'Support your Muslim brother - whether he is right or wrong'?

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

Taqabbalallahu minna wa minkum - Eid Saeed to everyone in the forum!

on a serious note, there are many Muslims who are saying nowadays that we must support our Muslim brother, whether he is right or wrong, especially when involved with non-Muslims. So for example, there are Muslims who stand by all the actions of Muslims whether they believe that actions to be halal or haram. this has serious implications. For example, many Muslims now blindly support bin Laden and acts done in the name of islam such as 9/11 etc (regardless of whether bin Laden supported these acts or not)... on to other matters, Muslims would now refuse to hand-over a fellow Muslim to the police.

scenario 1: while those 'loyal' to bin laden and co make 70 excuses for them - they attack other Muslims, scholars or otherwise, for not supporting them!

scenario 2: if your Muslim neighbour was selling drugs, and you had warned huim several times, yet he continued - the result of which young Muslims and non-Muslims were increasingly taking to drugs in the community and leaving syringes and needles around - would you call the police? (assuming you had tried your best to correct him in every other way)

scenario 3: i know an influential islamic leader in America who sponsors arab students to come to America and study, and warns them that they must leave the country before their visa expires - naturally, many of them decide to stay, try and get married to stay - and consequently the authorities constantly come to him and ask him where they are and what he knows of them. in this situation, should he give the non-muslims as much information as he can or hide the whereabouts of now illegal immigrants?

it would be interesting to see what people's opinions are about this, and how it relates to the concept of wala and bara...

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

O you who believe! be maintainers of justice, bearers of witness of Allah's sake, though it may be against your own selves or (your) parents or near relatives; if he be rich or poor, Allah is nearer to them both in compassion; therefore do not follow (your) low desires, lest you deviate; and if you swerve or turn aside, then surely Allah is aware of what you do. [Qur’an 4:135]

Ibn Kathir says: Allah commands His believing servants to stand up for justice and fairness and not to deviate from it, right or left. They should not fear the blame of anyone or allow anyone to prevent them from doing something for the sake of Allah.

"(or your parents, or your kin,)" means, even if you have to testify against your parents and kin, do not compromise for their sake. Rather, give the correct and just witness even if they are harmed in the process, for the truth presides above everyone and is preferred to everyone. Allah's statement, (So follow not the lusts, lest you may avoid justice;) means, let not desire, lust or the hatred you have against others, lure you into injustice in your affairs. Rather, stand for justice in all situations. Allah said; (And let not the enmity and hatred of others make you avoid justice. Be just: that is nearer to piety) when the Prophet sent `Abdullah bin Rawahah to collect the tax on the fruits and produce of the Jews of Khaybar, they offered him a bribe so that he would go easy on them. He said; "By Allah! I have come to you from the dearest of the creation to me (Muhammad), and you are more hated by me than an equivelent number of apes and swine. However, my love for him (the Prophet ) and hatred for you shall not prevent me from being just with you.'' On that, they said, "This (justice) is the basis which the heavens and earth were created.

Help one another in goodness and piety, and do not help one another in sin and aggression; and be careful of (your duty to) Allah; surely Allah is severe in requiting (evil). [Qur’an 5:2]

Ibn Kathir: Allah commands His believing servants to help one another perform righteous, good deeds, which is the meaning of `Al-Birr', and to avoid sins, which is the meaning of `At-Taqwa'. Allah forbids His servants from helping one another in sin, `Ithm' and committing the prohibitions. Ibn Jarir said that, "Ithm means abandoning what Allah has ordained, while transgression means overstepping the limits that Allah set in your religion, along with overstepping what Allah has ordered concerning yourselves and others.''

And do not incline to those who are unjust, lest the fire touch you, and you have no guardians besides Allah, then you shall not be helped. [Qur’an 11:113]

Ibn Kathir: Ibn Jarir said that Ibn `Abbas said, "Do not side with those who do wrong.'' This is a good statement. This means, "Do not seek assistance from wrongdoers, because it will be as if you are condoning their actions (of evil).

It is narrated on the authority of Tariq b. Shihab: It was Marwan who initiated (the practice) of delivering khutbah (address) before the prayer on the 'Id day. A man stood up and said: Prayer should precede khutbah. He (Marwan) remarked, This (practice) has been done away with. Upon this Abu Sa'id remarked: This man has performed (his duty) laid on him. I heard the Messenger of Allah as saying: He who amongst you sees something abominable should modify it with the help of his hand; and if he has not strength enough to do it, then he should do it with his tongue, and if he has not strength enough to do it, (even) then he should (abhor it) from his heart, and that is the least of faith. [Muslim]

on the other hand, may Muslims use the following evidences to support their opinion:

''The Muslim is the brother of Muslim he neither oppresses him, nor does he fail him.." (Muslim).

"Whoever protects the honour of his brother, Allah will protect his face from hell on the Day of Judgment." (Ahmad and Tirmidhi).

"Help your brother whether he is the oppressor or the oppressed" [Bukhari, Muslim]


firstly, in response to those who use the hadith above, the full hadith continues with the sahabah asking the prophet (s):

but how can we defend him if he is the oppressor?" He said, "by stopping him." (Bukhari and Muslim).

furthermore:

The Prophet (saw) said, "If you see my Ummah afraid of addressing the oppressor as an oppressor, then bid farewell to it." (Ahmad, Tabari and Al-Hakim).

as for not failing your Muslim brother, i cannot believe that this refers to the one committing injustice, nor can i see how one can protect the honour of someone who commits injustice. injustice has to be corrected, whether by a Muslim or a non-Muslim.

while we live in this land, at times we have to resort to using kuffar against Muslims e.g. the police - because there is clear benefit for the Muslims at large e.g. the drug-dealer must be stopped. if the Muslims can't do, then the non-Muslims must using their law...

[Mossy]

That 70 excuses thing often get's overemphasised - it's not even a hadith, although people sometimes say it is..

I'll give my input on this when I get home tonight insh'Allah.

[faqir]

Asalamu alaykum,

On a similar subject I think that one of the few articles by Sh. Abdal qadir al sufi [murbitun] that I have actully found useful was the one regarding the MCB's call to Muslims to hand their brothers in to the cops - if I find it I'll post it.


Wasalam.

[faqir]

Hukum on England's Future by Shaykh Dr. Abdalqadir As-Sufi

http://www.shaykhabdalqadir.com/phtml/modules.php?name=Sections&op=viewarticle&artid=21

[Muawiyah]

I really like much of what the Darqawi shaykh has to say, in political matters at least. though i don't understand this "amr mania" in a sufi shaykh, that's something one would expect from "qutubis" or Ikhwani types.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

actually the concept of amirate existed well before Sayyid Qutb or even Hasan al-Banna. If you read the books of Shaykh Uthman dan Fodio, one of which the Murabitun have translated, there is ample reference to it.

in fact Morocco still has a traditional baya' system, and the king is called 'amir al-muminun'... and ALL the sufi scholars of the land pledge their allegiance to him...

also, many of the sufi descendants of Shaykh Uthman dan Fodio, who migrated to Sudan (i think) also live by this system...

it is a positive step towards establishing Islam, i must admit.

[faqir]

Asalamu alaykum bro SpS,

How do you think the article by the shaykh fits in with your questions?

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

ok, i'll have to read it again properly... give me some time

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

i remember reading this article now - and liked it. as for how it relates to the above, well i agree that the Muslims have wrongly been asked to police the ummah. however, while this is in itself wrong - the article specifically does not address the above questions/scenarios.

i do like the end of the article though:

For this transformation it only requires the Muslim community to enter the mainstream of life and let the dynamic of the ‘new English’, the Muslims, impose itself naturally. End import brides. The men must marry into the community. Reside among the larger community. Do Da’wa. Guide the people back to a morality that has Divine authority so that they understand that the terrible plague of child murder and sexual assault does not occur out of a vacuum but rather because, since they have made everything else permissible, that remains the one thing forbidden. Such is the nature of man that he will always desire the forbidden. The abolition of just social and behavioural impositions have destroyed any possibility of marriage, therefore honour and fidelity, since these must be abolished in order to free up the populace to find consolation in consumerism.

To achieve the desired end, a new polity in Britain, the sublime language of Urdu must become an active element. In current world usage the first language is English. The second is Chinese. The third is Urdu. At a time when the European Commission of the EU is declaring that it will be necessary for the enlarged EU to have one common language it is clear that it can only be either French or German. Urdu, by contrast, is already the lingua franca of the Muslims. Also, Urdu teaching of the Deen has not, as in Arabic, been contaminated by Carey’s reformist fantasies. A vitalised programme of teaching Urdu must be put into effect, and also offered to the post-christian masses.

Islamic Gold Dinar and Silver Dirham, and fulus, must be introduced into local market trading. Currency of choice must be seen as a basic necessity, and there is no freedom without it. There may be a few who think this is not possible. They have failed to see that the affair is already far advanced. Only ghetto-isation and government-sponsored ‘official spokesmen’ of the Muslims stand in the way. It is not an accident but a social reality that the basic food of the masses, in Scotland and Northern England in particular, is no longer what it had been since 1945, but is now curry. There are now thousands of curry houses across Britain, every city has several, and many a small town has one or two. There is even a large Good Curry Guide to GB.

A change in cuisine is a transformation of culture.

Now the language-to give people back a rich self-expression. Urdu.

And along with this-Da’wa.

We, the Muslim British, who will bring the Other British into Islam, will also introduce Islamic real currency, and abolish VAT, and other unjust taxes. The motto of the Murabitun who first made Islam a European religion in Andalusia, was-and is-

Da’wa to the Haqq.
Establish Justice.
Abolish Unjust Taxation.

[Ansari]

Not wearing a suitbelt would also be considered a sin right?

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

'we wear seatbelts not because the kufr law tells us to, but because islam would tell us that we must observe safety on the road'

...that is the explanation i have heard. (same with observing traffic lights)

[Mossy]

as salamu alaykum

'we wear seatbelts not because the kufr law tells us to, but because islam would tell us that we must observe safety on the road'

...that is the explanation i have heard. (same with observing traffic lights)

I've heard it's a bidah. No lie.

This taps into a larger problem facing muslamics in the West however. Clearly by being citizens of the state, we have an obligation to them just as they have an obligation to us - it is a legal contract of trust that we have drawn up in terms of our citizenship rights, benefits etc. We are free to practice the required elements of our religion and the law in almost all cases does not constrict this on a personal level. Why all the hatin' then?


To achieve the desired end, a new polity in Britain, the sublime language of Urdu must become an active element.

Huh? Urdu is the sublime language? :o

The cuisine revolution was mostly driven by Bangladeshi Shyletis - the urdu speaking peeps in Britain generally tended to medicine or factory work. I can say that Bangla, while nice, isn't really a sublime language..

Anywho, back on point. Our definition of right and wrong is delineated by our understanding of Islam based which is derived from the framework of fiqh within which we work. Hence if an individual is wrong, he is clearly working outside of this framework and thus engaging in an impermissable activity. Therefore, there is no honour in this activity and indeed it becomes incumbent upon us to stop it (hand, mouth, mind etc) as appears to be the positions of most scholars.

Scenario 1: Legitimate scholarship indicates that the murder/direct targetting of civilians is impermissable. Hence outside of Islam. Hence this action/incorrect belief is subject to "permissable" gheebah and rectification must be sought in addition to educating your brothers and sisters on the correct position. In addition, there is the context of extra harm being inflicted upon the Ummah as a result. 3,000 died in the WTC. This action gave the ideal excuse for the direct invasion of Afghanistan which led to the death of countless brothers and sisters in a disproportionate, but entirely predictable action. Bin Laden clearly saw that this reaction would occur and still engaged in it - I'm not sure of the hukm relating to this, but by 'eck it ain't good..

Scenario 2: The individual is engaging in haram activities both upon himself and others. The individual in question is clearly a transgressor who is actively damaging (accordant to the Shariah) others. It is incumbent upon you to do what you can prevent this action as a transgression upon the rights of others, following on from words to actual action. In addition, your obligations to the state with regards to your civic responsibilities agreed upon when you took citizenship come into play, and indeed his civic responsibility too.

Scenario 3: I suppose this directly relates to what position the individual holds on the responsibilities of a muslim in honouring a contractual obligation and the rights of a country upon him as a result. A visa is a contract which the individuals in question have broken and he is obliged to fulfil the obligations of the State in co-operating with these individuals who have broken contractual obligations. The mitigating factor would be a consideration of the "ladder of harm/haram" I suppose/extreme need.

In weighing up any action, it'll be somewhere on the ladder between absolutely recommended/great to absolutely haram/not so great (eg shirk). There is the principle that one is allowed to engage in haram without punishment under extreme need and when one must engage in haram, the "lesser" of the two harams should be undertaken.

Someone should quantify these and put them into a computer program. ;)

Hence in each case I suppose the muslim would have to look to his madhab and the relative seriousness of each case - for example, if one of the individuals in scenario 3 would be killed when he returned to his home country, then that would muddy waters somewhat as he was engaging in a permissable breach of contract to save his own life.. Non?

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

subhanallah! well-explained.

[Hypermodestmuslima]

The explanation of the Hadeeth is there...and the Prophet (SAW) has done so...assist the oppressor by holding his hand...and assist the oppressed by seeking justice for them (meaning moreorless)

I think Rasulullah (SAW) gave the explanation quite clearly...so no need for difference here is there?

It is an interesting note that the additional explanation was not added with the Jahiliyah arabs who did not explain this and took the LITERAL meaning.
(Raheeq al Maktum)

[Ansari]

as salamu alaykum

'we wear seatbelts not because the kufr law tells us to, but because islam would tell us that we must observe safety on the road'

...that is the explanation i have heard. (same with observing traffic lights)

:salam:

The explanation i've heard it, is that you have to follow the rules of your country.

Mufti Muhammad ibn Adam also basically says the same:


Working as a cab driver without acquiring the proper license would not be permissible for various reasons:

a) It may entail lying to the authorities;

b) Deception;

c) Violating the law of the country;

d) Presenting one’s self to disgrace and possible arrest, which in itself is prohibited.

http://www.daruliftaa.com/question.asp?txt_QuestionID=q-18054715