islamic tradition of non-violence?

[inhumility]

but a person still has a right for eye for an eye and if he chooses to implement the 'eye for an eye' he'd be doing no wrong, as it's his right.

This is to further elaborate the inherent wisdom in Islamic teaching with regard to; where forgivness is to be excercised and where to implement 'eye for an eye'. This has been mentioned by Mirza Ghulam Ahmad with reference to Quran in his famous book "The Philosophy of the Teachings of Islam":
http://www.alislam.org/books/philosophy/1q6.html

It becomes a moral quality when a person deliberately makes himself harmless and exercises the quality of peacefulness on its proper occasion, and refrains from using it out of place. In this context the Divine teaching is: Try to promote accord between yourselves (8:2); Peace is best (4:129); when they incline towards peace, do you incline towards it also (8:62). The true servants of the Gracious One walk upon the earth in humility (25:64); and when they Come upon something vain, which might develop into strife, they pass on with dignity (25:73). That is to say, they do not start quarrelling over trifles and do not make small matters which do not cause much harm an occasion for discord. The expression vain that is employed in this verse means mischievous utterance of words or doing something which causes little damage and does little harm. Peacefulness means that one should overlook conduct of that type and should act with dignity; but if a person's conduct does real harm to life or property or honour, the moral quality that should come into play in apposition to it is not peacefulness but forbearance, to which we shall revert later. Should anyone behave mischievously towards you, you should try to repel it with peacefulness, whereby he who is your enemy will become your warm friend (41:35). In short, peacefulness means overlooking trivial matters of annoyance which occasion no great harm, and are more-or less confined to uttering nonsense.

The second type of moral qualities are those that are related to doing good. The first of these is forbearance or forgiveness. He who commits an offence against another causes him pain or harm and deserves to be punished either through the process of the law, with imprisonment or fine, or directly by the person offended. To forgive him, if forgiveness should be appropriate, would be to do him good. In this context the teaching of the Holy Quran is: Those who control their tempers when they are roused and who overlook people's faults when that is appropriate (3:135). The recompense of an injury is a penalty in proportion thereto; but whose forgives and effects thereby a reform in the offender, and no harm is apprehended, that is to say, exercises forgiveness on its appropriate occasion, will have his reward with Allah (42:41).
This verse shows that the Quran does not teach non-resistance to evil on all occasions, or that mischief makers and wrongdoers should never be punished. Its teaching is that one must consider whether the occasion calls for forgiveness or punishment, and to adopt the course which would be best in the interests both of the offender and the public. Sometimes an offender turns away from wrongdoing in consequence of being forgiven, and sometimes forgiveness incites him to further wrongdoing. Therefore, God Almighty directs that we should not develop the habit of forgiving blindly on all occasions, but should consider carefully whether forgiveness or punishment would be most appropriate, and, therefore, a virtue, in each particular case, and should adopt that course. Some people are so vindictive that they keep in mind the wrongs done to their fathers through generations, and there are others who carry forbearance and forgiveness to the extreme, sometimes even to the limit of shamelessness. They exercise such weakness, forgiveness and forbearance as are utterly inconsistent with dignity, honour, jealousy and chastity. Their conduct is a stain on good character and the result of their forgiveness and forbearance is that people are disgusted with them. That is why the Holy Quran attaches the condition of appropriate time and place for the exercise of every moral quality, and does not approve the exercise of a moral quality out of its place.
It should be remembered that forgiveness is not a moral quality in itself. It is a natural impulse which is found in children also. A child soon forgets an injury, if it is inflicted upon him wrongfully, and again approaches affectionately the person who has inflicted the injury upon him, even if such a person should intend to kill him. He is pleased with his beguiling words. Such forgiveness is in no sense a moral quality. It would become a moral quality when it is exercised in its proper place and on its proper occasion; otherwise it would only be a natural impulse. There are few people who are able to distinguish between a natural impulse and a moral quality. We have repeatedly pointed out the distinction between a true moral quality and a natural condition, which is that a moral quality is conditioned by conformity to place and occasion, and a natural impulse often comes into play out of place. A cow is harmless and a goat is humble but we do not attribute these qualities to them because they are not invested with a sense of time and place. Divine wisdom and God's true and perfect Book have made every moral quality subject to time and place for its proper exercise.
Unquote
I am an Ahmadi - a peaceful faith in Islam

 

[Abdullah]

With all due respect Inhumility, Mirza Gulam Ahmed and his Ahmeddiyyah cult is not recognised as an Islamic sect by the consensus of the Islamic Scholars.

To believe in another Messenger/Prophet after the Prophet Muhammed [saw] is kufr [disbelief which takes a person out of the folds of Islam] accroding to Islam, and as Gulam Mirza Claimed to be a Prophet and as his followers believe that he is a Prophet of God, that is why they are out of ther folds of Islam alltogether.

Saudi Arabia does not allow the Ahmediyyah to go and perform Hajj, as non-Muslims are not allowed to perform Hajj.

Below is a fatwa on the Ahmediyyahs:

This refers to the conference of the Muslim Organisations of the world League at Macca Mukaramma Saudi Arabia from 14th to 18


Peace

ps: so therefore, it is irrelevant what Gulam Mirza [or any Ahmediyyah teachings] say about the issue in question, or any Islamic issue for that matter, as the Ahmediyyahs teachings has nothing to do with Islam

 

[bananabrain]

The Islamic principle of 'obeying the law of the land' will supercede any Islamic rights that are not in accordance with it...

what are the sources for this? what is this principle called in arabic?

and can everyone please shut up about ahmadiyyah - you can all takfir each other as much as you like, but it's getting in the way of my islamic education.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Abdullah]

what are the sources for this? what is this principle called in arabic?

and can everyone please shut up about ahmadiyyah - you can all takfir each other as much as you like, but it's getting in the way of my islamic education.

b'shalom

bananabrain

Mufti Ibn Adam explains it beutifully :

In the name of Allah, Most Compassionate, Most Merciful,

Muslims are generally obliged to abide by the laws of the land and the country they live in, whether it is a Islamic state (al-khilafa), Muslim countries, or non-Muslim countries such as those in the west, as long as they are not ordered to practice something that is against Shariah. If they are forced by the law to commit a sin, then in such a case, it will not just be unnecessary to abide by the law, rather impermissible.

Some Muslims are under the impression that it is permissible to violate the laws of countries that are not an Islamic state (al-Khilafa), which is totally incorrect. Muslims must adhere to the laws of any country they live in, whether in the west or the east, as long as the law is not in contradiction with one’s religion.

Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Umar (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “It is necessary upon a Muslim to listen to and obey the ruler, as long as one is not ordered to carry out a sin. If he is commanded to commit a sin, then there is no adherence and obedience.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 2796 & Sunan Tirmidhi)

The above Hadith is general, in that it does not distinguish between Muslim and non-Muslim lands, although the understanding of the scholars is that it generally applies to Muslim lands.

Furthermore, many scholars have divided non-Muslim lands (dar al-Harb/kufr) into two categories, Dar al-Khawf & Dar al-Aman. The former (dar al-khawf) refers to a land where Muslims are under a constant threat and fear with regards to their religion, life and wealth, whilst the latter (dar al-Aman) refers to a land where Muslims are relatively secure and safe. In Dar al-Aman (such as many non-Muslim countries in the west), many of the injunctions and rulings are very similar to Muslim lands (dar al-Islam), thus the command of following the laws of the land would also apply in these non-Muslim lands. (See: Radd al-Muhtar)

Those who are of the view that it is not necessary to obey the laws of the land unless it is ruled by a proper Islamic governance system, usually say that these laws are non-Islamic and man made, and one is only obliged to abide by the laws of Allah!

In reality, this is a very immature understanding of Islam, for even an Islamic Khilafa government would implement laws that are the creation of their own minds and Ijtihad. If an Islamic government sees the need to implement a certain law, then it has the full jurisdiction to do so, even if it is not found in the Qur’an and Sunnah.

All the scholars unanimously agree that, if an Islamic government decides to implement a law for the benefit of the country and its citizens, then there is nothing wrong in doing so, as long as it does not contradict Shariah, and this law will be binding upon every citizen of that country, even if it was not made obligatory by Shariah initially. Therefore, the laws which an Islamic Khilafa government will set down will also be “man made”, and binding upon all the citizens.

Then the case here is not between “Allah’s laws” and “man made laws” rather one must understand and deal with the issue more rationally and deeply.

When one lives in a particular country, one agrees verbally, in writing or effectively to adhere to the rules and regulations of that country. This, according to Shariah, is considered to be a covenant, agreement and trust. One is obliged to fulfil the trust regardless of whether it is contracted with a friend, enemy, Muslim, non-Muslim or a government. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) and his Companions (Allah be pleased with them all) always stood by their word and did not breach any trust or agreement, as it is clear from the books of Sunnah and history. Thus, to break a promise or breach a trust of even a non-Muslim is absolutely unlawful and considered a sign of being a hypocrite (munafiq).

Allah Most High states:

“And fulfil (every) engagement (ahd), for (every) engagement will be enquired into (on the day of reckoning).” (Surah al-Isra, v. 34)

Similarly, Allah Most High states:

Allah does command you to render back your trusts to those to whom they are due, and when you judge between people that you judge with justice.” (Surah al-Nisa, v. 58)

And regarding the one who breaks an agreement and is guilty of treachery, Allah Almighty says:

“Allah loves not the treacherous.” (Surah al-Anfal, v. 58)

there is plenty more evidence in the full article, which can be read in the link below:

Darul Iftaa

Peace

 

[bananabrain]

thank you, abdullah - this is most instructive.

Muslims are generally obliged to abide by the laws of the land and the country they live in...as long as they are not ordered to practice something that is against Shariah.

which obviously means that *someone* has to have the authority to determine whether something is against shariah or not. i was under the impression (mistakenly or not) that this was determined at local level. or is it the case that some go by the rulings of particular authorities; al-azhar, for example? or is it both? i can see from this that whether something is "against shariah" or not could certainly be quite unclear without centralised authority.

If they are forced by the law to commit a sin, then in such a case, it will not just be unnecessary to abide by the law, rather impermissible.

does this mean they would be obliged to disobey/break the law, or that they would still have to keep it "under protest", so to speak?

Muslims must adhere to the laws of any country they live in, whether in the west or the east, as long as the law is not in contradiction with one’s religion.

well, yes, but how is this to be determined? let's take halal slaughter for example (as this is an example relevant to judaism as well) - if it is made illegal in a country (for reasons of, say, cruelty to animals, rather than religious repression) is one obliged to eat vegetarian, or slaughter in secret, or leave the country? (btw, this is an example, i don't know of a case where this has occurred)

When one lives in a particular country, one agrees verbally, in writing or effectively to adhere to the rules and regulations of that country.

i can see how this works for immigrants and a convert, of course, can implicitly signal this agreement by the act of converting, because accepting the religion also implies acceptance of this rule, but what about a case of a native-born muslim?

these sources are also extremely useful; thank you.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Abubakar]

Hi Bannabraib

thank you, abdullah - this is most instructive.

It was a good posting

which obviously means that *someone* has to have the authority to determine whether something is against shariah or not. i was under the impression (mistakenly or not) that this was determined at local level. or is it the case that some go by the rulings of particular authorities; al-azhar, for example? or is it both? i can see from this that whether something is "against shariah" or not could certainly be quite unclear without centralised authority.

The ultimate decission for this is oneself, of course we should take reference to Scholars but they are not binding on us and we must make the decission for ourselves.
There is no centralised Authority in Islam, and no doubt there would be an element of disagreement and confussion but we are quite used to it!

does this mean they would be obliged to disobey/break the law, or that they would still have to keep it "under protest", so to speak?

If we think about the practicalities of this, firstly it is very rare that this happens so trying to think of a 'real' example is difficult but it would mean disobeying the Law.

[quite]well, yes, but how is this to be determined? let's take halal slaughter for example (as this is an example relevant to judaism as well) - if it is made illegal in a country (for reasons of, say, cruelty to animals, rather than religious repression) is one obliged to eat vegetarian, or slaughter in secret, or leave the country? (btw, this is an example, i don't know of a case where this has occurred)[/quote]
In this case I would eat fish instead of meat, which would be no hardship to me at all. As for slaughtering for Eid-ul-Adha, I would send the money to a Muslim Country and have it done there.

This is a specific example and fairly unique, in the case of being banned from prayer, fasting or giving Charity it might well mean having to leave the country or suffering the consequences whatever Allah marks for me

 

[Abdullah]

thank you, abdullah - this is most instructive.

My pleasure!

which obviously means that *someone* has to have the authority to determine whether something is against shariah or not. i was under the impression (mistakenly or not) that this was determined at local level. or is it the case that some go by the rulings of particular authorities; al-azhar, for example? or is it both? i can see from this that whether something is "against shariah" or not could certainly be quite unclear without centralised authority.

Allah tells us in the Quran to follow the righteous Scholars and it is them we, the laymen, must refer to learn the Islamic perspective on any given matter as only the qualified Scholars can interpret the Quran and Sunnah acurately.

Muslims are instructed to follow only one Mujtahid [one school of thought] as that blocks the pathway to following one's desires, i.e, if Muslims were allowed to 'pick and choose' from the teachings of many Mujtahids out there, than vast numbers of them could just seek opinions that match their desires, and Allah has instructed us not to follow our whims and desires.

So therefore, the correct way for Muslims to go about ascertaining the Islamic perspective on any given matter, is to follow the opinions of the school of tohught that they ahdere to, and only the four traditional school of thought have been verified by the consensus of the Scholars...the overwhelming vast majority of muslims follow one of these four schools of thought anyway...and as these schools of thoughts agree on many issues, it is likely that they wouldn't differ/differ much on what kind of rules and regulations will be agianst shariah, i.e, would be haraam for a muslim to agree to and abide by.

As far as I know, as long as Muslims are allowed to practice their religion [perform the five pillars of Islam, propogate their religion, refrain from haraam, such as drinking alcohol, eating pork, etc,] freely, as we are allowed to do in Britain right now, than it is allowed in Shariah to live in a country like Britain with the agreement that we abide by their law and all it entails.

The Prophet [saw] agreed to a treaty drawn up with the Makkan kuffar which was dictated by the Kuffar and it seemed to be in favour of the Makkans and unfair to the Muslims...it even included that any Makkan who goes to Madinah to join the Muslims will be returned to the Makkans [to be kept prisoner and live under persecution] and any person from Madinah that might join the Makkans will not be under obligation to be returned to Madinah.

The above treaty shows that Muslims can agree to treaties [agreements] that even seem to be in favour of the non-Muslims and unfair to Muslims...The Shariah is verry flexible and accomodating in the kinds of agreements we can get into with the non-Muslims.

does this mean they would be obliged to disobey/break the law, or that they would still have to keep it "under protest", so to speak?

If a law stipulates that the Muslims cannot practice the five pillars of Islam, [saying the Shahadah, performing the five daily Salaah's, giving the Zakaat, Perfroming the Hajj, and fasting in the monthg of Ramadan] and cannot refrain from what Islam has clarifed as forbidden [alcohol, pork, fornication, etc] then we have to disobey the government and keep obeying Allah on those matters...It is also possible that we have to keep on practicing any action that is obligatory for us in Islam, and keep on propagating Islam [doing missionary work] despite the government prohibiting it...but I'm not sure about that...I'll have to ask the Scholars about this.

well, yes, but how is this to be determined? let's take halal slaughter for example (as this is an example relevant to judaism as well) - if it is made illegal in a country (for reasons of, say, cruelty to animals, rather than religious repression) is one obliged to eat vegetarian, or slaughter in secret, or leave the country? (btw, this is an example, i don't know of a case where this has occurred)

It is not obligatory for muslims to eat meat, so if halaal slaughter is prohibbted by law, than Muslims can eat vegetarian food...but it is essential [waajib] for Muslims [who have a certain amount of weath...] to sacrifice a halaal cow/goat, etc, on the festival of Ied Al-Adha so that may create serious problems for Muslims if Halaal slaughter should be banned.

Muslims are allowed to eat the meat of Christians and Jews but many Scholars maintain that the meat [of the Christians and Jews] has to be slaughtered with the throat being cut and no other name other than Allah [the ONE true God] must be mentioned when the animal is slaughtered...only than it will be allowed for muslims to eat or otherwise not...so banning halaal slaughter may indeed be a great problem for Muslims and it may also be a sign of unacceptable hostility towards Islam and Muslims from the goverment, thus it may be possbile that Muslims would be reccomended not to continue living under such laws or break the law to continue halaal slaughter...but once agian I'm not sure...I'll get it clarified from a Scholar inshAllah .

i can see how this works for immigrants and a convert, of course, can implicitly signal this agreement by the act of converting, because accepting the religion also implies acceptance of this rule, but what about a case of a native-born muslim?

The case of a native born Muslim would be that he/she still must abide by the law of the country that they live in...due to the following evidence:

...ibn Umar (ra) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (sm) said: “It is necessary upon a Muslim to listen to and obey the ruler, as long as one is not ordered to carry out a sin. If he is commanded to commit a sin, then there is no adherence and obedience.” (Bukhari, 2796)

The above Hadith is general, in that it does not distinguish between Muslim and non-Muslim lands, although the understanding of the scholars is that it generally applies to Muslim lands.

Furthermore, many scholars have divided non-Muslim lands (dar al-Harb/kufr) into two categories, Dar al-Khawf & Dar al-Aman. The former (dar al-khawf) refers to a land where Muslims are under a constant threat and fear with regards to their religion, life and wealth, whilst the latter (dar al-Aman) refers to a land where Muslims are relatively secure and safe. In Dar al-Aman (such as many non-Muslim countries in the west), many of the injunctions and rulings are very similar to Muslim lands (dar al-Islam), thus the command of following the laws of the land would also apply in these non-Muslim lands. (See: Radd al-Muhtar)

these sources are also extremely useful; thank you.

Heres the rest of that article in which there is further evidence on which the principle of obeying the law of the land that one lives in [even if it be a non-muslim country] is based on:

Sayyiduna Abu Hurayra (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “The signs of a hypocrite are three: When he speaks he leis, when he makes a promise he breaks it, and when he is given a trust he breaches it.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 33)

Sayyiduna Abd Allah ibn Amr (Allah be pleased with him) narrates that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “Four traits, if found in an individual, then he will be a complete hypocrite (munafiq), and if an individual possesses one of these four, he will have one portion of nifaq: When he is given a trust he breaches it, when he speaks he leis, when he makes an agreement (ahd) he is guilty of treachery and disloyalty (gadar), and when he disputes he is fouled mouth.” (Sahih al-Bukhari, no. 34)

The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) clearly gave guidance as how to one’s behaviour should be towards a person with whom one has an agreement or a covenant.

Safwan ibn Sulaym narrates from a number of Companions of the Messenger of Allah (Allah be pleased with them all) on the authority of their fathers who were relatives of each other, that the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “Beware, if anyone oppresses (or wrongs) the one with whom one has a agreement (mu’ahid), or diminishes his right, or forces him to work beyond his capacity, or takes from him anything without his consent, I shall plead for him on the Day of Judgment.” (Sunan Abu Dawud, no. 3047)

The above Hadith is quite clear, in that a Muslim is obliged to fulfil the covenant or agreement of even a non-Muslim. If such an agreement (ahd) takes place, then one will be considered to have safeguarded his life, wealth and property. It will be unlawful (haram), as mentioned quite clearly in the Hadith, to take any wealth of the one with whom there is an agreement without his consent. This categorically rules out the notion of some who consider taking of government wealth even by unlawful means to be permissible.

The practice of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) and his Companions (Allah be pleased with them all) also clearly illustrates the importance of fulfilling a covenant, and the unlawfulness of treachery.

During the battle of Khaybar which took place between the Muslims and Jews, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) and his Companions (Allah be pleased with them all) besieged the fort of Khaybar wherein the Jews were residing. A poor Shepard who was working for his Jewish master had already heard about the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace), and upon seeing the Muslim army, thought that it was a good opportunity to inquire about Islam. He came out of the fort with the goats and sheep he was looking after and asked the whereabouts of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace). Upon being directed towards the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace), he inquired about the basic teachings of Islam, and then said: “What will my status be if I accept Islam?” The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) replied: “I will embrace you, you will become my brother and enjoy the same rights as other Muslims.” He said: “I am very poor and in a bad state. I am totally black and have bad odour coming from my body and cloths. How will you embrace me if I am in such a condition?” The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) replied: “I shall embrace you, for all of Allah’s servants are equal in His sight.” He said: “If I embrace Islam, what will my fate be?” The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said: “I bear witness that if you accept Islam, Allah will change the darkness of your body to light, and the bad odour to good fragrance.” These words of the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) had their effect on his heart, thus he embraced Islam.

After entering into the fold of Islam, he asked the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) what he was obliged to do? The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said that they were at the moment in the midst of war, thus the obligation at this moment and time was to participate in Jihad. However, the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) said to him: “The first and foremost thing you need to do is return these animals to its Jewish owner and then engage in Jihad.”

As mentioned earlier, these animals belonged to a Jew who was in the opposing army, but the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) ordered him to go back and return them. The reason being, that he had taken these goats and sheep on a trust, and it is necessary by Shariah to return the belongings taken on trust back to its owner.

Thereafter, he participated in the holy battle (jihad) and was amongst the martyrs. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) recognised his body, thus addressed his Companions that I see with my own eyes that he has been given a bath in the sacred water of paradise, and Allah has changed his darkness to shining white and his bad foul smell to refreshing fragrance.

The above is an amazing example of fulfilling a trust of even an enemy. The Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) was in the midst of war with the Jews of Khaybar, yet he ordered the herdsman to go back and return the animals.

It is true that, a Muslim army is allowed to seize the wealth and belongings of the opposing army during the state of war, but because the Shepard had taken these animals under a contract before the war, he was ordered to fulfil the contract, thus return them to its rightful owner sound and safe.

Those who claim that one may rob and loot the wealth of the western governments in any way possible, should ponder over the abovementioned incident with due diligence. If the Messenger of Allah (Allah bless him & give him peace) orders the belongings of a Jew (who is in the opposing army) to be returned to him, then how can one substantiate the permissibility of taking the wealth of the government unlawfully!

In conclusion, it is necessary by Shariah to abide by the laws of the country one lives in, regardless of the nature of the law, as long as it does not contradict Shariah. However, if the law demands something that is against Islam & Shariah, then it will be necessary to abstain from adhering to it, for the famous Hadith states:

“There is no obedience of the creation wherein there is disobedience to the Creator.” (Musnad Ahmad).

And Allah Knows Best

Peace

 

[Abdullah]

Here's a report on how there could be an acceptable compromise between Muslims and the British Government on Halaal slaughter:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3604675.stm

 

[bananabrain]

The ultimate decision for this is oneself, of course we should take reference to Scholars but they are not binding on us and we must make the decision for ourselves.

obviously the categorical element of choice cannot be removed, but doesn't this kind of imply a problem of quality control, both in terms of scholars (who decides who counts as a "scholar"?) as well as in terms of decision-making (how do you know you are making the right choice?) - i do agree that there are advantages in devolved authority and indeed we used to do that more ourselves within judaism but certainly the rabbi of the community had the authority to determine local adherence at a minimal level.

There is no centralised Authority in Islam, and no doubt there would be an element of disagreement and confussion but we are quite used to it!

you can say that again! but would you not agree that the funding of islamic institutions by saudi organisations has created a de facto centralised authority? and if so, is this a good thing or not? certainly in light of saudi norms as far as islamic policy and practice are concerned i'd say probably not.

In this case I would eat fish instead of meat, which would be no hardship to me at all. As for slaughtering for Eid-ul-Adha, I would send the money to a Muslim Country and have it done there.

both very pragmatic examples and more or less the sort of response i'd respect from a reasonable person. and does this all come under the authority of the sources cited above?

This is a specific example and fairly unique, in the case of being banned from prayer, fasting or giving Charity it might well mean having to leave the country or suffering the consequences whatever Allah marks for me

interesting. can we then apply this to all five pillars? would the same apply to haj? i'm assuming it would be somewhat impractical to ban the shahada.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[bananabrain]

@abdullah:

the righteous Scholars
the Islamic perspective
the qualified Scholars

all of these phrases imply the ability of someone to determine who is "righteous", "islamic" or "qualified" - that still leaves plenty of wiggle room! nonetheless, i can see where the four schools would help one determine whether something qualifies as an authentic interpretation - albeit that does still not answer who within those four schools has the right to say "abu X is a halaal hanbali/hanafi/shafi'i/maliki and can be considered part of our madhhab from now on." i won't even mention the jaafari for fear of kicking off another round of "takfirication"!

It is also possible that we have to keep on practicing any action that is obligatory for us in Islam, and keep on propagating Islam [doing missionary work] despite the government prohibiting it...but I'm not sure about that...I'll have to ask the Scholars about this.

as much as i dislike missionary work, you should of course be pleased that your ability to do so is guaranteed by the democratic right to free speech, although the same thing goes for every opinion, of course.

Muslims are allowed to eat the meat of Christians and Jews

i have been told that this only applies to kosher (ie jewish-slaughtered) meat - in fact there are no specifically christian slaughterhouses as far as i know.

banning halaal slaughter may indeed be a great problem for Muslims and it may also be a sign of unacceptable hostility towards Islam and Muslims from the goverment, thus it may be possbile that Muslims would be reccomended not to continue living under such laws or break the law to continue halaal slaughter

we have the same opinion, although we'd have the choice between emigration or vegetarianism in this situation. this is at least one case in which it is clear that jews and muslims have much in common!

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Abdullah]

@abdullah:


all of these phrases imply the ability of someone to determine who is "righteous", "islamic" or "qualified" - that still leaves plenty of wiggle room! nonetheless, i can see where the four schools would help one determine whether something qualifies as an authentic interpretation - albeit that does still not answer who within those four schools has the right to say "abu X is a halaal hanbali/hanafi/shafi'i/maliki and can be considered part of our madhhab from now on." i won't even mention the jaafari for fear of kicking off another round of "takfirication"!

The Scholars who have attained the title of 'Mufti's' are qualified to give fatwa's [legal opinions], thus any follower of one of the four schools of thought can get an opinion of a Mufti of his school of thought and abide by it.

as much as i dislike missionary work, you should of course be pleased that your ability to do so is guaranteed by the democratic right to free speech, although the same thing goes for every opinion, of course.

AlHamdulillah!, InshAllah

have been told that this only applies to kosher (ie jewish-slaughtered) meat - in fact there are no specifically christian slaughterhouses as far as i know.

In the Quran it says that the food [meat] of the people of the Book is allowed for us so that includes the Christians as well as the Jews; The Christians used to slaughter by cutting the throat of the animal in the past...but that is generally no longer the case, so that is why it is generally only the kosher meat that is suitable for us now out of the meat of the People of the Book.

we have the same opinion, although we'd have the choice between emigration or vegetarianism in this situation. this is at least one case in which it is clear that jews and muslims have much in common!

Hope things turn out ok for us and we can keep on slaughtering animals the Halaal/Kosher way!

b'shalom

Walaykum!

 

[bananabrain]

may i ask which madhhab and mufti you follow, abdullah?

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Abdullah]

may i ask which madhhab and mufti you follow, abdullah?

b'shalom

bananabrain

I follow the Hanafi Madhab...I take my religion from any reliable Hanafi Scholars/books/websites, etc,...I also learn from any other reliabe/renouned Scholars of the other three madhabs, and if I come across anything in my madhab that differs in view from the views of the other madhabs that I have learnt, then I adopt the view of my School over the others.

Some Mufti's who I learn from is, Mufti Ibraheem Desai, Mufti Taki Usmani, Mufti Ibn Adam al-Kawthari, who are students of the Deobandi Madrasah...I am more inclined to learn from the Ulema [Scholars] of the Deobandi Madrasah as I believe the ulema of the Deobandi Madrasah have a verry sound, circumspect and contextual approach to the Islamic/Hanafi teachings.

Heres some reliable Hanafi websites, the first three are of the Mufti's I mentioned above:

Ask Imam.com with Mufti Ebrahim Desai

www.darululoomkhi.edu.pk/fiqh/Contemporary%20Fatawa/Contemporary%20Fatawa.html

Darul Iftaa

www.themajlis.net/

Peace

 

[bananabrain]

i understand the deobandi madrassah is associated with various elements which seem to me somewhat contradictory namely the naqshabandi, chishti, qadiri and suhrawardi tariqat of the sufis - and the taleban, who are of course not known for non-violence. how is one to resolve this contradiction?

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Abdullah]

i understand the deobandi madrassah is associated with various elements which seem to me somewhat contradictory namely the naqshabandi, chishti, qadiri and suhrawardi tariqat of the sufis - and the taleban, who are of course not known for non-violence. how is one to resolve this contradiction?

b'shalom

bananabrain

The Deobandi Madrasah recognises that sufi'ism [known as 'Tasawwuf' in Islamic language] is in accordance with the Sunnah, as all it basically is, is working on/putting emphasis on one's inner spirituality to get closer to Allah, and thus it endorses the sufi tarikahs that are in accordance with the Sunnah and denounces ones that have biddah [innovation] in it and shirk [joining partners with Allah] in it.

you can read some fatwas on sufi'ism by a Deobandi Sheikh on the following link:

Ask-Imam.com: Search for sufi

The Taliban have an Authority of their own [they are not controlled by the Deobandi Madrasah...] and allthough the Taliban may adhere to the Deobandi teachings in general...this does not neccassarily reflect some of their Jihad principles...it is well known that Millitias sometimes get power hungry and this motivates their actions rather than strict religious principles...

 

[bananabrain]

i thought as much. thank you very much for the clarification, abdullah.

b'shalom

bananabrain

 

[Abubakar]

You can say that again! but would you not agree that the funding of islamic institutions by saudi organisations has created a de facto centralised authority? and if so, is this a good thing or not? certainly in light of saudi norms as far as islamic policy and practice are concerned i'd say probably not.

I do think that there has been an increase in Saudi influence, via their funding of some Institutions but certainly not a 'de facto' centralised authority. In fact nowhere near.

It would not be good if ANY central authority emerged, Saudi or otherwise, I supose its part of our checks and balances, as once a central authority emerges no doubt there will be those who will wish to use it for the wrong ends.

A bit of bumbling confussion is not altogether a bad thing!

both very pragmatic examples and more or less the sort of response i'd respect from a reasonable person. and does this all come under the authority of the sources cited above?

Fooled you then !

interesting. can we then apply this to all five pillars? would the same apply to haj? i'm assuming it would be somewhat impractical to ban the shahada.

b'shalom

bananabrain

I guess so and probably some more as well.

Peace

 

[Muslimwoman]

i have been told that this only applies to kosher (ie jewish-slaughtered) meat - in fact there are no specifically christian slaughterhouses as far as i know.

as salaam aleykum Gentleman

Bit of a wobbly start but turned into a really informative thread - thanks.

May I just comment on the meat issue (sorry I'm a woman I can't help myself where food is concerned)

When I am at home here in Egypt I can buy meat from a Muslim or Christian butcher but when I visit my family in UK I can only eat meat from a Jewish butcher, as no Christian butchers there (that I am aware of) produce kosher meat. However the Egyptian Christians still slaughter in the correct manner (as a matter of tradition rather than adherence to faith it seems, so I tend to stick to Muslim butchers just in case).

Salaam

 

[Quahom1]

...i have been told that this only applies to kosher (ie jewish-slaughtered) meat - in fact there are no specifically christian slaughterhouses as far as i know...

If I can jump in and out here. There are no specfically "Christian" slaughterhouses" persee, other than basic human sanitary needs (in short no specifics required to prepare meat produce for Christian consumption save approptriate sanitary conditions). However, there are "Christian run" slaughterhouses in places like Chicago and Detroit, who "split the plant", in order to cater to the needs of various cultures and faiths' requirements. For example, pork will not be processed in the same facilities as beef, lamb. They are kept seperate buildings, seperate yards and seperate workers. Workers in one area will not cross over to another. Same thing with fish processing plants.

Kosher preparations are acceptable in performing, however, in the US the custom of "Dhibh" is not practiced (except in smaller butcher shops, where the local neighborhoods form the majority of the citizenry that accept such ceremonial practice, such as Dearborn/Detroit, Michigan family butcher shops.

Ok, I'm stepping back out now.

v/r

Joshua

 

[Muslimwoman]

It would not be good if ANY central authority emerged, Saudi or otherwise, I supose its part of our checks and balances, as once a central authority emerges no doubt there will be those who will wish to use it for the wrong ends.

A bit of bumbling confussion is not altogether a bad thing!

as salaam aleykum brother Abubakar

I am all for a bit of bumbling confusion but does this not go against the ethos of strictly adhering to the 4 schools? Have they not in fact wrestled for themselves the power of a central authority already?

Salaam