[EDITED (Thanks )]

and how old is Ali?

TheRevivalEditor wrote:

Ali is in his early 20's
the lads growing and maturing.... slowly:-)

Too slowly in my opinion.

Why can we not have conversations taking place for different situations and contexts with new people/teenagers to fit in real life? Then they might be worth reading. No offence sorry. Ali seems to be too extreme (ha-ha) in everything he does.

I think Jamal needs to be decapitated. He annoys me greatly.

ROFL
but why?

He is just grating. Mr Perfect who has no flaws and does not turn down an opportunity to lecture others. A know-it-all that doesn't really know it all.

He is the type of person that has not lived but tells others how to. He also lacks personality, but has a condescending holier than thou attitude to others that may seen as passive aggressive.

Don't you want him to mess up, get egg on his face and to realise that things are not always easy?

Ali: Did he kill ‘em all with his sword like that gal in Kill Bill... that was sick man!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

omg
I love whoever came up with that line
that is hilarious!

I thought most of the scholars were united in that it is allowed with a very small number on the other side... (and are there any real scholars who have that view or just a few random people who have access to pulpits?)

Even in safe seats, the seats are safe for a reason - because people voted for them. Maybe because the people think the elected MP from that region is doing good job.

True, you cannot control how people vote. More, you probably will not even want to.

While it may be "wishful thinking" to get everyone to coordinate always, it can happen and it has happened. Yes, in most places this time around the people thougyht to be bad for Muslims did survive (some only just, others by bigger majorities), but the fear of being voted out was there.

Anonymous1 wrote:

By not voting we are letting BNP in - BNP didn't win any seats in the last two elections and half the Muslims did not vote - this argument is more of a scare tactic than being realistic

On the contrary prejudice and hate is a bigger problem when you are in a time of economic decline. When people are worried about their future, about putting their food on the table, they are less willing to play nice.

If you look through history, many of the times where problems have occurred would coincide with economic downturns.

The last two elections before this were pre economic crash. The local and european elections since have had large amounts of people voting for more extreme parties. The BNP almost had control of a council and had MPs in the european parliament.

That is not hyperbole but fact. Surely you could not have been blind to their gains? Even all the legislation against the hijab in europe, the minaret ban etc all kicked off with the economic downturn.

However this election their powers seem to have been dampened both in the general elections and in the local elections where they got wiped out in many places.

Anonymous1 wrote:

I would disagree with your attribution of causal analysis of economic factors and voting behavior in relation to the BNP - the last elections undermine your argument.

They did not succeed because they were.effectively combatted.

anonymous1 wrote:

However rather than repeat the arguments, there is a good research paper (the only one done on the topic that I'm aware of) at the following site which may interest you if you choose to read it - it addresses all the points in relation to voting, the different scholarly views (apparently there are around 100 scholars who prohibit voting!) and the political paradigms surrounding the process:

http://www.votinghalalorharam.blogspot.com/

Thanks, I will have a read, but I love it how the HT call themselves the traditionalists! I fimd tuat quite funny.

Mpre, this is not a new debate but one tuat jas ocurred before when in khilafh system many scholars did mot want to get muddied by corrupt rulers and an imperfect system. That debate eventually concluded with the result that taking part was a must.

It is not hard to see the rise in prejudice recently - you just have to open your eyes.

Two years ago the EDL did not exist, neither did a few other hate groups. The few elections saw a marked rise is votes for groups like the BNP wjere they had drastically increased the council seats they jepd md even got theor first MEPs. These are facts and not unsubstantiated claims.

It was in the same climate that the swiss banned minarets and many others are proposing bans of veils and headscarves.

You have to be blind to not notice this fast rise in intolerance over the past year or two!

Anonymous1 wrote:

The solution is to do what the Prophet(saw) did in Mecca - dawa to win over society to Islam and communicate the ideology to society en masse - otherwise Muslims face a serious existential problem in Britain...

While I have issues with other parts of your posts, this is something I can wholeheartedly agree with.

I would also say that I doubt there is any integration "strategy" that has been followed (just individuals going their way) and the reason why different facets are seen is because we do not operate as a borg like entity.

It also shows that we are willing to stand up for what we feel is right and have been given the opportunity to peacefully demonstrate - even if it was not always appreciated that we did.

I agree tuat the definition used for shariah is clumsy at best in that exchange. It seems to use Shariah in the sense of the penal system only, which is much too narrow a definition. Shariah is much more than that amd if taking the broader view, that exchange is wrong.

(fyi, I have edited my last post to add more text)

Anonymous1 wrote:

I would disagree with your attribution of causal analysis of economic factors and voting behavior in relation to the BNP - the last elections undermine your argument.

You know, you could potentially have a point if the BNP did not have slogans like "Lets kick islam out of the UK". But since they were campaigning on an anti Islam platform, your point does not stand. They were even trying to ally themselves with non-muslim ethnic
minority groups in order to push this message.

So you may continue to use big words to try and bamboozle people, but atleast here, you are simply wrong.

Anonymous1 wrote:

-Of the remaining seats, Muslims are such a tiny percentage, with varying voting patterns that any individual voting or not voting makes no difference at all...just a waste of time...

This also backfires as the way to get around this it to work within the community, to show Non Muslims too how those MP's are bad for the community as a whole.

It requires political action to get that to happen.

This may surprise you but I don't think it is obligatory to vote. Often I am too lazy to ote or don't see a point in it t all.

What I am against is the idea that voting is either haraam or kufr.

More, I agree that participating in society in general to show the the errors of some people vying for power is a good thing. No one needs to act in solitude and that is not hoe democracy works - you need enough of a voice to make it meaningful.

PS many safe seats are safe precisely because the people of the constituency consider the imcumbent to be doing a good enough job to get their vote. There is no conspiracy involved - on the few occasions that they don't, look at what happened to Lempik Opik - he lost one of the safest sets the Lib Dems had.

I do plan on reading that but it is loooong.

(What would the shariah state's position in your eyes be on matters like centralised healthcare, roads and transport? On the issue of alcohol, would it allow non muslims to drink? If yes, since spying is haram, how would it police the system to stop muslims from drinking?)

On the issue of participation, how can you participate but not vote? That would be telling others to vote in your interests but not do so yourself.

Anonymous1 wrote:

http://www.votinghalalorharam.blogspot.com/

Ok, starting with the link now... hese are thoughts as I read through... no idea how long I will give it but... the first page starts off with a false assertion.

Muslims living in the West are confronted with problems not experienced historically.

WRONG!

That assertion is only made so that the group writing it can assert themselves to be traditionalists while overlooking the overwhelming body of traditional opinion.

how do I continue from here when you find the very basis of the article wrong?

Nothing has created so much heated debate as political participation in secular democratic systems and voting for non-Islamic political parties.

Incorrect, most people simply get on with it. The only people who create debate are the minority against it. To everyone else it is a non issue.

Of all the political activities none have been as controversial as political participation through voting and legislative processes.

Once again, not true for the bast majority. The people that it has been controversial for probably number in the hundreds or thousands in a community that is almost 2 million people.

Democracy as a system and philosophy however has been a contested concept amongst scholars and activists:

If you go to the very beginning, The first and fourth caliphs were chosen using methods that can be considered as precursors to modern democracy. There were competing people who it was thought had a right to lead the community, but a single person wa chosen to become the khalifah.

I think the three categories of traditionalists modernists and secularists are wrong. I would not consider the traditionalists as outlined in that piece to be traditional at all.

Next comes the conspiracy stage that "look, all those muslims who disagree with is are connected to other organisations! conspiracy! Only we remain tried and true". alternatively it could be written "scholars from all the leading organisations are united that voting and taking part in democratic processes are allowed. Only a rag tag bunch of unconnected people - people not connected to any organisation, nor to any scholarly body - disagree."

Traditionalists question the assumptions modernists rely on and argue alternative models of engagement in non-Islamic societies. For instance, the assumption of permanency of Muslim abodes in the West is open to critique.

Meaning "we agree with the BNP, get us out of here!", but this ignores that fact that people ahve been here for years - people who came as 20 year olds in the 1960's are now going to be retired 70 year olds. That is a life term.

There may be some future where the Muslims are no longer able to live in places like the UK, but that is neither a certainty, nor is it now. More, it is abandoning the people "in the middle" - the ones that haven't been kicked out in a land of limbo.

That is also forgetting that there are maybe 50,000 converts to Islam in the UK who have known no other country as home escept the UK (lets ignore that many of the ethnic mintories were also born and brought up in the UK) - while existence within the UK may not be permanent, it is a life time or longer. As the article mentions just before, Muslims have been here since the 1600's.

With tensions between Islam and secular democracy, Muslims have not integrated like other religious communities.

You should have a look at the Gypsy community - they are even the same colour and are still different. (More, I think we can learn from them about how NOT to integrate as they have managed to save important parts of their culture by not integrating).

When the article uses the word "Global Ummah" - it uses the word global in there. as in all over th globe. It would not be global if the Muslims were relegated to noly existing in one part of the world.

The maintenance of links to their homelands, properties and wealth overseas by large numbers of Muslims are indicative of such fears.

Fears are jsut that. Incidentally there was an article on this topic in issue 15: The Big Debate: Are They Gonna Kick Us Out?

This process of conveying Islam cannot be achieved by entering parliament and jointly participating in majority dominated legislation and policy making, when the very political institutions and systems of the country are at fault.

That is another assertion, one with no backing or evidence. I assume that will come later.

A Guardian article reported on a leaked government document citing extremism meant believing in the Caliphate, Sharia, armed resistance and opposing Israel, believing homosexuality is sinful and failing to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While this was the case, that definition of not being an exrtremist gained no ground and has been rejected by everyone - even the government did not put that forward.

Next part is about funding of groups - two issues:

1. The government has every right to do that.
2. If a group takes the money, it does not make them "guilty" either of themselves or from association.
3. I think the quilliam wounds is a little raw as they were members/leaders on the uk HT movement who broke away.

Well, that adds up to three. I must such at maths.

Moving forward... the discussion about democracy presents verious arguments and then a conclusion unlinked to the arguments.

More, it does not explain what the alternative to democracy is - Yes the islamic way is the shariah, but who has the right to interpret it? when there are more than one interprtations, whose is used as the basis for law?

More - the khalifah - should be be elected by popular mandate? should be apointed? How about chosen from a group of peers? What about hereditary leadership?

All of those are approved during the khalafah rashidah and none are rejected as unislamic. Democracy is closest to the first of them - the election of Hadhrat Abu Bakr As Siddeeq (ra) and we accept that he was legitimately accepted.

More, if there was only one way, it would have been legislated in the qur'an. We have a section about how news papers etc have responded to various elections. Unnecessary drivel considering the topic we are discussing is Islam and voting and not the papers and voting...

Ok I am bore now. I may read further at some other point but so far it has been... pointless.

More at the election of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (ra), there were people who did not agree and would not give their oath. Their path was forcibly taken. the will of the majority was made mandatory upon them.

Just reading forward...

A number of scholars have historically rejected this principle citing verses, "For each Messenger I sent a Sharia and way of life" (Quran 5:48).[171] However some have accepted it,[172] stipulating a previous Sharia mentioned in Quran can be followed so long it does not contradict that brought by Muhammad(saw).

The first problem with this principle is voting and participation in non-Islamic governance has been addressed by Mohammed(saw) – precluding the use of previous Sharias. Mohammed(saw) rejected a number of overtures made by Quraish to join their Meccan rule as well as offers from tribes from whom he sought leadership due to unacceptable conditions attached as well as prohibiting legislating and delegating in matters of sin.

That si simply disingenious. The overtures made by the meccans were "believe in our gods and we will amke you king" and "You believe in our gods and we will beleive in yours".

Those overtures were not political but religious asking the Prophet to give up his message of tawheed. Pretending that those were merely political overtures is ... decieptful at best.

Later on when discussing how voting is not allowed there is

Adey bin Hatim said, `O Messenger(saw) of Allah(swt), we never took them as lords. He said, `Yes (you did). Did not they legislate for you that which Allah(swt) forbade you and you obeyed it?' I said, `Yes indeed'. He said, `That is worshipping them.' ” (Ahmed and Tirmidhi)

and the text misses out the key bit in there which is "Did not they legislate for you that which Allah(swt) forbade you and you obeyed it?" which is not what taking part in elections is all about.

The UK may allow alcohol, but we do not accept that as halaal for Muslims.

(the article before this also refutes the idea that there is freedom of religion in Islam... There is no compulsion but the page tries to say that that is not the case.)

No, that is where I stopped as paying attention was getting frayed... its a dissertation type of thing which can be dry reading.

But I must say that there was subtext there that I disagreed with and it started with the very first sentence.