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: 632
Active forum topics
Recent blog posts
Upcoming Events
- 5 May 2024 - 11:00 to 16:30
Quick Links
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
the arrogance....
the ignorance....
stinks!!!!
when these ppl get answers they run away!
Just need to point out something else - the total cluelessness of:
Those are not real choices - they are different things and in some things you can even have both.
Britons do not need to go to the pub. More, there are even teetotal britons. There is no choice to make between being British (which you wrongly define as going to the pub) or going to the mosque. More, we know that the arabs used to drink and alcohol was allowed before it was banned. We know and have historical documentation of how the Muslims lived in such a world - the best of Muslims.
There is no one demanding people to drink to be british (and yes there are citizenship tests, but they are not there to indoctrinate and can ask questions that are important for the people to know - like what is the emergency service number, what side of the road do we drive on? and atleast make sure they are willing to learn english as well, not knowing the language can be debilitating for the individual and hey would be ripe for abuse since they then may lack places to turn to when things go wrong.)
Yet the Prophet
did not ask them to give up being Arabs in order to follow islam.
Secondly when it comes to heritage, you even get the comparison wrong - you are comparing writers against jurists. More, Islam does not require us to not acknowledge non Muslims etc and eradicate them from history. If people think Shakespeare, Chaucer wrote well, they probably have a reason to think that. But we know the ultimate in writing is from God - the qur'an. But that is in arabic and people who do not know and understand classical arabic will not see all the beauty in it. (If you compared say Rumi to shakespeare, then atleast you could say both were writers/poets... but you compare against jurists instead)
On the question of freedom and responsibility, neither are absolutes in either, so its a bit of a meaningless statement. Islam gives us freedom too - we just have to submit to God.
Here you are confusing the law with identity. It does not matter if you do not consider yourself british - if you break british (criminal) law and are found guilty of it, you will be punished and probably go to prison. This has nothing to do with identity except maybe for the principle of law and order over chaos - which is a Muslim ideal too.
From that I suggest that I think you are conflating issues and confusing yourself by using words that you do not understand.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Yes you do exhibit all the traits you mention above - drop them as they are not becoming of Muslims and are usually visible in those who do not believe in Islam...
Each of these are part of a different identity - most Muslims would reject the elements of a British identity if this was explained to them.
It's like saying a Hindu does not have to believe in all the idols - he can only believe in one God - so he's like a Muslim - so Hinduism is ok - we can be HinduMuslims.
Glad you at least get the point - even if you don't like the examples.
LOL So we are FREE SLAVES of Allah - yep! Just like a polytheistic Hindu is a montheist!
Part of our collective identity is the laws we believe in and respect and accept to follow. We don't believe in British law or the sovereign body that created it - thus this element is not part of our identity too. Our identity believes in Sharia and God being supreme and sovereign. The British identity does not believe this and in fact negates it.
Nope - you're conflating the Islamic identity with the British national identity - I'm separating them out and showing the contradictions and points of departure. At least make accurate accusations.
For someone who needed things explaining in concrete terms it's quite amusing you think I'm using words I don't understand. Maybe you should get yourself a good dictionary. And a few books on fiqh whilst you're at it.
So you continue to accuse Muslims of being similar to polytheists.
Atleast you will go to your own grave. It will not be me who will be asked why I was comparing Muslims with polythiests.
Keep building the strawmen. It does not make your false proclamations any more rirht, nor does it increase your strature.
May Allah (swt) have mercy upon us all.
Except that when you have tried, you have come across as a lunatic. Lets see. what part of a British identity do we reject? Please mention the bits that mean you can no longer be British...
you mention false choices where people dont have to go to the pub, they do not have to drink alcohol, they do not have to commit zina.
That shows more about your absird understanding about it all.
I assume you are avoiding to mentioning the treaty of westphalia since you found out it was not what you were pretending it was...
"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.
When Muslims have no problems in comparing themselves to kuffar, what is it an issue? Many claim to be BritishMuslims, or Muslim democrats and see no difference - is it haram to ask if they are Hindu Muslims too? Why should their logic draw the line at Western kufr, isn't subcontinent kufr good enough for them? Or are they racists to reject that when their logic leads to its acceptance?
Glad you learn a new word in our discussions from me - your only problem is I've not taught you which context to use it - you'll need to wait for that lesson
The first bit you cannot accept is binding yourself with other human beings with a kufr bond - maybe you can provide the evidence from Quran and Sunnah for the bonds Allah orders society to bind themselves with. You will notice that nationalism and national identities emerged post-West Phalia and not in Quran and Sunnah.
The socio-political bond Muslims are required to bind themselves together with others is Islam.
First major problem!
You don't have to go to the mandir - you don't have to bow to an idol - most Hindus of our generation don't - so what do you label them Hindu? Why don't you label yourself Hindu? You'll find this criteria is irrelevant to the analysis of national identity. The sooner you drop it the sooner you'll begin looking a little more intelligent
Nope - it shows your absurd understanding - as your approach legitimises all sorts of kufr identities! It's just you can't go to the Muslim community and claim to be a hindu - a little embarressing! No doubt if you lived in India, you'd be claiming to be a Hindu Muslim!
Nope - I've mentioned it above - it's just the sad fact that from your summary of it you've never studied it (apart from a quick google search) and don't really understand it and are dieing to have a discussion on it where you can show off your new found knowledge.
If you'd bothered to read what I wrote, I wrote nationalism, nation states, national identities arose post-West Phalia... which means after this even in history - developing over centuries. Nation states are a new political configuration binding societies on the basis of secular national identities - whilst prior to that, including Islam, societies were bound on the basis of faith!
When Muslims have no problems in comparing themselves to kuffar, what is it an issue? Many claim to be BritishMuslims, or Muslim democrats and see no difference - is it haram to ask if they are Hindu Muslims too? Why should their logic draw the line at Western kufr, isn't subcontinent kufr good enough for them? Or are they racists to reject that when their logic leads to its acceptance?
Glad you learn a new word in our discussions from me - your only problem is I've not taught you which context to use it - you'll need to wait for that lesson
The first bit you cannot accept is binding yourself with other human beings with a kufr bond - maybe you can provide the evidence from Quran and Sunnah for the bonds Allah orders society to bind themselves with. You will notice that nationalism and national identities emerged post-West Phalia and not in Quran and Sunnah.
The socio-political bond Muslims are required to bind themselves together with others is Islam.
First major problem!
You don't have to go to the mandir - you don't have to bow to an idol - most Hindus of our generation don't - so what do you label them Hindu? Why don't you label yourself Hindu? You'll find this criteria is irrelevant to the analysis of national identity. The sooner you drop it the sooner you'll begin looking a little more intelligent
Nope - it shows your absurd understanding - as your approach legitimises all sorts of kufr identities! It's just you can't go to the Muslim community and claim to be a hindu - a little embarressing! No doubt if you lived in India, you'd be claiming to be a Hindu Muslim!
Nope - I've mentioned it above - it's just the sad fact that from your summary of it you've never studied it (apart from a quick google search) and don't really understand it and are dieing to have a discussion on it where you can show off your new found knowledge.
If you'd bothered to read what I wrote, I wrote nationalism, nation states, national identities arose post-West Phalia... which means after this even in history - developing over centuries. Nation states are a new political configuration binding societies on the basis of secular national identities - whilst prior to that, including Islam, societies were bound on the basis of faith!
Nation states are not terribly different to what came before.
Technilogy changes the borders that states/empires had before where mountain ranges and rivers were no longer unpassable.
"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.
When Muslims have no problems in comparing themselves to kuffar, what is it an issue? Many claim to be BritishMuslims, or Muslim democrats and see no difference - is it haram to ask if they are Hindu Muslims too? Why should their logic draw the line at Western kufr, isn't subcontinent kufr good enough for them? Or are they racists to reject that when their logic leads to its acceptance?
Glad you learn a new word in our discussions from me - your only problem is I've not taught you which context to use it - you'll need to wait for that lesson
The first bit you cannot accept is binding yourself with other human beings with a kufr bond - maybe you can provide the evidence from Quran and Sunnah for the bonds Allah orders society to bind themselves with. You will notice that nationalism and national identities emerged post-West Phalia and not in Quran and Sunnah.
The socio-political bond Muslims are required to bind themselves together with others is Islam.
First major problem!
You don't have to go to the mandir - you don't have to bow to an idol - most Hindus of our generation don't - so what do you label them Hindu? Why don't you label yourself Hindu? You'll find this criteria is irrelevant to the analysis of national identity. The sooner you drop it the sooner you'll begin looking a little more intelligent
Nope - it shows your absurd understanding - as your approach legitimises all sorts of kufr identities! It's just you can't go to the Muslim community and claim to be a hindu - a little embarressing! No doubt if you lived in India, you'd be claiming to be a Hindu Muslim!
Nope - I've mentioned it above - it's just the sad fact that from your summary of it you've never studied it (apart from a quick google search) and don't really understand it and are dieing to have a discussion on it where you can show off your new found knowledge.
If you'd bothered to read what I wrote, I wrote nationalism, nation states, national identities arose post-West Phalia... which means after this even in history - developing over centuries. Nation states are a new political configuration binding societies on the basis of secular national identities - whilst prior to that, including Islam, societies were bound on the basis of faith!
When Muslims have no problems in comparing themselves to kuffar, what is it an issue? Many claim to be BritishMuslims, or Muslim democrats and see no difference - is it haram to ask if they are Hindu Muslims too? Why should their logic draw the line at Western kufr, isn't subcontinent kufr good enough for them? Or are they racists to reject that when their logic leads to its acceptance?
Glad you learn a new word in our discussions from me - your only problem is I've not taught you which context to use it - you'll need to wait for that lesson
The first bit you cannot accept is binding yourself with other human beings with a kufr bond - maybe you can provide the evidence from Quran and Sunnah for the bonds Allah orders society to bind themselves with. You will notice that nationalism and national identities emerged post-West Phalia and not in Quran and Sunnah.
The socio-political bond Muslims are required to bind themselves together with others is Islam.
First major problem!
You don't have to go to the mandir - you don't have to bow to an idol - most Hindus of our generation don't - so what do you label them Hindu? Why don't you label yourself Hindu? You'll find this criteria is irrelevant to the analysis of national identity. The sooner you drop it the sooner you'll begin looking a little more intelligent
Nope - it shows your absurd understanding - as your approach legitimises all sorts of kufr identities! It's just you can't go to the Muslim community and claim to be a hindu - a little embarressing! No doubt if you lived in India, you'd be claiming to be a Hindu Muslim!
Nope - I've mentioned it above - it's just the sad fact that from your summary of it you've never studied it (apart from a quick google search) and don't really understand it and are dieing to have a discussion on it where you can show off your new found knowledge.
If you'd bothered to read what I wrote, I wrote nationalism, nation states, national identities arose post-West Phalia... which means after this even in history - developing over centuries. Nation states are a new political configuration binding societies on the basis of secular national identities - whilst prior to that, including Islam, societies were bound on the basis of faith!
Do you also have aproblem when the Prophet
compared himself to kuffar? "I am a man like you".
Not the same as even if they do not go to the temple, it is an issue of believig beliefs that Islam expressly prohibits.
The same is not true with democracy.
"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.
When Muslims have no problems in comparing themselves to kuffar, what is it an issue? Many claim to be BritishMuslims, or Muslim democrats and see no difference - is it haram to ask if they are Hindu Muslims too? Why should their logic draw the line at Western kufr, isn't subcontinent kufr good enough for them? Or are they racists to reject that when their logic leads to its acceptance?
Glad you learn a new word in our discussions from me - your only problem is I've not taught you which context to use it - you'll need to wait for that lesson
The first bit you cannot accept is binding yourself with other human beings with a kufr bond - maybe you can provide the evidence from Quran and Sunnah for the bonds Allah orders society to bind themselves with. You will notice that nationalism and national identities emerged post-West Phalia and not in Quran and Sunnah.
The socio-political bond Muslims are required to bind themselves together with others is Islam.
First major problem!
You don't have to go to the mandir - you don't have to bow to an idol - most Hindus of our generation don't - so what do you label them Hindu? Why don't you label yourself Hindu? You'll find this criteria is irrelevant to the analysis of national identity. The sooner you drop it the sooner you'll begin looking a little more intelligent
Nope - it shows your absurd understanding - as your approach legitimises all sorts of kufr identities! It's just you can't go to the Muslim community and claim to be a hindu - a little embarressing! No doubt if you lived in India, you'd be claiming to be a Hindu Muslim!
Nope - I've mentioned it above - it's just the sad fact that from your summary of it you've never studied it (apart from a quick google search) and don't really understand it and are dieing to have a discussion on it where you can show off your new found knowledge.
If you'd bothered to read what I wrote, I wrote nationalism, nation states, national identities arose post-West Phalia... which means after this even in history - developing over centuries. Nation states are a new political configuration binding societies on the basis of secular national identities - whilst prior to that, including Islam, societies were bound on the basis of faith!
Do you have trouble when the Prophet
was compared to the Kuffaar of Makkah and described as being a man like them?
Atleast you are no longer being insincere about it and are clearly saying it in the open and calling takfir...
EDIT - the verse is [qs:18:110] and it also mentions a human bond... The prophet
being human just like the people he was adddressing... hm... does this also invalidate your arguments against the blog where you were arguing against similar things?
"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.
and none of that makes a difference.
Simply because changes in technology allowed borders to be different to the natural borders of before in itself means nothing.
More, post-westphalia, it simply meant that if you were a religious minority, you could still continue to exist in the land. That is something Islam allowed centuries earlier. Your arguments would have merit pre-westphalia, because relgion and national identity was combined then in western europe, but we are post westphalia and your argument is a few hundred years too late.
EDIT - I have deleted the three/four reposts of the above post. Am I talking to one person or multiple people pretending to be one?
EDIT 2 - I have deleted 8 further repetitions of the same post. I assume that was accidental?
"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.
Hinduism has beleifs that contradict Islam - but your logic when faced with the same problem in democracy (eg popular sovereignty!) dictates you don't have to believe them - so you can still be a Hindu according to you without the beliefs - which is ridiculous!
//EDIT - I have deleted the three/four reposts of the above post. Am I talking to one person or multiple people pretending to be one?
EDIT 2 - I have deleted 8 further repetitions of the same post. I assume that was accidental? //
There appears to be probs with your website - it hangs for some reason, I press refresh, it hangs again - not sure what's going on! Sorry about the reposts - feel free to delete duplicates, they're not intended.
Now you are conflating the culture with the religion - both of which are intertwined deeply. You talk of the culture when it suits you and the religion when it suits you.
Islam requires the people to submit to the one true God, to not give him partners and sons, to accept the Qur'an as the unaltered and correct word of God and to accept the Prophet
as the final messenger.
If someone does that, why would you have an issue with them? Would it matter if they eat differently, dress differently (as long as it meets the islamic requirements, which comes from accepting the prophet
and the qur'an etc), speak differently and more?
No.
The prophet
did not demand that the people of arabia give up everything - just the things that were counter to Islam.
"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.
Hey Anonymous1, may I ask why you don't create an account here?
I'm talking about an aspect of Hinduism - I'm not limiting Hinduism to that aspect.
Likewise it requires we do not ascribe sovereignty to humans - but to God - innal hukm illa lillah for example. If you can negate Hinduism then negate Democracy and National Identities. If you do not negate Democracy/National Identity by saying you can pick and choose from these belief systems, then pick and choose from the Hindu belief system and accept that too.
Your problem which you're struggling to address is why you can be selective of some belief systems and reconcile them to Islam whilst they originally contain elements contrary to Islam and you are not consistent with your logic on other belief systems?
Hinduism are national identity and democracy are different - the latter two can coexist.
We already know that identity is allowed, from the qur'an, when it mentions that we were created from tribes in order for there to be recognition.
And yes, ultimate soveriegnity is with God. But that does not mean you cannot have leadership, because your stance on that if it was consistent would also negate khilafah - "the authority is God's only!" Except we both know that it is not that simple.
What is required is to implement and not contradict Gods laws and this can be done through various different forms of government. and ANY government contravening on the laws set by God would be wrong - be it democracy, be it theocracy, be it something else, even if it calls itself a caliphate.
False argument - I am not being selective. You seem to hear the word "caliphate" and then think there was a divinely revealed form of government and only that must be used, when in actuality, the form of government was not divinely revealed, but something that was based upon time, need and technology.
We're going round in circles here. Maybe I am not eloquent enough, but I have tried to show this multiple times and itr dfoes not get through.
It may be best if I call it quits - from where I am standing, I think you see a forest and do not recognise that it is full of trees. and you think I am compromising something to hold my position.
I don't think we can agree.
"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.
The Quranic verses do not talk about socio-political identities when it talks about tribes - the tribal and fillial links that are common between us bind us into family and tribal units and Islam regulates these further through laws relating to blood.
National identities however are different and require separate texts from them - you're making a category mistake in applying Quranic verses about tribes and families to society and the polity - and in this case taking kufr indentities of a nation state and seeing it as no different from a family identity!
Not ultimate soevereignty - sovereignty is with God.
Authority is for man, sovereignty is for God - you are mixing and confusing these two distinct political notions!
Wrong - just like you can't pray how you want, you can't pick any form of govt you want. The Sunnah of the Prophet(saw) showed how a govt should be run - the Prophet(saw) was implementing the obligation of "rule by what Allah has revealed" so his actions are obligatory unless an evidence indicates otherwise.
Move away from the Caliphate system (extracted from the Quran and Sunnah) to Kingship, Dictatorship, Theocracy, Oligarchy, Democracy - all these contradict Islam. You have to numerous mental gymnastics to get them to reconcile and you are back to the Caliphate - and are no longer following Kingship, Democracy, Theocracy etc! That's the point - the Caliphate as a package embodies all the political concepts that need to be met for government - you just appear not to understand it and are arguing for argument's sake.
You are being selective - why don't you show why Hinduism, communism, atheism etc are not Islamic systems? If you don't like these examples, show it with political systems like Kingship, Theocracy etc
Maybe you can prove that having one leader was related to time, need or technology.
Or that the baya was related to time, need or technology.
Or that wakala is related to time, need or technology...
I'd be interested in your proofs - which I strongly suspect you don't have.
It's your choice if you wish to stop - but you should study Islamic politics and what the Caliphate system actually is - from your comments above, I think your mixing styles and means that change with the normative concepts of the Caliphate that do not change -
Bait al-mal for instance is necessary, whether it's a storeroom, a vault, on a computer system...
A Caliph should be given an oath of allegiance - whether that's after a survey was carried out, elections, the influentials, majlis al-ummah....
Quran and Sunnah must be implemented - whether the laws are oral, on parchment or emailed to the judiciary...
The Caliph should unite the Muslim world and carry dawa to the world through jihad - whether he does it through diplomacy, media, public uprisings, military etc
etc etc etc
Wait, were you not suggesting in the other topic that you need evidence of this type of thing before making a ruling? so marital rape needs to be condemned in qur'an and sunnah explicitly instead of implicitly, but here you are free to make takfeer without any evidence whatsoever?
Cool.
I proved that identities are allowed - which was to counter a point raised a few milenia ago that national identities were not allowed because they were divisive. That need not be the case.
All identities are different - including the human bond which is mentioned in the qur'an in Surah Kahf verse 110 where the prophet
mentions to the idolators that he 
is human like them.
Now you need to prove that some of these bonds are not allowed instead of falling into the opposite philosophy to what you espoused earlier and in other discussions where everything was allowed unless forbidden.
but he
also refused to name a successor, allowing the Muslims to choose their own.
Call the leader a caliph, a king, a president, a Prime Minister - get the power through elections, by appointment, by other means, all of those are a means to an end and the end that is required is just leadership following Islamic principles.
It does not matter what the form of the government is, but what it does, and this should be abundantly clear considering that the muslim world has had many different forms of government - including as I mentioned allowing the instruments of state in conquered lands to exist and carry on their duty.
Except that the caliphate system has been many of those things. The ottoman caliphate was akin to kingship where the rule was hereditary. You argue against names but then defend the same principles when using different names.
am not. (we can do this all day... but it might get boring)
Maybe you can prove that having one leader was related to time, need or technology.
Or that the baya was related to time, need or technology.
Or that wakala is related to time, need or technology...
I'd be interested in your proofs - which I strongly suspect you don't have.[/quote]
If you remember the other discussions about marital rape, I am sure you were pressing that the absense of evidence is not enough, it needs you to prove it to not be allowed. Stick to your own standards please.
I don't know of a single country that does nt have a treasury... do you?
You mentioned that this can be implicit and all forms of government do this - they put it within the intruments of state and no leader can function without having the authority to do so - if no one is willing to enforce his laws, is he even a leader?
Agreed - but here, there is much of qur'an and sunnah where there are differing interpretations. This is something that is interpreted by men and people/scholars can have differing views and opinions.
I think I read somewhere that some person decided to write down everything that all Muslims universally agreed upon and his work came to just six pages...
"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.
Refer to the analysis I presented earlier which explains the concepts embedded in national identities and the solutions from Islam - homeland, culture, leadership and history - all have evidences from Quran and Sunnah - you are violating not one, but many notions when you claim to be proud of British identity. Other blatant texts that are violated are those condemning pride in such bonds:
" ...People should give up their pride in nations because this is a coal from the coals of hell-fire. If they do not give this up Allah (swt) will consider them lower than a lowly worm which pushes itself through khur (feces)." [abu Dawd and Tirmidhi].
Narrated by At-Tirmidhi and Abu Dawud, "There are indeed people who boast of their dead ancestors; but in the sight of Allah they are more contemptible than the black beetle that rolls a piece of dung with its nose. Behold, Allah has removed from you the arrogance of the Time of Jahiliyyah (Ignorance) with its boast of ancestral glories. Man is but an Allah-fearing believer or an unfortunate sinner. All people are the children of Adam, and Adam was created out of dust." Today we are happy to boast of the dead British ancestors!
He said: "We were on a raid when one of the Muhajirun kicked one of the Ansar. The Ansar said, `O Ansar! Help me! (calling his tribe) and the Muhajir said, `O Muhajirun! Help me! (calling his tribe). The Messenger of Allah
The list of evidences just goes on and on... You seem naive to the fact that bonds are not permitted 100% - the topic is more complex than that!
It's not possible to prove kufr is halal! And national identities are divisive - they are the basis of the nationalistic ideology and nation states that clutter the world today - are they uniting mankind politically or dividing him?
Yes he has a head, 2 arms, legs etc so what? Or are you talking about their kufr concepts being in common with the Prophet(saw) ??????!!!
Sorry I don't argue everything is allow or forbidden in origin - not sure where you get some of your ideas from! The bonds of nationalism, national identities are forbidden as proven several times - you just avoid responding to them!
Sleeep with women, sell them drugs, go to the disco - no problem - all means to an end of doing dawa to them!!! Yeah, right!
And if you are that foolish to think a king, president and primeminister are conceptually no different to each other, you are more shallow than I gave you credit for!
Modernists may think the form of govt is not important - the Prophet(Saw), the companions(ra), and the classical scholars thought it was important - maybe you should read some of them!
Kingship form of governance legislates hereditary leadership and the king is sovereign - which is different to what happened in Muslim history, the Muslims chose and gave baya to hereditary leaders which is allowed. A conceptual difference you miss!
As I thought - no proofs!
You made the assertions - you need to prove assertions.
Absence of evidence means you cannot make conclusions from them - you are making conclusions of time/technology etc from absence of evidence - I am not making my conlcusions from general ayaat that state that this is revelation for all mankind for all time - which is the default premise for all laws in Islam unless proven otherwise. You need to prove otherwise - which you cannot - thus the baya, wakala etc and the Caliphate system is for all time and all people as the Prophet(saw) ordained it and the companions (ijma al-sahaba) ruled according to it!
And how do they fill it? With Islamic taxes?
I never said this can be implicit - this can be delegated! In elections no delegation occurs - people vote or they do not! Thus elections cannot replace baya which Islam obliges everyone to do (directly or through delegation!)
There is no differing interpretations of Caliphate - only the contemporary secularists and modernists have a problem with it. Shia and Sunni both accept Imamate or Caliphate structure of governance - just who should be the Caliph has been the historical debate - ahl al-bayt or any Muslim! The Caliph or Imam decides on the strongest view and everyone has to obey - problem solved of difference of opinion! The husband in the family decides and the family have to obey!
[/quote]I think I read somewhere that some person decided to write down everything that all Muslims universally agreed upon and his work came to just six pages...[/quote]
The point being?
It tells people to not be proud of them. In one of them atleast - the case of Ansar Vs Muhajiroun, did the prophet
then go on to disband the groups saying "there are no longer ansar and muhajiroon, but they are all one and there is no distinction"? no.
The content you post is about limits -you cannot support your people in something that is wrong. Islam demands righteousness. I see no contradiction there.
You may, but that is because you often a strawman that does not fit the situation in order to beat it.
"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.
Maybe you shoudl read's Editor's comments where he brazenly states, "I'm proud to be British..."
which is not the same as "I am proud of Britains actions in Iraq" which as far as I know 'Ed was against and is against.
Context. It matters.
"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 - his dodgy sayings are reproduced with context :
Editorial: Thank God I'm A British Muslim!
... go as far as saying that Muslims have to prove they are 'British first, Muslims second'. The above doesn't paint a pretty picture ... so rather than moaning and playing the victim we should be proud of being British Muslims. We need to ask ourselves how do we as British ...
Article - TheRevivalEditor - 23 Apr 2010 - 22:36 - 40 comments - 0 attachments
Young. British. Female. Muslim.
... days... so quoted in full: Thousands of young British women living in the UK decide to convert to Islam - here are some of ... and children, but I also want my independence. I’m proud to be British and I’m proud to be Muslim – and I don’t see them as ...
None of that says "we have to accept the Iraq qar was a good thing".
More, the second article is not by The Revival, but an article in a national news paper (The Times?) that was quoted to start off a forum topic.
"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 - his dodgy sayings are reproduced with context :
Editorial: Thank God I'm A British Muslim!
... go as far as saying that Muslims have to prove they are 'British first, Muslims second'. The above doesn't paint a pretty picture ... so rather than moaning and playing the victim we should be proud of being British Muslims. We need to ask ourselves how do we as British ...
Article - TheRevivalEditor - 23 Apr 2010 - 22:36 - 40 comments - 0 attachments
Young. British. Female. Muslim.
... days... so quoted in full: Thousands of young British women living in the UK decide to convert to Islam - here are some of ... and children, but I also want my independence. I’m proud to be British and I’m proud to be Muslim – and I don’t see them as ...
The Prophet(saw) forbids pride and such identities, but hey what, it's ok - so long you don't accept the Iraq war was a good thing - well why not become a Devil WorshippingHinduMuslim - so long as you don't think Iraq was wrong it's fine!
Pages