Moazzam Begg: Why Muslims Should Not Support Him

270px-Moazzam_Begg

Although the title of this piece alone will cause sufficient hysteria from most quarters of both the Liberal and Muslim readership (strange bedfellows that they are) to make them respond without actually reading the rest of the article, I take it that the honest intellectual seekers amongst our readership would however like to know more…

Moazzam Begg is a former Guantanamo detainee. That description alone is enough to make him a saint and living martyr to most Muslims and most opponents of the West’s overheated ‘War on Terror’.

But it should not be, at least for the Muslims.

Indeed, Muslims have been victimised by the War on Terror (now capitalised) to the extent of losing their lives in their hundreds of thousands. It continues today in drone attacks on Pakistan, governments from around the world using it to legitimise repressive measures against Muslim minorities and a thousand other ways. Yes, Muslims have been victimised by political and ideological machinations in the West and elsewhere. But politics cannot overwrite religion. That is the very essence of Islam and some would argue the very reason for the victimisation of Muslims and their values.

Yet Muslims are doing exactly this: having been politically under siege, they are adopting a gang mentality and ‘standing up’ for each other – regardless of whether they should or not. They are not picking their battles but rather herding around every case of a Muslim allegedly being in the wrong as an example of anti-Islamic victimisation. Sadly, this is reminiscent of the practice of the pre-Islamic Arabians known as ‘my tribe right or wrong’, successfully abolished by the Prophet Muhammad and revived of late by Yvonne Ridley, IERA, and many other Muslim personalities and groups in the wake of the arrest by British authorities of Moazzam Begg on terrorism charges related to his supporting the Syrian opposition (who are technically the British and Western governments preferred combatants in that conflict):

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26395066

No sooner had he been arrested than Muslims from all walks of public life, from self publicising sophists such as Hamza Tzortzis, unrepentant genital mutilators and Bin Laden Apologists such as Haitham al-Haddad, reputable journalists like Yvonne Ridley as well as figures from the political Left and even comedian Russell Brand, came out in support of Begg, claiming his innocence and decrying the UK for arresting him for ‘political reasons’ (thereby implying that the UK is a police state where innocent people are not only arrested for no reason whatsoever but even charged for no probable cause as well). Even obscurities such as ‘Islamic scholar’ Zahir Mahmoud voiced their (unqualified) support.

Here is a typically emotional and in fact borderline hysterical appeal from an on-line petition: http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/david-cameron-release-moazzam?recruiter=84498050&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=petition_invitation

Apart from mentioning as ‘evidence’ of an impending unfair trial the case of a US prisoner (and thus nothing to do with the UK justice system to which Begg will be subjected), it continues:

‘Injustice has already been served when Moazzam Begg was taken to Guantanamo Bay to serve a sentence without a trial or charge. He was released and became a voice for the voiceless’

Apart from being an evidence free-rant, it fails to mention that it was the same British government that petitioned for his release after three years in Guantanamo that has now felt it necessary to arrest him. Bizarrely and embarrassingly for Muslims, the letter to the Prime Minister in the aforementioned petition goes on to assert that Begg should get a fair trial – though it states that he is ‘innocent’ since ‘thousands believe he is innocent’. So now Muslims have embraced trial by media – how exactly did this petitioner establish that Begg is ‘innocent’? Has a thorough investigation been carried out? The letter concludes with the utterance to the Prime Minister of Britain that the ‘arrest is politically motivated’.

Then why not furnish us with the proof of both his innocence and the political machinations behind his arrest? I’m sure David Cameron would be most irate to see that resources were being wasted on re-persecuting a man that his government could have left to rot in the hell that is Guantanamo in the first place without going to the trouble of getting him released by the (reluctant) Americans only to ‘politically persecute’ him again.

Similarly, the wannabee ‘Muslim Journalist’ (what defines ‘Muslim’ as opposed to ‘non-Muslim’ journalism awaits clarification) rag ‘5pillarz’ (yes, that is how they spelt it, expect the launch of ‘The Sunday Timez Fo’ Shizzle Ma Nizzle’ by the same aspirants soon) declared his arrest an act of ‘brazen Islamophobia’ and compared him to Malcolm X (apart from the bald offensiveness of this remark it showed their sheer ignorance of Malcolm X’s life since they failed to state in which way the comparison held, since Malcolm X was never arrested under terrorism charges).

A large demonstration was organised by ‘Cageprisoners’ (the organisation that Begg runs, so impartiality was of course guaranteed. Like, you know, Fox News).

Basically, almost no Muslim authority or ‘voice’ for Muslims in the British public, ranging from ‘Dawa’ organisations such as IERA to Islamic ‘scholars’ such as Haddad and Zahir Mahmoud and even sane voices such as Sheikh Abdalhaq Bewley failed to come out in his support.

Now, I am not a ‘dawah’ organisation or a ‘scholar’, but I do know this much: Since when did the Quran and Islam embrace trial by sophistry, innocence regardless of trial and evidence? In short, how can we ‘support’ someone accused of serious crimes and insist that they are not guilty without evidence being provided or a trial or even a hearing occurring simply because they are Muslim or were held in Guantanamo?

Are the aforementioned voices going to introduce this novel system of justice so that we can see it in action? Namely that a person is not only innocent until proven guilty, but if Muslim, is innocent. Period.

This bizarre inversion of Islam is unprecedented in the entire history of that religion, which in fact is known for it’s insistence that justice be done, though the heavens fall. Yet this is precisely what Begg’s interlocutors have achieved – a ‘bidat’, or innovation, so heinous and absurd that it tarnishes the whole religion for  the sake of one man.

And what a man…

Although nearly all Muslims would have us effectively beatify Begg forthwith, he is a man who nearly all British Muslims should find very troubling.

Begg found himself in Guantanamo at the Commander in Chiefs’ leisure because he had uprooted his British family to go and live and work in Afghanistan under none other than the Taliban. Begg’s Wikipedia page (which he and his supporters are free to correct) makes for shocking reading:

”The Pentagon claimed Begg was an enemy combatant and Al-Qaeda member, who recruited for al-Qaeda, provided money for their training camps, and trained at their camps in Afghanistan to fight U.S. or allied troops.[4][5] Begg has said he spent time at two Islamic training camps in Afghanistan, supported militant Muslim fighters, bought a rifle and a handgun, and was acquainted with persons linked to terrorism, but he denies the remainder of the U.S.’s allegations.[3][6][7][8][9]

These are similar to the same ‘politically’ motivated and ‘brazenly Islamophobic’ charges brought against him by the UK government this time. Remember, this was in support of the Taliban regime which openly flogged people for beard length, by it’s own admission proscribed girls (and most boys) education and worst of all, sheltered Bin Laden openly for years before 9/11 was even a pipe-dream and he had already admitted to the Kenyan Embassy and other bombings. But no matter. Begg thought it was a great idea to move himself and his wife and children to Afghanistan to live and work amongst the Taliban. As part of an NGO? Non-politically? No, to train with and support them it would appear:

”With his wife Zaynab and three young children, Begg moved to Kabul, Afghanistan, in late July 2001.[9][11][28] At the time, the Taliban ruled Afghanistan. It protected Osama bin Laden, a Saudi; banned music and most games, beat women for improper dress, had fired all women in public service, and severely restricted the education and medical treatment of women.[45][46] Despite this, Begg saw it as a good and inexpensive place to raise a family.[11] Begg wrote in his autobiography that in 2001, the Taliban had made “some modest progress—in social justice and upholding pure, old Islamic values forgotten in many Islamic countries.”[46]

But he must be an all right guy after all since:

‘Begg now says that was his perception at the time, and since then, he has criticised the Taliban for human rights abuses.[46]

But of course, what else can he say now?

Begg also has charming friends and a great taste in books:

In 1999, Begg through his bookstore commissioned and published a book by Dhiren Barot about his experiences in Kashmir, entitled The Army of Madinah in Kashmir.[37] Barot had undergone training in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and joined the insurgency in Jammu and Kashmir against India. He was later referred to as bin Laden’s “UK General”, convicted in Britain of being an al-Qaeda terrorist, and sentenced to 40 years in jail.[37][38][39] In the book Barot, who used the alias Esa Al Hindi, accuses western troops of invading Muslim countries, and urges followers to strike back.[40] Barot wrote: “Terror works, and that is why the believers are commanded to enforce it by Allah.”[41] The book was used as evidence against Barot at his trial for planning a “dirty bomb” attack on London, in which he was convicted.[37]

In his book Enemy Combatant, Begg tells us: 

”I wanted to live in an Islamic state–one that was free from the corruption and despotism of the rest of the Muslim world…. I knew you wouldn’t understand. The Taliban were better than anything Afghanistan has had in the past 25 years.[47]

Yes Moazzam, unfortunately, I don’t understand either.

A confession that Begg made while incarcerated, probably under horrendous conditions and torture from the US (much like that which the Taliban routinely inflicted on people but Begg found was ‘better than anything Afghanistan had had in the past 25 years’):

”I was armed and prepared to fight alongside the Taliban and al-Qaeda against the U.S. and others, and eventually retreated to Tora Bora to flee from U.S. forces when our front lines collapsed…. [I] knowingly provided comfort and assistance to al-Qaeda members by housing their families, helped distribute al-Qaeda propaganda, and received members from terrorist camps knowing that certain trainees could become al-Qaeda operatives and commit acts of terrorism against the United States.[3][5][25]

Begg also said in his confession that he sympathised with the cause of al-Qaeda, trained in three al-Qaeda terrorist training camps in Afghanistan so that he could assist in waging global jihad against enemies of Islam, including Russia and India; associated with and assisted several prominent al-Qaeda terrorists and supporters of terrorists, and discussed potential terrorist acts with them; recruited young members for global jihad; and provided financial support for terrorist training camps.[3][5][25][43]

Begg maintains his confession is false, and that he gave it while under duress.[3][5]

After release, Begg was perhaps still less than careful about who he put his support behind:

”Begg interviewed the al-Qaeda leader Anwar al-Awlaki, a former imam in the United States, after the latter was released from jail in Yemen in 2007.[43][96] Al-Awlaki was invited to address Cageprisoners’  fundraising dinners in August 2008 at Wandsworth Civic Centre…(by videolink, as he is banned from entering the U.K.) and August 2009 at Kensington Town Hall; the local authority told the group that it could not broadcast al-Awlaki’s words on its property.[97][98] Cageprisoners has material about and by al-Awlaki on its website.[97]

I mean, this could all be nonsense – in which case Begg and Cageprisoners should avail themselves of the famous ‘Edit’ facility on Wikipedia and use their friends and resources to perhaps undertake legal proceedings against those making these allegations (as they did successfully against the UK government on the charges of assisting an illegal interrogation and others).

Just as with the current charges, in Islamic law, Muslims do not disbelieve the US simply because they are ‘not Muslim’ nor believe Begg just because he is Muslim. What is pertinent is that the US (and Taliban) are involved in torture rendition etc and Begg is possibly involved with the Taliban.

I would like to believe him. But thinking the best of someone and declaring their innocence are two entirley different things – in both Islamic and British law.

I can give you my opinion on this, just as all of these ‘Muslim speakers’ are doing – I could say that he was just in the wrong place at the wrong time or maybe just a guy who bought into the romanticised stories about the Taliban that were fed to many British youth – especially in Deobandi madrassas and mosques before 9/11. Or maybe what the US say is true, or he went to Afghansitan because he simply loved the Taliban. But it’s pointless – I suspect no-one, including the governments of the US and UK will ever know for sure. Indeed the only one who knows for sure is Begg.

And there is no reason to believe nor disbelieve him. But at the very least, moving your whole family to live under the Taliban is amazingly stupid and an example of shockingly poor research and lamentable knowledge of Islamic norms.

And absolving Begg of his current charges without at least waiting for a trial before screaming ‘injustice/Islamophobia/political motivation’ is equally foolish.

Further, it embarrasses the entire British Muslim community by showing both it’s members and outsiders that Muslims’ public representatives and agitators are in reality little better on many occasions than Zionists: they refuse to be balanced about their own ‘members’.

What would have been more Islamicly licit is to have presented a cogent and understandable criticism of anti-terror laws and placed Beggs’ arrest in the context of these and then awaited the outcome. But of course, Syria is both a Salafist and a Neo-Con cause celebre. And I think we can all rest assured that Begg was limiting his charitable contributions (he says) or terrorist training (the UK Government says) to his favourite groups, which on past evidence are extremist Salafists like the Taliban.

And of course, many of those supporting him at rallies are barn door Salfists and Taliban supporters driven undercover and into political correctness by recent changes in British law, as well as open, secret, or ex members of groups such as ‘Hizb Ut Tahrir’ (who supported the Taliban and prior to 9/11 used to publish books chastising Muslims for not referring to suicidal bombing as ‘martyrdom’) such as Taji Mustafa, Hamza Tzortzis et al. To these speakers, ‘bad’ can only be what the US does to the indeed perpetually suffering citizens of Afghanistan but never what self proclaimed authorities like the Taliban do to Muslims. In a strange mirroring of the Islamophobes, these individuals and others want to keep the eyes of Muslims squarely on the affronts of Western powers, but never on the liberties taken in the name of Islam by Salafist groups, whether in Afghanistan or in Syria. They just want to help the Syrian people. But not all of them. Just the ones who agree with them.

Theologically, Haddad, Tzortzis, Ridley and all of the other misguided and self publicising Muslims who came out at various rallies in support of Begg should be ashamed for forsaking the most important principle of Islam – a principle so important that God demands it of himself: Justice.

Advertisements

61 thoughts on “Moazzam Begg: Why Muslims Should Not Support Him

  1. Why do you insist on false words like “Salafis” as there is Islam and the Muslims that the Prophet (sallallahu alaihi wasalam) and his companions were among. Later groups emerged (and have historical beginnings) and broke from this straight path such as Khawarij, Shia, Sufi, Mutazilah, Ashari, Maturidi, etc. But saying “Salafis” is something different when it just means to follow the real and original Islam and not these later innovations is a bit absurd, call us Muslims and call the others Sufis, Shias, Asharis and such to not confuse the non-Muslims and unlearned Muslims who are confused about this simple matter. Jazakallahu khair.

    • Thanks for demonstrating everyone’s worst fears about Salafis by insisting that only you are ‘Muslim’ and all the rest are ‘Sufi’, ‘Shia’ or ‘Ashari’ thereby takfiring everyone besides yourself, and then ending your demonstration of stupidity and malice by saying ‘Jazakallahu khair’ as if that makes mass takfir and insults okay.

      I sincerely thank you, I could never have come up with such a good demonstration of the extremism and irrationality of your sect. Or as you would have it, your own ‘religion’ as distinct from Sufis, Asharis, Shaia…

      • I never made takfir, only an extremist would assume that from what was said.

        Only that Islam began with the Prophet (s) and the Companions. Other ideologies that came later and have historical beginning points after the death of our Prophet (s) alter the pure message of Islam.

    • Very informative and Islamic response – I think it describes your intellect and morals better though. Thanks for illustrating my point so nicely. You know he’s oppressed and not guilty and will not show us the evidence. Maybe you should send your ‘proof’ to his lawyers and the police so that they can let him go.

      Or maybe, as is likely, you don’t see supporting terrorism as a crime (as long as it’s your favourite terrorists and not Assads’ right?)

      And Begg was very ‘supportive’ of the oppressed Afghan women and men when he supported those lovely terrorist sheltering Taliban.

      So who’s the ‘filth’ again?

    • Ibn M:
      Since you are resorting to insults – let me say that the writer of this article is brave and standing up for Islam and it’s morals and you are extremist filth.

      Begg may be your ‘brother’ but he is certainly not mine.

      You are clearly a fascist who thinks that any Salafist must be innocent no matter what he does. you are no better than a Zionist, just like the article says. Further, you are a lowlife.

      Keep it up mmmclmru, we understand you: these idiots want to use Islam to excuse their political and terrorist ambitions. We appreciate your courage.

      • Thanks a lot brother, that means a lot – but really, don’t bother to respond to these kind of bullying and emotive and more importantly fact-free comments. It is of no benefit, though your support is much appreciated.

  2. Thanks for this…I though Sister Yvonne Ridley had standards but it seems she really is being too indiscriminate nowadays.

    Also, it is low of her to speak at IERA events with extremists like Tzortzis and Haddad who try to normalise and bring Salfism into the mainstream.

    Form such an articulate and intelligent lady, I really feel let down. there is no-one for Muslim women to turn to or look up to now it seems.

    • Yes, Yvonne is a public intellectual and should know better.

      People will just say that associating with Muslims makes even seasoned and excellent journalists such as her irrational raving sectarians, which I am sure she is not.

    • As in the Syrian rebels are a cause celebre for Salafis in both the UK and Saudi/Qatar.

      The statements of Salafi sheikhs such as Sudais, the government appointed Imam of Makkah praising suicide attacks on non-Salafis in Syria (see ‘Sudais shames Muslims’ on this site) are also pertinent.

      Numerous analyses by Western commentators (Chomsky et al) considering the conflict in Syria as a proxy war between US/Saudi/Israel and Iran may be consulted with profit, as would the Wikileaks revelations of Saudi ambassadors demanding strikes on Iran.

      So Salafism seems to have a lot to do with it, although that was not the point if the article. Unless one takes the novel position that Salafism in turn has nothing to do with Saudi Arabia, in which case I can’t help.

      Thanks a lot for reading and for the feedback.

  3. Also, I am rather gob-smacked at the way the author has referred to some ‘Ulama. A wisdom of Umar Ibn Abdil Aziz springs to mind: ‘Become a scholar if you are able. If you are not able, then be a student. If you can not, then show love for them. If you are unable to do that, then at least do not hate them.’

    • I am gob smacked at your poor reading comprehension. Who showed hatred for the scholars?

      And that narration is only about the genuine scholars. Although clearly you are a mujtahid who is able to derive rulings directly from isolated sayings of unknown provenance (the Wahhabi methodology par excellance for the educated readers).

      Not only is your quote irrelevant, you would be better off applying it to the aforementioned Sedais who showed ‘hatred’ to Al Bouti (and the 50 or so other people) who died in a suicide bombing by saying it was compulsory on Muslims (I.e Fard) to celebrate it!

      Hypocrisy runneth over…

      So please spare us your mock indignation and closeted Salafist/extremist sympathies.

      • Please can you drop the harsh tone and not make such sweeping statements. Firstly, I never once said anything about being a Mujtahid so I do not know where you derived such a conclusion from. It would seem as though you are the one engaging in Ijtihad at the moment.

        Secondly, I have no affiliation with Shaykh Sudais or any ‘Wahaabi’ Movement. However, I do have strong affiliations with ‘Ulama who have studied under Shaykh Ramadaan Al-Bouti. I’m not sure about you, but I do not care what Shaykh Sudais says or does, as he is not a Hujjah for me. I’ll apply the statement of Umar to whichever situation it has any form of relevance to.

        ‘Closeted Salafist sympathies’. Again, I do not how you derived such a conclusion. Regardless of a person’s creedal or juristic stance, we should assist a Muslim, whether he is the oppressor or being oppressed, as stipulated by the Prophet (saw) who is my Hujjah.

        Asalaamu Alaykum wa Rahmatullah.

  4. Be ASHAMED! This article only proves you are takfiri and again accuse others of takfeer? You declared takfir on Moazzam begg by rejecting Qur’anic aya – Muslims are merciful to each other and hard against disbelievers. You are Hard against Moazzam to please the Kuffar? Then who you are?

    • Huh?

      I think you have misunderstood:

      1) The concept of Takfir in Islam
      2) The Quran and it’s view on non-Muslims
      3) The English language
      Also, you are very worried about being ‘hard’, so in your terms, ‘be ASHAMED!’

      • Crypto-Anthropomorphist,

        There is no need to drop a ‘harsh’ tone with someone who slanders by saying that I showed hatred for scholars and then does not back it up.

        Likewise, the reason I said you considered yourself as a mujtahid is that you bring us isolated narrations without telling us if fuqaha took these into fiqh, aqeeda or usool and then demand that we act on them. You then show your emotionality and confusion by contradicting yourself: does the statement of Umar apply to Sedais (who supported suicide attacks on non-Salafi scholars) or not? If not, why did you waste our time with it? Did anyone qualified (mujtahid Imams, fuqaha) take this statement literally etc?

        You then repeated your error by then telling us that the Prophet SAW is your hujjah (so please let us have his book on fiqh and how to pray etc from hadith if you have no need to follow an Imam but can derive it all directly from the statements of SAW I.e you are mujtahid. Start by teaching us how to pray salat directly from hadith maybe), which again is a barn door Salafi statement. Maybe you, like most people, are affected by Salafi ideas. If you truly have access to students of Sheikh Al Bouti shaheed then they will set you on the right path. But the fact that you are referring to the man who celebrated his murder as ‘Sheikh’ will interest the readers.

        And again, you aspire to being mujtahid by telling us to follow the hadith of helping your brother if he is the oppressor. You didn’t bother to explain it for us mere students of knowledge, but no one in the whole of Islamic history, including the sahabah has taken this hadith literally: they immediately challenged SAW as to it’s meaning as it seemed to contradict Quranic norms of justice, whereupon SAW explained that helping your brother when he is the oppressor relates to restraining him from oppression (not immediately declaring him innocent just because he is your brother).

        Completely lost on those who would support Begg right or wrong.

        Wait for a trial, stop acting like a emotional zionist and supporting anything any Muslim does irrespective of evidence, stop falsely accusing people of ‘hatred’ and ‘harshness’ and respond to the actual points raised instead of trying to blackmail people with hadith (unless you are faqih and know all the usool and 300,000 hadith).

  5. “O you who believe! Avoid much suspicion, for some suspicions are a sin. Do not spy on one another, nor backbite one another. Would one of you love to eat the flesh of his dead brother? Nay, you would abhor it, [so similarly, avoid backbiting]. And fear Allah. Indeed, Allah is Most Forgiving, Most Merciful.” Qur’an, [49:12]

    “And do not follow that of which you do not have knowledge. Indeed, the hearing, the sight and the heart – [you] will be asked about all of those.” Qur’an, [17:36]

    “He does not utter a [single] word, except that there is, with him, [an angel] ready and waiting [to record it].” Qur’an, [50:18]

    “O assembly of those who have believed with their tongues, but into whose hearts faith has not yet reached! Do not backbite the Muslims, nor seek out their secrets! For, whoever seeks out the faults of his brother, Allah will seek out his secrets. And, whoever has his secrets sought out by Allah, Allah will disgrace him, even [if he hides] in the depths of his house. [Abu Dawud in al-Adab, 4/271, #4880]

    “Beware of backbiting, for backbiting is more serious than adultery. A man may commit adultery, and drink [wine], and then repent, and Allah will forgive him. But, the backbiter will not be forgiven by Allah until his [backbited] companion forgives him.” [Suyuti, Al-Jami` as-Saghir, 1/174, #2919, from Ibn Abid-Dunya, and Abush-Shaykh, Al-Tawbikh.]

    • None of these is relevant to the current situation.

      There is no such thing as not trying criminals or potential criminals in Islam for fear of back-biting or hurting their feelings.

      Show respect to the Quran and Hadith by not spamming them.

      You really need to study Islam a bit more before throwing it’s scriptures around willy-nilly like you just did.

  6. “Wait for a trial, stop acting like a emotional zionist and supporting anything any Muslim does irrespective of evidence…”

    So, is there any evidence to the ‘crimes’ that the British government accuses Begg of?

    • No, they are just going to go into an open court and just stand there and not present anything.

      You guys are just the same as Zionists: just as they don’t care about Judaism, you guys don’t give a hoot about Islamic norms:one of your guys can never be guilty or wrong (even if he was a committed admirer of the Taliban).

      Also like the Zionists, you have a massive persecution complex which you use to justify even the most heinous acts.

      Since you and your ilk declared him ‘innocent’, I could just as well ask you what proof you have of his innocence and why you don’t send this proof to the authorities.

      You guys are just too inept to understand that ‘innocent until proven guilty’ does not mean innocent period.

      I just wish you individuals would not degrade the religion of God with your fascist love for anyone who has a Muslim name.

      You disgust me and shame Islam the same way Zionists shame Judaism and disgust practising Jews.

  7. Asalaamu Alaykum mmmclmru,

    In the article itself, derogatory innuendoes were made about Shaykh Haitham Al-Haddad and Shaykh Zahir Mahmood. Regardless of whether one agrees with their methodology/principles, as lay people would should have an inkling of respect for those who possess Knowledge. Whatever they do with that Knowledge is between themselves and Allah. Throughout history Scholars have made many disparaging remarks about one another, yet they still had a certain degree of respect. Imam Dhahabi (Rh) speaks about Imam Ghazali (Rh), criticising him about his views. Yet he still held respect for him, referring to him as ‘Hujjatul Islam.’ Shall we not learn some lessons from such examples?

    Obviously the statement of Umar Ibn Abdil ‘Aziz isn’t a proof, so there is no demand for anyone to act upon it. My usage of it was for targheeb and tarheeb; that the pious people of the past have encouraged us to become Scholars, if not, then atleast have warned us not to hate them. This has nothing to do with The Fuqaha instructing us to act upon it or not.

    And of course The Prophet (saw) is my Hujjah, who else would my Hujjah be? Does not all Fiqh of Ahlus Sunnah ultimately connect back to The Prophet (saw)? And with regards to my fiqh, it has been beautifully summarised by Imam Ibn ‘Abideen in Radd Al-Mukhtaar. He mentions ‘Abdullah Ibn Mas’ood (رضي الله عنه), sowed the seeds of this knowledge. Alqama (رحمه الله), his disciple, watered these seeds and turned them into crops, and Ibrahim an-Nakha’i (رحمه الله), his disciple, reaped the harvest, that is, gathered the pieces of this knowledge together. Hammad Al-Kufi (رحمه الله) threshed it, and his disciple, Nu’man Ibn Thaabit (رحمه الله), ground it, that is, he classified the knowledge into sections; Abu Yusuf (رحمه الله) made dough from it, and Muhammad (Ibn Hasan al-Shaybani) (رحمه الله) baked it.’ Thus I am eating the morsels of Fiqh prepared in this procedure.

    It seems to me that you think anyone who has a slight difference in perception to you, is automatically ‘Salafi/Wahabi’. I suggest you lighten up. Islam is dynamic: it is far beyond and above the measly ‘Salafi Vs Sufi/ Deobandi Vs Barelwi/ Ash’ari Vs Wahabi’ categorisations many have developed in our era.

    And with regards to the hadith about the oppressor and oppressed, you are indeed correct. However, I never said anything about declaring anyone innocent about anything. It seems as though you are putting words in my mouth.

    Finally, in your last comment you’re comparing some of us to Non-Muslims. Please observe at least an inkling of Husn Al-Dhan for your fellow Muslims.

    JazakAllahu Khairan.

    • I really find your comments strange: you are merely stating that anyone who is called a ‘scholar’ is beyond reproach, at least by non – scholars, and this is neither supported by the reason, the shariah nor the quote of Umar RA you brought us (which again could not be taken literally anyway as it would mean that everyone should become scholars and nothing else).

      In fact, someone has taught you respect for the scholars and you have gone completely overboard with it and assumed that even people who distort the religion of God such as Haddad etc are worthy of veneration (unless you think that calling Bin Laden a martyr, mutilation of women’s clitorises against ijma are minor issues). There is nowhere is Islam where ordinary people are not free to criticise scholars and in any case, respect in Islam is only for the righteous scholars.

      The same way people put Begg above criticism because he is a Muslim, you put people above criticism by virtue of the title scholar and only allow ‘inter-scholar’ criticism. The absurdity of this innovation is clear when this novel usool is applied to non-Muslims. Are their scholars above criticism by their laity also? People should become Pope or Bishop else pay homage and shut up?

      Rather, your gross error is proof of the narration that a day will cine when the scholar will speak nonsense in the mosque and none of the lay audience will take him to task (though you went even further and demand respect for them!)

      Anyway, as I said, your Salafi sympathies are clear by your regarding Salafis as authentic scholars. You are free to do that, but we are free to abstain or refuse. If you want to ‘respect’ people like Haddad, Sedais etc who praise suicide bombing and the killing of innocents, including scholars, each to his own. Don’t try and make it an Islamic principle though.

      As for not throwing narrations at us and insisting we follow them then this is a step forward. The fact is that the books of fiqh clarify the Sunnah as the Sunnah clarifies and explains the Quran. At least you are not giving us context free narrations anymore.

      The story about Iman Al Ghazzali is irrelevant I am afraid.

      To say that Islam us dynamic is amazingly silly: it is constant in principle and aqeeda. To say otherwise without clarification is unacceptable. The dynamism is in the application of principle and it’s elucidation. Aqeeda however is unchanging. The idea of Salafi/Sufi being modern labels only is nonsense and in making all beliefs claiming to be ‘Islam’ equally true you have indeed risked making them equally false (this is merely a restated version of moral relativism). We can see the futility of this idea of yours by instead of applying it within a religion applying it between religions ‘Religion is dynamic, it goes far beyond measly catagorisations such as Hindu, Christian or Muslim etc’. This is similar to what you would have us do: if the claim of anyone (mujassim, Mu’tazzila, Ashari, Shia) saying they are orthodox Muslims is to be allowed then the claim if anyone claiming any truth in religion should likewise be ‘liberalised’.

      If differences if belief are of no importance among adherents of Islam then they are of no importance between followers of different religions either. This is obvious. You can’t only allow Muslims to believe whatever they want and still be ‘right’, we then have to give that same right to everyone.

      No one put words in your mouth: you have been critiqued on what has been said by yourself, so please stop accusing people of this as well as your unsubstantiated claims of hatred of scholars etc

      As for ‘comparing some of us to non-Muslims’ and then the veiled insult about Husan ul Zann, you again are confused: comparing Muslims to non-Muslims is wrong only in matters of beliefs and even then only the incorrect ones. Unless you are saying that non-Muslims are so bad that any comparison with them is not allowed. Which would be stupid and insulting.

      So I if I say ‘you feed the poor like Mother Teresa, you fight for justice like Mandela or you are stylish like Brad Pitt, disciplined as a Buddhist, chaste as a nun’, what of it?

      Likewise, you guys are confused and all over the place like Zionists.

      I really don’t think anyone from Sheikh Al Bouti shaheed’s students teaches this kind of stuff that you are coming out with. Your sympathies are rather obvious but entirely yours to choose. Just don’t force them on us or make Islamic usool out of them and confuse people without first being sure about them.

  8. First the lols…

    “…successfully abolished by the Prophet Muhammad and revived of late by Yvonne Ridley, IERA…”
    Anybody that is deemed “innocent” by that metro sexual pusedo-marxist twit Russell Brand, should automatically be locked up.

    Second, I don’t agree with half the insinuating stuff you write. Maybe you got a hiccup or something making sweeping claims against so many “scholars”…makes me wonders if you’re a feminist…but that is really not here or there…
    Now to the dumbass in question…Mozzam Baag…you are SPOT ON!!!! Sick and tired of idiots cloning our religion because of some shitty hippie bandwagon liberal crap they read and get brainwashed on in these universities where they always have to support some minority issue and what not. What the hell was he doing in Afghanistan? To be part of the Islamic State??? He took his wife and kids to go live in an “Islamic State”? Yeah no sheikh or any “ulema” figured it out that Afghanistan was an Islamic state, but Mozzam did. He should have been incarcerated alone for endangering the life of his wife and children.

    Just like the Occupy Wall Street movement that was unanimously supported by dimwitted liberal Muslims, so will this “martyr”. Some young Muslim with no understanding or real comprehension of the issue at hand will be hired together at some shitty isoc meeting where there will be large hullabaloo about nothing and before he knows it, he will supporting “Brother Mozzam”.

    Probably should have left him at Gitmo (which thankfully our dear old half-breed Zionist controlled President kept open; ironically as the NSA closes down on everything else, prisons keeping opening up). Muslims clowning Islam…if I had shitty twitter I would make a hatstag of it.

    P.S. Since [some] British Pakis think of themselves as “ghetto niggas” of the UK, no matter what their level of education, with “izzle” and “shizzle” names and writing pieces…please please stop talking about Malcolm X, Dubois Carmichael , etc…stick to your Tupacs and Biggies 🙂

    • Uhhhh…thanks?

      Some very good points, especially about Malcolm X, whose name is wheeled out and disrespected with alarming regularity by Muslims.

      I don’t know where you got the idea that I am a feminist from. And I don’t know why you are taking me to task for ‘attacking scholars’ (completely fine in Islam: the truth is not to be spoken only to ‘non-scholars’). You said vociferously that Begg is an idiot and even said he should have been left in Gitmo – so then if he is an idiot, what does that make the ‘scholars’ who are supporting him at public anti-government demonstrations and inciting others to do so as well? Also, Haddad and Mahmoud etc are hardline Wahhabis or Wahhabi sympathisers and facilitators like Mahmoud, who speaks at IERA events and never clarifies his affiliation. I don’t see how exposing a bunch of guys who want to bring Islam into disrepute by wheeling it out to exonerate extremists and Talibanists makes ME a feminist…

      Also, we need to stop this ‘scholars are sacrosanct’ blackmail: it is absurd and unIslamic and it’s purpose is in fact to give a ‘get out of jail free card’ to a segment of the community much as how the Western media don’t properly question the behaviour of celebrities. And respect for scholars in Islam is only for those genuine scholars. If you think genital mutilating anthropomorphists are genuine scholars and worthy of respect then…

      I hate to tell you this, but you said that Begg thought that Afghanistan was an Islamic state but the ulema didn’t. This is not correct and many of the very people you criticise me for not respecting as ‘scholars’ advocated and still advocate the Taliban. The reason people like Begg got brainwashed is that they were listening to these ‘Islamic scholars’ you would have us be careful about.

      I really don’t think someone as sharp and obviously intelligent as yourself should shoot himself in the foot by calling Obama a ‘half-breed’. That is very bad, Islamically as well.

      • All right, the half breed thing was bit too much…he seems like a good man, a good father and a husband. If stayed as a bloody constitutional lawyer/professor at Columbia, it would have been better. But American elections are a gimmick anyway. The powers to be chose him as they will choose Hilary Clinton next.

        You “behave” like a feminist since most of these deranged hooligans also berate authentic scholarship and scholars like the Myrian Cerrah in her vulgar and pathetic “character assassination” of Imam Gazali.
        But your right, some of these modern day loudmouth deserve to be clowned and I guess LOL you do a good enough job. As I said like last year, we don’t have too many of these fundies, at least openly in the states. On the contrary we have the opposite problem: too many American born Imams that a cooning to the white sugar daddy, in this case being the liberal-secular zeitgeist.

        Now let’s go to the Taliban…fundies ? You bet ? Warririors, damn right. Deluded, misguided, straight up dumb as well, yeah that too. Their Afghans-Pathans first then they are Muslim. I have studied the country for the past two years in meticulous detail…enough to say the Taliban are not unique to Afghanistan irrespective of religion.

        And we all know how the Taliban came to power right ? And more so the da fu&^ that Uncle Sam did…that they are now more powerful, more organized, more salient then ever before!

        http://ericmargolis.com/2014/04/afghan-elections-for-another-fake-regime/

        Yeah school the scholars as you like, most I agree, some I don’t…but don’t become the Grand Inquisitor like that in the Brothers Karamzov..:)

      • This is clear blasphemy. Hyde and mmmclmru are clear apostates. The state of the Taliban was an islamic state and if you negate it being islamic then you are an apostate. Feel free to criticize it but at the moment you say that the state was not islamic you are becoming an apostate.
        One does not say something like this except because of not knowing what an islamic state is or being an infidel.

        Apostates like you are addressed on this blogs:

        LINKS REMOVED

      • Uh, actually, calling people apostates and blasphemers when they are in fact not is apostasy.

        So since despite being a jahil you gave fatwa with such confidence you may have just left Islam.

        According to your religion, which sadly is possibly not Islam anymore, criticising the Taliban is kufr, which is exactly what the kufaarr accuse extremists like you of.

        Also, don’t bother posting links to terrorist websites. And if you hear a knock on the door, it’s probably a SEAL team come to kill you.

        I wish them luck!

      • Your disbelief is not because of criticizing the Taliban. I said that you can criticize the Taliban for their actions. But if you say that they did not have an islamic state then you are an apostate since you are calling an islamic state a non-islamic state.
        This is not the only reason for your apostasy. We saw at many occasions that you are going to negate parts from the religion. You are modernists and liberals and you hate the shariah law in any form. It is not just about the Taliban. You will be against any shariah law. You will never be able to accept islam to rule. You would always criticize. But criticizing is fine in fact as long you do not start calling the Taliban or others a unislamic state. An islamic state can have mistakes which can be corrected. But the problem is that people like you will not try to correct them but rather you wil support non muslim states to intervene against the shariah. We saw this examples anywhere from Afghanistan to Chechenya to Somalia and to Mali. You are supporting disbelief over belief always and that is another reason you are apostates.

        It would be good if you could check out the links I provided again regarding promoting terrorism. I have not come accros of anything like this and it would be very useful to share them here if there is indeed nothing there promoting terrorism.

        Thank you for letting me participate here.

      • First of all, which part of Shariah law has been denied here? Give one example? You made takfir with zero proof.

        Maybe you can ask your Taliban boyfriends which part of ‘Shariah Law’ they were enforcing by sheltering Bin Laden for five years after he admitted to the Kenyan Embassy bombing? Perhaps you believe in the same ‘Shariah’ as the Islam haters, the kind that allows you to kill women and children and innocent people just like the US or Israel?

        In fact it is us who follow the Islam of the Quran and sunnah and people like you who are modernists, who support modernist fatwas by Salafist groups allowing banning of women from learning the Quran, making beard an issue of hadd punishment when all four schools said it is not and many other things, but worst of all, killing in the name of Allah.

        The real issue is that like Islamophobes, you see any violent or ‘strict’ thing by groups like the Taliban as being ‘Islamic’, but you have no knowledge of the Quran or Sunnah – the things they do are against them as well as traditional Islam. The problem is that your actual beliefs are not Islam but hatred, harshness and violence. These are not the teachings of Islam but of your ‘new’ ideology. Thus you ignore the practice of The Prophet (SAW) you are a modernist and by your token an apostate.

        There is no need to keep thanking us for your participation: it is over.

      • Whaat..whattt ?…I been called an apostate ? Wow..been called a moher^%^ before but an ape ?? And I love the Afghans and their ways and I don’t think the Taliban have anything do with terrorism and nor am I liberal and modernist, both words I despise. I am traditionalist and would probably want the world back to it was…hell I don’t even drive because I hate the modern world.

        And to think that the Taliban would unfold an Islamic state, is just hollow s Casper the Ghost.

    • I thing we had a false start.

      Hamza Tzortis seemed to be a very intellectual speaker. But after a short time I saw that he is a pretender without anything deeper behind it. So criticizing him is very good. You are absolutely alright that he is causing much damage. But one should not mix this up with wahhabism and issues like FGM and Aishas age. You could just talk about his unscientific manner. His method is unscientific because he is stupid and he is salafi because Saudi Arabia is funding the dawah most. These are two seperate problems.

      Haitham Hamdan is a taymite mujassim without doubt. But again his belief in this topic has nothing to do with his praising of Bin Laden or FGM. Go to Pakistan and you will find maturidi people praising Bin Laden. A library in Lal Masjid has been named after Bin Laden just some days ago. The Taliban are maturidis. Only some of them are “ahle hadith”.

      You are right that I am a violent person. You made a good guess. But I am really trying to keep my personality out of the religion. I am not succesfull everytime but I am trying it. I do feel uncomfortable with saying that shaving the beard is haram or that Aisha was 9. These two things go against my personality but I have to accept them like all other facts.
      So you could also try not to mix up your intellectual and peaceful personality with religion like I am trying not to mix up my violent personality with it. If I did then I would have been a pro-Iranian Shia and not a pro-Taliban Hanafite.

      • dude, the concept of God in Islam is not a being of raw ammoral power but of mercy and compassion who *demands* that we use our intellect and reason! Keeping a violent personality out of religion is Islamic. Keeping a peaceful and intellectual personality (who I try, with varying success to have), out of religion is not Islamic! Neither is calling Muslims apostates willy nilly btw.

        My point about the age of Aisha is this: I am not critcising people who say she was 9, I am criticising the fact that many dawah personalities actually attack and anathematise people who say she was NOT 9! This is not acceptable.

      • Of course using reason is good in islam. I have learned the maturidi theology and I agree. But there is a something called intellectual fraud. For example if one considers art to be something intellectual then he is a clear fraud. Also not to forget that morals are not existing without a God. If one claims that morals exist without God like something as the categorical imperative of Kant then he is a clear intellectual fraud. Someone who considers Nietzsche to be a good thinker is an intellectual fraud. The only logical philosopher I know was Wittgenstein. He explained in a mathematical and formal way what the world is under the premise of the non-excistence of God.

        mmmc… shows in nearly every comment of his disbelief. He is behaving like a big arrogant hypocrit. He says that Moazzem Beg does not deserve support because he supported the Taliban. This is a clear statement of disbelief. I do not care about Moazzem and if someone supports him. But having this reason is clear disbelief and apostasy. The Taliban were muslim rulers. Making mistakes and even crimes does not take one the right of rulership. Moazzem supported muslim rulers and mmmc is denying for him any support because of this. This man is a clear apostate.
        He seems to be affilated with Shaykh Atabek. I will complain to him about mmmc.

  9. i think people who love justice should back justice for Moazzam, who is one of the bravest activists I know. i never thought id come across Muslim arguments like this, but i appear to have underestimated how much sectarianism there is in the alleged sufiverse.

    • And I never thought Islam would say: ‘Support Muslims no matter what’. I thought that was called facism.

      It just shows juts how much ‘fascism’ there is in the ‘salafiverse’.

      Also, do you think capital letters are haraam cos they aren’t found in Arabic?

  10. i recall reading somewhere about a revert who was formerly employed by the security services to sow discord amoungst the Muslim community ,he was trained and educated about the differences between Muslim sects and the intricacies involved ….judging from what is written in your blog i think that you are actively working to sow division amoungst Muslims in the Uk ,if that is the case then Allahumma destroy the munafiqeen and expose them to humiliation ameen

    • And I read about some idiots employed by terrorists to get people to go and fight in places like Syria and get killed (but never themselves or their kids of course, only other peoples) and cause people to lose their lives for fights which could have been prevented and which Saudi and America don’t want to do themselves but leave it to unmarried and unemployed kids from the UK who have been given false information by people like Begg.

      I also heard there are some wasters like you who think that any person with a Muslim name is innocent no matter any proof against him or whatever he does – and we should not even wait for a trail or anything because they are so dumb that they think Muslims are always innocent and kuffar are always guilty.

      I also heard about some people called ‘munafiqs’: talking about Islam but if it goes against their own interests or political beliefs, then they do not care what God or The Prophet (SAW) says, nor actions of Sahabah nor Ijma and just carry on with their idiot takfiri jihadi mindset anyway and keep claiming they are doing it for Islam when in fact they are doing it for the perversion which is in their heart.

      And because I am not a coward and a moron, I will not frivolously invoke Gods name to hide behind like you: I will say openly that you are a munafiq because you ignore Islam for the sake of your political and emotional hatred of Assad and support of rebels, even though no-one knows who has killed more people, Assad or the rebels.

      Also, why don’t you concern yourself with removing your own dictators in Zimbabwe before telling British people to go and fight to remove a dictator in a foreign country? Oh, I forgot, you want others to fight and die but not you. Like your ‘Sheikh’ Bin Laden maybe? Giving orders from a mansion with not one but two Pakistani wives while other people do his dirty work?

      Nice work if you can get it chump.

      I won’t include a prayer for your humiliation as you did for me as first of all, prayers of hypocrites like you are unlikely to get answered and secondly, you already humiliated yourself with your stupid post!

      • LOL!

        That’s how to deal with these crypto-takfiris!

        And that guy is clearly too dumb to have ever watched or understood ‘The Boondocks’.

        Remove your avatar and stop embarrassing the religion of God (and Aaron McGruder)!

  11. I don’t feel I know enough about Begg to make a judgement. At least I realise this. Some Muslims who are supporting him are, I’m sure able to justify their support with well researched reasons, others are clearly doing it just because he is a Muslim, whether he is innocent or not; and the freedom of individual Muslims should not take precedence over the Islamic virtue of justice

  12. Sadly, the problem is, we have not seen, from Yvonne Ridely down (and she tweeted this article as a ‘problem’) ANY well researched reasons. None whatsoever. I did a lot of research before writing this, and I was careful. But it had to be said. Our job is to help Islam, not Muslims.

    Worse, since Islam is being ‘used’ in this man’s cause, we have seen no Islamic reasons whatsoever either. it is quite frightening.

    I actually want to take this down if anyone can show me why Islam should get dragged through the mud for this guys sake.

    If they have proof give it to the government if not me. I have zero respect for people like Ridley etc as a journalist after this.

    It is all ‘my tribe, right or wrong’. Jahil Arabs could not take it when the Prophet (SAW) criticised this mentality and it seems Muslims can’t take it now either.

  13. HSTAB, it seems you are trying to be surreal and comedic and think we cannot see past you: in this, like your ‘knowledge’ of Islam, you are mistaken. Since others may be fooled by your comments and think you are serious, I will clarify for their sake.

    Criticising the Taliban cannot be kufr and the obligation of militarily supporting the is only if he is just. Further there is no obligation to go halfway around the world and fight for a regime which is not even in your own country. The Taliban were not his rulers anyway (there were many deranged people, even in the UK who claimed that the Taliban ruler was the ruler of ALL Muslims, an indicator of how far outside the boundaries of Sunni Islam these people have fallen). This individual is confusing people with a different topic, namely the Sunni prohibition of rebelling against the ruler, which does indeed exist (but these guys are not keen to apply in places like Syria at the moment).

    Similarly, if this person has studied Maturidi aqeeda (or anything else), then I’m Ariel, the Little Mermaid. The Taliban ‘claiming’ to be Maturidis does not mean we now redefine Maturidi aqeeda to fit in with them (they in fact largely follow a species of Deobandism, which despite claiming to be Hanafi and Maturidi differs on almost all respects, as their erstwhile rivals in the Subcontinent, the Brelwis, also claimants to being Hanafi-Maturidis, have pointed out in voluminous critiques of that group).

    Maturidi aqeeda is defined by it’s own authentic books and not the ramblings of people like HSTAB or the Taliban.

    So let us hear which books authentic of Maturidi aqeeeda or Hanafi fiqh the Taliban follow. Let us also know what contributions they have made to Islamic scholarship. Further, let us see where in the Hanafi books it says trimming or even shaving your beard is a ‘sin’ (Taliban introduced punishment for it).

    It is a well known opinion of Abu Hanifa that the woman is free to marry herself off, sans Mahrem, but the Taliban would not even allow women to learn Quran or how to read without a mahrems permission, and we are to take these people as Hanafis?!

    In fact the Taliban even enforced Pashtun customs such as widow shunning, where widows were not to be married, going against the Sunnah and even the Quran. The Taliban admit to this themselves at the highest levels (Abdal Salaam Zaeef ‘My Life With The Taliban’).

    Worst of all, which book of Hanafi fiqh or aqeeda says that you should shelter a self avowed mass murderer such as Bin Laden (who for five years BEFORE 9/11 was boasting about the Kenyan embassy and other bombings in which hundreds of civilians died) and then let hundreds of thousands if not a million innocent Afghans die because you would not hand him over to the US?

    In fact in the Hanafi books it is clear that the punishment for killing a non-Muslim is the same as a Muslim: this is a famous opinion of Abu Hanifa where he differed from all the other imams: do they follow it?

    It says in the earliest book written by the Muslims after the generation of the Sahabah ‘Kitab Al Athar’ of Abu Hanifa that women do not have to cover their faces at all, it is a famous opinion of his: did Taliban follow it?

    We should support Moazzaem Begg, even if he is guilty of being a terrorist or sending young people to go and fight against Assad and getting them killed. Basically, there is no such thing as a guilty Muslim for you. Abu Hanfia does not agree: Imams of Hanafis famously had Muslims executed for killing Christians etc: Do you guys follow it?

    It is also the famous opinion of Abu Hanifa in the authentic books such as the above that there is no death punishment for homosexuality: did the Taliban follow it?

    Hell no.

    The same applies for the nonsense accusation by this deranged individual elsewhere (no doubt also for ‘comedy’ or time-wasting effect) that allowing musical instruments such as the piano is ‘kufr’: no-one in Sunni Islam has ever said this and in fact the strongest opinion amongst Hanafis is that music is fine (the only disagreement is about stringed instruments as these were parts of the rites of wine drinkers – not really the case any more). Al Ghazzali also allowed music, making him a kaafir according to this person.

    But we are not fooled dear: we understand that this is how you get your jollies, by messing with people.

    However, the downside of being class clown is that you have to be funny. If you aren’t then you’re just that loud and annoying guy who has to sit in the back of the classroom…

    • Thank you for the answer and congratulations for realising some of my strategies.

      Deobandis are not more a proof for the hanafi school than the Barelwis. Both have to be examined using tha hanafite school from other sources. If one does this without any liberalist attitude then one will see that Deobandis have indeed some opinions which are not so hanafi. But on the other hand side the Barelwis have much more deviancies from the hanafi and maturidi school.

      I fear you do not understand many of the rules you mention.

      In Islam there is no revolting against any ruler whether he is muslim or not. Revolts are always causing bad. But fighting against a ruler can have different verdicts. If the ruler is muslim then fighting against him is forbidden. Fighting against a muslim ruler in alliance with non-muslims is disbelief. Fighting a non-muslim or an apostate ruler is a common obligation fard kifayah. In the example of Syria the ruler is an apostate because he is ruling by the laws of disbelief and he is an alawite. Fighting against shiite or alawite rulers is a common obligation for muslims.
      But revolting against any ruler is forbidden.

      Some scholars say that shaving the beard is forbidden. The ruler can enforce so called ta’zir penalties for it.
      The niqab is recommended in hanafi school but it is not an obligation. If there is a need then the ruler can command it.

      • And I fear you have not quoted a single scholar or authoritative source, other than your own ineloquent ramblings as proofs.

        As for the niqaab, your dishonesty is manifest: in Hanafi madhab if the ruler can command something non-obligatory (for Hanafis) like the niqaab, he can also command it not to be done, it works both ways.Which of course you will never admit: your purpose is to deceive. Further, the niqaab is not even recommended in the Hanafi school.

        ‘Some scholars say shaving is forbidden’. Not named any have you, and not from the authoritative books of the Hanafis anyway: there is no way in Hanafi madhab that the ruler can enforce something like the beard or if he can, then the above also applies. In Maliki and Shafi, beard is nafl only.

        Your understanding of Hanafi madhab is…rudimentary and Taliban like, as to be expected.

        As for the ruling on killing only applying to Dhimmis, which you are trying to use (whose source you failed to quote) to support terrorist atrocities, perhaps, apart from your clearly unhinged expositions, you can provide us with a single mujtahid scholar who says: ‘you are allowed to go into lands of non-Muslims and kill anyone you like, like babies etc and no stress’. You will not find such a disgusting statement in the whole of Islam let alone Hanafi madhab. Further, killing innocents is, unlike the piano, a ‘kufr’ issue as it is explicitly prohibited in the Quran.

        Handing over Bin Laden, prosecuting him: the Taliban did neither, because like you, they do not consider him a criminal.

        Hilariously, neither you (nor anyone else) has shown that Assad is an apostate or an Alewite (Alewites for example do not allow marriages with Sunnis, nor do they pray Jummah behind Sunni Imams as Assad does). Interestingly, on the whole net, no-one, not just this poor care in the community case, has shown any convincing proof of Assad being an Alawite, merely that his dad was and that he is from an Alewite village.

        Ruling by other than Islam is not grounds for takfir: these are the modernist ramblings of your heretical sect only. It is the ijma of ahlus Sunnah (to which you are not even related as a second or third cousin) that the ruler can only be fought against if he commits ‘kufr bu’ah’ (‘big kufr’). The definition of Kufr Bu’ah is also an ijma issue – it does not include ‘secular rule’ but only open and unambiguous apostasy. The only sect of Islam who disagree with this are Khwarij such as your good self.

        Yazid was not ruling by Islam: Sahabah did not fight against him,even when he killed and raped women and Sahahbah of Ahlulabait (though you, as a Khawarij probably think Yazid was ‘ruling by Islam’)

        You see, you are both dishonest and not half as clever as you think.

        So since you have added your fact- free ramblings and self confessed deceptions as well as support of genocide to your already banned status, your compliments on discovering ‘some’ of your strategies (I’m sure you think you are a Moriarty level genius with many more) are not required.

        I already told you that you were banned: I merely replied to you to assure readers of your error, banality and evil. Since that purpose is served, further comments will be deleted.

        I do hope all that stuff Edward Snowden revealed about the US snooping on us through the internet is true and they can trace guys like you and come and say hello, like they did to ‘Sheikh’ Bin Laden.

    • The extradition of a muslim to non-muslims is absolutely forbidden and maybe disbelief. If a muslim has done crimes in non-muslim countries then the muslim ruler can punish him himself. But there is no extradition.

      You forget to mention that the hadd punishment for killing of a non-muslim is only applying for so called dhimmis in an islamic state a not to all non-muslims. That does not mean that it is allowed to kill non-muslims who are not under the contract of dhimmah but there is no hadd punishment for it. There might be a punishment but not that for murder as you imply for Bin Laden. I do not support all of his attacks but it is not right to use such arguments against him.

      It is not good that you consider sending muslims to fight Assad to be a crime. I explained that fighting against an apostate ruler is a good deed.

      Then I would like to address the really most important topic of all here. Music is not allowed in islam. There is absolutely no disagreement in this issue except of regarding the so called daf which is a drum instrument. No single hanafite scholar has ever allowed music. This is a very clear issue. Ghazali did never allow instruments. You can research his opinion deeper and you will see it.
      A disagreement that exists actually is whether somebody who allows music is a disbeliever or not. Some scholars say that the one who allows music is a disbeliever and others say he is just an innovator. I follow the classical sufi position that it is indeed disbelief.

  14. @ mmmclmru: basically the debate above is a debate about what we -as a Muslim- should put at the first place. Is it -let say- ‘universal values’ of Islam – things like justice, fairness, intellectuality and so on- or ‘Islamic solidarity’ (ukhuwwah al-Islamiyah) -or if I put it precisely ‘loyalty to fellow Muslims and sternness to non-Muslims’ (this is what the Salafists call al wala` wal bara’). Advocates of both positions have some points and basis in the Qur`an as well as the Sunnah and in fact they both have agreement to some degrees. The difference is about what to be emphasised, the former or the latter. It’s interesting if you write article about this issue to discuss it in depth.

    And about your statement regarding the scholars I think as a lay men it’s better to keep silent when we confront opinion of the scholars -whatever strange their opinion are- even though we don’t agree with their opinion rather than attack or accuse them if we don’t have capacity in that matter. Let give it to scholars to debating that matter. This is adab. This is not to make the scholars as infallible persons but mere a respect to them. In fact, you also follow your authoritative scholars. It’s a contradiction when you insists another people to stick to the truth rather than to the learned persons (the ‘ulama) while at the same time you did so. After all in Islam we should ask and follow the ulamas if we don’t have knowledge. So basically this is about “your scholars” vis-a-vis “their scholars” and not about truth vs false.

    Salaam.

    • adiffahrizal: Thanks a lot for taking the time to write an interesting comment!

      So first of all, the issue of supporting your Muslim brothers or justice. This is very simple and that is why I have not written on it deeply because if someone cannot understand this without Quranic and Sunnah proofs (although there are many) then there is no point explaining it to them: The Quran commands justice in too many places (not differentiating between Muslims or non-Muslims) for me to even mention and even goes so far as to say that oppression is worse than killing, despite it making killing the number one sin (for example, when the angels questioned the creation of man as a vicegerent; they said that man will kill so why put him on Earth – therefore the angels were criticising the worst aspect of man i.e killing). So the Quran and sharia made it clear that oppression of anyone – Muslims or not, is not allowed and that injustice is prohibited.

      People can always twist anything – Quran, Bible, Secular laws – for example, Salafis will say Allah has a ‘hand’ because they claim it is in Quran. But what about Allah being dissimilar to everything which is mentioned in Quran too? How come they forgot that? And if they want to accept hand literally, Quran also mentions Allah ‘breathed’ Adams soul and has a ‘ruh’ and ‘forgets’, so how come they do not take these literally also?

      It is twisting the Quran and hypocrisy and so it is with the issue of Muslims being a ‘gang’ that has to show ‘solidarity’ no matter what. So does it mean whenever a Muslim (or so-called Muslim) does something stupid like Begg did or 9/11 or whatever we have to stand by them? This is absurd and is the same as what the pagan Arabs said to SAW: ‘My tribe, right or wrong’ so it means Islam is the same as the jahil customs? Of course not. In fact, when SAW mentioned ‘help your brother whether he is the oppressor or the oppressed’ the Sahabah instantly challenged it since it sounded like the old pagan idea of ‘my tribe right or wrong’: It was only when SAW explained that helping your brother when he is the oppressor meant to stop his oppression that they accepted. So today, we reversed all of this.

      So if you accept this principle that ‘unity of Muslims’ is more important that truth or justice, you have to accept it from Kufaar also, so then we can’t complain when NATO does dumb stuff or kills people because they are ‘sticking together’ and the same applies for Israel: Israel is the ally of the US, Europe etc, so according to that logic, they should support them no matter what AND Muslims cannot complain since they too believe in ‘solidarity’ above right and wrong or justice.

      I wonder if Muslims will be willing to accept ‘kufaar solidarity’ as much as they are ‘Muslim solidarity’ or ‘unity’. If not, then there is no need to refute the absurd idea that we should support someone like Moazzam Begg who went to live in a Taliban state that harboured Bin Laden, who even before 9-11 was a Mass murderer due to the Kenyan Embassy and other bombings. So Begg is either 1) really stupid and moves to another country without investigating the Islamic or legal nature of the place OR 2) he supports Taliban ‘Islam’ and deserves what he gets. In either case, it is utterly moronic to risk the reputation of Islam as a religion or Muslims as a people for the sake of ONE MAN, who is either a VERY BAD Muslim or a VERY STUPID person. This is not hard to do decide but interesting the Taliban did the exact same thing where they risked the lives and safety of all of the people of Afghanistan by refusing to hand over Bin Laden, who was indeed a terrorist: so they put ‘Muslim unity’ above justice and look what happened. Why did they demand evidence from the US for the 9/11 attack when it was already confirmed that Bin Laden had admitted to numerous terrorist attacks in the past?

      It is because the Taliban applies the nonsense and fake usool of ‘Muslim solidarity’ as opposed to Quranic ethics. When Kufaar applied usool of NATO solidarity, Taliban and Begg complained. But why?

      As for remaining silent vis-a-vis the scholars, there is no such adhab or usool in Islam. At all. So you should be careful before claiming that there is. In fact, SAW is reported to have said the opposite of what you claim when he stated in a hadith that there will come a time when the scholars will talk nonsense in the mosque and the ordinary people will not challenge them. So you are advising the opposite of what he says. You are also making us reject all of the ayats of Quran that tell us to use our brain (over 70 ayats just saying use ‘aql’, other synonyms of aql are even mentioned even more numerously).

      We need to stop wasting our time with irrelevant and silly questions like ‘we should not criticise the scholars even if they are wrong, unless we are scholars’. First of all, do you apply this principle to non-Muslims also? So all Catholics should remain silent about the Pope and all Hindus and Buddhists about their leaders, since all of them have less knowledge than their scholars? So no one should change religion or it is only non-Muslims who should challenge their scholars but we should shut up and follow? How did Indonesia become Muslim then if everyone carried on following the ‘scholars’? How do the people realise the difference between authentic and non-authentic or their non-Muslim scholars and Muslim ones? So leaving it to the scholars, with respect, is totally nonsense.

      And if it is said that the ordinary people do not have the right to challenge the scholars then how do we know who has knowledge and how do you stop the mistakes of the scholars becoming the mistakes of everyone, as happened in Islam? So with respect, there is no proof for your statement that it is adhab and also it does make them infallible as their mistakes can never be exposed.

      You said I am following the scholars and it is my scholars versus their scholars: where did I say I follow scholars? Or which ones? So no evidence for this as well. There is a whole section on this site about critical thinking and using the brain. There is no such things as blind taqleed on issues of faith.

      So although you are clearly intelligent and articulate you are a bit rude: you have no proof that I am doing taqleed and I am offended that you said it is not about truth versus falsehood but my gang against their gang. You have no proof and the whole content of this site is evidence against your claim. So THIS is bad adhab, accusing people of being in a gang and not following truth.

      So according to you, we need to be super careful about scholars but accusing ‘ordinary people’ like me of being sectarians and not looking for truth is no problem and good adhab?

      And who told you I am not a scholar? How do you know? I am not saying I am, but I want to know how you determine scholars. Curriculum of Medinah University is clear kufr according to Al Azhar (and Sunnis). So which one do you want me to get permission from? Both? Neither?

      So it is not as simple as you suggested. But good points anyway brother!

      • I would advise you to listen to Imam Ali and Imam Al Ghazzali: Look at what is being is said and not who is saying it.

        And from Ali again: First know the truth and then you will know the people of truth.

        neither of them said: shut up and follow scholars or first check if someone is scholar or tell them to shut up if they are not.

        And anyway, even if Imam Al Ghazzali said that, it would still be wrong.

      • Why is bombing an embassy mass murder? You cannot prove that Taliban’s Islam is wrong. Even if they are not hanafi they could be hanbali or shafi who have many extreme opinions. So for following alleged non-hanafi positions Muazzem Beg deserves imprisonment?
        You are indeed a big kafir.

      • So you do not accept people following shafii or hanbali opinions? If some ruler follows the hanbali madhhab and enforces niqab, forbids shaving the beard and similar things that the hanafi madhhab as claimed (by you but I really do not know what is true in this issue) does not demand would you consider him a mujrim? It looks like you would.
        That is the difference between you and the “traditional sufis”. They might follow moderate madhhabs and moderate opinions within it but they accept the “extreme” opinions since they accept all madhahib. But you only accept that what is (supposedly!) the hanafi madhhab because everything else is extremism.
        So what are you but a kafir?

  15. Can you tell us who was the first to ‘accept all of the madhabs’ and where you got this ijma and when it first came about?
    No?
    So what are you but a moron?

  16. @ mmmclmru: Thanks for your response. You have stated a good point regarding the ‘Islamic universal values’ vs ‘Muslim unity’ issue. I appreciate it. But I think there’s a reason why many Muslims emphasise the latter rather than the former. In some Muslim countries -like my countries- some people use the -allegedly- violation cases of those universal values to undermine the efforts to establish Islamic law. The past authoritarian secularist regime blow up terrorism cases commit by some Islamist groups -although there are well documented facts that the regime’s intelligence apparatus provoke and even to some degrees ‘set up’ those groups- to stigmatise and demonise nearly all Muslim groups and figures criticise the regime’s secularist tendency or demand the establishment of shari’ah -which is legal according to our constitution- as if they are the same as the terrorists. It’s understandable then that many Muslims in Indonesia at that time don’t feel any need to accuse the “Islamist terror groups” rather there is bigger concern to criticise the authoritarian secularist regime.

    Of course there are different conditions between Muslim majority countries and Western countries where the Muslims are minority. I understand that in Western countries “right or wrong they are my brothers” attitude is not a good thing since it can make false impression about Islam and alienate people from Islam. But this is not always the case in Muslim countries. So my point is when we want to prioritise one of the two positions we should consider the conditions of places where we live.

    And about the second issue, I don’t say that we should not criticise the scholars or accept all the scholars said as a truth. If there is a scholar said, for examples, that daily prayers and fast in Ramadan are not compulsory, khamr is halal, adultery is not a sin etc. of course we must refuse this kind of “scholar”, in fact that guy can’t be termed as a scholar at all. This is not merely an imagination or exaggeration, there are some cases of this kind of “scholar” in Indonesia. But we should differentiate between the case of truth vs falsehood and the case of different valid opinions of scholars.

    When you make derogatory comments about -let say- Shaykh Haitham al-Haddad’s opinion are you sure that he make that opinion? Are you sure that his opinion not misquoted or quoted out of contexts? Are you sure that his opinion not misunderstood or misinterpreted? Who are the people who give you information about his opinion? Are they sincere about the shaykh? Even if he make an opinion you don’t agree is it a matter of true vs falsehood which we must stand firm to defend the truth or is it a valid opinion in matter that can still be debated? If you don’t have strong proof to accuse his opinion is false your accusation can turn back to yourself. So we should cautious before say this thing or that thing about someone.

  17. The article above is not about belief. When we discuss Islamic related matters beyond matters of faith it is not a big deal to follow or refer to more learned people e.g. the scholars. Allah said “fas`alu ahl adh-dhikri inkuntum laa ta’lamuun”. You said that you are not make a taqleed. But are you a mujtahid? Are you make your own opinion with your own ijtihad? If the answer is no so whatever you say you are still a muqaleed. In fact in your articles you still refer to the scholars and quote their opinions. If you really an Ahlus Sunnah you won’t pretend that you make your own judgements without following the scholars.

    One of the fault of the Wahhabis is they make different opinions in still be debated issues (masa`il al-furu’) as an issue of truth vs falsehood. I’m worry that you replicate their fault’s.

  18. He has been interrogated & investigated by the USA and the UK and released. Don’t you think you are being unjust against him?

  19. Begg is a piece of crap who actively worked with UK secret service complicity against the Syrian government for western imperial regime change. Then govt then booted him once it became clear the so called rebels were committing atrocities (baking off to keep own hands clean. e.g when Hague wanted to arm the rebels) but dogs like Begg continue to bark for their UK imperialist master even today. It is his ilk who have blood on their hands, making a mockery of Islam (Wahabism actually) in the world today with these terrorists running amock committing ever more shocking brutalities and encouraging muslims to go and fight the Wests’ bogus Bernard Lewis Planned war. It is because of him families are being ruined when they get arrested for going to Syria, be it “rebels” or ISIS (I make no distinction they’re all terrorists)

    What gives Begg the right to poke his nose in Syria especially when they have had 2 elections in which Assad won? http://www.brianhaw.tv/index.php/index/2845-mi5-asset-moazzam-begg-birnberg-pierce-admit-working-closely-with-brit-state-plotting-to-illegally-overthrow-syrian-government-03-10-2014

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s