tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784861348085946314.post2020453932563202276..comments2013-01-05T02:14:42.961-08:00Comments on Towards Political Engagement: Evaluating Hizbut-Tahrir's Theo-political Stance (Updated 01/10/2007)Maajid Nawazhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/02358170809628377397noreply@blogger.comBlogger102125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784861348085946314.post-47782034728596480912007-09-27T05:59:00.000-07:002007-09-27T05:59:00.000-07:00Salam Abu Layth (AL)If you look far above you will...Salam Abu Layth (AL)<BR/><BR/>If you look far above you will see that your comment is indeed posted, and has been since the day that I posted my reply. It just chose to slot itself up there!<BR/><BR/>Please now call me, as a brother should, and we can discuss this matter face to face InshaAllah.<BR/><BR/>MaajidMaajid Nawazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02358170809628377397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784861348085946314.post-83935377989081706332007-09-25T02:25:00.000-07:002007-09-25T02:25:00.000-07:00Dear Abu Hasan,You mentioned that you don't see ho...Dear Abu Hasan,<BR/><BR/>You mentioned that you don't see how any quote supports the claim that Dar al-Islam is a place wherein Muslims reside. It is a fact that there are many Ulema who hold on to the view that Dar al-Islam is where Muslims live and practise their religion, without these scholars refering to the rulings of Islam being the law of the land. My article is full of such references. You may not like this fact, but nevertheless it is true. <BR/><BR/>The way in which you are reading Imam al-Bujayrimi's quote, that it stipulates the condition of every one of the rulings of Islam being made into state law, as a condition for Dar al-Islam is plain wrong. <BR/><BR/>He mentioned the word "Zuhur" in the Arabic. That means "appearance". Appearance of "every ruling of Islam" can occur in any way (as it is unrestricted), and it doesn't have to occur on the state level as law (why have you restricted it to this?). <BR/><BR/>Ask yourself this: why is it when he mentiones 'appearance of the every one of the rulings of Islam (ahkam al-Islam)" you automatically read this as "implementation on state level the state laws of Islam". <BR/><BR/>My dear brother, you are assuming, firstly, that "appearance" means the same as executing on state level; and secondly, you are reading the words Ahkam al-Islam (rulings of Islam) as "state laws of Islam", and you are interpreting the word "laws" in its modern (post nation state) concept of state laws applied on a national level.<BR/><BR/>Well, in fact, even Shaykh Nabhani (see Muqaddimat Distur) believes that the state doesn't have to adopt state laws from the Ahkam of Islam, and that the ideal scenario is that the judges settle disputes without adoption by the state (as it was in the past). <BR/><BR/>This alone should demonstrate to you that if a classical jurist said the "appearance of every one of the rulings of Islam" they meant their appearance in society, ie: the practice of Islam by the people. This is because they didn't have states that had statutes and legislation until the later period. Rather, they ruled by the orders of the Imam. <BR/><BR/>Hence, I believe that it is incorrect to super-impose a modern political understanding of statehood and legislation upon these texts. This is the 'innovation' I was talking about in HT's thinking, and what I meant by the word innovation was it's linguistic meaning of something new. And this is where I disagree with the apparent attampt at responding to my article.<BR/><BR/>As I have said to you, I am working on many things at once, including my second article proving that there is no Kufr in the regimes and laws. Thus, I cannot immediately do a point by point rebuttal of the many HT critics who critique what I have written.<BR/><BR/>I would have hoped though that all Muslims, you included, would find it distasteful that such articles focus on my motives and intentions, using sarcastic or insulting language. I would have thought that people wouldn't turn a blind eye to the excesses of someone in their camp just because he is writing what they are desperate to hear. And Allah (swt) warns.<BR/><BR/>"Kullu Hizbin bi ma Ladayhi Farihun"<BR/>'And every party rejoices in what it has'<BR/><BR/>Wassalam<BR/>And may Allah (swt) also forgive your mistakes and reward your good actionsMaajid Nawazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02358170809628377397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784861348085946314.post-57744612888067631282007-09-25T01:53:00.000-07:002007-09-25T01:53:00.000-07:00Maajid Nawaz said... To ibn Adam, whoever you may ...Maajid Nawaz said... <BR/>To ibn Adam, whoever you may be,<BR/><BR/>I have read all your comments on your site and what you have posted me. Due to the extremely confident nature in which you believe yourself to be so right, and believe that you can address the meaning of my words and intent without seeking clarification from me, I ask you to end this banter over messages and meet me prsonally instead. I have found that personal meetings usually bring out the "brotherly" politeness of many who are quite rude or sarcastic whilst anonymously posting on the internet. Moreover, it is much faster when speaking to clarify any misunderstandings. <BR/><BR/>I look forward to you posting me your contact details (don't worry I won't publish them and reveal your identity), alternatively, I'm sure you can get hold of my number so go ahead and just phone me. I have asked that of Abu Laith too, so if you know him please remind him that I would like to meet him as I am yet to hear from him.<BR/><BR/>Salam<BR/><BR/>MaajidMaajid Nawazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02358170809628377397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784861348085946314.post-11482995406501328552007-09-24T14:20:00.000-07:002007-09-24T14:20:00.000-07:00AsalaamBrother Majid you said"How you jump from th...Asalaam<BR/>Brother Majid you said<BR/><BR/>"How you jump from this issue (a Muslim ruler granting status to non-Muslims) to the claim that the whole of Shari'ah being enforced on state level is what the Imam meant, is beyond me." is less of a jump tham trying to use this quote to justify that Darul Islam is where islamic laws were not present and the authority of islam is not present and that it was just where muslims lived with non-muslims in peace. I fail to see how this quote or any other quote justifies this position. Also can you please clarify if you accept abu-ibrahims position about the point that the discussion of darul Islam in the contect of the Ijtijhad of HT. Also please let us know what points you agree and disagree with in his article. From my understanding of the articles in question, your attempt at using the hizbs adopted culture to disaprove their method using the arguement of darul Islam has failed as they donot use this arguement to build their method. PLease respond to the article of abu-ibrahim and where you agree and disagree with sincerity<BR/><BR/>May Allah(swt) reward you for the good you do and forgive you for the msitakes that you makeAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784861348085946314.post-69991838403737927922007-09-24T12:22:00.000-07:002007-09-24T12:22:00.000-07:00"Why are you guys so intent on proving insincerity..."Why are you guys so intent on proving insincerity?"<BR/><BR/>Majid, it's a religious pathology.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784861348085946314.post-91566882902859262472007-09-24T12:05:00.000-07:002007-09-24T12:05:00.000-07:00ibn AdamIt seems that you cannot come to terms wit...ibn Adam<BR/><BR/>It seems that you cannot come to terms with the fact that the definitions are disputed. It is a fact. Please just accept it.<BR/><BR/>Can you not accept that perhaps people read quotes and understand them in a different way to yo? Does it have to be about proving who is "misquoting"? Why are you guys so intent on proving insincerity?<BR/><BR/>As for your question: there will be a detailed response to that article InshaAllah. However, I invite you to consider that the "appearance" of all of the Islamic rulings in society is not the same as their "implementation on state level as law".<BR/><BR/>And as for your question about Dar al-Islam and occupation, yes, some scholars do still consider that dar al-Islam, with the obligation of resisting being dependant upon capability.<BR/><BR/>WassalamMaajid Nawazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02358170809628377397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784861348085946314.post-16767723506532454032007-09-24T12:00:00.000-07:002007-09-24T12:00:00.000-07:00Dear anonymous,Please refrain from assuming that I...Dear anonymous,<BR/><BR/>Please refrain from assuming that I "selectively left your comment out". You don't know what is in my heart and it befits you not to try and appear as if you do, for you will fail point both rationally and textually.<BR/><BR/>As for your question, I believed that I had answered it already but will nevertheless answer it again:<BR/><BR/>1) Since what I will now say concerns my own thoughts and my own motives, my answer must be received by you as a fact, because no one is permitted to suspect anothers intentions Islam.<BR/><BR/>2) Fact one: I had many doubts in prison, and I had alot of time to develop my thoughts.<BR/><BR/>3) Fact two: I didn't voice them because I hadn't reached the level of certainty needed to leave, and was bound by Party adoption which means that it would have been a violation of my oath to speak out.<BR/><BR/>4) Fact three: I decided (since my doubts were not matters of certainty) that I would leap back into the Da'wah to recover my lost zeal in an attempt to ignore my doubts, and convinced myself that I was bound by adoption to propogate the same ideas. This was a period of pyschological denial, after 12 years of being in HT.<BR/><BR/>5) Fact five: My doubts only grew and grew. The more talks I did, trying to ignore them, the more they grew.<BR/><BR/>6) Eventually, the doubts became too big, and I unilaterally withdrew from all activities (around my exam time), in a way that didn't break my oath and didn't involve sedition. I also agreed (upon request of your leadership) to remain quiet for a while.<BR/><BR/>7) Then, I announced my resignation, after a few days of agreed upon respite for your leadership.<BR/><BR/>8)Then, I secluded myself to gather my thoughts (agian agreed with your leadership).<BR/><BR/>9) Then I announced my thoughts<BR/><BR/>Whether you choose to continue in your line of doubting or not is down to your own weakness. If you like (and since you claim to know me) I will meet you to relieve you of any further whisperings. <BR/><BR/>However, what seems to me to be relevant now are the issues themselves, and not why I left in a way that you found uncomfortable.<BR/><BR/>Wassalam<BR/><BR/>MaajidMaajid Nawazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02358170809628377397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784861348085946314.post-76205317954497723762007-09-24T11:45:00.000-07:002007-09-24T11:45:00.000-07:00Dear Abunuha,With respect, you are just plain wron...Dear Abunuha,<BR/><BR/>With respect, you are just plain wrong. The presence of Ahl Dhimma simply means that they are present. Their presence does not mean that the entire "Islamic ruling system" as you would have it, is stipulated as a condition. <BR/><BR/>To make such an assumption is just too much a leap of faith, and smacks of a desperate need to disprove that there was Ikhtilaf over the definitions of Dar a-Islam. <BR/><BR/>The fact is, and you must concede this as it is plain for all to see, that the definitions are and were differered over, even the author of the apparent attempt to respond to my article must concede that.<BR/><BR/>I look forward to your comments on my next article that aims to prove there is no "Kufr" in the regimes and laws.<BR/><BR/>WassalamMaajid Nawazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02358170809628377397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784861348085946314.post-17424660890941849822007-09-24T10:40:00.000-07:002007-09-24T10:40:00.000-07:00Maajid, I left a question for you which you have s...Maajid, I left a question for you which you have selectivley left out, while it appears that you leave in particularly degrading insults like "u Israeli tart"....Why is it that you don't censor that too? My question was:<BR/><BR/>Why is that after 4 years of thinking and studying in prison you continued at your more mature age of 28 or so to propogate and promote HT...You were released in March 2006, yet I saw you in December 2006 (5 months before you left) speaking so passionatley about the need for the Khilafah and asking people to join HT. It certainly didn't sound like a man who had a any doubts about his beliefs. And then 5 months later we find you going against everything that you spoke of. Its abit like Nick Griffin (BNP) announcing in 5 months time that he supports integration and immigration, and would like to see more blacks in the country.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784861348085946314.post-79057628090975086372007-09-24T10:10:00.000-07:002007-09-24T10:10:00.000-07:00Well Maajid we then have a series of possibilites ...Well Maajid we then have a series of possibilites which are contradictory for Imam Bujayrimi. In the first part of the phrase he has the crucial part "every law" to clarify what he meant. He either believes all are possible which is a manifest contradiction. (I mean you cant have a definition that allows some application and one that is universal in application) or he is just listing a series of possibilites and not supporting any. If the latter is the case then you are again misquoting by claiming that one of the possibilities is his position. <BR/><BR/>Finally what about the last possibilty where the muslims are driven out. Is that Dar Islam to you? What about your consensus? <BR/><BR/>It just gets worse for you Maajid doesnt it.Ibn Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04002734613287818570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784861348085946314.post-2528439319572689562007-09-24T08:42:00.000-07:002007-09-24T08:42:00.000-07:00Dear Majid,The quote which you mention does imply ...Dear Majid,<BR/><BR/>The quote which you mention does imply that a tax, call it Jizya or something else is required right? I'd like to make two suggestions to you which should conform with your your current line of thinking: <BR/><BR/>1)Call the non muslims currently residing in the muslim lands dhimmi as this is the "traditional" word used. Lets avoid using "innovative" new words such as "non muslims"<BR/><BR/>2)Call the rulers to impose a tax on these dhimmi so that the land fits in more closer to the definition of dar ul islam<BR/><BR/>I'm sure you can see how nonsensical this points are. Its not beyond simple reasoning to deduce that the quote stated implied a lot more then what you saying which is similar to the above two points. <BR/><BR/>May Allah(SWT) guide us and keep us on the straight pathAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784861348085946314.post-30919385175580410782007-09-24T07:59:00.000-07:002007-09-24T07:59:00.000-07:00Dear Abu Hassan,With respect, I disagree. The inse...Dear Abu Hassan,<BR/><BR/>With respect, I disagree. The insertion of "even if Ahl al-Zimma live there" into Imam al-Bujayrimi's definition does not imply that the laws of Islam are implemented in any way. All it implies is that a Muslim ruler has granted non-Musilms the right to live there in return for them pying a tax (and Imam sl-Shafi'i said that the tax does not have to be called Jizya, as long as it is a tax). <BR/><BR/>How you jump from this issue (a Muslim ruler granting status to non-Muslims) to the claim that the whole of Shari'ah being enforced on state level is what the Imam meant, is beyond me.<BR/><BR/>WassalamMaajid Nawazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02358170809628377397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784861348085946314.post-15488781488151928872007-09-24T07:37:00.000-07:002007-09-24T07:37:00.000-07:00Dear anonymous,I don't believe I have the power or...Dear anonymous,<BR/><BR/>I don't believe I have the power or ability to take off posts from other peoples blogs. I think it's still up there, try having a look without being signed on to gmail, there may be a blip in the system.<BR/><BR/>WassalamMaajid Nawazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02358170809628377397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784861348085946314.post-24327385588790681622007-09-24T07:19:00.000-07:002007-09-24T07:19:00.000-07:00yes i agree there are some that use islam to justi...yes i agree there are some that use islam to justify thier political objectives. anyone who wants to have something any any culture, religion, past and future civilisations will manipulate the truth to get what they want but Hizb ut Tahrir are not doing this if they were they would far from islam and supporters would be of a mimimum. For you to say HT are off the line of islam then this assumes the millions of supporters are with them without any deep intellectual pondering before lending a hand to them.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784861348085946314.post-1630491594129210092007-09-23T19:45:00.000-07:002007-09-23T19:45:00.000-07:00AsalaamWhy have you taken the post off abu-ibrahim...Asalaam<BR/>Why have you taken the post off abu-ibrahim blog?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784861348085946314.post-8771466164717116012007-09-23T07:51:00.000-07:002007-09-23T07:51:00.000-07:00Wow.Reading the anti-Maajid responses just makes m...Wow.<BR/><BR/>Reading the anti-Maajid responses just makes me believe that we REALLY need to route out extremists and crush them all. All of us, Muslims, non-muslims, British, American, Egyptian, humans with brains generally.<BR/><BR/>There's not much wrong with what he's saying but the extremists are so unvbelievably politisised, agendasised, brainwashed and hell bent on their goal that they act like kids who've had their toys taken away...<BR/><BR/>As for abu ibrahims blog its starts out pretending to be a research paper but its a thinly (if at all) disguised rant at him having his toys taken away like all the other haters.<BR/><BR/>Who does a research paper under a pseudonym anyway? Be man enough to come out and be named like Maajid.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784861348085946314.post-9742098461221454152007-09-23T03:22:00.000-07:002007-09-23T03:22:00.000-07:00Please find my respone here. http://traditionalisl...Please find my respone here. <BR/><BR/>http://traditionalislamist.blogspot.com/Ibn Adamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04002734613287818570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784861348085946314.post-64585627217472332572007-09-22T16:00:00.000-07:002007-09-22T16:00:00.000-07:00Asalaam Brother MajidThe article by abu-ibrahim is...Asalaam Brother Majid<BR/><BR/>The article by abu-ibrahim is well thought out and written. May Allah guide us all in this blessed month of Ramadhan to find the truth and avoid any issues of pride. Just a quick thought on your quick response, you mentioned that "or" meant any of the conditions, but the condition of "or Muslims live there even if there were with them ahl al-dhimma" as Abu-Ibrahim mentions the issue of a ahl al-dhimma is linked to the rule of Islam. So the arguement you are trying to present is not supported by this point.<BR/><BR/>May Allah(swt) guide you to the truth.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784861348085946314.post-82844288882035418112007-09-22T00:24:00.000-07:002007-09-22T00:24:00.000-07:00assalaamu alaykum wa rahmatu'Allahi wa barakatuh,D...assalaamu alaykum wa rahmatu'Allahi wa barakatuh,<BR/><BR/>Dear brother in Islam,<BR/><BR/>JazakumAllah khair for you reply and for explaining yourself. There is no further need for clarification. There was no need for one in the first place. The issue is between you and Allah (swt). My request was only that you be clear with yourself as the Prophet (saw) told us that the deen is naseeha. So my only aim in giving naseeha is to seek the pleasure of Allah (swt). I pray that He makes clear to us all what is in our hearts.<BR/><BR/>As for my sadness and sorrow, just so you are clear about my motivations, I will relate the following. Umar bin al Khattab , the real amir ul-mu'mineen was once passing by a monastery and he wept when he saw a monk doing his rituals. He was sad that this person was working so hard and yet he was wasting all his efforts for something that would only take him to the hell-fire. This was because Islam made him care for all people and their akhira.<BR/><BR/>Dear brother, I am not calling you a disbeliever nor even comparing you to a one rather I am comparing my sadness to the sadness that Umar felt when he saw a person who was expending his efforts towards a futile goal. The sadness we feel is all the more when we feel that a Muslim, our brother, has turned towards the wrong path. This alone is the source of the grief.<BR/><BR/>As for the victory of Allah, indeed it is not in need of the help of any particular person or group. Allah (swt) will indeed perfect His light as you have stated. However, I just want to clarify that the victory of Allah will come through the hands of the believers, so we still need to work for it. It is not that angels will descend from heaven and institute the laws of Allah (swt). It's similar to the saying of Allah that the Quran would be preserved by Him and the understanding of this by the Sahaba. Umar understood it as that the Quran would be preserved by Allah (swt) but through the efforts of the Muslims. Khair, I am sure you already understand this.<BR/><BR/>And yes brother, because your arguments are indeed superficial, mis-informed and weak and therefore as you said, al-hamdulillah that Allah (swt) has purified the ranks of those who are working in His cause on the correct method. You have confused the rules of Shariah with definitions which are just used to characterize a certain reality. You do not consider what the purpose of the definition was and hence the shallow analysis. If I am wrong then may Allah (swt) correct me in an easy and gentle way. Ameen.<BR/><BR/>I hope that you will be sincere in following the truth even if it leads to you recanting the ideas of which you have now become the proponent of. I also hope that as ready as you were to abandon all that you had believed in before because you thought you had found what looked like the truth, you will be as ready to abandon it if you start doubting it’s validity.<BR/><BR/>May Allah make clear to us the truth, guide us on it and make us of those who fight for it. May Allah (swt) also clarify for us the falsehood, distance us from it and stand us in firm opposition to it.<BR/><BR/>Walaykum assalaam wa rahmatu’Allahi wa barakatuhAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784861348085946314.post-34296678778389915742007-09-21T20:19:00.000-07:002007-09-21T20:19:00.000-07:00My dear sister "heartbroken"I thank you for your c...My dear sister "heartbroken"<BR/><BR/>I thank you for your comment,<BR/><BR/>What I meant by my words in my Times article, and also my interviews, is that such treatment during my youth acted as the 'shocks' necessary to be an impetus for me to start thinking about political issues, and to be willing to consider an alternative lifestyle. <BR/><BR/>Once I had understood HT's ideas, however, I adopted them purely on the basis of Islam, and then dedicated what I could of my life to this cause. I believe that all change in thoughts comes through such 'shocks' as even Shaykh Nabhani described in "Takattal al-Hizbi". <BR/><BR/>My explanation should suffice for you, as you cannot look into my heart, and thus I trust that you will need no further clarification on my motives for joining, staying with, or leaving HT.<BR/><BR/>My dear sis, there is no reason to be heartbroken. If I am eventually shown to be correct then you will rejoice at discovering the truth, as your happiness is in seeking Allah's (swt) pleasure alone. If I am shown to be wrong, then you will be glad that a bad apple has been removed from your ranks, and that your body has been puried, thus making you stronger to carry the call without such weaknesses to contaminate your ideological purity. Either way, please do not be heartbroken, for Allah (swt) will look after his Deen, and He is in no need of us to perfect His light.<BR/><BR/>Wassalam<BR/><BR/>Your brotherMaajid Nawazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02358170809628377397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784861348085946314.post-59952556230122010582007-09-21T20:03:00.000-07:002007-09-21T20:03:00.000-07:00Assalamu alaykumIn the interests of a fair and ope...Assalamu alaykum<BR/><BR/>In the interests of a fair and open debate I would like to inform all readers that a response to my article has been written. <BR/><BR/>I earnestly advise all readers to take the time out to read this response.<BR/><BR/>As a prelimiary remark, before responding in every detail to the response, I will say that there are certain factual errors made in the analysis:<BR/><BR/>1) I am not and never have been an agent of any country's security services. I am dismayed that the level of the debate has stooped so low. Especially since one person cited in this article as authority for such points has also written articles explicitly claiming that HTB are also agents of, and have been penetrated by, UK security services. These articles making such claims by the same author are freely available on the net for all to see. It seems that HT supporters are prepared to grab at anything rather than focus on the issues.<BR/><BR/>2) My article references are not misquotations, and that is shown by the respondant himself. He cites the "full" quote of my Imam al-Bujayrimi citation (which incidentally I had already posted up on here in my comments section anyway). The quote he uses is this:<BR/><BR/>"(About Dar al-Islam) that Muslims live there and if with them there, there were ahl al-dhimma, OR it was opened up by muslims, OR it was given to govern by the hand of non-muslims OR they were living there and were expelled by the kuffar from it." <BR/><BR/>And in his Nihaya al-Muhtaj he provides a fuller definition of Dar al-Islam : "Dar al-Islam is the entire land where the Islamic laws (ahkam al-Islam) appear and it is intended by the phrase "appearance of the Islamic rules", every rule from its rule, OR Muslims live there and if with them there, there were ahl al-dhimma, OR it was opened up by muslims, OR it was given to govern by the hand of non-muslims OR they were living there and were expelled by the kuffar from it."<BR/><BR/>Strangely, the author then proceeds to state that my quoting merely one of the Imams definitions from this list of definitions provided by the Imam(all of which come with the word OR between them) betrays the context of the quote that clearly proves that the intended meaning of the Imam is that the for the lands to be considred dar al-Islam they must be ruled by "the Shari'ah laws".<BR/> <BR/>I find it very strange indeed that the author has missed that the word OR is in between every category of the Imams various definitions. This clearly means that for the Imam, the land is dar al-Islam if any ONE of the categories in this list is achieved, which is why he uses the word "OR". Hence, quoting the full citation (though already done on this blog) takes nothing away from the meaning of quoting merely one of the categories on the Imams list, because ONE category would indeed suffice due to his usage of the word "OR". By way of example, If I say to person x, "you may have £10 if you give me a lift OR arrange a lift for me", all person x has to do is ONE of my two conditions to get the £10, because i used the word "OR". <BR/><BR/>3) It is factually wrong that the murder in East Ham college was drugs related. This is factually wrong by police records, court records, and by eye witness testimony (I was one of the many eye witnesses interviewed by the police). The author fails to substantiate this, and instead insists that the murderer had no link to HT. <BR/><BR/>I was the HT representative and President of the Students union on site. The man convicted for the murder came on campus as my friend and "Party contact", his name was Saeed Nur. His only link to that college was through us. He was not a student and the first time he came to campus was as our guest. <BR/><BR/>The author then claims that I (the HT man on campus)am eager to distance myself from all personal responsibilty for this incident, despite in the same article stating that HT (ie: me on campus)were not responsible. <BR/><BR/>However, I did exactly that in my Newsnight interview wherein I stated that though I am not responsible for the murder (I had no direct or indirect part in the criminal act itself) I am responsible for creating an atmosphere where that was possible. I also stated that the murder occurred due to Muslims of all ethnicities bonding on a "Musilm idenitity" to challenge an opposing gang of Nigerians, thus it was a gang murder, in which HT played no direct part. However, it was primarily us HT activists that provided that gang culture with a "Muslim" identity.<BR/><BR/>I remind the author that non-eye witness accounts posted on internet chat forums by HT supporters, claiming that the murder was drugs related are not objective sources. In one occasion a non-eye witness source who wasn't even a student on campus has relied on, and cited, their closeness to me personally to lend authority to their claim made on a chat forum that it was soley gang related. However, if they derive authority for their point from their association to me, yet I (an eye witness and the HT activist that invited Saeed Nur on campus) am saying differently, where does that leave such opinions?<BR/><BR/>4) As for footnote 90, it is absurd. As a fact, I attended no clandestine, subversive secret meetings to undermine HT whilst I was a member. This claim is laughable and wholly unsubstantiated.<BR/><BR/>The rest of the claims made in the article are, I believe, of a similar vein, and I hope to address it point by point as soon as I can. In the meantime, I humbly ask that you are patient with me as I am also trying to get the second article finished, whilst balancing my many other commitments.<BR/><BR/>The response is to be found at:<BR/><BR/>http://www.abu-ibrahim.blogspot.com/<BR/><BR/>I hope you have a good read.Maajid Nawazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02358170809628377397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784861348085946314.post-90684651631231665432007-09-21T19:01:00.000-07:002007-09-21T19:01:00.000-07:00Reply to Al's comment:Note 1: Dear readers, apolog...Reply to Al's comment:<BR/><BR/>Note 1: Dear readers, apologies for the length of this reply, but it is written to respond to a lengthy comment.<BR/><BR/>Note 2: Apologies for late responses but I am now involved in trying to finish my second article and thus I will not be as free to reply to everything as fast as you would all have liked. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Dear “Al”:<BR/>Considering that you began your article with an apology for your delayed response I am saddened that you deemed it necessary to follow up your post with two further comments implying that my delay was due to my inability to answer you. Humility is important in a discussion, especially since anything you post up will only ever be your view. Perhaps, dear abu Laith, you should not be so quick to assume that I have not thought out my views, especially so since you know me so well. If the timing is an issue for you, I am more than willing to meet you in person and discuss. Please give me a call, if you have not deleted my number. The point you made about removing moderation from my blog is both impractical and a double-standard. Impractical because though I am posting up most of the abuse posted to me by your “Islamic”colleagues, there is some that I just cannot publish. A double-standard because your HTB website and your HT global website are also moderated. I await your phone call in earnest.<BR/><BR/>Answering your questions:<BR/><BR/>1) Though I said that assuming the ruler is valid will be discussed in my next article, it is still possible to make this point here. The only reason I tried to avoid it was so that we didn't get bogged down on this point. <BR/><BR/>This point can still be made here because the Ulema considered that a ruler who is Muslim is the bare minimum needed to maintain his validity in Dar al-Islam as defined by them. This is factually a narration of the stance taken by many Ulema. You may not like it, or agree with it, but you have no way of denying that it is factually the view of many Ulema. My article cites this is the view of Imam al-Rafi'i of the Shafi'is, where he says that merely being in the hands of the Imam and his Islam is sufficient for a land to be Dar al-Islam. It also cites ibn Hazm where he considers that a land is associated to its ruler, hence for him a land with a Muslim ruler means that it is Dar al-Islam (please check the article for citations). <BR/><BR/>Thus, these scholars consider that a land is Dar al-Islam due to it having a Muslim Imam, (that is why al-Rafi'i refers to him as an Imam in his quote). Please take care to avoid mixing scriptural and scholarly quotes on the “obligation of a ruler adhering to the Shari'ah” with this discussion on when a ruler becomes invalid. They are two different topics. You will find that most Ulema considered any Dar al-Islam with a Muslim ruler a legitimate arrangement, though if he fell short of his duties by misapplying the Shari'ah they did not condone that. This is narrated by Ibn Hajr al-Asqalani in fath al-Bari as the ahl-Sunnah view, where he says that only by a ruler becoming a disbeliever does he invalidate his ruler.<BR/><BR/>2) Now on to your point addressing whether there is a Munkar to forbid:<BR/><BR/>You asked: the term Aqeedah didn't exist and so does that mean that there was no Aqeedah?<BR/><BR/>My brother abu Laith, yes, Aqeedah as a term never existed, and is differed over, but then that is merely a definition given for what you believe is a definitive and rational belief that requires no scriptural evidences to support it anyway. The same applies for the term Qur'an and any other emotive Aqeedah example you may bring. <BR/><BR/>What we are discussing is a difference over a legal definition, upon which action must or must not be taken ie: Hukm Shari'i. And as I have shown in one of my comments, as well as above in this answer, this is not a semantic dispute but rather carries with it implications for when security in a land to practice Islam is exchanged for security granted to the ruler to remain in place. Many Ulema said that the ruler being a Muslim is sufficient for this to occur in Muslim lands, and in the case of occupation in Hind and North Africa, they said that once the resistance had failed it was acceptable, though not desirable, that if Muslims could practice their religion they should cease fighting even the occupier (this will be judged by time and place by the Ulema of any region, and is not a general fatwa - as they never are). You may not like these views, you may not agree with them, but you cannot deny their existence, and their subsequent implication that this debate is not over semantics.<BR/><BR/>3) Your quotation of Sh. Ramadan al-Buti surprises me abu Laith. You have used a quote that further demonstrates my point. Shaykh Ramadan al-Buti, whose stance with the Syrian regime is well known, and is the antithesis of your stance, is saying that Palestine is still Dar al-Islam, but the obligation to remove the occupation remains. This is totally different to propagating that the Syrian regime is theologically invalid and must be militarily removed. Please do not mix up the discussion of the obligation to reform and remove corruption or occupation, with the question of the theological invalidity of the Syrian regime. I also remind you that the various opinions quoted above by me, demonstrate that the matter of when to cease fighting occupation is differed over. This does not preclude action in itself, because one is allowed to follow ones opinion, but it does preclude action where the condition set for such action is decisiveness (Qat'a). Thus, one may follow their subjective opinion (and ignore others) in executing an executive action, such as whether to repel aggressors or not (even if the matter is differed over) but HT cannot enact their opinion to remove systems and rulers that “rule with Kufr” if Kufr cannot be shown, but only a difference of opinion. This is so because for them such Kufr must be Qati'i, and thus my point is not that one cannot act out ones subjective ijtihad (legal opinion) in any action (including removing occupation) but that HT cannot act out their opinion of removing “systems and rulers of Kufr” if they have stipulated the condition they must reach to do this is definitiveness, yet some Ulema consider it acceptable for the land merely to be in the hands of a Muslim. <BR/><BR/>I also implore you to cite Shaykh Ramadan al-Buti more often in your talks and articles, you will find that not only does he consider Syria Dar al-Islam, but that he forbids the militarily overthrow of the Syrian regime. In summary, the Shaykhs stance is that Dar al-Islam with who he considers a Muslim ruler (Syria) is not theologically illegitimate, but that the rulers of occupied Dar al-Islam (Palestine), must be resisted. This second point is differed over (as I have quoted in my previous comment about India and North Africa) but such a difference doesn't preclude executive action because one hasn't stipulated that such an action must derive from a Qati'i source, unlike HT who stipulate that the action to remove the “Kufr systems” must derive form Qati'i evidences. If you cannot see this, I ask you to think about it from this angle: you made the point that the Sabab (of Kufr) is the real issue at hand, is not that very same Sabab present in Syria for Shaykh al-Buti to see? Why does he not see that Sabab in Syria then? <BR/><BR/>Also my dear brother, for arguments sake, even if you had demonstrated that the issue in Shaykh al-Buti's Palestine example is a semantic one, how does that remove the historical fact, and I repeat, historical fact, that for the Deobandi scholars of Hind and the Sufi scholars of North Africa, it wasn't a semantic one (in the very same example of occupied land), as I have quoted. All you would have proved is that it is semantic for this one scholar, in this one issue. <BR/><BR/>Proving one scholars opinion doesn't automatically invalidate the opinion of another scholar, and that is going to be a constant weakness in your argument, because it is always going to be easier for me to prove dissent (all I need to do is prove that one classical opinion exists), than for you to prove definitiveness (you'll need to prove that no one said the opposite of what you say, and that no one possibly could have or ever can).<BR/><BR/>4) About your point on Ikhtilaf (difference) on ruling by Kufr. <BR/><BR/>If you read what I said carefully my friend, you will see that I wrote exactly the following: <BR/>“you assume that there is no Ikhtilaf on the meaning of “ruling by Kufr”....” (end of quote). <BR/>Thus, what I said was, how one defines “ruling by Kufr” is differed over. I didn't say that ruling by Kufr itself is allowed. I repeat, I said that what that actually means is differed over. I repeat once again, so that none of your less than Islamic supporters declare Takfir (ex-communicate) me, I didn't say that ruling by Kufr is allowed, I said: what that actually means is differed over. I hope that is now clear. Next time, please pay attention to my words on such precarious topics such as Iman and Kufr, JazakAllah khayr.<BR/><BR/>You state that this is not substantiated in the first article, and so where does this leave the first article. It leaves it exactly as I have stated, that by defining a land wherein one can practice ones faith as Dar al-Islam, some Ulema grant such a place the status of a land of security and stability, not one where you can work to undermine the secuirty and stablity of a ruler who has allowed you to practice your Deen. Their main concern in doing so (as is abundantly clear in my article citation of Imam al-Ramli's fatwa) was the spread of the religion, and not political ambitions, as the Deen for them was about spreading the religion to all, not seeking power. They had the foresight to recognise that political stances come and go, but the creed is what should be spread to people. My major mistake was assuming that a HT readership would enter this discussion fully realising the Shari'i implication of defining a land as Dar al-Islam.<BR/><BR/>5) My point about the French occupation was not to make it binding upon the Ummah. I was merely demonstrating that it is not a semantic debate. I have already mentioned this above. Hence, your point about Shaykh al-Buti's apparent semantic definition (to which I do not conceded) should also not be binding upon the Ummah, true? So just because you can prove that it is not semantic for one scholar doesn't mean that it is not semantic for another. I advise that you stop trying to prove that some scholars agreed with you (by their usage of the term in a semantic way), and start trying to prove that no scholars disagreed with you (by their usage of the term in a non semantic way)....then and only then will you be addressing the issue.<BR/><BR/>6) As for your point labelled number 4. May I humbly advise you, my dear friend, that it doesn't help the discussion for you to state that I have a shallow, superficial or incorrect understanding of party culture and Usul al-Fiqh, just because I now disagree with your party, such talk is superfluous. <BR/><BR/>The point I was making is, I believe, quite clear. HT adopts that the lands are Dar al-Kufr, due to the presence of Kufr in the laws. Other scholars believe that they are Dar al-Islam simply by there being security to practice the Deen. This is not a semantic issue. Therefore, it is a legitimate legal difference that has implications. The ruler, according to those opinions that define the lands as Dar al-Islam, is a theologically valid ruler so long as he is Muslim. Hence, the ruler is theologically valid according to a valid Islamic opinion. HT must recognise, though not agree with, this legal difference as an Islamic opinion. Thus, according to HT, it is an Islamic opinion that the Muslim ruler cannot be removed in what is a valid definition of Dar al-Islam. Therefore, according to HT, the ruler is a theologically valid ruler. It matters not whether the logic of legitimacy is another scholars being imposed upon them, because HT binds itself to recognise as “Hukm Shari'i for all Muslims” (see article for citation) any valid Islamic opinion.<BR/><BR/>7) I agree with your final point about not mixing up issues. May Allah protect us from that. I think that you will find that the classical Ulema deemed it acceptable that any ruler who is Muslim, in a land where the Deen can be practised, is a theologically valid ruler. I suggest that you start with Shaykh Ramadan al-Buti himself, and his views regarding Syria, that you consider is a Kufr regime, with a ruler ruling by Kufr.<BR/><BR/>8) In summary I will now address your summary:<BR/><BR/>i) Validity of the rulers in Muslim lands: I believe that it is indeed proven because this article demonstrates that a land is Dar al-Islam as long as the Deen can be practised. My assumption was that the Shari'i implications of this argument were understood by all. I hope that the discussion in this comments section has finally clarified the Shari'i implications of deeming a Muslim land to be Dar al-Islam, as it grants security to the ruler in return for security to the inhabitants to practise their religion.<BR/><BR/>ii) Your point about the Munkar that HT wants to remove: <BR/>I hope that I have shown that your 'Sabab of removing a ruler is Kufr' point is not considered the Sabab by other Ulema. Hence, whether such a Munkar warrants the removal of the ruler is differed over. This doesn't preclude it from being a Munkar, but it isn't the actual Munkar required for removing the ruler according to other classical Ulema.<BR/><BR/>iii) I never said that there is Ikhtilaf on whether it is allowed to rule by Kufr, I said that there is Ikhtilaf on what “ruling by Kufr” actually means. Also, I didn't claim this in the article itself but in the comments section, and my second article will InshaAllah show this.<BR/><BR/>iv) On the semantics point: I have clarified above that it is you who must prove that no scholar used these terms in a non-semantic way, not me who must disprove that one did. Merely by (I believe incorrectly) demonstrating that one did consider it semantic, this doesn't prevent there being a difference on this very issue by another. I have quoted others for whom it wasn't semantic, and you must accept the historic fact that they used these terms in a non-semantic way,.<BR/><BR/>v) I stand by my conclusion, and have shown why HT is bound to accept that the lands being Dar al-Islam is an Islamic opinion for all Muslims. Thus they are still bound by the two point conclusion.<BR/><BR/>Therefore I stand by my article and pray that Allah (swt) opens up your heart to my words my dear friend. Perhaps we should meet?<BR/><BR/>WassalamMaajid Nawazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02358170809628377397noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784861348085946314.post-36596616713214669572007-09-19T23:00:00.000-07:002007-09-19T23:00:00.000-07:00AoA Brother Majid, I must admit that the news of y...AoA Brother Majid, <BR/><BR/>I must admit that the news of your quitting hizb ut tahrir came as a surprise. When i heard that you have written an article explaining the reasons why you quit, i was anxious to know why a person like yourself felt to take such an extreme step. I must also admit that i read your article reluctantly and with a fear in my mind, believing that you would have a solid reason to leave HT. I feared that your reasoning may as well confuse me. I kept reminding myself that no matter what, i would stick to this dawah because it is Fardh. With this fear i read your article, and i must say i was relieved, disappointed and saddened. Relieved for myself, that the article didnt create anything substantial to confuse a normal shab of Hizb. Disappointed that a person like yourself should present such shallow arguments to leave HT. Saddened that you chose not only to publically attack HT but vowed to undo what you call your past mistakes. <BR/>Please brother, fear Allah. You have been long enough in Hizb to know that i am not asking this from you because it would hurt dawah or Hizb, i am asking you this because it would hurt you.<BR/><BR/>Alhumdulilah, Hizb has seen through and faced many challenges. You are not the first one to leave nor the first to try to malign the efforts of Hizb, and you know it, perhaps better than i do, that Hizb has stood out at all such criticism by the Grace of Allah.<BR/><BR/>Brother by Allah, I am only writing this comment because of care and love for you, for I fear for you. As for dawah, this is Allah's work and Allah protects it.<BR/><BR/>Kindly hold on to your nerves, and resist the urge of adrealine. Thirteen years with the Hizb, through hot and cold times, and now you choose to leave at a time when we are almost there. When it is time to reap the rewards of the hard effort you and your brothers in dawah have been putting in for the past 54 years.As i said before your leaving doesnt matter, what is saddening and what makes your brothers cry is that you should not only just leave at a time when we are almost at our goal, but you also want to disassociate yourself and undo your previous efforts for the cause of this dawah. <BR/><BR/>You accuse hizb of superimposing a political ideology on theological interpretations, while you yourself have been holding the same view for the group which you have joined now. The Maulvis and Scholars, on government pay rolls, or who dont have the courage to stand up to the dictatorial regimes, superimposing the justification of their corrupt rule on theological interpretations, thus protecting them.<BR/><BR/>Brother it seems you want to wipe out the khair of your past and i fear Allah for you and i pray to him, that he guides you. The regret when once this State is a reality would be too much for you to bear. I invite you to think and think again, and cut yourself off from this tempting world for a while and ponder over your doings. Its never too late to return.<BR/><BR/><BR/>I pray to Allah that May he give Istiqamah to every brother in dawah, and May HE save us, the dawah carriers, and the Ummah from the torment of fire.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784861348085946314.post-60775590153051102772007-09-18T22:30:00.000-07:002007-09-18T22:30:00.000-07:00Bismillah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheemassalaamu alaykum wa ...Bismillah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem<BR/><BR/>assalaamu alaykum wa rahmatu'Allahi wa barakatuh,<BR/><BR/>At this point, let it be clear that the only reason even the idea of Khilafah holds any value is because it is a tool for implementing the laws of Allah, the all-Mighty. As slaves of Allah, we are obligated to implement all of His commands, i.e. as individuals and as a nation. We do not long for Khilafah because we want personal power or we hate the kuffar or because the kuffar and the tyrants that they have installed over us are racist, or oppressive towards us or shed our blood or steal our wealth. If Allah (swt) had not commanded us to rule only by what He (swt) has revealed then we would never have to raise this call. We could sit at home and let the world take it’s course. We do not raise this call to settle personal or communal historical scores with the kuffar. We raise the call of Khilafah simply because Allah (swt) commanded us to rule by what He has revealed.<BR/> <BR/>Br. Majid, my point here is this. If a person does not have the correct motivations for an action and is not clear about their motivations then even a small seed of error or delusion in their thinking will slowly take root in their heart and grow. They may be saying the right things and doing the right things but this seed will grow into a tree which will poison and devour their heart and give the Shaitan power to eventually lead them astray. <BR/><BR/>It seems from your TimesOnline article that your motivation for joining HT and working for the re-establishment of the Khilafah was based on personal emotional reasons more specifically the racism that you experienced growing up in London in the 1990’s. This racism must have felt all the more bitter since you said on BBC that your family was integrated into British society with many professionals such as doctor’s among them. <BR/><BR/>It is unfortunate that from your words it seems that it was the bitter taste of the institutional racism that led you to support the ideas of HT. Did talk of Khilafah help to nurse your injuries or did it make you feel a sense of power in world where you felt the victim? It would be natural for a young boy to feel this way but it would not be right. I am not answering these questions because only you can answer and Allah (swt) knows what the truth is. My reason for raising them is simply to ask you again to do some soul-searching to see whether you did indeed form your ideas on a shaky foundation. If your intentions were not the right ones then it is perhaps even more unfortunate for you that perhaps the actions you undertook in this state may be completely fruitless vis-à-vis the akhirah. If you had these feelings and ideas and didn’t hide them from others and were forthcoming about them, and no-one around you recognized and addressed the misconception that you held then they are also to blame.<BR/><BR/>I have tried to not make any assumptions about what is in your heart. I have only taken from your own words and posed for you some questions. If I have erred then please correct me and forgive me as your well-wishing sister in Islam. I only ask that you look for their answers within yourself with sincerity. Al-hamdulillah, Glory is to Allah that His Mercy, Guidance and Forgivness is always available to the believers.<BR/><BR/>May Allah (swt) correct the believers in their thoughts and emotions during this blessed month and guide us on the correct path. May He (swt) forgive all our sins, purify us and grant us a clean slate. May He (swt) help us to account ourselves before we are brought to account. May He open for us the gates of His Mercy, His Forgiveness and of Jannat and never close them and may He close the gates of Hell-fire and His punishment and anger and never open them. May He (swt) grant comfort, steadfastness, protection to those of this ummah who are suffering and oppressed. May guide the sincere souls to His guiding light. May the mercy, the light, the beauty of Islam be available for all to experience. May the deen of Allah be established at the hands of His sincere, devoted and humble slaves. <BR/><BR/>May the peace, mercy and blessings of Allah be upon you and all the believers.<BR/><BR/>Not so confused anymore but still saddened <BR/><BR/>jazakumAllah khair for posting my earlier comment. plz do post this as well.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6784861348085946314.post-27732144705147482682007-09-18T17:31:00.000-07:002007-09-18T17:31:00.000-07:00I am receiving many questions, in person, on my pe...I am receiving many questions, in person, on my personal mail account and on this blog. As would be obvious to all those of civility, this coupled with my other life and daw'ah responsibilities means that my rate of responding to questions will inevitably be slow. <BR/><BR/>I humbly request those who are waiting to please remain patient as I can assure you that answers will indeed be forthcoming.<BR/><BR/>Thank you<BR/><BR/>MaajidMaajid Nawazhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02358170809628377397noreply@blogger.com