Who is he, why was he attacked on some program and did he really change his views after the program?
If so, why did he change them? What did he change from and what to?
I am quoting from a post in another place:
(articles like http://www.votinghalalorharam.blogspot.com/ show even the confusion, divisions and even political pressures on Western Muslim scholars to conform otherwise they are labelled preachers of hate and marginalised like what Ch. 4 did to Suhaib Hasan who in turn quickly turned and began to praise democracy - what can they do?)
The bit that I do not get is that non acceptance of demcoracy is not a crime in the UK. Why would he then be forced to change his view - if that is what actually happened?
From the narration I doubt that is what happened at all, but I will let others do the leg work instead of presuming.
Here's the source which the article cites:
-----------------------
http://www.guardian-series.co.uk/news/1146248.mosque_disputes_claim/
The programme focused on extremist preachers encouraging congregations to practise violence against women, homosexuals and non-Muslims. Among those featured was Shaykh Suhaib Hassan, senior Imam at Masjid-al-Tawhid.
He was quoted predicting the establishment of an Islamic state under Sharia law and detailing some of the extreme punishments, such as flogging of drunkards, that would be carried out in such a state.
Shaykh Hassan says, however, that his remarks were taken out of context, and that he has never said Sharia law would be appropriate for Britain.
"Britain is a democracy, and I have said many times that Muslims should participate in elections. It is a good system," he said.
---------------------
Democracy is a system of kufr - but poor guy is cornered into say it is a good system! I have yet to come across any scholar who says Democracy is a good system - most say it is an evil system but we are faced with lesser of two evils.
Have a look at his article which states "Today's false idols, which dominate over the entire world, are Democracy, Capitalism, ..." http://www.scribd.com/doc/5526909/WHY-DO-WE-PRAY-Dr-Suhaib-Hasan
he is not cornered - there is no requirement for him to say that. there is no executioner standing over him
He is saying it with his free will where there is no repercussion to him for not saying it.
(meaning I disagree.)
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Carry on believing that the only pressure is the one of an executioner over one's head.
Maybe you can tell the government that parents don't stand with an axe over their kids when forced marriage issues come up - they foolishly think pressure can exist in different forms;
You can also let MPs know that they did not have to step down when the media or their parties pressurised them over the MP expense scandals/cab for hire claims etc the media or the parties had no swords over their heads;
And can you tell all those pressure groups who try pressurising the govt to do stuff that they are wasting their time - they need to get swords!
No doubt you would disagree Hinduism is a system of kufr too - like democracy it has many overlaps with Islam and the offensive bits you don't have to believe in - hey what - a solution to the problems in India. Muslims are hindus too!
Maybe we are atheists too - we just don't believe god does not exist!
and then you say you do not question peoples faith. Just because you try to be nice about it does not mean it is any less true. Its like saying you will stab someone politely.
abd you know what? if the hindus accept the qur'an and sunnah - believe in one God and thing the Prophet
is the final messenger, accept all the other tenets of Islamic faith, I will have little issue if they consider themselves hindu.
(actually I still would - the name Islam is from the qur'an.)
On the other hand, the caliphate ruling systems were not something that came new - they were the existing systems of the time, adapted and made to fit. Democracy is no different.
For something to be kufr something has to make it kufr.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
I am not questioning your faith - your logic results in contradictions in your creed! I am pointing that out. If you don't like having a corrupt creed, you need to rethink your logic.
Your logic concludes that you are a HinduMuslim. Let's apply your logic and see:
- Hinduism believes in many Gods - well you choose not to believe that because it would contradict Islam (given it is so well known, you can't try your alternative approach of arguing Hindus don't believe that and it is not a part of hinduism!) - you can pick and choose what aspect of a belief system you accept or reject.
- Hinduism believes in piety - hey what that's same as Islam - so ok
- Hinduism believes in worshipping one overall god - great - ok with Islam
- Hinduism believes in the caste system - well that's kind of like ethnicity or lineages so no problems
- Hinduism believes in reincarnation - well it's kinda similar to resurrection so no problems there - we'll use the term reincarnation and everything's fine
- Hinduism does not believe in heaven or hell - well some scholars say heaven and hell is metaphoric - hindus think heaven or hell is metaphorically here on earth - so there you go, reconciled!
- etc etc
Thus what do you know, Hinduism is ok with Islam - we're all Hindus too. Do that with kufr ideologies of nationalism, democracy, socialism, secularism, christianity, judaism... and one finds a moderate Muslim believes in all these things - it's just these nasty extremists who create hatred and reject all these nice belief systems and make things difficult.
Your arguments in relation to democracy are those of condemned people like Ali abd al-Razaq of the twentieth century who al-Azhar scholars collectively condemned - maybe you can cite from the classical scholars in terms of the Caliphate and it not being part of Islam? Or maybe you cannot. The Muslim world had seen notions of democracy from translated Greek works - I have yet to see one clasical scholar or philosopher approve them and include them in Islamic politics - maybe you can cite some. Or maybe you have to dump your Islamic intellectual heritage to adopt this kufr system - interesting and embarressing for those who claim to follow the classical scholars.
New claim - caliphate was there prior to Islam. If the caliphate ruling systems were there prior to Islam, maybe you can highlight which civilisation had such a ruling system?
According to your logic we can dump hajj as it definitely existed before Islam. Let's just build shopping centres on Kabah and forget all this wandering around it as the pagan arabs used to do. Likewise Fasting was there before Islam - we can dump that too... anything else? Well jihad was there before Islam, arabs fighting all over the shop, that can go, as can trade, treaties, wills, inheritance, marriage, families, places of worship, food, drink, clothes, beards etc Not much left in Islam after adopting that principle - no problems, Islam is meant to be lightweight - like the latest lightweight materials - modern! Brilliant, Islam is lightweight and modern and brilliant! Refute that!
Why is democracy kufr?
-It gives sovereignty to man - as the title gives away.
-It allows multiplicity of leadership forbidden in Islam where unitary leadership is obligatory.
-It has conceptual problems in imposing obligations on people to obey the rulers or even transfer sovereignty that is meant to lie with them, and,
-It legislates according to the majority.
All these characteristics, like the characteristics of worshipping idols, believing they intercede, fabricating morality etc invalidate Hinduism as a belief system, these characteristics invalidate the democratic belief system.
The only reason imho people try adopting it and reconciling it with Islam it is the fact they are so overwhelmed by the dominant cultural ideology of democracy and the western propaganda of how great it is! No doubt if hinduism or communism was the dominant system today, the same Muslims would be busy reconciling them and claiming to be proud Hindu Muslims or proud Communist Muslims!
WOW.
I'm sure Dr Zakir Naik said that the word Hindu refers to the people from India people and that "is a Hindu because he is Hindu because he is from India"
So Mr You could be a Hindu-Muslim
I was wondering who exactly are the "classical" scholars? :s
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
LOL
There you go Mr You - even scholars can be added to the list to back up the argument against you
The classical scholars usually comprise those from the ummayyad period to the abbassid period (not too sure why the Ottoman period is excluded, maybe due to lack of research on it, as there were a number of very sharp thinkers then too).
They are useful reference points when considering contemporary issues as they did not face the pressure of the type of the current Western and Secular Muslim rulers to issue fataawa to suit their interests - take the case of the Saudi scholars issuing fataawa for the Saudis that it's ok for US soldiers to come into the Gulf and kill the Muslims of Iraq in the early 90s.
Nor did they emerge from institutions manipulated and controlled (inlcuding their syllabi!) by these people.
classical scholars - scholars from earlier islamic times, preferably time of the sahabahs or the few generations after.
Does hunduism believe in the Qur'an and the finality of the prophet (saw)? Does it reject all other gods as false? I think not.
So your comparison there is still wrong. It starts from the wrong basis.
I assume you also do not know how man does have vice regency on/of earth?
You sometimes take relatives and take them as absolutes. Absolute sovereignty lies with God, but after that there is leadership and and it is allowed. If you take your argument to the absolute, it would also negate caliphate leadership. But you sensibly do not take it to such an extreme extreme. Just a lesser extreme.
All Leadership - even the "caliphate leadership" (which could be a number of things from popular election to nomination to hereditary if we go by history) can be right or it can be wrong if it infringes on the orders laid down in the Qur'an.
The right and wrong are not inherent within a system of governance but in its application.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Some names please?
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
Nah, that comment was supposed to be against the use of the word Hindu = Person who follows the Vedas.
It was an unimportant/meaningless comment as you were clearly talking about Hindu=Hinduism/the religion. But i thought i'd say it anyway
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
I'd disagree - Ghazali or Shatibi were not a few generations after but are classical scholars.
Easy - you can believe it and still be a hindu - just like you can believe sovereignty is with God and not with the masses negating the fundamental premise of democracy - demos:people, kratos:sovereignty/power - and still think democracy is Islamic.
That comment would then apply to democracy - you can't have it both ways, namely, that you are not a hindu but a democrat - you are both or you are neither.
Of-course - and if one does not even have a caliph and chooses to have many rulers this is forbidden, just as it is forbidden for a woman to have many husbands.
Wrong - they can be in both. Multiple rulers are forbidden and what a ruler does can be forbidden. Multiple husbands are haram, and how they run the household can be haram.
Except that it has been that way for large periods of Muslim history.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
If things have been wrong in Muslim history, the Ummah's responsibility was to correct them through means Islam provided - if they did not do that, we should learn from the consequences, and ensure we do not make the same mistakes.
It does not however invalidate the Caliphate political system - and does not justify turning to kufr democractic systems to replace it. That way we are making a bigger mistake than our predecessors and will achieve disastrous results - look at Pak, since its inception it adopted democracy and has been a disgrace - as has Israel!
you're conflating separate issues.
There being a caliphate is not mutually exclusive of there being democracy.
We keep going round and round in circles here... I doubt we will ever agree and soon you will present your argument about enforcing the shariah on Non Muslims again as soon as the question on the consumption of alcohol in the rashidah caliphate is forgotten.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Caliphate is mutually exclusive of Democracy just as Islam is mutually exclusive of Hinduism.
Your argument leads to the conclusion that HinduMuslim is legitimate as is IslamoDemocracy.
False comparison - the qur'an does not allow false Gods, gives Islam its name etc. The qur'an does not say that a leader cannot be elected.
You can spread your false comparisons as much as you like, but they are simply wrong.
More, Suhaib Hassan has spoken out inf avour of democracy, and we don't want to knock him, right?
I am still of the opinion that if he was against democracy, he would have remained so. There is nothing forcing himto change his mind and other pressures you alluded to are not as important when a person thinks he is working on the path of Allah (swt). Unless you are saying that he wssn't...
I assume you will also say Caliphate is mutually exclusive of kingship/hereditary rule? Except you cannot say that because there has been hereditary rule.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Perfectly valid comparison - Quran may not allow false gods, it also does not allow the masses to have sovereignty - that is for God alone. Why do you not accept a system that permits the former and accept a system that advocates the latter?
Quran does not permit a leader from being elected but allows elections to express a preference - a leader is appointed through the bayah process. Quran however does prohibit transfer of sovereignty through the electoral process.
If they are simply wrong, your logic permits them, which indicates your logic is wrong as are its conclusions about democracy.
Yes and I watched the documentary that highlighted him as a preacher of hate...
Caliphate is against Kingship - a Caliph can recommend another Caliph who is in his family - it is up to society to give bayah or not - Imam Hasan came after Imam Ali - the ummah accepted it which clearly indicates it is allowed (amongst other evidences!).
God's sovereignity is not being curtailed in any way and if someone was to legislate something which was against Islam, that would be wrong - be it in a democracy, in a theocracy, in a kingdom or in some other type of state.
Proof? Do you mean only in an electoral process or by any process?
If you mean that the Qur'an does not permit the transfer of power, then you are holding Imam Hassan (ra) as sinful. If you do not mean the latter, where are you getting your distinction from.
More, on the issue of elections, even in the UK the elections do not directly elect the prime minister. They elect ministers and then the kinisters try to form a government where the person who can form the government then has to get it rubber stamped by the queen.
and what else is bay'ah apart from the people saying that they hold person X as their leader? you even stated yourself that the bay'ah can be imploicit and does not have to be done by each individual. That is what a parliamentary system allows - when a person becomes PM, he has the implicit acceptance as the leader of the country.
I noticed that in the scholars you liked list you listed AYatollah Khomenei... I wonder what his views were on democracy...
The early nomination process of the caliphs shows that there are multiple forms and ways of choosing leadership. The way tht Hadhrat Abu Bakr (ra) and Hadhrat Ali (ra) can even be seen to be indicative of people choosing who their leaders were... and this can be extended with democracy to increase the number of people who can make their indication.
Another thing is that in fiqh, ijma comes before qiyaas.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
In democracy God's sovereignty is being curtailed and is given to the masses - if you don't know that maybe you should study democracy - even the word itself gives it away!!!
Don't know what you're on about!
Read what I said - Quran prohibits transfer of SOVEREIGNTY through the electoral process!
I list many scholars who have some very deviant views and some good views - you may have noticed I even list non-Muslim scholars. You don't seem to be able to differentiate competencies of scholars and their expertise. You should!
WRONG!
The nomination process shows there were multiple ways of expressing a preference - and only one way of appointing a Caliph - the bayah process!
WRONG - Ijma al-Sahaba comes before Qiyaas - IJMA is irrelevant! And the subject is usul al-fiqh and not fiqh!
Do you thin this is also the case in Iran?
It seems you get lost in the books and ignore the real world... the real world is not theoretical and one of the people you like, Ayatollah Khomenei even went as farsetting Iran up as a democracy.
As for the Sahabah, they CHOSE hadhrat Abu Bakr to lead them. Their precedence is on the side of democracy. The major difference between then and now is one of technology, the idea is the same.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
People who write books and undertake research do so in the real world - they spend considerable time, considerable investigation of views, institutions and processes before condensing them into their works. Thus experts, serious writers etc read such works to get an understanding of the issue.
Your postings have none of that and are highly suspect.
As you are little more than a pseudo-intellectual, I will rely on experts, when I state, democracy believes sovereignty is for the masses. This contradicts with Islam where sovereignty is with Allah.
Mis-citation - no democracy going on here. A small number of elite figures picked Abu Bakr - most of the population of the state had no involvement in the process and went along with the recommendation of their leaders after Abu Bakr was selected and gave him baya, a notion which the Prophet(saw) undertook as did his companions which you reject in your pursuit of flawed democractic processes - which interestingly have been causative to the failed state of Pak and the racist apartheid regime of Israel.
Please don't distort Islamic history.
that is true... but i'm sure they intend that most of their readers will live in the real world, and understand that even the best book (other than the Qur'an or Sunnah) will be subjective and imperfect.
Don't just do something! Stand there.
Not sure of the point of your post but it is wrong.
The Quran is subjective - attributes of Allah or the consonants that appear at the beginning of suras or the absence of the basmala...
Subjective means there is no reality or fact to judge except for personal impressions.
The hadiths are imperfect and some even subjective - one just needs to note the contradictions that appear in some sahih narrations or the attributes of God that are referred to
Most academic works are not subjective - just take a look at many political texts - they are quite clear in their purport.
Some texts can no doubt be cited that have no imperfections - eg classifications in chemistry or mathematical texts
that is nothing to do with what I meant. I'm sorry I was being unclear.
What I meant was that, just because you clearly read a lot of books, you have no idea of how the world actually works.
But I wrote that before I realised you aren't being serious on this forum; you are actually satirising angry 'muslim' polemic.
So it doesn't matter now.
Don't just do something! Stand there.
This bit puzzles me... I have not read very many political books about political theory... but since they are written by humans with their own experiences and political leanings, surely they cannot be objective? I would classify these as subjective.
However, my issue was not really one of objectivism Vs subjectivism, but more about books that lead and books that follow.
The books that follow (eg political analysis) are after the fact and an attempt to understand something. They do not need to be complete, unbiased or anything, but merely the results of the author's writings and research.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Which means what? The one who reads books has no understanding of how the world works, but the one who doesn't does? Hmmmm....
Subjective books are those where there are no facts to verify except personal intuition/judgement - objective are those where there are facts. Political texts geared towards undergraduates for example are all full of facts...
Much political analysis is geared in fact to predicting where events are heading - read Nixon Foundation, Stratfor or Heritage Foundation's analysis for example.
Some political analysis is after the fact as you rightly say.
But not sure of your point here?
No. It means that books alone are not enough. Educating yourself is good. But reading a lot about balance does not make you able to ride a bike.
If you spend too much of your life inside your own mind, hypothesizing about other people's views and lifestyles, you can gain a very warped/twisted view of how the world is. You seem to be exhibit A for this fact.
Don't just do something! Stand there.
Your judgement is actually very poor - much of my life has actually been spent debating and discussing with other people, doing business etc
It may not have occurred to you that you disagree with my views so vehemently as you may have an extreme ideological outlook which you have never bothered to think about.
The issue can easily be solved with a few questions... if you struggle to answer them, maybe you should reconsider your outlook... ready for the challenge?
Pages