I posted this blog a year ago today, & wow was there some controversy regarding it, but today, I want to say that the dream really hasn't changed very much. I feel slightly closer and that today on the anniversary of the attack of the Mavi Marmara in international waters by the Israeli Offence Force I say that we should honour the 9 human lives which we lost and we should stand in solidarity with our brothers and sisters in Gaza, today and every other day. They need us to protect & demand their basic human rights & as Muslims that's more than something we feel we should do, its an obligation. The more people who recognise the suffering & help the Palestinians the more hope of a brighter future for the children of Palestine.
So my blogs usually rhyme, yes? well this isn't poetry it isn't rap this is me. Si. Exception from revival. Or eS if you know me personally. Anyways read the story
After what happened today at like half past four this morning when the Isreali's decided to drop soldiers out of helicopters onto Marmara the one of the ships which was part of the flotilla travelling to Gaza, carrying tonnes of aid I realised something I'd known for a while. Something reflected in things i write usually (before I began writing soley about the loss i've had recently). Something most people tend to see in me only once they've really got to know me. The fact that I eS or Exception or (insert real name here) would love to be a humanitarian aids worker.
I'd love to travel abroad and teach children who never had the chance to learn, Or to work with the ill to make them better, or to build homes for those who had no shelter, or to in even in the slightest way help those less fortunate than me too rebuild their lives. That would make me happy. To see a smile even a slight glimpse of a smile on the face of a human, who had been living in poverty.
Why? Because before I was anybody or anything else, my first duty is as a human being. Because I am a human being. So I as a human being should respect the rights of other human beings. Should help other human beings who do not have as much as me & to share what I have with others even if that leaves me with nothing. A human beings basic rights to food, to clean water, to an education, to a home & to most importantly love should be fulfilled & I want to help those who cannot fulfill them needs themselves to gain what they need to be able to do that.
I believe in a society in which my brothers and sisters not only in Islam but of the Human race can live within, in peace & prosperity. Not fear under governmental dictatorships and harsh regimes inflicted upon them by people who care not for their people.
Yes I'm Fifteen & yes that may seem like a very long shot. But I'm optimistic and whatever little part I can play will be beneficial to a life, or many lives.
Inshallah Allah(swt) will aid me in this and inshallah one day I will help to change a life for the better. Ameen.
Comments
Pretty outlook on things, which I like.
Inshallah you will be successful in achieving your goal.
"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.
this is one of my passions aswell... inshaAllah your dream will be realised ...
//Why? Because before I was anybody or anything else, my first duty is as a human being. Because I am a human being. So I as a human being should respect the rights of other human beings. Should help other human beings who do not have as much as me & to share what I have with others even if that leaves me with nothing. A human beings basic rights to food, to clean water, to an education, to a home & to most importantly love should be fulfilled & I want to help those who cannot fulfill them needs themselves to gain what they need to be able to do that.//
I would say you have a basic flaw in your argument - before you were anything you were a ruh which made a covenant with Allah regarding your duties, rights and loyalties.
Secondly, the determination of rights is a normative process - comprising utilitarianism, virtue/vice theory, categorical imperative or religious deontology - so the rights you are arguing are secular ideological utilitarian rights and not the "neutral" human rights you believe them to be... I personally believe in the Islamic rights ordained by Allah and reject all others as being based on false premises despite some appearing similar to those from Islam...
So you do not beleive that a human has rights to Food, clean water, shelter & love. Do you not. Beleive that whilst you live with all these nessecities that people in the world that do not have these things deserve no help?
Yes before anything else i was a ruh, my loyalties were made to allah(swt) So to respect these loyalties, should i not respect the position which i have here on earth which is as a human bieng with all the basi things needed to live and much more & use this to help the people who have nothing. Should i not show my appreciation of the gifts that my Lord has given me and use them wisely. Should i not use them to help a brother or sister in need. Maybe there is flaw in my written argument but would you say my intention has a flaw?
@ anonymous1 - It would be good to see list of rights which you think she is wrong to fight for.
More, are you discounting the effects of fitrah - the natural predisposition in humans to do good?
"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.
You appear to be have misunderstood my posting - maybe a good idea to re-read it and address my points rather than straw men arguments...
I beleive there is no natural predisposition in humans to do "good" (a term you have sadly not defined - maybe if you can define it I can add further comment). The term fitrah refers to instincts and organic needs, bio-chemical dispositions inbuilt when we are born. They are satisfied according to the moral and ethical criteria we learn growing up, which determines which means are good and which means are bad. For example, hunger is fitrah, but to satisfy it through fruit, vegetables or port is not fitrah - it is learnt "ethics" to which I alluded to earlier. My ethics come from the sharia - for others they come from a variety of historically documented ethical guidelines...
The problem appears to be people assume we have such ethical criteria in built when we are born - something that is incorrect. We are born with a clean sheet...
It is not about what I think but about qur'an and sunnah:
[qs:30:30]
Definition of Fitrah from the Qur'an and sunnah anmd it is a pretty well known concept that people often abuse when using the word "revert" when talking about people who convert to Islam.
I see a lot of hyperbole in your post there but no specifics. What is it that she is wanting to do that you think is unislamic? What are the rights that you think she should not stand up for?
Yes we can write long essays with big words but if there are no specifics, they are meaningless.
"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.
So what would you beleive to be the rights worth fighting for? If not what i beleive them to be. Am i in the Wrong for saying i want to stand up for these rights? Are they that un islamic?
Sure you can sit around and right an essay with huge words that i fail to understand or simpler still you could put forward your case, simply so that i can understand what you think i should be standing for instead of what i beleive i should stand for. I'm sure our views may differ but i'm sure we can all agree that the points i wish to stand for are much needed in many places worldwide. whether thats my islamic duty or my humanitarian duty well that maybe another issue. From your point of view of course
Citing a verse that mentions the word fitrah does not mean there is a definition in the verse. The verse simply shows the application of the term. The definition comes from an analysis of the reality of human nature of which libraries are full.
The verse is consistent with the definition I presented. It is also consistent with the hadith of Muslim where the Prophet(saw) said:
"Every new-born child is born in a state of fitrah. Then his parents make him a Jew, a Christian or a Magian, just as an animal is born intact. Do you observe any among them that are maimed (at birth)?"
It is also consistent with the site where you lifted the verse if you had bothered to read it:
"The term fitrah literally means, creation; the causing a thing to exist for the first time; and the natural constitution with which a child is created in his mother’s womb. It is said that is the meaning in the Qur'an (30:29), and in the central, opening hadith."
"Imâm Nawawî defined fitrah as the unconfirmed state which exists until the individual consciously acknowledges his belief."
"Islam is also called dîn al-fitrah, the religion of human nature, because its laws and its teachings are in full harmony with the normal and the natural inclination of the human fitrah to believe in and submit to the Creator."
"The intellect enables him to discern right from wrong. He can use these faculties to complement his fitrah and to please Allah or to be untrue to it and displease Allah. The choice is his."
Please state where I have utilised "lots of hyperboles" in my post - do you even understand the word? Or are you out to insult? In fact, given you have raised it, your accusations generally fit into the definition of hyperbole.
My post was quite short and can hardly be termed essay. It was also specific - in explaining human nature comprises bio-chemical inclinations, instincts/organic needs, which need to be satisfied after determining a course of action using the mind. Yours on the other hand tried to present a quranic verse to define fitra - something no scholar has ever attempted including Yasien Mohamed whose article you lifted from. Please read Yasien's article as it is generally quite good and will help you understand the subject.
As I said before, you don't understand most of the subjects you delve into and then use the tactic of accusing writers of writing "meaningless" statements - it is very poor. My post is not meaningless - it's you do not understand it and cannot refute it but feel the need to write something in reply. Be frank rather than making accusations please. If you don't understand it, there is no harm in asking for an explanation.
Maybe you can explain which terms you don't understand and I'll be happy to explain.
My main concern with your post is the secular approach to solving problems with a "return to humanity". This phrase paradoxically means following a secular humanist ideology in the name of "returning to human values". No such non-ideological values exist - all values are determined through man made criteria and to try arguing that we have some innate values in us when we are born is incorrect. We are born with instincts (inclinations such as sexual drives, desires, emotions etc) as well as organic urges/drives (such as hunger, thirst etc). They do not however tell us how they should be satisfied which is where values come in. These are intellectual constructs that help us decide what action to take to satisfy our desires - eg halal/haram is the Islamic construct whilst benefit/harm (utilitarianism) is generally the western criteria.
When you say you return to human values, what criteria are you using? Shariah or utilitarianism or other man made criterias? No doubt you will not adopt any criterias that contradict Islam however the point is that you should be referring to Islam to determine the values and not man made criterias and then ensuring they don't contradict Islam - the former process is ordered by the Prophet(saw) when he said, "whoever undertakes an action not ordered by us, it will be rejected" and Allah said "whosoever does not judge by what Allah revealed they are the disbelievers".
The islamic definition of fitrah is explained by those verses and ahadith - about purity about having a natural desposition for good.
More since that natural constitution is one after the covenant with the soul and it is uncorrupted, it is towards good (and if this was not the case, then accepting islam would not have been called returning to the fitrah in ahadith).
In your reply to exception you still have not mentioned exactly which rights you think she should not fight for. A lot of words but they are meaningless as they do not inform her exactly what it is you disagree with, but go into philosophical discussions where the end result could be the same or different depending on your state of mind.
If you have a point of hers which you would like to refute, address it specifically. Plain speak is a good thing. It would stop you from getting lost in your own concepts - as you might realise you have only hinted that Exception is wrong in her views, but you have not pointed out where or how.
"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.
You clearly don't understand my post - I bet you had no problem with concrete numbers at school but struggled with the abstraction of algebra and the further abstraction of calculus?
There is more involved in matters than the concrete - something you fail to grasp. Read shatibi's mawafaqat and you'll see great scholars like him discuss the abstract theories of law embedded in the Quran and Sunnah - like a rainbow, the sources have a number of dimensions, which studying and contemplating allow you to grasp...
//The islamic definition of fitrah is explained by those verses and ahadith - about purity about having a natural desposition for good.//
Again you are wrong - even the article you lifted the references from does not extract a definition from those texts and sees the texts as application in nature and not defining anything.
Fitrah can be seen in a new born child, the state they are in - the natural instincts and organic needs that are inclined to be satisfied via good - but can be polluted and corrupted through bad.
What is good and bad is defined by God through his sharia and not known without it.
If it can be known without sharia I'd ask you to explain how.
yes - naturally good but corruptable. Yet you argue against that.
"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.
Everything always comes down to concrete. Theory only goes so far but after that, there are concrete results that make or break the theory.
"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.
Helping the poor is that not something the prophet(saw) did. A good deed a pious action. Humanitarian woRk extending a hand to tjose who need it, Showing generosity another well known chareCteristics of the prophet
suRley if you had any direct critisism Of my blog you could point it out. If so i invite you to point out where i am right or wrong instead of talkin in circles of theory and prove urselF
I have pointed it out above - you appear not to understand. To reiterate the problem in your article is:
- you dump sharia - this is forbidden
- you follow "alleged" humanitarian values - this is forbidden
- humanitarian values are not sourced in quran and sunnah - they allegedly come from human nature which is incorrect - you are no longer following ration, just nonsense
- much of what you wish to do may appear similar to sharia but what is similar to sharia is not sharia - the intention to follow sharia is also important - something you lack and this lack invalidates any "good" actions you may do
- intention cannot make haram into halal, but it can make halal into haram
Hopefully that spells it out in simple language you are asking for...
No not naturally good - as the statement is meaningless!
Inclined to be satisfied via good but can be poluuted and corrupted through bad - so can be satisfied via good or bad! The instincts and organic drives are neutral - like a tv (as you seem to like concrete examples!) which can be viewed with good programmes or bad programmes...
That is full of presumptions and is totally disingenious. You are presuming what peoples opinions are and making their god thoughts to be haraam when you have no evidence of it.
So your whole argument is that doing the right thing is not allowed because people are humanitarian instead of following shariah even though both expect the same? That us utter codswallop.
I also think it is highly presumptious of you that she would not have considered the religious aspect of it either.
Humanitarian is also Islamic and can be taken from the qur'an and sunnah - feeding the poor, providing clean water, protecting peoples lives etc is both islamic and humanitarian.
I find the opinion that if people people do not always agreee with you tjen theu are rejecting the shariah and thus all their actions in all spheres of life are wrong and always unislamic to be absurd.
You have a lot of intolerance and hate inside of you of you can not accept that people who may not agree with you (amd here, we don't really know - exception may even agree with you!) can never do right and that their intentions are always corrupted. It is even unislamic to harbour such suspicions.
"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.
Right all of this is what you presume i will do. Judging my actions when you don't actually have any concrete evidence to say i will dump sharia or i will make halal into haraam or i will not consult the sharia.
I would consult islamic teachings before i took action as a muslim that is my duty. But you seem to think that due to me taking my humanitarian duties more seriously i will leave behind my islamic ones. Well your wrong. No I won't. there is many cases in which my humanitarian and islamic duties are the same, if not very similar.
You seem to be looking for the bad in everything, or atleast something to hate on. I'm sorry if the bad intentions and "bad way to do things" isn't here in what i intend to do. But i think maybe you should try to see the good in more things. It may get you further.
Hmd you finally understand - sadly lots of emotion and accusations with little substantitation - let's look at what the article wrote to see if any of your accusations hold water:
//Because before I was anybody or anything else, my first duty is as a human being. Because I am a human being. //
No reference to Allah - clearly stating my first duty is as a human being BECAUSE I am a human being = humanism = kufr ideology = utterly wrong!
Your first duty is to Allah who created you as a soul and gave you life BECAUSE he is your creator - without him you are not even a human being, you are nothing.
//<> I as a human being should respect the rights of other human beings.//
Wrong conclusion - it doesn't even necessarily follow from the conditions that precede it.
Following the premises I have stated: so as a creation of Allah I should follow his revelation including where he orders that you respect the rights he has ordained for others. At times their rights are lost and they must even be fought against and killed - not respected! EG Those who invade Muslim lands and cause bloodshed and tyranny like in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Thus your whole foundations that are being laid are incorrect - they contradict the Islamic foundations. Hopefully not too abstract for you.
//A human beings basic rights to food, to clean water, to an education, to a home & to most importantly love should be fulfilled//
These appear simply to have been naively reiterated from Western culture and ideology.
The scholars (Juwayni, Shashi, Amidi, Ghazali, Shatibi etc) are agreed the Sharia aims deduced through induction from numerous Quranic ayaat and ahadith comprise Deen, Life, Lineage, Intellect and Wealth. If one expands these, they include: food, shelter, clothing, health, transport, education, earning a living and security!
//I believe in a society in which my brothers and sisters not only in Islam but of the Human race can live within, in peace & prosperity. Not fear under governmental dictatorships and harsh regimes inflicted upon them by people who care not for their people. //
The Quran and Sunnah tells me my brothers and sisters are the believers with whom I should exhibit rahma and be harsh with those who disbelieve:
"The Believers are but a single Brotherhood." [Quran 49:10]
"Muhammad is the Messenger of God and those with him are stern to the disbelievers yet kind among themselves." (Quran 48:29)
"A Muslim is the brother of another Muslim. He does not oppress him, nor does he leave him at the mercy of others." [Sahih Muslim]
In their love and concern for each other, all members of this Brotherhood are one body: when any part of the body suffers, the whole body feels the pain [Sahih Muslim]
Maybe you can cite which divine texts tell you that the disbelievers are your brothers and sisters?
I would kindly suggest you revise your article rather than defend the indenfensible...
Apart from a lot of slander no actual refutation.
Nope - you've not understood my argument even after I've made it concrete. Read my extreme simplification above and maybe you can address that and I can respond to it.
She has not considered the Islamic perspective as her argument is based on the humanist perspective - including the ideological "basic rights" that humanists present.
Using similar logic, Christianity is also Islamic - we worship, are pious, humble, read religious texts - would you be happy to be called a Christian? Or a Jew? Or a Hindu using similar logic?
When someone disagrees with you, you don't have to insult them - disagreement implies one is thinking and does not imply hate or intolerance - your insults however are indicative of intolerance. Of all these "humanitarian" rights you go on about, don't you believe in the right to disagree? Sharia requires us to think, critique, question... dozens of Quranic verses encourage it - if the article had been reasonably within the Islamic ballpark, the critique would have been different - the fact it is unashamedly humanistic is disgraceful!
You should address the written argument. You go off on tangents, address straw men arguments, make ad hominem attacks etc Neither good Islamic etiquette nor persuasive for someone who is posting on your site.
It is not an article, it is a blog post.
More, it does not need to mention such things because most sensible people would assume it so.
Except that your method of disagreements more or less call the people kaafir - and that is deeply offensive. Moreso than anything I say. I have abstained from such insulting language.
You can't know that. if both arguments are the same, then going for the wording that covers the largest subest of people (ie all of them) is the right thing to do.
I think "Humanism" as you put it can be from islam too. I assume if she had said "Islamic aid worker" then you would have been fine with the blog post that a schoolkid wrote in probably 10 minutes or less...
and it does show hatred and intolerance. I may not be the most tolerant myself but that does not mean I can't see it in others.
"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.
A blog posting is an instance of an article which can also be a story, report or opinion piece whether in newspaper, magazine, internet etc...
I have not called anyone Kafir - to do so one needs to hear them state clear kufr understanding the matter full well. Maybe you can reproduce any posting where I have called anyone kafir.
I have alleged certain concepts and ideas are kufr - all of which I stand by until shown otherwise - which is not the same thing. Something being kufr means it is not derived nor sourced in the Islamic sources.
For example, I can state something that is not from Islam (or contradicts it or runs variant to it) and it can be labelled a kufr statement - however I would need to understand the Islamic idea (which needs to be decisive!), reject it and stick with the kufr idea in order to become kafir - otherwise I'm some Muslim who has mentioned a non-Islamic/kufr idea through ignorance, naivety, misunderstanding etc.
I await your response with interest...
The point is both arguments are not the same - if they were, there would be no disagreement. The two arguments are different if you read my posting.
Yes of-course it can... it's all one great misunderstanding... maybe you want to email leading proponents of humanism Hitchens and Dawkins and tell them that - they may stop attacking Islam and all other religions as you've solved the problem - if an ideology disagrees with Islam but is dominant in the world, solve the problems by bringing it within Islam! Maybe we could say that all the world's religion are from Islam too...
Ad hominem attacks again!
Except that "Humanism" is your word to describe her blog, not her own. She never claimed to be "humanist", just human. Which I assume she is.
I used the word humanist in context of the original blog which you jad defijed as humanist. Ofcourse then you decided to revert to Dawkins definition of it when faced with opposition... a definition that does not apply to the original blog. My sister, I think you are confused. If you want to use Dawkins definition, it does not apply here and your usage is incorrect. If you want to apply it in context, then it is not un or anti Islam.
So yes, you made up an argument, presumed it and then refuted that non-existant argument (a strawman even). Why would you do such a thing if it was not due to hate?
And yes I still think your definition of fitrah is wrong. Notice how in the hadith it is mentioned how theor parents change their nature by taking them to other religions, but Islam is not listed there.
"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 a Muslim asks us to forget everything, just worship idols called Krishna, Vishnu etc they don't need to call themself a Hindu or the philosophy Hinduism for it to be exactly that!
Furthermore, attacking someone for critiquing that what is not explicit is interesting for someone who themselves critiques articles for having subtexts...
(BTW there is no subtext as you alleged - the author is in fact explicit about the links and connections of many of the scholars and their ideologies with overseas movements and governments and their influences on their fataawa in the UK - exposing things going on in the background and not easily visible to most people who just repeat cheap and meaningless slogans of "the scholars said so" - you probably need to read the article in full...)
And then you say you are not suggesting that people are kaafir...
That is also an inaccurate and misleading analogy that has no similarity to the situation being discussed - No one has suggested that Islamic practices and beliefs become compromised. the opposite in fact is the case as you are really characterizing Islamic qualities under a different definition in order to bash that straw-man (but even that would be inaccurate to your analogy as if Hindus decide to accept one God, His messengers, books etc, they would also need to accept the name Islam as that is legislated in the book unlike for other religions).
You are now suggesting that trying to help your fellow human beings is tantamount to worshiping a different God!
I am sure that is not what you meant but the comparison is lazy and inaccurate... because it is you that is saying that the use of the word humanist (which was your assertion and not the blog writers) is kufr ideology, while the blog writer has neither called herself a humanist, nor used the term.
"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.
Pages