Is mob rule allowed in Islam?

YouThe prophet ﷺ said:

“Allah will never allow my Ummah to unite upon misguidance and incorrect beliefs. Allah’s mercy, blessings and protection are with the largest group of Muslims. And he who deviates from this largest group of Muslims will be thrown into Hell.” (Tirmidi)

Is this the hadith you are referring to?

روى الترمذي في الجامع من حديث ابن عمر رضي الله عنهما أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قال: إن الله لا يجمع أمتي على ضلالة , ويد الله مع الجماعة و من شذ شذ إلى النار .

erm... probably. I just asked someone else "rememeber that hadith? what was it?" on Tribune but the arabic words there seem to be following the same.

Why?

You

Anonymous1

Youyour problem is hiding half the facts. Kind of like making statements like "there is no god" without then saying "but Allah (swt)".

Your logic is absurd

You don't like the taste of your own medicine and yet you continue with:

Your logic is absurd! That is a fact.

You

Anonymous1

VocalistThe debate with You and Anon1 seems to prove secularism works fine!

You can argue it concludes devilworship is fine too - doesn't mean it is (though no doubt some forms of logic would lead to that conclusion!).

Anonymous1people make statements all the time - they do not qualify them with exceptions as usually there is no reason to; it does not mean they are hiding anything. You are imposing your misunderstandings on others. The easy way out is to ask the question if there are exceptions - which you should well know will exist for necessities as all sharia rules have exceptions for necessities! If you don't know that, you should study sharia as it is very basic GCSE level stuff!

Details schmetails. Thing is, I had asked you a straight forward question on where Islamic taxes came from and I took your answer at face value. Then I found out that was not the case.
Would I have to ask you for the list of exceptions every time you make an assertion? its more fun to mention that sometimes mentioning exceptions is important. Like the case of qualifying "There is no god" with "except Allah (swt)".

So why don't you blame Allah too for not always citing exceptions - why do you recite your shahada without an exception? Is it one rule for others and another for one self? That smacks of hypocrisy!

YouI am just using your own method of arguing here, nothing new. what did you call it? taking an idea to extremes to show the absurdity of it.

Wrong - if you apply your logic here to its extreme, you would have to consent Allah is hiding stuff too by not saying Mohammed was not a messenger before the age of 40 - a MAJOR OMMISSION OF AN EXCEPTION! Your logic is absurd and incorret as I said!

You

Anonymous1

YouAll I know is that that FAQ I linked to mentioned that the leader should be elected, and that the first and fourth caliphs were chosen by the people present.

Democracy is not the same as elections - you may not know but elections exist in communism too - is that a democractic system? Your logic of matching systems based on one point of similarity is ridiculous!

erm... should I laugh here or not?
Communism is not at odds with democracy - it is at odds with capitalism. Different spectrums and branches of government.
So yes, communism can be democratic. It often doesn't end up so because it requires an iron fist to beat everyone into a pulp of "equality".

Your logic would require ignoring points of difference - elections exist so it is democracy - the Western world fought a cold war for no reason at all - they were fighting their own system! OH MY GOD!

You

Anonymous1If it did you would believe voting is haram - but you don't - you follow a tiny minority who permit it.

Oh yes, I had forgotten about your huge and overwhelming majority of 100 which is obviously greater thant he 1.5 billion plus Muslims in the world...

Cite the 100 scholars who say it is permitted - just to match those who say its haram - then cite another couple of hundred to prove you have at least a majority - and cite several hundred more to prove you have a large majority!
You cannot even get beyond a tiny handful! Repeating a few cut and paste of joke like fatwas on the net is hardly substantive - one can only laught when one compares the joke fatwas you bring in response to the one research paper I highlighted! LOL

YouAnd I think I can also quote the same reason the HT use to allow them to raise taxes in an Islamic state that they would otherwise consider unnecessary - the same hadith would allow this: "It is not allowed to do harm nor to allow being harmed." [Ibn Majah, Al-Daraqutni]
and that can be used to say that not participating hurts the Muslims, yet this hadith tells us to not let the others harm us, so we need to be represented.

There is no harm whatsoever of not participating - they don't arrest you, fine you, or anything - and sorry, fairy tales of BNP bogeymen taking over goverment doesn't work either - in fact they would rationally be the ones you should choose as they will pull back troops and stop killing Muslims - something no other party will do - and LIFE has priority over all other creature comforts such as social benefits one lives off on here!

It's also amusing that you now have to resort to saying over a billion Muslims say it is halal - LOL - we have a billion Mujtahids in the ummah with most not even knowing a scrap of Arabic other than parrot fashion!!!

You

Anonymous1Likewise, if the majority were correct, they would forward their evidence. Noone can or have provided evidence that sovereignty should be with the mob, or that it is not fard to appoint a Caliph through the bayah, or the classical scholars were wrong when they dumped and gave no credibility to democracy or that it is kufr to legislate according to the majority whim/desire...

The thing is you lack even basic understanding of these issues. I am not saying this as an insult, but you conflate many different things and are often unwilling to see things for what they are.

Says the one who conflates kufr systems with Islam and cannot see the differences... Slogans... you need substanc - slogans don't cut it sadly.

You

Anonymous1

YouYou'll say my views are like a Hindu or a devil worshipper and i will respond back that yours are like an athiests. (I still suuspect the former is more offensive...)

Nope - this is just a blag - I have never said your views are like a Hindu or devilworshipper. I have taken your logic which reconciles Democracy to Islam and applied it to other systems, in a comparative analysis, to expose its flaws. If you cannot see after that that your logic is flawed and you have no response to that point, all you can do is allege I am calling or comparing you to Hindus and cease the discussion.
That's fine with me - it shows me modernists are adopting a system of kufr and trying to push that in the Muslim world when we have an Islamic political system that worked well for over a millenium - far better than men made systems!

I have taken your logic which hid the mentioning of additional taxes and applied it to other systems, in a comparative analysis, to expose its flaws. If you cannot see after that that your logic is flawed and you have no response to that point, all you can do is allege I am calling or comparing you to a athiest and cease the discussion.

If you applied my logic you would see it is consistent - one mentions the general rule and if someone wants the detail they can be told that - let's apply it to the shahada:
Mohammed is the messenger of God - general rule! Exception - he wasn't before age of 40 which one can find out with additional questioning or research. Works perfectly well!
Khanzeer is haram! General rule! Exception if one needs it, point of starvation (necessity) permits it! Works fine too!

As I said, truth is consistent - falsehood is not - thus it fails when you extend the logic!

Youerm... probably. I just asked someone else "rememeber that hadith? what was it?" on Tribune but the arabic words there seem to be following the same.

Why?

Because the hadith does not translate to what you have translated, it has problems according to muhaditheen, the subject matter is not what you have alleged...

That's why I ask if it is the same hadith.

If it is the same hadith, it is absolutely disgusting how you are twisting sayings of the Prophet(saw) to match your incorrect notions!

Vocalist

Anonymous1
You can argue it concludes devilworship is fine too - doesn't mean it is (though no doubt some forms of logic would lead to that conclusion!).

Devil worship is fine, so long as they keep to themselves and harm nobody else. Freedom of religion baby!!!

That's the kind of disgusting conclusion I expect of secular societies - give it time and incest and nacrophilia will be ok - where's the harm after all!!! Filth from a filthy philosophy!

You

Anonymous1Well fourteen centuries of Islamic scholarship didn't have a problem - it's results of colonisation, secular education processes and revisionism of Islamic history that have led to Muslims without any knowledge of Islamic politics. No doubt if you ask You what qualification they have on this subject, it will be none or next to none!

14 centuries didn't have a problem huh? The west is to blame for every ill of the Islamic world huh? Given that you lack any source material, your opinions are simply that, opinions. That last quote backed up my previous statement. You denounce "You" for lacking qualifications you also do not have.

Maybe read what I wrote - 14 centuries of scholarship did not have a problem with the Islamic Caliphate system - and not that there were no problems! Allah sends problems to individuals and societies - all must be resolved through his system - that is the point and not the fact there will be no problems and we will have heaven on earth - we're not utopianists!

You

Anonymous1And that's your problem - extending Europeans experience and generalising it! It's like the one who walks a mile and says the land is flat, walks another mile and finds the same... carries on walking until he concludes the earth is flat!

Given that you live in Europe - the dar al kufir. It is your problem. and the analogy of the flat earth fails to work when considering cultures. If you read my point I did not state the exact same thing that happened in Europe will happen in the middle east, just something along similar lines.

Extending the European experience to the Muslim world totally fails! You forget we had a successful history blending Islam and politics - as it is the correct ideology from God. You did not as you had a distorted religion with its advocates mascarading it as the truth! Not too different with secularists mascarading their ideology as the truth.

You

Anonymous1Yep - we see it today, slaughter, oppression, tyranny, racism, apartheid, politics of demographics...

Israel is a democracy, but it is not a secular country. wrong again..

Yes it is a secular country - look up the political definition rather than using layman's dictionaries!

You

Anonymous1It happened during the Caliphate - Sunni's and Shia's filling posts of military and government.
With secularism entering the region all sides hate each other, parties from each side acting treacherously with colonialists who play ethnic and demographic politics with all parties leading to suspicions and mistrust - proves the case that we need to kick secularism, democracy and made nonsense systems out and resort to Allah's system.

Secularism is not the reason for the wrongs done by the west. That was colonialism or nationalism, do not mix them up. Did I mention I am an Atheist, so you can imagine I give credence to the law of God like I do to the law of the tooth fairy. Sorry if this upsets anyone here, but nobody has yet to convince me of any merits within Religious law. It is by extension a law based upon the needs of a few old men imposed by fear upon the many. But I tell you what, I will follow Gods law if he proves his existence to me. Until then, I will follow laws based upon human experience and understanding. Democracy has its flaws but it is superior to any other known system of government!

Colonialism and nationalism are ideologies built on secularism - marginalisation/removal of religion from the public domain/political realm is the basis of these new ideologies. Built on these premises are nonsense like communism, socialism, nationalism, colonialism etc They are most certainly not built on theology and theology has not been a significant political actor in the west for over a century!

You

Anonymous1Yes you'd have secular societies like Europe, where old age folk die alone, left along for weeks before they are discovered... mental illnesses and diseases are widespread... youth are out of control hunting poor people like packs of dogs... security does not exist and people are afraid to walk the streets alone, especially women and especially at night... Need any more examples? Is this what you think our societies want?

That sounded just like Iran to me! Or how about the nightly sound in Medina suburbs - the sound of women being beaten by their husbands. the patrolling police outside the Philippines embassy in Saudi Arabia hoping to stop any runaway slaves (or should that be servants) trying to get back home after suffering rapes from their masters.

Yep all nations that are secular to one degree or anthoer, blending man made systems with the charade of religion thrown in to please the masses! None implement the Caliphate so you're barking up the wrong tree. Try blaming it on man made systems - or if you think they are condoned by Islam, please cite the references where Islam permits this nonsense.

YouBut facts are facts. You enjoy the comforts of a (fairly) secular society. You do not worry about the secret police taking you to prison for showing too much hair, or (gosh) an ankle. You get health care for free and I would even guess you are also provided food and clothing and a place to live for free. These are things not provided to people in those countries you admire so much.. Yet you seem to feel like a prisoner, unjustly treated by this wicked society you moan about.

Wrong - there is a police state building in the west - just look at recent legislation on terrorism, the removal of civil rights, banging up people without charge or trial etc etc etc
None of this rot is permitted by Islam.

YouYou are (for lack of any better words) an Islamist. And judging from your many posts I doubt those things such as reason and logic will help me reach across to you. But I take comfort knowing that you are alone on this forum spewing such hate and paranoia, at least it is true.. A minority of a minority think the way you do.

I am a Muslim and Islam is my source - if you don't like it that's your problem.
I can prove God exists and Quran is from God - it gives me the certainty to rely on it and its moral teachings. Can you prove your creed? Your criteria of morality? Or from what I've read from the "best of western philosophers" it's little more than fantasies of eternal spiders spinning eternal webs or plagiarised skeptical thoughts about life being a dream from which one cannto wake! What a joke If I am bluntly honest!

Anonymous1

Youerm... probably. I just asked someone else "rememeber that hadith? what was it?" on Tribune but the arabic words there seem to be following the same.

Why?

Because the hadith does not translate to what you have translated, it has problems according to muhaditheen, the subject matter is not what you have alleged...

That's why I ask if it is the same hadith.

If it is the same hadith, it is absolutely disgusting how you are twisting sayings of the Prophet(saw) to match your incorrect notions!

ok, what does it mean then? and throwing up (false?) disgust does not mean that you are not wrong.

You

Anonymous1

Youerm... probably. I just asked someone else "rememeber that hadith? what was it?" on Tribune but the arabic words there seem to be following the same.

Why?

Because the hadith does not translate to what you have translated, it has problems according to muhaditheen, the subject matter is not what you have alleged...

That's why I ask if it is the same hadith.

If it is the same hadith, it is absolutely disgusting how you are twisting sayings of the Prophet(saw) to match your incorrect notions!

ok, what does it mean then? and throwing up (false?) disgust does not mean that you are not wrong.

Your translation
“Allah will never allow my Ummah to unite upon misguidance and incorrect beliefs. Allah’s mercy, blessings and protection are with the largest group of Muslims. And he who deviates from this largest group of Muslims will be thrown into Hell.” (Tirmidi)

روى الترمذي في الجامع من حديث ابن عمر رضي الله عنهما أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قال: إن الله لا يجمع أمتي على ضلالة , ويد الله مع الجماعة و من شذ شذ إلى النار .
Allah will not gather my ummah on dalalah (kufr/misguidance) - and the hand of Allah is over the political community (jamaa'a) and whoever segregates will be segregated in hellfire (Tirmizi)

Elements of the hadith are disputed by muhaditheen even including tirmizi himself and more recently albani who excludes the latter bit.

More importantly, the hadith is talking about the political community who is the one united under one imam and prohibits segregation and division thereof as it means violation of the bayah and splitting the state - something endorsed in numerous traditions.
It has nothing to do with following majority opinion on matters, as scholars throughout history have issued opinions at odds with majority opinions and adhered to them - I have yet to see any scholar use this narration when arguing that truth rests with the majority opinion and it must be followed - Ghazali argued that truth is not with majority or minority, but with the evidence! Many scholars cite evidences like the following which make it clear truth is not with numbers but evidence and argument -

[Iblees] said: 'By Your Might, then I will surely mislead them all, except your chosen slaves amongst them.' (Quran 38: 82-83)

"if you were to follow most of those on the earth, they would lead you astray from God's path" (Quran 6:116)

"We did not find in most of them any (reliability in their) pacts and we, indeed, found most of them unrighteous" (Quran 7:102)

"most of them are ignorant." (Quran 6:111)

There will never cease to be a small group (taai'fah) from my Ummah clearly upon the Truth until the Hour is established. (Muslim, Tirmidhi, Ibn Maajah and Haakim)

Allah will say, 'Bring out the people of the Fire.' Adam will say, 'O Allah! How many are the people of the Fire?' Allah will reply, 'From every 1,000 take out 999.' (Bukhari)
Whoever seeks Allah's pleasure at the cost of the majorities' displeasure, will win the pleasure of Allah, and Allah will cause men to be please with him. And whoever seeks to please the majority at the cost of Allah's displeasure, will win the displeasure of Allah, and Allah will cause men to be displeased with him. (Ahmad)
I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers are women. (Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Nasai, Ahmed)

Abdullah ibn Masood(ra) said: "Be with the jama'ah (the Haq) even if you are by yourself."

Abdullah ibn Masood(ra) said: “The jama’ah is the Quran and the Sunnah even if you are all alone.”

“The jama’ah and the group refers to the people of truth. Even if there may be only one of them in this entire world, they will be referred to as the jama’ah and the group. When only Abu Bakr (ra) and Khadijah (ra) embraced Islam, they were the jama’ah while the rest of the world apart from them and apart from Rasulullah(saw), were those who were against the jama’ah and were separated from the jama’ah. There is no difference whatsoever among the ulema regarding what we said in this regard.” (Ibn Hazm)
“Look at the wonderful words of Abu Shamah in his book al Hawadith wa al Bida’, with regard to the order to hold on to the jama’ah. “It means clinging to the truth and following it even if those holding onto it are few while those opposing it are many. This is because the truth was always what the first jama’ah was on from the time the Prophet (may Allah send peace and salutations upon him) and the Sahabah (may Allah be pleased with them). This is irrespective of how large the number of those involved in innovations (ahl al bida’) may be.” (ibn al-Qayyim)

Amr ibn Maymum al Audi said: “...I remained in the company of one of the most intelligent people, Abdullah ibn Masood (ra). I heard him saying: ‘Hold on firmly to the jama’ah because the hand of Allah is on the jama’ah.’ Then one day I heard him saying: ‘There shall rule over you such rulers who will delay the salah from its appointed times. You should therefore offer salah at its appointed time which is compulsory salah. You should then offer the salah with them [at the time appointed by the rulers] for it will be the optional salah for you.’” Amr ibn al Maymum says: “So I asked, O companions of Muhammad [saw], I do not know what you are saying to us.” Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (ra) asked: “What do you mean?” I replied: “You are ordering me to adhere to the jama’ah and encouraging me to follow it. And then you are telling me to offer my salah individually despite it being the compulsory salah, and to offer salah with the jama’ah which is and optional salah?!” He replied: “O ‘Amr ibn Maymun! I thought that you were the most intelligent person in this village. Do you know what the jama’ah is?” I replied: “No.” He said: “The jama’ah is what confirms to the truth even if you are all alone.” In another narration, the words are: “He then struck me on my thigh and said: ‘I am disappointed with you. The majority of the people have left the jama’ah. Surely the jama’ah is that which concurs with the obedience of Allah.”

Nu’aym ibn Hammad said: “If the jama’ah degenerates you should hold on to what the jama’ah was on before it degenerated, even if you are all alone. For you are the jama’ah at such time.”

(A time will come) when there will be people standing and inviting at the gates of Hell. Whoso responds to their call, they will throw them into the fire... I said, `Messenger of Allah (saw), what do you suggest if I happen to live in their time?' He said, 'You should stick to the main body of the Muslims and their leader' I said, 'If they have no (such thing as the) main body of the Muslims and have no leader?' He said, 'Separate yourself from all these factions, though you may have to eat the roots of trees until death comes to you and you are in this state.' (Muslim)

There will be after me calamity upon calamity and so he whom you see leave the Jama'ah or wishes to cause separation in the matter of the Ummah of Muhammad - then kill him whoever he is, for certainly Allah's Hand is with the Jama'ah, and certainly Shaytaan is with the one who leaves the Jama'ah, urging him on. (Nasai, Ibn Hibbaan)

"One who found in his Amir (the ruler of the true Islamic state; which is absent today) something which he disliked should hold his patience, for one who separated from the main body of the Muslims even to the extent of a handspan and then he died, would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya." (Muslim, Bukhari)

Professor Mutawalli is representative of such views when he said:
“In Islamic affairs, numerical majority is not the criterion of truth, for the Qur'an has repudiated any such idea. There are many Qur'anic verses which have clearly set out this truth. For example, the saying of God the Exalted, "most people do not understand", "if you were to follow most of those on the earth, they would lead you astray from God's path" (Quran 6:116) "We did not find in most of them any (reliability in their) pacts and we, indeed, found most of them unrighteous" (Quran 7:102) "most of them are ignorant." (Quran 6:111) and for this reason, God said, "Ask the People of Admonition if you do not know." (Quran 16:43)”

Anonymous1

YouI am just using your own method of arguing here, nothing new. what did you call it? taking an idea to extremes to show the absurdity of it.

Wrong - if you apply your logic here to its extreme, you would have to consent Allah is hiding stuff too by not saying Mohammed was not a messenger before the age of 40 - a MAJOR OMMISSION OF AN EXCEPTION! Your logic is absurd and incorret as I said!

Muhammad (saw).

i just had to point that out.

i find it weird for someone who knows so much and is so passionate about the deen to not spell the name of our beloved Prophet correctly and forget to put salawat after his name.

(EDIT = @ anon1:) While the latter part of your post (full of quotes is sound), the former part... was the explanation you gave your own?

because even with that translation, the explanation is something that is beyond what is said in the hadith.

You(EDIT = @ anon1:) While the latter part of your post (full of quotes is sound), the former part... was the explanation you gave your own?

because even with that translation, the explanation is something that is beyond what is said in the hadith.

Read the wording in Arabic - your hadith talks about jama'ah - the scholars' quotes all explain what that means and the hukm relating to it. Opposite to what you understood and the translation you gave jama'ah! Re-read them with that in mind and you'll see the meaning which Ibn Hazm states is that of all the scholars...

Noor

Anonymous1

YouI am just using your own method of arguing here, nothing new. what did you call it? taking an idea to extremes to show the absurdity of it.

Wrong - if you apply your logic here to its extreme, you would have to consent Allah is hiding stuff too by not saying Mohammed was not a messenger before the age of 40 - a MAJOR OMMISSION OF AN EXCEPTION! Your logic is absurd and incorret as I said!

Muhammad (saw).

i just had to point that out.

i find it weird for someone who knows so much and is so passionate about the deen to not spell the name of our beloved Prophet correctly and forget to put salawat after his name.

JZK for the point - I usually do cite ﷺ but here I've not as the quote is from the shahadah and by convention we don't state (saw). The same applies when reciting Quranic verses that mention Muhammed by name - we don't mention ﷺ in those cases. But point noted and jzk for the reminder.

Noor

Anonymous1

YouI am just using your own method of arguing here, nothing new. what did you call it? taking an idea to extremes to show the absurdity of it.

Wrong - if you apply your logic here to its extreme, you would have to consent Allah is hiding stuff too by not saying Mohammed was not a messenger before the age of 40 - a MAJOR OMMISSION OF AN EXCEPTION! Your logic is absurd and incorret as I said!

Muhammad (saw).

i just had to point that out.

i find it weird for someone who knows so much and is so passionate about the deen to not spell the name of our beloved Prophet correctly and forget to put salawat after his name.

JZK for the point - I usually do cite ﷺ but here I've not as the quote is from the shahadah and by convention we don't state (saw). The same applies when reciting Quranic verses that mention Muhammed by name - we don't mention ﷺ in those cases. But point noted and jzk for the reminder.

Anonymous1

You(EDIT = @ anon1:) While the latter part of your post (full of quotes is sound), the former part... was the explanation you gave your own?

because even with that translation, the explanation is something that is beyond what is said in the hadith.

Read the wording in Arabic - your hadith talks about jama'ah - the scholars' quotes all explain what that means and the hukm relating to it. Opposite to what you understood and the translation you gave jama'ah! Re-read them with that in mind and you'll see the meaning which Ibn Hazm states is that of all the scholars...

Many of those ahadith and verses also include non Muslims.

(and then there is the bit where it says that there will be no jama'ah at some points and then at others it quotes the prophet ﷺ saying that there will be) and they are discussing other issues, so using the same text here does not always fit the situation.

YouMany of those ahadith and verses also include non Muslims.

Yes - because the concept is a rational one that applies to truth. Non-Muslims as well as Muslims can carry truth. The point is that truth is determined by the arguments - and not one who or how many people carry it. If that was the criteria, what is wrong with the Quraysh for following the majority and rejecting the message? The companions were violating this principle for following a minority uneducated man who was claiming the truth?
From the origins of our deen we should realise our minds should be open to the truth whereever it comes from - regardless of who brings it, some great big sheikh or a nobody - we should always evaluate the argument.

You(and then there is the bit where it says that there will be no jama'ah at some points and then at others it quotes the prophet ﷺ saying that there will be) and they are discussing other issues, so using the same text here does not always fit the situation.

Which narrations are you referring to?

I was talking about the narration about who will go into hellfire. The figures are reversed I think when you talk about just Muslims. Atleast, they are not as stark.

Then the verses at the end, they are once again referring to non Muslims.

The hadith about finding flaw in the ruler is... irrelevant to what we were discussing. the one before that about calamity upon calamity does not mention what the jama'ah is, so that is open. The one before is saying stick to the main body unless there is none, then to spearate yourself from eveyone. the one before that is about when the ama'ah is no more. The bits before that about the salaah side with you.

Anyway, I was probably wrong to use that hadith, even though I do think it works because we are not discussing a specific act that people agree upon but wether democracy/voting can be used to elect leadership/government.

The main argument pro voting in the UK for me is that we have a vested interest in it and we need to use the hadith of not allowing harm to happen to us. It is only recent history where there was genocide in Bosnia. That was two people who had mixed for years, who looked identical, who even acted identical in many ways, yet there was genocide. and that is not the only one that has occurred in Europe.

If you look europewide, the situation has deteriorated rapidly over the past year or two - a couple of yuears ago who would have thought that so many places would ban the veil or be seriously contemplating it?

I am surprised that you do not see the situation from having deteriorated - 2 years ago the EDL did not even exist.

Anonymous1

You

Anonymous1If it did you would believe voting is haram - but you don't - you follow a tiny minority who permit it.

Oh yes, I had forgotten about your huge and overwhelming majority of 100 which is obviously greater thant he 1.5 billion plus Muslims in the world...

Cite the 100 scholars who say it is permitted - just to match those who say its haram - then cite another couple of hundred to prove you have at least a majority - and cite several hundred more to prove you have a large majority!
You cannot even get beyond a tiny handful! Repeating a few cut and paste of joke like fatwas on the net is hardly substantive - one can only laught when one compares the joke fatwas you bring in response to the one research paper I highlighted! LOL

In my experience 3 groups are against voting: HT, Al-Muhaajiroon and some Salafis/Wahabbis.

Scholars from the European Council for Fatwa and Research have given fatawa that voting is allowed, including scholars from this video. Scholars from my area have spoken re this issue and I've also asked my teachers and they don't prohibit voting.

If you are against voting then don't vote, unless you believe that voting is shirk.....

Just saw this video, very interesting.

There's 5 parts to it:

[video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYDuQLm-9IA&feature=related]

YouThen the verses at the end, they are once again referring to non Muslims.

You violate a basic maxim in Islamic law - Quran is for all mankind - where it criticises non-Muslims for something, the same prohibition applies to Muslims - it is not one rule for them and one for us. Thus the rules of ruling by kufr mention non-Muslims, but Muslims are prohibited from ruling by kufr too.
One should not confuse examples and their constituents to restrict texts - texts are general to all mankind.

YouAnyway, I was probably wrong to use that hadith, even though I do think it works because we are not discussing a specific act that people agree upon but wether democracy/voting can be used to elect leadership/government.

The hadith does not support your argument at all that we should follow the majority or the majority hold the truth. Only through a major mistranslation, ignoring the muhadith critique of elements of the hadith including its whole chain, and moving away from the subject matter does it have any relevance!

YouThe main argument pro voting in the UK for me is that we have a vested interest in it and we need to use the hadith of not allowing harm to happen to us.

Again you misapply the hadith - where halal means are available one is prohibited from applying haram means.

You It is only recent history where there was genocide in Bosnia. That was two people who had mixed for years, who looked identical, who even acted identical in many ways, yet there was genocide. and that is not the only one that has occurred in Europe.

Genocide is not even on the horizon here and noone is calling for it - even if they were, if one can resolve the matter through halal means, haram means are forbidden. They are only allowed where there is no halal option.

YouIf you look europewide, the situation has deteriorated rapidly over the past year or two - a couple of yuears ago who would have thought that so many places would ban the veil or be seriously contemplating it?

Voting is totally and utterly useless in all these places - what can 2-3% of a population achieve through voting in party controlled freaks who don't give a damn about you in a parliament where they are controlled through a whip system?

YouI am surprised that you do not see the situation from having deteriorated - 2 years ago the EDL did not even exist.

The situtation has deteriorated - I don't as you assert say it has not - I do say you have not analysed the causes and are trying to fix the problem.
The same problem applies where you don't analyse the causes of Palestine or the Muslim world in general, unable to explain the causes of decline, and jump to try "fixing" problems.
Maybe you can explain your analysis of the causes? There is then a possibility of agreeing on a way forward...

MuslimBroJust saw this video, very interesting.

There's 5 parts to it:

Very poor - pushing the BNP bogeyman to scare us into voting!

Nobody believes myths like these unless you are extremely naive!

I was referring to the various scholars and speakers who talk about voting in general.

Tre Azam is no scholar by any stretch of the imagination - and anyone who watched him on Apprentice would see him as a disgraceful loud foul mouthed joker whose only claim to fame in life is he appeared on tv! Non-Muslim Asians came across much better and were a credit to their communities!

Anonymous1You violate a basic maxim in Islamic law - Quran is for all mankind - where it criticises non-Muslims for something, the same prohibition applies to Muslims - it is not one rule for them and one for us. Thus the rules of ruling by kufr mention non-Muslims, but Muslims are prohibited from ruling by kufr too.
One should not confuse examples and their constituents to restrict texts - texts are general to all mankind.

I "violate" it while you talk about rulings in the qur'an... when the verses there are observances. read you post again:

There are many Qur'anic verses which have clearly set out this truth. For example, the saying of God the Exalted, "most people do not understand", "if you were to follow most of those on the earth, they would lead you astray from God's path" (Quran 6:116) "We did not find in most of them any (reliability in their) pacts and we, indeed, found most of them unrighteous" (Quran 7:102) "most of them are ignorant." (Quran 6:111) and for this reason, God said, "Ask the People of Admonition if you do not know." (Quran 16:43)”

This is not referring to the Muslims.

Anonymous1Tre Azam is no scholar by any stretch of the imagination

I don't know who he is and I don't care really, but this is the technique you use to somehow get 100 people to be the majority of the Ummah. Dispicable.

Anonymous1

You

Anonymous1

Youerm... probably. I just asked someone else "rememeber that hadith? what was it?" on Tribune but the arabic words there seem to be following the same.

Why?

Because the hadith does not translate to what you have translated, it has problems according to muhaditheen, the subject matter is not what you have alleged...

That's why I ask if it is the same hadith.

If it is the same hadith, it is absolutely disgusting how you are twisting sayings of the Prophet(saw) to match your incorrect notions!

ok, what does it mean then? and throwing up (false?) disgust does not mean that you are not wrong.

Your translation
“Allah will never allow my Ummah to unite upon misguidance and incorrect beliefs. Allah’s mercy, blessings and protection are with the largest group of Muslims. And he who deviates from this largest group of Muslims will be thrown into Hell.” (Tirmidi)

روى الترمذي في الجامع من حديث ابن عمر رضي الله عنهما أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قال: إن الله لا يجمع أمتي على ضلالة , ويد الله مع الجماعة و من شذ شذ إلى النار .
Allah will not gather my ummah on dalalah (kufr/misguidance) - and the hand of Allah is over the political community (jamaa'a) and whoever segregates will be segregated in hellfire (Tirmizi)

erm... where did the word political come from in that translation? was it conjuerd out of thin air or is it from fabrication land?

Anonymous1Elements of the hadith are disputed by muhaditheen even including tirmizi himself and more recently albani who excludes the latter bit.

More importantly, the hadith is talking about the political community who is the one united under one imam and prohibits segregation and division thereof as it means violation of the bayah and splitting the state - something endorsed in numerous traditions.

An assertion with no proof. Is this another of your "there is no other tax allowed in Islam" moments?

Anonymous1It has nothing to do with following majority opinion on matters, as scholars throughout history have issued opinions at odds with majority opinions and adhered to them - I have yet to see any scholar use this narration when arguing that truth rests with the majority opinion and it must be followed - Ghazali argued that truth is not with majority or minority, but with the evidence! Many scholars cite evidences like the following which make it clear truth is not with numbers but evidence and argument -

[Iblees] said: 'By Your Might, then I will surely mislead them all, except your chosen slaves amongst them.' (Quran 38: 82-83)

irrelevant as the jama'ah is not "all of humanity" but the largest group of Muslims.

Anonymous1"if you were to follow most of those on the earth, they would lead you astray from God's path" (Quran 6:116)

Irrevelant, same reason as above.

Anonymous1"We did not find in most of them any (reliability in their) pacts and we, indeed, found most of them unrighteous" (Quran 7:102)

Irrelevant, same reason as above.

Anonymous1"most of them are ignorant." (Quran 6:111)

I would suggest the same reason as above, but before then, there is a need to read the context which you have not provided with the verse and it could be talking about anything which would be found through context.

Anonymous1There will never cease to be a small group (taai'fah) from my Ummah clearly upon the Truth until the Hour is established. (Muslim, Tirmidhi, Ibn Maajah and Haakim)

This actually supports what I had said.

Anonymous1Allah will say, 'Bring out the people of the Fire.' Adam will say, 'O Allah! How many are the people of the Fire?' Allah will reply, 'From every 1,000 take out 999.' (Bukhari)
Whoever seeks Allah's pleasure at the cost of the majorities' displeasure, will win the pleasure of Allah, and Allah will cause men to be please with him. And whoever seeks to please the majority at the cost of Allah's displeasure, will win the displeasure of Allah, and Allah will cause men to be displeased with him. (Ahmad)
I was shown the Hell-fire and that the majority of its dwellers are women. (Bukhari, Muslim, Tirmidhi, Nasai, Ahmed)

Irrelevant as they are not about the Jama'ah.

Anonymous1Abdullah ibn Masood(ra) said: "Be with the jama'ah (the Haq) even if you are by yourself."

Abdullah ibn Masood(ra) said: “The jama’ah is the Quran and the Sunnah even if you are all alone.”

“The jama’ah and the group refers to the people of truth. Even if there may be only one of them in this entire world, they will be referred to as the jama’ah and the group. When only Abu Bakr (ra) and Khadijah (ra) embraced Islam, they were the jama’ah while the rest of the world apart from them and apart from Rasulullah(saw), were those who were against the jama’ah and were separated from the jama’ah. There is no difference whatsoever among the ulema regarding what we said in this regard.” (Ibn Hazm)
“Look at the wonderful words of Abu Shamah in his book al Hawadith wa al Bida’, with regard to the order to hold on to the jama’ah. “It means clinging to the truth and following it even if those holding onto it are few while those opposing it are many. This is because the truth was always what the first jama’ah was on from the time the Prophet (may Allah send peace and salutations upon him) and the Sahabah (may Allah be pleased with them). This is irrespective of how large the number of those involved in innovations (ahl al bida’) may be.” (ibn al-Qayyim)

Irrelevant as the jama'ah will exist according to an earlier section of your post til the end.

Anonymous1Amr ibn Maymum al Audi said: “...I remained in the company of one of the most intelligent people, Abdullah ibn Masood (ra). I heard him saying: ‘Hold on firmly to the jama’ah because the hand of Allah is on the jama’ah.’ Then one day I heard him saying: ‘There shall rule over you such rulers who will delay the salah from its appointed times. You should therefore offer salah at its appointed time which is compulsory salah. You should then offer the salah with them [at the time appointed by the rulers] for it will be the optional salah for you.’” Amr ibn al Maymum says: “So I asked, O companions of Muhammad [saw], I do not know what you are saying to us.” Abdullah ibn Mas'ud (ra) asked: “What do you mean?” I replied: “You are ordering me to adhere to the jama’ah and encouraging me to follow it. And then you are telling me to offer my salah individually despite it being the compulsory salah, and to offer salah with the jama’ah which is and optional salah?!” He replied: “O ‘Amr ibn Maymun! I thought that you were the most intelligent person in this village. Do you know what the jama’ah is?” I replied: “No.” He said: “The jama’ah is what confirms to the truth even if you are all alone.” In another narration, the words are: “He then struck me on my thigh and said: ‘I am disappointed with you. The majority of the people have left the jama’ah. Surely the jama’ah is that which concurs with the obedience of Allah.”

Irrelevant and seems like obfuscation as the leader is not the jama'ah. Even if the leader does some wrong, the jama'ah will not accept it.

Anonymous1Nu’aym ibn Hammad said: “If the jama’ah degenerates you should hold on to what the jama’ah was on before it degenerated, even if you are all alone. For you are the jama’ah at such time.”

Irrelevantr as you quoted a hadith mentioning how such a time will not arise.

Anonymous1(A time will come) when there will be people standing and inviting at the gates of Hell. Whoso responds to their call, they will throw them into the fire... I said, `Messenger of Allah (saw), what do you suggest if I happen to live in their time?' He said, 'You should stick to the main body of the Muslims and their leader' I said, 'If they have no (such thing as the) main body of the Muslims and have no leader?' He said, 'Separate yourself from all these factions, though you may have to eat the roots of trees until death comes to you and you are in this state.' (Muslim)

So you should avoid factions. Like the HT maybe. or the Al Muhajiroon who broke away from the HT when they considered the former to be too soft.

Anonymous1There will be after me calamity upon calamity and so he whom you see leave the Jama'ah or wishes to cause separation in the matter of the Ummah of Muhammad - then kill him whoever he is, for certainly Allah's Hand is with the Jama'ah, and certainly Shaytaan is with the one who leaves the Jama'ah, urging him on. (Nasai, Ibn Hibbaan)

Backs my point.

Anonymous1"One who found in his Amir (the ruler of the true Islamic state; which is absent today) something which he disliked should hold his patience, for one who separated from the main body of the Muslims even to the extent of a handspan and then he died, would die the death of one belonging to the days of Jahiliyya." (Muslim, Bukhari)

Wait, weren't you the one that said the leader should be challenged and replaced if he does something wrong?

Anonymous1Professor Mutawalli is representative of such views when he said:
“In Islamic affairs, numerical majority is not the criterion of truth, for the Qur'an has repudiated any such idea. There are many Qur'anic verses which have clearly set out this truth. For example, the saying of God the Exalted, "most people do not understand", "if you were to follow most of those on the earth, they would lead you astray from God's path" (Quran 6:116) "We did not find in most of them any (reliability in their) pacts and we, indeed, found most of them unrighteous" (Quran 7:102) "most of them are ignorant." (Quran 6:111) and for this reason, God said, "Ask the People of Admonition if you do not know." (Quran 16:43)”

Refuted earlier as it does not talk about the jama'ah, but also includes non Muslims in the figuring here.

You

Anonymous1You violate a basic maxim in Islamic law - Quran is for all mankind - where it criticises non-Muslims for something, the same prohibition applies to Muslims - it is not one rule for them and one for us. Thus the rules of ruling by kufr mention non-Muslims, but Muslims are prohibited from ruling by kufr too.
One should not confuse examples and their constituents to restrict texts - texts are general to all mankind.

I "violate" it while you talk about rulings in the qur'an... when the verses there are observances. read you post again:

You violate basic juristic maxims - you are limiting Quranic verses that condemn following the majority - provide the proof that they are limited to the kuffar.

One has to simply look at one example today - most Muslims do not pray - is it permitted to follow them? According to your logic, yes!

Most women do not wear the hijab. Is it permitted to follow them? According to your logic yes!

There are many Qur'anic verses which have clearly set out this truth. For example, the saying of God the Exalted, "most people do not understand", "if you were to follow most of those on the earth, they would lead you astray from God's path" (Quran 6:116) "We did not find in most of them any (reliability in their) pacts and we, indeed, found most of them unrighteous" (Quran 7:102) "most of them are ignorant." (Quran 6:111) and for this reason, God said, "Ask the People of Admonition if you do not know." (Quran 16:43)”

This is not referring to the Muslims.[/quote]

The principle in these verses is clear - truth is not with minority or majority - truth is with the evidence and argument! There is no proof that truth is with majority - and you're resorting to fabricating/mistranslating hadith on the subject is proof of that.

That is why Abu Bakr(ra) rejected the views of the majority and decided to fight the tribes that refused to pay zakat. Omar(ra) rejected the views of the majority regarding the lands of Iraq.

Youerm... where did the word political come from in that translation? was it conjuerd out of thin air or is it from fabrication land?

Let's compare the Arabic with both our translations - and see who has been fabricating?

روى الترمذي في الجامع من حديث ابن عمر رضي الله عنهما أن رسول الله صلى الله عليه و سلم قال: إن الله لا يجمع أمتي على ضلالة , ويد الله مع الجماعة و من شذ شذ إلى النار .
“Allah will never allow my Ummah to <> upon <>.
Allah’s <> are with <>. And he who deviates <> will be thrown into Hell.” (Tirmidi)

1. The word unite is not used in the hadith. The word yajma' gather is used.
2. The words misguidance and incorrect beliefs are not used - the single word dalala is used.
3. The words mercy, blessings and protection are not used. The word yadd is used.
4. The words largest group of Muslims is not used - the word jama'a is used.
5. The words from this largest group of Muslims are not used at all.
6. The words will be thrown is not used.
7. The word Hell is not used - the word naar is used.

Allah will not gather my ummah on dalalah (kufr/misguidance) - and the hand of Allah is over the political community (jamaa'a) and whoever segregates will be segregated in hellfire (Tirmizi)

The word jama'a is the body politic of the Muslims - the people who are lead by one Imam. Thus its translation is correct supported by evidences:

...He ﷺ said, "be with the Jama'atul Muslimeen under one imam" he asked, "and if there is no Jama'ah?" he ﷺ said, "do not be with the deviants, even if you bite the trunk of the tree until you pass away." [Muslim 1847, Bukhari 6557]

"There is going to be after me calamity after calamity, whoever you see leaving the Jama'ah, or wants to divide you when you are united under the Jama'ah, kill him whoever he is, Allah’s hand is over the Jama’ah, the Shaytaan is far from the Jama’ah running together." [Nasaa'I 3954]

You

Anonymous1Tre Azam is no scholar by any stretch of the imagination

I don't know who he is and I don't care really, but this is the technique you use to somehow get 100 people to be the majority of the Ummah. Dispicable.

Nope - I don't have to bring foul mouthed unqualified youth from the street to prove voting is haram - those who argue it is permitted (people like you!) use him!

Who are you going to bring next? Enemies of Islam like Ayaan Ali? Blair? Bush?

And yes, what happened to that list of hundreds of scholars you claimed? Is Shakey Tre on there? Or are they all still in deep hiding? Like the Shiite Imam? Maybe they're keeping each other company? LOL

And by the way, stating not relevant to evidences provided does not mean they are not relevant. It shows you are so ignorant that you cannot even put an argument together to refute them. This is really the most degenerate argument I have ever come across!

But then again, how can you reply? You've confirmed you have no qualifications or serious study of Islam. You set out to prove that we should follow the majority - as it is like "democracy"!!! - by lieing about what the Prophet(saw) said, and in your defense could only whine how you found it on some site and was there anything wrong with it? LOL

even with your tweaked meaning of the hadith... does it still not say the same thing? Gid will not gather the Muslim Politicial community (if you will) on dalalah.

Meaning if they get together and choose a leader, it will be the right one?

Youeven with your tweaked meaning of the hadith... does it still not say the same thing? Gid will not gather the Muslim Politicial community (if you will) on dalalah.

Meaning if they get together and choose a leader, it will be the right one?

There are a number of potential interpretations on each aspect of the hadith. For example, does the hadith have one subject matters or two (your questions assumes it is one subject matter); is it referring to credal matters only (as it appears to with the term dalalah) or additional matters; how is one forbidden to separate from the jama'ah etc

Additional evidences are necessary to pin one out of a number of potential interpretations on this narration.

Your take on this narration, regarding following the majority, is problematic as the narrations starts by saying Allah will not gather my ummah on misguidance/kufr and then continues to talk about not separating from the political community which is sacred as Allah's hand is over them.

If some ummah follow one view and others follow another view, how does one decide which to follow? The hadith provides no answers for that. Other evidences must be sought. And other evidences imply one should listen to the argument - eg Tufayl ibn Daus's experience with the Quraysh and the Prophet; Musab ibn Umayr's experience in Medina with the Ansar etc Too many examples, ayaat etc indicate Muslims should listen to an argument, if is correct follow it, if it is not discard it. Thus all the classical scholar's (excluding modern scholars) I have read have reiterated a similar notion - there may well be an alternative view and if there is I'd be interested to read it.

This view is clouded by western political philosophy where they believe collective decisions based on majorities have value - Muslim political thinkers have regularly challenged these views but some appear to agree with this philosophy trying to reconcile it with Islam...