslong as a sheikh says something is halal, that literally makes it halal.
Reply

SirZubair
06-22-2006, 06:14 AM
Originally Posted by Umm_Shaheed
Still made some good points.
No doubt.

But still,it doesnt live up to its purpose by being in the wrong thread.
Reply

Sis786
06-22-2006, 07:59 AM
Ok now i know who this is, Well i watched the show that came on Channel 4 a month ago called "Muslim Reformation" and i disagreed with what this Scholar thought and said.

You see the Show was about this Scohlar travellign through Europe "Looking" ways of seeing Islam in a different light. He was reading through the Quran and discussing with people "NEW" ideas and ways. The reason i disgareed with this was the same reason a member of the Hizbut Tahir in his prgramme said. He said that the fact that you are "Looking" means that you are seeking to change the Quran and thats your mission.

In the programme Tariq held meetings in which women and men sat in a circle next to each other interpurrting the Quran, the Scholar even said that "Many wont like the idea of men and women sitting togther"

Finally in the proagramme this Scohlar attacked some other scholars in particular one from Pakistan as his views on Jihad was too strict.

Personally i never agree with anything this Scholar said and i felt that he was trying to start a new revoultion.
Reply

SirZubair
06-22-2006, 08:17 AM
Kheir,i guess that makes me a revolutionist.
Reply

Sis786
06-22-2006, 08:20 AM
Originally Posted by SirZubair
Kheir,i guess that makes me a revolutionist.
So Bro u seek to find "New" ideas in the Quran, you see im all up for interpreting the Quran but if i was "looking" for new ideas thats a dangerous thing.
Reply

SirZubair
06-22-2006, 08:30 AM
I very much doubt he was looking for new ideas in the holy quran.

If that is the opinion of some scholor(s),i can respect that.

but i dont accept it as a fact.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
06-22-2006, 11:22 AM
So what do you call making ijtihaad on the punishment of the thief? Is that not a revolt against the laws of Allah? I know scholars are allowed to make ijtihaad where there is nothing said about that matter in the Qur'an and sunnah, but let's not make it a habit. I'm sorry, but I have no respect for him.
I agree with you sis786.
W'salaam
Reply

SirZubair
06-22-2006, 11:26 AM
Originally Posted by Umm_Shaheed
I'm sorry, but I have no respect for him.
I agree with you sis786.
W'salaam
No need to be sorry.

Each to his/her own.

Wa'salaam.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
06-22-2006, 11:32 AM
Do you think that is right though?
Reply

SirZubair
06-22-2006, 11:37 AM
Originally Posted by Umm_Shaheed
Do you think that is right though?
Yes,i do.

I believe in forgivness.

If we cant forgive others for small (stealing) or big (murder) things/sins,we shouldnt expect AL-lah's mercy on the day of judgement.

Thats how i see it,and so yes,i am on the same level as him.

But like i said,thats just me,each to his/her own.

Wa'salaam.
Reply

MinAhlilHadeeth
06-22-2006, 11:51 AM
So... because Allah set down a punishment that lessens His Mercy? Allah is Merciful, but I don't think we should push it by changing His laws. We are nothing. Who are we to make ijtihaad on His divine laws?
Ok.... lets make ijtihaad on the punishment of the adulterer, the murderer, the apostate, because Allah is Merciful? Or is it because we are arrogant?
SubhanAllah.... the Ummah is lost.
Reply

Ghazi
06-22-2006, 11:54 AM
:sl:

If we cant forgive others for small (stealing) or big (murder) things/sins,we shouldnt expect AL-lah's mercy on the day of judgement.
They're laws that state what to do with these people, if the people who commited these sins had any sense and iman they'd take the punishment in this dunya so when it comes to akhria they won't be asked about it.
Reply

SirZubair
06-22-2006, 12:00 PM
Originally Posted by Umm_Shaheed
So... because Allah set down a punishment that lessens His Mercy? Allah is Merciful, but I don't think we should push it by changing His laws. We are nothing. Who are we to make ijtihaad on His divine laws?
Ok.... lets make ijtihaad on the punishment of the adulterer, the murderer, the apostate, because Allah is Merciful? Or is it because we are arrogant?
SubhanAllah.... the Ummah is lost.

Sis,i am not going to argue with you.

I'll say this in the simplest way that i can.

You believe in punishing people for their bad deeds.You choose to read about Allah swt's punishments according to the holy quran.

I believe in forgiving people and letting Allah swt be the judge.I choose to read about Allahs mercy according to the Holy quran.Correct me if i am wrong,but after Allah swt has revealed to us what sorts of punishment such and such crimes deserve,has he not said "..but it is best/better to forgive" ?

If what i've said above is incorrect,then please correct me,I will respect you for it.

But if what i've said above is correct,then please,do not reply,whatever respect i have for you (..trust me,theres alot of it..),i wont lose any.

And no,the Ummah isnt lost.Difference of opinions have existed from the beginning,yet the Ummah has got this far.

For the 3rd time,each to his own.

Leave it be.
Reply

Sis786
06-22-2006, 12:01 PM
Originally Posted by Umm_Shaheed
So... because Allah set down a punishment that lessens His Mercy? Allah is Merciful, but I don't think we should push it by changing His laws. We are nothing. Who are we to make ijtihaad on His divine laws?
Ok.... lets make ijtihaad on the punishment of the adulterer, the murderer, the apostate, because Allah is Merciful? Or is it because we are arrogant?
SubhanAllah.... the Ummah is lost.
Competley with you and its great that you mentioned this as it was oulined in his programme he believed that this punishment should be "relooked" at.

Allah swt is MOST merciful and we like the sis said are nothing compared to him. If we "Re look" at this law then whats next, Lets forgive Adulters i mean its a mistake and yeah also Murderes and Rapist.

Allahs SWT law is perfect and his instructions clear and thats it!
Reply

SirZubair
06-22-2006, 12:02 PM
Originally Posted by islam-truth
:sl:



They're laws that state what to do with these people, if the people who commited these sins had any sense and iman they'd take the punishment in this dunya so when it comes to akhria they won't be asked about it.
Exellent point.

If they choose to do so,then so be it.
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: 3
    Last Post: 10-02-2008, 01:42 PM
  2. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-12-2007, 08:14 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-31-2006, 01:27 AM
  4. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 05-18-2006, 07:25 PM
  5. Replies: 2
    Last Post: 04-27-2006, 10:48 AM

IslamicBoard

Experience a richer experience on our mobile app!