Jamia Hafsa: 'when I zoomed his picture..as if he were smiling'

[ChotooMotoo]

Obviously you didn't read the first acticle carefully enough. If the law is not against shariah, there is no harm in it, and the you must follow the law. It's as clear and simple as that.

---------------
Will you please explain ayah 5:44? A scholar here said that it meant if a Muslim leader didn't judge by shariah law, then he does an act of kufr.


Assalam alaykum

Allah Most High says in Sura al-Ma’ida, ‘And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed then they are the disbelievers’ (5:44) and in the next verse says, ‘And whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed then they are the oppressors’ and two verses later the same statement is repeated but this time ends with, ‘then they are the corrupt’.

The question naturally arises, what do these verses imply? Is anybody that acts contrary to the revelation a disbeliever as he has acted by other than what Allah has revealed? This was certainly the interpretation of the Khawarij, a sect in early Islam that declared sinners to be disbelievers and fought with the Sahaba and killed some of them. The Sahaba and the Sunni scholars that followed them did not hold this view in the light of the very clear hadiths that as long as one’s belief is sound one is a believer, sinful though one might be. So what, then, is the context of these verses?

Imam al-Sawi in his supercommentary on the Tafsir al-Jalalayn says,

([Allah’s] saying ‘and whosoever does not judge by what Allah has revealed then they are the disbelievers’) This was revealed concerning Quraydha and Banu Nadir [two Jewish tribes in Medina]. When somebody from Banu Nadir would kill one from Quraydha he would pay half of the due blood money but when somebody from Quraydha would kill somebody from Banu Nadir he would pay the full blood money and thus they changed what Allah had revealed to them in the Torah. (Hashiya al-Sawi ‘ala al-Jalalayn, 1:248, ‘Isa al-Babi al-Halabi)

So does this verse only apply to the Jews as the entire context of these verses is regarding judging in accordance with the Torah and the Bible? The exegetes of the Qur’an have differed about this. Imam al-Alusi in his tafsir mentions from ibn ‘Abbas, Abu Salih, ‘Ikrima and al-Dahhak- all early commentators of the Qur’an- that these verses apply specifically to the disbelievers and not to the believers. (Ruh al-Ma’ani fi Tafsir al-Qur’an al-Karim wa al-Sab’ al-Mathani, 6:146, Dar li Ihya al-Turath al-‘Arabi)

Many commentators, however, do hold that these verses apply to the believers as well, as in the general principle mentioned by Imam al-Sawi, ‘Every verse revealed concerning the disbelievers applies by extension to the sinful believers’, (Hashiya al-Sawi ‘ala al-Jalalayn, 1:248) as well as the other well known principle, ‘the consideration is for the generality of the wording not for the specific-ness of the circumstances’ (ibid, 1:207) meaning that one looks to what the verses imply without limited their application to just two Jewish tribes in Madina. This latter opinion also does not imply disbelief for someone that acts contrary to the rulings of Islam.

Al-Hakim, ibn Mundhir and al-Bayhaqi all relate in their respective hadith collections from ibn ‘Abbas that he said concerning the first of these three verses, ‘It is not a kufr that takes one out of the religion. It is a kufr less than kufr.’ Likewise it has been related from ‘Ali ibn al-Husayn that he said, ‘It is a disbelief not like the disbelief of associating partners with Allah, and a corruption not like the corruption of associating partners with Allah, and an oppression not like the oppression of associating partners with Allah.’ These statements imply that the word ‘disbeliever’ here is used figuratively and not actually. Such figurative usage, to exaggerate the seriousness of a particular crime, is not uncommon to the texts of the Qur’an and the hadith.

Allah says in sura al-Nisa, ‘And whosoever kills a believer intentionally then his recompense is hell dwelling therein forever’ (4:93), and in sura al-Baqara, ‘Allah has permitted trade and forbidden usury, so whosoever should be reached by an admonition from his Lord and refrains should have what has preceded and his matter rests with Allah and whosoever returns [to devouring usury] then they are the denizens of hell dwelling therein forever’ (2:275). The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him and give him peace) said ‘The one who carries tales between people to worsen relations between them (al-Nammam) will not enter Paradise’, and he said ‘None of you believes until he loves for his brother what he loves for himself’, the outward purport of which implies that somebody that does not love for his brother what he loves for himself is not a believer.

Sunni scholars are unanimous that sins do not take one out of the fold of Islam due to the many very clear statements of the Prophet (Allah bless him and give him peace) that clearly state that no one who dies a believer will dwell eternally in hell. All such statements therefore from Allah and his Messenger that might seem to go against this basic principle are therefore to be understood in a different light. Among the possible interpretations of such statements is that these punishments are for the one that believes such acts to be lawful for that unanimously takes one out of the folds of Islam and necessitates for one an eternity in hell. According to this the verse is therefore to be understood as, ‘whosoever rules by other than what Allah has revealed believing that what he is doing is permissible will dwell in hell forever’, and ‘whoever kills another believer believing that it is permissible will dwell in hell forever’, and ‘whoever devours usury believing it to be permissible will dwell in hell forever’. Another possible interpretation is that this is the recompense that one would deserve for these acts themselves were it not for Allah’s mercy in delivering all believers from an eternity in hell. (ibid, 2:207)

We can conclude therefore that it is not correct to call anybody a disbeliever based on the outer purport of some Qur’anic verses without first consulting the books of tafsir and the scholars of fiqh. Calling other believers disbelievers is a grave matter and should not be taken lightly. Should there be a difference of opinion amongst scholars that a certain act renders people disbelievers, we are not permitted to call people who commit such an act disbelievers. Finally we can also observe that single Qur’anic verses can not be taken out of context and applied so easily. We must refer to all of the Qur’anic verses and hadiths on a particular topic as indicated by the Qur’anic verse, ‘Do you believe in a part of the book and disbelieve in a part?’.

May Allah guide us to the proper understanding of His book and bless us with a good ending to our lives.

Sohail Hanif

[ChotooMotoo]

I ask you again: why do you follow the rule of law in Brittain which is most certainly a kaffir country which is most certainly not under shariah law in the least... but you are against folllowing the rule of law in Pakistan, whose government is 99% Muslim, and the law of the land is based on Shariah for the most part? Based on the articles I posted, you cannot declare whomever you like as apostate simply because they don't implement your exact interpretation of Shariah law. You can't unilaterally declare that the entire government of Pakistan in Kaffir and therefore all those laws, which are for the most part based on Shariah, are suddenly null and void. You are making a broad assumption of their faith. Did you see into their heart? How do you know that they have all abandoned Islam? The MMA is a part of that government, and they also pass laws, are you declaring that every single member of that body is also apostate? Those are some pretty big presumptions. You need to be really careful about declaring someone apostate, especially someone you have never even met.

Indeed, it seems we follow two different interpretations of Islam. To say that mine is not the same as the one sent down by Prophet Muhammad (saw) is a huge presumption which you are not allowed to make. I follow very mainstream scholars. The usual juristic method is to follow the majority ruling on things. I believe that I follow the majority ruling. From my point of view, you follow a very narrow minority view of things. Scholars have warned against this for ages. From my point of view, you are more likely to be in error than I am.

Also, I try and give people the benefit of the doubt. While your views of things are very strong, I try and control myself, and not do things like call you name, declare you apostate or things like that. If I have a disagreement with you, I try and show you my point of view. If you still don't agree, then we have to agree to disagree. There are a lot of issues on which scholars disagree, and they don't decalre eachother apostate based on disagreements. Neither you nor I am scholars. If they don't declare eachother apostate, they who certainly hold more knowledge than either you or I put together, how can you or I call anyone apostate? It doesn't make sense.

I think I've made it abundantly clear that I'm not just making stuff up. There is a sound basis for my belief.

[muslimcrusader]

salam alaykum wrb,

aristocracy, communism,dictatorship,democracy, totalitarianism and the fifty other types of government all have some thing in common. they dont give sovernty to allah swt..which is shirk.. we as muslim must establish the khilafa and live under the sharia which will give back sovernty to god.. as for those who say why cant we live under a dictatorship or democracy.. its quite simple, islam is being underminded and muslims are being suppressed.. we cant follow the sharia lets take for example stealing in the sharia if one is caught stealing than one of his/her hand is cut off but in the west he/she is given a small time in jail or if they know some1 and they have inside connection than they can pay a small fine.. this is not the punishment described by allah as a wajal.. in surah 5 verse 47 the tafsir al jalalayn states We said: So let the People of the Gospel judge according to what God has revealed therein, of rulings (a variant reading of wa'l-yahkum, 'let [them] judge', is wa-li-yahkuma, making it a supplement to that which is governed by the previous verb [ātaynāhu, 'We gave to him']). Whoever does not judge according to what God has revealed - those are the wicked.
and in the same sura verseDo they desire (yabghūn, is also read tabghūn, '[do] you desire?'), [do] they seek, the judgement of paganism, through their deceit and deviation when they turn away? (this is an interrogative meant as a disavowal). Yet who, that is, no one, is better in judgement than God for a people knowing, Him, with certainty? These [people] are singled out for mention because they are the ones who reflect.

these verses along w/several other make it clear to me that sharia needs to be implemented.. allahu alim

[riad19]

Shahnawaz, i have refuted your stand with simple understanding of the seerah. Even if I provide you 100s of refutations, you will not accept them as your arent here to learn, you are here to argue. Equating salah and other daily ahkam with the establishment of shari'ah in an islamic state shows how far your are from the reality. Establishing an islamc state will take years or effort in the proper methodology driven by the teachings in Quran and Sunnah. You dont just wake up one day and declare Manchester to be the new islamic capital. Where as for salah and other ahkam you are simply required to perform them. You dont have to follow a movement to pray salah. You just make wudu and pray. You just have the intention and fast whenever you want to. But just like in salah we duplicate exactly what the prophet (s) had done, when it comes to estbalishing something that will take years of effort, work, dedication in the right effort, we also need to duplicate how the prophet (s) established his state. No one said you need to abandon anything. We all agree on the importance of having a place for muslims, we simply disagree on the methodology used to achieve it.

You have already been brainwashed to think that acts of terrorism is a good thing and the end result will justify the means. Well guess what, in Islam, the end result doesnt justify the means. The means have to be islamicly sanctified actions which is on accordance with the Quran and Sunnah.

I dont know what type of background you come from, but its quite disturbing that muslims like you will preach the message of hatred and violence against innocent people, praise acts of ignorance and destruction, and on top of that make takfir upon other muslims who oppose your stand. Like I said, we will achieve nothing with violence. No one ever does.

What happened with the Danish cartoon incident? The danish newspaper defiled the name of Prophet (s) and what do we do? People like you bit into the message they are trying to portray and respond with acts of violence, riots, destructions, and burning of random places/restaurants that are perceived to be western. In certain countries Muslims went and attacked the American embassy, where Americans had nothing to do with the incident. Even President Clinton recognized that the actions of the Danish newspaper was uncalled for and said the world was on the muslims' side except they blew it for themselves by reacting the way they did.

The problem with our ummah today is that people like you and your movement thinks with their balls instead of thinking with their heads. We all have courage, but unfortunately most people spend their courage in pseudo-islamic causes which actually degenerates the progression of Islam and Muslims.

[riad19]

muslimcrusader said

salam alaykum wrb,

aristocracy, communism,dictatorship,democracy, totalitarianism and the fifty other types of government all have some thing in common. they dont give sovernty to allah swt..which is shirk.. we as muslim must establish the khilafa and live under the sharia which will give back sovernty to god.. as for those who say why cant we live under a dictatorship or democracy.. its quite simple, islam is being underminded and muslims are being suppressed.. we cant follow the sharia lets take for example stealing in the sharia if one is caught stealing than one of his/her hand is cut off but in the west he/she is given a small time in jail or if they know some1 and they have inside connection than they can pay a small fine.. this is not the punishment described by allah as a wajal.. in surah 5 verse 47 the tafsir al jalalayn states We said: So let the People of the Gospel judge according to what God has revealed therein, of rulings (a variant reading of wa'l-yahkum, 'let [them] judge', is wa-li-yahkuma, making it a supplement to that which is governed by the previous verb [ātaynāhu, 'We gave to him']). Whoever does not judge according to what God has revealed - those are the wicked.
and in the same sura verseDo they desire (yabghūn, is also read tabghūn, '[do] you desire?'), [do] they seek, the judgement of paganism, through their deceit and deviation when they turn away? (this is an interrogative meant as a disavowal). Yet who, that is, no one, is better in judgement than God for a people knowing, Him, with certainty? These [people] are singled out for mention because they are the ones who reflect.

these verses along w/several other make it clear to me that sharia needs to be implemented.. allahu alim

hey i am coming to Chicago next month. u wanna sit down at some starbucks and have a face to face talk

[LEGALEAGLE]

It's sad to see muslims hating on each other.

Please desist

If you can't debate without cursing each other then you need to calm down

[Shahnawaz]

For this article I need not address each and every point individually. Rather as is preffered among the scholars of Islam, we should see what our prinicles are.

From what this Scholar has said, it is easy to see that he adheres to the teachings of Irja', irnoically even after knowning of the deviant Khawarij who are at the opposite end of the spectrum. His beleifs (as well as yours by your statement "did you look into their hearts" regarding Musharraf), is that Iman is only beleif in the heart and at most testification of the tongue. This is the belief of the Muji'a. You have, in your attempts to avoid the khawarij extremists, gone to the other end of Irja'.

It is Ijma' of the scholars (therefore the "mainstream") that Iman is the three, the belief in the heart, testification on the tongue and actions, coupled together form Iman.
I repeat, this is Ijma' of the Salaf.

So that would discount his position on this matter, as we don't take from Murji'a rather we are of Ahuls Sunnah, and the Ijma' that we follow is that of the Salaf. They agreed that a persons actions do influence his Iman. So leaving out the Shari'a by a ruler is a sin, and if he does this on an occassion or two, will not render him Kafir. Yet when this is the norm, and the Shari'a laws are generally abandonded then it will reder him Kafir.

Based on the articles I posted, you cannot declare whomever you like as apostate simply because they don't implement your exact interpretation of Shariah law

Yet even if your scholars argue with that, then abadonment is not their only crim of apostacy, rather there are a few others which when coupled together, well only the Murji'a will claim they are still muslim.

Some of these other actions of Nawaqid are:
replacement of it with another law or constitution. This is another act of Kufr, and this issue is not addressed by the Hadith of Ibn Abbass, of Kufr duna Kufr.
Another is the legislation of Laws in complete oppsosition to the laws of Shari'a. E.g. prison sentence instead of the punishment outlined by the Quran or SUnnah.
Third Nawaqid al-Islam of the rulers is in the Mu'alaat, (Allying oneself with the Kuffar). This is also by Ijma' of the scholar an act of Kufr and takes a Muslim out of the fold of Islam.
Arbitration is another issue, because this can only be through Allah and His Messenger, as the Ayah clearly states:O ye who believe! obey Allah, and obey the Messenger, and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger, if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: that is best, and most suitable for final determination. (4: 59).

All of these issues put together, coupled with the fact that we can find none of the obstacles or preventions of Takfir, we are forced by the Aqd of Allah to speak the truth to conclude that the Governments have disbeleived.
Lastly, I really do not know how to procede with this discussion when you are prepared to make comments like the following:

the law of the land is based on Shariah for the most part?

Are you at all familiar with either the Laws of the Shari'a and that of Pakistan, Egypt, Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Bangladesh etc..???
The statement above makes me think you are ignorant of BOTH of the camps.

[ChotooMotoo]

You declare me a deviant, I think you are a deviant. I suppose we will have to agree to disagree. There can be no further argument. I have shown you why I follow what I do from the scholars themselves, not by my own arguments. You have a disagreement with these scholars, who are, I might point out, much more learned than you. They are also much older than you. If you choose to disrespect their ideas, there is nothing I can do to help you.

As for your accusations that I am unfamiliar with the laws of Pakistan. I am not a lawyer. I am well aquainted with people who have studied Pakistani law, and they told me that the law is based on Shariah. They told me that indeed there are few deviations from Shariah. Look at the Hudood ordinances, they are based on Shariah. What is needed in Pakistan is not the creation of new laws, it is the enforcement of already existing laws. The government of NWFP legislated a whole slew of new Islamic laws needlessly, since the laws they drafted were already on the book, and simple enforcement only was required. In this case, the NWFP government wasted time drafting redundant laws when they could have spent that time adressing other issues in the province, like maintaining the roads, improving education, distributing medicine to poor areas etc. The NWFP government is controlled by the MMA, who, if you are unfamiliar with them, a body made up of politicized Mullah's. They have shown in the last 6 years that they are totally incompetent to manage the province. They focused on one thing, and one thing only, make new Shariah laws. They completely ignored existing legislation, they did not enforce the laws, they did not try to decrease corruption. They did not improve the basic infrastructure of the city. Shariah law alone a society does not make. Drafting laws about how women should dress in public is not the only thing a governemtn has to do. Shariah law is not the only necessity for a functioning society.

You have to manage to enforce the laws. You cannot enforce laws if the entire population is unwilling to abide by the law. There is no law and order in Pakistan. People disregard the laws all the time. Corruption is rampant. They will disregard Shariah law as readily as they disregard secular law. They DO disregard Shariah law, look at how many women get raped in Paksitan each day. Is rape allowed in Shariah? No. Is rape allowed under Pakistani law? No. It happens all the time though, and people get away with it. Murder happens all the time too. It is illegal under Pakistani law, and Shariah law. How do you propose to implement the law? In Pakistan today, it would be impossible to implement the kind of Shariah laws you support. The majority of the population would say "why do we need those news laws, our old laws say the same thing" and feel that the Mullah's are forcing them to do somthing unecessary. You can't change the hearts of the people from the outside in. A just society grows from the inside out. If people don't respect justice, if they don't respect the rights of others, the soceity will be unjust and corrupt. What you are suggesting is forcing them against their will, against their rights. You are not respcting their rights, and so even with Shariah, the society will be unjust.

A religious education is not the only necessity for a functioning society either. The society also needs secular knowledge. You need doctors, engineers, plumbers, nurses, electricians, laborers to make the roads, farmers, police officers, soldiers. Islam is not Christianity, it is not a religion of only the spiritual. Islam is a complete way of life. You need then education not just for your spiritual life, but also for your secular life. Hadith books don't teach you how to be a doctor. There is no mention of the best farming techniques to use to improve crop yeild.

You have to take a middle path, something you have shown yourself completely unwilling to do. I have adressed all your arguments. I have given you the arguments of scholars that you have to obey the laws unless it contradicts Shariah. It doesn't matter if the punishment for murder is imprisonment or death. You still cannot go out and kill people. They are still being punished for Murder aren't they? The law of the land did not let them go free.

You have not answered my question as to why you obey the law in Brittian, but don't support obeying the law in Pakistan.

[Shahnawaz]

I'll address your last question first and the the rest. The reason I abide by Laws in Britain is because I have come under them and under obligation to follow them.
Key point: I have sought them out.

The difference between a Muslim living in a Majority kafir country, and that of Muslim lands having Kafir Laws and rulers imposed on them is obvious. I have come with an 'Ahd Aman with the Kuffar of this governemnt and have abide by this 'Ahd or recant.
The ruler of a Muslim Land comes with an 'Ahd to the people that he will judge them with the Quran, and that he too is Muslim. Seeing as though these two conditions are not met, the Kafir Ruler and his Laws are to be rejected and he is to be fought. These are simple Usool and no one will disagree on this issue.

Now, your earlier points indicate that you are not at all sure what we even mean by Shari'a. If you continue with this claim that Pakistan's laws are also Shari'a I will have to cease this conversation and ask you to Provide me with your proofs, as this state (which has been repeated by you, even after me ignoring it), is utter nonesense. I also want to get a greater understanding of what you believe Shari'a to be, as only then we can continue this debate.

So please tell me what the Shari'a is, and how Pakistan establishes it? Those are two of the strangest comments I've heard from you and I wish I knew about this mis-understanding of yours earlier, as it would have saved alot of time.

Just as a side note... all of your comments on establishing and enforcing laws instead of introducing new ones, and the best ways of introdicing Shari'a, are a different issue. I can address it, but in a different thread as it will divert the direction of this discussion.

[ChotooMotoo]

Shahnawaz said

I'll address your last question first and the the rest. The reason I abide by Laws in Britain is because I have come under them and under obligation to follow them.
Key point: I have sought them out.

The difference between a Muslim living in a Majority kafir country, and that of Muslim lands having Kafir Laws and rulers imposed on them is obvious. I have come with an 'Ahd Aman with the Kuffar of this governemnt and have abide by this 'Ahd or recant.
The ruler of a Muslim Land comes with an 'Ahd to the people that he will judge them with the Quran, and that he too is Muslim. Seeing as though these two conditions are not met, the Kafir Ruler and his Laws are to be rejected and he is to be fought. These are simple Usool and no one will disagree on this issue. .

I never said that Pakistan's laws were Shariah laws, they are based on Shariah laws. In some cases, Pakistan's laws are the same as Shariah laws.

Muslims in Pakistan aren't having kafir laws imposed on them. Even though the military government has suspended the constitution, the laws applied are the same ones that the democraticallly elected Muslim government drafted. The court system still works (as marginally as it ever did). Musharaff did not invent a whole new legal code. Muslims drafted those laws, and continue to draft new laws. The constitution is irrelevant when it comes to issues like the right to kidnap people, the right to murder someone, to steal, to dress innapropriately. You still must obey the laws.

Sorry to derail the thread with my other ramblings.

[Shahnawaz]

So if you admit that they are a mutation of Laws in the Quran mixed with English and American laws, then that is exactly what Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah did takfir on. The Mongol introduction of a mutated version of Shari'a which mixed up Quranic Laws with mongol tribal laws, al-Yasiq, which this great Shaykh concluded was Kufr.

In any case, you mustn't confuse this discussion to only be addressing Musharraf or Pakistan. The abandonment of Shari'a, or its tabdeel (changing) is carried out by the system itself, the system of supposed democracy. This allows Kafir parties to participate and if they are able to dupe the the masses they can rule over them?? Or they can influence the government (say it was the "Islamic party that won") to make changes to Shar'i Laws, thereby making it incomplete.

This system itself is Kufr.

[ChotooMotoo]

Shahnawaz said

So if you admit that they are a mutation of Laws in the Quran mixed with English and American laws, then that is exactly what Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah did takfir on. The Mongol introduction of a mutated version of Shari'a which mixed up Quranic Laws with mongol tribal laws, al-Yasiq, which this great Shaykh concluded was Kufr.

In any case, you mustn't confuse this discussion to only be addressing Musharraf or Pakistan. The abandonment of Shari'a, or its tabdeel (changing) is carried out by the system itself, the system of supposed democracy. This allows Kafir parties to participate and if they are able to dupe the the masses they can rule over them?? Or they can influence the government (say it was the "Islamic party that won") to make changes to Shar'i Laws, thereby making it incomplete.

This system itself is Kufr.

Ibn Taymiyyah is one scholar, who was considered a heretic by many at the time, and is very controversial even to this day. The majority do not hold his view. I showed you my articles, and I disagree with you. I don't think my position is any less valid than yours. It's a matter of scholarly dispute. To say that democracy is Kufr is also not correct, since in Islam rulers are supposed to lead by consensus. Abu Bakr was elected by a consensus of the people to be the first rightly guided Caliph.

I find the ease to which you declare people apostate disturbing. It seems you do not differentiate between a person who is misguided or sinful, and a person who is no longer Muslim.

Your whole argument that you have to follow the laws in Brittian because somehow you were forced to go there under duress is nonsense. You moved from a Muslim land, a place of saftey to practice your religion, where you can pray and give alms where all your religious practices are easy for you... to a kaffir land where all these things are difficult and you face persecution, and every day you are tempted by haram like nearly naked women, music, alcohol etc. When the Muslims made the first hijra to Christian lands, it was becuase in Christian lands they were more free to practice Islam than in Mecca. How can you make Hijra from a Muslim country to a non-Muslim country when the non-Muslim country will persecute you? There are many who would say that your hijra is a false one, that you should rather strive to make hijra to a MUSLIM land where you have a chance to establish Shariah. That is unless you are qadiani or something, in which case your hijra would be understandable since qadiani's are persecuted in Paksitan and Bengladesh. Your argument is the first time I've ever heard anyone argue that you can disregard the law in a Muslim land... but you have to follow the laws in a Kaffir land. It doesn't make any sense at all. Even if the laws are not exactly Shariah, in a Muslim land they still resemble Shariah, they are still close to Shariah, the principle of the law is based on Shariah. Isn't that better than the western laws which are entirely man made? How can you possibly thing that obeying Kaffir laws is better than obeying Islamic ones? Do you even think for yourself before you make these arguments?

I'm done with you. I showed you why I follow what I do. Your refutations did not change my mind. Feel free to comment again, but I doubt I will discuss this with you further. May Allah (swt) but love in your heart for your brothers and sisters in Islam, and open your heart to more than one interpretation. As it sits, the way you interpret things of the 1 billion Muslim on the earth, perhaps only 25 million would qualify as Muslims in your eyes. I find that quite pitiable. May Allah (swt) guide you and make your life easier.

[Abu_Hind]

Shaykh ul-Islam Ibn Tayimiah's fatwa was specific to a time, place and conditions. It doesn't necessarily apply to govts. today for many reason. One main reason is that most govts. do not declare the law 'above' Shari'ah. It's a different issue that they still don't implement Shari'ah, but this only makes them fussaq. Those who use and misconstrue the shaykh ul Islam's words today, he is free of them.

As for your accusations that I am unfamiliar with the laws of Pakistan. I am not a lawyer. I am well aquainted with people who have studied Pakistani law, and they told me that the law is based on Shariah.

You are a person who knows nothing about Pakistan or Pakistani Law, not to mention your contempt for Shari'ah. I also know people who are well-versed in Pakistani Law. It does say in word that the basic sources of Pakistani Law are Qur'an and Sunnah. However, in reality this is not the case, most of Pakistani Law's corpus has nothing to do with either Qur'an and Sunnah. So please make sure what you're talking about. If you don't then shutup.

Ibn Taymiyyah is one scholar, who was considered a heretic by many at the time, and is very controversial even to this day.

Ittaqillah! O woman with the black tongue. What do you know about Ibn tayimaih? What do you even know of his works? Do you even know what it means to be called 'shaykh ul islam'? The Late Mawlana Abul Hassan Ali Nadwi devoted an entire chapter the size of a book to Shaykh ul Islam Ibn Tayimiah in his celebrated work "The Saviors of Islamic Spirit". This is just a little glimpse of what scholars have said about the Shaykh ul Islam.

Indeed many other major scholars like al-subki had very harsh words for Shaykh ul Islam. Even then, those who criticized him and declared him an innovator and so on, still recognized that he was a great scholar. Only the extremists held great contempt for him, however this does not come as a surprise when seen in historical context. Asharis have always hated Hanbalis and vice versa.

But here comes an imbecile like you who niether knows much about Shaykh ul Islam, nor his opponents. Not to mention that you are a mere layman. And it is not your prerogative to declare an 'Aalim a HERETIC! La Hawla wa la quwatta illa billah! However the contempt and hatred with which you declare him a heretic comes as no surprise. I think it's about high time that you paid heed to the Prophetic advice, "Speak a good word or remain Silent'. Or as it has come to us in another hadith 'man samatan najja'; 'whoever remained Quiet has been Saved'.

May Allah forgive us all.

[Abu_Hind]

As for Jamia Hafsa folks, their efforts were doomed as have been other efforts the like of theirs before them. Abu Eesa discusses why this is the case:

The Price of Sharī‘ah
Abu Eesa Niamatullah

The recent spate of trouble and civil strife witnessed in the Muslims lands associated with the call for the absolute implementation of Sharī‘ah has once again thrown the theological and sociological arguments for applying Islam’s political system under the spotlight.

It is from the creed of the Muslim to accept that Islamic Law (Sharī‘ah) implemented in its complete and more importantly correct sense is the most just and perfect system to deal with all the affairs of mankind, in every sphere possible, and indeed is a collective obligation upon the Muslim nation. Unfortunately though, one witnesses extreme views/reactions from some Muslims with respect to this creedal matter, caused in the main by the prevalent Capitalist socio-political climate, often referred to nebulously as “the West”.

The first extreme response manifests itself as a liberal and rather ignorant strain of Islam which one guesses is due to the (no doubt real) pressures within society and the media in the Secular lands (and increasingly in the Muslim lands too) to conform to a “moderate Islam” of their own making, hence leading for example to baseless statements by prominent Muslims such as that “it would be permissible to have a Sharī‘ah state ruled by a non-Muslim elected in by democratic vote.”

Naturally, such a legal position does not exist in the Islamic tradition, and illustrates the extremes that some have fallen into with respect to their valuation of Sharī‘ah – a petty and badly informed estimation.

One can maybe think of excuses for such a statement of politics, for it certainly has nothing to do with Islamic theology, yet one is concerned that the materialism we enjoy so much here in the Western lands might be starting to have an ideological impact upon our beliefs – bluntly referred to as “selling-out” by some – yet at the very least, exhibiting the extreme behaviour that sits in stark contrast to the other group of Muslims that have fallen into error in this issue.

This then leads to that other extreme position – indeed the more dangerous of the two – which is based on the belief of paying any and every single price for the establishment of Sharī‘ah law, without exception – this is the call which we have witnessed in recent times of some Muslim groups taking up arms against the state and/or other entities in response to undoubted aggression, tyranny and provocation.

And why is it more dangerous? To understand this better, we can return to the classical theological debate amongst the early Muslim community about which sect was the more destructive: the extremely liberal Murji‘ah or the extremely conservative Khawārij – it is widely accepted that the deviance of the Murji‘ah is easy to spot and the general Muslims will always avoid those who are clearly watering-down their religion whereas the Khawārij always attract sympathetic support because as succinctly described by the Prophet (upon whom be peace) they are so ultra-religious in their acts of worship, particularly in those areas that the majority of people are often lacking (such as prayer) and thus wish they could themselves personally improve in, and hence this characteristic makes them far more dangerous as the general people are easily beguiled into their methodology and miss the harm of their misguided religiosity.

Likewise, some of the modern groups calling for political Islamic revolution or involved in pockets of armed resistance, often with much detriment caused to the majority as has been seen in recent times, also share a few of the same mistakes of those with extremist ideology.

The solution, as always, lies in the education of such protagonists with respect to their ideas and beliefs, as per the authentic sources of Islam, as understood by the rightly guided scholars of Islam, according to the current time and context of our Islam.

From the onset, one must understand that the Sharī‘ah is part of Islam but Islam is not just Sharī‘ah. There is no doubting its importance with respect to the absolute application of the divine Will of God on Earth, but this is only one aspect of Islam and certainly not the “be-all and end-all” – many people spend their entire efforts on implementing the Law on everyone else whereas the Qur’ānic narrative clearly prioritises the self first and then the rest of the community based on one’s ability.

And it is ability which is the key concept missing from the methodology of our brothers and sisters when we witness their attempts to establish Sharī‘ah at all costs. Many people talk about its establishment (theoretically here in the West) and more practically in the Muslim lands yet it is beyond their capacity to do it in their respective societies. The question must be asked why become busy with that which cannot be done whilst neglecting that which can be done, such as studying the religion deeply, giving da‘wah, working on ones conduct and manners etc as opposed to getting involved in that which is not their priority?

[Abu_Hind]

One must also remember that to implement Sharī‘ah carries that all-important political dimension and thus will appeal to a lot of people but it can likewise be misused – like when the Khawārij said to ‘Ali (may God be pleased with him), “The Law is only for Allah!” to which he replied, “A true word, but with false intent.”

Hence, we should all be aware that the call for Sharī‘ah is an attractive slogan but the intention behind it could be false and therefore intentions, preparations and the right people for the system must be perfected first before trying to go for the big target of establishing a universal system of justice and law upon those who are not ready for it.

Preparations are emphasised here because a lack of them can lead to disastrous consequences as we have seen for of course the price of Sharī‘ah is very high i.e. it certainly does not come at any cost – God asserts in His Final Testament that no soul is burdened more than it can bear, and His Final Messenger Muhammad (upon whom be peace) stated that one’s ability to change the external condition is paramount before attempting that change. This therefore requires knowledge, wisdom, ability, power, support of the powerful and influential and the support of the public – referred to as the ‘asabiyyah or ahl’l-‘aqd – before one can realise ones intentions in a fruitful and more importantly, Islamically correct fashion.

It is pertinent here to quote the great historian and anthropologist Ibn Khaldūn (may God have mercy upon him) from his seminal work al-Muqaddimah, under the chapter “The Religious Movement without Popular Support Will Not Succeed” after discussing the struggles of Ibn Qusayy al-Sufi and his Murābitūn against Christian Spain and the later entrance of the Muwahhidīn:

“As we have said before, everything that the nation wants implementing will require powerful popular support (al-‘asabiyyah) – as was mentioned in the authentic Hadīth that “Allah did not send a Prophet except that he was protected by his people”; if this is the case for the Prophets who are supported by miracles, then what then of those who can’t do anything in general without popular support? …

… Likewise, the way of the common people and scholars wishing to enact revolution to change the prevalent evil (in society) - indeed most of them who were practising and followed the system of Islam, adopted a methodology to stand against the people of injustice calling for a change in the evils (seen) and then its prohibition, and the enjoining of good whilst seeking the reward for it from Allah. As a result, their followers increased as well as their imitators from the foolish and simple folk; they subjected themselves to catastrophe and most of them died in this way in sin and not rewarded because Allah had not obligated that upon them; indeed He has commanded for that to be only done where ability is present as the Prophet (sallallāhu ‘alayhi wa-sallam) said, “Whoever amongst you sees an evil then let his change it with his hand; if he is unable then by his tongue and if he is unable to do that then in his heart.” The positions of States and Kings are deeply rooted and strong and cannot be shaken except by a strong determined effort which is backed by the power of tribes, groups and popular support as we mentioned before.

And that is the way of the Prophets (‘alayhim’l-salātu wa’l-salām) in their call to Allah with their use of groups and tribes, although they are supported by Allah by the entire Dominion if Allah wants, however He has made such issues run according to the laws of nature and Allah is All-Wise, All-Knowing.

So, if someone follows this methodology, even if he is upon the truth, he will be weakened if he doesn’t have powerful popular support and he will fall into a deep hole of destruction. As for those whose intention is simply to gain leadership then those people are most susceptible to face hardship and be destroyed because the command of Allah cannot be achieved except with His Pleasure and His Help and sincerity to Him and sincerity to the Muslims. No Muslim should have doubt about it, and no other sane person should have any doubt about it either…” (al-Muqaddimah, 148, Maktabat’l-Asariyyah)

The fact that the establishing of absolute Sharī‘ah at this present time is not achievable due to our collective weakness should not deter those Muslims who wish to see true justice and mercy again in their own lives and the lives of their fellow human beings – one is not “in a state of sin” during this time of weakness as incorrectly stated by some but we should still be working to build the foundations of a strong and unified community to deal with the future as it unfolds for us.

Likewise for us here, it isn’t our aim to establish Sharī‘ah in the West; the Muslims have failed to do this in those lands in which they are the majority so then what false illusions are Western Muslims creating for themselves here in the non-Muslim secular lands?

Our emphasis should remain with the reformation in character of our own circles and calling people to the Truth, bringing glad tidings to all and safeguarding our religion for ourselves and our families – a people who fled from the oppression of the so-called Muslims lands to try and rebuild their lives and Deen.

With the value of Sharī‘ah being so high, the price we ultimately pay for it must be the price that was set by our early founding Muslims based upon knowledge, wisdom and ability – anything else will no doubt result in waste, futility and failure.

The Price of Sharī‘ah « AE