Young. British. Female. Muslim.

58 posts / 0 new
Last post

There is probably a lot more overlap than it seems here.

It seems that we both agree that some parts of shariah would not be enforced on Non muslims.

It also seems she agrees that muslims do commit sins in the Muslim world too (but I would disagree on the statements of collusion - alcohol is not allowed for Muslims atleast in many parts of it but that has not stopped everyone).

Apart from that, I would guess it would depend on how British is defined - and I think that definition changes over time, location and circumstance/situation, so context matters. her view is that it has a fixed definition (which we have not been informed of yet, except for quotes about how things are defined...) and sicne that unmentioned definition is unislamic, you cannot be both.

Atleast that is what i make of 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.

You wrote:
There is probably a lot more overlap than it seems here.

It seems that we both agree that some parts of shariah would not be enforced on Non muslims.

It also seems she agrees that muslims do commit sins in the Muslim world too (but I would disagree on the statements of collusion - alcohol is not allowed for Muslims atleast in many parts of it but that has not stopped everyone).

Apart from that, I would guess it would depend on how British is defined - and I think that definition changes over time, location and circumstance/situation, so context matters. her view is that it has a fixed definition (which we have not been informed of yet, except for quotes about how things are defined...) and sicne that unmentioned definition is unislamic, you cannot be both.

Atleast that is what i make of it.

I don't get why people, not just Muslims, all people
Take British to mean anything more than a nationality.

#Before you look at the thorns of the rose , look at it's beauty. Before you complain about the heat of the sun , enjoy it's light. Before you complain about the blackness of the night, think of it's peace and quiet... #

MakeMeRawr_7TeenF wrote:

I don't get why people, not just Muslims, all people
Take British to mean anything more than a nationality.

Because you need something to bring cohesiveness and build a society rather than having a group of individuals with no commonality - it's like milk or water in a cake recipe. National identities do that for nation states otherwise their societies fragment back into individuals and their is no society! Before this bond was created after the treaty of Westphalia, social and political identities were built around religion. They are all part of the secularisation (marginalisation of religion from the public domain) of Europe I guess...

Islam provides us with a political identity - Islam - loyalty to one Caliph who rules by Islam which binds us commonly together as one society.

MakeMeRawr_7TeenF wrote:
Interesting discussion, you both have very valid points. Too valid i'd say, makes it very confusing.

Is there any way both views could co-exist in peace?

Is there an actual conclusion? Since they're both opposites, one must be right and the other wrong, without going around in circles how could you decipher that?

Maybe by both of you citing your scholars and sources and then people can see who they trust more?

Well that would be the sane thing to do... but somehow i doubt thats going to happen here.

Back in BLACK

Seraphim wrote:

Well that would be the sane thing to do... but somehow i doubt thats going to happen here.

Quite easily done - from the time of the Prophet(saw) and all the classical scholars they advocated a social political identity based on allegiance to a Caliph who applied Allah's laws. Not one advocated non-religious social political identities.

Secularists, nationalists and modernists relatively recently have started to tell us that our identities are Paks, Turks, Nigerians, Libyans, Tunisians, Qataris, Bangladeshis... And even more recently, we should adopt socio-political identities such as Brits, Americans, French etc all of which require loyalties to sovereign nations and man made laws, cultures, systems, histories, and homelands.

Take your pick...

I assume that you realise that each and every individual is not a signatory of the treaty of Wesphalia.

That is not Gospel.

What binds people is that people need to live peacable in the same places and coexist.

There is no requirement of a borg like British identity - it is multicultural, meaning that different cultures and different ideals live side by side.

The treaty of westphalia or whatever may even help us here because the idea is that if you need to participate, you are not turned away or persecuted simply because your sets of beliefs are diffrerent - this was a major problem in europe before as the fortunes of people would change, lifespans would be altered, depending on whether the new leadership was protestant or catholic in creed. This same issue did not exist in the Muslim world, so the same thing never happened there, but that is because there was respect already built into the system - Islam already allowed Christians and Jews of all denominations to freely practice their faith.

What the treaty did was bring the christian world to the status that was in the Muslim world already.

"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:
Seraphim wrote:

Well that would be the sane thing to do... but somehow i doubt thats going to happen here.

Quite easily done - from the time of the Prophet(saw) and all the classical scholars they advocated a social political identity based on allegiance to a Caliph who applied Allah's laws. Not one advocated non-religious social political identities.

Secularists, nationalists and modernists relatively recently have started to tell us that our identities are Paks, Turks, Nigerians, Libyans, Tunisians, Qataris, Bangladeshis... And even more recently, we should adopt socio-political identities such as Brits, Americans, French etc all of which require loyalties to sovereign nations and man made laws, cultures, systems, histories, and homelands.

Take your pick...

You've just totally missed the point of my post... im embarrassed for the both of us.

Please re-read my post and reply accordingly.

Back in BLACK

//You've just totally missed the point of my post... im embarrassed for the both of us.

Please re-read my post and reply accordingly. //

Maybe you should clarify what you intend by your post - I addressed what you asked. The kufr nature of natnalistic identities is clear to anyone who has a good grasp of politics. Those who don't, confused it with other identities and give the wrong hukm to it. A mistake easily made.

many of the nationalistic identities you mentioned are along ethnic lines too. The qur'an recognises ethnic identities - it even says that people were created in tribes so that they could be known.

More, we know of some sahabis and historical scholars due to where they came from: Hadhrat Salman Farsi (ra), Hadhrat Bilal Habashi (ra), Imam Bukhari. There must be loads of others too.

You are calling identities kufr when the qur'an says that people were created different in order for there to be identities... you should think about that a bit.

"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.

looks like this site is being hijacked by the HT/al muihajiroun 'academic'....

i'm proud to be a british muslim and so are most muslims in the UK or the elders are proud pakistani/arab muslims etc

ABSOLUTELY NOTHING WRONG WITH THIS

we follow quran n sunnah
we dont worship the queen or the government
our nationality doesnt change our islamic values and our adherence to the deen!!!!

dont listen to this rubbish that this is nationalism/kufr.... its coddswollop

nationalism would be if my love /adherence for britain/paksitan would be superior to my love for the deen and quran/sunnah. it would be nationalism if my country came before my deen but nobody claims that! it would be nationalism if british/pakistani culture or law is more important that islamic law- which nobody claims! if being british or pakistani was more important than being muslim then that would be nationalism- but nobody claims that!!!!!

someone who has swalloed a thesarus but is so confused she's trying to confuse others

all we here is saying 'british' is bad, its nationalism, voting is haram, following non muslim law in a non muslim country is kufr,
nation states is unislamic....blah blah blah.....

ive read most of the discussions here and the arguments are weak and if I had the time or interest to discuss with people like this i still wouldnt, why- cos its a complete waste of time. i tried and all i got was insults, fatwas of being secular and hypocrite, liar an da government stooge lol these lot already admit most muslims are secularists, modernists, nationalistic, beleif in kufr, most scholars and organisations are stooges........... in other ones just HT and those who have the same views are guided and the rest are just stupid, thick, misguided, government stooges and dont really understand Islam!!!!!

so why would anyone waste a second with these 'academics'?

 

No need to stoop to tht pevel, 'Ed. The site has not beem hijacked - just an individual who wants to discuss her views and I am at times happy to oblige...

Now where we... the treaty of Westphalia giving people in europe the rights they already had in muslim land.

I don't think we should aiming to become anything like the christian world was pre westphalia... if that is the aim pf the HT, they need to be reminded that s muslims we have a heritage of tolerance which had to ne introduced into europe as a new treaty.

Westphalia is nowhere near the conspiracy that it has been suggested it is. It is just christian europe learning something Muslims knew long before, from the begining even.

"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.

//our nationality doesnt change our islamic values and our adherence to the deen!//

I would disagree and suggest you research the issue before commenting on it - a political identity (national identity) to provide commonality (in values, orientation and allegiances) to construct a cohesive society is not the same as nationality which is a totally different notion.

Islam provides for a political identity built around religious values to build societies which have never been along the nation state model (that secular philosophies proposed post-westphalia) - this should not be confused with other identities that Islam permits and regulates - eg tribal identities, geographic identities etc

You wrote:
Westphalia is nowhere near the conspiracy that it has been suggested it is. It is just christian europe learning something Muslims knew long before, from the begining even.

Post Westphalia is taken as the key turning point in Western politics and political thought - anyone who has studied International Relations to graduate/post-graduate knowledge is aware of this.

Ideologies like nationalism (which contructed these identities based around a nation) advocated new bonds to replace religious bonds as social and political bonds between people in a society - thus the two are mutually exclusive.

We are thus either Muslims or we are British - we cannot have socio-political identities that bind us from both ideological traditions - one stating bonds should be secular nationalist and the other saying bonds should be religious. It is no different to the questionable identities of HinduMuslims, ChristianMuslims...

It does not matter if it was a turning point - what matters if it was anti Islamic.

I think Westphalia got Europe to move closer to the Islamic by giving religious minorities rights - that is not something that had often been an issue in the Muslim world since rights were given by default.

The Treaty of Westphalia said that say a catholic could come to England under protestant rule and still be allowed to live without oppression.

and yes, that would be a key turning point in a society where such freedoms did not exist before. But they and more existed in the Muslim world already.

So yes, it was a key change. and no, it does not mean that we have to be British OR Muslim.

The treaty was exactly about that - that people did not have to choose one or the other - giving freedom of religion to minorities where none had existed before... it provides that separation between national identity and religious identity that was not present in Europe.

You have to remember that Europe was not on equal standings to the Muslim world - much of it really was in the dark ages and thus such things that were standard in the Muslim world had to be introduced into Europe in order for them to thrive.

So you could say before the treaty of Westphalia people would have had to choose between one and the other as they had been conflated in western Europe - you had to be protestant in a protestant country, or catholic in a catholic country or you had problems. But the treat changed that made sure that was no longer needed.

I know I am repeating myself here, but its multiple attempts to say that the treaty may be the opposite to what you understand it to be.

anyone who has studied International Relations to graduate/post-graduate knowledge is aware of this.

Have you?

"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 can actually address my post rather than go off on a tangent about the treat of westphalia and its implications (of which you should read some academic texts to understand its implications rather than a one page on wikipedia!).

My post talks about the emergence of new ways to bind societies socio-politically together POST-WESTPHALIA - prior to which had been religion, later became the nation and characteristics associated with that like history, culture, political authority and homeland's with fixed borders.

Are you seriously arguing that the Prophet(saw) ordained nationalistic bonds as opposed to religious bonds? Or are you saying we can dump the bonds Allah(swt) and the Prophet(saw) ordained to bind society together for secular nationalistic bonds?

I want to comment on this sentence: "It’s a controversial time for British women to be wearing the hijab, the basic Muslim headscarf.". How can the writer be so ignorant in this time and age where one can have access to an immense library (on the internet)at the click of a mouse to fill knowledge gaps before one embarks on writing about a topic.

Since when hijab has become "the basic Muslim headacarf".

What I want to do here is briefely correct this erroneous statement.

The concept of hijab in Islam is a combination of dress code and behaviour (code of behaviour)for both male and female. The dress code for women is: their whole body (with the exception of their face and hands) must be covered in loose clothing that does not reveal the shape of their body and the fabric should not be see through an not such that it attracts men's attention (eg. flashy colours which would defeat the purpose of hijab). They should not wear make-up or put ornaments that attract men. This must be accompanied by a modest behaviour towards the opposiste sex.
Allah SWT says in Quran: "Tell the believing men to cast down their eyes and tell the believing women to cast down their eyes and draw their veils over their chest".

Believing women display their beauty inside their house to their husband and conceal it outside. What we have in our society is the opposite!

Think for a moment in our society how much more productive we would be if the office time was not wasted in things such as: women going to lavatory to "refresh" their make-up and men actually working instead of sending flirting emails, etc.

Think for a moment how liberated and more productive women would be in their workplace if they did not feel under the pressure to attract, look "sexy", "beautiful", etc.

How different their life would be if the opposite sex spoke to them as a colleague and not as a sex object.

Think for a moment that no woman would ever have to suffer the humiliation of being used then thrown away like garbagge! What a liberation!

The philosophy of hijjab cannot be discussed fully here but at its heart is the aim to protect women and their interests. Their hijab is their shield, their dignity as human beings.
Do not lose your shield my dear sisters in faith /fellow human beings!

Young.British.Female.Muslim...In other words confused.

If I ever have to kill for something, it would be for, "A woman"
If I ever have to kill something it would have to be, "A woman"

Jack The Ripper, it is no good making empty statements without providing an explanation: why being young, British, Female and Muslim is being confuded?!

And by the way before you think I am going on the defensive, I do not fit that category!

Explain yourself please.

kawthar wrote:
Jack The Ripper, it is no good making empty statements without providing an explanation: why being young, British, Female and Muslim is being confuded?!

And by the way before you think I am going on the defensive, I do not fit that category!

Explain yourself please.

Some say Jilbaab,
Some say Niqaab,
Some say can study,
Some say can't study,
Some say can work,
Some say can't work,
Some say Islam first,
Some say career first,
Some say obey husband,
Some say husband obeys,

Get the picture...
CONFUSED!!

If I ever have to kill for something, it would be for, "A woman"
If I ever have to kill something it would have to be, "A woman"

Lilly wrote:
you're a nuisance.

I think he has a point here. Not that all its wrong to call yourself young, British, female and Muslim, or that all such girls are confused. But it can be confusing for some.

"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi

Ocean wrote:
why is it that when it comes to Muslim Women that they are either TOO Strict TOO laid back?

I think it's the case with all Muslims that they're either too strict or too laid back. Noone is the perfect Muslim r they?

But I agree, women get judged more about this (by nonmuslims aswell as Muslims)

Don't just do something! Stand there.

Its hard to take and stay on the middle path. When you become motivated you wanted to do everything and so make things hard for yourself. Then you're either going to fall back cuz its too much pressure and become laid back or get used to it and feel the need to do more and more.

(My sig is there as a reminder to myself Smile )

"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi

Lilly wrote:
you're a nuisance.

There are many other insulting words in the english dictionary, u should try them sometimes...

If I ever have to kill for something, it would be for, "A woman"
If I ever have to kill something it would have to be, "A woman"

Jack the Ripper wrote:
Lilly wrote:
you're a nuisance.

There are many other insulting words in the english dictionary, u should try them sometimes...

no. i wasnt trying to insult you. I was just typing this on tribune and thought i should let you know, hence, the comment.

@Feef, as i said above. my comment is not linked to his comment, i just meant it in general.

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

Ocean wrote:

I hate that.

What are you saying that perfect Muslims ideally would be in the middle? ie not too strict or too liberal?


What do u hate? Ppl being judgemental? Cos if so, it's always gonna happen & only really affects u if u let it affect u.
Or maybe I'm wrong. Either way, Yh, th middle path is an Islamic principal.
I remember before I was Muslim being really convinced by Aristotle's explanation of the same principal. So when I discovered it's advised as the best course of action for all Muslims I latched onto the idea.

The important thing to remember (as far as I understand) is that the middle action is a) not a 'mathematical' middle, it might sit somewhere closer to 1 extreme than the other b) the Right Thing to do differs for every individual for every situation and c) (ad with everything) Allah (swt) knows best

Don't just do something! Stand there.

Lilly wrote:
Jack the Ripper wrote:
Lilly wrote:
you're a nuisance.

There are many other insulting words in the english dictionary, u should try them sometimes...

no. i wasnt trying to insult you. I was just typing this on tribune and thought i should let you know, hence, the comment.

@Feef, as i said above. my comment is not linked to his comment, i just meant it in general.

Thanks for letting me know, I feel priveleged...

If I ever have to kill for something, it would be for, "A woman"
If I ever have to kill something it would have to be, "A woman"

Pages