Anonymous1 wrote:

Funzo wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

Funzo wrote:

So what your suggesting is that someone will come and say all you people i command you to unite? a person they may not even acknowledge as leader, i think this way of thinking isnt the most forward nor is it the best because what your suggesting is that we build the house before we build the foundations a wall without cement if you like.

Amazing Muslims are so apolitical that they can ask:
"So what your suggesting is that someone will come and say all you people i command you to unite?"

It's almost like they don't live in the real world, have never read any history - Islamic or Western.

How did the Prophet(saw) unite the people of Arabia? How did the Khualfah Rashida and the Ummayads unite people from Spain to Central Asia? How did Salahadin unite the Muslims? How did Otto Van Bismark unite Germany its multitude of statelets? How did Italy unite its multiple statelets? How did the US unite? How are Europe achieving unity?

A little reading of history will help...

Unity is a complex political process and to talk about simplistic walls without cement in this context is a little naive in my opinion.

The non muslim examples you give are pathetic they didnt actually unite in most of those occasions and those islamic examples are of leaders who were widely respected and accepted now if the muslims dont respect accept the leaders then how will they unite? a little common sense on your part will help you..your beliefs are simplistic.

Actually the examples are not pathetic - your answer is. For example, anyone who has even read German history at GCSE level knows about the unification process which you are cleary ignorant thereof.

And repeating terms from my comment is indicative you can't even think for ourself!

Anyone who done GCSE/A level history would realise it wasnt a unification if the majority didnt actually agree with most of Hitlers Philosophy there was no unification process just mass panic and distress which resulted in a ruler implimenting himself by force, most Germans were scared for their lives so they didnt speak up please dont use pathetic examples after pathetic examples based on a few notes at gcse level.

Funzo wrote:

How did Otto Van Bismark unite Germany its multitude of statelets?

The non muslim examples you give are pathetic they didnt actually unite in most of those occasions and those islamic examples are of leaders who were widely respected and accepted now if the muslims dont respect accept the leaders then how will they unite? a little common sense on your part will help you..your beliefs are simplistic.

Actually the examples are not pathetic - your answer is. For example, anyone who has even read German history at GCSE level knows about the unification process which you are cleary ignorant thereof.

Anyone who done GCSE/A level history would realise it wasnt a unification if the majority didnt actually agree with most of Hitlers Philosophy there was no unification process just mass panic and distress which resulted in a ruler implimenting himself by force, most Germans were scared for their lives so they didnt speak up please dont use pathetic examples after pathetic examples based on a few notes at gcse level.

So Birmarck was around at Hitler's time? You should read a little more carefully and actually address the argument.

Anonymous1 wrote:

Funzo wrote:

How did Otto Van Bismark unite Germany its multitude of statelets?

The non muslim examples you give are pathetic they didnt actually unite in most of those occasions and those islamic examples are of leaders who were widely respected and accepted now if the muslims dont respect accept the leaders then how will they unite? a little common sense on your part will help you..your beliefs are simplistic.

Actually the examples are not pathetic - your answer is. For example, anyone who has even read German history at GCSE level knows about the unification process which you are cleary ignorant thereof.

Anyone who done GCSE/A level history would realise it wasnt a unification if the majority didnt actually agree with most of Hitlers Philosophy there was no unification process just mass panic and distress which resulted in a ruler implimenting himself by force, most Germans were scared for their lives so they didnt speak up please dont use pathetic examples after pathetic examples based on a few notes at gcse level.

So Birmarck was around at Hitler's time? You should read a little more carefully and actually address the argument.

You referred to GCSE history of Germany in most if not all sylabusses at the current time do not teach pre 20th century...however lets look at Von Bismarck example his unification process was involving the military and also involved bribes and fabricating stories is that what you suggest we do? lie make up stories of our opponents? and use our non exisistant military? my apologies for not paying more attention first time round

Funzo wrote:

You referred to GCSE history of Germany in most if not all sylabusses at the current time do not teach pre 20th century...however lets look at Von Bismarck example his unification process was involving the military and also involved bribes and fabricating stories is that what you suggest we do? lie make up stories of our opponents? and use our non exisistant military? my apologies for not paying more attention first time round

I had cited a number of examples that should be studied where unification had been achieved - from the Prophet(saw) through to contemporary politics.

The point was to contrast your simplistic view with how others had undertaken this process.

(Bismark's example highlights what diplomacy and military can do - one needs to look beyond the minutae to see the broad principles at work as one is not out to replicate the minutae of German unification in the nineteenth century!)

Anonymous1 wrote:

I had cited a number of examples that should be studied where unification had been achieved - from the Prophet(saw) through to contemporary politics.

The point was to contrast your simplistic view with how others had undertaken this process.

Why? Why didn't you just explain yourself clearly?

Because you're a schizo-paranoid sadist?

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

(Bismark's example highlights what diplomacy and military can do - one needs to look beyond the minutae to see the broad principles at work as one is not out to replicate the minutae of German unification in the nineteenth century!)

I don't know much about Bismark or much else really, but since you cited him, do you approve of his tactics as outlined by Funzo?

It doesnt matter, even if she does he still used military force to one extent or the other something that muslims DONT have and please dont suggest Saudi turkish Iranian or other forces as muslim forces because they simply wouldnt go along with your ideals

Anonymous1 wrote:

Funzo wrote:

You referred to GCSE history of Germany in most if not all sylabusses at the current time do not teach pre 20th century...however lets look at Von Bismarck example his unification process was involving the military and also involved bribes and fabricating stories is that what you suggest we do? lie make up stories of our opponents? and use our non exisistant military? my apologies for not paying more attention first time round

I had cited a number of examples that should be studied where unification had been achieved - from the Prophet(saw) through to contemporary politics.

The point was to contrast your simplistic view with how others had undertaken this process.

(Bismark's example highlights what diplomacy and military can do - one needs to look beyond the minutae to see the broad principles at work as one is not out to replicate the minutae of German unification in the nineteenth century!)

The fact of the matter is you havent given me any non muslim examples where unification has occurred through moral means and that has lasted, when the unification of the muslim ummah occurs with will last unlike the non-muslim cases you have given, we cannot use the muslim examples because they are of people who were respect and accepted by the vast majority of the ummah whereas now there isnt in my opinion anyone who would be accepted by the vast majority.

Funzo wrote:

The fact of the matter is you havent given me any non muslim examples where unification has occurred through moral means and that has lasted...

Not sure what you mean by "moral means" - Islam permits the use of force to unite the ummah as it is a life and death matter - maybe you should read the narrations about what should be done to those who divide the ummah. As such by bab al-awlah any means less that force can also be used. Thus it is irrelevant whether one cites Muslim/non-Muslim examples. Islam provides permission for most styles/means to be utilised including force.

You wrote:

Means do matter as some are more likely to fall apart than others.

From a sharia point of view, very wide latitude is provided for means to unite the ummah.

However, judgement is required to select a strategy that works - that is where studying all examples of where unity has been achieved is important to formulate a an appropriate strategy. Simplistic slogans and rhetoric is hardly sufficient!

Anonymous1 wrote:

Funzo wrote:

The fact of the matter is you havent given me any non muslim examples where unification has occurred through moral means and that has lasted...

Not sure what you mean by "moral means" - Islam permits the use of force to unite the ummah as it is a life and death matter - maybe you should read the narrations about what should be done to those who divide the ummah. As such by bab al-awlah any means less that force can also be used. Thus it is irrelevant whether one cites Muslim/non-Muslim examples. Islam provides permission for most styles/means to be utilised including force.

Force isnt/wasn't what i was referring too, you stated the example of Von bismarck his means were not moral because he spread lies and fabricated stories.

Funzo wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

Funzo wrote:

The fact of the matter is you havent given me any non muslim examples where unification has occurred through moral means and that has lasted...

Not sure what you mean by "moral means" - Islam permits the use of force to unite the ummah as it is a life and death matter - maybe you should read the narrations about what should be done to those who divide the ummah. As such by bab al-awlah any means less that force can also be used. Thus it is irrelevant whether one cites Muslim/non-Muslim examples. Islam provides permission for most styles/means to be utilised including force.

Force isnt/wasn't what i was referring too, you stated the example of Von bismarck his means were not moral because he spread lies and fabricated stories.

Strategies was the initial discussion - compare your "simplistic" strategy with those of others that I cited. That was the point of the example - not the tactics. Distinguish between the two.

Anonymous1 wrote:

Funzo wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

Funzo wrote:

The fact of the matter is you havent given me any non muslim examples where unification has occurred through moral means and that has lasted...

Not sure what you mean by "moral means" - Islam permits the use of force to unite the ummah as it is a life and death matter - maybe you should read the narrations about what should be done to those who divide the ummah. As such by bab al-awlah any means less that force can also be used. Thus it is irrelevant whether one cites Muslim/non-Muslim examples. Islam provides permission for most styles/means to be utilised including force.

Force isnt/wasn't what i was referring too, you stated the example of Von bismarck his means were not moral because he spread lies and fabricated stories.

Strategies was the initial discussion - compare your "simplistic" strategy with those of others that I cited. That was the point of the example - not the tactics. Distinguish between the two.

Tactics and strategy? whats the difference? its simple in my mind that if their was to be a caliph it would not be done by the HT movement because a rightly guided caliph would be sorting them out before anyone and if the HT movement implimented or put together a khilafah they would make sure that they arent scrutinised or affected by this caliph, now the reason why i referred to HT is because its my belief that your views of khilafah and the methodology of implimenting it co-incide with HT correct me if im wrong..also do you believe that if you dont give bayah you will die a state of jahliyah?

Funzo wrote:

Tactics and strategy? whats the difference?

For someone who is talking about pretty complex socio-political and economic phenomena not to know the difference between the two is terrible!

Funzo wrote:

its simple in my mind

Things are always simple in the mind of the simpleton! However when they are challenged on any point the simpleness soon melts away into complexity which they were ignorant of...

Funzo wrote:

now the reason why i referred to HT is because its my belief that your views of khilafah and the methodology of implimenting it co-incide with HT correct me if im wrong..

You should actually study Islam and read what the classical scholars discussed and what 1400 years of Muslim history produced - the Caliphate was there before HT and other groups began calling for it.

Funzo wrote:

also do you believe that if you dont give bayah you will die a state of jahliyah?

The hadith which states one dies in the state of jahilliyah if one does not fulfil the bayah is imposing an obligation on all Muslims to ensure the bayah is given. This ensures the unity and loyalty of the ummah to one caliph and prevents division - there is no other mechanism in (or out of) Islam that achieves this. So one who does not do it dies in sin.

¨So what your suggesting is that someone will come and say all you people i command you to unite? a person they may not even acknowledge as leader, i think this way of thinking isnt the most forward nor is it the best because what your suggesting is that we build the house before we build the foundations a wall without cement if you like. ¨

You should read the article to see who´s taking pot shots! I know you and the editor´s vitriolic hatred of classical scholarship and traditional Islam and anyone who advocates it exists, but you should at least refrain from fabrications.

The shallow and simplistic political thinking exhibited in the quote above was refuted by a few examples that showed strategies that exist in the real world that were successful. If one does not know the difference between means, tactics and strategies they should go to school and study politics and international relations rather than try attacking others with their ignorance. They soon get exposed and resort to dastardly tactics that you employ of misquoting, misciting and even fabricating evidences to support kufr ideologies of democracy and nationalism.

Naser for your information tried uniting people on the kufr of the kind you support and the result was inevitable failure. Arab nationalism will never unite muslims as only the islamic sociopolitical bonds can do that.

The bayah is fard and it cannot be taken during the life of an existing caliph for another as the ahadith prohibit it and order the killing of the second who takes the bayah.

The case of Yazid is disputed as there was no consensus on him and muslims who have the authority witheld the bayah and in fact gave it to abdullah ibn zubayr. During Ali´s life some of the companions had difference of opinion and according to some scholars some companions made mistake opposing Ali. The opinion that appears to be the strongest is that Imam Ali was chosen Caliph and he should have been obeyed and those who opposed him were mistaken. However all humans can err and we should learn the lessons of history and ensure we collectively put in processes in place to prevent political disputes from arising as they can be very destructive.

Anonymous1 wrote:

Funzo wrote:

Tactics and strategy? whats the difference?

For someone who is talking about pretty complex socio-political and economic phenomena not to know the difference between the two is terrible!

Funzo wrote:

its simple in my mind

Things are always simple in the mind of the simpleton! However when they are challenged on any point the simpleness soon melts away into complexity which they were ignorant of...

Funzo wrote:

now the reason why i referred to HT is because its my belief that your views of khilafah and the methodology of implimenting it co-incide with HT correct me if im wrong..

You should actually study Islam and read what the classical scholars discussed and what 1400 years of Muslim history produced - the Caliphate was there before HT and other groups began calling for it.

Funzo wrote:

also do you believe that if you dont give bayah you will die a state of jahliyah?

The hadith which states one dies in the state of jahilliyah if one does not fulfil the bayah is imposing an obligation on all Muslims to ensure the bayah is given. This ensures the unity and loyalty of the ummah to one caliph and prevents division - there is no other mechanism in (or out of) Islam that achieves this. So one who does not do it dies in sin.

A quick google search will show you strategy and tactics both mean a plan to achieve a goal or something simmilar to that so it wasnt me posing a question out of ignorance rather it was me questioning your definitions. A simpleton? well i maybe a simple minded spinning crazy sufi brelvi pakistani whos just come out of a remote village and learnt how to use a computer to you, this still doesnt excuse the affect your using an ad hominem argument one in which you attack me personally and not my argument showing a weakness in your thinking and argument, its commonly done when the person feels their argument isnt strong enough so attacking the person presenting the opposing argument as a defence mechanism. I believe you are a close minded individual who has undoubtedly a lot of passion for the deen but arent open enough to accept other points of view or acknowledge other arguments rather you would prefer to insult fellow muslims. The only reason i can think of as to why you would do this, is that you get a kick out of it because there is no other benefit May ALLAH swt guide you on the right path! Asalaamu alaikum wa rehmatullah wa barakatuhu

Funzo][quote=Anonymous1 wrote:

Funzo wrote:

Tactics and strategy? whats the difference?

For someone who is talking about pretty complex socio-political and economic phenomena not to know the difference between the two is terrible!

Funzo wrote:

its simple in my mind

Things are always simple in the mind of the simpleton! However when they are challenged on any point the simpleness soon melts away into complexity which they were ignorant of...

Funzo wrote:

now the reason why i referred to HT is because its my belief that your views of khilafah and the methodology of implimenting it co-incide with HT correct me if im wrong..

You should actually study Islam and read what the classical scholars discussed and what 1400 years of Muslim history produced - the Caliphate was there before HT and other groups began calling for it.

Funzo wrote:

also do you believe that if you dont give bayah you will die a state of jahliyah?

The hadith which states one dies in the state of jahilliyah if one does not fulfil the bayah is imposing an obligation on all Muslims to ensure the bayah is given. This ensures the unity and loyalty of the ummah to one caliph and prevents division - there is no other mechanism in (or out of) Islam that achieves this. So one who does not do it dies in sin.

A quick google search will show you strategy and tactics both mean a plan to achieve a goal or something simmilar to that so it wasnt me posing a question out of ignorance rather it was me questioning your definitions.

Maybe you should do a more rigorous study than a quick google search which often turns up rubbish posted by annonymous laypeople. It´s a problem I´ve noticed with most amateur budding "scholars" who don´t actually bother doing any research, turning to google to pick up stuff of varying quality from the internet!

Given you could not find a distinction for the two terms, have a look below at basic dictionary definitions of the two.

Tactics
The art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle.
Detailed maneuvers to achieve objectives set by strategy

Strategy
The science or art of combining and employing the means of war in planning and directing large military movements and operations.
A plan, method, or series of maneuvers or stratagems for obtaining a specific goal or result

Understanding the difference between the two will allow one to isolate strategies from said examples from tactics.

Funzo wrote:

A simpleton? well i maybe a simple minded spinning crazy sufi brelvi pakistani whos just come out of a remote village and learnt how to use a computer to you, this still doesnt excuse the affect your using an ad hominem argument one in which you attack me personally and not my argument showing a weakness in your thinking and argument, its commonly done when the person feels their argument isnt strong enough so attacking the person presenting the opposing argument as a defence mechanism.

That´s one interpretation / the other is that from the responses one can gauge the level of the writer. Simplistic writings that cannot even separate tactics from strategies or cannot read properly or confuse Bismarck with twentieth century germany, these are all indicative of simplisitic thinking and someone who has no education. Thus it is pertinent in a discussion to mention this and one often finds such critique in academic works and it is not known as ad hominem attacks. Learning this term also requires utilising it correctly, something which you have failed to do.

Funzo wrote:

I believe you are a close minded individual...

This is an ad hominem attack which does not address my arguments and exposes your double standards at the same time. To complain on the one hand regarding someone who allegedly attacks you and then to do it yourself in the same post, shows stupidity and hypocrisy. LOL

No thats where your simple understanding of critical analysis fails you because i said i believe you to have closed mind so therefore argument with you will be pointless i didnt render your argument pointless or baselss based on your persona thats where me and you are different i know the difference between saying "oh im not gonna listen to your argument because i think your stupid" than saying "im not gonna argue with you because it would be stupid" please dont judge me only ALLAH swt can judge me hypocrisy is something which lies in the heart and you cannot see what is in my heart.

Funzo wrote:

No thats where your simple understanding of critical analysis fails you because i said i believe you to have closed mind so therefore argument with you will be pointless i didnt render your argument pointless or baselss based on your persona thats where me and you are different i know the difference between saying "oh im not gonna listen to your argument because i think your stupid" than saying "im not gonna argue with you because it would be stupid" please dont judge me only ALLAH swt can judge me hypocrisy is something which lies in the heart and you cannot see what is in my heart.

My God - are you that badly read not to be aware that there is hypocrisy of action or speech?

And in Islam every action is based on intention also a quick wiki would show you that Hypocrisy is the act of persistently professing beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that are inconsistent with one's actions as your aware i havent persistently done anything let alone profess my beliefs or opinion or virtues or feelings or qualities or standards which are inconsistent with my actions

Funzo wrote:

And in Islam every action is based on intention also a quick wiki would show you that Hypocrisy is the act of persistently professing beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that are inconsistent with one's actions as your aware i havent persistently done anything let alone profess my beliefs or opinion or virtues or feelings or qualities or standards which are inconsistent with my actions

No every action is not based on intention - you apparently are ignorant of fiqh too!!!

And wiki is irrelevant - produced by amateurs, no peer review, used by amateurs who have no access to serious research! I'm surprised you cite it as a source - how embarresing! Even students these days are taught not to use it as a source! LOL

The Quranic verses themselves state "do you say that what you do not do?" - dissonance between speech and actions is unacceptable!

I think that's exactly what Funzo was saying, but you saw his citing Wikipedia as a chance to attack him anyway. It's indicative of what nobody gets about you: your goal seems to be to "correct" readers of The Revival in Islam, to approach them with information that would bring their observance closer to Islam as you and your teachers see it. How would you rate your performance?

Joie de Vivre wrote:

I think that's exactly what Funzo was saying, but you saw his citing Wikipedia as a chance to attack him anyway.

Incorrect - rather than asserting it, prove it. But obviously you can't as you have fabricated what my intention was.

Joie de Vivre wrote:

your goal seems to be to "correct" readers of The Revival in Islam, to approach them with information that would bring their observance closer to Islam as you and your teachers see it. How would you rate your performance?

Again wrong - where do you get this understanding from?

You wrote:

Isn't that your goal? Ego stroking, feeling smug and superior, even if it means rejecting the qur'an and sunnah and smiting the Sahabah, as long as you get your fix?

You think I have this goal, Joie thinks I have a different mutually exclusive goal - you both can't be right! Either you are wrong, or he is wrong, or both of you are wrong.

I would say both of you are wrong.

And given only I am privy to my intentions, and you are not, that makes me right I guess unless you can show otherwise