Issue 15: Ali & Jamal

Author: 
Sajid Iqbal & Irfan Khan

Jamal comes out of the mosque after reading the Jummah prayer. A brother shoves an Islamic leaflet in his hand, as Jamal is about to thank the brother in the Jubbah (long thorbe) he almost dies of a heart attack...

Jamal: Sal... Sal… Salaam Bro. Is that… is that you Ali?!

Ali: You spotted me Jam. How are you bro?

Jamal: I’m fine brother. Are you... sure that’s you Ali…

Ali: The one and only. You look like you gonna pass out Jam… I think you better sit down.

Jamal: I’m just a bit shocked… You look so different… what happened?!

Ali: What can I say Jam... I found God.

Jamal: Where?! I didn’t realise God was lost?

Ali: You're a funny shaykh aren't ya!

Jamal: Better than being an ugly one I suppose

Ali: Hahahaha... Jam your little chats got me thinking and contem...tem...temmm... you know...

Jamal: Contemplating?

Ali: Exactly! I got sick of da bling, gals and spliffs and me met a couple of good bros who sorted me out innit.

Jamal: What... you got better gear? I don't understand.

Ali: Astagfaar! You silly muppet. Da bros told me it's bad what me is doing and there's more to life than dat.

Jamal: I been telling you that for years Ali... so what was different here?

Ali: Da bros spent a lot of time with me, they would always come look for me and made me realise that by living in kufr lands we need to stay away from the kufaar otherwise we end up like them... we need Islam here to sort everything out innit.

Jamal: “Kufr lands!” “Kufaar!” Now who exactly are these bros you met?

Ali: They safe Jam. Me goes to their house every week to study. We learning how we need to invent Islam today...

Jamal: You mean implement?

Ali: Innit. No following kufaar laws or voting kufaar. We need Islam in the UK... and we watch videos on what these kufaar pigs are doing to our Muslim bros and sis in Palestine, Afghanistan, Iraq and that...

Jamal: Listen Ali! It's good you are trying to become a better Muslim but this is not the way.

Ali: What? Nah bro this has got to be the way look I is changed. I even start to dress like a mad mullah in my Jubbah.

Jamal: Your dress don’t make you a good Muslim and these new found friends of yours seem like fools to me.

Ali: Don't diss my Muslim brothers OK! Da Bros have told me we need to defend our Muslim bros and sis against these kufaar, not just talk like most of da mullahs do today!

Jamal: That's the biggest load of absolute garbage I have heard for ages!

Ali: You trying to say me is chattin’ crap, huh?

Jamal: YES!

(Jamal takes Ali by the arm to a quiet spot...)

Jamal: You need to listen loud and clear Ali. You turn from gangster to non-Muslim hater overnight by speaking to a couple of crackpots who you take as Shaykhs! What's the matter with you bro?! You need to wake up and smell the coffee!

Ali: Whoah, ease up Jam, why you so upset... I thought you would be happy man, me becoming Islamic and that?

Jamal: This is not Islam Ali! Hating non-Muslims who you live with is not Islam! Not following the law of the land is not Islam! Saying that voting and being politically active here is Haram is not Islam! Wanting to implement Shariah Law in non-Muslim lands is not Islam! Don't you get it bro?!

Ali: Da brothers know a lot about Islam Jam. They say things that make sense, then I see all the killings in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine on the TV and so I know what they is saying is true.

Jamal: Look Ali my heart also bleeds for our brothers and sisters in those countries who are suffering from the injustices, but there is a way and a method of protesting and the way of your new friends just ain't right!

Ali: Why not?! We get our message across and we be doin' marches and demo's to get our voice heard. Me has found a hidden talent... I make some wicked effigies. I knew I had a natural talent for burnin'... Aiiiii!

Jamal: No Ali, your friends are causing trouble for other Muslims. Because of these marches and demonstrations – like the ones in Luton - there is a lot of animosity towards Muslims. We now have the English Defence League as well as the BNP to contend with. The EDF are standing up and saying bad things against Islam, so you tell me how these marches and demonstrations you have done have helped Islam and Muslims here in the UK?

Ali: Well...I... I... but they is mad mullahs like you I thought they would be OK...

Jamal: Brother, you need to be careful who you learn your Islam from, not from any Chaudhary, Bakri or Hamza! It has to be the teachings from the Quran and Sunnah which have been understood by the majority of the great scholars over the last 1000 years! No mainstream scholar or person of authority today will tell you the stuff your so called 'brothers' have told you.

Ali: Raas man! I just can’t do nowt right... me might as well get to burnin' n rollin' again, at least I could do that right.

Jamal: No, no Ali. This is not your fault. Look these guys prey on vulnerable people like you, they brainwash them with their views. You’re not the first and certainly will not be the last, it is our job as good practising Muslims to make all non-Muslims and Muslims aware that the views of this extreme minority are twisted and extreme and the proper Islam is as it says on the box: a PEACEFUL religion.

Ali: Well I guess you’re right, me Julie’s will be pleased, Ali is back rollin' again, woo hoo!

Jamal: No, no Ali that don’t mean you should go back to your old ways... you just need to LEARN Islam properly. So let me just explain firstly what Islam says about dealing with non-Muslims - do you know how the Prophet (pbuh) dealt with them?

Ali: Did he kill ‘em all with his sword like that gal in Kill Bill... that was sick man!

Jamal: No Ali, let me give you a few examples of how the Prophet (pbuh) dealt with non-Muslims: Once the Prophet (pbuh) had his tooth broken and his face cut on the day of the Battle of Uhud, it was practically unbearable for his companions. They said “if only you would invoke a curse against them.” He replied “I was not sent to curse, but I was sent as a mercy. Oh Allah, guide my people for they do not know.” [As Shifa, Qadi Ayad]

Ali: You sure bro? You sure you're not talking about Ghandi or summat?

Jamal: Our Prophet (pbuh) was a mercy to the whole of mankind. He never taught hatred against the non-Muslims! Let me give you another example: once a group of Christian priests were in Medina. They needed a place to stay so they went to Prophet Muhammad (pbuh). He said you can stay at my house. He cooked them dinner and made them welcome. Soon it was time for the Christians to pray, the Prophet (pbuh) took them to his mosque and said you can do your worship here.

Ali: What?! The Prophet (pbuh) fed the Kafir and took them to his mosque?! I don't believe you Jam... coz the brothers told me...

Jamal: I'm giving you examples of the life of the Prophet (pbuh) Ali. This is true Islam.

Ali: What about the Kufaar killing the Muslims Jam?

Jamal: When Islam or a Muslim land is attacked then the Muslim state defends itself and the Prophet (pbuh) did that. Today what me and you can do to help Muslims suffering under occupation like in Palestine is not to follow crackpots and then become suicide bombers; but to become politically active, lobby our political leaders here and to know the facts about the occupation so we can defeat any false arguments put forward against the illegal occupation.

Ali: We voted for Blair and look what he did in Iraq, Afghanistan... me is not voting Jam.

Jamal: By voting you have a say; it’s a legal way to raise your voice and act against any aggression or injustice. Most of our welfare and interests are run through a polling system. Schooling, social services, police, court, medication, finance, business, sports, recreation, etc are all run by people that are elected to office. You understand me Ali? If you have a vote power, you have the legitimacy to reach and accomplish anything of your needs or goals. Without it, you are a dead battery.

Ali: Woah Jam! You not standing up for councillor this year are ya man? You got your eye on that expenses form innit!

Jamal: Listen Ali, by voting you can also protest against those who go to war in our name. And don't forget Ali, by not voting you're opening the door for the BNP to become stronger and come into power!

Ali: OK Jam, me understands what you're saying but how is that gonna help me bros and sis in Palestine and that?

Jamal: Well if you're hacked off with what's happening in Palestine, Iraq and everywhere else then rather than joining these crackpot 'brothers' of yours, after voting, you need to either join a political party to influence things that way or simply lobby MP's and political parties on these important issues, or even join Muslim lobby groups. This is our duty and it’s the only way to have your say and make a change. Hating non-Muslims and saying 'Kafir law is Haram' and 'voting is Haram' and we need to 'turn Britain into an Islamic State' is not an alternative... it’s utter rubbish and it’s something that you would say Ali when you’re stoned!

Ali: Watch it Jam! Me does me best thinking when I is stoned... I becomes philosophised...

Jamal: Only kiddin’ bro... you're a good guy really.

Ali: So what about following Kafir law then? Me brothas said you can only follow Islamic law.

Jamal: You see Ali, the Quran is crystal clear on this: "O you who believe, obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those in authority from among you; then if you quarrel about anything, refer it to Allah and the Messenger" [4:59 ], and the Prophet (pbuh) said: “It is necessary upon a Muslim to listen to and obey the ruler, as long as one is not ordered to carry out a sin. If he is commanded to commit a sin, then there is no adherence and obedience.” [Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 2796 & Sunan Tirmidhi]. So Ali, it is necessary by Shariah to follow the laws of the country one lives in, regardless of the nature of the law, as long as it does not contradict the rules of Islam.

Ali: So me can follow the Kufaar then... Raas... getting bladdered and stoned is Halal then...

Jamal: You're a funny guy Ali. I said following laws in non-Muslim countries is allowed as long as it doesn't go against Islam. I didn’t say following non-Muslims or doing anything Haram living in the West is OK!

Ali: Me was just testing ya Jam... it's been a long time and that...

Jamal: Hahaha.

Ali: So these brothas... do they follow a different Quran or summat Jam... coz they not told me what you've just said.... me is friggin' confused!

Jamal: Like I told you bro... you met a couple of crackpots. The majority of Muslims and especially scholars worldwide don't have this view bro.

Ali: So the Quran doesn't tell us to have Islamic law... you know... what did the bros say... cali...cleo...cleopatra?!

Jamal: You mean Khilafah?

Ali: Yeah... they kept bangin' on about that man!

Jamal: Yes having Islamic law in a Muslim land is fine but not in non-Muslim countries especially where you are a minority Ali. These crackpots asking for Shariah Law in the UK are so minor... they're like Man City fans...

Ali: Hahahaha! That's the first funny joke you've told Jam... hate City man... that Tevez...

Jamal: Anyway... you see the Prophet (pbuh) spent 13 years in Mecca - a majority non-Muslim land - and he didn't call for Shariah law there. But when he went to Madina and people started to embrace Islam and they were a majority only then did he start to implement Shariah law as a political system!

Ali: Raas! I get it now Jam... so me shouldn't hate non-Muslims and that. And it’s OK to following laws in this country as long they don't go against Islam. And asking for Shariah law in UK is a load of crap. And we should get more involved with politics in order to make a change and help our bros and sis in Palestine and that.

Jamal: Wow Ali! I'm impressed! You've actually listened to and understood everything I've told you! Good boy!

Ali: You thinks me is a friggin' kid. You gonna give me a lolly pop or summat... you can do one...

Jamal: I was gonna offer you a kebab...

Ali: Well... since you've mentioned it... I do feel a bit peckish...

Comments

[EDITED (Thanks Wink )]

and how old is Ali?

 

Ali is in his early 20's
the lads growing and maturing.... slowly:-)

 

TheRevivalEditor wrote:
Ali is in his early 20's
the lads growing and maturing.... slowly:-)

Too slowly in my opinion.

Why can we not have conversations taking place for different situations and contexts with new people/teenagers to fit in real life? Then they might be worth reading. No offence sorry. Ali seems to be too extreme (ha-ha) in everything he does.

 

I think Jamal needs to be decapitated. He annoys me greatly.

"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.

ROFL
but why?

Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?

He is just grating. Mr Perfect who has no flaws and does not turn down an opportunity to lecture others. A know-it-all that doesn't really know it all.

He is the type of person that has not lived but tells others how to. He also lacks personality, but has a condescending holier than thou attitude to others that may seen as passive aggressive.

Don't you want him to mess up, get egg on his face and to realise that things are not always easy?

"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.

Ali: Did he kill ‘em all with his sword like that gal in Kill Bill... that was sick man!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH

omg
I love whoever came up with that line
that is hilarious!

A number of problematic arguments simplified to the level of plain silly...
-By not voting we are letting BNP in - BNP didn't win any seats in the last two elections and half the Muslims did not vote - this argument is more of a scare tactic than being realistic
-If passive voters voted, your assumption is they will vote exactly how you would like them to in order to achieve some impact however this is incorrect - they could vote a number of way including voting in the ration of those who do vote, resulting in no change to the results...
-Over half the seats in the UK are safe seats so 25 million votes are irrelevant and Muslims can have no impact in them...
-Of the remaining seats, Muslims are such a tiny percentage, with varying voting patterns that any individual voting or not voting makes no difference at all...just a waste of time...
-Coordinated voting may have some impact in constitutencies where Muslims have 20-40% (two or three in the entire UK) - however as voting is not and will never be coordinated this is little more than wishful thinking...
-Finally the scholars are fragmented in their views on voting with most appearing to say it's forbidden/kufr based on ayaat and ahadith with the rest fragmented to secondary principles and utilitarian arguments.

I thought most of the scholars were united in that it is allowed with a very small number on the other side... (and are there any real scholars who have that view or just a few random people who have access to pulpits?)

Even in safe seats, the seats are safe for a reason - because people voted for them. Maybe because the people think the elected MP from that region is doing good job.

True, you cannot control how people vote. More, you probably will not even want to.

While it may be "wishful thinking" to get everyone to coordinate always, it can happen and it has happened. Yes, in most places this time around the people thougyht to be bad for Muslims did survive (some only just, others by bigger majorities), but the fear of being voted out was 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.

Anonymous1 wrote:
By not voting we are letting BNP in - BNP didn't win any seats in the last two elections and half the Muslims did not vote - this argument is more of a scare tactic than being realistic

On the contrary prejudice and hate is a bigger problem when you are in a time of economic decline. When people are worried about their future, about putting their food on the table, they are less willing to play nice.

If you look through history, many of the times where problems have occurred would coincide with economic downturns.

The last two elections before this were pre economic crash. The local and european elections since have had large amounts of people voting for more extreme parties. The BNP almost had control of a council and had MPs in the european parliament.

That is not hyperbole but fact. Surely you could not have been blind to their gains? Even all the legislation against the hijab in europe, the minaret ban etc all kicked off with the economic downturn.

However this election their powers seem to have been dampened both in the general elections and in the local elections where they got wiped out in many places.

"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 would disagree with your attribution of causal analysis of economic factors and voting behavior in relation to the BNP - the last elections undermine your argument.

However rather than repeat the arguments, there is a good research paper (the only one done on the topic that I'm aware of) at the following site which may interest you if you choose to read it - it addresses all the points in relation to voting, the different scholarly views (apparently there are around 100 scholars who prohibit voting!) and the political paradigms surrounding the process:

Anonymous1 wrote:
I would disagree with your attribution of causal analysis of economic factors and voting behavior in relation to the BNP - the last elections undermine your argument.

They did not succeed because they were.effectively combatted.

anonymous1 wrote:
However rather than repeat the arguments, there is a good research paper (the only one done on the topic that I'm aware of) at the following site which may interest you if you choose to read it - it addresses all the points in relation to voting, the different scholarly views (apparently there are around 100 scholars who prohibit voting!) and the political paradigms surrounding the process:



Thanks, I will have a read, but I love it how the HT call themselves the traditionalists! I fimd tuat quite funny.

Mpre, this is not a new debate but one tuat jas ocurred before when in khilafh system many scholars did mot want to get muddied by corrupt rulers and an imperfect system. That debate eventually concluded with the result that taking part was a must.

"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.

//They did not succeed because they were.effectively combatted.//
Or more likely they did not succeed because they were never a threat in the first place... To demonstrate what you claim you need to substantiate it rather than just assert it.

//Thanks, I will have a read, but I love it how the HT call themselves the traditionalists! I fimd tuat quite funny.//
Maybe you should read the research of Dr S Farouqi who argues in a similar vein - they typology of traditionalists as opposed to modernists adopt their outlooks from medieval scholars, eg caliphate from mawardi/juwaini/abu yala etc whilst modernists adopt their democratic outlooks from near contemporary scholars who believed the traditional solutions are outdated, eg afghani/abduh/rida etc

//Mpre, this is not a new debate but one tuat jas ocurred before when in khilafh system many scholars did mot want to get muddied by corrupt rulers and an imperfect system. That debate eventually concluded with the result that taking part was a must.//
The debate is new as most scholars agree as the historical context was that of caliphates and sharia law with exceptionalism being the norm, whilst today, the context is that of secularism and democracy and majoritarian legislation with sharia being exceptional or incidental to the process.

It is not hard to see the rise in prejudice recently - you just have to open your eyes.

Two years ago the EDL did not exist, neither did a few other hate groups. The few elections saw a marked rise is votes for groups like the BNP wjere they had drastically increased the council seats they jepd md even got theor first MEPs. These are facts and not unsubstantiated claims.

It was in the same climate that the swiss banned minarets and many others are proposing bans of veils and headscarves.

You have to be blind to not notice this fast rise in intolerance over the past year or two!

"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.

As ever, you're conflating two separate conceptual issues - Islamophobia with right wing nationalistic parties. The former does not explain the rise or fall of the latter in recent elections - your argument would predicate they should have won seats which they did not.

Elections however take many more issues into account of which islamophobic views are one small factor at best.

The rise in intolerance of recent years amongst the establishment, journalists and now mass society is due to the strategy of "integration" the Muslims have followed over the last five decades... "double speak" in relation to values has become exposed through events like Rushdie/Danish cartoons in relation to freedom of speech, suicide bombings/Iraq war/Palestine in relation to loyalties and Dr Rowan William's comments/Tribunals in relation to Sharia law amongst others. The solution is to do what the Prophet(saw) did in Mecca - dawa to win over society to Islam and communicate the ideology to society en masse - otherwise Muslims face a serious existential problem in Britain...

Anonymous1 wrote:
The solution is to do what the Prophet(saw) did in Mecca - dawa to win over society to Islam and communicate the ideology to society en masse - otherwise Muslims face a serious existential problem in Britain...

While I have issues with other parts of your posts, this is something I can wholeheartedly agree with.

I would also say that I doubt there is any integration "strategy" that has been followed (just individuals going their way) and the reason why different facets are seen is because we do not operate as a borg like entity.

It also shows that we are willing to stand up for what we feel is right and have been given the opportunity to peacefully demonstrate - even if it was not always appreciated that we did.

"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.

//Anyway... you see the Prophet Peace and Blessings of Allah be upon him spent 13 years in Mecca - a majority non-Muslim land - and he didn't call for Shariah law there.//

Maybe you can explain the narrations in the books of seerah where Mushrikeen are ridiculing the Prophet's for talking about becomign a leader in the first year of Islam?

Maybe you can explain why the rulers were attacked by many Quranic verses as was the entire system of Mecca?

"It is argued that the Prophet(saw) from the early stages in Mecca delivered a message that Islam was to be the dominant system and ideology for the entire world. This was mocked by the Quraish who found it amusing that he could do this with so few followers. Numerous verses however criticised the socio-economic and political systems of Mecca:
"Woe to every slanderer and backbiter who has gathered wealth and counted it." (Quran 104:1-4)
"Woe to the defrauders, those who, when they receive measure, demand full measure, and when they have to give measure, give less than due." (Quran 83:1-3)
“Mutual rivalry for piling up worldly things diverts you, until you visit the graves." (Quran 102:1-3)
"And that which you give in Usury that it may increase has no increase with Allah." (Quran 30:39)
"Nay! But you treat not the orphans with kindness and generosity! And urge not the feeding of the poor! And you devour inheritance - all with greed." (Quran 89:17-23)
The chiefs of Mecca, including Al-Walid ibn al-Mughira, Utbah bin Rabiah, Shaibah bin Rabiah, Abu Jahl, Ummayah bin Khalaf, Abu Sufyan and others were subject of a number of verses:
"Leave Me (to deal) with him whom I created lonely. And then bestowed upon him ample means. And sons abiding in his presence. And made (life) smooth for him." (Quran 74:11-14)
"So (Mohammed) obey not the deniers. They wish that you should compromise. And obey not everyone who swears much, and is considered worthless - a slanderer, going about with calumnies, hinderer of the good, transgressor, sinful, cruel, and after all that Zaneem (son of a whore). (He was so) because he had wealth and children." (Quran 68:8-16)"

I agree tuat the definition used for shariah is clumsy at best in that exchange. It seems to use Shariah in the sense of the penal system only, which is much too narrow a definition. Shariah is much more than that amd if taking the broader view, that exchange is wrong.

(fyi, I have edited my last post to add more text)

"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 wrote:
I would disagree with your attribution of causal analysis of economic factors and voting behavior in relation to the BNP - the last elections undermine your argument.

You know, you could potentially have a point if the BNP did not have slogans like "Lets kick islam out of the UK". But since they were campaigning on an anti Islam platform, your point does not stand. They were even trying to ally themselves with non-muslim ethnic
minority groups in order to push this message.

So you may continue to use big words to try and bamboozle people, but atleast here, you are simply 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.

Anonymous1 wrote:
-Of the remaining seats, Muslims are such a tiny percentage, with varying voting patterns that any individual voting or not voting makes no difference at all...just a waste of time...

This also backfires as the way to get around this it to work within the community, to show Non Muslims too how those MP's are bad for the community as a whole.

It requires political action to get that to happen.

"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 wrote:
Anonymous1 wrote:
I would disagree with your attribution of causal analysis of economic factors and voting behavior in relation to the BNP - the last elections undermine your argument.

You know, you could potentially have a point if the BNP did not have slogans like "Lets kick islam out of the UK". But since they were campaigning on an anti Islam platform, your point does not stand. They were even trying to ally themselves with non-muslim ethnic
minority groups in order to push this message.

So you may continue to use big words to try and bamboozle people, but atleast here, you are simply wrong.

You still have not show causal attribution - and as I said the last elections shows economics which were still bad during the elections played any part in increasing support for the BNP as you assert.

You wrote:
Anonymous1 wrote:
-Of the remaining seats, Muslims are such a tiny percentage, with varying voting patterns that any individual voting or not voting makes no difference at all...just a waste of time...

This also backfires as the way to get around this it to work within the community, to show Non Muslims too how those MP's are bad for the community as a whole.

It requires political action to get that to happen.

The point stands as it undermines the argument of those who say it is obligatory on Muslims to vote as they can make a change - you agree with that point - thus undermining the questionable fataawa and activists who get Muslims to vote. The correct view is that unless the rest of society are also encouraged to change their voting habits, bad MPs cannot be removed or good MPs cannot come about. None of the fataawas say this nor do the likes of MPAC etc

This may surprise you but I don't think it is obligatory to vote. Often I am too lazy to ote or don't see a point in it t all.

What I am against is the idea that voting is either haraam or kufr.

More, I agree that participating in society in general to show the the errors of some people vying for power is a good thing. No one needs to act in solitude and that is not hoe democracy works - you need enough of a voice to make it meaningful.

PS many safe seats are safe precisely because the people of the constituency consider the imcumbent to be doing a good enough job to get their vote. There is no conspiracy involved - on the few occasions that they don't, look at what happened to Lempik Opik - he lost one of the safest sets the Lib Dems had.

"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 think political activity is necessary and obligatory for Muslims due to many Islamic evidences for it. However, what the aim should be and what actions we do, both must be halal and also sensible.

Voting as one mode of poltical action seems to be prohibited as does the process of human legislation. The following research article covers the issue comprehensively and concludes that voting is haram - maybe you can provide a refutation of it...

I do plan on reading that but it is loooong.

(What would the shariah state's position in your eyes be on matters like centralised healthcare, roads and transport? On the issue of alcohol, would it allow non muslims to drink? If yes, since spying is haram, how would it police the system to stop muslims from drinking?)

On the issue of participation, how can you participate but not vote? That would be telling others to vote in your interests but not do so yourself.

"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.

No problems - once you've read it post your critique and we can continue the discussion.

Anonymous1 wrote:

Ok, starting with the link now... hese are thoughts as I read through... no idea how long I will give it but... the first page starts off with a false assertion.

Muslims living in the West are confronted with problems not experienced historically.

WRONG!

That assertion is only made so that the group writing it can assert themselves to be traditionalists while overlooking the overwhelming body of traditional opinion.

how do I continue from here when you find the very basis of the article wrong?

Nothing has created so much heated debate as political participation in secular democratic systems and voting for non-Islamic political parties.

Incorrect, most people simply get on with it. The only people who create debate are the minority against it. To everyone else it is a non issue.

Of all the political activities none have been as controversial as political participation through voting and legislative processes.

Once again, not true for the bast majority. The people that it has been controversial for probably number in the hundreds or thousands in a community that is almost 2 million people.

Democracy as a system and philosophy however has been a contested concept amongst scholars and activists:

If you go to the very beginning, The first and fourth caliphs were chosen using methods that can be considered as precursors to modern democracy. There were competing people who it was thought had a right to lead the community, but a single person wa chosen to become the khalifah.

I think the three categories of traditionalists modernists and secularists are wrong. I would not consider the traditionalists as outlined in that piece to be traditional at all.

Next comes the conspiracy stage that "look, all those muslims who disagree with is are connected to other organisations! conspiracy! Only we remain tried and true". alternatively it could be written "scholars from all the leading organisations are united that voting and taking part in democratic processes are allowed. Only a rag tag bunch of unconnected people - people not connected to any organisation, nor to any scholarly body - disagree."

Traditionalists question the assumptions modernists rely on and argue alternative models of engagement in non-Islamic societies. For instance, the assumption of permanency of Muslim abodes in the West is open to critique.

Meaning "we agree with the BNP, get us out of here!", but this ignores that fact that people ahve been here for years - people who came as 20 year olds in the 1960's are now going to be retired 70 year olds. That is a life term.

There may be some future where the Muslims are no longer able to live in places like the UK, but that is neither a certainty, nor is it now. More, it is abandoning the people "in the middle" - the ones that haven't been kicked out in a land of limbo.

That is also forgetting that there are maybe 50,000 converts to Islam in the UK who have known no other country as home escept the UK (lets ignore that many of the ethnic mintories were also born and brought up in the UK) - while existence within the UK may not be permanent, it is a life time or longer. As the article mentions just before, Muslims have been here since the 1600's.

With tensions between Islam and secular democracy, Muslims have not integrated like other religious communities.

You should have a look at the Gypsy community - they are even the same colour and are still different. (More, I think we can learn from them about how NOT to integrate as they have managed to save important parts of their culture by not integrating).

When the article uses the word "Global Ummah" - it uses the word global in there. as in all over th globe. It would not be global if the Muslims were relegated to noly existing in one part of the world.

The maintenance of links to their homelands, properties and wealth overseas by large numbers of Muslims are indicative of such fears.

Fears are jsut that. Incidentally there was an article on this topic in issue 15:

This process of conveying Islam cannot be achieved by entering parliament and jointly participating in majority dominated legislation and policy making, when the very political institutions and systems of the country are at fault.

That is another assertion, one with no backing or evidence. I assume that will come later.

A Guardian article reported on a leaked government document citing extremism meant believing in the Caliphate, Sharia, armed resistance and opposing Israel, believing homosexuality is sinful and failing to condemn the killing of British soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan.

While this was the case, that definition of not being an exrtremist gained no ground and has been rejected by everyone - even the government did not put that forward.

Next part is about funding of groups - two issues:

1. The government has every right to do that.
2. If a group takes the money, it does not make them "guilty" either of themselves or from association.
3. I think the quilliam wounds is a little raw as they were members/leaders on the uk HT movement who broke away.

Well, that adds up to three. I must such at maths.

Moving forward... the discussion about democracy presents verious arguments and then a conclusion unlinked to the arguments.

More, it does not explain what the alternative to democracy is - Yes the islamic way is the shariah, but who has the right to interpret it? when there are more than one interprtations, whose is used as the basis for law?

More - the khalifah - should be be elected by popular mandate? should be apointed? How about chosen from a group of peers? What about hereditary leadership?

All of those are approved during the khalafah rashidah and none are rejected as unislamic. Democracy is closest to the first of them - the election of Hadhrat Abu Bakr As Siddeeq (ra) and we accept that he was legitimately accepted.

More, if there was only one way, it would have been legislated in the qur'an. We have a section about how news papers etc have responded to various elections. Unnecessary drivel considering the topic we are discussing is Islam and voting and not the papers and voting...

Ok I am bore now. I may read further at some other point but so far it has been... pointless.

More at the election of Hadhrat Abu Bakr (ra), there were people who did not agree and would not give their oath. Their path was forcibly taken. the will of the majority was made mandatory upon them.

"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.

Just reading forward...

A number of scholars have historically rejected this principle citing verses, "For each Messenger I sent a Sharia and way of life" (Quran 5:48).[171] However some have accepted it,[172] stipulating a previous Sharia mentioned in Quran can be followed so long it does not contradict that brought by Muhammad(saw).

The first problem with this principle is voting and participation in non-Islamic governance has been addressed by Mohammed(saw) – precluding the use of previous Sharias. Mohammed(saw) rejected a number of overtures made by Quraish to join their Meccan rule as well as offers from tribes from whom he sought leadership due to unacceptable conditions attached as well as prohibiting legislating and delegating in matters of sin.

That si simply disingenious. The overtures made by the meccans were "believe in our gods and we will amke you king" and "You believe in our gods and we will beleive in yours".

Those overtures were not political but religious asking the Prophet to give up his message of tawheed. Pretending that those were merely political overtures is ... decieptful at best.

Later on when discussing how voting is not allowed there is

Adey bin Hatim said, `O Messenger(saw) of Allah(swt), we never took them as lords. He said, `Yes (you did). Did not they legislate for you that which Allah(swt) forbade you and you obeyed it?' I said, `Yes indeed'. He said, `That is worshipping them.' ” (Ahmed and Tirmidhi)

and the text misses out the key bit in there which is "Did not they legislate for you that which Allah(swt) forbade you and you obeyed it?" which is not what taking part in elections is all about.

The UK may allow alcohol, but we do not accept that as halaal for Muslims.

(the article before this also refutes the idea that there is freedom of religion in Islam... There is no compulsion but the page tries to say that that is not the case.)

"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.

Is that it? Is that all your critique of it?

No, that is where I stopped as paying attention was getting frayed... its a dissertation type of thing which can be dry reading.

But I must say that there was subtext there that I disagreed with and it started with the very first sentence.

"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.

Pages