> Sunni Response Spanish newspaper accused IslamQA of fanaticism and extremism

[salman]

:

Sunni response to Spanish newspaper who accused IslamQA of fanaticism and extremism. These non-Muslims should realize the inconsistencies and fallacies within their methodology and the call for justice and moderation they propagate. Shaykh Munajjid (may Allah preserve him) has totally blasted them:

Question: I am a seeker of knowledge from Spain, and I am the moderator of a chat room on Paltalk, through which we are trying to spread the teachings of Islam to both new Muslims and non-Muslims. Praise be to Allaah, many people have become Muslim because of this chat room. We are opposed to all acts of terrorism or anything that have any connection to violence in all forms. But a few days ago, a Spanish newspaper published an article in which it says that there are a number of chat rooms promoting violence. And they sad that those who visit these websites, when they do not find an answer to a question, they go to the Islam Q&A website which they describe as extremist and fanatic. I would like you to give us some advice as to how we should deal with this matter. We are not fanatics at all and we are not as they described us in the article.

Answer: Praise be to Allaah.

You should understand that the issue, for those Westerners who are hostile towards Islam and its people, is not the issue of any specific website or approach. Rather the issue is Islam in and of itself. If a person is Muslim then -- in their estimation -- he is an extremist and terrorist. This is an ancient element of European culture, since the time of the mobilisation for the crusades against Islam and Muslims. You should realise that the aim of this enmity and hatred is not to make us give up our approach or even to shut down websites -- not at all. Rather the aim is that we should give up our religion altogether and follow their religion. Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):

“Never will the Jews nor the Christians be pleased with you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) till you follow their religion. Say: ‘Verily, the Guidance of Allaah (i.e. Islamic Monotheism) that is the (only) Guidance. And if you (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم) were to follow their (Jews and Christians) desires after what you have received of Knowledge (i.e. the Qur’aan), then you would have against Allaah neither any Wali (protector or guardian) nor any helper’”

[al-Baqarah 2:120].

There are some points that we may note concerning this issue:

1. What is the definition of fanaticism or extremism and terrorism according to that writer and others such as politicians, leaders and media figures? The world cannot agree on the meaning of each of these words. Everyone looks at these words and assumes that its meaning is what he himself understands from it, based on his religion or ideas or country or party. So how can we debate these matters when their definition is so unclear?!

2. We are commanded to adhere to the religion of our Lord, may He be exalted, by entering into the religion of Allaah completely, and clinging strongly to it. Of course, this approach is not going to be liked by those Muslims who take the matter if religion lightly, so how do you expect the kaafir and mushrik to like it? Can such people be expected to help the Muslims to adhere to the religion of Allaah or to encourage them not to be heedless with regard to matters of their religion?

3. We -- if Allaah wills -- on this website of ours and our brothers on the other fatwa websites of Ahl al-Sunnah, do not make it our aim when answering any question to please any state, party or group that belongs to Islam, so would we take into account a kaafir’s approval of what we say and issue fatwas on that basis concerning the religion of Allaah? We do not rejoice in their praise of what they think is in accordance with their reason and principles, and we will not be harmed either -- if Allaah wills -- by their criticism of what we say. They have their religion and we have our religion; they have their Lord and we have our Lord.

“We are pleased with what we have and you are pleased with what you have and our opinions differ.”

4. If they are really fair-minded and sincere, then what is their opinion of blind fanaticism and hateful extremism that is widespread in more than one country, to the extent that their extremists and ignorant people slandered our Prophet Muhammad (blessings and peace of Allaah be upon him) and our religion, on the basis of ignorance and whims and desires. If they were truly fair-minded, they would have taken a stance against ideas of fanaticism and extremism that are propagated by their popes and rabbis and the leaders of their parties concerning the Muslim minorities and the symbols of our religion, such as hijab. But we see them overlooking all of that and looking for slips on the tongue on the part of some overenthusiastic Muslims so that they can use that as a means to attack our religion itself.

5. If this article was really fair-minded, then what is its attitude towards the state terror that is practised against the Muslims, those who are in the right, the people of the land in Palestine, Iraq, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries? What is their attitude towards the shedding of blood, the transgression of sacred limits and the plunder of resources?

6. If this article is fair-minded, then let him look at the history of his own country in the colonisation of peoples, the plundering of their resources, what they did to the Native Americans and other indigenous peoples whom they colonised and plundered their resources.

7. If this article is fair-minded, let him look at the history of the Inquisition and think long and hard, how much time and effort he will need in order to apologize for this history.

The present and the past alike need a fair-minded approach!

You need to adhere to the right path and keep away from that which will provoke trouble where you live, and to call people to Allaah with wisdom and beautiful preaching, in accordance with what your circumstances and resources will allow. Let your knowledge, your words, your attitude and your deeds be a true testimony to the soundness of your approach and true proof of the lie of those who accuse you falsely.

You should realise that pleasing the people is an aim that cannot be reached!

We ask Allaah to foil the plans of those who want to harm this religion and make their plots backfire, and to help you to be callers to the way of the Qur'aan and Sunnah.

And Allaah is the source of strength.

Source: Islam Question and Answer - A Spanish newspaper is accusing our website of fanaticism and extremism

My appeal to our modernist and apologist brothers and sisters, please learn from this response. This is how the people of Sunnah respond and this is howe our attitude should be while answering the kuffaar. And not trying to change our religiong to please them because they will not be pleased untill we leave our deen

[al-boriqee]

al-hamdulillah, im glad for this

this is how we are to blast imbecilic westerners who reproach us with ridiculous claims such as these.
We
1. analyze the claims
2. properly define the root cause of the claim
3. show the hidden and apparent flaws of the claim
4. explain their hypocrisy inherent within their behavioral thought pattern and their stated claim

jazakallahu khairan for this akhee salman

[TheBoxer]

I found the apparent 'righteous indignation' from the IslamQ&A writer to be very amusing. To forbid a woman from wearing Islamic garb is considered "extreme" and yet stoning a woman to death because four men accuse her of committing adultery is not extreme. Equal rights no matter a person's race, gender, or religion is considered extreme and yet treating a woman's court testimony as worth only half of a man's is not extreme. Posting a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad in a newspaper is extreme, and yet killing a person for slandering that same prophet is not extreme.

I've found some very EXTREME fatwas on that website. Here's one explicitly instructing Muslims to hate non-Muslims in their hearts:

With regard to non-Muslims, the Muslim should disavow himself of them, and he should not feel any love in his heart towards them...If the Muslim has to be with them (the non-Muslims) physically, he should not be with them in his heart, and he must avoid mixing with them unnecessarily...The rights of Allaah and His Book and His Prophet are more important than our personal rights. Remember this, for this is one of the things that will help you to hate them and regard them as enemies until they believe in Allaah alone...(Islam Q&A - Fatwa No. 11793)

And here's one declaring that the reason most Muslim men don't have slaves in the shar'i sense (which would make them halal for intercourse) is because most of the Muslims of the world won't wage jihad and capture women of the kuffar:

It is rare nowadays to find slaves in the shar’i sense in which it is permissible to be intimate with them etc. That is because most of the Muslims have long since given up the obligation of jihad for the sake of Allaah, in addition to their position of weakness and humiliation before their kaafir enemies, so that many of the majority-Muslim nations have signed the protocol that expressly forbids slavery and strives to put an end to it, which was agreed upon in the United Nations in 1953. (Islam Q&A - Fatwa #26067)

~TheBoxer

[salman]

most of these have been already discussed and beaten to death on this forum so please search & refer to them. I do not want to "pollute" this good thread.

One thing that you need to keep in mind when reply in those threads is that please define few terms and their implication for us:

1 - what is extremism and who decides the threshold
2 - what is freedom and who decides the threshold

Threads discussing the divided between Islam & West, so called intolerant rulings of Islam, gender inequality etc:

Muslims are Intolerant?
Tolerance in Islam
The Role of Reason and Intellect Between the Modern Western Paradigm and Islam
The Ideological Divide Between Islam and the West Vol I: Defining the Subjects of Difference

Threads on detailed rulings of slavery in Islam:

Female Slaves
Islam and Slavery
Islam & Slavery - A Refutation of Doubts

lastly, let me touch on few points to clarify few things. First and foremost thing is that everything need to be understood in the proper context. Otherwise, it is an academic crime in broad day light!

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

I found the apparent 'righteous indignation' from the IslamQ&A writer to be very amusing. To forbid a woman from wearing Islamic garb is considered "extreme"

If you want to discuss more about hijab and whether it is extreme or not please refer to Does Hijab degrade and oppress women?

It is amusing only in the minds of those who lack clear thinking. It is extreme according to your (West) own standards and standards of the Lord. One side you call for freedom of rights and call label Islam extreme because its rulings do not fit your criteria of freedom. Then other side you call for ban of hijab. When you call for morality being decided by people or left to a group of people; hence, no absolute truth which means whatever I thought is correct and you do not have the right to tell me to revoke my idea or enforce me to do something else. In the light of all of this, Islamic laws are not extreme since according to us they are best for humanity and within the realm of how you have defined morailty you do not have right to criticise us or call our understanding of morality extreme. Because as said above you operate on paradigm that there is no absolute truth.

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

and yet stoning a woman to death because four men accuse her of committing adultery is not extreme. Equal rights no matter a person's race, gender, or religion is considered extreme and yet treating a woman's court testimony as worth only half of a man's is not extreme. Posting a cartoon of the Prophet Muhammad in a newspaper is extreme, and yet killing a person for slandering that same prophet is not extreme.

all of this has been discussed in other threads so please refer to the threads I mentioned above

Please make it clear to us whether you are a Christian or a secular? Because it is hard to swallow such nonsense from a Christian.

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

I've found some very EXTREME fatwas on that website. Here's one explicitly instructing Muslims to hate non-Muslims in their hearts:

What is so extreme about it? Yes, we hate you because of your actions and beliefs and this is what every Muslim suppose to do. However, we are gentle and kind when it comes to calling people to Islam and we are obliged to use good manners. If we see someone's heart is soft toward Islam then we are more gentle to them so that it becomes easier for them to enter Islam. You should have read other fatawas which explain this whole issue in more detail instead of picking and choosing and quoting things out of context.

What do you think Muslims suppose to do to those who hate our religion, violate the rights and rulings of Allah, want to get rid of us, gives us all sort of names, hate us etc.? Should we have a tea party with them!? Let me put it practically, which I said in another place on this forum:

Let me put it how ustad Abu Taubah, may Allah preserve him, explained: imagine someone beating up on your mother, disrespecting your mother, saying bad things about your mother or not giving her rights, what would you do? Would you then say, "it is alright because someone is exercising his freedom of free choices and let him be"? If you say this, then you are not a good son and your mother should disown you. If you say no "I will stand up for my mother (at least hate such thing in my heart)", then who has more rights on you: your mother or Allah Azza wa Jal, Who created you and your mother and gave you everything you have!?

Like ustad said, this is problem with us; everyone wants their rights, scream about it and make big fuss about it; however, when it comes to fulfilling the rights of Allah, we turn our faces and pretend as if we do not know anything.

Remarkably, your Christians nifaqq (hypocrisy) is exposed everytime when you bring up this argument. Care to answer following questions:

Do you love Satan who supposedly tempted your god? Do you love those who supposedly killed your god, Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him). Do you love Muslims because according to you they are blasphemous!?

The list can go one but you get the point

Originally Posted by TheBoxer

And here's one declaring that the reason most Muslim men don't have slaves in the shar'i sense (which would make them halal for intercourse) is because most of the Muslims of the world won't wage jihad and capture women of the kuffar:

yes, so your point is? The Muslims have abandoned jihad against their enemies and enemies of Allah and hence no prisoners of war aka slaves. Suppose someone is hostile toward you or attack your house, would you tell him "Let us go to Tim Hortons for a coffee"? Please read other threads on slavery and other fatawas on the website to get the full picture and context. Here is a summary of the whole context:

Jihad

1 - Offensive and defensive jihad exist against the enemies (disbelievers, oppressors, those who spread fitnah etc)

2 - We're obliged to spread the message of Islam until it overtakes all other religions. In this process, the nations will be divided into three groups: 1) the enemies 2) the allies 3) the nations under protection of Islamic state. Therefore, the offensive and defensive physical jihad is obliged against the enemies. As far as I know, this is the whole context of "fight them until the religion of all is Allah's". This is how the scholars hve understood from the Qur'aan and the Sunnah of Allah's Rasoul (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam - peace and blessings be upon him)

3 - We follow the footsteps of Prophet Muhammad (sal-allahu 'alayhi wa salam); he called people to Islam and later on sent letters and his companions to different nations to spread the message. As a result, some tribes became his allies, others came under his protection and others became enemies. So, they fought the enemies: took initiative or defended themselves. And as we know number of things can happen as a result of war: peace treaty, give the nation to enemy etc. However, it doesn't mean force people into slavery or accepting Islam or randomly kill them.

Prisoners of War aka Slaves

In Islam, the slaves are prisoners of war and when Muslims take prisoners of war then it is depended upon the Muslim ruler to pass any judgment about them: a) free them without any ransom or b) free them for ransom or c) exchange them for their fellow Muslim prisoners or d) distribute them to Muslims aka slaves. Regarding prisoners of war, Islam came up with a better and practical solution. The prisoners can freely work, be treated justly and fairly by their masters, gain their freedom by paying some money to their masters or their masters can free them without anything in return. In case of females, if they give birth to their master's child, they automatically earn their freedom and their child have the same rights over his father as a child from a free woman (i.e., inheritance, being taken care etc.). In addition, many times violation of Islamic rulings give the option of freeing slaves. As a prisoner what more can you ask for?

This is completely contrary to ancient and modern treatment of prisoners of war: tortured, starved and thrown in dungeons. Not to mention that salves can learn about Islam and achieve the highest thing that is possible - embrace Islam.

Distribution of prisoners of war is not straight forward because in Islam they are ghaneemah (booty) or fay' (spoils of war). Thus, the ruling of distributing ghaneemah is also applied to POW. Ghaneemah is to be divided into 5 parts and evidence for this is the hukm of Allah: "And know that whatever of war-booty that you may gain, verily, one-fifth of it is assigned to Allaah, and to the Messenger, and to the near relatives [of the Messenger (Muhammad)], (and also) the orphans, Al‑Masaakin (the poor) and the wayfarer" [Surah al-Anfaal 8:41 - interpretation of the meaning]. The Shaykh has explained this here in more details.

and Allah knows best

[TheBoxer]

Polluting a "good" thread?

I was simply taking exception to the fact that a particular website was being hypocritical.

Hatred of the hijab is "extreme" and yet hatred of non-Muslims is not.

I am not really interested in explanations about those particular fatwas. I understand that scholars are not infallible, and therefore one need not feel beholden to such teachings if they believe it contradicts the Quran.

The point I was making was that his views of extreme seem to be irrational and hypocritical.

[salman]

^by polluting I meant starting same discussion here again which has been going on in other threads. and yes it is a good thread since it is smack at faces of west for their double standards and explain the proper Islamic methodology to handle such attacks against us.

they are only in the eyes of those who relay on methodology that there is not absolute truth. You use these big words but you have no absolute definition or implication of it. And if we agree with that his views are extreme and hypocritical then by same definition you are not free of it either. So what is your point? Despite the fact you say you do not want explanation yet you continue with your unfair, illogical attack. The fact that you have been failed to reply to any of the points and explain your own nifaaq is clear evident for your lack of clear reasoning and thinking.

You use quotations for hating hijab as being extreme, may I ask why? Is hating hijab is not extreme but hating those who violate and hate the religion of the Lord is extreme?

[Tema]

jAZZAKaLLAHU kAHYR