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
Who's online
There are currently 0 users online.
Respectfully to Anon1, if there is a liberal movement emerging it is because Muslims in the west are being encouraged to be fanatical and support various militants in various trouble spots, and are being criticised by non-Muslims for failing to take that on, and I think people see you and people like you who are just down on everyone and just know that whatever else is going on, that hostility isn't piety, but is arrogant, with some very wicked tendencies. I write this as a Jew, I myself am being arrogant putting it that way and with no reference to your faith (well, that probably would be too far for me), but I know that when I hear Jews say something that sounds wrong and potentially destructive, I would rather clear that up than stand by it in a false show of religious unity, and I think that is what you are facing. It is a little painful to see your verbosity met with casual and sometimes intransigent replies, but stop thinking you are cleverer! Is my (arrogant) advice.
I think the other posters are generally ignoring her.
Afterall, I linked to an article that quoted some ahadith on allowing and encouraging entertainment and I get accused of peddling a lifestyle based around fun and kufr ideologies... I think people can make up their own mind and see where the facts lie.
"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.
Those that can will, you're right.
Your article had a context - this website and magazine.
You're right - people can make their minds up.
I have having seen all of it and read your magazine - there is an agenda to push modernism to the youth. Become British and forget the ummah, heads down and don't speak out or criticise the govt's dodgy foreign policies, enjoy life, have fun, everything is ok, we can dump Islamic politics as Islam and Allah didn't want them for Britain, we can adopt kufr ideologies like secularism, democracy and capitalism - nothing wrong with them at all!
We can be money grabbing capitalists because wasn't the Prophet(saw) a trader?
We can be pleasure seeking hedonists because didn't the Prophet(saw) in one out of context hadith sat not doing much?
We can be democrats, socialists and communists as wasn't the Caliphate just an arbitrary choice by the Prophet(saw), his companions, tens of thousands of scholars?
We can be devilworshippingHindus as doesn't Islam allow us to have identities?
We can pat ourselves on the backs for a job well done when we send a sticky plaster to sort out overcomplicated problems like Plaestine which are really simple but most people don't understand them?
and the vitriol keeps coming.
Listen, I am not the one that is rejecting qur'an and sunnah in order to stick to my stance. That is you. More, you use different yardsticks in diffferent topics in order to best make your point... but that is plain devious. you were the one who mentioned in a previous discussion that things are allowed unless forbidden, but hang on, now that it comes to entertainment - something that the prophet actually encouraged and thus is not simply a matter of allowed unless forbidden, but a matter of "it is allowed by the sunnah of the prophet and the Sahabah's" and suddenly you get cold feet.
Attack me by all means, maybe I am enthralled by hedonism. but the mentioned article with its ahadith etc is not somehting you can deny as true and your position of "not encouraging entertainment" runs counter to what the prophet
did.
Additional deviousness is to build up strawmen in order to attack them and then pretend they are what your opponents believe.
Have I in this topic anywhere defended hedonism? Has anyone encouraged it in this topic? no. The only person that has been devious is you, who is pretending to be preaching moderation, a concept you earlier on rejected in other forum topics and are pretending to be pushing for balance when you also earlier rejected fun and entertainment not in one topic, but two. In one your argument was to present Hadhrat Umar (ra)'s deathbed speech about not having spent as much time with his family as he would have liked since becoming calip along with mentioning how when one body of the ummah hurts, the whole does and thus fun is not allowed currently. In the other you said the life does not need fun.
You do not need to stick the standards I try to hold you to, but atleast stick to your own and be consistent! This goes to the heart of your credibility, all you see is "attack, attack, attack" and it seems that you don't really care what it is you are attacking as long as you are and that is disingenious.
As for the discussion on identity, that has been carried out in other topics and I don't mean to rehash, but Islam is not against multiple identities. It did not stop the ansaar and the muhajireen from being called such, even when people tried to use it to divide people. In the same way, it did not prevent tribes and going even further the qur'an even tells us that God created us in tribes so that we may be recognised. Yet you have decided that you know better and that identities are kufr ideology. Thankyou for your opinion but I will stand with the qur'an, sunnah and the majority of the ummah old and new on this.
Your solution to Palestine is a novel one I must admit - lets irradiate them through nuclear and lets get other parts of the world nuked too. Bravo, so simple. Yet it is mass murder and also nukes do not fit within islamic guidelines on warfare.
Sending sticky plasters is far more useful than writing love letters to generals of inferior militaries who have in the past been defeated time and time again.
Are you also writing your love letters to the Syrian generals? the generals in a country whose whole air defence israel managed to switch off a couple of years ago when it went on a bombing run?
How about the Jordanian generals who have committed attorcities against the Palestinian refugees on their territories? How about the Egyptian generals - generals in the army of a country that is complicit in the siege on Gaza. How about Turkish Generals? are they the recipients of your love letters, the same ones that are the obstacle the government forces when allowing religious freedoms and the ones that are the tool used to beat the Kudish population?
Or do you send your love letters to Iran. We all saw what happened there last year. Is it Afghanistan of Pakistan? we know what state those two countries are in. Yes, lets write lover letters and let love conquer the world.
"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 seem to be ignoring the articles concerning the pillars of Islam, information on marriage in Islam, women position in Islam,answers to frequently asked questions which have not got anything to do with fun/hedonism etc!
"How many people find fault in what they're reading and the fault is in their own understanding" Al Mutanabbi
Yep - you should learn to stop it and actually address the issues and respond to the evidences instead of repeating tiered slogans.
Yes you are - which classical scholars or ayats/hadith permit democracy? NONE!
Please provide the link where I did that
To refute me, you have to actually refute my argument - my argument is not "not encouraging enterntainment" - that's your fabrication.
Yes - you encourage people to debate/watch football - half naked men! And justify it's ok to look at men's awrah cos the Prophet(saw) and his companions used to doss about doing nothing! Disgusting! You don't even know the context of the hadith and produce imaginary fatwas according to what you think is the context!
I believe this is what you do this regularly - proven through exposing you fabricating/mistranslating hadith - esp. to support democracy!!! Maybe you can prove my deviousness?
The point of that evidence was to show how he dealt with duties and priorities - similar priorities exist today and you encourage people to watch and debate football! And this is not seeking pleasure of watching men's awrah - this must be to understand a strategy of war against Israel! Yeah, right!
My principles are consistent - yours are not. That's why you have to fabricate hadith to support your everchanging western position - one cannot adopt kufr ideologies like democracy and british identity without twisting and fabricating evidences. And that's where you get caught - and resort to ad hominem attacks!
No it is not - but it does not expect you to replace the identities it ordains with kufr ones - it does not expect you to call yourself a Hindu and adopt that identity!
Tribes are family based indentities - nationalistic identities are not family based identities but identities built on common history/culture/political authority/nation state - so your using the wrong evidence. As I said to bring kufr into Islam you have to twist evidences and misapply them! You're caught out again at it! Shame on you!
Another lie - the Quran and Sunnah require the socio-political identity of the Ummah and not Britishness. The ayat you cite does not permit britishness and thus the bond is kufr.
Which MAJORITY of the Umman old and new follow this? It is just modern secularists and modernists who adopt such rotten secular political philosophy - the ummah in the past all adopted sociopolitical bonds of religion as did most societies. The Europeans replaced them by nationalistic bonds and true to form, ignorant and sheep like Muslims emulated them! Kuffar are into homosexuality and true to form there are Muslims who follow them!
Another fabrication!
You can't address my complex arguments and have to make some up to refute - LOL - caught lieing again! Multiple times in one post - you are excelling today! Clearly you are most frustrated! Is it a woman problem again?
Yep sticky plasters will provide military protection against phosphour, bombs and bullets.
I suggest we get sincere military personnel to remove the corrupt governments, unite the Muslims countries and then take on Israel. Victory is from Allah and this is part of my creed - kuffar would never believe 300 Muslims could defeat over 1000 kuffar in badar but they did - likewise Muslims can defeat cowards in Israel and regardless of the "wars" fought by sell-out arab leaders for their own agendas and goals in the past, of which you appear totally ignorant, I believe Muslims can defeat the racist government of Israel. Israel can't even pin down a defeated civilian population of Gaza, let alone Hizbullah - you are arguing they can defeat sincere Muslim miliaries with sincere leadership backed by the population who want to do jihad for Allah's sake? LOL
You obviously with your modernist ideology want to see the racist Israeli regime continuing to exist in line with British and US policy - as I said, you are falling in line with what the govt wants and this is another example.
When one pushes an agenda, for it to be effective, it must be blended in and not appear to blatant otherwise people rebel against it.
You, while appearing to come across as a neutral person and having no agenda, is clear as to his ideology and the alternative ideolgies out there - his critique of the voting article almost from the word go was looking for subtexts and objected to why should HT be called classicists (consistent with classical scholars) and those who advocate voting be termed modernists.
Only someone who understands underlying ideologies, perspectives and frameworks would make such a point. His sadly is one that is not based on classical scholarship - it is a perverted ideology championed by fringe elements in the nineteenth century who were then backed by the western installed regimes in the Muslim world and their deranged views publicised across the Muslim world whilst those who followed classical Islamic teachings from the classical scholars across a thousand years of our history were marginalised, arrested, tortured and banned...
That looks interesting but I think its power is masked by its opaqueness, what happened?
It's quite easily exposed by reading nineteenth and twentieth century politics in the Muslim world.
The rise and origins of Modernism from dubious characters like Afghani, Abdhu, Rida, Khan, Shaltout etc along with characters like Khalid, al-Razaq etc who wrote vitriolic texts at the demise of the Ottoman Caliphate.
Muhammad Abduh became a judge in Egypt, after political activities and studies in Paris. He pushed for secular law and religious reform. He hoped Egypt would become a republic like France. He advocated greater openness to foreign influence
Movements that ingested such ideas included Ikhwan who was racked with internal divisions in terms of direction over most of its life across all the countries its operated in. Given their compromising nature and general secular outlook many tinpot dictatorship governments across the middle east have allowed modernists to engage in politics and have permitted them to operate and provided them with platforms to push their views (eg Qardawi). At the same time all those opposing the systems, laws and western hegemony etc have been banned, tortured, arrested etc (HT, Jihadists, FIS etc)
Modernist ideas generally include:
- rejection of a great Muslim history, attacking the Islamic Caliphate throughout the ages
- rejection of any Islamic political system, arguing democracy and foreign systems can be followed
- adoption of issues the west attacks Islam on - penal system, women's rights etc with compromise solutions changing basic Islamic law to satisfy the attackers
- a desire to import aspects of foreign cultures and ideologies into the Muslim world over and above science and technology
- accepting the carve up of the Muslim world and political realities such as Israel
etc
Modernists are attacked and condemned by orthodox and classical scholarship for trying to change Islam and Sharia to fit into the frameworks and thinking of the dominant ideolgoies of secularism and democracy... and in the process wiping out the Islamic identity and forwarding western plans in the Muslim world. Most such scholars are arrested or marginalised and the same treatment meted out to any movements or groups arguing the same - all seats of learning are tightly controlled including their curriculums resulting in "government" oriented scholars produced, poisoning and polluting the debate and the ummah who become increasingly suspicious of these "scholars for dollars" who usually propose and advance govt agendas...
I think your analysis is totally wrong - the rise of Islam as a social force across the Msulim world, marginalising secularists and providing an alternative political force from Morocco to Indonesia is frightening western policymakers who are providing responses to deal with it.
Within their own Western populations they see Muslims driven by the same ideology and fear their feeling part of the Muslim world, resulting in being a fifth column in their own backyards.
Through the use of pretexts (suicide bombings etc) they are forcing Muslims to dump their sociopolitical identity and loyalties to Muslims and replace them by a British identity where they can retain irrelevant things (in their eyes) like worships and rituals - even symbols like burqa are seen as political by many and thus are being considered to be banned!
Start with a wrong or weak analysis, and your advice to Muslims will be wrong of how to deal with what is going on...
You are giving me a reading list. That is what is wrong with your whole approach. You wrote all that to answer me and it didn't educate me in anything. If I were an expert who did know who all those people were and what was there significance to you I would still want to see some context for that to look intelligible. Sorry.
If that were true I would not expect AM or HT or any MB org to have a presence here before what date exactly?
The correct principle is waqf - we await revelation on all matters as the Prophet(saw) did. The only principle you can apply is all "things (objects/entities) are permitted for us" to benefit from eg food, animals, resources etc as there are quranic verses on the topic.
However in relation to actions we must await guidance and actions are not permitted in origin as per the famous hadith:
“Whoever performs an action that is not based on Our command, then it is rejected”
In fact not even a reading list. (Don't.)
I just realised what it is:
A lot of mixed up data. You don't know.
Not sure what you mean I'm giving you a reading list (or no reading list) - not sure what reading list you want or for what purpose - it's a political analysis based on reading of events over a long period of time...
It was a list of names you find dubious that I never heard of - I would need to find out what connects them and research that and if I don't, well, maybe your efforts have some significance to you - and then you tell a story that leaps, never properly explained - from one figure to the next. I am especially grateful you replied to me if anything you wrote does stick for when someone else clarifies it, and honestly grateful anyway, but serious when I say you aren't explaining yourself well.
To be honest, most of what she's saying is true.
But she needs to explain exactly why EACH of her names of some highly respected scholars (in 'countries' that still have a traditional Muslim lifestyle) is dubious. Giving one or two vague examples is not nearly enough, especially since some of the scholars mentioned have radically different approaches and views from one another.
And also, why criticism of the late Ottoman Empire (whose actions included bankrupting the entire empire, and borrowing heavily (with interest!) from the emerging Western European nations in order to build a new, French-style palace so as not to feel embarrassed at the gigantic palace built at the height of the empire's riches when other world leaders visited), the huge harems, guarded by African eunuchs and full of poisoning and treason, the fact that heirs to the throne lived their entire life in a cage so as not to be attacked by his brothers or uncles, is unjustified.
Don't just do something! Stand there.
Or is it?
Chameleon. But normally you wait til your posts are harder to get to before questioning if you said anything before.
Normally you wait a good while and ask for me to prove what you had previously said was true from another older topic, which can become tricky, but this one was easier.
I am sure you are aware of this but the time of revelations is over and all that is forbidden has been forbidden or their principles for being forbidden already revealed.
If you have a look at the seerah, eg the ahadith on Mu'tah, before it was banned, there were some people who were not best pleased with the idea, but they were reprimanded for trying to ban something that had not been banned by God, so no, its not just a case of awaiting for revelation giving a red or a green signal.
Also, your position on marital rape was that it needed clear text to forbid it (your words being "there is no legal base to forbid it"), so if you are now arguing the opposite, it is a matter of consistency.
The above link and following posts should suffice to remind you of your prior position. Was it merely a position of convenience?
Why was Hadhrat Salman Farsi known as that? Why was Hadhrat Bilal Habashi known as that? these are not just familial identities. What about the identities of ansaar and muhajiroon? You even mentioned how people tried to sow discord using them, but were they banned/eradicated? no!
Actually no, I mentioned a different hadith. One where the prophet
was lying down and Hadhrat Abu Bakr (ra) entered the room, then Hadhrat Umar (ra) entered the room and then when Hadhrat Uthmaan entered the room, the prophet 
sat up to readjust his clothing as Hadhrat Uthmaan (ra) was a very shy person. (go back to the topic and have a look, I may have even quoted it. that way, you don't get to mischaracterise my posts.)
I am not telling anyone to watch football. My only position on it was to not condemn it so roundly as, well, I would leave that for bigger authorities. (and if you had read, I even mentioned that when playing people should wear trackies.)
your position is that people should not play football til there is peace and harmony in the world and that before then it is not allowed at all.
(PS if you watch football and cannot stop noticing the knees, you need to get married ASAP, that is not healthy)
Yes, please be negative about the people who are actually helping people on the ground.
You may be surprised at this, but I am also sceptical over there being a peaceful solution to the Palestinian question, but that does not mean we have any right to belittle the people actually helping on the ground.
That is far more useful than armchair critics or writing love letters to foreign generals who may already be oppressing other people.
Writing them letters is a waste of time and will not achieve anything. If they decide to act, they will act of their own accord or through orders.
if someone wanted to help people, I would rather they spent their times sending aid, raising awareness than wasting their time writing letters to people who will not be moved by them.
You mention the battle of Badr (and I am sure you know the historical context of it not being a war planned by the Muslims... they went to raid caravans to get their own goods back and instead found an army waiting), but you ignore others such as when Hadhrat Khalid Ibn Walid was given the title of "sword of Allah (swt)" in the battle where he skillfully retreated from battle. There were also the later retreats in Mesopotamia which meant that the place was conquered twice. Both of these show that going headlong into war is not the thing to do - I am pretty sure that I have read about Salahuddin, who mentioned that he had been able to retake Jerusalem while others had failed was because he did his homework, he did the preparation. So even if you are after a military solution, just marching in is stupid and has consequences on Muslim lives (I doubt you care to care about non Muslim lives).
Spend all your time writing your love letters, but when you attack the people who are actually trying to make a difference on the ground, that shows your true face.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
As ever you have to take my statements out of context to refute them as you do with hadiths to justify your hedonistic tendencies - maybe you should have also read this which provides the context for the above:
I am attacking the western lifestlye that you are encouraging amongst youth
http://www.therevival.co.uk/forum/general/6914
So maybe you can provide the hadith where the Prophet(saw) encourages lifestyles based on fun and enjoyment rather than what Muslims already know and do.
Yes and you forget - all that is halal has been made halal, mandoub has been made mandoub etc! Thus we need to do waqf on all matters, and refer to revelation to see what the hukm is instead of saying everything is halal unless made haram which is nonsense!
Again incorrect understanding of this hadith. The Prophet(saw) had approved the practice of mutah and sunnah is revelation. The argument does not show at all mutah was permitted in origin.
Firstly I don't accept the notion of marital rape. It exists in the west due to the nature of their law and marital contract. It does not exist in Islamic marriages as a husband does not need permission of his wife in the nikaah contract. Other contracts maybe - but not the nikaah contract. Thus martial rape may well be forbidden in other marital contracts, but is not halal or haram in the nikaah contract as it does not and cannot exist. Thus you have not even understood my argument in the first place - like most issues - you read only that what "catches your eye" and ignore the rest. No wonder your responses are usually so lacking and insubstantive.
Regarding the second implication you've drawn from this example - you are once again wrong. The assumption is that the nikaah contract and evidences supporting it state that the husband has the right of sex on demand and can demand his right by force if required as per the Quranic ayat. He needs no further permission. For a wife to stipulate he does she needs to provide the evidence. This argument is based on waqf and not on the principles you assert - incorrectly!
I ask you again to provide the links - out of context links hiding part of my position makes for a dishonest discussion.
Geographic titles - one can be known by geographic titles as have many scholars historically. Thus one can be called Abdullah Britani or Fransi no problem - it is a descriptor as to where you are from. Likewise one can be named after Prophets, after concepts (intelligent, pious etc) and so on - however being named with a laqab or title is a different subject matter from socio-political bonds - thus you cannot be a British Muslim which means something totally different. It is a case of misapplication of evidence.
Can't you see Bukhari can be named after a region, so one knows where he is from, however, his socio-political bond with the ummah is not based on geography but religion - he is part of a religious ummah, not a geographical ummah.
The sahabah were known for where they were from - but the Prophet(saw) did not unite the society according to a geographic bond. If he did please explain which geographic bond this was? Roman? Abyssinian? Persian? No unifying geographic bond was ever used and hadiths condemn the use of bonds other than Islam for uniting peoples (asabiyya). In the British identity, "Britain" is the unifying geographic bond, the homeland, the nation, which is used to unify people along with a collective nationalistic history/culture/authority all of which are kufr.
Thus your citation of this evidence is wrong. Any scrutiny of it shows you have superficially understood the evidence, sought to find a geographic term to justify the use of geography in nationalistic identities and are trying to justify a nationalistic socio-political bond through it which is not the same.
Ansaar was a label and bond applying to the helpers - muhajiroon was a label and bond applying to those who migrated. Both concepts are praiseworthy and these people were characterised with such concepts. They did not however form socio-political bonds on the basis of these ideas - when an attempt was made to do so, the Prophet(saw) corrected them and told them they were brothers in Islam. Thus their socio-political bond was Islam and not these bonds. Likewise, our socio-political bond is Islam and not British nationality.
No problem with multiple identities - and I don't think we dispute that. The dispute is on the socio-political bond - can their be multiple versions of those or not - and what should it be.
Your problem is that you are clouding the argument by citing non-socio-political identities.
Interesting you did not cite this hadith when everyone was saying looking at the thigh is haram and were all chatting about football. Only when I said there's a minor alternative opinion on the subject does this hadith come to light and looking at men's thighs is ok. Me sees double standards and manipulation going on!
You interestingly dump your allegiance to the "majority" who say it is not permitted (for me it would not be a problem as I don't follow such dubious principles!) - but then for modernism, when did principles ever matter?
And maybe you can explain what the following hadiths mean:
A man should not look at the 'awrah of another man, nor a woman of a woman, nor should a man go under one cloth with another man, nor a woman with another woman. Muslim, Abu Daoud, Tirmidhi
Muhammad Jahsh reported: "The Messenger of Allah, peace and blessings be upon him, passed by Ma'mar while his thighs were uncovered. He said, to him,'O Ma'mar, cover your thighs, for they are (part of) `Awrah." Ahmad, Hakim, Bukhari.
Reported Jurhad, "The Messenger of Allah passed by me when the cloak I was wearing was a little bit off my thigh. He said, 'Cover your thigh, for it (is part of) `Awrah." Ahmad, Abu Dawood, Tirmidhi,Bukhari.
Yep - carry on looking at men's awrahs - let's not condemn that!
Another fabrication - my position is actually we should focus on our duties of which there are too many which most Muslims are not doing. Instead they are focusing on fun. Totally upside down!
If you actually stop "catching what interests your eyes" and read what I write, you'll notice I'm not critical about people providing help.
I'm critical about those people who believe this is ALL we should do and those who do nothing else and often even worse, belittle the fact anything else should be done - thus implicitly justifying and supporting the oppression.
Sorting out security, oppression etc requires political and military intervention - a strategy is needed to bring this to bear - if you disagree with my recommendations, no problem - what are yours?
But you are critical of them by mocking what they do.
go and have a look in that topic if you can find it. I am quite sure I did prove it.
The other hadith you mention was not part of the football topic. It was posted probably a year ago as a topic of its own and had nothing to do with football.
People should not look at awrah, but that does not mean that people cannot leave the house as outside (especially in the summer) there will be people who don't cover their awrah. (and btw, I was not even telling people to watch football in that topic. befoer you had waded in with your judgement, the things I had mentioned were *playing football* and using moderation - a concept that you roundly rejected.
but he did not ban those bonds when doing so. More, as you have read islamic history, you will also know that after the passing of the prophet
some of the same bonds came into play again when two tribes from Madinah tried to choose a caliph from amongst them, but Hahdrat Abu Bakr (ra) and other companions disagreed and said that the caliph had to be from among the muhajireen. The leader of one of the tribes was even beaten in order to humiliate him.
The argument is not about which bonds are stronger (because obviously faith is the strongest one and in a discussion between Muslims, this is not even necessary to state) but that does not mean that the other bonds do not exist.
There are many bonds that bind people differently. Just because Islam is a bond it does not mean that all other bonds cease to exist or automatically become wrong.
"For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens 'as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone'" - David Cameron, UK Prime Minister. 13 May 2015.
Nope - I am careful with my criticism - for example, I state "will sticky plasters provide security?" and not "what's the use of sticky plasters?" - important conceptual difference which you should address rather than responding to a straw man argument that may be easy to refute but not what I'm arguing.
I did look at the topic - I introduced the idea there was some who say it was permitted. The debates about football were running before then.
The difference is that people go out not to look at people uncovered - those who sit to watch football do.
Noone's arguing this - straw man argument.
Islam is not just a bond - there are different types of bond - is Islam the marriage bond? Is it the family bond? Of-course not! They are contained in it, one of many bonds.
However, in relation to socio-political bonds, the Islamic creed is one such bond between Muslims upon which they are required to build society and its institutions.
All Muslims know this to be true - I'm surprised you are so confused on this point and still cannot distinguish between the different types of bond and see them all alike. Your logic would see all sales alike and permit riba, sales with gharar, future sales ete
Pages