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.
I agree with your points about the meaning of Tolerance Yaqub.
I see all this talk of tolerance is a red herring - an ideology that causes intolerance of other's views, just look at the writings of leading secularists about religion, has to then try to sort the problem it created out.
Islam is the only system that sorts the problem out - a system of truth where the creator asks us to live peacefully with others who are misguided - Allah will take them to task, humans cannot - all they can do is discuss sensibly with them, it is Allah who changes hearts... beautiful solution! No need for rhetoric of "be tolerant"!
I don't understand your question...
My question is what is all that precursory stuff about red herrings and only Islam having the answers? Why didn't you just answer, "Islam commands us to live in peace with non-Muslims" without first and last objecting to talk of tolerance?
I might be wrong but in my opinion it is a red herring because it is a problem created by capitalism - by fudging all the important fundamental philosophical questions, encouraging nationalism in its vision of political polities, it creates the hotbed for intolerance - nations start developing pride over other nations, allow every man and his dog to publicly push their erroneous and half-baked views as equal to all others etc all creating an environment for problems to emerge. Tolerance then has to be preached when people in society see this nonsense and find it intolerable.
Islam prohibits nationalism, building bonds on the correct notion of we are one family and are bound by our subservience to Allah. It answers fundamental questions of life truthfully and correctly thus alleviating fundamental differences - ensuring perverted and incorrect views are not publicly propagated preventing tensions and problems to arise in the first place - if someone wishes not to accept the truth personally, Allah asks us to explain matters to them as best as possible and then leave them to him if they still choose to wilfully rebel - however he will not be permitted to push nonsense publicly.
Thus no need to preach tolerance as the causes of intolerance are dealt with neatly and cleanly.
erm ...
1. capitalism does not care about nationalism.
2. in Islam there are still other recognised diferentiators, even though they are not allowed to assert superiority (no arab is superior over anon arab etc etc...)
It seems you just want a platform to have a go at people.
"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.
Capitalism developed within the framework of nation states that are supported by nationalism. Thus capitalism does care about nationalism as it has a close relationship with it.
There may well be differentiators - they are carefully regulated and do not allow such problems to brew.
It's only when idiots take them out of context and misapply them problems occur. EG Use of a geographic title to permit kufr bonds like being British to be introduced contradicting Islamic bonds!
Just repeating your statement that they contradict and that they are opposing does not make it so.
They are different bonds. They also have differing strengths where the one of faith is stronger so even if the other asked for something that was unislamic, that part would be overruled by Islam.
Capitalism did not develop within the nation states, it is historic. the only thing that happened more recently was people who had time to think and philosophize over what they saw and record it in books with their opinions and ideas.
"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 detailed refutation has been done in another thread - not all identities or bonds are permitted in Islam. Some are, some are not. You've not shown the British bond comprising politics/culture/history is permitted. Showing the use of the term to indicate where someone is from is not under dispute - if someone is brummie, mirpuri, french, japanese in terms of origin is fine and Salman al-farsi is proof of that as is Suhaib al-Rumi.
However what is the proof for the socio-political bond of Britishness? You are no doubt aware of hadiths that forbid bonds - does this not fall in those hadiths?
Abu Dawood narrates that the Prophet said, "He is not one of us who calls for "assabiyyah" (nationalism/tribalism) or who fights for "assabiyyah" or who dies for "assabiyyah".
"People should give up their pride in nations because that is a coal from the coals of hellfire. If they do not give this up, Allah will consider them lower than the lowly worm which pushes itself through "Khara" (dung)." [Abu Dawood and Tirmidhi]
What do you think of people who say they are proud to be British given the Prophet's(saw) analogy of them beeing like dung beetles?
I am quite sure that nation states like the current ones did not exist back then you are applying a term to something else in the hopes that no one looks too deeply. Should I show some false disgust at you trying to apply a few ahadith to something they were not talking about?
I am pretty sure the hadith definition of assabiyah is "supporting your people in something which is wrong". That is what that hadith is talking about, not about a type of "assabiyah" which did not even exist at that time. Here is where you get into trouble when you try to use definitions from secularists or western thinkers of the past few centuries and then try to apply ahadith by using their definitions instead of the ones that would have been present at the time when the hadith were spoken/recorded.
"Assabiyah" is helping any group of people you feel like you belong to when you know that they are in the wrong (so it could be family, it could be tribe, it could be even people of your own faith or of your country). that is what is forbidden.
there is also the hadith on the other side that love for your "watan" is a part of Iman.
"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.
My God! What a ridiculous argument! Something did not exist at the time of the Prophet(saw) so Sharia could not address it! Is that the depths you have to dig to defend kufr? Sharia has forgotten to address something? Fear Allah!
"Maa faratna filkitaabi min shay!" "We have ommitted nothing from the book"
By that logic, ham pizzas didn't exist at the time of the Prophet(saw) nor did bacardi drinks nor sex with corpses - let's throw away the ayaat on the subject matter of food and drink and sex and say they are ok too... Sikhs didn't exist at the time of the Prophet(saw) so let's say we can worship according to the sikh religion. You do some nonsense!
The point is that texts have general applicability over and beyond the examples to which they were applied at the time of the Prophet(saw) - thus they are for all time and places. Social solidarity, bonds and relationships upon which societies were grouped and built did exist - and Islam explained how all of these should be (normative!) and rejected the existing ways they were constructed.
You are pretty sure? LOL You've provided no references, no linguistic explanations - just your own interpretation based on a translation which you can't verify! LOL
Asabiyya عصبية refers to social solidarity with an emphasis on unity, group consciousness, and social cohesion, originally in a context of "tribalism" and "clanism", but sometimes used for modern nationalism as well, resembling also communitarism. The hadiths are not condemning supporting people in matters of wrongness as that is not what asabiyya means - they are condemning the bonds of tribalism that are the basis of socio-political relations and contribute as a basis for social affairs - social bonds should be based on Islam and not tribal relations, we are all brothers and sisters in Islam and that is the basis for the polity, and not tribal groupings and affiliations which was how meccan society was constructed as a polity - thus scholars characterist Mecca as a tribal society and Medina as an Islamic state - the key differentiating characteristic was the bonding Islamic ideology as opposed to tribal relations.
Thus the Prophet(saw) condemned the nature of the call rather than what the subject of the call was in the following hadith. ie "is it was the calls jahilliyah that you call" rather than "do not call to jahilliyah" - a major difference in the Arabic language.
"lndeed, even when the Muhaajirs (those Companions who migrated from Makkah to Madeenah) and the Ansaars (those Companions who aided and supported those who migrated) argued, such that one of the Muhaajirs said:” O Muhaajirs! (implying; rally to my aid) ” And one of the Ansaar said: “O Ansaar!” Upon hearing this, the Prophet sallallaahu ‘alayhi wa sallam said:“Is it with the calls of Jaahiliyyah that you call, and l am still amongst you!” And he became very angry at that.” [Related by al-Bukhaaree (8/137)]
Ibn Taymiyyah said: “Everything which is outside the call of Islaam and the Qur’aan, with regards to lineage, land, nationality, schools of thoughts and ways, then it is from the calls of jaahiliyyah." [Majmoo ul-Fataawaa (3/456)]
Nope - this is called adl and not asabiyah - you appear not to understand the difference between the terms and thus misinterpret the hadith and have an incorrect understanding about nationalism and identities.
Yes - and your point? Everyone can love their home town, city, village etc. However it does not mean you can create bonds from it, have pride in it and try establishing a common socio-political identity on it!
One can love one's family, likewise one does not construct common bonds on that basis across society to try uniting it!
My family is not common to yours, nor is my town common to yours - thus your attempt to make these common bonds is flawed and contradicts and seeks to replace the socio-political bonds the Prophet(saw) created!
Islam is the bond, ie our common creed, that is used to unite society - not nationalism!
Nationalism is a bond which is not based on Islam - it is based on pride in histories of jahil nations, kufr culture, secular authorities and fixed border nation states. Thus a kufr bond and haram as per the hadiths above.
The Islamic socio-political bond comprises:
The Messenger of Allah (saaw) said, "The believers, in their love, mutual kindness, and close ties, are like one body; when any part complains, the whole body responds to it with wakefulness and fever." [Muslim],
"The faithful are like one man: if his eyes suffers, his whole body suffers." [Muslim],
"An Arab is no better than a non-Arab. In return, a non-Arab is no better than an Arab. A red raced man was not better than a black one except in piety. Mankind are all Adam's children and Adam was created out of clay." [Al-Bukhari and Muslim, on the authority of Abu Musa]
Meaning that the Muslims, whether they are of Chinese, African, European or Asian origin, are one Ummah and they cannot be separated from each other. No tribalistic ties should ever break their unity.
Furthermore, Allah (swt), says, The Faithful are but brothers..." [Surah Al-Hujurat (49): ayah 10]
And the Messenger of Allah (saaw) said, "The Faithful are to one another like [parts of] a building - each part strengthening the others"
"Every Muslim is a brother to a Muslim, neither wronging him nor allowing him to be wronged. And if anyone helps his brother in need, Allah will help him in his own need; and if anyone removes a calamity from [another] Muslim, Allah will remove from him some of the calamities of the Day of Resurrection; and if anyone shields [another] Muslim from disgrace, Allah will shield him from the disgrace on the Day of Resurrection." [Al-Bukhari and Muslim, on the authority of `Abd Allah ibn `Umar]
my god! you take offence! when you get caught out! using the wrong! definition! for assabiyah!
when you use ahadith to cover new situations, the way it works is ytou do not just go off the linguistic meaning of terms, but see where the similarities etc lie.
Assabiyah is wrong. but the closest english term when applied in this sense is not nationalism, but patriotism. There is a big difference.
I agree with you that no tribalistic ties etc should break Muslim unity, but that does not mean that those bonds do not exist. The ahadith you mention do not tell people to break those bonds.
"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.
Nope - you have been caught out using titles to justify bonds, attributing totally wrong meanings to asabiyyah which I have provided an accurate explanation if you bother to read it rather than "spotting what interests your eye!".
Of course one uses linguistic meanings! That is how the texts primarily work! Additional elements that come into consideration include context, rational etc The process is not as simplistic as you try articulating it but a lot more complex - embodied in usul al-fiqh, especially in the subject called dalalat.
You don't have a clue of the difference and just cite more terms you've heard from somewhere. Both bonds are prohibited for social unity and cannot replace Islam. Assabiyah refers to social solidarity and the usage applied to the dominant form of social solidarity at the time of the Prophet(Saw) which was tribalism - thus it being condemned by the Prophet(saw) meant that Islam replaced it with something divinely inspired.
It means exactly that - those socio-political bonds do not exist as they have been prohibited. They are replaced with a new set of bonds.
With British identity, the govt in Britain is using it to achieve social solidarity in society - it is a bond that Islam does not recognise as the bond Islam provided us is different and should be retained. That is my point which I'm not sure why you have such a big problem with it.
I know I am going to regret linking to wikipedia, but here is its page onasabiyah.
Not exactly a source, but its should give you some understanding of the term.
"Solidarity" seems to be an even better fit for the meaning of the term "asabiyah".
I will agree with your last sentence there, but the rest of the "explanation" you give is not something covered by that hadith. (actually, neither is the last sentence an explanation of that hadith - the hadith says something totally different, it is about equality.)
I am not denying the brotherhood between Muslims and I am not denying that is hould be strong. but that does not compel other bonds to be broken.
the terms have to have conceptual similarity, especially due to how the arabic language works with its root words system.
Translating assabiya into nationalism is a simplistc and at times erroneous translation.
Except that your own examples showed that the ansaar and the muhajireen terms and affiliations both survived and it also did in terms of tribes (Hadhrat umar (ra), in order to get Hadhrat abu Bakr (ra) to be nominated caliph even exploited this by playing off two ansaar tribes against each other!)
The Islamic bond comes first, but that does not mean the others were eradicated and we have the example of the prophet and the sahabahs here to show how they survived.
The only times those bonds are wrong is when they are exploited to defend or support something which is 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.
It does if they seek to replace this socio-political bond - do you even understand what this bond means? From the discussion so far it appears you don't. You've cited examples to do with geographic origin, examples to do with people who helped, people who migrated etc all utterly irrelevant to the discussion.
We are discussing the socio-political bond - the bond that binds society. We are not discussing sub-groups - those examples are irrelevant. The bond that binds society is Islam alone - nationalistic bonds are mutually exclusive and compete with that!
This is the most ridiculous response you've made to date! They say a little knowledge is dangerous - the root word system is irrelevant! The subject is dalalat - the linguistic principles needed to understand how to understand language and texts. The Arabic language root word system has nothing to do with the discussion.
At times erroneous translation? For someone who claimed assabiya meant helping someone in relation to something wrong, you are just making things up as you go along! N o you've read a wiki article, that is simplistic and naive, but more knowledgeable than you, you have become an expert!
Assabiya is not nationalism nor is it patriotism nor is it helping others in matters of wrongness. I explained in my previous post what it is and if you missed it, go back and read it.
Nationalism and patriotism are instances of assabiya - and as such they have been prohibited - as the Islamic creed is the only accepted society wide bond.
I note with amusement, you have not shown how your membership with your family is common to us all - or how the place you are born is common to us all! It is not and as such is not and cannot be a socio-politcal bond. The only thing which is common to us is the Islamic creed and this is what makes us Brothers in Islam and one ummah. The British bond seeks to make Brits united and others foreigners with loyalty to the government and its laws and love and pride in the biritsh isles! I personally cannot be paty to such a bond.
The terms were given by Islam as the ansaar "helped" the muhajireen "emigrants for Islam". Thus one can label each group with such labels.
The medinan society however was not unified around these labels or groups - the ummah of medina was one ummah as mentioned in the constitution of medina and were bound by the Islamic creed. You are using an evidence for labelling on a subject of socio-political bonds. It's like saying Muslims are allowed to have sex in marriage so one can have ith his girlfriend - the evidence's subject matter in relation to the former point is different to the latter point and not applicable. Likewise your citation of ansaar and muhajiroon does not work as they were never used as the societies' socio-political bonds. The british identity is a socio-political bond!
Again you try weaseling your way out of the corner you are stuck in.
Bring one example of an alternative socio-political bond that coexisted with the Islamic creed - just one - all the ones you have brought are not socio-political bonds.
Wrong - otherwise you could use Hindu bonds! The bond itself contains concepts contrary to Islam and is rationally incorrect - loyalty to man made laws/governments is Islamic is it? pride in kufr histories is Islamic is it? Do all Muslims have this nonsense in common?
You are talking about a subject where you are way out of your depth - and cutting and pasting wiki as your source is so laughable what can one say! If you had read the start of the discussion, I had cited scholarly works which you should have read and would have some understanding of the subject you are discussing. At the moment your understanding and conclusions are whoefully inadequate - and you are changing your argument as you go along and throwing any hadith that you can put your hands on without even understading its contents!
If you are bound to such strict tenets that life in a liberal country is unbearable your first argument is to emigrate. I don't want Admin to emigrate (well, he can do what he likes) but is that it?
Your comment exposes your racist shallow thought process.
If one disagrees with something in society, one changes it - not emigrate! Otherwise one would enter a perpetual cycle of emigration as he disagrees with something in all societies.
Secondly, do you agree with everything in Britain? If not why are you still here and not following you own advice?
Finally, the discussion is a conceptual one - if you can contribute feel free; if not goodbye.
Are you willing to change what you disagree with?
I thought a major way of doing was to get involved within the political system as shouting from the outside does not seem like an effective strategy.
"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.
That would be nice for you, if it turned out I fit the criteria for "racist", and then you would have gotten away with chucking the question back.
If I found it unacceptable to commit to the stated values of a liberal society I would ask if every would prefer that I be in their face all the time passing on religious diktat. Not really. I would not stay long. I like Admin, but who asked for you Anon1? If you do read all this as "go home" we're no worse off for it I can assure you.
No, but I like Britain, and I like that people can enjoy their freedoms here, and I am happy to have a "socio-political bond" in Britain, which has never required anything sacrilegious of me.
I asked you to clarify if you thought it was haraam to stay in a liberal society. Instead I got 3 passive-aggressive lines of attack, and I'm not aware this is your thread let alone your site to be saying that! Besides which you have changed topic to "how intolerant should we be of tolerance" so don't accuse me of failing to contribute. I asked a question and you demonstrated no desire or no capacity for honesty.
//I am happy to have a "socio-political bond" in Britain, which has never required anything sacrilegious of me.//
Oxymoron!
Justify that.
Read the detailed discussions on the forums. Had you read them, you wouldn't post such nonsense contradictory statements. You tried refuting them but failed abysmally - jumping all over the shop to bring bonds that were not socio-political. Maybe you will fare better... I won't hold my breathe - I don't want to suffocate!
No, don't suffocate.
Pages