> Question Oh Muslims!

[salman]

^akhee, I don't think the traditionalists, those who follow the way of the salaf, actually make takfir of everyone else. One thing that cannot defy common sense is that there can never be agreement with people of falsehood - truth cannot be sacrificed or overlooked or given less precedence for sake of unity and 'betterment' of world. The real unity cannot be achieved until people embrace truth or return to it. And that is crux of the matter!

It is not matter of realizing that unity is required rather how do we achieve that unity and over come differences between us. Allah Azza wa Jal and His Messenger (peace be upon him) have provided the criteria: return back to Book of Allah and Sunnah of His Messenger and follow the way of the sahabas (radiAllahu anhuma).

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by salamfromrom

Not maybe, but definately. The real problem in my view is that nobody knows how to bridge the divide. No one has any ideas on how we can cooperate on eachother in order to make the average Joe's life better.

this is the problem salam that most people, just like yourself, don;t fully grasp the essence of the polemic. People who espouse the doctrine of unity at the most only bring forth to the table their idea of a solution, in most cases those ideas having some problematic aspect to the sunnah. The messenger of Allah already informed us alaihi salatu salam
"my ummah will never unite upon error"

this means that if someone is proposing their views which happens to have some incongruity with the shariah, then there will never be for unity, because unity intrinsically cannot be established upon error. Thats the first thing.

Secondly, You cannot bridge a divide. Allow me to demonstrate for you the essence of how contradicting ideologies work.

tawheed is the complete antithesis of shirk. tawheed is nullified in the heart if shirk is present and if tawheed takes over, the heart intrinsically becomes compelled to disassociate from shirk, even the things that are roads to shirk, the heart completely abandons it. This is why there can never be a "bridge" between two people who claim to be muslim, the first being someone who fulfills the uboodiyyah of Allah and the second, someone who is a grave worshipper.

LIKEWISE, we have a group who intrinsically understands that the ONLY source to our advancement and development is the very thing that rectified the first Muslim community, and that was
1. their beliefs
2. their FORM of implementation of Islam
3. And HOW they viewed the authority of the Messenger (which is that whatever the messenger commanded, then it is as if Allah has commanded it)

On the other hand, we have another group who intrinsically conceptualizes that advancement and development of the Muslims can occur outside of these three. That right there is the first irreconcilable notion.
Not only that, but adding to this, they intrinsically conceptualize that the methodology professed in the format above IS ACTUALLY THE FAULT and "fossilization" of Islam which resulted in our plight. This irreconcilable fact is even worse than the first because the first irreconcilable fact entails
a. heresy (innovation)
however, with this second irreconcilable fact, it entails
b. kufr (pure disbelief which may entail apostasy)

As I said above, tawheed and shirk are two diametrically opposed concepts. Likewise, so is emaan (faith) and kufr (disbelief).

Now that this has been broken down for you, then your question can be more clearly understood that requiring some form of connection by bridging the gap to two antithetical concepts is like asking for a bridge, or some middle ground between a virgin and a non virgin.

As much as I hate the current world order based on Ribah and falsehoods, at least they can cooperate and get things done and I think this is what average people want. People, In my opinion are tired of slogans and the rhetoric of different groups who struggle to get to power. Democracy has become popular precisely because in most cases it has generally made people's lives better.

I will initiate a thread inshallah for the members here about democracy. they are videos made by a kaafir. There is extreme ignorance of much of the world regarding what a democracy.

There are no clear strategies to make the different groups/sects within Islam live in peace with eachother (not to mention the world) and that is sad because originally Islam was all about uniting people

May Allah increase us in knowledge.

firstly, the existence, or the lack thereof, regarding strategies has nothing to do with development.

secondly, the unity that Islam became known for was uniting races and cultures under the umbrella. That unification had nothing to do with splitting and differing because everyone who has some degree of knowledge on Islamic history knows that ONCE Islam united various races under its umbrella, division and splitting began and it increased with the unification of other cultures into the fold of Islam.

thirdly, you are forgetting that the properties of Islam and its people are different than the properties of kufr and its people. Im not even talking about a faith based division, Im simply talking about societal properties.

allow me to hook you up with some examples

1. on the issue of secularISM
western society= western society DOES advance and develop once they seperate between their theological tenants and social politics
Islam= Islam and its people are opposite. Muslims add wrath upon wrath when they separate between theological tenants and social political sphere. This is why secularism can work for disbelievrs, it can never work for muslims

2. advancement of sciences
western society= they can never advance under their religion. their religion intrinsically keeps them in the dark.
Islam=our advancement and development went hand in hand with our religion so much so that our implementation of the Islamic ordainment's pretty much guarantees social advancement while our abandonment of the shariah intrinsically entails our failure, humiliation, degredation and ultimately societal decay as we see in todays world all because islam is NOT being fulfilled.

3. unity and diverity
western society= progression can take place with some level of disunity. unity can occur with some form of diversity on theological grounds. The reason being. Because Iblees owns every millah (way of life) for man and Allah only owns ONE.
Islam= progression cannot take place under disunity. ONlY when we become united on the affair that rectified the first Muslims, only then will progression will actually take place. Imaam Maalik rahimahullah said

"NOTHING will rectify the later part of this ummah except with whatever rectified the first part (of this ummah)"

In other words, there will be NO Islam that is going to actually rectify and reform people except the Islam that Allah was pleased with, and the fulfillers of this Islam who were pleased with Allah.

. If one group comes to power, it imposes its will on the others.

this is exactly what happens in westerns governments. The only reason why westerners don't seem to realize it is because they are living in the facade of their own individual hedonism. As long as certain people are in search for power can manage to keep the people busy with their own fantasies, then they can pretty much manipulate whatever agenda they have by forming or shaping public opinion.

Secondly, what you have just described is exactly what a democracy is. It is an intellectual word heaped with grandeur and glory for a classic concept of Mob rule. In my new thread on democracy, I will explain in further detail inshallah

The people rebel then we're back to square one. The predominant view among many today is ''if you do not ascribe to our interpretation/traditional interpretation/salafi/etc then you are an apostate and apostates should be killed. Yeah goodluck doing that with a billion people. We cannot agree to disagree. I don't want to sound pessimistic, but I can see no real way out of our predicament until there's some sort of change in mentality or something.

exactly, People have to SUBMIT to Islam, and not that Islam submits to their own personal intuitive constitutions.

secondly, allow me to properly, or more accurately, describe this phenomenon you have just described

here is the actual formula

"If you do not ascribe to THE salafi/traditional understanding (interpretation) then you are causing disunity because we will never be able to unite upon error, rather we as an Ummah were only guaranteed unity through obedience to the sunnah. And IF you do not submit to THE way (meaning the way of the salaf because it is NOT our way, rather it is THE WAY and we are merely those who have submitted to it) then you are willfully harming the people of Islam by bringing forth innovated concepts that will cause disunity and will cause moral, social, and ethical decay (as we see in todays muslim world). "

that is the more accurate equation for the phenomen and it does not include apostasy because nobody who innovates into the religion is an apostate outright. Only those whose concepts that entail a nullification of Islam would entail apostasy. So with that being said, most innovated groups are not declared apostates even by those whom you have seen espouse "salafi/tradition" understandings.

So you were dead right. There is NO WAY out of this predicament except a change in mentality i.e. that people abandon their views and comply with the views of Allah and His messenger. Allah already gave the formula for success from day one when He the Most High said

"But nay, by your Lord, they will not truly believe until they make you [the Messenger of Allah] judge of what is in dispute between them and find within themselves no resistance (within their hearts) of which you decide, and submit with full submission" (al-Nisa: 65)

WHen we fall inline with this doctrine and this understanding, we can begin to kiss our problems goodbye one by one. However, when we continue to seek other avenues and solutions to address our problem, we will likewise continue our perpetual flow of nowhere.

pluralistic views can work for the people of Iblees, but it intrinsically defies the way of living for the people of Allah and therefore is diametrically opposed to Islam.

[optimist]

In Pakistan, in 1951, twenty one Muslim religious scholars from different sects passed a unanimous resolution that all Government laws in Pakistan should be based on"The Book (Holy Quran) and Sunna". After a lapse of twenty years one of the main supporters of the resolution, the leader of Jamaat E Islami, Maulana Maudoodi, declared:

"It is impossible to make a set of public laws as per The Book and the Sunna which all Muslim sects will unanimously accept as Islamic."

[salamfromrom]

Salam

akhi Boriqee you have explained everything beautifully as usual. I am sorry if I came across in my previous post as someone who desires unity at all cost. That is not my position. All I would like is for people to stop killing eachother due to sectarian differences, and work together just in the areas of charity, helping the poor, feeding the hungry etc. That is all. I think an Islamic state would help tip the balance of power back into the hands of the oppressed masses, but I can't see such a state existing today because even if the rightly guided muslims come to power in some little corner of the world... how can they implement islam if every muslim has a different ideea of what islam is....they will eventually be forced to resort to violence against the many misguided sects/groups who do not accept the true shariah and that's when things would go downhill fast.

That's why I believe nobody has a clear practical strategy on how to build an islamic state. If you bro boriqee or anyone else would come to power in the Middle East tomorrow.....how long do you think the islamic government will last when the shias/modernists/asharis/sufis/etc/etc categorically refuse to submit to the shariah as implemented by the salaf?

salam

[binnasoordeen]

Originally Posted by optimist

In Pakistan, in 1951, twenty one Muslim religious scholars from different sects passed a unanimous resolution that all Government laws in Pakistan should be based on"The Book (Holy Quran) and Sunna". After a lapse of twenty years one of the main supporters of the resolution, the leader of Jamaat E Islami, Maulana Maudoodi, declared:

"It is impossible to make a set of public laws as per The Book and the Sunna which all Muslim sects will unanimously accept as Islamic."

your point is correct this occurred since some laws of quran and sunnah are neglected saying those topics bring debates

so 2day also many sects they don't wanna change their way

if every one follows quran and sunnah
no problem automatically the UNITY between muslims will come !

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by optimist

In Pakistan, in 1951, twenty one Muslim religious scholars from different sects passed a unanimous resolution that all Government laws in Pakistan should be based on"The Book (Holy Quran) and Sunna". After a lapse of twenty years one of the main supporters of the resolution, the leader of Jamaat E Islami, Maulana Maudoodi, declared:

"It is impossible to make a set of public laws as per The Book and the Sunna which all Muslim sects will unanimously accept as Islamic."

thats because Maududi was a modernists who has a deficient understanding of what the Qur'an and sunnah is.

Firstly,y the state, in its code of law, has to adopt 1 of the 4 madhaabs of law. That is no problem because every adherent to one of the madhaabs will abide to a "State" law even if it adopts a different madhaab than their own. For exampe I am hanbali but if we had a khilafa in morrocco today and they made their constitutional or common law that of the Maaliki madhaab, I would submit.

If we are talking about a mass khilaafa that includes pretty much most or all of the Muslim world, I would view it more likely that the khalifa would relegate stae adopted madhaabs to regions only so that it would allow for better cohesion, so that would entail that the hind area through afghanistan and those places, the governor there would most likely institute the hanafi code of law, the entire gulf region instituting the hanbali code, the iraaqi region adopting the shafi'ee code and the north african region west of eastern africa adopting the maaliki code and eastern africa like sudan, somolia or whatever adopting the shafi'ee code.

[al-boriqee]

Originally Posted by salamfromrom

Salam

akhi Boriqee you have explained everything beautifully as usual. I am sorry if I came across in my previous post as someone who desires unity at all cost.

no way. that was not what I perceived from your post, dont worry about that.

That is not my position. All I would like is for people to stop killing eachother due to sectarian differences

about 99 percent of the killing that does occur deals with doctrinal based differences. That will always continue to the day of judgment when the messenger of Allah forewarned us that the khawaarij will remain until the dajjal comes.

, and work together just in the areas of charity, helping the poor, feeding the hungry etc. That is all. I think an Islamic state would help tip the balance of power back into the hands of the oppressed masses, but I can't see such a state existing today because even if the rightly guided muslims come to power in some little corner of the world... how can they implement islam if every muslim has a different ideea of what islam is....

thats why our methodology is tasfiyyah wa tarbiyyah i.e. purifying the muslim thought from the contaminates and impurities that infected their thought pattern that 99 percent of which were covertly injected by the enemies of Islam, and then to cultivate them upon Islam itself. Basically we are starting almost from scratch, building the Muslim so that todays muslims is no longer a "nominal" muslim but an "actual" muslim.

they will eventually be forced to resort to violence against the many misguided sects/groups who do not accept the true shariah and that's when things would go downhill fast.

not really, because if the state effected ease towards the masses, the mere fact that previous states for the longest time did not implement ease or mercy would cause them to react somewhat different.

secondly, due to the haywire that is going on and prevelant in todays muslim world, I believe that most muslims are fed up with secular and democratic states and would take any rule of authority that claims to be khilafa. The only ones will to fight against a newly risen khilafa will be the puppet regimes strategically placed into power by American hegemonic policy who would fight only to "keep their power" more than anything else. So yeah, fighting will most likely take place, but when the masses see that it is a "khilaafa' that is being fought for, most likely they would uprise and topple their own government from within in order for the actual Muslim government to achieve victory. Under such a circumstance, when the Muslim state has that kind of power and the people in certain regions have the ability to rebel, then there is agreement from most of the fuqaha that under such conditions, the people can thus rebel.

Thus rebellion would have to fulfill two conditions,
1. ability
2. that the effort will not cause more strife than what is already prevelant

That's why I believe nobody has a clear practical strategy on how to build an islamic state. If you bro boriqee or anyone else would come to power in the Middle East tomorrow.....how long do you think the islamic government will last when the shias/modernists/asharis/sufis/etc/etc categorically refuse to submit to the shariah as implemented by the salaf?

salam

well firstly, radical shi'ism would have to be taken out, not all shia, but the extreme raafidhi isma'eelis and the state sponsered shi'ism of iran that even many shia do not share their beliefs with. As for modernists, there is no worry about them, they consistitute about a hundred people in the whole of the muslim world.

the ash'aris and sufis are not going to disobey a khilafa just like salafis are not going to disobey a khilafa if the khalifa was a sufi or an ash'ari.

You have to understand, while theological different may persist, most of the ahkaam are agreed over in some form of fashion and the khilafa is an institution of the shariah of Allah in terms of ahkaam and not in terms of theology. The most IDEAL khilafa would be that of a salafi inclined khilafa because then the khilafa will be based on "nubuwwa" prophethood", but in this point in time, I believe Muslims will take a poodle as a khalifa. Muslims are so desolate that they would accept a crumbled cookie as the khalifa right now.