You wrote:

You do realise that all she will now need to add is a line on "prove I have said that" where if it has been said, it will probably have been written in a carefully phrased manner where atleast two different meanings could be taken...

Carefully phrased - yes. To ensure that one does not insult without proof and one does not fall into sin - intended to have double meaning, no!

The onus on Muslims as per the hadith of the Prophet(saw) is not to take the worst meanings - especially as the author is confirming what they mean.

If I wished to call you something I would say so clearly - I am not afraid of you. What can you do to me? Nothing!!!

I call you secular (meaning you marginalise Sharia from politics) as you do that - the two clear examples is your disbelief in the Caliphate system which is part of Islam and you adopt kufr nationalistic identities that contain kufr that negates concepts from the Islamic identity.

Except that

1. the nationalistic identities are not enshrined in kufr - they are a fluid concept which will change with people and times.
2. the caliphate system is not a fixed concept and even it has been fluid in history in implementation.

The onus on Muslims as per the hadith of the ProphetPeace and Blessings of Allah be upon him is not to take the worst meanings - especially as the author is confirming what they mean.

The onus would also be on you to not use double speak.

Anonymous1 wrote:

It's actually the other way around - you have not shown it to be permitted and I have proven it to be haram. When you think parliament and man made laws are supreme and the one who believes that is kafir and the ideology that promotes that identity which one is asked to unite around is called kufr.

Except that you haven't.

You tried to use the treaty of Westphalia to make your point but you were wrong as it simple gave europeans rights that already existed in the Muslim world.

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

It's actually the other way around - you have not shown it to be permitted and I have proven it to be haram. When you think parliament and man made laws are supreme and the one who believes that is kafir and the ideology that promotes that identity which one is asked to unite around is called kufr.

Except that you haven't.

You tried to use the treaty of Westphalia to make your point but you were wrong as it simple gave europeans rights that already existed in the Muslim world.

Nope - you should read what I post. The argument went through what a national identity is and the contents contradict Islam. You can't even show how a Hindu identity isn't Islamic using your logic - you can't do that with something as crude and shallow as Hinduism, which even an uneducated Muslim could do, you're trying to argue about something more complex? LOL

Wait - you're latest argument was that Hinduism doesn't believe in the finality of Prophethood - well would you have it! Nor does the British National identity and Democracy! So Hinduism is kufr for this reason but the latter two kufr concepts are Islamic! Well consistent logic like that - what can one say!!! LOL

You wrote:

Except that
1. the nationalistic identities are not enshrined in kufr - they are a fluid concept which will change with people and times.
2. the caliphate system is not a fixed concept and even it has been fluid in history in implementation.

1. Nope - nationalistic identities just like Hinduism have a fixed core and fluid peripheries - the core is kufr - don't need to bother addressing the peripheries...
2. The Caliphate system is defined by Quran and Sunnah and not history - it's irrelevant what they did or did not do in history in relation to it's practice. You are denying Quran and Sunnah!

You wrote:

The onus on Muslims as per the hadith of the ProphetPeace and Blessings of Allah be upon him is not to take the worst meanings - especially as the author is confirming what they mean.

The onus would also be on you to not use double speak.

The onus is on you not to make unsubtantiated allegations which are based on speculation and guesswork! And also to not undertake double speak when promoting Islam - we don't respect British law as supreme - sharia is supreme! God is sovereign not parliament! The flag of the Prophet(saw) was white with black shahada and not the union jack! Don't lie to society about your identity even though you may feel ashamed of it!

Anonymous1 wrote:

You can't even show how a Hindu identity isn't Islamic using your logic

Except that I did multiple times:

1. One god and Only one God,
2. The finality of Prophethood
3. Accepting the Qur'an as the unaltered word of God.

You keep repeating it but it only makes you sound absurd and I guess you would use something mroe realisitc if your argument had any worth, which it does not.

You wrote:

Anonymous1 wrote:

You can't even show how a Hindu identity isn't Islamic using your logic

Except that I did multiple times:

1. One god and Only one God,
2. The finality of Prophethood
3. Accepting the Qur'an as the unaltered word of God.

You keep repeating it but it only makes you sound absurd and I guess you would use something mroe realisitc if your argument had any worth, which it does not.[/quote]

Let's apply the same to democracy, British national identity:
1. does not believe in one god and only one god - they believe divine matters like sovereignty is for the people!!!
2. does not believe in finality of Prophethood (or prophethood at all!!!)
3. does not believe in Quran

Maybe you can explain why democracy/british national identity is Islamic whilst Hinduism is not?

Using your "problematic" logic which you use to reconcile kufr belief systems like democracy and national identities I showed how your argument would lead to Hinduism being Islamic:
1. Hindus believe in one God - you don't HAVE TO believe in the different manifestations or idols that they attribute divine attributes
2. They don't reject it - they don't even mention it in any of their texts - you can believe it if you want
3. They don't reject it - they don't even mention it in any of their texts - you can believe it if you want
Thus one is a HinduMuslim!

Anonymous1 wrote:

Let's apply the same to democracy, British national identity:
1. does not believe in one god and only one god - they believe divine matters like sovereignty is for the people!!!
2. does not believe in finality of Prophethood (or prophethood at all!!!)
3. does not believe in Quran

They do not question it either.

Democracy does not have to question divine law. It can exist withoput questioning it too, where the Islamic rules are considered above question - unless they can be interpreted in many ways.

More, as you admitted to yourself, not all of shariah law would apply in the UK to all citizens even if there was a full shariah system here.

"They do not question it either!"
"not all of Sharia law would apply in the uk..."

Is that the best you can do???

Is that your counterargument???

LOL

You see, there is a fundamental problem in your logic!

Its not a counter argument. Its a point about how you are passionately arguing for something that may not be terribly different to what we have already.

Are you saying a HinduDemocraticBritishMuslim identity is fine?

No.

Hinduism is a religion that is counter to islamic beliefs. Democracy is not a religion and can be used within islamic confines. Britihsness also does not contradict Islam, so can also be used.

You only attach hindu to that because either you:

1. want to throw insults.
2. You know that the rest of your argument is flawed and weak
3. both of the above.

Just like Hadhrat Salman Farsi was not required to drop "farsi" from his title, or Hadhrat Biulal Habashi was known by Habasha, or Imam Bukhari was known by Bukhara, Muslims can be known for coming from the UK and that is not counter to Islam.

You wrote:

No.

Hinduism is a religion that is counter to islamic beliefs. Democracy is not a religion and can be used within islamic confines. Britihsness also does not contradict Islam, so can also be used.

You only attach hindu to that because either you:

1. want to throw insults.
2. You know that the rest of your argument is flawed and weak
3. both of the above.

Just like Hadhrat Salman Farsi was not required to drop "farsi" from his title, or Hadhrat Biulal Habashi was known by Habasha, or Imam Bukhari was known by Bukhara, Muslims can be known for coming from the UK and that is not counter to Islam.

Maybe you can actually address the argument - use of farsi in a name at the time of the Prophet(saw) and even today is not a problem if one uses it to identify where they are from (whether city or region or country) or uses it to indicate their nationality (passports etc!) - however it is haram/kufr where one uses it as a socio-political bond, that one is British because they are part of that national identity.

Such conflation of other identities shows how weak your understanding it - little better than old Ed who thinks national identity is the same as nationality!

Coming back to the argument, maybe you can answer it - if your logic is correct, you should be able to refute the Hindu (religio-cultural) identity - if your logic is wrong, you won't be able to.

You keep repeating it but it only makes you sound absurd and I guess you would use something mroe realisitc if your argument had any worth, which it does not.

Let's apply the same to democracy, British national identity:
1. does not believe in one god and only one god - they believe divine matters like sovereignty is for the people!!!
2. does not believe in finality of Prophethood (or prophethood at all!!!)
3. does not believe in Quran

You wrote:

Maybe you can explain why democracy/british national identity is Islamic whilst Hinduism is not?

Using your "problematic" logic which you use to reconcile kufr belief systems like democracy and national identities I showed how your argument would lead to Hinduism being Islamic:
1. Hindus believe in one God - you don't HAVE TO believe in the different manifestations or idols that they attribute divine attributes
2. They don't reject it - they don't even mention it in any of their texts - you can believe it if you want
3. They don't reject it - they don't even mention it in any of their texts - you can believe it if you want
Thus one is a HinduMuslim!

I have refuted it multiple times. If you cannot see that then you are purposefully ignore the refutations.

You have not refuted anything - and saying "sharia can partially be implemented in the UK" type stuff is not a refutation! It's just very sad!

I was talking about your hindu allegations. But I see you choose to ignore them.

as for partial "implementation", I was saying that even if it was FULLY implemented it may not be too different from what we have now. Non Muslims are the majority in the UK and they would not be held to the same level as Muslims.

Pointless continuing this discussion - you've accepted your logic leads to HINDUISM = ISLAM and one can believe in both due to fluidity etc - thus your logic is nonsense!

DEMOCRACY is kufr
HINDUISM is kufr
BRITISH IDENTITY is kufr

http://www.therevival.co.uk/forum/general/6828?page=1#comment-155971

Okay this whole Brtish Muslims thing is geting stupid.

How many times are you going to go around in circles before you conclude that you just have two different opinions?

Also, i've gotten loads out of TheRevival thanks ^_^

Have to say I really respect Anonymous' posts... he/she has put up with some really quite RUDE comments from TheRevivalEditor. having a forum means listening to other people's views/beliefs/mosconceptions... AND THEN SHOWING THEM RESPET EVEN IF YOU DISAGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY.

I also agree in terms of a lot of views he/she has... but I must admit I am against the provocative/argumentative style he/she seems to use in almost every post.

In terms of the Revival... I got a lot from it originally, and am extremely happy that it has gone back into print. There is certainly a gap for young ppl that it fills..............

BUT.....

I dont think it fills the gap quite well enough. When I was contributing to articles etc, I frequently tried to push ideas/issues that I think needed to be addressed from a young-person's (i.e. Revival's) perspective. Ed tended to (i.e. always) disagreed, and I eventually lost interest, because I think Ed wants to make more of a children's magazine than a young adult's one.

It is his magazine and therefore his choice... I know there would be no Revival without his passion and hard-work over a long period of time.

I just feel the the current version of the Revival seems to be halfway between both, and doesn't really either cater adequately to either group.

Insha'Allah it will find its focus in the future. And may Allah (swt) reward all the contributors to the magazine and website. Ameen.

MakeMeRawr_7TeenF wrote:

Okay this whole Brtish Muslims thing is geting stupid.

How many times are you going to go around in circles before you conclude that you just have two different opinions?

I personally don't accept that the second argument is a valid opinion - for an opinion to be valid, it has to be inherently coherent which those arguing we can adopt foreign ideological identities are not. Do you buy we can adopt the Hindu identity? Can we call ourselves HinduMuslims? The logic used by those believing we can be BritishMuslims when participating in national identities leads to this conclusion...

Without any further analysis any Muslim should be able to say there is a problem in the argument and would never respect such an argument or consider it valid!

which of the previous issue woul dyou say was 'childrens magazine'?

5, 7 and 14 have children's magazines' front covers. No two ways about it.
The only adults who picked them up it was either for their child or they had heard about the revival before.

why do you feel that is?
what do you think it lacks?
why do you think it doesnt cater for young adults?
or why do you think its a kids mag?

I think I've said many times, i'm sure my feelings are still on the editorial team forum somewhere. Also, the Revival assumes little/no previous Islamic knowledge. This is necessary so people aren't put off, but it can seem very patronising or simplistic too.

Basically I think the Revival is a good stepping stone, for people who have very recently become practising, especially if their parents are very cultural and have mixed-up Islamic knowledge, but not really useful for practising Muslims or reverts.

Also the 'social issues' are pretty much all issues for 14-15 year olds. Not 25 year olds.

I think a part of it is that while you can be jingoistic for younger people, tell them to be good, be magnificent, be the best that they can be and that the whole world is in front of their feet, it is not as effective a message for, say, 25 year olds.

A couple of times I have already linked to this topic on the Ta'leef collective in the US (go watchy the video in the link before carrying on) and I can see the need for similar things in the UK - people need help, guidance and motivation. They need a community they can rely on and more.

I don't really think The Revival can deliver on this (maybe it can and I will be proven wrong?) but there is a huge need for such a thing. Not only for converts or people who want to learn about Islam but others too.

Ya'qub wrote:

Basically I think the Revival is a good stepping stone, for people who have very recently become practising, especially if their parents are very cultural and have mixed-up Islamic knowledge, but not really useful for practising Muslims or reverts.

i would say i agree, there isn't much that i personally have got from the mags [sorry!]

But i love the site.

TheRevivalEditor wrote:

MakeMeRawr_7TeenF wrote:

Okay this whole Brtish Muslims thing is geting stupid.

How many times are you going to go around in circles before you conclude that you just have two different opinions?

Also, i've gotten loads out of TheRevival thanks ^_^

so what have you got out of the revival then?
do you feel it caters for the muslim youth today?

I don't get much from the magazine, i'm sorry to say.
I did initially but as i kind of grew in knowledge and perception slightly i found it to be too narrow minded, but the magazine's good because it definitely has a feel good factor.

I did however, get a lot from the site when i first joined; when it was full of people who were smart etc who could teach you a lot. The odd nutter was entertaining and gave a different insight.

Now I hate the way there's a random, either Tom or that other guy or Awlia or anonymous... who's consistently abusing everything said. That's fine like i like people to disagree so i can learn but it's the tone and stuff. Besides that, there's also been a huge upsurge of really young people and a vanishing of most adults and that bugs me a little too, not because i don't like them, but because it means it's hard to gain from the site.

In terms of the magazine, what i would suggest is rather than replacing orrr changing to suit older people, just widen it so you have a broader demographic? Only imo (:

Oh and does it cater to the Muslim youth? Well, it doesn't cater to me, Maybe in general it does though, I may not be representative of the youth as a whole. I think it caters for Muslim children, but possibly not Muslim young adults. And it's not the content, because you talk about the right thiongs, it's just the wary way it's told. I mean all the mean groups are explicit in their attacks, i don't see why the nice people can't be explicit in their defence. Also on all things, i think you should give a variety of views.