It can only be nationalism if the hdith definition of nationalism is replaced with a bid'ah definition of ntionalism that has been around for. Couple or three centuries.

Tell those people to post here because if I call someone a moron, I want them to see it and I want to see their reaponses.

Can you ask the morons if the Prophet was an arab? Was he a Quraishi? Was he Hashimi?

Why was Hadhrat Salman Farsi known by the name of the place he originated from, what bout hadhrat Bilal Habashi?

Ask them did the prophet, while allowing it, not eat certain foods because they were "not the foods of the Arabs"?

If the morons think using the word British is wrong, they need to rewrite early Islamic history.

Saying that, the term British Muslim can imply something more insiduous.

It can imply that the Islam has been modified to be British, which is not the case and if such changes were made, they would be wrong.

Until the UK limits muslims in a way that they cannot freely and legally practice islam, there is no opposition or exclusivity where one has to choose sides.

PS when people try to debate via emil, guide them to the forums. This is a better plce for discussions.

sigh

erm is this a trick question? I don't see the big issue here.

One is a nationality another refers to ones religious following, what's the problem?

There are people out there who consider the term apostasy.

so if i said Bangladeshi muslim, or my mate said Pakistani muslim is that not apostasy, or Turkish Muslim? I mean theyre very secular countries, although Pakistan runs Islamic law in some areas, the other two countries secular even though there are muslims, i mean look at the ridiculous hijab laws in Turkey for example.

According to those people, yes that would be grounds to make takfir.

PS Turkey is a fast improving country - while it has its fights, it is moving in the right directions now and could easily become and accepted leader of the Muslim world within a short frame of time.

(The current government wants headscarves etc to be allowed, but they have other threats like the judiciary who overruled them, almost banned them all from politics altogether, when they passed laws to allow it before.)

wasnt it Turkey who were trying to be part of EU?

Yes but that has become almost an impossibility after cyrpus and Greece joined. Too much rivalry between them too, and for Turkey to join, they would need to agree, which is not going to happen.

Ignore me if you like, i don't really know anything.

But in my uneducated opinion, Is there not a difference between deliberately advocating a bad thing and making the best of what we have?

And Isn't it also slightly petulant to compare what's happening to us now (Which could be a LOT worse) with the atrocities that happened in the Prophet's time? i'd say that was More disrespectful actually as it's the difference between acknowledging he was an amazing person who had to deal with and overcome so much and saying that we shouldn't take what we have for granted.

But what do i know.

@Rawrrs - totally reasonable, but unfortunately not everyone finds reasonable to be reasonable.

@ Ed - Not got time to respond yet but have you asked them for any credible scholars who agree with them? If they are calling ALL scholars stooges instead of a small subset, surely there is something wrong with their picture?

oh and tell them they are morons. Nowhere does it say in British law that you MUST commit zina, nowhere does it say that you MUST drink alcohol, nowhere does it say that you MUST take usury. Nowhere does it say that you MUST eat haraam food. They are making up lies to back up their points.

You wrote:

There are people out there who consider the term apostasy.

People can be SO SO SO dumb
and narrow minded

TheRevivalEditor wrote:

please comment on this email by the same chap:

All the scholars you refer to are modernists, the modern equivalent of the mutazilah - going against the classical scholars. The mutazilah and even khwarij historically had scholars amongst them - however the ahl al-sunnah scholars condemned them for their extreme views - Hamza Yusuf jumped into bed with George Bush and Tariq Ramadan is well known and exposed for being full of double talk, someone western governments love for his secular views! No wonder your magazine is full of such dubious views of such questionable scholars. You should be careful from whom you take your deen and cast your net wider to look at alternative traditional views based on our unadulterated and non-secularised islamic heritage and culture.

Having said that, these scholars are not experts on issues like identities - you should research and read works of those who are experts in the subject. It's like the issue of elections - some scholars are dumb enough to think voting has nothing to do with delegating or providing authorisation to others to legislate - they don't even research the issue in their work!!! If they bothered to check with experts in political science they'd find they're building their fatwas on sand!

Having started out with a nonsense definition of equating britishness with a passport, you suddenly have updated your definition (though it is still wrong!) making me suspect you either were fobbing me off with such blatantly false explanations or you genuinely did not know. Anyone can use a label and believe it to be what they want - you are doing worse by also mixing it with ideas of citizenship and having a passport - you are totally confused!!! One can be both a citizen and owner of a passport without accepting the British identity! Your problem is that society has a collective understanding of what it means to be british, which is not what you and your co-authors are saying! Your arguments are like "I'm a HinduMuslim - I don't agree with some Hindu values but I don't see it contradicts Islam!" Read some works of proper experts in political theory and start with an accepted definition - at the moment your reply is embarressing!

You are secular muslims so you love britain - no doubt you are ok with british notions like girlfriends, massage parlours, alcohol, taxes, conforming etc. Start criticising the government and the secular way of life like what the prophet and allah did in mecca and you'll soon see how great this country is when they slander you, ban you and lock you up without charge! See what they did to the prohet! Even look at what happened to socialists and communists during the cold war! And no the prophet was not a nutter or extremist - the ones who compromised and told quraysh how lovely they were were the nutters and extremists! Muslims should speak the truth and not half truths and nonsense like "we obey law of the land" and in private "so long it does not contradict Islam" - nobody believes such lies! Say it straight, God's law has precedence over other laws - then see what they think of you - british muslim or extremist! And telling the truth doesn't mean one hates the country or should emigrate - only a joker would conclude that! It means one disagrees with what's going on and wants change!!!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHAHA

omg
thats just too ridiculous to even comment on

since when have massage parlours been british???
Jeez...

if they dont like this coutnry why are they even here?!?!?!?!

conforming is a british thing???
omg
I dont even know what to say to that!

When the Muslims went to abysinnia and were called to defend their presence, yes they quoted the qur'an, but they submitted to tue judgement of a man - the Negus that ruled there.

Secondly the definition of being british is fluid. I did not like the title of that article either, but it does not lead to kufr because there is no sense or demand to compromise our beliefs. By being british amd taking part in the system, we are defending Islamic rights nd trying our best to see them not be curtailed.

Islamic laws are not always universal - some things would only apply to muslims even in an ideal fantastical islamic state. The same is the case in the uk where we are allowed to practice islam but those who do not want to live by its laws (non musliks are afterall the majority) do not have to.

Yes the UK is imperfect a with the good there is also the bad. But being British means we can take part to change the system to make it less bad.

Let's be clear about another thing - even in an ideal Islamic system the laws would be understood and implemented by man and thus lead to imperfection.

Another thing - hadhrat Abu Bakr was elected to lead in what can be seen as a precursor to the modern democratic way.

What does the person propose as an alternative? It is easy to live in cloud cuckoo land without presenting a solution, so let's uear his solution. Please make sure it is not a meaningless soundbite.

I think there is also hadith that says loving the land where you live is part of faith. Does this individual practice that?

Tell him to get his ass here so we can have a proper discussion that ias not moderated by intermediaries.

How is he following those scholars?

Did Imam Ghazali try to overthrow the leadership of the time?

Groups and scholars may not always matter as imdividuls, but when they all sing from the same hymn sheet, that is something. The ummah cannot be united on a matter which is wrong, so ignoring them is at your own peril.

well the brother would have to come here to put his views across and defend himself. But when i say i am born in britian therefore british if i had to tick a box on a form, and muslim because i follow islam, then i don't think that's kufr.

Also just because I say i am british and muslim it does not mean i follow all the British values/moral system. i.e relationships outside marriage, drinking, eating pork.

Too many false accusations were made against the country, i mean things that could be said of pretty much any country across the globe. For example drinking, paid sex, gambling it occurs across the globe and sadly in Arab countries like Saudi and Dubai its rampant amongst the rich. I'm not saying it's justified but on that basis it would be wise not to affilliate ones self with any country.

But it's a common question asked in airports for example , what's your nationality, are you here for business or pleasure?. What are you going to answer..erm i don't have one. Or i am british but muslim first.

interesting he mentioned Michael Mumisa, he was my teacher, that's if i'm thinking of the same man. i wonder if he knows the sheikh is not against muslims voting in britain?

personally i did not vote, i am and have always been in two minds about it. i nearly did, but really which party is not corrupt, i mean the cash scandal for starters. also most parties supported war in Iraq not just labour. i just couldn't vote for any of them. That and unforeseen circumstance meant i was unable to vote too.

I think my definition of British in his context would be "am I willing to do anything about it?" and I think his answer would be "no".

He would potentially wait for a perfect system to be implemented with perfect laws before taking part.

Thing is we are at crossroads, at a time where people could turn heir prejudice against islam/muslims into some laws that do us damage, so we need to stand up in such circumstances and not doing so hurts the Muslim community.

That is why his position irritates me - there is an unwillingness to defend Muslim ideals embedded in there.

Are we even allowed to call ourselves 'British Muslims'?
It depends on what the terms mean. To gain a hukm on the matter you would need to articulate the reality of this construct with precision - most scholars appear to accept the notion with few having undertaken any substantive or serious research or study of what is meant by the terms.

Isn't it Kufr?
It would appear the ideology of nationalism that incorporates national identities is divisive for Muslims who have historically lived together as one nation (albeit with separatism being exceptional) and contradictory to Islamic injunctions of being politically united and having one Imam. Having nationalist identities of being Moroccan, Egyptian, Turkish, Pakistani etc has been the result of colonialist occupation across the Muslim world created by secular nationalists inspired by nationalist ideologies in Europe.
Thus it would not be unreasonable to say it is kufr.

Are we just Muslims in Britain?
That appears to be the case, unless one compromises their Islamic identity and fuses it with a British national identity...resulting in "BritishMuslim" - resonating historical philosophical attempts of fusing greek philosophy with Islam...

What's the difference?
British Muslims have a blended identity with significant components of the British identity included within their religious/ideological identity including controversially symbols, histories and values, whereas those who argue to be Muslims in Britain, they build their identity, historical memories, culture etc according to an Islamic ideological lens filtering out anything that may conflict with or contradict Islam or promote foreign ideologies.

What is Britishness?
It would be a socio-cultural cum political identity that attempts to bring about cohesiveness amongst peoples of nation states, in this case Britain.
Researchers understand a national identity to indicate a national character of the nation - those themes of commonality along with a shared historic memories that root us in a national homeland delineated by borders since the treaty of westphalia ushered in nationalistic political philosophies of nation state etc.
As Muslims Islam does not recognise nation state theories and with notions of ummah and expanionism exhibited by the early decades of Islam one could say they are contradictory - one cannot believe in both. Furthermore, Muslim historic memories start from Adam as the father of humanity, include the life of the Prophet, his companions and centuries of golden periods of Islamic rule - all missing from British collective memories...
Finally, the culture and social structure is at odds in terms of symbols (pub vs mosque, union jack vs white flag with shahadah etc), language (English vs Arabic), heritage (Shakespeare, Dickens, Chaucer vs Abu Hanifah, Bukhari, Ghazali etc), values (freedom vs responsibility, individualism vs collectivism, secularism vs sharia or all encompassing deen) - Muslims would no doubt balk at or at least feel uncomfortable at incorporating many of these western cultural notions into their collective culture.

Can you be 'British' and 'Muslim' at the same time?
Probably not if you accept the above conceptualisation of the issue as it implies the two identities are mutually exclusive - one cannot have supreme loyalty to God and the Queen (parliament/homeland etc) simultaneously - national identities require God is marginalised to a personal or private sphere where one can hold loyalty to him whilst in the public or political domain one is loyal to the state and its laws etc.

Should we be proud to be British Muslims?
Probably not!

Is being a British Muslim nationalism?
The issues are different and should not be conflated - there is however a relationship between the two as paradoxically nationalism was causative of and in need of national identities to flourish as an ideology.

They are not contradictory because while the modern concept of a nation state may be new, the idea of tribes and groups etc is not. About them, the qur'an says that they are there so that people can recognised each other. It does not tell you that recognising people by such things is wrong.

So pretending that new groupings over nationalism are anything new is a fallacy. there were arab Muslims, african Muslims, turkic muslims and muslims from loads of other places too - they did not suddenly pretend that they were not from those places. Imam Bukhari is even known by the place he originated from - bukhara. Then there were other differnces such as tribe.

DIfferences have been allowed to flourish and been seen as a good thing historically.

More, the hadith definition of nationalism is "when you support your people in something that is wrong" - til you support your people (and that can be any group that you feel you belong to, from a country, to a club to even a faith) in soimething that is wrong, the hadith definition of it not being allowed does not apply. Using a modern definition for nationalism in the ahadith about it is both wrong and bid'ah - an innovation since the ahadith are being misrepresented.

I hope you realise that the early language was arabic precisely because the prophet was sent to arabs. Yes arabic has a special place, but at the same time not all prophets were sent speaking arabic - they went to their communities and spoke the language of the community.

The flaw in your argument is that you are using the wrong analytical unit - political ideologies such as nationalism and political conceptions of nation state that incorporate national identities utilise units of the nation and not tribes - "groups" is from a different typological level.

Such mistakes result in an incorrect Islamic ruling as all ijtihad is based on conceptualisations of social and political realities - wrong conceptualisation, wrong ruling. That's why it is important that the Islamic scholar who attempts to address contested political philosophies must be a specialist in politics of which there are very few around these days - especially given the harsh policies of most Arab countries.

I am merely stating that I think your conceptualisations are wrong. They may hide behind big words, but generally that is a smokescreen in front of what is actual.

We can get onto specifics if you want - see where we agree or disagree, but on the bigger picture I get the impression that you are hiding behind big words instread of actually understanding the concepts for what they are.

Nations and tribes (and empires and kingdoms before then) are ways to distinguish between people and not necessarily decisive.

More, I doubt many people wake up and think "I am British!". The only time it is probably important or somehting to think about is when either asked if you are or when abroad when that is something that may distinguish you from the crowd.

When in the UK, chances are if you are from an ethnic minority, the ethnicity would be a far more distinguishing feature.

Just to add, I am not too enthused by the term "British Muslim" either because I think they are not mutually exclusive.

I am just a bit annoyed at the people who think it is either apostasy or the same as becoming a qadiyani (as someone posted in the comment on that article). More, I think it hurts the muslim community when people refuse to take part in the community they live in.

(Not that I personally take part at all. I prefer throwing stones at glass houses.)

The terms I use are in common use amongst academics - if you have an athens login account, review some of the latest research papers and you'll see what I mean. They are not intended to create smokescreens as you mistakenly assume but to clarify the idea of national identities through the use of precise and relevant terminology.

With respect, your level of discourse is a little basic, if I may use that term, as you don't seem to have explored the literature or ideas that are try capturing the salient aspects of the issues being discussed - slippery at the best of times. You are freely interchanging terms like tribes, groups, nations, kingdoms, empires etc which have different meanings and realities in antiquity and contemporaneously and varying implications in terms of Islamic law - such vague use results in category errors in discourse, which does not clarify matters but creates further intellectual debris, making it increasingly difficult to comprehend complex realities.

Furthermore, your concluding remarks mix between discussions of identity, ethnographic accounts of what people consider to be their identities, whether people integrate/assimilate/interact/isolate in terms of political persuasion and taxonomies of identities... what point you wish to make or even conclude from such a cluttered discussion I don't really know as each point is a subject matter in itself and maybe needs separate threads to discuss.

I would recommend you have a look at some of the discussions in relation to national identities amongst western sociological and political researcher, their significance, characteristics. You'll notice they are new political constructs that did not exist in Arabia or even Europe prior to Westphalia. They are not really analogical to "affinity" with locations or membership of filial/ethnic groups which you seem to believe - they are a different breed of ideas that require some detailed consideration rather than inappropriate or "lazy/sloppy" analogies.

I am increasingly inclined to think that despite a small possible overlap, the British and Islamic identities exhibit significant exclusivity... however I would reserve my judgement until I've been able to fully research the matter...

When people use the term British, they do not refer to some academic translation of it - everyone has their own definition, some more defined that others.

Yes my discourse may be basic, but that is because I am no academic. But I don't think that is an issue.

Moving on with the actual discussion on the the meatof the matter... (does not help that the last few posts seem to be from the middle of an ongoing discussion where we are not privy to the start or what actually is being debated...)

mentioning different terms is not IMO a problem because there is an overlap of their functions. There have always been groups and there always will be - just some will use different and novel descriptions. If you find one divisive, you must find them all divisive, but the Qur'an tolerates some and even mentions the benefits of them.

I am increasingly inclined to think that despite a small possible overlap, the British and Islamic identities exhibit significant exclusivity... however I would reserve my judgement until I've been able to fully research the matter...

What are the things where you seem there are exclusive to each other.

The way I see it here, the things that are contrary to Islam are not essential or required. You don't have to commit zina, you do not have to drink or eat haraam foods. You do not have to take interest (though there are very few options when it comes to giving interest).

I'm not sure it's worth discussing any further as your post indicates you are unclear of the contribution of expert academic researchers to this matter. It is akin to a patient believing he knows best the different ailments and refuse to consider the views of medical researchers who spend their whole lives researching such issues - anyone who is even briefly acquainted with expert views would find a patient's views little more than superficial ramblings... (comments like "The way I see it here, the things that are contrary to Islam are not essential or required. You don't have to commit zina, you do not have to drink or eat haraam foods. You do not have to take interest (though there are very few options when it comes to giving interest") indicate this point well).

I don't have the time to attempt to teach you (even if you were willing to learn which I doubt) nor is this an appropriate forum to learn as it is primarily designed for debate and discussion. And you appear to have no inclination to research the matter for yourself so a sensible discussion could be had - you appear very busy posting all over the place within minutes of previous posts, with little consideration or research going into any of your replies. Quality is important in posts rather than quantity. Reading many of them makes me cringe and I genuinely feel sorry for those who are taking time out to post here to receive some of the responses they do.

Anyway, JZK for your time and May Allah Guide us All...

The ifference being that this is not a technical issue that needs to ne discussed within the limits of academia due to its complexity. It is an ordinary life issue and just as people can make a choice about which toothbrush, the can do the same here.

I was not asking for your evidences merely s a tool to learn but to point out the flaws in your views. At this point my opinion is that you do not even have a list of mutual exclusives - atleast not one that can up to scrutiny - and you are hiding behind a wall of elitism and "academia".