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
Please point out where I state anyone is kafir - or be careful of your allegations.
The analogy responds to your previous point about the author not using the label of humanism - it points out a non-Islamic belief system can be seen despite it not being labelled as such. One just needs to identify a number of key characteristics which I have already shown to contradict or not emanate from Islam but emanate from humanism as seen in contemporary narratives. As such, the analogy stands and is neither lazy or inaccurate.
Yes I can be hypocritical. Does that make me wrong on this occasion though?
"they all have an agenda, we don't" is not exactly unbiased... there is subtext there and good phrasing helps.
As I mentioned in the other post you can rephrase that section as "ALL scholars from all the major groups have issued fataawa that are similar in content, but a disparate bunch of nobodies disagree - we may not have any scholars on our side, nor any history, but by God we will have our say". Instead a subtext is provided that all the scholars from all the major groups have sold out and sold their soul.
Maybe it is too explicit to be subtext...
"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 non islamic belief system that can only be seen by you.
I see an islamic belief system at work here which asks us to be kind to people, to fight oppression, to help the needy. Even use the hadith you mentioned the other day about fighting evil with your hands which is precisely what she wants to do.
Yet you decided to mischaracterise it as kufr ideology.
"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 you think it's Islamic, maybe you can respond to each "concrete" point I highlighted showing how each point is not from Islam either because it contradicts it, or is at variance to it - when comparing the agenda it fits quite perfectly within a non-Islamic framework known as humanism.
Just asserting it to be Islamic because of some similarity of some points is weak as one needs to look at matching all key characteristics and not selective points - as pointed out earlier to which you have not responded, Christian humbleness, piety, charity etc all concur with Islam - does it mean the Christian religious system is from Islam? Likewise, one can make similar analogies with Meccan polytheism, atheists, Hinduism, secularism, democracy, communism, socialism... are they all Islamic belief systems? The reason they are not Islamic is that there are some key characteristics that are at odds or variance...
If that is what you want, then so be it:
Just random rambling that does not really refute the idea. When a Muslim says "I had breakfast" it does not mean it is a denial of Gods hand in everything and that without God's will that could have still happened.
It is not stating human as a first duty but as a common bond that binds us all, Muslim or Non Muslim.
here you also introduce the straw-man of humanism in order to feel good about knocking it down. The author did not use the word humanist, but human. And fitrah of humans IS good. but it can be as mentioned in that hadith corrupted.
I still don't understand how an intelligent person such as yourself is denying this, but that is a separate point.
It is not a conclusion but a thought process. It would not be terrible different if the first sentence was ended with "(that are granted by the qur'an and sunnah)". Since it is a Muslim writing to a Muslim audience, this does not have to be explicitly stated.
So you agree that people are entitled to the things she mentioned (I would question "love", but since we are all a creation of god, I guess we should love all creation of God to an extent).
The fact that she did not point out Islamic evidences for all this does not mean that the intentions nor the suggestions are not Islamic. Once again, this is written to a Muslim audience to a Muslim. Certain things can be taken as a given and all sensible people would do so.
None of those verses from the qur'an or ahadith argue against peace and prosperity. Nor do they as for dictatorships (here I would add the word "unjust" and oppressive as subtext for the word dictatorship... because often enough they can be).
So no, the two sentiments are not opposing but from the same coin. None of the verses of ahadith you mention that they should be starved, murdered, plundered or other similar things.
I would kindly suggest you revise your article rather than defend the indenfensible...
[/quote]
Or you should open your eyes and see love for other beings - especially Muslims. Especially young ones as (now I hope the author does not find this patronising because it is not intended to be so), being kind to the young is from hadith.
The article is only indefensible when you added your own meaning to it. the author of the blog is young but she knows that she is Muslim and that her ideals are Islamic. You are questioning her Muslim identity and trying to make it sound sinister using words that she will probably not encounter for a number of years before she gets to college or university.
(yes, I agree that for her age she is eloquent and that is mashallah a very good thing.)
"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 should look up the definition of "random rambling" as whatever my reply may be, it is not random rambling - unless you are getting frustrated and are resorting to abuse? Questionable given your later lectures of love?
Analogies of "I had breakfast" are absurd and not even relevant. A more correct analogy with the above article would be "I had breakfast with no assistance from anyone else" - which has some kind of resemblence to "Because before I was anybody or anything else, my first duty is as a human being. Because I am a human being." which is likewise wrong as Allah is the source of rizq.
The author said before I was anything else I was human - this is patently and factually wrong - before we were anything, we were a ruh - a supernatural existence!
Humanism is exactly the philosophy where first of all we are human (read Locke, Roussaeu, Voltaire, Hobbes and their state of nature nonsense!) - and it is not Islamic philosophy. Please provide proof that the first thing we were was human from Ayaat or Hadith.
The article does not talk about any common bonds nor use the label - you are adding that yourself and contradicting yourself in the process by using labels the author does not use. You should at least be consistent with your own recommendations! I don't have a problem with it as I don't make such absurd suggestion of looking for ideological labels... Even if the author wishes to argue that we have common bonds, what of it? From common bonds how do we determine what is right/wrong? Maybe you can provide the criteria? Or more likely, you'll avoid the question again...
Glad to see you are picking up some things I mention - like the use of "straw man" humanism despite it being incorrect in application - you'll learn in time how to correctly use the term
A conclusion is a thought resulting from a thought process. Otherwise it is an unsubstantiated assertion - both of which are incorrect and the correction conclusion is what I have laid out. However, I still stand by the point it is a conclusion by the fact it is preceded by "so" which indicates conclusion.
Had she added some Quran/Sunnah reference, the argument would have been radically different - given she has not actually researched anything from Islam on this topic as is indicative by content, lack of Islamic references/frameworks, humanist influences pertaining to frameworks/premises/frameworks etc
I don't condemn feeding people etc I condemn a framework of thought that is lifted from a foreign ideologies - for example, I condemn those that introduce democracy into the Muslim world when they should be introducing the Caliphate. It does not however mean that I condemn elections as a mechanism to indicate preference which can be used to express preference for members of the majlis al-ummah.
Do you not think the rights argued by the classical scholars are the correct ones? Or are you departing from "classical scholars"?
None of the verses or ahadith were meant to address peace or prosperity but to highlight the problematic use of the term "brothers and sisters" - maybe you can cite which texts state the kuffar are our brothers and sisters?
Regarding peace and prosperity, it comes from good governance which comes from Islam in ruling and not from man made ideologies of democracy or secularism or socialism (as the poverty, wars and bloodshed of the twentieth century provide ample evidence). The author interestingly leaves the issue unaddressed in any detail and it would be interesting to see their thoughts on it if they have any.
I am addressing and critiquing the concepts and constructs presented in an article - issues of love for others is not relevant to the discussion.
Where an argument is incorrect it should be revised - or the author should have defended their work, something you are really struggling to do - as I said, defending the indefensible.
The article is indefensible as it stands - kuffar are our brothers and sisters, first of all we were humans... You should either address the indefensible or accept it is indefensible.
Interestingly, you oppose adding any meaning to something, but do it yourself regularly including the comment about questioning of identities.
I am questioning the article and what has been presented - no doubt this has implications on the intellectual comprehension of the author which will have implications on their identity - however that is quite far removed from the article and really not relevant to the discussion. You are regularly questioning intention and sadly attacking the poster rather than focusing on the argument.
The article is not eloquent or good - it is poor overall due to its badly articulated points, lack of research and adoption of ideas from other thought systems.
Eloquence is good when used to promote Islam and not non-Islamic ideologies and thought systems - it is worth taking critique on board and researching an issue a little more thoroughly, before putting "pen to paper" in my honest opinion.
You do realise that we are all children of prophet Adam (as)? So yes, we are all brothers and sisters (or aunts and uncles or other relations). Just not close ones and the brotherhood between muslims is closer.
I suspect that humanists however will deny that we are all the children of prophet Adam (as), but what do i care? the blog was not written by a humanist but by a Muslim using Islamic philosophy and ideas.
Caliphate can be democratic. More, the first caliph was chosen by the people in what can be seen as a direct precursor to democracy.
that is just being... facetious. yes there was a soul before birth (would that soul be considered the essence of being human while the body is just a vehicle? No idea.), but not mentioning that is not in itself a mistake.
Most sensible people do not require the explicit labeling of such things.it is simply understood.
Except that the will of God is implicit. Context matters because the words could still be accurate if the person did the stuff him/herself without the help of another person.
I see you are trying to spin things around in this and the other thread in order to not show the errors of your ways which are as clear a daylight.
You made a presumption when you read the blog post and that presumption was flawed. that same presumption then allowed you to call the faith of the author into question after you decided to define it as humanism and kufr ideology.
"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.
The author is not defending her work. Okay so let me defend it.
My article isn't good, maybe its poor to some extent, thats your personal opinion so heres mine.
I wrote this off the top of my head, I didnt sit and think for hours before writing it thinking it all needs to be islamically correct. If i was to be writing an article then yes I would have gone into more detail i would have provided evidence from the Quran, the Hadith. My intent was not unislamic, I thought as I'm writing to a muslim audeince as a muslim that intent would come through without me pointing it out. HAlf of the language you are using I fail to understand to be honest with you so I'm not going to fight back about something I don't understand. The language is far to complex for me showing that yes I'm young and yes I don't have half as much knowledge as you seem to have. But I wrote this blog thinking I would share my good intention and aspirations with others. and you seem to be telling me that doing that was wrong. So okay should i no longer tell others about the good that i may plan to do inshallah, if allah wills of course. DO you beleive that everybody who has a good intention but does not link it to an islamic source should have someone much older than them jumping down their throats basically telling them your wrong for trying. Making me feel small for trying to do something good. Well how islamic is that? Really. Yes it has upset me. & maybe that was not your intention but you have and I am.
@ You thankyou for trying to defend my blog, that she seems to think is undefensible, speak in language I understand & I will defend what i have written because I don't seem to be seeing eye to eye with you at the moment and i don't know if i will even if i do understand.
& the comments on the fact that I wrote before anything else I was a human bieng. I was speaking of the fact that when I came onto this Earth before I was classed by anything else I was classed as a Human Bieng. Then daughter to my parents, a muslim baby, a girl, An pakistani ect. The label Human Bieng unites the everybody of the human race. That is why i used that term. I didn't say that I wasn't a ruh. Yes I was. I know that. but as I was writing to A muslim audeience i kinda thought that they may understand where i was going with this and where it came from.
& So I as a human bieng should respect the rights of other human biengs. Yes it was a thought process, no it wasn't a conclusion. But even if it was. Do you not beleive that I as Human Bieng should not respect the rights of my brothers and sisters?.
I'm fifteen, I have a long way to go if Allah(swt) wills that is. & by pulling a blog i wrote without really looking back or thinking twice apart and well saying im wrong. theres nothing good in it and well putting up an argument that i don't understand much of and at some point through their you said my intetions were that of a kafir. well thankyou for that, made my day. I'm sorry but you seem to be full of alot of hate. and venting it on a teenagers blog online may not be the best way to go about it. & maybe making me feel like this isn't as islamic as you think you are.
Anything else? Or maybe i've missed something out becuase after all I am young. & we do make errors. Let me know & yes in language that i understand so i can put forward my argument & defend my work.
Even this example does not prove anything as you yourself recognise from the comments in brackets - which are incidentally wrong as having come down dozens of generations we are not even aunts or uncles! You could not even provide a label to the relationships, let alone brothers and sisters, as they don't exist this many generations down!
The understanding of Islam as evidenced by the ayaat and ahadith I cited (which you have not responded to still shamedly arguing kuffar are our brothers and sisters!) and even examples from the companions who did not have this understanding is seen for example in Musab's comments after Badr. Among the prisoners was Abu Aziz ibn Umayr, the brother of Musab. Abu Aziz narrated: "I was among a group of Ansar...Whenever they had lunch or dinner they would give me bread and dates to eat in obedience to the Prophet's instructions to them to treat us well. "My brother, Musab ibn Umayr, passed by me and said to the man from the Ansar who was holding me prisoner: 'Tie him firmly... His mother is a woman of great wealth and maybe she would ransom him for you.'" Abu Aziz could not believe his ears. Astonished, he turned to Musab and asked: "My brother, is this your instruction concerning me?" "He is my brother, not you," replied Musab
Defending the indenfesible is absolutely true!
Defending the indenfesible is absolutely true!Caliphate can be democratic.
Wrong again - most Muslims in Arabia did not participate in the election of any of the first 5 Caliphs - they were selected by a tiny minority - totally different to the notions of democracy where the rulers are chosen by the entire societies' participation - universal franchises and popular sovereignty!
Because you cannot deny the factual inaccuracy of what is stated you have to resort to crude insults - shame!
Interesting reply given you have been attacking me for alleging humanism embedded in the article and telling me the author has no label - whatever it is, truth is not contradictory! Your argument fails on these contradictions!
Will of God may well be implicit, but it is not incorrect for one to critique a statement that appears to oppose the will of Allah(swt) and especially one, that subsequently builds arguments on corrupt premises negating the implicit! Stating humanity was the first thing and on the basis of this we should look at kuffar as brothers and sisters and focus on those rights that the kuffar focus on rather than the rights Allah (swt) has ordained is total nonsense.
Nope - your contradictions show it is you who is doing this and cannot even produce a straight argument without contradictions, lacking evidences, going against what the classical scholars say, incorrectly narrating history of selection of the Caliphs etc
You're just digging yourself deeper and deeper with this absurd defense of the indefensible.
You seem to confuse the difference in technology with difference in ideas. The people present selected Hadhrat Abu Bakr (ra).
The people of madinah later chose Hadhrat Ali (ra) as their leader while under duress.
these were not times where you could carry out polls over large areas so it was impossible to do it how it is now.
But democracy is simply extended these selection processed to cover more people in a way the lack of technology back then couldn't.
Not really - sine the author does not even know what humanism is and probably first heard the word when reading your reply to her ... well, your allegations are false.
The "hidden label" in a discussion between Muslims is that Islam reigns supreme. that is just expected.
When a muslim tells another Muslim that drinking alcohol is bad, there is no need to back it up with the hadith and ayaats on how it is haraam. The religious aspect is simply understood to be present.
Once again context (and translation) matters. If this was a flat ending of being siblings, the Muslims would ave changed their surnames to distance themselves from their family/parents if they had not accepted islam. Did that happen? I think not.
I somehow doubt the author thought that all the people had the same parents... You're just arguing for the sake of argument here.
"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.
Again I would disagree - the people at thaqeefa bani saida selected Abu Bakr but apart from 3 none of the muhajiroun were involved in the selection process - who were incidentally a very large proportion of society. Even all the Medinites (aus/khazraj) were not present. Hardly democractic were franchise is universal.
According to you, time is no issue - so if the process was democractic, wider opinions were necessary throughout Arabia - all of whom were ignored and did not participate in the selection of the Caliph, even to the point of expressing an opinion.
An incidentally, gaining the opinion was simple and not as difficult as you present - send messengers to all the major tribes and at the least confer with the tribal leaders who would have an idea of what their people wanted. It simply didn't happen.
Thus it was not democractic by any stretch of the imagination. The appointment of Umar(ra) was by Abu Bakr(ra) and Umar's(ra) solution was a handful of companions choose who the Caliph should be - something which you fail to mention - contradicting the notion of democracy ...
Time was an issue then because some tribes were already in the process of getting people to select a leader from them.
the Madinans were present - it was the meeting of rival tribes who were trying to get their leaders selected as the leaders of the Muslims - and their failed attempt at stopping Hadhrat Abu Bakr (ra), hadhrat Umar (ra) and hadhrat Ubaydah (ra) from gatecrashing the events and then playing their rivalries against each other - a process that culminated in the selected leader being Hadhrat Abu Bakr (ra).
More muhajiroon were not present because they were prevented (or busy mourning as the most traumatic event that they had thought imaginable had just happened...) and even the three that were had been actively discouraged from attending with attempts made to conceal the location and people trying to stop their attendance.
The process was fast tracked because there was a deficit of trust and it was thought that if more time was given to get wider polling, the tribes would not wait that long in declaring (a different) leadership.
Speed was required in order to keep unity and top stop there being rivals vying for power as there were the two Madinan tribes vying for power and their events were the backdrop that fast tracked the selection of a leader.
"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.
Disagree with your explanation and maybe you can cite some historic texts that justify not the facts but the reasons you have presented as it's the first I've heard of them.
That aside, it shows that the process was not democratic as you allege (and yes I understand the reasons you've presented - but they prove that the process was not democractic). Nor were the processes for the other Caliphs democratic either - Umar's(ra) process he put in place had none of the pressing "reasons" you suggest and was still not democratic.
I think it's a red herring to try conflate Islam with democracy and try showing somehow Islam is democractic - the mutazalites made the same mistake with greek philosophy and the young turks made the same mistake with republianism and nationalism. One should be careful of dominant and appealing ideologies - one should always ensure their approach is pure by seriously studying the source divine texts and following the ideas, philosophies, systems and solutions that naturally emerge being careful not to start dabbling with other thought systems and incorporating them into Islam. If there is similarity so be it, if there is not so be it... the result will be pure Islam and not kufr.
I think you are confusing the issues really (and I am surprised that you have not read the events immediately after the death of the Prophet
- I really had expected you to be aware of those events. In any case, even after the bay'ah was initially given by a few, people could ave still rose up against it, but then did not - they accepted him as their valid and accepted leader).
Islam has no one "this is the Islamic system and it is this way or the high way". It allows for different methods of government and leadership.
The second Khalifah was appointed. and this is also an allowed system. That is something that I have been trying to get across to you - that there is no one single system. When Caliph Umar conquered the Persians, their structures of government were not dismantled, but kept in place.
However for any leadership to be effective, there must be general buy in of it. Otherwise you get the situation with Yazid where there was less buy in and it turned into disaster.
(I notice that you seem to have moved on from the original topic here... is that you conceding defeat and admitting the errors of your ways?)
"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 have read the events and that's why I asked you to cite the sources which state not the facts (the meeting at thaqeefah, the debate, the persons involved etc as these are documented) but the reasons you have provided for the events - none of the books of seerah or history state those reason and it appears they have just been made up and imposed on the companions without proof. For the second time of asking, could you cite your sources please.
I would disagree - the ahadith state the Prophet(saw) clearly speaking about Imamate or Caliphate systems - unitary leadership systems, with the Prophet(saw) ordering the Muslims to fulfil the oath of allegiance to Caliphs. As per his sunnah he was the unitary leader and delegated roles - so the Caliph should do the same. We have one imam for salat (the term which derives from the political leadership) and we have one man in charge of the household and we have one amir of jihad. Islam believe in unitary leadership and the system as the classical scholars have outlined and detailed is the Caliphate - do you not follow the classical scholars? OR do you do it when you feel like? Did the classical scholars put forward a system other than Caliphate or Imamate? Maybe you can point me to some texts where they did that?
What period are you talking about? Which scholars permit two Caliphs? Maybe you can also explain the reasons if any if scholars allow for two Caliphs?
Disagree - whenever territories were conquered, those aspects of governance in accordance with Islam were left, others were removed - all territories became provinces of the Caliphate, where there was one Caliph at the centre to whom bayah was given.
Yazid was not Caliph and tried taking it by force when most disagreed with him - not sure what your point is here. Bush took presidency with disputed elections/numbers - does not invalidate democracy. It's a matter that should be investigated. Likewise the same can occur in a Caliphate - people can make claims to it and fight for it - investigations are needed when disputes arise.
The discussion has gone onto this topic - I assume you had conceded to my refutation of your problematic views. If you still think kuffar are our brothers and sisters or that the first thing was humans and humanism, maybe you should bring some evidences.
Likewise you should justify why you dump the classical scholars and what system do you advocate - kufr systems like democracy and socialism???
you need to prove that they are "kuffar systems" and not just systems the kuffar use. Which as you mentioned here does not make them wrong:
Except that once again you are lazy about the caliphate system and ignore that there was rarely a singular system in place. It was more common to have multiple caliphates operating in parallel in different locations. you keep jumping back from the pretty pictures.
More, the original discussion was you accusing the author of promoting humanism - a presumption and a slanderous one at that. the discussion moved on when you decided to no longer address it or admit fault.
I think you owe the author an apology for slandering her.
You are denying blood linkage between humans. (and yes, using the words brother and sister has a metaphorical edge as well - this is also when you talk about Muslims too, otherwise you will confuse yourself and thing offspring are the same as siblings).
There is a bond of humanity - from fitrah, from being human. It is simply weaker than the one of other things like Islam.
"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.
The Islamic political system is Caliphate as the classical scholars advocated and prove - looks like you don't follow them now it doesn't suit your argument!
You need to prove that systems developed from kufr political philosophy and paradigms is Islamic as you are attempting to argue democracy is Islamic. I can easily show many of its premises contradict the Islamic political system, eg secularism - marginalisation of religion from politics, faulty electroral processes that do not transfer authority or sovereignty, collective legislation whereas Allah is Hakim and the Caliphate does ijtihad, plurality of power whilst Islam requires unitary leadership... etc etc etc
The khulafah rashida worked this way and your pretty pictures of an arbitrary point during the Abassid rule do not negate this.
Nor did your pretty pictures show multiple caliphates - the only two regions that ever claimed it were the Umayyads in spain and the shia fatimids in Egypt. Great argument for multiple caliphates in 1400 years of Islamic rule!
I have proven my point if you actually bother to read the arguments - you had resorted to calling kuffar your brothers and sisters and provided no ayaat and ahadith to refute the ones I brought including COMPANIONS who told their blood kuffar brothers you are not my brother!!! The dodgy Adam story does not even hold either - read the discussion and you'll notice your arguments are all weak and it's a waste of time adding more evidences as you cannot refute the ones already there.
Nope - you and her slandered me - an apology is in order and you need to ensure you replace the kufr articles you have on your website - you don't want people to start believing a 15 year old's unresearched articles - someone who has no expertise whatsoever to write on the topic.
LOL Now we move to esoteric and metaphorical usages of the term given you have failed to dig any evidences through your google searches - not even sure you even bothered with the Adam quote - was that meant to show metaphores? Looked like a literalist evidence to me! Absoloutely nonsense and desperate tactics which I will not even dignify with a response as you and everyone reading know full well is nonsense!!!
Irrelevant - prove kuffar are our brothers and sisters! Prove the first thing was that we were humans! Just nonsense humanism that kuffar philosophers churned out - no different to the shallow Muslim philosophers who tried to sneak greek philosophy into Islam and were condemned and called kuffar by the classical scholars including the GREAT Ghazali who refuted them absolutely in his famous Tafahut al-Falsafa...
Corr: Tahafut al-Falsafa
Except that I pointed out the persian system. It was pre Islamic but was still kept in tact when the Muslims took over.
That was during the time of the second Caliph, Hadhrat Umar (ra).
I don't need to run on this issue - I got my backup right 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.
Are you denying that we are the children of Adam (as)? I doubt it. You want me to prove what you already accept - that Non Muslims are also human and also the children of Prophet Adam (as).
"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 are wrong about the Persian Political system - it was not maintained and to argue it was is incorrect. For example, the political position of the King was terminated and not retained nor was Persian nationalism, the borders, the language etc retained either by the companions - it was Arabised until the Safawids returned and brought back Persian.
"The king" was not the persian system. He was just the jead of it and ofcourse he could not be maintained - such a thing would have been untenable, having two leaders.
But the rest of the system, it was maintained as is.
Read up on it - it seems that you read some jingoistic bullet points from Islamic history and missed out on all the facts and information about stuff.
But going to the original topic that you were on about...
Yes you read that right - the prophet
defended the rights of the non Muslims too. Even the Qur'an demands that disputes with non Muslims should be settled in the best manner: [qs:16:125].
There is also another issue about the appropriation of terms - you try to stick to western academic meanings for them (except for secularism which you translate to arabic and then back into english which changes its essence ever so slightly), where do you think the Islamic terms came from? things like fardh, waajib, haraam, hadith, qur'an even were from existing arabic and the terms got particular meanigns and usage when they were used when talking about Islam.
"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.
Please provide me with a text that states the kuffar are our brothers and sisters. The texts I provided you state believers are brother and sisters and even the companions like Musab told his blood brother you are not my brother - the Muslim is my brother.
Please cite the texts where kuffar are stated as being our brothers or sisters as only text can repudiate text
The author was not talking in metaphors or esoteric meanings as you well know and is evident from the article - she probably didn't even know what such terms meant before you decided to try interpreting her work in such a way!
//"The king" was not the persian system. He was just the jead of it and ofcourse he could not be maintained - such a thing would have been untenable, having two leaders.//
Removing the most significant and central position of the monarchical system of the Persians clearly shows that the system was not maintained as you originally argued.
You do not accept when you are wrong and argue for arguments sake - I argue to advance knowledge, thinking and udnerstanding the truth all for the sake of Allah(swt).
I do not see the same in you and this point demonstrates it. I had suspected lack of sincerity on a number of occassions but gave you benefit of the doubt.
JZK for your time but I don't wish to waste it nor my own precious time with someone who is not sincere in the discussion - there are plenty of others amongst Muslims who are sincere and wish to learn and discuss for Allah's sake.
WS
The blood bond cannot be broken. the hadith is to show that the Muslim bond is stronger and trying to question it is wrong.
In the same way, when the muhajiroon went to Madinah, they were all appointed a brother. Does this in any way invalidate the generic brotherhood between Muslims? no.
quote=Anonymous1]Please cite the texts where kuffar are stated as being our brothers or sisters as only text can repudiate text[/quote]
Unless the initial interpretation was wrong - in which case that interpretation was wrong. In the early period of Islam there was a big thing about family bonds beig torn and about some people stating that like in wars when they were not Muslim they did not strike down family because of the bond and got in reply that if it had been the other way, they would have been struck down... but none of that invalidates the blood bond. It only says that Islam is a greater bond.
So you really think that she thought she was the next of kin of every single person on earth? Do you think she was that delusional? or do you think there is a flaw in your reasoning.
(I see how you have decided to ignore the actual reply the author of the blog made...)
"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.
but it is clear that you are unaware of how systems work. Yes the king was an important part. But if he had died, would that have mean that the system was dismantled? No, it means that a new person would have taken the mantle.
As for borders, unless the Persian empire was surrounded by Muslims on all sides or the Muslims ruled the entire world (answer: neither), there would still be boundaries.
Because you seem to misunderstand many historical events. I am no scholar, nor a saint, but your information about Islamic history has a unique interpretation on things.
Salaams,
You still do owe your sister, the author of this blog a major apology for presuming malice in her intentions... and then you question the sincerity of others.
Yes it is a lack of sincerity on MY part when you accuse others of kufr ideology, when after you are given evidence of the errors of your ways and how your interpretations of hadith were wrong, you simply state "oh but that was not an important issue anyway" even though before then you were questioning the faith of others for not agreeing with you.
Maybe I came across as angry and moronic. Maybe I didn't. But I disagreed with a lot of what you said, especially ther polite takfirs where you say something nicely but it is the biggest insult in the world because it questions the faith of others.
May Allah (swt) guide us all and keep us on the straight path.
Salaams
"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.
@ anonymous1 i'm guessing that you decided to ignore the reply i the actual author of this blog made. after well insulting me by questioning my faith and presuming that what i'm doing makes me in some way a kafir. & also in questioning my ideas, you said i have an HUMANIST ideology. Well quite truthfully i still don't know what you meant my humanist. except what "YOU" explained to mea earlier on about atheists holding their human link higher than any other boudaries. Well NO that as not my intention Nor was it embedded in my post because i didn't even have a clue what it meant. so JZK for ur insults, & ignorance.
May Allah (st) show us all the light & keep as all on the right path. Ameen
I replied to your posts - or what made sense of it. If there was anything in particular you wanted to know feel free to repost.
No it is not I who insulted you but you who are insulting me by alleging I questioned your faith - please provide the post where I have done that if what you are saying is correct.
You article reflects humanist ideas as I have already detailed above - what research have you actually done on the subject from classical scholars? Do you know Arabic? What subjects have you studied in Islam and to what level including the one you are writing about? Are you that knowledgeable/confident (some may even use the term arrogant!) at 15 to be immune from ideas from other ideologies?
If you're not sure what I mean by humanist, then how can you argue I'm questioning your faith? Just because another poster who simply argues for arguments sake may say something, it does not make it true.
Simply put, humanists refute the notion that God is central to everything and place humans at the centre of everything. When considering rights, they believe that there is a basic humanity to all of us which is the basis for rights which can be derived without reference to God. Thus when your article from its title onwards resonates with this style of thought, a reader who is familiar with Islamic thought on human rights and humanism will believe you are presenting an article from that perspective. Your intention no doubt is not that - but the article and the perspective it presents is exactly that. It is no good attacking someone who points that out sincerely, and is critical of it. It may be a better approach to reword some parts of the article so that it presents a more stronger ideological bias from an Islamic perspective.
Not sure of what the need for insults is.
Ameen.
really inspirational mashAllah, and inshAllah may u be successful
I guess i have a bit more to say then Suhail
I've read it all and I've just a few things to say:
@Anonymous1; you've talked about acting with Hikmah to fellow Muslims and even mentioned Allah as "al-Hakeem" (which he definitely is) but you haven’t acted very Hikmah-ish towards Exception. sometimes it felt like what I’m being taught (by “Kuffars”) on how to give criticism has more wisdom, whenever you need to give a negative feedback you should sandwich it between two good comments. Even if you don't want to listen or act upon that, you should at least have given SOME (or even ONE) good points about the blogpost, you've only criticized it throughout and has not encouraged or pushed this teenager in trying to gain more knowledge so as not to make the same “mistakes” again. you’ve also accused You of defending something that couldn’t be defended, but I think You felt he had to because of, again, you’re lack of Hikmah.
Also, She’s FIFTEEN years old, do you know what most fifteen years old do in this day and age? I’m pretty sure most of them don’t think about helping poor people and giving up everything to travel and help where help is actually needed. THIS fifteen years old is, and whatever she might have said in her ignorance (which is, by the way, forgiven my Almighty God as she didn’t know, so I don’t understand how you could have gone on and on about it for so long) what she want to do can in NO WAY be seen as evil or wrong.
Also, I’ve read through all the replies and I have to admit that the language is pretty advanced but sometimes I felt like Anonymous and You were talking about something that didn’t relate to Exception’s blogpost, ( I don’t think I’m wrong but if I am ignore this entire paragraph) so you guys just made it personal from OTHER discussions you had and took it out on Exception’s post. (that’s how I felt)
I also think that the whole “human being” thing was blown out of proportion. She meant it in the sense of “forget race, gender, money etc… at the end of the day we’re all equal, we’re all Human”
GOD! Us teenagers, we’re accused of not expressing ourselves enough and when we come round to doing it we get this… At this age we go through self-discovery and questioning everything and some people end up loosing their faith…With people putting us down like this I wonder WHY I wonder why… We’re supposedly the next generation…putting us off like this is definitely going to help. Shouldn’t the elders be supporting us, guiding us?
I just feel like everyone should apologize and not leave this discussion with hard feelings. I don’t think anyone can say their sole intention throughout this conversation was pure and was to enlighten and share knowledge because this cannot be the way to give out knowledge.
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
Pages