User login
Author Information
Poll
Why have you visited this website?
To check for updates
11%
Read posts
39%
Contribute to discussions
6%
Share content
3%
Social media brought me here
6%
Tis fate
35%
Total votes: 634
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
Is this the hadith you are referring to?
روى الترمذي في الجامع من حديث ابن عمر رضي الله عنهما أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قال: إن الله لا يجمع أمتي على ضلالة , ويد الله مع الجماعة و من شذ شذ إلى النار .
erm... probably. I just asked someone else "rememeber that hadith? what was it?" on Tribune but the arabic words there seem to be following the same.
Why?
"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.
Your logic is absurd! That is a fact.
So why don't you blame Allah too for not always citing exceptions - why do you recite your shahada without an exception? Is it one rule for others and another for one self? That smacks of hypocrisy!
Wrong - if you apply your logic here to its extreme, you would have to consent Allah is hiding stuff too by not saying Mohammed was not a messenger before the age of 40 - a MAJOR OMMISSION OF AN EXCEPTION! Your logic is absurd and incorret as I said!
Your logic would require ignoring points of difference - elections exist so it is democracy - the Western world fought a cold war for no reason at all - they were fighting their own system! OH MY GOD!
Cite the 100 scholars who say it is permitted - just to match those who say its haram - then cite another couple of hundred to prove you have at least a majority - and cite several hundred more to prove you have a large majority!
You cannot even get beyond a tiny handful! Repeating a few cut and paste of joke like fatwas on the net is hardly substantive - one can only laught when one compares the joke fatwas you bring in response to the one research paper I highlighted! LOL
There is no harm whatsoever of not participating - they don't arrest you, fine you, or anything - and sorry, fairy tales of BNP bogeymen taking over goverment doesn't work either - in fact they would rationally be the ones you should choose as they will pull back troops and stop killing Muslims - something no other party will do - and LIFE has priority over all other creature comforts such as social benefits one lives off on here!
It's also amusing that you now have to resort to saying over a billion Muslims say it is halal - LOL - we have a billion Mujtahids in the ummah with most not even knowing a scrap of Arabic other than parrot fashion!!!
Says the one who conflates kufr systems with Islam and cannot see the differences... Slogans... you need substanc - slogans don't cut it sadly.
If you applied my logic you would see it is consistent - one mentions the general rule and if someone wants the detail they can be told that - let's apply it to the shahada:
Mohammed is the messenger of God - general rule! Exception - he wasn't before age of 40 which one can find out with additional questioning or research. Works perfectly well!
Khanzeer is haram! General rule! Exception if one needs it, point of starvation (necessity) permits it! Works fine too!
As I said, truth is consistent - falsehood is not - thus it fails when you extend the logic!
Because the hadith does not translate to what you have translated, it has problems according to muhaditheen, the subject matter is not what you have alleged...
That's why I ask if it is the same hadith.
If it is the same hadith, it is absolutely disgusting how you are twisting sayings of the Prophet(saw) to match your incorrect notions!
That's the kind of disgusting conclusion I expect of secular societies - give it time and incest and nacrophilia will be ok - where's the harm after all!!! Filth from a filthy philosophy!
Maybe read what I wrote - 14 centuries of scholarship did not have a problem with the Islamic Caliphate system - and not that there were no problems! Allah sends problems to individuals and societies - all must be resolved through his system - that is the point and not the fact there will be no problems and we will have heaven on earth - we're not utopianists!
Extending the European experience to the Muslim world totally fails! You forget we had a successful history blending Islam and politics - as it is the correct ideology from God. You did not as you had a distorted religion with its advocates mascarading it as the truth! Not too different with secularists mascarading their ideology as the truth.
Yes it is a secular country - look up the political definition rather than using layman's dictionaries!
Colonialism and nationalism are ideologies built on secularism - marginalisation/removal of religion from the public domain/political realm is the basis of these new ideologies. Built on these premises are nonsense like communism, socialism, nationalism, colonialism etc They are most certainly not built on theology and theology has not been a significant political actor in the west for over a century!
Yep all nations that are secular to one degree or anthoer, blending man made systems with the charade of religion thrown in to please the masses! None implement the Caliphate so you're barking up the wrong tree. Try blaming it on man made systems - or if you think they are condoned by Islam, please cite the references where Islam permits this nonsense.
Wrong - there is a police state building in the west - just look at recent legislation on terrorism, the removal of civil rights, banging up people without charge or trial etc etc etc
None of this rot is permitted by Islam.
I am a Muslim and Islam is my source - if you don't like it that's your problem.
I can prove God exists and Quran is from God - it gives me the certainty to rely on it and its moral teachings. Can you prove your creed? Your criteria of morality? Or from what I've read from the "best of western philosophers" it's little more than fantasies of eternal spiders spinning eternal webs or plagiarised skeptical thoughts about life being a dream from which one cannto wake! What a joke If I am bluntly honest!
ok, what does it mean then? and throwing up (false?) disgust does not mean that you are not wrong.
"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.
Your translation
“Allah will never allow my Ummah to unite upon misguidance and incorrect beliefs. Allah’s mercy, blessings and protection are with the largest group of Muslims. And he who deviates from this largest group of Muslims will be thrown into Hell.” (Tirmidi)
روى الترمذي في الجامع من حديث ابن عمر رضي الله عنهما أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قال: إن الله لا يجمع أمتي على ضلالة , ويد الله مع الجماعة و من شذ شذ إلى النار .
Allah will not gather my ummah on dalalah (kufr/misguidance) - and the hand of Allah is over the political community (jamaa'a) and whoever segregates will be segregated in hellfire (Tirmizi)
Elements of the hadith are disputed by muhaditheen even including tirmizi himself and more recently albani who excludes the latter bit.
More importantly, the hadith is talking about the political community who is the one united under one imam and prohibits segregation and division thereof as it means violation of the bayah and splitting the state - something endorsed in numerous traditions.
It has nothing to do with following majority opinion on matters, as scholars throughout history have issued opinions at odds with majority opinions and adhered to them - I have yet to see any scholar use this narration when arguing that truth rests with the majority opinion and it must be followed - Ghazali argued that truth is not with majority or minority, but with the evidence! Many scholars cite evidences like the following which make it clear truth is not with numbers but evidence and argument -
[Iblees] said: 'By Your Might, then I will surely mislead them all, except your chosen slaves amongst them.' (Quran 38: 82-83)
"if you were to follow most of those on the earth, they would lead you astray from God's path" (Quran 6:116)
"We did not find in most of them any (reliability in their) pacts and we, indeed, found most of them unrighteous" (Quran 7:102)
"most of them are ignorant." (Quran 6:111)
There will never cease to be a small group (taai'fah) from my Ummah clearly upon the Truth until the Hour is established. (Muslim, Tirmidhi, Ibn Maajah and Haakim)
Allah will say, 'Bring out the people of the Fire.' Adam will say, 'O Allah! How many are the people of the Fire?' Allah will reply, 'From every 1,000 take out 999.' (Bukhari)
Whoever seeks Allah's pleasure at the cost of the majorities' displeasure, will win the pleasure of Allah, and Allah will cause men to be please with him. And whoever seeks to please the majority at the cost of Allah's displeasure, will win the displeasure of Allah, and Allah will cause men to be displeased with him. (Ahmad)
I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers are women. (Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Nasai, Ahmed)
Abdullah ibn Masood(ra) said: "Be with the jama'ah (the Haq) even if you are by yourself."
Abdullah ibn Masood(ra) said: “The jama’ah is the Quran and the Sunnah even if you are all alone.”
“The jama’ah and the group refers to the people of truth. Even if there may be only one of them in this entire world, they will be referred to as the jama’ah and the group. When only Abu Bakr (ra) and Khadijah (ra) embraced Islam, they were the jama’ah while the rest of the world apart from them and apart from Rasulullah(saw), were those who were against the jama’ah and were separated from the jama’ah. There is no difference whatsoever among the ulema regarding what we said in this regard.” (Ibn Hazm)
“Look at the wonderful words of Abu Shamah in his book al Hawadith wa al Bida’, with regard to the order to hold on to the jama’ah. “It means clinging to the truth and following it even if those holding onto it are few while those opposing it are many. This is because the truth was always what the first jama’ah was on from the time the Prophet (may Allah send peace and salutations upon him) and the Sahabah (may Allah be pleased with them). This is irrespective of how large the number of those involved in innovations (ahl al bida’) may be.” (ibn al-Qayyim)
Amr ibn Maymum al Audi said: “...I remained in the company of one of the most intelligent people, Abdullah ibn Masood (ra). I heard him saying: ‘Hold on firmly to the jama’ah because the hand of Allah is on the jama’ah.’ Then one day I heard him saying: ‘There shall rule over you such rulers who will delay the salah from its appointed times. You should therefore offer salah at its appointed time which is compulsory salah. You should then offer the salah with them [at the time appointed by the rulers] for it will be the optional salah for you.’” Amr ibn al Maymum says: “So I asked, O companions of Muhammad [saw], I do not know what you are saying to us.” Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (ra) asked: “What do you mean?” I replied: “You are ordering me to adhere to the jama’ah and encouraging me to follow it. And then you are telling me to offer my salah individually despite it being the compulsory salah, and to offer salah with the jama’ah which is and optional salah?!” He replied: “O ‘Amr ibn Maymun! I thought that you were the most intelligent person in this village. Do you know what the jama’ah is?” I replied: “No.” He said: “The jama’ah is what confirms to the truth even if you are all alone.” In another narration, the words are: “He then struck me on my thigh and said: ‘I am disappointed with you. The majority of the people have left the jama’ah. Surely the jama’ah is that which concurs with the obedience of Allah.”
Nu’aym ibn Hammad said: “If the jama’ah degenerates you should hold on to what the jama’ah was on before it degenerated, even if you are all alone. For you are the jama’ah at such time.”
(A time will come) when there will be people standing and inviting at the gates of Hell. Whoso responds to their call, they will throw them into the fire... I said, `Messenger of Allah (saw), what do you suggest if I happen to live in their time?' He said, 'You should stick to the main body of the Muslims and their leader' I said, 'If they have no (such thing as the) main body of the Muslims and have no leader?' He said, 'Separate yourself from all these factions, though you may have to eat the roots of trees until death comes to you and you are in this state.' (Muslim)
There will be after me calamity upon calamity and so he whom you see leave the Jama'ah or wishes to cause separation in the matter of the Ummah of Muhammad - then kill him whoever he is, for certainly Allah's Hand is with the Jama'ah, and certainly Shaytaan is with the one who leaves the Jama'ah, urging him on. (Nasai, Ibn Hibbaan)
"One who found in his Amir (the ruler of the true Islamic state; which is absent today) something which he disliked should hold his patience, for one who separated from the main body of the Muslims even to the extent of a handspan and then he died, would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya." (Muslim, Bukhari)
Professor Mutawalli is representative of such views when he said:
“In Islamic affairs, numerical majority is not the criterion of truth, for the Qur'an has repudiated any such idea. There are many Qur'anic verses which have clearly set out this truth. For example, the saying of God the Exalted, "most people do not understand", "if you were to follow most of those on the earth, they would lead you astray from God's path" (Quran 6:116) "We did not find in most of them any (reliability in their) pacts and we, indeed, found most of them unrighteous" (Quran 7:102) "most of them are ignorant." (Quran 6:111) and for this reason, God said, "Ask the People of Admonition if you do not know." (Quran 16:43)”
Muhammad (saw).
i just had to point that out.
i find it weird for someone who knows so much and is so passionate about the deen to not spell the name of our beloved Prophet correctly and forget to put salawat after his name.
(EDIT = @ anon1:) While the latter part of your post (full of quotes is sound), the former part... was the explanation you gave your own?
because even with that translation, the explanation is something that is beyond what is said in the hadith.
"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.
Read the wording in Arabic - your hadith talks about jama'ah - the scholars' quotes all explain what that means and the hukm relating to it. Opposite to what you understood and the translation you gave jama'ah! Re-read them with that in mind and you'll see the meaning which Ibn Hazm states is that of all the scholars...
JZK for the point - I usually do cite
but here I've not as the quote is from the shahadah and by convention we don't state (saw). The same applies when reciting Quranic verses that mention Muhammed by name - we don't mention 
in those cases. But point noted and jzk for the reminder.
JZK for the point - I usually do cite
but here I've not as the quote is from the shahadah and by convention we don't state (saw). The same applies when reciting Quranic verses that mention Muhammed by name - we don't mention 
in those cases. But point noted and jzk for the reminder.
Many of those ahadith and verses also include non Muslims.
(and then there is the bit where it says that there will be no jama'ah at some points and then at others it quotes the prophet
saying that there will be) and they are discussing other issues, so using the same text here does not always fit the situation.
"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.
Yes - because the concept is a rational one that applies to truth. Non-Muslims as well as Muslims can carry truth. The point is that truth is determined by the arguments - and not one who or how many people carry it. If that was the criteria, what is wrong with the Quraysh for following the majority and rejecting the message? The companions were violating this principle for following a minority uneducated man who was claiming the truth?
From the origins of our deen we should realise our minds should be open to the truth whereever it comes from - regardless of who brings it, some great big sheikh or a nobody - we should always evaluate the argument.
Which narrations are you referring to?
I was talking about the narration about who will go into hellfire. The figures are reversed I think when you talk about just Muslims. Atleast, they are not as stark.
Then the verses at the end, they are once again referring to non Muslims.
The hadith about finding flaw in the ruler is... irrelevant to what we were discussing. the one before that about calamity upon calamity does not mention what the jama'ah is, so that is open. The one before is saying stick to the main body unless there is none, then to spearate yourself from eveyone. the one before that is about when the ama'ah is no more. The bits before that about the salaah side with you.
Anyway, I was probably wrong to use that hadith, even though I do think it works because we are not discussing a specific act that people agree upon but wether democracy/voting can be used to elect leadership/government.
The main argument pro voting in the UK for me is that we have a vested interest in it and we need to use the hadith of not allowing harm to happen to us. It is only recent history where there was genocide in Bosnia. That was two people who had mixed for years, who looked identical, who even acted identical in many ways, yet there was genocide. and that is not the only one that has occurred in Europe.
If you look europewide, the situation has deteriorated rapidly over the past year or two - a couple of yuears ago who would have thought that so many places would ban the veil or be seriously contemplating it?
I am surprised that you do not see the situation from having deteriorated - 2 years ago the EDL did not even exist.
"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 my experience 3 groups are against voting: HT, Al-Muhaajiroon and some Salafis/Wahabbis.
Scholars from the European Council for Fatwa and Research have given fatawa that voting is allowed, including scholars from this video. Scholars from my area have spoken re this issue and I've also asked my teachers and they don't prohibit voting.
If you are against voting then don't vote, unless you believe that voting is shirk.....
Just saw this video, very interesting.
There's 5 parts to it:
">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYDuQLm-9IA&feature=related]
You violate a basic maxim in Islamic law - Quran is for all mankind - where it criticises non-Muslims for something, the same prohibition applies to Muslims - it is not one rule for them and one for us. Thus the rules of ruling by kufr mention non-Muslims, but Muslims are prohibited from ruling by kufr too.
One should not confuse examples and their constituents to restrict texts - texts are general to all mankind.
The hadith does not support your argument at all that we should follow the majority or the majority hold the truth. Only through a major mistranslation, ignoring the muhadith critique of elements of the hadith including its whole chain, and moving away from the subject matter does it have any relevance!
Again you misapply the hadith - where halal means are available one is prohibited from applying haram means.
Genocide is not even on the horizon here and noone is calling for it - even if they were, if one can resolve the matter through halal means, haram means are forbidden. They are only allowed where there is no halal option.
Voting is totally and utterly useless in all these places - what can 2-3% of a population achieve through voting in party controlled freaks who don't give a damn about you in a parliament where they are controlled through a whip system?
The situtation has deteriorated - I don't as you assert say it has not - I do say you have not analysed the causes and are trying to fix the problem.
The same problem applies where you don't analyse the causes of Palestine or the Muslim world in general, unable to explain the causes of decline, and jump to try "fixing" problems.
Maybe you can explain your analysis of the causes? There is then a possibility of agreeing on a way forward...
Very poor - pushing the BNP bogeyman to scare us into voting!
Nobody believes myths like these unless you are extremely naive!
I was referring to the various scholars and speakers who talk about voting in general.
Tre Azam is no scholar by any stretch of the imagination - and anyone who watched him on Apprentice would see him as a disgraceful loud foul mouthed joker whose only claim to fame in life is he appeared on tv! Non-Muslim Asians came across much better and were a credit to their communities!
I "violate" it while you talk about rulings in the qur'an... when the verses there are observances. read you post again:
This is not referring to the Muslims.
"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 don't know who he is and I don't care really, but this is the technique you use to somehow get 100 people to be the majority of the Ummah. Dispicable.
"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.
erm... where did the word political come from in that translation? was it conjuerd out of thin air or is it from fabrication land?
An assertion with no proof. Is this another of your "there is no other tax allowed in Islam" moments?
irrelevant as the jama'ah is not "all of humanity" but the largest group of Muslims.
Irrevelant, same reason as above.
Irrelevant, same reason as above.
I would suggest the same reason as above, but before then, there is a need to read the context which you have not provided with the verse and it could be talking about anything which would be found through context.
This actually supports what I had said.
Irrelevant as they are not about the Jama'ah.
Irrelevant as the jama'ah will exist according to an earlier section of your post til the end.
Irrelevant and seems like obfuscation as the leader is not the jama'ah. Even if the leader does some wrong, the jama'ah will not accept it.
Irrelevantr as you quoted a hadith mentioning how such a time will not arise.
So you should avoid factions. Like the HT maybe. or the Al Muhajiroon who broke away from the HT when they considered the former to be too soft.
Backs my point.
Wait, weren't you the one that said the leader should be challenged and replaced if he does something wrong?
Refuted earlier as it does not talk about the jama'ah, but also includes non Muslims in the figuring 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.
You violate basic juristic maxims - you are limiting Quranic verses that condemn following the majority - provide the proof that they are limited to the kuffar.
One has to simply look at one example today - most Muslims do not pray - is it permitted to follow them? According to your logic, yes!
Most women do not wear the hijab. Is it permitted to follow them? According to your logic yes!
This is not referring to the Muslims.[/quote]
The principle in these verses is clear - truth is not with minority or majority - truth is with the evidence and argument! There is no proof that truth is with majority - and you're resorting to fabricating/mistranslating hadith on the subject is proof of that.
That is why Abu Bakr(ra) rejected the views of the majority and decided to fight the tribes that refused to pay zakat. Omar(ra) rejected the views of the majority regarding the lands of Iraq.
Let's compare the Arabic with both our translations - and see who has been fabricating?
روى الترمذي في الجامع من حديث ابن عمر رضي الله عنهما أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قال: إن الله لا يجمع أمتي على ضلالة , ويد الله مع الجماعة و من شذ شذ إلى النار .
“Allah will never allow my Ummah to <> upon <>.
Allah’s <> are with <>. And he who deviates <> will be thrown into Hell.” (Tirmidi)
1. The word unite is not used in the hadith. The word yajma' gather is used.
2. The words misguidance and incorrect beliefs are not used - the single word dalala is used.
3. The words mercy, blessings and protection are not used. The word yadd is used.
4. The words largest group of Muslims is not used - the word jama'a is used.
5. The words from this largest group of Muslims are not used at all.
6. The words will be thrown is not used.
7. The word Hell is not used - the word naar is used.
Allah will not gather my ummah on dalalah (kufr/misguidance) - and the hand of Allah is over the political community (jamaa'a) and whoever segregates will be segregated in hellfire (Tirmizi)
The word jama'a is the body politic of the Muslims - the people who are lead by one Imam. Thus its translation is correct supported by evidences:
...He
said, "be with the Jama'atul Muslimeen under one imam" he asked, "and if there is no Jama'ah?" he 
said, "do not be with the deviants, even if you bite the trunk of the tree until you pass away." [Muslim 1847, Bukhari 6557]
"There is going to be after me calamity after calamity, whoever you see leaving the Jama'ah, or wants to divide you when you are united under the Jama'ah, kill him whoever he is, Allah’s hand is over the Jama’ah, the Shaytaan is far from the Jama’ah running together." [Nasaa'I 3954]
Nope - I don't have to bring foul mouthed unqualified youth from the street to prove voting is haram - those who argue it is permitted (people like you!) use him!
Who are you going to bring next? Enemies of Islam like Ayaan Ali? Blair? Bush?
And yes, what happened to that list of hundreds of scholars you claimed? Is Shakey Tre on there? Or are they all still in deep hiding? Like the Shiite Imam? Maybe they're keeping each other company? LOL
And by the way, stating not relevant to evidences provided does not mean they are not relevant. It shows you are so ignorant that you cannot even put an argument together to refute them. This is really the most degenerate argument I have ever come across!
But then again, how can you reply? You've confirmed you have no qualifications or serious study of Islam. You set out to prove that we should follow the majority - as it is like "democracy"!!! - by lieing about what the Prophet(saw) said, and in your defense could only whine how you found it on some site and was there anything wrong with it? LOL
even with your tweaked meaning of the hadith... does it still not say the same thing? Gid will not gather the Muslim Politicial community (if you will) on dalalah.
Meaning if they get together and choose a leader, it will be the right one?
"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.
There are a number of potential interpretations on each aspect of the hadith. For example, does the hadith have one subject matters or two (your questions assumes it is one subject matter); is it referring to credal matters only (as it appears to with the term dalalah) or additional matters; how is one forbidden to separate from the jama'ah etc
Additional evidences are necessary to pin one out of a number of potential interpretations on this narration.
Your take on this narration, regarding following the majority, is problematic as the narrations starts by saying Allah will not gather my ummah on misguidance/kufr and then continues to talk about not separating from the political community which is sacred as Allah's hand is over them.
If some ummah follow one view and others follow another view, how does one decide which to follow? The hadith provides no answers for that. Other evidences must be sought. And other evidences imply one should listen to the argument - eg Tufayl ibn Daus's experience with the Quraysh and the Prophet; Musab ibn Umayr's experience in Medina with the Ansar etc Too many examples, ayaat etc indicate Muslims should listen to an argument, if is correct follow it, if it is not discard it. Thus all the classical scholar's (excluding modern scholars) I have read have reiterated a similar notion - there may well be an alternative view and if there is I'd be interested to read it.
This view is clouded by western political philosophy where they believe collective decisions based on majorities have value - Muslim political thinkers have regularly challenged these views but some appear to agree with this philosophy trying to reconcile it with Islam...
Pages