MODERATES REFUTED - Silencing Those Who Sugar Coat The Deen

[Umm Talhah]

Greetings,

Can I ask: Is the image of Islam that is presented on the 'Moderates Refuted' website really the image that the staff of LI want to support? Look at the vitriol on display there:





Peace

Yes we stand by everything we have said on the site. Including those quotes.

 

[Umar001]

Actually that was part of what was in my mind, why would people at such a time as ours use language that is easily misconcieved and use it in a way that probably does more harm than good.

I do not say Jihad is not in Islam, but if I say to an english non muslim 'Yea I believe in Jihad' he will more than likely be confused since in most peoples minds, not only non muslims, Jihad = terrorism.

I think better wisdom should have been used, that is why I asked about the Methodology being used.

Alot of people dont understand my view, I remember telling a brother to speak properly in public because there are people who wont understand him when he uses 'Yea these kuffars are annoying me'

He thought I was trying to 'suger coat it' only after me xplaining it to him properly did he apologise and say he understood.

But i guess Iwill be labeleda hippocrate sooner or later.

 

[- Qatada -]

Hey czgibson.


Islaam is a religion which leads to peace, but at the same time - yes what is said in that is true. That the muslims should fight back till their lands aren't ruled by the disbelievers, and also that the muslims gain rule in the land so the non muslims pay jizya [the same way muslims pay zakaah in the islamic state anyway.]

Along with that they are granted protection with their blood and honor, and if you study the life of the rightly guided Khalifaah (successors and companions of the Prophet, peace be upon him) [Abu Bakr, Umar, Uthman, and Ali] you will see that the non muslims were actually happy to live under the islamic rule because of all the justice they recieved. They were even allowed to establish their own courts etc. And there were times when the judge would rule against the Khalifah himself, because there wasn't sufficient proof for his claim [because he had lost his shield in battle, a jew claimed that it was his, and because Ali never had sufficient proof/witnesses that it was his former shield - the jew was able to keep it.]


There are countless examples of that which show the justness of the islamic rule. Because the one's who are aware that Allaah is watching them fear to disobey Him in public and in private. Whereas that isn't the case with the politicians of today, nor of the disbelieving rulers of the past.



Regards.

 

[*Hana*]

Salam Alaikum:

Actually, what concerns me is the quote about Islam not being a religion of peace.

Since when is Islam not a religion of peace!!?? With comments like that, it's no wonder people think we are war mongers and hateful.

Yes, we fight those who fight against us, Yes, we defend our land from invaders, Yes, we fight oppression on our land. We can NEVER be the aggressor! We only DEFEND! This in no way means Islam is NOT a religion of peace! With the exception of fighting those who attack us and try to steal our land, Islam opts for peace. Even in those times, when peace is achieved, Islam guarantees the rights of the non-Muslims that opt to remain. Islam always strives to have peace as the end result. The true teachings of Islam is always just to both Muslims and non Muslims living in an Islamic state. There would be nothing more perfect and more peaceful than living under the laws of Shariah in a truly Islamic state. And yet this "Islamic" site says it is not a religion of peace? :rant:

Making such ridiculous comments as "Islam is not a religion of peace" is doing a tremendous disservice to the beauty and truth of Islam. Some of the quotes makes the term "Kuffar" seem like a derogatory and offensive term, when in actuality it simply means "a non believer". Just as Muslims are kuffars to the Christians.

It truly makes me question the motives and sincerity of people who create sites in this manner.

Anyway, that's my opinion, but I can safely say it is not a site I, personally, would visit, recommend or source for information about Islam.

Wa'alaikum salam,
Hana

 

[Malaikah]

Yes, we fight those who fight against us, Yes, we defend our land from invaders, Yes, we fight oppression on our land. We can NEVER be the aggressor! We only DEFEND! This in no way means Islam is NOT a religion of peace! With the exception of fighting those who attack us and try to steal our land, Islam opts for peace.

Um, are you sure that is true? :?

I personally don't like the statement "Islam is the religion of peace". If someone doesn't practise Islam, how do they expect to get the peace benefits that come from it? Just because someone lives amongst peaceful Muslims, doesn't mean they themselves are guaranteed (inner) peace if they do not practise Islam.

 

[Muslim Knight]

Um, are you sure that is true? :?

Sister, I don't mean to interrupt but aren't we forgetting that Islam comes from the root word salama which means peace? Also, the Quran says we are permitted to fight only those who work aggression against us. The Quran even lays out rules of engagement, meaning no killing of old folks, women, children, and no despoiling of crops or livestock. In addition to that, no mutilations either. Remember what happened at Uhud? The Mushrikeen won the battle and they pretty much messed up the dead bodies of Muslim fighters at that time. I read about Hamzah the Prophet's uncle and I remember crying when I came to the point where he was severely mutilated by the wrath of the Mushrikeen.

By the guidance of Allah, the Prophet expressly forbid the mutilation of the enemy dead in the aftermath of the battle of Uhud.

That pretty much sums up that Islam is a religion of peace.

Alternatively we could put up signs saying that Islam is the religion of peace, but not the religion of stupidity. It means "we're peaceful bunch but don't think we're just gonna sit around doing nothing when you kaffirs decide to oppress us."

 

[Umar001]

This is partially what I meant by using words with wisdom.

 

[Malaikah]

Also, the Quran says we are permitted to fight only those who work aggression against us.

Where does it say that? And how do you define aggression?

 

[Muslim Knight]

Where does it say that?

[FONT=VERDANA,ARIAL, HELVETICA][SIZE=-1] Except those who join a group between whom and you there is a treaty (of peace), or those who approach you with hearts restraining them from fighting you as well as fighting their own people. If Allah had pleased, He could have given them power over you, and they would have fought you: Therefore if they withdraw from you but fight you not, and (instead) send you (Guarantees of) peace, then Allah Hath opened no way for you (to war against them). (Suraah An-Nisaa', 4:90)[/SIZE][/FONT]

And how do you define aggression?

Aggression i.e. in declaring war and launching attacks.

If we study Seerah, we can find no instance where the Prophet initiated the call of war, but they were rather reactions to acts of war by the Mushrikeen. For example;

Battle Badr; the Muhrikeens confiscated the properties of Muslims when they left for Madinah. Permission was given to get them back, that is through the only channel applicable against the militant Mushrikeens; war.

Battle against Bani Qaynuqa; chain of revenge killings initiated by a Jewish goldsmith who insulted a Muslim woman.

Battle of Khandaq (Trench); the Muslims defend Madinah from the assault of Mushrikeen

Battle against Bani Qaynuqa; Jewish tribe betrayed the covenant between them and the Prophet that nearly cost the Muslims their lives and the cause of Islam during Khandaq.

And lots of others. Even the Islamic expansion after that resulted from clashes with foreign powers launching incursion on Muslim borders.

 

[Umar001]

Yes but we can fight a country that doesnt allow islam being spread cant we??

 

[Muslim Knight]

Yes but we can fight a country that doesnt allow islam being spread cant we??

I think the key word here is that they are openly hostile.

Wallahu 'alam bissawab. I'll just let the experts answer.

 

[Keltoi]

I'm slightly confused. When non-Muslims have even hinted that Islam is not a "religion of peace", the Muslims on this forum have been quick to correct the person and prove that Islam is indeed a religion of peace. Yet now we have Muslims defending a statement that Islam is not a religion of peace. I know not all Muslims are defending that statement, but it shows a certain amount of confusion on the topic. I guess it is all about definitions and semantics...but I would think a religion being "peaceful" would be fairly easy to prove and define without all the debate.

 

[Umar001]

I'm slightly confused. When non-Muslims have even hinted that Islam is not a "religion of peace", the Muslims on this forum have been quick to correct the person and prove that Islam is indeed a religion of peace. Yet now we have Muslims defending a statement that Islam is not a religion of peace. I know not all Muslims are defending that statement, but it shows a certain amount of confusion on the topic. I guess it is all about definitions and semantics...but I would think a religion being "peaceful" would be fairly easy to prove and define without all the debate.

Theres a difference, that is why you will see the Muslims who do not say 'YOUR WRONG' saying 'Choose wise words'

Alot of the time when Muslims say Islam is not Just peace, they do understand that Islam does have peace but also that Islam does allow war. Which is what every muslim agrees with.

But when non Muslims, I am talking on average, come and say Islam is a religion of War or Islam is not peace, then they actually mean, that islam HAS NO peace, that is why you see refutation.

The Muslims who say that Islam is not just peace, do it to refute those who say 'islam is 100% peace' meaning that not violence is allowed, because we know in Islam you dont have to turn the other cheek.

Whilst some if not most of the non Muslims are actualy saying that Islam has no peace.

The differnce is, the Muslims saying it think Islam is a way of Life which Includes peace and wants PEACE FIRST but if we are opressed then we can fight and so forth. But some non Muslims come and say ISLAM IS FIGHT FIRST and NEVER wants PEACE.

I think the key word here is that they are openly hostile.

Wallahu 'alam bissawab. I'll just let the experts answer.

Akhi, what I am telling you is, if non Muslims say 'You cannot give da'wah to the people in this country and we will not allow it' Then isnt that a reason?

We are all off-topic, by the way. Pretty soon the mods would come down here and warn everybody.

I dont know, hmm, I think we are discussing that website's issues

 

[Muezzin]

I'm not too certain how moderate could be carried to an extreme, but if it can be done, I'm certain it has been.

That's called conservative-hedonism.

Possibly.

 

[Muslim Knight]

Akhi, what I am telling you is, if non Muslims say 'You cannot give da'wah to the people in this country and we will not allow it' Then isnt that a reason?

It depends on whether you consider them saying that line, as an act of aggression.

My opinion, once they get physical, that is. But that is just an opinion. I could be wrong.

 

[strider]

Umm Talha,

Firstly, you didn't even do justice to the word 'moderate'. There is nothing wrong with being a moderate Muslim. Come to think of it, every Muslim should try to be one. Why? Because Islam is based on the Golden Mean and not leaning to either extreme.

Secondly, that site is full of hate. But i shouldn't have expected anything different from a group of people who think that participating in the political system is shirk. I pray that those looking into Islam do NOT stumble across it because they can very well be turned off by the form of Islam you are illustrating. All i can read is 'hate, hate, hate.' I read your postings on another forum wherein you said that Allah tells us to hate the Kaafir. As Muslims, we should hate the sin of Kufr not hit out at the people themselves. How can you possibly do dawah constructively when you run in with your guns blazing? I'm truely disappointed in this site.

 

[- Qatada -]

Sister strider.


This is why the scholars say that voting isn't permitted. Because the systems which rule by other than the law of Allaah make the haraam - halaal and the halaal - haraam.



The Messenger of Allah recited this Ayah;

[اتَّخَذُواْ أَحْبَـرَهُمْ وَرُهْبَـنَهُمْ أَرْبَاباً مِّن دُونِ اللَّهِ]

(They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah). `Adi commented, "I said, `They did not worship them.''' The Prophet said,



«بَلَى إِنَّهُمْ حَرَّمُوا عَلَيْهِمُ الْحَلَالَ وَأَحَلُّوا لَهُمُ الْحَرَامَ فَاتَّبَعُوهُمْ فَذَلِكَ عِبَادَتُهُمْ إِيَّاهُم»

(Yes they did. They (rabbis and monks) prohibited the allowed for them (Christians and Jews) and allowed the prohibited, and they obeyed them. This is how they worshipped them.) The Messenger of Allah said to `Adi,



«يَا عَدِيُّ مَا تَقُولُ؟ أَيُفِرُّكَ أَنْ يُقَالَ: اللهُ أَكْبَرَ؟ فَهَلْ تَعْلَمُ شَيْئًا أَكْبَرَ مِنَ اللهِ؟ مَا يُفِرُّكَ؟ أَيُفِرُّكَ أَنْ يُقَالَ: لَا إِلَهَ إِلَّا اللهُ؟ فَهَلْ تَعْلَمُ مَنْ إِلهٌ إِلَّا اللهُ؟»

(O `Adi what do you say Did you run away (to Ash-Sham) so that 'Allahu Akbar' (Allah is the Great) is not pronounced Do you know of anything greater than Allah What made you run away Did you run away so that `La ilaha illallah' is not pronounced Do you know of any deity worthy of worship except Allah)

The Messenger invited `Adi to embrace Islam, and he embraced Islam and pronounced the Testimony of Truth. The face of the Messenger of Allah beamed with pleasure and he said to `Adi,


«إِنَّ الْيَهُودَ مَغْضُوبٌ عَلَيْهِمْ وَالنَّصَارَى ضَالُّون»

(Verily, the Jews have earned the anger (of Allah) and the Christians are misguided.) Hudhayfah bin Al-Yaman, `Abdullah bin `Abbas and several others said about the explanation of,

[اتَّخَذُواْ أَحْبَـرَهُمْ وَرُهْبَـنَهُمْ أَرْبَاباً مِّن دُونِ اللَّهِ]

(They took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allah...) that the Christians and Jews obeyed their monks and rabbis in whatever they allowed or prohibited for them. This is why Allah said,


[وَمَآ أُمِرُواْ إِلاَّ لِيَعْبُدُواْ إِلَـهاً وَحِداً]

(while they were commanded to worship none but One God), Who, whatever He renders prohibited is the prohibited, whatever He allowed is the allowed, whatever He legislates, is to be the law followed, and whatever He decides is to be adhered to;


[لاَّ إِلَـهَ إِلاَّ هُوَ سُبْحَـنَهُ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ]

(None has the right to be worshipped but He. Hallowed be He above what they associate (with Him).) Meaning, exalted, sanctified, hallowed above partners, equals, aids, rivals or children, there is no deity or Lord worthy of worship except Him.


http://tafsir.com/default.asp?sid=9&tid=20998



Being extreme is to go against the sunnah of the Messenger of Allaah and his companions.

This Religion is easy...
http://www.islamtoday.com/showme2.cfm?cat_id=31&sub_cat_id=750



Allaah azawajal knows best.


​

 

[Skillganon]

I agree with brother Fi_Sabillillah, the general stance of voting as what it stands for it is haram, given that it involves voting for or against what Allah(swt) already has legislated and not to mention legislating things that is other than from Islam i.e. Man-Made law.

However asking the question regarding in a non-muslim country:

Some Muslims in a non-Islamic countries are asking if it is OK to participate in the elections and vote for non-Muslim groups or parties. They claim that it would serve the Muslims community there if a certain group won the elections?

Answer: by Islam Q&A
Sheikh Muhammed Salih Al-Munajjid

Praise be to Allaah.

This is a matter concerning which rulings may differ according to different circumstances in different times and places. There is no absolute ruling that covers all situations, both real and hypothetical.

In some cases it is wrong to vote, such as when the matter will have no effect on the Muslims, or when the Muslims have no effect on the outcome of the vote. In this case voting or not voting is all the same. The same applies in cases where all the candidates are equally evil or where they all have the same attitude towards Muslims…

It may be the case that the interests of Islam require Muslims to vote so as to ward off the greater evil and to reduce harmful effects, such as where two candidates may be non-Muslims but one of them is less hostile towards Muslims than the other, and Muslims’ votes will have an impact on the outcome of the election. In such cases there is nothing wrong with Muslims casting their votes in favour of the less evil candidate.

In any case, this is the matter of ijtihaad based on the principle of weighing up the pros and cons, what is in the interests of Islam and what is detrimental. With regard to this matter, we have to refer to the people of knowledge who understand this principle. We should put the question to them, explaining in detail the circumstances and laws in the country where the Muslim community is living, the state of the candidates, the importance of the vote, the likely benefits, and so on.

No one should imagine that anyone who says that it is OK to vote is thereby expressing approval or support for kufr. It is done in the interests of the Muslims, not out of love for kufr and its people. The Muslims rejoiced when the Romans defeated the Persians, as did the Muslims in Abyssinia (Ethiopia) when the Negus defeated those who had challenged his authority. This is well known from history. Whoever wants to be on the safe side and abstain from voting is allowed to do so. This response applies only to elections for influential positions. And Allaah knows best.


Ref: http://www.islam-qa.com/index.php?ref=3062&ln=eng&txt=voting

 

[strider]

Sister strider.

This is why the scholars say that voting isn't permitted. Because the systems which rule by other than the law of Allaah make the haraam - halaal and the halaal - haraam.

​

Jazakumullah Khair, bro but i will have to respectfully disagree with your stance on the issue. As i see it, as do other scholars (showing that there is no consensus on the issue) the act of voting itself isn't forbidden rather what a person may stand for might be. We reside in lands which aren't currently governed by the Islamic Shariah, yet we still have to get by. This is as much our home and society as it is for the non-Muslims. Social policies and laws affect us all and the only way to influence the political process is by partaking in it. It is in no way saying that Allah is not the Most High nor is it associating partners with him. Yes, we vote for man-made manifestos, but not all man made manifestos are against the teachings of Islam. I ask you, what is wrong with standing for exactly the same things Islam condones even if it is in a slightly different manner? You aren't defying God.

Sometimes, we face the prospect of having an extremely restricitve leader ruling over us and making decisions which will no doubt affect our families and the wider society. The BNP, for example, are increasingly gaining votes and who knows in two general election times down the line they could be standing for government. What are Muslims supposed to do then? Remain passive products and complain from our armchairs as to the disasterous state of the country? It will be alittle too little, too late then.

In conclusion, i acknowledge that there is a difference of opinion on this matter and you are entitled to hold the opinion that you do as much as i and other Muslims have the entitlemnt to hold one contrary to yours. Sometimes, i think it is rather ironic that Muslims who run these sites continue to reside in the lands they hate so much.

Anyhow, i'm sure we've had this discussion plently of times before so concentrating back on the initial posting on this thread, inshaAllah.

 

[Skillganon]

Jazakumullah Khair, bro but i will have to respectfully disagree with your stance on the issue. As i see it, as do other scholars (showing that there is no consensus on the issue) the act of voting ......

Sis, I provided the answer above. I understand what you are saying, and it is not kufr given the context and the situation.

See above. I also provided this material in their website, however I do not agree on labelling their site full of hatred. It maybe their is some error's or they are quite hard on this deviant groups, but mostly their criticism are valid.