One of our regular contributors has requested we post this…errr ‘response’ to an alleged comment by Hamza Tzortzis. Apologies in advance to both parties (really) but it seems serious points have been raised and deserve to be aired:
I came across this fascinating piece of self promotion regarding my article on IERA’s emotional blackmail when a friend forwarded it to me:
Does this sound like sectarian bigotry?
Relying on lies, twists and clichés?
What’s wrong with us Muslims?
It must be jealousy or outright hypocrisy, because I have no idea why some people spend so much time writing such trash.
Whoever knows this person, can you tell him I invite him to a coffee or lunch (I’ll pay) because this guy has no idea what he is talking about. I want to show him love and really make him appreciate that we have are very broad in our approach, and thinking.
Most of his views are archaic and based on maybe some historical baggage, that he must have been carrying around for a while.
If anyone knows him personally please tell him I want to have lunch with him – as sincere loving brothers – if he leaves with the same views then that’s fine, but at least he should approach his brothers and speak to them. Lies or misunderstandings are not conducive to brotherhood.
May Allah guide all of us, and shower us with His love and mercy.
The irony is, I spent almost 40 minutes in Australia defending the madhaahib, defending our beloved brothers and sisters who hold different views on aqeeda – especially where there is misrepresentation. There were some jaahil Muslims who wouldn’t pray behind a hanifi!!!! And I had to spend some time in de-constructing such ignorance. In all my courses, especially AlKauthar courses I always get people to think in an usooli way. I even say that whoever learned doesn’t follow an usool is almost jahil! I also, explain the concept of valid differences, even in aqeeda, and fiqh. Not once have I – especially in the past few years – ever condone or promoted sectarianism or hatred for other views. I always give both views if there is a contentious issue. All of which is recorded.
So I am quite perplexed that some of our brothers and sisters come out with such hatred, and the fact that they support the anti-Muslim kuffar against their brothers in Islam.
I have many talks where I referred to brothers like Adam Deen on God’s existence (recent video in Surrey University – brother Yusuf Ahmet was in the audience and he works at Adam’s institute – ask him), and brothers like Abdullah Al-Andalusi (I even get him to replace me for international trips when I can’t make them! His recent Canada trip is example of that – and our beloved Iberian brother is staunch in his views, lol), and I even promote Shaykh Akram Nadwi especially when I spoke about gems from Surah Yusuf, and shaykh Yawar Baig, etc. The list goes on. So I am confused. Really I am.
My views our that in dawah you must never expose our differences or academic contentions. We must be united. Check all of my talks, they are aqeeda neutral – most of them anyway. The only hate I have received so far is from the neo-salafis and the militant atheists – oh the irony! 🙂
Now, this doesnt mean I dont have my own views, I do. And some of them are in direct contrast with brothers even in iERA, but the ummah is in an intellectual war and crisis. For that unity is required. And I believe unity is required regardless, and all of these issues must be dealt with over a nice roast lamb washed down with sweet mint tea 🙂
If anyone can arrange a friendly, loving and brotherly lunch, that would indeed make you of the peacemakers 🙂
It is interesting that Tzortzis wants to ‘reach out’ by appealing to a forum on which the post was not written as opposed to directly posting on the site on which the original article was found. Cynics would say this ‘indirect’ approach is a rather vulgar attempt to rally his fan-club on said forum to his defence.
He says he wants to show ‘love’ and then quickly proceeds with a bargain – basement pop-psych insult by accusing the writer of having ‘historical baggage which has been carried around for a long time’ (i.e he is saying the writer has psychological problems). Love indeed.
To emphasise his sincerity, he mentions his apparently effusive love a further two times. As if that was not enough, he then evokes Allah’s love (infinite) for good measure.
So the Devil can quote scripture and donkeys can carry books. And people who want to insult and draw others to fight their battles can speak of ‘love’ (and indeed tea).
He then gets to the real reason for his ‘invitation’: the poor fellow and his employer have been unfairly slandered and misrepresented! Why, he has only just returned from nowhere other than Australia (practically the ends of the flat Earth Sheikh Ibn Baz and presumably Hamza inhabit), where he has been battling for the rights of Hanafis against those who refused to pray behind them (as his teacher Haddad would in all likelihood say that they should not, with his catch-all caveat/get-out-of-takfir-free card that well, if no one told them that Hanafism was kufr then…).
Of course, by this stage I was fighting back tears just thinking of the poor chaps moral heroism.
Sadly however, on further reflection, it appears he is engaging in the same sophistic exercises he frequently employs as well as the dilettantish pseudo-intellectualism that has become his hallmark (after such promising beginnings): he teaches at Al Kauthar he proffers in his defence – an academy as sectarian as they come (like IERA), with absolutely no non-Wahhabi/Deobandi-Wahhabi teachers, where courses are taught in a militantly sectarian manner and the Sheikhs of the Wahhabi movement, Albani, Ibn Baz and above all Ibn Taymiyya are venerated. Of note is that this veneration is extended despite the support of Ibn Baz (for example) for extremist causes, and yes, perhaps even terrorism.
Instructors include alumni of WAMY and Medina University (those well known non-Salafi institutes). Examine the wonderfully diverse (note: Sarcasm) biographies of Al Kauthars’ instructors here: http://www.alkauthar.org/instructor.php?id=3 (no women, hmmm…). We can let the reader see their ‘inclusive’ aqaid and affiliations. Lots of Asharis, Sufis, Maturidis…oh wait…
I wonder who teaches the female students they seem so keen to recruit. The male instructors must have awesome self discipline and control. Maybe Hamza is in charge of that department?
But wait now! Poor Hamza has spoken out against both sectarianism and extremism (perhaps he spoke out against the latter in Australia as well: we all know – it’s always hotter down South!).
Poor Hamza, despite being a member, nay, instructor, at not one but two sectarian institutes (that promote barn-door extremist scholars), is not himself a sectarian nor an extremist. Perhaps he just did not know.
And of course, he tells people to behave in an Usooli way (i.e having principles, I mean who doesn’t…even Fascists have ‘usool’)…but what he means of course are the principles of his group, not the madhabs. Obviously he is careful to leave some ambiguity: like IERA, he does not want to make his Wahhabi-sectarian stance too obvious…funding and all that jazz.
Then we get to his real point: criticising the self appointed defender of the faith Hamza is to ‘support the anti-Muslim kuffar against their brothers in Islam’. So the writer has sided with the enemies of Islam by criticising IERA/Hamza.
Love indeed!…or is it more like crypto – takfir?
But come hither! We haven’t heard the poor brother out yet!
He has ‘referred’ to Adam Deen (but also attacked him and accused him of heresy, as have other prominent members of the IERA team) and Abdullah Al Andalusi (a silly Tzortzis fanboy who cowers from doing anything more radical than saying that Saudi Arabia is not an Islamic state). He is even so magnanimous as to promote Akram Nadwi (a well known Deobandi graduate with Wahhabi leanings, so inclusive that he has allegedly publicly denied that there is even any such thing as A’shari or Maturidi aqeeda – non-sectarian indeed).
Sadly Hamza’s memory failed him regarding the ignominious occasion when his colleague (and fellow student of Haddad) Adnan Rashid called Adam Deen’s institute ‘enemies of the Sunnah’ (i.e of Islam and therefore perhaps a cowardly method of making takfir). And this somehow got posted on the main IERA Homepage…for three days running. Hamza did not race to Deen and Co’s defence then…and it still leaves the issue that none of the people Hamza or IERA have ‘promoted’ have been from the groups that his Imam Ibn Taymiyya takfired, Asharis, Maturidis etc…big coincidence. You know, the kind Hamza tries to take atheists to task for.
Then he predictably rejoined with a call for unity and to hide our differences for the purpose of dawah (i.e intellectual dishonesty and telling people to change their religion but not telling them for what. Or for that matter that he perhaps follows an anthropomorphic creed…like many good Christians and that other Muslims…well, do not). Not very open and honest: ‘Become Muslim!’…’but what is this Islam you speak of? Who is this ‘Allah” you speak of? Is he like, you know, a giant man sitting on a throne in the sky kinda like that painting on the roof of the Sistine Chapel like ‘Sheikh Ul Islam’ Ibn Taymiyya says?’. ‘I’m Sorry, but that’s classified. You can only be told after you have accepted ‘Islam’. And then only over Kebabs and mint tea’. ‘Uhhhh, this sounds familiar…’.
So by now, despite the nauseating repetitiveness of calls for ‘love’ and ‘tea’ (one is left wondering if he would like to dialogue with the critic or date them), we come to realise that it is all in vain:
He says he is ‘aqeeda neutral’ but he mentions repeatedly the heretical views of Ibn Taymiyya, thereby legitimising him and acting as his interlocutor.
He is ‘not an extremist’ but he popularises a scholar who in the very first page of the very first volume of his most famous work calls for people who disagree with him on the mere matter of saying the intention of prayer out loud…to be executed. By beheading (which Hamza perhaps would remind us is painless, presumably not from personal experience). Taymiyya, scholar who insisted that women be circumcised unto the clitoris. He promotes this man to students around the country (and even, as he keeps reminding us ‘Australia’). But he is not extreme. He is not sectarian. He loves. He wants to have tea with you.
He is not unbalanced, but his organisation has, never once allowed a instructor of a creed against that of his own minority one to have a platform…but they are happy to take their money and donations nonetheless.
He is tolerant, but not of ANY other view of, for example, gender segregation and women speaking to a mixed audience. Ever.
So tolerance of other views is in reality not tolerating them or accommodating them ever? A fascinating inversion.
He speaks out against extremism, but any attack on him or IERA is an attack on Islam nay, the Lord God himself, as per his post and earlier IERA press release. Islam is IERA and IERA is Islam. Dissenters are the enemies of Islam, the friends of the kuffar. I wonder what Ibn Taymiyya has in store for such?
But why ask Ibn Taymiyya when we have the real scholarly authority behind Hamza and IERA: Sheikh Haitham Haddad. A man so inclusive and so liberal that he encourages us to consider Osama Bin Laden for martyrdom honours: http://www.islam21c.com/politics/2644-advice-to-muslims-on-the-death-of-osama-bin-ladin, reminds us that Jews are descended from apes and pigs (who knew he was a good old fashioned Darwinian!), and insists that we inculcate ‘hatred for all Jews and Christians’.
The less said about his alleged ideas that sometimes innocent Muslims may need to be killed to ‘get at’ the enemy the better I think (gosh, I wonder what they think about innocent non-Muslims…no such thing according to Salafists perhaps?).
Since Hamza is a big fan of ‘love’, we won’t dwell on Haddad and Ibn Taymiyyas very ‘liberal’ take on female circumcision ‘to reduce the sexual desire’ of women. It somewhat kills the mood…
Oh wait, now I know why there are no public female IERA speakers!
So sadly, fearing for the safety of my clitoris, I have to decline his kind offer and will not be able to have tea (or kebabs) with Mr Tzortzis. But I would be more than happy to discuss my article with him in a moderated debate format: ‘Should IERA be Banned From The University Of London’.
After all, an ‘intellectual activist’ such as Mr Tzortzis should have no trouble making his point, even without tea. But something tells me he won’t be accepting…especially from a woman…
How To Be Diplomatic Like Ustad Hamza Tzortzis
Assalamualaikum Warahmutullahi Wabarakatuh [if there is any way of making it longer please insert HERE],
Brothers and Sisters,
Gosh! I just waffle waffle waffle waffle love love love love love hug hugs hugs hugs hugs love love love love
Hugs hugs hugs man hugs groups hugs kisses kisses kisses [INSERT VEILED INSULT HERE]. Love love love love love love cultural reference cultural reference cultural reference love love love.
Love love hugs hugs hugs hugs hugs hugs hugs snogs snogs big wet man kisses [I AM THE DEFENDER OF THE FAITH]. Love waffle love waffle love waffle love waffle love waffle love waffle [I AM THE TIP OF THE SPEAR] waffle waffle love love.
Bromance bromance bromance bromance bromance bromance [insert cultural reference, preferably South Asian HERE]. Love waffle hugs bromance man snog/optional backslap [ I AM FIGHTING THE KUFFAR ON YOUR BEHALF. YOU OWE ME]. SMILEY
Love lies love lies love lies love lies love lies love lies.
Waffle, love half truth waffle love half truth waffle love lie waffle love lie waffle love hugs [MY ENEMY IS THE ENEMY OF GOD +/- CRYPTO – TAKFIR]. Love waffle food reference food reference love hugs big wet snogs.
Mock righteous indignation waffle waffle blah blah blah waffle half truth Mock righteous indignation waffle waffle waffle. SMILEY Mock righteous indignation UNITY UNITY UNITY UNITY UNITY UNITY UNITY [repeat until recipient is sub – catatonic]. Mock righteous indignation Mock righteous indignation [UNITY IS BEHIND US. DISSENT IS DEATH]. SMILEY
(Possible) Protocols Of The Elders of IERA:
ALL PEOPLE: We want your money so we can pursue our secret agenda and make you into REAL Muslims and get lots of converts so that we can get bragging rights and more authority in the Muslim community.
MATURIDIS AND ASHARIS: Sorry guys, you are kaafirs and we will have nothing to do with you…except, feel free to give us your money (and don’t worry: Sheikh Uthaymeen says you are not REALLY kaafir until we have told you the truth, that is Wahhabism, but if you then reject it, well…)
SUFIS: You are grave worshipping kaafirs and your blood is halal as per Ibn Taymiyya and Sheikh Abdul Wahhab…but this is England so we can’t say that. Cash please though!
SECURITY SERVICES: We are moderates! Just don’t ask us to state an opinion on violence in countries other than our own, because, well you know…
NON – MUSLIMS: We love you (but we hate you)
WOMEN: See above
MEN: You are amazing with superhuman self control – feel free to address female audiences (and have an unusual preponderance of polygyny). But sadly those pesky women are, well, just too darn horny to address men or a mixed audience, we know they just can’t keep it in their pants. Unlike Hamza and Co…Oh, and cash please!
ACADEMICS AND POTENTIAL SPONSORS: We produce serious research – for example, last year we published a paper on embryology (without using our hundreds of thousands of pounds of public donations to actually consult a single embryologist). Uhhh…did we mention ‘cash please’?
This is genius article! You really have clarified and unveiled iERA and what it truly stands for. Thank you.
I too felt utterly nauseated by the repeated suggestion of tea/food interspersed with cheap attacks. The insincerity is clear for everyone to see.
Thanks a lot Sarah-Jane!
It’s nice to know that some sisters have woken up to iERA’s war on Muslim women speakers. I guess we are only good enough to speak to other women. And then only about scholars who hate us, like Ibn Taymiyya…
Brilliant! iERA’s appropriating the role of spokesman for the Muslim community has to be challenged: it is a clearly intolerant and sectarian Wahhabi group that chooses to practice takiyah so as to keep stacking that paper and get ‘access’ to sisters of all backgrounds.
They want to pretend that any criticism of them is an assualt on Islam. All the while, it is the scholars of their ‘sect’ which produce all the crazy kuffar baiting, woman hating fatwas which produce the market for iERA’s ‘apologetics’.
It’s like a bad doctor causing the illness and then expecting props for ‘curing’ it.
Tzortzis is just Haddad’s mouthpiece and I am sorry to say he exposed himself as scum with his comment – so yeah, he wants to do ‘dawah’ without mentioning theology.
So these poor ‘dumb kuffar’ have no right to know what ‘Islam’ they are being called towards.
Tzortzis is toxic.
harsh but had to be said: end of the day, you can tell a lot about iERA and dis-Tzortzis by the actual quality of their defence of Islam: forget the fact that their quality of education and research is, frankly, garbage (paper on embryology with no embryologists consulted-too true, in fact they’ve got no scientists on the books) – look at this – they ‘answer the critics of Islam except on suicide bombing, terrorism, female circumcision, Saudi womens driving bans and a whole long ,ist of stuff which would not go down well with their wahhabi fanbase and funders. so they are defending Islam by not answering any of the important questions that non-muslims have. Trojan horse exteremists. look at green’s mental comments on humiliating kuffar
Hard not to agree with much that has been said.I have always felt that Tzortzis is dishonest and even worse, insincere in his efforts. Sadly, the list of Haddads gaffes is nearly endless.
By the way Sister, would you mind if I can post this link on my FB page and also send to my colleagues?
Please go ahead! Anyone is free to post our articles.
We need a genuinely fair and open discussion.
This article was delicious.
P.S Hamza said “Now, this doesnt mean I dont have my own views, I do. And some of them are in direct contrast with brothers even in iERA,”
I would LOVE(with tea) for Hamza to explicitly state his differences on his FB.
But I guess we have misunderstood ‘dawah’, apparently it means keeping your religious views…to yourself. Or doing takiya for the sake of ‘unity’.
I wasn’t part of this exchange, but I have to be honest and call Hamza a liar: he never fails to mention Ibn Taymiyya less than four or five times in almost every talk he does – just check his videos, not the debates but the ‘talks’ he holds at universities on various subjects he sometimes knows nothing about – so I have always assumed Hamza to be a barn door Hashwee mujassim.
No problem, enjoy, but please tell our non-Muslim friends and in particular Christians that you also believe that God is a body (and even allegedly according to some of the fabricated Hadith Ibn Taymiyyah uses to make his point, God can appear as a handsome young man with curly red hair…riding a horse).
Still, at least it’s not Jim Caveizel, but Christians ought to be told nonetheless.
In the meantime, a nice site on Ibn Taymiyya for you:
Forgive me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure Imam Al Ghazali was a proponent of female circumcision.
And, as for these constant attacks on Shaykh Ibn Taymiyya, you should perhaps give this brother a listen – deleted youtube link
Many thanks for your inane and morally bankrupt contribution: it gives me a chance to show several common tactics ignorant followers of the Wahhabi movement use to defame Islam and the Salaf!
This comment was particularly funny for me both as a woman and someone who practised gynaecology!
First of all you are wrong but most certainly not forgiven, since you are seemingly deliberately trying to slander Imam Al Ghazzali (and by inference unknowingly casting doubt on Imam Malik and Hazrat Uthman (RA)) by implying that they believed in ‘female circumcision’. You have obviously gone to your Salafist Sheikh and he (it’s always a he) has told you that female circumcision is recommended by the ‘Four Schools’ (which you do not believe in anyway). However, only the diseased of mind and heart would fall for this ruse: it is known by indisputable ijma (violated only by Ibn Taymiyya and his equally disturbed follower Ibn Quyyum) that any surgical tampering with a woman’s clitoris at all is ‘Muthla’ i.e. mutilation and explicitly ‘haraam’.
When Malik mentions ‘the circumcised part’ in his Muwatta or Hazrat Uthman allowed women to be ‘circumcised’ it was the limited labioplasty which was practised by the Arabs at that time: i.e trimming the inner labia to increase exposure of the clitoris for the penis and allow for greater stimulation of it (especially by the man with a smaller penis). This is, and always will be, legal and practised in the United Kingdom. In fact, it is often practised in the West for ‘cosmetic reasons’. This ijma and understanding of the jurists is conformed by the Hadith of the Prophet (SAW) where he says regarding ‘circumcision’ ‘do not deepen it’ (i.e do not approach the clitoris as is known by ijma, not ‘only remove a part of the clitoris’ as the frankly, evil ideas of Ibn Quyyum would have it. Anyone with any knowledge of female anatomy knows that the clitoris is deep and well inside the outer labia).
The Prophet (SAW) further said that it was to be done only to ‘increase the share of the woman in the enjoyment of sex’ i.e. increase her enjoyment by not having the clitoral stimulation (which accounts for perhaps most of the orgasm in women) obstructed by the inner labia. Ibn Quyyum flagrantly went against this hadith and the incontrovertible ijma by saying that women should be circumcised ‘for the purpose of lowering their sex drive’.
Your gratefully dead Sheikh Ibn Baz went so far as to say that French women in particular should be circumcised preferentially due to their ‘greater sex drive'(flagrantly going against the clear narrations of the Prophet (SAW) and the Ijma of Malik, Abu Hanifa, Shafi). How he ascertained this, along with how Ibn Taymiyya gained his knowledge of the female anatomy despite never being married or studying medicine, I shall leave to the imagination of the readers. If you are aware of Ibn Taymiyya having any sexual partners or studying anatomy, bring it in Arabic original.
Further, Imam Al Ghazzali never wrote a word on this topic as far as I have read anyway: if you have the proof, bring it.
It is however, most excellent that you posted this wafflesome comment because it shows the techniques of Wahhabi adepts to any uninitiated readers: when a controversial belief of their scholars, most usually the heretical diatribes of Ibn Taymiyya, are brought up, the inevitably trawl the books to accuse other scholars of having the same beliefs: so when it is proved that Ibn Taymiyya held that the ‘Satanic verses’ incident is true, Wahhabis will accuse Imam Tabari of believing the same (he did not – he merely said that the chain of the narration was authentic, meaning nothing since it is rejected by ijma nonetheless – see our lecture series ‘Towards Understanding Hadith’ above). When it is established that Ibn Quyyum did something stupid such as recommending that women should have their clitoris chopped off, they accuse Imam Al Ghazzali of the same, assuming that we esteem Al Ghazzali the way they do Ibn Taymiyya (i.e as essentially infallible, and having the right to against even the clear ayats of the Quran – for example in declaring the universe to be eternal in kind). However, we do not hold Al Ghazzali to be a like they assume and even if he went against the ijma that any touching of the clitoris or damaging it is muthla (mutilation) then he too would be wrong. So what?
As for the link to your video, it is irrelevant and you gave no reason as to why you posted it, so I have removed the link: if you want to advertise, go on Sky and pay money, not on this site.
If however, you have a defence of Ibn Taymiyya then you are free to post it here rather than attempting to deny people the freedom of speech to say what they want, which your movement is not averse to doing even by violent means. No one has ‘attacked’ anyone (apart from your slander of Imam Al Ghazzali and by inference others): we are presenting scholarly analyses of various aspects of Wahhabi creed – if you don’t like it respond. Yelling ‘stop’ is…bizarre.
As for your appeal to peace, tell that to the followers of Ibn Taymiyya who says that Muslims should be beheaded for saying the niyat for salat.
Oh, let me guess ‘Imam Al Ghazzali also said that’ right?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Thank you for assuming that I am A Wahhabi, but i am most certainly not.
Have a nice day.
Thanks Ashraf – but I think you have misunderstood where the problem is – Ibn Taymiyya was the first ever to say that female circumcision was to be done to reduce the woman’s propensity for sexual desire. Ibn Quyyum then went further and argued that the clitoris should be removed/affected – violating a second ijma.
No one has a problem with women having ‘labioplasties’ of the inner labia what is illegal and rightly so is infibulation and tampering with the clitoris. Ibn Taymioyya et al laid the groundwork for this.
I apologise for the harsh reply from SuedeNikita but you kind of asked for it by assuming her intentions behind ‘attacking Ibn Taymiyya’ without any evidence and posting an irrelavent video which was about respecting the scholars (tell that to all the scholars Ibn Taymiyya made takfir of, including Al Ghazzali – saying he wrote ‘kuffriyaat’ is a near if not proper takfir). So she assumed your intentions also and accused you also…
And Nikita…most helpful: looks like Salafist need and anatomy textbook…how about a proper article with references and a diagram? I am happy to publish it!
Uhhh…to be honest Ashraf, I thought that too. In any case, you are a Ibn Taymiyya fanboy so who cares!
Yet another assumption on your part, if anything I’m an Imam Al-Ghazali fanboy.
And, please don’t apologize to me on behalf of someone else’s actions, I find it rather meaningless.
I apologize to anyone on this page who I may have offended, or made assumption about, and I am especially sorry if I have wrongfully attributed words to Imam Al-Ghazali which he did not utter.
Have a nice day!
Ashraf, your comments are the ones that are meaningless.
You time wasting poser with fake adhab. You don’t even know who Imam Al Ghazzali is given your foolish remarks.
WASTEMAN. Stop posting garbage.
Pingback: Lies, Damn Lies…and Haitham Al Haddad | Asharis: Assemble
Pingback: Dawah Carriers Are Destroying Your Faith…And Having A Good Time In The Process | Asharis: Assemble
Pingback: Dawah Carriers Are Destroying Your Faith…And Having A Good Time In The Process « Blogging theology
lol excellent article. Haddad and Tzortzis really are vile
“And hold fast, all together, by the rope which Allah (stretches out for you), and be not divided among yourselves;” [Al-Qur’an 3:103]
Qur’an says call yourselves Muslim
Surah Fussilat chapter 41 verse 33 says
“Who is better in speech than one who calls (men) to Allah, works righteousness, and says, ‘I am of those Who bow in Islam (Muslim)?’ ”
Muslims are single brotherhood.
Allah (Subhanahu wa ta’aala) states;
إِنَّ هَذِهِ أُمَّتُكُمْ أُمَّةً وَاحِدَةً وَأَنَا رَبُّكُمْ فَاعْبُدُونِ
“Verily, this brotherhood of yours is a single brotherhood, and I am your Lord and Cherisher: therefore serve Me (and no other)” [Al-Anbiyah: 92]
Messenger of Allah (SalAllahu alaihi wasallam) taught us,
المسلم أخ المسلم ، لا يظلمه ولا يخذله ولا يحقره
“The Muslim is a brother of another Muslim, he doesn’t oppress him, neither does he hand him over to the enemy, he doesn’t disappoint him, nor does he humiliate him.”
Allah (Subhanahu wa ta’aala) states;
هُوَ سَمَّاكُمُ الْمُسْلِمينَ
22:78 And strive in His cause as ye ought to strive (with sincerity and under discipline): He has chosen you and has imposed no difficulties on you in religion; it is the cult of your father Abraham. It is He Who has named you Muslims both before and in this (Revelation); that the Apostle may be a witness for you and ye be witnesses for mankind! So establish regular Prayer give regular Charity and hold fast to Allah! He is your Protector the Best to protect and the Best to help!
Any disagreement which exists, is something which can be referred to the divine texts,
فَإِن تَنَازَعْتُمْ فِي شَيْءٍ فَرُدُّوهُ إِلَى اللّهِ وَالرَّسُولِ
4;59 O ye who believe! obey Allah and obey the Apostle and those charged with authority among you. If ye differ in anything among yourselves refer it to Allah and His Apostle if ye do believe in Allah and the Last Day: that is best and most suitable for final determination.
Think what you saying and doing against your beautiful religion, Ali Bin AbiDalib ( RA) has said that he heard the prophet (SCW) said…
My Ummah will be divided into 73 sects, only one goes to heaven… When asked which one, he didn’t identify by geographical, color, language, ethnicity, wealth, nation or name. He said one who follows my path and the paths of his companion
My Allah grant us peace and to be patience to each other
Thanks a lot Betty!
I can’t speak for Nikita, but I don’t think it is appropriate to use any of these quotes to justify cover-ups or not speaking the truth. I think you know that.
Also, it is very bad in Islam to say to someone that ”Think what you saying and doing against your beautiful religion”. So by telling her side, the poor girl has attacked Islam?!” Think about such harsh accusations before you speak or write please.
How is highlighting issues going ‘against Islam’? So is telling the truth is only against non-Muslims, not for Muslims? That’s called a double – standard as I’m sure you know.
As for sects and being united, why don’t you take this up with militantly Salafist groups like IERA who not only refuse to have people from any other groups of Muslims as speakers but refuse to even use their arguments. You are blackmailing us with a call for unity but what you mean is unity behind YOUR group, not Asharis, Brelwis, Habbashis, Shia, Jahmis, Modernists whatever. So you are inappropriately using both the sacred ayats of the Quran and seem to have a very strange definition of unity.
You are reminding us that Muslims are a single brotherhood. Why don’t you tell IERA to get some more diverse members of the Muslim ‘brotherhood’as opposed to only their sect?
Isn’t what you are really saying is that we need to accept the leadership of militantly exclusivist and sectarian Wahhabi organisations or be accused of treason?
Now their backs will get up and attack you guys and then you will attack them back. exciting ehh??? Its like the old forum days of the 90’s when salami publications would (i think that was the name) refute everyone including the innovating cat because he ate non zabiha whiskas cat food. Phew, nothing like some good old back biting and hate articles to bring about “ye old madinan way”. My question is what have we learned ladies and gents???
Ps if you don’t have any grey hair please don’t respond. (take it as a compliment please)
Well, I have grey hair so I’m happy to respond!
Attack us for what? Are we going around universities messing up the atmosphere for Muslims?
Also, don’t abuse religion by going on about ‘back-biting’ or ‘hate’ unless you are actually aware of the fiqh of this area, otherwise just better to make secular criticism, no matter how harsh. Don’t try and pimp religion to make your case.
Thanks, it’s responses like yours and the arrogance of most Muslims involved in dawah that has led myself and others to step outside the fold. I pray that things get better for human beings. It’s all very un-Godly. Bye
Well thanks…I think it is rather fresh to condemn or leave a system of thought like religion or even Communism simply because of the behaviour or arrogance of some of it’s practitioners. Also, don’t try and lay the blame for your ‘apostasy’, ‘stepping out of the fold’ or whatever on me. It’s your own business and problem. I didn’t agree with the Iraq war, but I didn’t burn my passport or ‘step out of the fold’ of Englishness and I know how to differentiate between the bad manners of any racial or national or ideological group and it’s remaining members and core ideas. You seem hyper-sensitive.
Most people involved in ideological argumentation of any kind, for example, the public representatives of feminism, Christianity, the Conservative Party, Atheists, physicists etc, tend to be combative, dogmatic and bad mannered. I assume you have stepped away from all of those as well? Or is it just bad manners of Muslims that get you worked up? Yes, people may expect more of Muslims, but they are human. They are not better than other humans, they are just on their own path as others are on their own, everyone has to look for the truth.Thinking you are 100% right is arrogance. You are seemingly suffering from the same illness you accuse others of.
In fact, you seem to want to put the blame for your own religious choices on other people, even people like me that you do not know (but have decided that I am un-Godly and arrogant from exchanging a single paragraph with me).
Any person of any or no faith reading our exchange can see that my admittedly uncouth reply is, though bad mannered, hardly a proof against Islam. Further, stop posing as a victim and look at what you posted in the first place: Childish allegations of back-biting and hatemongering. These are not small things. Then you get a semi-rude reply, which you seem to think is SOOOOOOOOO bad that you use it as evidence for your choice of religion. This is a bit much.
It’s also a bit much that you feel free to remind me of my un-Godliness and arrogance (in which you are correct) but feel free to deploy sarcasm, withering criticism and accusations of hate-mongering (and of not being ‘Medinan’, which is a huge insult for some Muslims as it implies disregard for Islamic norms) and presumably see that as eminently holy. Since you lectured me on Islam, ethics and Cat-food, I told you to keep it secualr and said go ahead and be harsh if you want. Don’t pimp religion to make your case. You deserved that response. It does not mean it was a Godly or Islamic one though.
Talk trash, and people will talk trash back, it’s life. Most people are not saints and thus saints like precious metals are valued for their rarity.
My bad behaviour is no more a proof against Islam than your own theatrics are a proof against whatever you believe in. Don’t try and lay a guilt trip on me about your apostsy dude. It’s your own business. Though if you are so hypersensitive as to find my reply a justification for rejection of Islam, then like I said, there is much worse out there.
I’m Not hypersensitive, I have to live amongst people. Muslims leave because of Muslims. You don’t know me or anything about me but you are so quick to rattle off your tongue. I hope you archive your goals.
What you say is completely true, including that I don’t know you and that I am too quick to mouth off.
Indeed, many people leave due to the behaviour of Muslims, born Muslims and converts leave due to this. It is understandable.
Just also be aware that you were a bit quick to judge me as well.
Also, by the way, I thought you were responding to a different article, I get the mails into my comments ‘Inbox’, I didn’t write this one. So that was pretty dumb of me.
I Love the FInal section wherein you elaborate the ‘Protocols of the Elders of IERA’ . What makes your article even more hillarious is that it is absolutely accurate and true.
However you did forget to mention the Shia’s : They apparently believe Shias are another religion , I would request these wahhabis to catch a plane to Tehran and tell that to the face of the ‘Supremo’
Still, I am glad that an awareness of developing of this Salafi/Wahhabi Extremist hate group that peddles our religion for their ill gotten gains.
Excellent points, and thanks a lot for contributing!
Indeed, they consider Shia far worse than ‘kufaar’.
Thank you for your reply
I agree with one of the above commentators that the conduct of IERA and its cronies and groups of the like Repel more people from Islam than they tend to convert . I would believe a 1:3 ratio.
I also feel that what they and their cronies do e.g. attacking YouTube stars ( Adam Saleh incident ) , berating other sects , mocking Christians at some point makes us look like something we are not.
Clarification : Is it alright if you remove my recent comments above ? I support you and your work. However I don’t feel to comfortable passing such acerbic statements in public . Thus I would like to retract them
Okay sure, but you are far too overcautious IMHO.
The fact you hate on Wahabbis shows your ignorance.