"Monkey See, Monkey Do"

[faqir]

"Monkey See, Monkey Do" - Not An Islamic Ideal

The other day, a friend mentioned that a fellow Muslim had declared that we should be careful about condemning the recent massacre of innocent schoolchildren in Russia by so-called "Islamic militants" because "some scholars" have issued "fatwas" (non-binding legal opinions) that such operations are sometimes acceptable under Islamic Law. They then referenced part of a Qur'anic verse which basically means, "… then whoever transgresses the prohibition against you, you transgress likewise against him." (Qur'an 2:194). Essentially, this is the age old "an eye for an eye" legal maxim that dates back to not just the Old Testament, but to the Code of Hammurabi as well. While this maxim might be rightfully employed in individual cases of justice, using it to justify mass murder and collective punishment is quite a stretch. Being informed that a Muslim in my community adhered to such shoddy logic rather shocked and disgusted me even though I'm well aware of the half-baked and ethically shallow justifications of suicide bombing espoused by some Muslims. In spite of that, being ambivalent about the massacre of innocent schoolchildren seemed to expose a moral depravity that's sunk to all new levels. It's not that this simple-minded and morally confused Muslim was a rabid militant; far from it. What scared me was the fact that they would so quickly and uncritically surrender their morality—indeed their basic human dignity—simply because of the existence of a "fatwa" by some unnamed "scholar".

I'd like to take this opportunity to announce to the ladies and gentlemen of the Muslim Ummah, just in case they haven't heard: We've got a moral and spiritual crisis on our hands. No, it's not a conspiracy theory, a Zionist-Crusader plot or atrocities being carried out by Mossad agents dressed up like Muslims. There's no real need for elaborate conspiracies, since if they want to bomb us, murder us and rape us, the past few decades have shown that they can do this with near impunity in full view of the entire world community. In spite of some grave historical injustices, Muslims must take most, if not all, of the blame for the current crisis and only Muslims can provide a long-term and viable solution to this problem within our house. The time for finger pointing is over. Like it or not, we have militant extremists within our midst who are out there committing the most horrendous acts of barbarity in the name of Islam—and we have far too many Muslims living right under our noses who aren't even sure if such acts are wrong. Indeed, some of them have been bamboozled into thinking such criminal acts are Islamically sanctioned. It's high time that we, as an Ummah, snap out of this Freudian denial stage and start dealing with this problem ourselves. If we don't, somebody is going to do it for us—and it ain't gonna be pretty. It's gotten ugly already. Let's all recognize that being patient with ignorance, humble in the face of stupidity and tolerant of legitimate scholarly differences of opinion are one thing, but endorsing complete moral depravity is quite another. Yes, believe it or not, the mass murder of innocent schoolchildren is completely unlawful in Islam; nothing justifies it. The fact that this even needs to be explained to members of our Ummah speaks volumes about the state we're in. This shouldn't be taken to mean that I'm unaware of the genocide that Russia has been carrying out in Chechnya. Indeed, they've killed far more innocent women and children than Islamic militants ever have. However, the Russians are not our teachers and it's not their example that Muslims are supposed to follow. Our methodology is not "monkey see, monkey do", but rather the unassailable moral high ground of our noble Prophet—may God bless him and grant him peace.

On that note, a discussion of the classical understanding of Qur'an 2:194 is in order, since this is one of the verses that the extremists use to justify their murder and mayhem. No doubt, the first thing we should do when we come across someone using a Qur'anic verse as a blunt instrument is turn to the classical exegesis of the verse and see how qualified Islamic scholars have understood it in the past. It should come as no surprise that neither al-Tabari, Ibn Kathir, nor al-Qurtubi, who are three of the greatest scholars of our rich hermeneutical tradition, mention anything in these verses that could be used to justify the acts that were recently committed in Russia. Even a cursory look at Qur'an 2:194 reveals that it essentially provided a dispensation for fighting in the sacred months, months in which fighting was normally forbidden. This verse in no way opens up the door for going to extremes—which is also strongly condemned in Islamic Law—and ignoring God's limits.

It's reckless to assume that a dispensation for fighting under certain conditions negates all of the other Islamically mandated rules of warfare, but this is seemingly what the extremists believe. A much more coherent understanding of this dispensation to fight is that if attacked, one can fight during the sacred months but only in an Islamically lawful way (i.e. no killing of non-combatants, women, children, etc.) Indeed, the Qur'an is quite clear that there are limits that are not to be transgressed (Qur'an 2:190 and 5:87), and these limits are made quite clear in the noble Sunnah. A useful analogy can be drawn using the verse which allows Muslims to eat the food of the People of the Book (i.e. Jews and Christians). Upon hearing this Qur'anic ruling, do we assume that all other previously mandated dietary prohibitions are thereby suspended in regards to the food of the People of the Book, so that we can drink their wine and eat their pork? Certainly not. However, this is essentially what the militant Jihadis are doing with Qur'an 2:194.

Not only is their logic flawed, but they seem to lack even a basic understanding of the Prophetic way, which is to be patient while enduring injustice, gentle in the face of harshness and merciful whenever possible. If our methodology in life is just to return the harm of whoever harms us, we're no better than a bunch of animals. Instead of striving to be the "best (religious) community raised up for mankind" (Qur'an 3:110), these days Muslims seem to be struggling to avoid being one of the worst. What happened to the spiritual state (hal) of the Companions, the mere site of whom would cause people to embrace Islam? What happened to the noble chivalry (futuwwa) of Saladin that earned the respect of the Crusaders? What happened to the magnanimity shown upon the conquest of Mecca? If contemporary Muslim Jihadists conquered a disbelieving city, does anyone think for a moment that they'd even consider showing a drop of the mercy that the Prophet—may God bless him and grant him peace—so graciously employed in such abundance? Recent events have clearly demonstrated otherwise. If bloody revenge was ever justified, it was when the young Muslim community was first being established in al-Madinah and the very existence of Islam was at stake, so why now? Reflect on that…

So what are the limits if this Pandora's Box is opened that says we can do to "them" whatever they do to "us"? If they rape, kill and mutilate our little girls are we going to do the same to theirs? To me it's shocking and despicable that we even have to explain such things to seemingly God-fearing Muslims. We seem to be plagued by a tendency to rip a single Qur'anic verse out of context and then build an entire methodology upon it—complete with simplistic understandings and shallow interpretations. In regards to massacring Russian schoolchildren, ostensibly in revenge for crimes that the Russian government and army have undeniably committed, the Jihadi militants seem to conveniently forget about Qur'an 53:38. This verse establishes a moral principle that is well known in Islam, which is that "no bearer of a burden shall bear the burden of another". Take that into consideration before someone dupes you into thinking that killing innocent people, much less children, can somehow be justified as an act of revenge. Unfortunately, we also have Neanderthal pundits, commentators and non-Muslim religious leaders here in America that endorse the one-sided and baseless Qur'anic interpretations of these Muslim extremists. They want to convince the world, or at least the American people, that such extremist interpretations are inherent to Islam. Once a monolithic Islam is identified as the problem, rather than an aberrant interpretation of it, they can justify their bloody campaigns against a largely innocent Muslim community. Ironically, in adopting the same heretical school of Qur'anic interpretation as Osama Bin Laden, they seek to justify the very atrocities that they claim to abhor—but that's a topic for another day.

No doubt, Muslims are facing a deep spiritual crisis. Islam has been hijacked and turned into an ideology in pursuit of worldly success instead of a religion meant to purify the soul and focus one's life on Almighty God. That's really the jist of it, I feel. The key to winning the so-called "War on Terror" is winning the war on ignorance. By equivocating the "War on Terror" label, I hope it's obvious, based on what's already been stated, that I don't deny that there are "Muslim terrorists" out there. Rather, like many people, I'm rather cynical about the conduct of what so far has been a rather selective war on terrorism. Indeed, a blind-eye is being turned to other great atrocities in the world and problems that cost far more human lives are being ignored. In the hands of ideologues who seemingly believe that military force can solve many of the world's complex problems, the "War on Terror" has been expanded to include not only countries that are seemingly uninvolved, but carried out in gross violation of the very international laws that the terrorists are guilty of violating. Unfortunately, we live in an age where well-intentioned criticism is often considered un-patriotic—especially when coming from a Muslim. Being a good citizenship these days seems to mean shutting up and climbing on the bandwagon. Critical thinking and moral courage seem to be in short supply. Finding a semblance of them is as tough as finding an honest man in Congress. We only hope that our attempts to understand the motives for a crime are never understood to be endorsements of it. In order to develop reasonable, coherent and viable solutions to the plague of ignorance and extremism that we're facing, we need to study the sources, context and motives behind the crimes. Simple solutions are bogus solutions, and most of the tough problems facing the human race can't be solved by using military force.

As a God-fearing and morally upright community, we've got to join together and bring our resources to bear in order to refute with a vengeance these extremist "Protestant Muslims" and their flaky "Do-It-Yourself" religion that has cast aside over 1,400 years of peerless scholarly tradition. In this undertaking, it's crucial that we stay balanced, moderate and true to our blessed tradition. We don't want to come across sounding like a bunch of limp-wristed peaceniks that condemn violence in all forms and preach that Islam only teaches peace. Rather, we need to explain the high moral standards of our faith; that it is a religion that primarily emphasizes not only the infinite mercy of God but encourages mercy between all human beings. Indeed, Islam condemns terrorism, murder, hijacking, kidnapping, taking the law into your own hands and so on. None of this is compromised by the fact that we also have a "Just War" theory which is extremely similiar to the ones advocated not only by various churches, but by international law as well. Our beloved Prophet was sent as a mercy to the worlds (Qur'an 21:107), so we have to save Islam from the reckless few that have made a large part of humanity feel that it's a scourge rather than a blessing. Pray hard…




posted by A. R. Squires @ 3:27 PM

http://www.muslim-answers.org/Rants-Raves/rr-toc.htm

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

nice article, especially the reference to the famously used ayat.

another ayat used by the jihadis is an earlier ayat in baqarah:

"O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty." [Qur'an 2:178]

while all the classical (and contemporary) commentators apply this verse correctly to the capital punishment cases - i.e. in individual cases. in other words, the verse is not used in cases of Jihad or on the battlefield.

furthermore, we must look at the life of the prophet (s) and see that nowhere did the prophet (s) undertake tit-for-tat revenge attacks, especially on innocent civilians - just because the kuffar attacked muslim non-combatants.

[Abdur_Rahman]

The other day, a friend mentioned that a fellow Muslim had declared that we should be careful about condemning the recent massacre of innocent schoolchildren in Russia by so-called "Islamic militants" because "some scholars" have issued "fatwas" (non-binding legal opinions) that such operations are sometimes acceptable under Islamic Law.
:salam:

Please refer to the Killing Children link :insh: for their justification

http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/showpost.php?p=26096&postcount=3

[faqir]

as salamu alaykum

nice article, especially the reference to the famously used ayat.

another ayat used by the jihadis is an earlier ayat in baqarah:

"O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: the free for the free, the slave for the slave, the woman for the woman. But if any remission is made by the brother of the slain, then grant any reasonable demand, and compensate him with handsome gratitude, this is a concession and a Mercy from your Lord. After this whoever exceeds the limits shall be in grave penalty." [Qur'an 2:178]

while all the classical (and contemporary) commentators apply this verse correctly to the capital punishment cases - i.e. in individual cases. in other words, the verse is not used in cases of Jihad or on the battlefield.

furthermore, we must look at the life of the prophet (s) and see that nowhere did the prophet (s) undertake tit-for-tat revenge attacks, especially on innocent civilians - just because the kuffar attacked muslim non-combatants.



:salam:

Another one is 16:126 (And if you punish, then punish them with the like of that with which you were afflicted.) (16:126)

[Azzam]

This issue is not as simple as it is implied here.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum brother azzam,

your posts are incredibly vague.

[Sunni_Student786]

I do agree with much of what the author of the original article has said, but to me, when an individual(s), after talking about what Jihad is not, talks about what Jihad TRULY IS, almost as an after thought, they lose a lot of credibility with me.

A person who devotes an equal amount of their time to telling us what Jihad is and what it is not is one whom I will choose to listen to, not those lap dogs of the Kufaar who basically imply that there is no valid military Jihad
being waged by the Muslims anywhere in the four corners of the World.

May Allah give such people the punishment that they deserve.

[ahsanirfan]

I must disagree with you. Here you are thinking only in linear mode. You are forgetting that people like A. R. Squires are Muslim ambassadors to the non-Muslims. And as such, they need to act with a little caution. Jihad being a senstitive topic can be quite emotive. If we were to primarily focus on military Jihad, no doubt the anti-Muslim lobbies would juggle that around, and as such add to an atmosphere of fear already present. We need to exercise caution in this age. Any pro-military Jihad material is more likely to work against the general Muslim populace in the West, no matter how "daring" it may be. People like Daniel Pipes, who have a huge problem, and a huge backing, will most likely take advantage of such material, to prove their patheic arguments. We do not want to endanger our Muslim brothers in the West.

What comes to my mind right now is the example of Sheikh Hamza. Countless people have criticized him for his relatively pacisifistic attitude towards Jihad. Well, what you do not realize is that you're not in his position. You're not sitting on that hot seat being grilled by a BBC/CNN interviewer. He is looked upon as a spokesman for Islam. And hence his word is THE Islamic word, as far as the viewing audience is concerned. If he says something pro-military, we can be as sure as hell that we'll be frying n Camp X-Ray, the next day.

[Abdur_Rahman]

What comes to my mind right now is the example of Sheikh Hamza. Countless people have criticized him for his relatively pacisifistic attitude towards Jihad. Well, what you do not realize is that you're not in his position. You're not sitting on that hot seat being grilled by a BBC/CNN interviewer. He is looked upon as a spokesman for Islam. And hence his word is THE Islamic word, as far as the viewing audience is concerned. If he says something pro-military, we can be as sure as hell that we'll be frying n Camp X-Ray, the next day.

:salam:

Akhi, my question is that shouldn't hamza yusuf be more upfront in this regards to the aspects of violence, instead of the labelling of being a pacifist?

In terms of being in the hotseat he's well known throughout North America (let alone internationally). CNN/BBC isn't probably not ready for a more upfront individual, therefore hamza yusuf took more of a suttle approach. Also be more vocal about the foreign policies etc.

allahu alim.

[Sunni_Student786]

I must disagree with you. Here you are thinking only in linear mode. You are forgetting that people like A. R. Squires are Muslim ambassadors to the non-Muslims. And as such, they need to act with a little caution. Jihad being a senstitive topic can be quite emotive. If we were to primarily focus on military Jihad, no doubt the anti-Muslim lobbies would juggle that around, and as such add to an atmosphere of fear already present. We need to exercise caution in this age. Any pro-military Jihad material is more likely to work against the general Muslim populace in the West, no matter how "daring" it may be. People like Daniel Pipes, who have a huge problem, and a huge backing, will most likely take advantage of such material, to prove their patheic arguments. We do not want to endanger our Muslim brothers in the West.

What comes to my mind right now is the example of Sheikh Hamza. Countless people have criticized him for his relatively pacisifistic attitude towards Jihad. Well, what you do not realize is that you're not in his position. You're not sitting on that hot seat being grilled by a BBC/CNN interviewer. He is looked upon as a spokesman for Islam. And hence his word is THE Islamic word, as far as the viewing audience is concerned. If he says something pro-military, we can be as sure as hell that we'll be frying n Camp X-Ray, the next day.

Ahsanirfan,

No doubt much of what youa re saying is true, but t hat does not change the fact that there is a military aspect to Jihad and that there are VALID military Jihads being waged in the world today. Anyone who denies this knows not even an iota of fiqh, and this is what seems to be done by implication in the statements of many of our "ambassadors" to the non-Muslim world.

We do not live in the simple day and age where an Alim could use a different approach and or a different choice of words to address a specific audience regarding a specific issue and be relatively confident that the masses would not misinterpret what he/she said and not develop an incorrect understanding. For example, in the old days Ulema spoke to rulers in one manner and to the masses in other, because if htey said certain things to the rulers t hey might have been killed and/or prevented from working with the masses and inculcating in them the correct understanding of Islam.

But these days, when you say ANYTHING in view of the Media, you statements will be read/seen by ALL audiences and each audience will probably draw the same conclusion from your statements. This is the reason why, in my opinion, there are THOUSANDS upon THOUSANDS of Muslims in the West, some of whom I have met, who cringe at the mention of the term Jihad and, either implicitly or explicitly, say that there is no such thing as a Valid military Jihad being waged in this day and age.

It is these same people who, in the same breath that they excommunicate those who are sacrificing life and limb in various military theaters all over the world for the sake of Islam, also tell us not to pray that those who collaborate with the Kufaar against the Muslims (no need to mention names if you have not been living in a cave during the last 3 years) are punished, but that they and Mr. George Bush, slaughterer of innocent Muslims and puppet-master of puppet "Muslim" regimes, is guided.

Again, please do not get me wrong. I know what perspective you are coming from and how you are looking at things, but look at my perspective as well.

In my opinion, much of what you are saying is true in the realm of the theoretical, but I am basing my opinion not just on what I know to be the case theoretically, but practically as well. That is not to say that you have not done the same, but I know that my opinion has been primarily based upon, whereas I do not know how much that is the case on your part.

Regardless, May Allah perish the lapdogs of the Kufaar (Allahs knows better than we about as to who they are, so I will not risk Allah's wrath by falsely branding any Muslim specifically as belonging to the detestable category).

[ahsanirfan]

Those who deny military Jihad no doubt are mistaken. However, if I was in a place where I was to make a comment on military Jihad, I would simply act evasively. When someone says something in the limelight, it does not need to be taken as it has been said. The limelight is dangerous, and as such even those who deny miltary Jihad may have a reason to do so.

About guidance for Bush, I would certainly pray for it. Remember the Habashi that killed Hamza r.a.? Wasn't he forgiven, even though he committed such an atrocity? More certainly, I would pray for a hastened release from chaos for all our Muslim brothers and sisters around the world. There must be a balance.

I have to agree though that sometimes pacisifistic material like this needs to be a little less pacifistic. But I do understand that if this pacifism drops, even tad a little, utter chaos would result.

I don't know how much you are involved in academia, but after having taken bayah with Sheikh Nuh, and having met some smart people, involed in academia, I have certainly come to appreciate the presence of people like A.R. Squires. According to one of my sources (and this is Canada we're talking about, which is already a pacifist country) if it weren't for the presence of people like A. R. Squires, Shabbir Ally, more importantly Syed Hossein Nasr and his ilk, no one, and I repeat, no one, would be able to wear a beard and/or a kufi in university. It wouldn't have been possible. According to one Desi politician here, "Ottawa (meaning the parliament here) does not have a good impression of Muslims."

Since we are here, we have to live here. And we need to make our space a little more breathable. I don't see that happening if we always emphasize the military aspect of Jihad, or indeed if we de-emphasize it's spiritual aspect.

My take is, that there needs to be someone who downplays Jihad, and is "apologetic." I don't think we would be safe without such a presence. We might as well pack our bags and go back home.

[ahsanirfan]

Akhi, my question is that shouldn't hamza yusuf be more upfront in this regards to the aspects of violence, instead of the labelling of being a pacifist?

If you haven't heard him, then you wouldn't know. He HAS been upfront. It's just not on tape. Or maybe it is, but it isn't available widely.

[Sunni_Student786]

Ahsanirfan, I don't think that you read my post carefully enough.


I have to agree though that sometimes pacisifistic material like this needs to be a little less pacifistic. But I do understand that if this pacifism drops, even tad a little, utter chaos would result.

I don't know how much you are involved in academia, but after having taken bayah with Sheikh Nuh, and having met some smart people, involed in academia, I have certainly come to appreciate the presence of people like A.R. Squires. According to one of my sources (and this is Canada we're talking about, which is already a pacifist country) if it weren't for the presence of people like A. R. Squires, Shabbir Ally, more importantly Syed Hossein Nasr and his ilk, no one, and I repeat, no one, would be able to wear a beard and/or a kufi in university. It wouldn't have been possible. According to one Desi politician here, "Ottawa (meaning the parliament here) does not have a good impression of Muslims."

Ends do not necessarily justify means. The means adopted must also be halal. If this particular means/approach is resulting in countless Muslims denying that there are any valid military Jihads being waged in the world today, how can this means/approach be halal/optimal?



About guidance for Bush, I would certainly pray for it. Remember the Habashi that killed Hamza r.a.? Wasn't he forgiven, even though he committed such an atrocity? More certainly, I would pray for a hastened release from chaos for all our Muslim brothers and sisters around the world. There must be a balance..

I have never denied that praying for guidance for a tyrant is a good thing, but what I decried was the fact that people do so in the same breath in which they, by implication, excommunicate those who are sacrificing life and limb in various military theaters all throughout the world for the sake of Islam. That is what I objected to.



Since we are here, we have to live here. And we need to make our space a little more breathable. I don't see that happening if we always emphasize the military aspect of Jihad, or indeed if we de-emphasize it's spiritual aspect..

I have never said that we need to emphasize the military aspect nor de-emphasize the spiritual aspect, but to give each the emphasis that it is given in the Quran and Sunnah. If anything is made fair game in our pursuit to make things more "breathable" for Muslims here in the West, then why not deny the obligatory character of Salat, Siyam, Zakat, and Hijab as well since observing those actions entail difficulty? And if not everything is fair game in this pursuit to make things more "breathable" for Muslims in the West, then by what standard or objective criteria do we judge what is and isn't fair game?



My take is, that there needs to be someone who downplays Jihad, and is "apologetic." I don't think we would be safe without such a presence. We might as well pack our bags and go back home.

How can we be apologetic for, or downplay, Islam? How? Why? Perhaps you should have chosen your words a bit more carefully.

I cannot imagine how a person could call for apologizing for what the deen of Allah has called for. Furthermore, I challenge your assertion that we would not be safe without apologists here in the West.

For myself, the "proof is in the pudding" when it comes to ascertaining the validity/optimality of an approach to this issue of explaning Jihad in the West. The proof that we have seen in the "pudding" is that there are countless individuals who now, either explicitly or implicitly, DENY that there are ANY valid military Jihads being fought ANYWHERE on the face of the earth. ANYONE who thinks this, who has not been living in a cave the last 3-4 years or who is not a "new-age" Muslim would have to have a few screws loose to truly believe in that few.

Ever still frightening is the fact that people now make fun of the term "Jihad" by calling those who call for it "Jihadis" in a way that is quite disparaging. They belittle the term and those who call for its implementation.

Do not get me wrong. I have never said that our Ulema and spokesman in the West should not CONSTANTLY tell people that we as Muslims decry the murder of innocents, Muslims or non-Muslim, that we, as a majority, do not believe in Suicide bombings, and that in the Hadith the "Jihad an Nafs" has been called the "Greater jihad", for this is all true. But we should not hide the truth, especially not from our Muslim brethren, htat there is such a thing as Military Jihad and that there are INDEED military Jihads being fought in the world right now, in this day and age. I am not asking them to name specific areas in which Jihad is being waged, just to acknowledge that they do indeed exist in this day and age as well.

[ahsanirfan]

What makes you think that someone's pacifistic approach is making some Muslims deny the miltary aspect of Jihad. A correlation doesn't necessarily prove a causation. The reason people deny the miltary aspect of Jihad is npot because certain scholars have done so, but because of the shame they themselves have to incur in the public space when the miltary aspect of Jihad is taken to extremes. When extremism happens, scholars (and by this I mean people like A. R. Squires, not the ulema) tend to de-emphasize the miltary aspect, but do not necessarily negate it. The same extemism leads to another extremism, which leads one to deny the miltary aspect. De-emphasizing military Jihad does not lead to people denying Jihad. It's the extemism that causes both.

As for you reference to praying for a tyrant's guidance at the expense of those who suffer because of the tyrant himself, I haven't seen this before. If one article prays for Bush's guidance, that doesn't mean that he is not praying for his brethren's relief. You must understand this, the articles written, and talks given by people like A. R. Squires are under public scrutiny. If you are so intent on criticising them for their approach why don't you offer them help? Or better yet, why don't you start your own agenda? This is what I have been saying all along. There needs to be someone who "plays safe." If there isn't we'll be skinned alive.

In reference to your third point, prayer, zakat, and thingso f that nature are personal business, and more often than not do not interfere with one's life in the public space. The mention of Jihad does. The mention of Hijab also does, which is why a fair amount of literature has to be disemminated to neutralize the negativity towards it. However, Jihad is topic that has consequences that reach further than zakat, salat, or hijab. The public feels threatened. The moment I tell someone I am a Muslim, I can see apprehension in their eyes. I can sense almost immediately that the word "Jihad" is going through their minds. And more often than not, the discussion ends up with Jihad. Not zakat, not salat, not hijab, but Jihad. Because Jihad has consequences for them too. They feel threatened by it.

In reference to your fourth point, I aplogise if my words sounded inappropriate. If you notice the word "apologetic" was in inverted commas. The key word in the sentence was "down play." And I certainly did not mean to imply a negation or an apology of the laws of Allah. Nauzubillah.

What I did try to imply is that the word "Jihad" being an extemely emotive term for anyone, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, makes one feel apprehensive towards a Muslim. If we are to live here, we can't let other people feel apprehensive towards us. This has further reaching consequences than you may think. Material written "apologetically" about Jihad is primarily for a non-Muslim audience. It's for their consumption, not ours. And it's done to save our skins.

As for your challenge, my dear brother, I don't think you have even smelt the stench of pseudo-academia here. These people are powerful. It's not for me to prove my assertion. I see it with my own eyes everyday. I go to university. I hang out in the politics/religious/philosophy department, and I can always smell that stench of hatred towards Muslims. And considering that most of their think-tanks are based at these universities, it would not surprising that one fine day we wake up and the police is rushing towards our houses, apprehending us for no reason. A similar case is already on in the States. Racial profiling is on the rise. If there is one thing that is keeping us alive here in the West, it's the presence of these "apologetics." And it's not just their literature. It's their contact with these think-tanks. And they're not doing it for themselves, they're doing it for us. We can sit here all day rant about "Jihad against the kuffar" but in the end we have to realize that there are certain Muslims "up there" who are trying their best to save our skins. At least that's what their intentions are.

Regarding the "proof in the pudding", when one makes a statement "explicitly" one can be sure that his hands are not in the right place. When one makes a statement "implicitly" it does't necessarily prove anything. As far as A. R. Squires is concerned, if you haven't seen his anti-progressive material, you have no idea what his ideas are. His primary concern is anti-Muslim propoganda, however. And that is what his articles and talks are geared towards. So necessarily they would contain elements which would anger those who are not aware of his stances.

As for those who belittle the term Jihad, I haven't seen anyone do that, least of all A. R. Squires. If you know anyone who does that, let me know. In fact I know he is explicitly made a statement in which he said that he doesn't deny military Jihad. He is often here in Canada, so I would know.

I agree with your last point. But you must distinguish between a gathering which consists solely of Muslims and then a gathering which consists of a mix. Only in a gathering where the primary audience is Muslim can an 'alim makes such assertions, and I have seen, heard rather, Sheikh Hamza do that several times. So far I have only seen the progressive camp belittle the suffering of our brethren in various parts of the world, no one else.

[Sunni_Student786]

What makes you think that someone's pacifistic approach is making some Muslims deny the miltary aspect of Jihad.A correlation doesn't necessarily prove a causation.

Because those people who I know personally who think this way are quite fond of quoting the words of those so-called "ambassadors" of the Muslim faith to validate their view that there is no such thing as a valid military Jihad being waged any where in the world today and that Military Jihad is more of a theoretical possibility than something that can occur in actuality. Furthermore, nearly ALL of these same individuals, before 9/11, never denied that there was such a thing as military Jihad and only changed their views, ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN WORDS, after listening to the "brilliant, thoughtful, and eloquent" exposition of some of our "Ambassadors" about the role of Jihad in Islam.



The reason people deny the miltary aspect of Jihad is npot because certain scholars have done so, but because of the shame they themselves have to incur in the public space when the miltary aspect of Jihad is taken to extremes. When extremism happens, scholars (and by this I mean people like A. R. Squires, not the ulema) tend to de-emphasize the miltary aspect, but do not necessarily negate it. The same extemism leads to another extremism, which leads one to deny the miltary aspect. De-emphasizing military Jihad does not lead to people denying Jihad. It's the extemism that causes both.

In the first part of the paragraph above you speak of people DENYING (emphasis is my own) the military aspect of Jihad, but in the second sentence you say that "scholars" "tend to de-emphasize the military aspect, but do not necessarily negate it". Which one is it? Are they denying or de-emphasizing? Or is it both?

Furthermore, I have never claimed that those "scholars" or "ambassadors" have denied the military aspect of Jihad, but that those who soak up their words tend to come away with that kind of an interpretation of their words, and those people are Muslims. Those Muslims in turn, implicitly or explicitly, DENY that there are ANY VALID military Jihads being fought anywhere in the world today. Read carefully please.



As for you reference to praying for a tyrant's guidance at the expense of those who suffer because of the tyrant himself, I haven't seen this before..

I have. Time and again in my own personal life and on this forum as well. Do a search for threads on topics related to this and you will see what I mean.


If one article prays for Bush's guidance, that doesn't mean that he is not praying for his brethren's relief..

I was not talking about any articles or article writers, but the readers and/or followers of these types of articles and article writers (the most vocal ones that is). Again, read carefully.

As for the fact that praying for Bush's guidance doesn't mean that one is not praying for his brethren's relief, I've never said that, explicitly or implicitly. My objecting was to praying for Bush's guidance in the same breath in which a person is basically excommunicating a Muslim from Islam, explicitly or implicitly. Please read carefully.



You must understand this, the articles written, and talks given by people like A. R. Squires are under public scrutiny.

Yes, as are nearly all articles, speeches, lectures, etc. that are given anywhere other than a person's house, and this "public" includes Muslims. Muslims will draw the same conclusions from the article that their non-Muslim counterparts will, thus you have made my point for me.



If you are so intent on criticising them for their approach why don't you offer them help?.

Who would accept my help as I am a "nobody"? Are not my words being castigated, criticized, and not being given a fair shake on this relatively small forum because I do not have a cult of personality behind me or because I am not an eloquent writer/speaker? How then do you expect me to think that anyone would accept my help?


Or better yet, why don't you start your own agenda?

There is no new for a new agenda to be developed by me. There are numerous people who are doing the right thing, unfortunately, they do not have a cult of personality from before 9/11 to use in order to advance it.


This is what I have been saying all along. There needs to be someone who "plays safe." If there isn't we'll be skinned alive.

I have never denied that we need people who "play it safe", although I think that we differ on what it means to "play it safe". Playing it safe would be to do as I have been suggesting all along: Denounce the killing of innocents (something that is against our Deen) time and again, while explaining exactly what our "Just War Theory" is. How different is this approach from what Mr. Squires took in terms of the amount of time and ink that would be spent in order to do this? Not much. But because people do not do that second part of the approach that I have suggested, we have people like the ones whom I know that now, implicitly and/or explicitly, deny that there are ANY valid military Jihads being waged anywhere in the world today.



In reference to your third point, prayer, zakat, and thingso f that nature are personal business, and more often than not do not interfere with one's life in the public space. The mention of Jihad does. The mention of Hijab also does, which is why a fair amount of literature has to be disemminated to neutralize the negativity towards it. However, Jihad is topic that has consequences that reach further than zakat, salat, or hijab. The public feels threatened. The moment I tell someone I am a Muslim, I can see apprehension in their eyes. I can sense almost immediately that the word "Jihad" is going through their minds. And more often than not, the discussion ends up with Jihad. Not zakat, not salat, not hijab, but Jihad. Because Jihad has consequences for them too. They feel threatened by it.

Despite all that you have written, you have not answered the question that I asked in my previous post, that being, Is anything fair game in our pursuit to make things more "breathable" for Muslims here in the West? If not everything is fair game in this pursuit to make things more "breathable" for Muslims in the West, then by what standard or objective criteria do we judge what is and isn't fair game?



What I did try to imply is that the word "Jihad" being an extemely emotive term for anyone, Muslims and non-Muslims alike, makes one feel apprehensive towards a Muslim. If we are to live here, we can't let other people feel apprehensive towards us. .

But at what price? Is anything fair game in this pursuit to not allow other people to fell apprehension towars us, even confusing the understanding of MUSLIMS about Islam?


This has further reaching consequences than you may think. Material written "apologetically" about Jihad is primarily for a non-Muslim audience. It's for their consumption, not ours. And it's done to save our skins.

But this is the problem. Although it is, most probably, don't to save our skins and meant for the consumption of a non-Muslim audience, it does not usually pan out that way. The Muslims masses in the West consume it in the same way that their non-Muslim counterparts do. To claim that this, for a Muslim, can be balanced out by the fact that they can talk to the "Shuyukh" or "Scholars" in person or in settings wherein they can address a Muslim audience with relatively little fear of speaking the truth, is nonsense insofar as the masses of the Muslims in the West are concerned. The sheer impossibility of this is borne out by the fact that online and through TV hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of Muslims can read/hear the words, intended for a primarily non-Muslim audience, of these "Ambassadors", while a few hundred, or AT BEST, 15-20 thousand (if you count ISNA conventions, which one really shouldn't since the speeches are usually as sanitized as they come) could attend a talk/lecture delivered
by these "scholars" or "Ambassadors" wherein they talk about what Military Jihad truly is. This was also the same point that I was made in one of my original posts wherein i stated that we do not live in the simple times where we could rest assured that the statements that we intended for one audience would only be consumed by them, thanks to the explosion in Modern media. We do live in the "Information Age" afterall.



As for your challenge, my dear brother, I don't think you have even smelt the stench of pseudo-academia here. These people are powerful. It's not for me to prove my assertion. I see it with my own eyes everyday. I go to university. I hang out in the politics/religious/philosophy department, and I can always smell that stench of hatred towards Muslims

I just graduated this past May from Penn State University. For those in the Northeastern United States, they know that the "Stench" of which you speak is as strong as it comes there.



And considering that most of their think-tanks are based at these universities, it would not surprising that one fine day we wake up and the police is rushing towards our houses, apprehending us for no reason.
.

Although what you are saying is true, does that make it OK to disseminate information in such a manner so as to make Muslim confused about as to whether or not there are valid Military Jihads being waged anywhere in the world and, possibly, permanently perverting their view of the issue of Jihad to the point of denial? Furthermore, the fact that Muslims are shaking in their boots from fear of the Kufaar is disheartening to say the least. Is the statement "Fear none but Allah" a motto without substance these days?



A similar case is already on in the States. Racial profiling is on the rise. If there is one thing that is keeping us alive here in the West, it's the presence of these "apologetics." And it's not just their literature. It's their contact with these think-tanks. And they're not doing it for themselves, they're doing it for us. We can sit here all day rant about "Jihad against the kuffar" but in the end we have to realize that there are certain Muslims "up there" who are trying their best to save our skins. At least that's what their intentions are..

Intentions are all well and good, but what about their results? Does the fact, if proven true (which i doubt is the case), that their "apologetics" keep us from being killed make it justified for us to allow them to go on if their "apologetics" are corrupting the understanding of MUSLIMS of Islam?


Regarding the "proof in the pudding", when one makes a statement "explicitly" one can be sure that his hands are not in the right place. When one makes a statement "implicitly" it does't necessarily prove anything. As far as A. R. Squires is concerned, if you haven't seen his anti-progressive material, you have no idea what his ideas are. His primary concern is anti-Muslim propoganda, however. And that is what his articles and talks are geared towards. So necessarily they would contain elements which would anger those who are not aware of his stances...

Ok?


As for those who belittle the term Jihad, I haven't seen anyone do that, least of all A. R. Squires. If you know anyone who does that, let me know. In fact I know he is explicitly made a statement in which he said that he doesn't deny military Jihad. He is often here in Canada, so I would know.

I have not said that any prominent writers have belittled the term Jihad, but that many who are the adamant fans of those writers have. Dare I say one more time, Please read carefully? And if you would like to see someone belittle the term Jihad by calling those who espouse it "Jihadis", simply look through this thread and you'll see at least one incident of that happening. I am sure many more could be found if you search from the www.sunniforum.com archives.


I agree with your last point. But you must distinguish between a gathering which consists solely of Muslims and then a gathering which consists of a mix. Only in a gathering where the primary audience is Muslim can an 'alim makes such assertions, and I have seen, heard rather, Sheikh Hamza do that several times. So far I have only seen the progressive camp belittle the suffering of our brethren in various parts of the world, no one else.

Reread my 12th or 13th paragraph above which begins, "But this is the Problem."

(I spent a little less than an hour writing this, insha'allah it was worth it).

Wa'salaam.

P.S. Please read carefully.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

sidi

i really would like to know who these people are that deny the existence of military jihad?

i also would to know which scholars have said that there is not valid jihad in the world right now?

...and i am talking about traditional scholars.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

<<because those people who I know personally who think this way are quite fond of quoting the words of those so-called "ambassadors" of the Muslim faith to validate their view that there is no such thing as a valid military Jihad being waged any where in the world today and that Military Jihad is more of a theoretical possibility than something that can occur in actuality.>>

i believe a lot of your opinions are based on those around you... i personally listen to traditional sufi scholars, and i didn't come to the same conclusions as you, or your associates. it seems that someone is going wrong somewhere.


also, the books of fiqg talk of offensive jihad, and in great detail, while less space and detail is given for defenive jihad. the former does not exit today - this maybe the misunderstanding? secondly, self-defence is not equated with defensive jihad.

<<Furthermore, nearly ALL of these same individuals, before 9/11, never denied that there was such a thing as military Jihad and only changed their views, ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN WORDS, after listening to the "brilliant, thoughtful, and eloquent" exposition of some of our "Ambassadors" about the role of Jihad in Islam.>>

which ambassadors do you speak of? again, its down to their poor understanding, not the one lecturing.

<<The reason people deny the miltary aspect of Jihad is npot because certain scholars have done so, but because of the shame they themselves have to incur in the public space when the miltary aspect of Jihad is taken to extremes. When extremism happens, scholars (and by this I mean people like A. R. Squires, not the ulema) tend to de-emphasize the miltary aspect, but do not necessarily negate it.>>

i disagree.


<<The same extemism leads to another extremism, which leads one to deny the miltary aspect. De-emphasizing military Jihad does not lead to people denying Jihad. It's the extemism that causes both.>>


i do believe that western islamic scholars, do not speak at great lengths on jihad. you have to understand that these are public figures, they are ambassadors, they are dawah carriers. none of them have lost these principles, they emphasise what is important for muslims in the west. there is absolutely little point in talking at great lengths about jihad to people who are distant from islam and/or not muslim.


<<Furthermore, I have never claimed that those "scholars" or "ambassadors" have denied the military aspect of Jihad, but that those who soak up their words tend to come away with that kind of an interpretation of their words, and those people are Muslims.>>

exactly - the people at fault therefore are those that soak up those words without actually reflecting upon them and seeking to find out more about them.

<<Those Muslims in turn, implicitly or explicitly, DENY that there are ANY VALID military Jihads being fought anywhere in the world today. Read carefully please.>>


again, their mistake - not the ulama.

[ahsanirfan]

Sidi, if a scholars says something and the people interpret it, is the scholar at fault? As far as I am concerned, since they are not negating military Jihad, they are on the right track. It it those Muslim individuals who WANT to misinterpret what they said to make things rosy for themselves.

Right now I am a bit short of time. I'll try to answer your queries as soon as I am free, insha Allah.

[Sunni_Student786]

The belief that a scholar does not bear, AT LEAST, some degree of responsibility, when their words are misinterpreted by lay Muslims has not been the belief of "traditional" scholars throughout our history. This is proven by the fact that the Ulema, in times past and in the present, discourage "kalam" and "aqeedah" discussions in the presence of the ignorant masses because the terminology used, and the points discussed, in these discussions can easily be misinterpreted by them. This dislike of engaging in such discussions, or making public such writings, regarding topics that, in order to be discussed, require the use of vocabulary that can be quite easily misunderstood by Laymen, is not limited to "kalam" and "aqeedah" discussions alone but is also extended to topics such as various aspects of Tassawuf, particularly particular writings, which is why various Ulema refused to teach books such as "Kashful Mahjub" (the first text on Tassawuf written in the Persian language) to the masses. Ibn al Arabi himself is reputed to have said, if my memory serves me correct, that it was impermissible to read his writing unless one did so with a Shaykh. All of the above proves the fact that, IF (and that is a big "IF") it is not absolutely PROHIBITED for one to make statements in the presence of, or through means that will invariably reach, the masses, IT IS STRONGLY discouraged, especially when that "misunderstanding" or "misinterpretation" could entail kufr, which certainly the denial of Jihad would entail. To place the responsibility for the misinterpretation of statements from Ulema squarely and SOLELY on the shoulder of ignorant laymen does not seem to be borne out by the example of our 1400 year tradition.

Regarding which "Ambassadors" of the Muslim faith have been responsible, in my own experiences with people, for using ambiguous, misleading, vague, etc. vocabulary, terminology, expressions, etc. which have led to people, explicitly or implicitly, denying that there are ANY valid military Jihads being fought ANYWHERE on the face of the earth today, there is no need for me to name names. Firstly, to the best of my understanding, it would not be proper adab to do so. Secondly, any Muslim that has followed the words of our "Ambassadors", however well-intentioned, since 9/11, will know who they are, so long as the Muslim remains open-minded and objective and does not get caught up in the cult of personality of any one individual at the expense of the truth.

Someone stated that, "i do believe that western islamic scholars, do not speak at great lengths on jihad. you have to understand that these are public figures, they are ambassadors, they are dawah carriers. none of them have lost these principles, they emphasise what is important for muslims in the west. there is absolutely little point in talking at great lengths about jihad to people who are distant from islam and/or not muslim."

I agree that they do, and should, emphasize that which is important for Muslims in the West. I have never denied this or objected to it. I have never called for an "emphasis" on Jihad. Look through my posts and see if I have ever done so. All I have asked for is, after explaining what Jihad IS NOT, which they do quite frequently and IS something that we need, they do explain what it IS so that MUSLIMS do not walk away with a confused understanding of what Jihad is, which many people do have which has led them to, implicitly or explicitly, DENY that there are ANY valid military Jihads being fought anywhere on the face of the earth today. That is all. I have not asked for anything else.

There is, based on my own experience, a pressing need for that based on what I have observed the most adamant followers of these "Ambassadors" to be espousing, which I have already enumerated in my previous posts and do not think warrant being reiterated yet again at any great length for fear of sounding like a broken record. If you are not clear on what kind of confused, INCORRECT, understandings of Jihad these individuals have developed, go through some of my prior posts on this thread.

Before anyone replies to my post, please read carefully. It seems like no one does that before replying to my posts and, as such, I end up having to clarify the same point 3 or 4 times because no one bothered to read my words carefully instead of putting words into my mouth or answering objections that I did not raise.

Wa'salaam.

[ahsanirfan]

The examples you gave were of kalaam, and this could perhaps be extended to fiqh, or tasawwuf, which has a potential of being misunderstood. As far as what they (the "scholars") are doing, they are discussing none of that. There is no room for misinterpretation, at least I don't think so. Most of these people are not ulema (even though Sheikh Hamza is), and as such their words hold no water when it comes to taking knowledge. They are NOT diseminating Islamic knowledge. Even Sheikh Hamza does not do that in public speeches. There can't be any room for misinterpretation, simply because purely Islamic knowledge, like kalaam, fiqh, tasawwuf, are not being discussed. If someone wants to misinterpret public speeches then that is his problem, not the one who gives the speech. As far as the "Scholr" is concerned, he is making no statement worthy of scholarly consideration, with respect to Islamic knowledge.

As for the point about "vague" comments, I have yet to see something like it. Examples would be nice. :D

The bottom line seems to be that there has to be a trade-off. Either someone de-emphasizes the military aspect in order to save our skins and in the process people start denying jihad, or that someone doesn't neutralize negativity against Muslims, and we all fry.

This brings me to Sheikh Hamza. He made it clear at least twice, in two talks, his views on military Jihad. I have both talks if you are interested (I have one of them for sure.) I quote, "Now I am not denying military Jihad..." or something to that effect, and, "There is a pre-emptive Jihad theory, but..." I don't think that there is any room for mis-interpretation here. If people want to deny military Jihad after such explicit statements from such a bastion, then that's their problem. As for A. R. Squires, I think he has some articles that deal with military Jihad, too. You're better off contacting him personally, who, unlike Sheikh Hamza, is quite easy to get hold of through his website or blog.

[ahsanirfan]

The only people that I have seen who deny any valid military Jihad on earth today are the progressives/moderates/PMUC type cult. Anybody closely associated to Sheikh Hamza, A. R. Squires, Shabbir Ally, (and I am NOT one of these associates, but I do know some) will tell you that they consider valid any resistence Jihad, like that of Kashmir. Sheikh Nuh explicitly, VERY VERY explcitly said in his England Suhba some time back that Iraqi guerilla warfare is definitely valid as per Shafi' fiqh, and this may hint towards the permissibility of Afghani warfare.

Whenever people like Sheikh Hamza or A. R. Squires refer to military Jihad not being valid, they always refer to events that violate human sanctity, which I assume is banned by consensus of the ulema.

They also make a point that "offensive" Jihad is not valid today, simply because there is no khalifa to organize one. And even if there is a khalifa, he hasn't called for such a Jihad.

So if people want to misinterpret that, they can very well do so. That is their problem, not Sheikh Hamza's or A. R. Squires'.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

<<The belief that a scholar does not bear, AT LEAST, some degree of responsibility, when their words are misinterpreted by lay Muslims has not been the belief of "traditional" scholars throughout our history. This is proven by the fact that the Ulema, in times past and in the present, discourage "kalam" and "aqeedah" discussions in the presence of the ignorant masses because the terminology used, and the points discussed, in these discussions can easily be misinterpreted by them. >>

these are matters which have always revolved around debate. traditionally, the masses would leran fiqh from ulama and other sciences and aqida would be very basic....

<<Regarding which "Ambassadors" of the Muslim faith have been responsible, in my own experiences with people, for using ambiguous, misleading, vague, etc. vocabulary, terminology, expressions, etc. which have led to people, explicitly or implicitly, denying that there are ANY valid military Jihads being fought ANYWHERE on the face of the earth today, there is no need for me to name names.>>

....because it can be disproven, as it has been countless times on this message board. there are enough public speeches, CDs etc for ignorant laymen to solve their ignorance.

<<I agree that they do, and should, emphasize that which is important for Muslims in the West. I have never denied this or objected to it. I have never called for an "emphasis" on Jihad. Look through my posts and see if I have ever done so. All I have asked for is, after explaining what Jihad IS NOT, which they do quite frequently and IS something that we need, they do explain what it IS so that MUSLIMS do not walk away with a confused understanding of what Jihad is, which many people do have which has led them to, implicitly or explicitly, DENY that there are ANY valid military Jihads being fought anywhere on the face of the earth today. That is all. I have not asked for anything else.>>

this is what i find most ridiculous. sidi, you have to find a teacher, sit down with him and learn fiqh. you will find that most books of fiqh of all major 3 schools contain a chapter on jihad. they usually contain all the conditions and rules of war.

there are also many specific books available on jihad - these are freely available.

there is an extensive section on jihad in reliance of the traveller, by Shaykh Nuh.

there are many confused muslims out there. i am not blaming the ulama for the people's ignorance. and this is not just on jihad.

and why do you pick on these particular scholars? have a look in your heart and ask what it is that really bothers you about them....

we have plenty of ulama in the west who clearly state what jihad is not, but don't extensively talk about what jihad is.... it is not just confined to the people i believe you are speaking of.

i will also state that many of the western scholars have talked about what jihad is, in great detail.

<<There is, based on my own experience, a pressing need for that based on what I have observed the most adamant followers of these "Ambassadors" to be espousing, which I have already enumerated in my previous posts and do not think warrant being reiterated yet again at any great length for fear of sounding like a broken record. If you are not clear on what kind of confused, INCORRECT, understandings of Jihad these individuals have developed, go through some of my prior posts on this thread.>>

...no, there is actually a pressing need for those ignorants to go and sit with scholars or read books of fiqh. i completely disagree.

the scholars have said enough. if you want finer details, seek it.

[Sunni_Student786]

Below I have tried to respond to the statements of bout "ahsanirfan" and "Shaykhs-Pir Sahib". I am losing my stamina to continue to respond to the same arguments time and again. Anyone who would like to respond to anything said herein, Please do me a favor, for the sake of Allah, and read my words carefully before responding. Do not put words into my mouth nor answer questions/objections that were never raised. Please extend me at least that courtesy. Thus far, on this thread, no one has.


The examples you gave were of kalaam, and this could perhaps be extended to fiqh, or tasawwuf, which has a potential of being misunderstood. As far as what they (the "scholars") are doing, they are discussing none of that.

It's called drawing an analogy.


There is no room for misinterpretation, at least I don't think so.

I will disagree with you. There is certainly room for misinterpretation when one hears the vague, misleading, ambiguous, etc. statements of some of our "Ambassadors" of Islam. If nothing else, the whole "The Word Jihad has never been used in the Quran in military context even once" controversy should suffice.


Most of these people are not ulema (even though Sheikh Hamza is), and as such their words hold no water when it comes to taking knowledge. They are NOT diseminating Islamic knowledge.

Then what do you call telling us what Jihad is not? As anyone knows, Jihad is a topic that is something that is purely an Islamic discipline.


Even Sheikh Hamza does not do that in public speeches.

Then what does Shaykh Hamza do? If he does not disseminate Islamic knowledge in his public speeches, then either I do not know what it means to disseminate Islamic knowledge or you have not chosen your words carefully.


There can't be any room for misinterpretation, simply because purely Islamic knowledge, like kalaam, fiqh, tasawwuf, are not being discussed.

Two points. 1) If there was no room for misinterpretation, how do you account for the controversy that compeled Shaykh Hamza to clarify his statement and to say that the word "Jihad" was not meant in an exclusively military context but that derivatives of the word or "qital" were used to denote war and the like? If his words could not, and were not, misinterpreted or did not cause confusion, why did he clarify that which he said? 2) Is not Jihad, a purely Islamic discipline, being discussed? If so, then what is your point?


If someone wants to misinterpret public speeches then that is his problem, not the one who gives the speech. As far as the "Scholr" is concerned, he is making no statement worthy of scholarly consideration, with respect to Islamic knowledge.

Your statement above does not make sense given the fact that the Ulema did not adopt that approach, i.e. "If someoen wants to misinterpret my public speeches, then that is his problem" when discussing things such as "Aqeedah", "kalam", "Tassawuf", etc. which could easily be misinterpreted, as can discussions about Jihad when the speakers use the vauge, ambiguous, misleading terminology and statements that some of our "Ambassadors" have done. At a minimum, this would indicate that it is offensive to discuss, or articulate, in public that which could easily be misinterpreted.


As for the point about "vague" comments, I have yet to see something like it. Examples would be nice.

Shaykh Hamza's post-9/11 comments wherein he said that the term Jihad has never been used in an exclusively Militaristic context in the Quran is the most prominent example.


The bottom line seems to be that there has to be a trade-off. Either someone de-emphasizes the military aspect in order to save our skins and in the process people start denying jihad, or that someone doesn't neutralize negativity against Muslims, and we all fry.

I've already responded to this claim in one of my prior posts to which you promised to respond when you get more time. I eagerly await that response.


This brings me to Sheikh Hamza. He made it clear at least twice, in two talks, his views on military Jihad. I have both talks if you are interested (I have one of them for sure.) I quote, "Now I am not denying military Jihad..." or something to that effect, and, "There is a pre-emptive Jihad theory, but..." I don't think that there is any room for mis-interpretation here.

When Shaykh Hamza made his misleading statements, however well-intentioned, about Jihad that were consumed by the masses of the Muslims, millions of non-Muslims, AS WELL AS Muslims were watching since he was on network television on prime time. How many people were present at, or had access to the contents of, his speeches wherein he made clear his stance on Military Jihad? Obviously he does not control when he can get on network Television, but that doesn't change the fact that more people have listened to his misleading statements on Military Jihad than the ones wherein he clarifies his stance and, as such, more effort should be put in to conveyed those clarified statements to the masses of the Muslims. There mere fact that Shaykh Hamza has had to clarify his stance on this issue pays testimony to the fact that he has become aware that people have come away with either the wrong interpretation of what Military Jihad is becuase of his statements, or because people have been left confused about as to where he stands on the issue. Either way, this proves that what he said was misleading for in order for it to have ei ther of the effects mentioned above, it would have to be so.


If people want to deny military Jihad after such explicit statements from such a bastion, then that's their problem.

I have never said that people have denied military Jihad after listening to his explicit statements on the issue, but that his explicit statements on the issue can be found far less easily than his famous misleading one(s).


Anybody closely associated to Sheikh Hamza, A. R. Squires, Shabbir Ally, (and I am NOT one of these associates, but I do know some) will tell you that they consider valid any resistence Jihad, like that of Kashmir.

I have never stated that the personal beliefs of any of the above mentioned figures included a denial of Jihad, but that their choice of words, style of writing, manner of emphasis, etc. when discussing the issue, or related ones, would, and have, lead people to conclude that or at least become very confused about the issue. And since only a limited number of poeple can be closely associated with any of those figures to ascertain their true stance(s) on the issue, whereas an, for all intents-and-pursposes, unlimited number of people can have access to their misleading, vague, ambiguous, etc. remarks, it makes it all the more important that they make it just as easy for someone to ascertain th eir true stance on these issues, free of any type of semantics game taking place.


Whenever people like Sheikh Hamza or A. R. Squires refer to military Jihad not being valid, they always refer to events that violate human sanctity, which I assume is banned by consensus of the ulema.

That is vague and subjective.


They also make a point that "offensive" Jihad is not valid today, simply because there is no khalifa to organize one. And even if there is a khalifa, he hasn't called for such a Jihad.

No argument there.


So if people want to misinterpret that, they can very well do so. That is their problem, not Sheikh Hamza's or A. R. Squires'.

I have not heard anyone misinterpret any statement by them wherein they clearly stated that offensive Jihad was not valid today because there is no khalifa. They have misinterpreted, or at least drawn an incorrect conclusion of what the Islamic stance on Jihad is, from their misleading statements or ones wherein little to no reference is made to as to what Jihad is after going into extensive diatribes about what it is not.


these are matters which have always revolved around debate.

So what is your point? That does not change the fact that the reason for why these things were not discussed in public, in the presence of the masses, because of the fear of misinterpretation and the development of an incorrect understanding. This same fear is also present when it comes to discussing something that is Fardh i Ayn while using vague, ambiguous, misleading, etc. terminology or statements that can, AND HAVE, led to people misinterpreting them, or drawing incorrect conclusions about what Islam's stance on and issue is as a result of them. This in addition to those that tell us, "X, Y, and Z" is not Jihad, without saying what it is, which gives one the impression that nothing is Jihad save for the "Jihad an Nafs".


the masses would leran fiqh from ulama and other sciences and aqida would be very basic....

And, what is your point? If you are claiming that such precaution was exercise because people learned fiqh from the Ulama, then are you saying since such a situation is far less common these days, that it's ok to engage in aqida, kalam, and tassawuf discussions in front of the masses? That seems to be what you are saying, but I know that that cannot be what you are saying. Choose your words more carefully.

Regardless, how does any of what you have said change for the reason for as to why the Ulema chose not to, 99% of the time, discuss things such as Tassawuf, Kalam, Aqeedah, etc. in public, the reason being the fear of misinterpretation and confusion, a fear that is also now present when a person uses vague, misleading, etc. statements when discussing Jihad?


<<Regarding which "Ambassadors" of the Muslim faith have been responsible, in my own experiences with people, for using ambiguous, misleading, vague, etc. vocabulary, terminology, expressions, etc. which have led to people, explicitly or implicitly, denying that there are ANY valid military Jihads being fought ANYWHERE on the face of the earth today, there is no need for me to name names.>>

....because it can be disproven, as it has been countless times on this message board. there are enough public speeches, CDs etc for ignorant laymen to solve their ignorance.

NO, it is not because it can be disproven, it was my attempt to maintain proper adab. What gives you the right to claim that the reasons that I advanced for as to why I had refrained from naming names was for a reason other than the ones that I had provided? Does that not mean that you are accusing me of lying? Again I ask, what gives you the right? From whence have you gotten the ability to look into my heart and make and independent judgement of whether or not I am telling hte truth? Where? Where?

Your denial of the sincerity of my stated reasons for why I did not want to name names aside, in this post I have named Shaykh Hamza and his statements wherein he said that the term Jihad has not been used in a Military context in the Quran even once as being an example of one of our "Ambassadors" making a misleading statement. Now that I have done so, I am sure that I can expect the an onslaught of people accusing me of slandering the Shaykh or bothering him, both of which will be unwarranted because I am not doubting the Shaykh's good intentions, nor that he clarified what he meant, but using said statements as an example of the type that have led countless Muslims, many of whom I have met personally, to DENY that there are ANY VALID MILITARY Jihads being fought anywhere on hte face of the earth. Spare me the accusations of harboring ill well toward the Shaykh. That seems to always happen whenever anyone cites the example of that statement.


<<I agree that they do, and should, emphasize that which is important for Muslims in the West. I have never denied this or objected to it. I have never called for an "emphasis" on Jihad. Look through my posts and see if I have ever done so. All I have asked for is, after explaining what Jihad IS NOT, which they do quite frequently and IS something that we need, they do explain what it IS so that MUSLIMS do not walk away with a confused understanding of what Jihad is, which many people do have which has led them to, implicitly or explicitly, DENY that there are ANY valid military Jihads being fought anywhere on the face of the earth today. That is all. I have not asked for anything else.>>

this is what i find most ridiculous. sidi, you have to find a teacher, sit down with him and learn fiqh. you will find that most books of fiqh of all major 3 schools contain a chapter on jihad. they usually contain all the conditions and rules of war.

I have never said that I have had difficulty finding Shuyukh that can explain the fiqh of Jihad from at least two perspectives (Hanafi and Shafi'i). I am not the one that has a confused understanding, it is the masses who look to the easy to find statements of individuals, the least of which is not Shaykh Hamza, for Islamic knowledge.


there are also many specific books available on jihad - these are freely available.

there is an extensive section on jihad in reliance of the traveller, by Shaykh Nuh.

I have availed myself of both, but many among the masses who do read the articles, or listen to the statements, of people who use misleading, ambiguous, terminology, etc., who have developed a confused or ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT understanding of Jihad in Islam have not for one of two reasons:

1) They do not know which books to consult in order to get an accurate view of the issue, or

2) They do not know that they have an incorrect understanding of Jihad in Islam, having thought that they correctly interpreted that which they have heard or read. If one believes that they understood something correctly, what would compel them to clarify an understanding that they believe is not in need of it?


there are many confused muslims out there. i am not blaming the ulama for the people's ignorance. and this is not just on jihad.

Ignorance is one thing, causing confusion or incorrect interpretations is quite another.


and why do you pick on these particular scholars?

Who are "these particular scholars"? At the time that you had written your post, I had not named a single name. The only person that I had, by implication, criticized was A.R. Squires. So who are the "these" that you are refering to? If by "these" you mean those individuals that have used vague, ambiguous, misleading, etc. terminology, or have played semantics gymnastics, while discussing Jihad, then the reason for my criticizing them has been for no other reason than to motivate people to request that the Shuyukh, explain what Jihad is after going into extensive diatribes, which have been full of vague, ambiguous, misleading, etc. terminology and sentences about as to what it is not. That is all.


have a look in your heart and ask what it is that really bothers you about them....

If you are implying that it is something other than what I have outlined in my many posts in this thread that bothers me about them, what gives you that right? If you are just giving "nasiha", then what has compeled you to do so and word it in such a manner and deliver it at such a point in your writing that would give one the impression that you are doubting the sincerity of my intentions?


we have plenty of ulama in the west who clearly state what jihad is not, but don't extensively talk about what jihad is.... it is not just confined to the people i believe you are speaking of.

When have I said otherwise?


i will also state that many of the western scholars have talked about what jihad is, in great detail.

I have not denied this. But since many people have the mentality that there are only certain scholars from whom they will take, despite the fact that there are many Ulema who also possess ijaza, have high standing in the eyes of the Ulema, and are of great taqwa, but who have not been marketed well or developed a cult of personality, a person who "takes" from a particular scholar who rarely, if ever, talks in great detail about as to what Jihad is, military aspect included, and not from one who does, is still left with the garbled understanding, if not an OUTRIGHT INCORRECT ONE, of what Jihad is.


<<There is, based on my own experience, a pressing need for that based on what I have observed the most adamant followers of these "Ambassadors" to be espousing, which I have already enumerated in my previous posts and do not think warrant being reiterated yet again at any great length for fear of sounding like a broken record. If you are not clear on what kind of confused, INCORRECT, understandings of Jihad these individuals have developed, go through some of my prior posts on this thread.>>

...no, there is actually a pressing need for those ignorants to go and sit with scholars or read books of fiqh. i completely disagree.

the scholars have said enough. if you want finer details, seek it.

In this last statement of yours here, you have completely exposed the problem with the thinking that "If scholar X, Y, or Z, says something that is misinterpreted by the ignorant masses, even if it was vague, misleading, etc., the person making the statement is not to be blamed nor should that person have taken any precautions to prevent his words/deeds from being misinterpreted".

That this manner of thinking is flawed is borne out by the fact that our Ulema cater their actions and statements to the conditions/state of their audience, even to their ignorance. Allow me to explain.

Shaykh Hamza belongs to the Maliki madhab correct? And in the Maliki madhab, even though there is an opinion (to the best of my knowledge) which states that it is permitted to clasp one's hands while in "Qiyam" in Salah, the dominant opinion, and the one that Shaykh Hamza was taught and practiced while in Mauritania, where he studied for a time, was that it is superior to leave one's hands at one's sides. Correct? But he does not leave his hands at his sides when praying in the U.S., despite the superiority of doing so in his madhab, to avoid the Fitnah which would result because of the ignorance of many people of the validity of doing so. The GuidingHelper, If I remember correctly, recommends a simliar approach. He could easily say, "If you decide to react negatively to my leaving my hands to my sides while I pray and cause Fitnah, then that is on your neck. If you would like to know the proofs for the validity of keeping my hands at my sides while in Qiyam, the information is easily obtainable, if not through books, than through me, someone schooled in the Madhab". But he does not. Why? Because it would be wrong on the part of an Alim to ASSUME that the masses will educate themselves in the fine details and particulars of an issue without first developing or drawing incorrect conclusions about the issue. Now I am not saying that there is a STRICT prohibition on doing so, for I do not know that, but given the above, one would be led to conclude that there is, AT LEAST, a STRONG ADVISABILITY against it.

Furthermore, when it comes to Tassawuf, Aqeedah, Kalam, etc., and their discussion in front of the masses, the Ulema do not say "If they misinterpret what we say, it is not our fault. If they want to know the correct understanding of these issues, they should take it upon themselves to contact us and acquire it". To leave such a task to the masses would be irresponsible. Likewise when one uses ambiguous, vague, misleading, etc. terminology or statements when discussing Jihad.

I have spent an hour and a half on this. I am really losing my stamina to respond to these posts.

If you actually, FOR ALLAH'S SAKE, read carefully what I have said before replying, I would appreciate it. Just do at least that much as a courtesy to me. Otherwise, I doubt that I will write on here again as it is past 1am here and between trying to find a living and juggling family responsibilities, debating issues on Sunni Forum is not as high a priority especially when it seems that carelessness (when it comes to reading my posts) abound.

And after debating this issue as much as I have, I now understand why it has been said that excessive debates deaden the heart.

May Allah grant victory to the Mujahideen, give backbones and ghirat to all Muslims, destroy those who kill innocent Muslims and the lapdogs of the Kufaar. Aameen.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

salam

well, from what i can gather from your extensive posts, you have beef with Shaykh Hamza's initial comment on jihad.

there is no mistake in this statement. i agree, it is open to misinterpretation.... however, there are a few interviews where quite clearly, and he said so, many of his statements were edited out. THIS is why he had to clarify it it later speeches, not because he felt the muslims had misuderstood, but because he felt his statements were taken out of context by the media house that broadcast his interview.

now when a scholar has clarified his stance (many times thereafter), what need is there to dwell on this topic. this is tiring brother... move on, and stop dwelling on the past. likewise, all those who have beef with Shaykh Hamza for visiting Bush - move on, listen to Sh. Hamza's more recent speeches.

i don't find your statements offensive, and i don't believe Sh. Hamza needs defence on this point. it is you that needs to examine closely what has happened, and move on... its something that seems to be bothering you greatly - so my advice would be to mve on and concern yourself with more important matters.

[ahsanirfan]

When Shaykh Hamza made his misleading statements, however well-intentioned, about Jihad that were consumed by the masses of the Muslims, millions of non-Muslims, AS WELL AS Muslims were watching since he was on network television on prime time.

And the statement "There is a pre-emptive Jihad theory..." was also made on prime time television. I have the show, if you want it. So I guess if there was room for misinterpreting his statements there was equal room for countering it as well. If someone did not watch that show, not Sheikh Hamza's mistake now is it?


How many people were present at, or had access to the contents of, his speeches wherein he made clear his stance on Military Jihad?

Lots of people do. And I think they have diseminated far and wide enough for people to hear them.


Obviously he does not control when he can get on network Television, but that doesn't change the fact that more people have listened to his misleading statements on Military Jihad than the ones wherein he clarifies his stance and, as such, more effort should be put in to conveyed those clarified statements to the masses of the Muslims.

How do you know he didn't put "more effort" into diseminating his correct stance? You're simply assuming that he didn't.


There mere fact that Shaykh Hamza has had to clarify his stance on this issue pays testimony to the fact that he has become aware that people have come away with either the wrong interpretation of what Military Jihad is becuase of his statements, or because people have been left confused about as to where he stands on the issue. Either way, this proves that what he said was misleading for in order for it to have ei ther of the effects mentioned above, it would have to be so.

No it does not prove such. As I said earlier, a correlation does not necessarily prove a causation. Sheikh Hamza had to clarify his stance not because "people were misinterpreting it." But because the Salafi/Wahhabi/Jihadi camp had begun slandering it. A mere google search will show this. I have heard all his 9/11 stuff and I have yet to see a confusing statement (at least that is how I look at it).

[ahsanirfan]

It's called drawing an analogy.

And I think I was arguing that you cannot draw the analogy, because the two categories are different.


I will disagree with you. There is certainly room for misinterpretation when one hears the vague, misleading, ambiguous, etc. statements of some of our "Ambassadors" of Islam. If nothing else, the whole "The Word Jihad has never been used in the Quran in military context even once" controversy should suffice.

Did you hear that particular talk? If you haven't as yet, hear it before continuing on this point. If you have, we'll split open this point.

There are other points that need addressing. Tomorrow morning insha Allah I will try to address those.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

salam

it appears the bro has concentrated his efforts on one statement which he believes to be misleading.

shame how he has failed to recognise the myriad, and i mean myriad of talks and speeches which Shaykh Hamza has given his stance on jihad.

he has even released a CD called 'war and peace' - why don't you listen to it.

[ahsanirfan]

As I said earlier, "We're at Sheikh Hamza's throat again, why don't we look at our own souls for once."

Even though I think his statement was fully justified within the climatic context he was speaking, even if it was a mistake, we should be moving on, rather than parrotting away the same charge over and over again.

[ARSquires]

Whenever people like Sheikh Hamza or A. R. Squires refer to military Jihad not being valid, they always refer to events that violate human sanctity, which I assume is banned by consensus of the ulema.

In regards to the above quote...although I can't speak for Sidi Hamza Yusuf, I can speak for myself. Suffice it to say that I've NEVER said anything that could be reasonably be interpreted to mean that I adhere to a view of "military Jihad not being valid". Military jihad is certainly valid, both today and always, given the right circumstances and as long as its conducted by the well-known Islamic rules of war.

If someone has jumped to such an unsubstantiated conclusion after ready my "Monkey See, Monkey Do" - Not An Islamic Ideal" (http://www.mereislam.info/2004/09/monkey-see-monkey-do-not-islamic-ideal.html) article, then they need to work on both their reading comprehension and reasoning skills. This is because that article was a tirade against Wahabi immorality, the murder of innocent schoolchildren and the ethical confusion of many Muslims. Anyone who concludes that condemning such things somehow amounts to a denial of the validity of jihad (and murdering young schoolchildren is not and will never be jihad), then their interpretation skills are as sloppy as the extremist that the article set out to refute in the first place. Aghghghgh!!!

Wasalam,

Abdurrahman R. Squires

[tazkiyyah]

In da'wah you are inviting people to Islaam.
Now whilst you are doing da'wah in the west or for that matter anywhere in the world at the moment, we don't have any political sovereignty.
So people are not talking much about jihaad.the ulema know about it.

At the moment,never mind jihad people are not obeying even the simple things about wearing hijab,not listening to music,praying 5 times salah.
So the focus is on this.

As far as jihad is concerned, then whilst distancing ourselves from the extremism of the extreme wahhabis(of which there are 2....the staunch albani-ites that deny even the jihad in palestine, and then the staunch al qaida ppl who want military jihad offensive without a khalifa)...we advocate defensive jihad in the lands of the muslims attacked.
And we await for a khaleefah who will either sign peace treaties with countries e.g china etc or will declare jihad and we will fight in his ranks insha'allah.

In the meantime, we should prepare ourselves and call people to the masaajid and away from the munkaraat that surround us and learn how to establish islaam in our communities so that when all this happens we are ready.

[tazkiyyah]

And i think its time to have an alliance between the ahlus sunnah and the moderate salafis.
let us not argue about things like bid'a tawasul.we shouldnt discuss them.lets just pray and fast together and try and co-operate.

[Sunni_Student786]

....
If someone has jumped to such an unsubstantiated conclusion after ready my "Monkey See, Monkey Do" - Not An Islamic Ideal" (http://www.mereislam.info/2004/09/monkey-see-monkey-do-not-islamic-ideal.html) article, then they need to work on both their reading comprehension and reasoning skills. This is because that article was a tirade against Wahabi immorality, the murder of innocent schoolchildren and the ethical confusion of many Muslims. Anyone who concludes that condemning such things somehow amounts to a denial of the validity of jihad (and murdering young schoolchildren is not and will never be jihad), then their interpretation skills are as sloppy as the extremist that the article set out to refute in the first place. Aghghghgh!!!

Wasalam,

Abdurrahman R. Squires

I, nor anyone else on this thread, to the best of my knowledge, jumped to the conclusion that you have denied the validity of Jihad based on your article.

What I have criticized is the unbalanced approach of telling the public what isn't Jihad without telling us what it is. When one always hears that "such and such is not Jihad" or that "such and such is terrorism" but never hears that "such and such IS INDEED VALID AS JIHAD", they will come away with the understanding that there does not exist, at present, any valid jihad. This is quite simple to understand. It's like telling a young child "no" all of the time or telling him that "this is bad and that is bad" to the point where the child comes away with the understanding that "Since whenever my parents have made a value judgement about a thing in this room and expressed it to me, it has been bad, by that token, all things in this room must also be bad. If there had been anything good in the room , my parents would have told me about it by now especially since they were ever-present in the room."

Now you, or someone else, may object to the example above and may counter by saying "But we are not children and have the ability to know better" but I will tell you that when it comes to the realm of the Islamic sciences, the vast majority of us are indeed children and easily come away with incorrect impressions. Wallahe, I swear to you that I have met people that do not believe that there is anything wrong, or that it is the lesser of two evils, in helping the West slaughter Muslims in Afghanistan and Iraq and they have developed this understanding, ACCORDING TO THEIR OWN ADMISSION, by listening tp, and reading, the words of some of our "Ambassadors" of Islam in the West who pursue the unbalanced approach of which I am critical.

Regardless, may Allah reward you for your work and for clarifying your stance on the issue.

Wa'salaam.

[tamiki]

What I have criticized is the unbalanced approach of telling the public what isn't Jihad without telling us what it is. When one always hears that "such and such is not Jihad" or that "such and such is terrorism" but never hears that "such and such IS INDEED VALID AS JIHAD", they will come away with the understanding that there does not exist, at present, any valid jihad. This is quite simple to understand.


I totally agree. At times, it seems like muslims sweep it under the rug or hide/ignore it in an attempt to get people to "like" islam or "defend" it.

i think it is equally extreme to call a muslim bloodthirsty and just like calling him a pacifist.


at times, muslims are very peaceful.

at times, muslims are very violent.


muslims sometimes focus on only one of the above and give a unbalanced view of Islam - both are extremist views.

we can find numerous examples of both in the sunnah of the prophet :saw: and his companions :anhum:


furthermore, there is legitimate difference of opinion on suicide bombings.


another point is:

there is a difference between killing innocent people and targeting innocent people.

the classical 'ulema have stated over and over again:

targeting innocent people is haram.

but, under certain circumstances, if innocent people are killed it is okay as long as they are not targeted.

this is established by the practice of the prophet :saw: and his companions and early muslims :anhum:

[tamiki]

The other day, a friend mentioned that a fellow Muslim had declared that we should be careful about condemning the recent massacre of innocent schoolchildren in Russia by so-called "Islamic militants" because "some scholars" have issued "fatwas" (non-binding legal opinions) that such operations are sometimes acceptable under Islamic Law.


please note that all the real facts and details of what happened at beslan are not known to the massases and the commander of the muslim forces Shamil Basayev offered to go on trial even though many children were killed by the Russian forces who forcefully entered the building.

muslims makes mistakes. that does not make that "evil militants".

now if there are muslims around the world who like foolishly like to justify every action that another muslims does, that is sad too.

muslims should be brave enough to admit their mistakes and their brothers should be strong enough to accept them afterwards.

i read and listen to a lot of what hamza yusuf has to say, and I can tell he is very careful with the way he words things. that is the way he is.

i understand and know where is he is coming from and what he is trying to do. i don't go on a tirade attacking him, he is my brother and i love him.

i love all the muslims (even when we are wrong or disagree sometimes) and hate the sins we all commit.

when abu bakr would say black, umar would say white. they didn't start condeming each other.

we don't really accept the differences within the ummah today although we all say we do.

May Allah give the mujahideen victory.

[Sunni_Student786]

May Allah give the mujahideen victory.

Ameen.