What Everyone Needs to Know About the ‘Anti Extremist’ Quilliam Foundation

 Detective_Conan_245162_9761

The return of Adil does not disappoint – shocking, saddening and essential reading for all.

There are far too many non-Muslims who seem completely oblivious to the radicalisation that organisations such as Quilliam cause in the Muslim (and non-Muslim) community. As Adil ably shows, they are a form of state sanctioned intellectual terrorism undreamt of even by Orwell…

For those who are unfamiliar, the Quilliam foundation is:

The world’s first counter-extremism think tank set up to address the unique challenges of citizenship, identity, and belonging in a globalised world. Quilliam stands for religious freedom, equality, human rights and democracy

Sounds good right? And I wish it were true. I do consider myself a pluralistic Muslim who does believe in religious freedom, equality and human rights – yet I believe there is good reason to believe that Quilliam is not all that it seems. Whilst their official website is fairly general and with little immediately concerning material, the current actions of those in the Quilliam Foundation, particularly the head are somewhat concerning, and as we will see, even facilitate extremism. In a nutshell :

-Quilliam has helped promote false and alarmist stories which only serve to increase anti-Muslim sentiment

-Quilliam shows a lack of tolerance to people who ‘dare’ claim that Islam is inherently peaceful and tolerant, but instead supports people and organizations who insist that it is intrinsically violent and intolerant.

-The head of the Quilliam foundation has very little Islamic knowledge (and himself states that he doesn’t dabble in theology), yet is heralded as an expert by the media.

-Quilliam has many hard-line Islamophobic supporters who they consider allies.

-‘Quilliam’ is ironically named after a man who they would consider the epitome of extremism

-The head of the Quilliam foundation Maajid Nawaaz talks like a person who has knowingly renounced and denounced Islam, but says ‘I am a Muslim’ to give himself political credence (why do his beliefs even matter? I discuss this below). Even many of their fan base is unlikely to consider them Muslim (hence their support for them).

1) Their chairman and co-founder, who says he is a Muslim, when on TV talks like an ex-Muslim, and encourages people to leave Islam. To put it mildly.

One might rightly ask; surely ones religious affiliations or lack thereof are entirely a person’s own business? That is true but what if a person is claiming an identity for a particular end? According to one commenter, Maajid claiming to be a Muslim is:

”A bit like Cristiano Ronaldo still talking as a player of Man Utd when he has left the club and now plays for Real Madrid. Or Suarez now a Barcelona FC player but still talking to media as if he still plays for Liverpool.

In other words, he is using it as a political tool. Why would claiming to be a Muslim fulfil such an objective? It would certainly convince well intentioned non-Muslims who see a Muslim standing up to extremism and claiming to promote pluralism. Surely if this person is a Muslim, any criticisms or calls for reform must be true and valid right? Surely if he is a Muslim, he would never bash Muslims if it were unnecessary?

By saying he is a Muslim, Maajid can continue to have credence in telling other Muslims what to do; and how important it is to reform Islam and so forth. Being an Islamophobe who remains Muslim has one advantage over being an ex-Muslim Islamophobe; you can get away with telling Muslims what to do (whereas some might see it as disingenuous for ex-Muslims to tell Muslims how they need to ‘reform’ Islam when of course all they really want is for them to leave it). It also allows one to appear more accessible to the general public and be able to ‘speak for’ the Muslim community; something which Maajid always disingenuously adds that ‘he cant do,‘ before making broad and usually false claims about the Muslim community and the ‘Muslim mindset,’ some of which I discuss later.

Please note; I am not ‘takfiring’ (excommunicating) anyone, nor holding up some sort of gold standard that one must meet in order to be judged a Muslim; I am a non-scholar and (relatively speaking) nobody and cannot even begin to judge what lies in another human beings heart. I am not claiming that Maajid is not a Muslim because he is a secularist or because his organisation was funded by the government, or because he is a member of the ‘Liberal Democrat Friends of Israel’ or because he is critical about parts of the Qur’an, or for that matter because of his ‘sharing’ of cartoons about the Prophet Muhammad (pbuh).

Rather, I am pointing out that Maajid has deliberately and knowingly said things which he knows are anti-Islam and which at least look like purposeful reminders to his true fans and followers that: ‘don’t worry, I’m not a real Muslim, I just need to say I am to pimp my cause’. This becomes apparent from his social media where he ‘likes’ posts where people talk about their apostasy and how they are proud of it; when every reference to Islam is a negative one, and he assures his fans that he ‘isn’t devout.’ Below; Maajid is asked ‘Why not just leave Islam and go straight for humanism,’ (An understandable question given his apparent opinions on Islam), and he replies

If that works for you, do it, I just have the burden of trying to bring others along with me

Yes you read that right. Not ‘because I believe in Islam.’ Not even ‘Each to their own but I prefer Islam.’ Just ‘I have the burden of bringing others along.’ Surely a Muslim would consider it (at least) preferable to be Muslim then not to be? This really does sound like Maajid as good as saying ‘The only reason I call myself a Muslim is to bring others along to believing in my political world-view.’

More ex-Muslim type statements can be seen in a ‘debate’ involving Maajid Nawaaz and Ayaan Hirsi Ali (the same lovely lady who thinks that Islam should be crushed, and when asked ‘militarily too?’ clarified by saying ‘in all forms.’). Maajid says people whose conscience makes them want to leave the faith MUST leave it at 1 hour 25 minutes. Really? Not look into it to see if Islam is the truth? Not to ask a scholar or several? Not to see if the questions giving you doubt have already been asked and addressed? Not to find other people who have struggled with faith and maintained it? Apparently not.

Ayaan also asks ‘what is your status Maajid’ and calls him an ‘almost ex-Muslim.’ Understandably, Ayaan has picked up on the same signs that I have (it doesn’t take a genius; though to viewers who just see him on the TV it may not be obvious) at 120:30. Maajid Laughs and says ‘are you trying to get me killed.’ Fine, I might have said the same. But I would at least follow it up by giving some sort of answer suggesting that I am….not an ex-Muslim! Unsurprisingly, Maajid gives no such response, nor even implicitly denies Ayaans’ statement.

Sure, context is everything, statements are subject to misinterpretation; I’m sure you could get a couple of phrases from me and use them in isolation to affiliate me to some world-view that clearly is not mine. So let’s observe some more gems from Maajid Nawaaz, which again, are indistinguishable from the sort of rhetoric projected by ex-Muslims, or critics of Islam who were never Muslim to begin with.

”If we accept, demographically speaking, that most people in the world today are not atheists, nor even like me – secular liberals – then we must grapple with the question of religion. There is simply no way to avoid it. I am not a religious leader, I do not issue religious edicts, nor do I claim to speak on behalf of Muslims. Rather, I am a political activist who speaks on behalf of my principles, by which I hope people will judge me. I have come to realise that the only way to unite us all is to focus on those secular liberal principles, rather than asking 1.5 billion Muslims to leave their religion (unrealistic). Finally, my soon to be published dialogue with US neo-atheist activist Sam Harris is on this very topic. We go through much of what you have asked. I’ll announce further details about its release via my social media as soon as I have them.”

Interesting. So what Maajid is essentially saying is that in an ideal world, it wouldn’t be so bad if every Muslim apostatised but we have to come to terms with the fact that they probably won’t, so we’d best secularise Islam while still calling it Islam (such that it becomes an irrelevant spiritual doctrine).

”There is no real or true Islam. Extremists cherry pick, and “moderates” (I dislike that term because it’s entirely relative) cherry pick. The choice ahead of extremists is that if they insist on following everything with vacuous literalism, they’ll have to accept slavery – as ISIL have done – and all sorts of other repugnant practices. If they do so, they’ll quickly deteriorate to Monty-Python style absurdities and factionalism – as all such dogmatic approaches are bound too – just like ISIL killing al-Qaeda now in Iraq. As for “moderates”, they”ll have to accept that extremists have some level of textual ground, and the only option ahead of them is to move towards a less legalistic and more spiritual relationship with their texts. sadly, I think we are generally quite far from this level of honesty in the debate at present.”

I do not think I have heard a Muslim say ‘there is no true Islam.’ Surely if Islam is true, there is definitely a true Islam! Sure, one might argue that no one truly follows Islam correctly in every way because as humans we can never reach the standards God aspires us to reach towards, but to say there is no ‘real’ Islam, really?

Maajid then demonstrates his sheer anti-Islam bias in saying that if extremists accept one ‘bad thing,’ they’ll have to follow another ‘bad thing,’ in order to be consistent! Why not instead say ‘If extremists follow everything with vacuous literalism, they’ll also have to accept that God is merciful and that Jews and Christians will go to heaven’ as the Qur’an states both? He further demonstrates his ignorance and Islamic history and jurisprudence by suggesting that Islam condones slavery (and in the way ISIL have done no less!).

Like myself, Maajid dislikes the term ‘moderate,’ but I suspect our reasons differ somewhat.

For me, ‘moderate’ is fairly non descriptive and plays into the ‘good Muslim, bad Muslim’ dichotomy, not to mention implies that only someone who follows a watered down (‘moderated’) version of Islam is a safe or viable human being. For Maajid however, being ‘moderate,’ whatever that means, is not enough. Muslims must pledge their allegiance to secular liberalism as we can see below.

”A big part of the solution is for ordinary every day people (Muslims included) to stand up, resist Islamist theocracy, and reassert secular liberalism openly, importantly by shattering all the taboos. Shake the tree.”

Many people who pimp their ideology often like to claim they are shattering taboos; to make their cause seem like a freethinking beleaguered force of reason and justice in a world of darkness. Maajid is no exception. If Maajid wants us to shatter taboos, what better way to go about it then reject secular liberalism, the dominant ideology of the Western world? Many people get what I can only describe as a sort of cringeworthy excitement by being ‘daring’ enough to shatter taboos; when they are actually following one of the most common narratives in the Western World! By Maajids’ gold standard of what a safe and acceptable Muslim is, I would certainly be considered an extremist; not because I could pose any material threat (and yes even ‘in an ideal Islamic world,’ I don’t believe Islam says apostates must be killed and all that jazz) but because I have issues with secular liberalism as a political philosophy; which is precisely what it is. I wonder if Maajid has studied the history of secular liberalism and its rich history of (in)tolerance to anything which wasn’t secular and liberal. Does this mean I support theocracy? No, but contrary to what Maajid Nawaaz dishonestly implies, these are not the only two political world views that exist. But that discussion is for another time.

Here’s what I suggest; ask Maajid if when he says ‘Muslim’ he means someone who believes in God and his Prophets (as opposed to something vague about ‘identity’). If he says yes, ask if he believes atheists are (honestly) mistaken. Then ask if he thinks it is unfortunate that some people leave Islam. If he answers all the questions in the affirmative (as a Muslim, by pretty logical necessity would have to) he’s going to lose fans; if he answers in the negative, at least he can’t pre fix his next gross or crazy generalisation or alarmist statement with ‘I am a Muslim,’ without being called out on it. That’s it. Not asking ‘do you pray,’ ‘do you believe in X,Y and Z part of the creed’ etc; that’s not our business. It is only our business if he is knowingly claiming to be a Muslim purely so he can get credibility when he speaks about the Muslim community.

*Please note; I am not trying to implicitly extrapolate this behaviour to all of the individual members of Quilliam. I have not have seen enough of the other members of Quilliam to make any judgements or allegations; on one occasion I have met Dr Usama Hassan who is a senior researcher at Quilliam who I found generally measured and reasonable; though I disagree with some of his views. However my point is, let us not speak of what we don’t know; for all I know, Dr Hassan might be trying to push for Quilliam to critique new atheism too. Who knows? I certainly don’t.

2) Much of their fan base does not consider the head of Quilliam to be Muslim

I do not speak of someone who flicks on the BBC, sees Maajid Nawaaz or Ghaffar Hussein speaking and likes them; I am sure many sincere non-Muslims admire what they hear when taken in isolation and see Quilliam as a moderating force within Islam and assume that Maajid is likely a sincere Muslim who wants to reclaim Islam from the clutches of extremism.

I am talking about their online and social media fan base – people who follow them and regularly praise them and share their posts and so forth. You will see very few Muslim fans, the occasional one here and there (who are usually well intentioned but know little of the Quilliam Foundation except that they profess to challenge extremism which of course is a laudable cause if done correctly) but an abundance of Ex-Muslims, and militant atheists. It seems apparent that many of these individuals do not actually perceive Maajid Nawaz et al to be consistent Muslims, or even Muslim at all (hence their admiration for them). An atheist who poses with a photo with Maajid here actually describes him as a fellow atheist on twitter and to the best of my knowledge there was no denial. As we saw above, Maajid has been asked before why he doesn’t just leave Islam and go straight for secular liberalism, but Maajid replied that he ‘still has the burden of bringing others with him.’ We also saw above that Ayaan Hirsi Ali also questioned Maajids’ status as a Muslim. Even the National Secular Society, a rampantly anti religious organisation have named Maajid Nawaaz as an Honorary Associate – a list which solely consists of atheists and perhaps a couple of agnostics.

3)They never criticise (gently) anti-Islam or new atheism, nor show any disagreement with it. They do not try to refute the claim that Islam is violent…but they criticise people who do!

There is nothing wrong with an organisation dedicated to counter extremism, or religious extremism, or even Islamic extremism. That’s fine and I am not arguing that Quilliam are therefore obliged to write hundreds of articles about and against the extremism of other religions or of secularists in order to be consistent.

However, given how much they work alongside atheists (not a problem), one would think that at some points in time, a Muslim would show at least some polite and gentle disagreement. Maajid Nawaaz who is usually the public face for Quilliam never does such a thing. Ever. Even when pushed and presented a ‘violent’ side of Islam he will, almost as a rule concede the point, never denying that Islam is violent or draconian; but he will add that as long as we stay secular or liberal, this won’t be an issue.

Again, the fact that Quilliam shares some common goals with people who are atheists and Islamophobes need not condemn them; for instance Maajid and Ayaan Hirsi Ali both oppose female genital mutilation. So do I. Maajid (let’s say) is a Muslim and Ayaan hates Islam and thinks it should be crushed ‘in all forms,’ including militarily (some might argue she is the more open of the two). Fine; but where’s the part where Maajid even suggests that it is unfortunate that Ayaan is an atheist, or even that he would prefer her to come back to Islam; or even that ex-Muslims and atheists might well have the best of intentions but are honestly mistaken? Does he ever argue that whilst her stance against FGM is praiseworthy, some of her comments are (to put it mildly) incendiary and anti-Muslim? Of course not.

But Maajid Nawaz goes further than merely refusing to argue that Islam is not violent, or even giving gentle critiques of the new atheism of his colleagues who consistently attack Islam; Maajid instead reserves his criticism for those who fail to meet his gold standard of a ‘safe’ Muslim; in other words, Muslims who have the audacity to argue that there is no room for violence or injustice in Islam! Such people are ‘apologists’ who cannot be trusted and deliberately distort the truth! For Maajid Nawaz, to be considered a safe and socially acceptable Muslim, you actually have to admit that parts of Islam really do condone what the likes of ISIS and Taliban do, but that thanks to secular liberalism, we can get rid of all that stuff.

4) Their chairman has very little Islamic knowledge

And I am no expert – but I’m not on TV empowering Islamophobes with my amateurish knowledge of Islam. According to Maajid Nawaaz himself, he wasn’t particularly practising, he never frequented a mosque, nor had read the Qur’an when he joined the ‘non-violent extremist group’ ‘Hizb-ut-Tahir’. Even now, Maajid states that he ‘doesn’t dabble in theology.’ Given that before and during his radicalisation, Maajid had nothing relevant or valid to say about Islam (something which I doubt even he denies), I am unsure as to why he can be considered any sort of authority now, just because he left Hizb-ut-Tahir. Had Maajid Nawaaz studied Islamic theology or jurisprudence seriously, he might have come to the conclusion that there is no textual validation for the actions of ISIS or Al Qaeda, that Islam does not allow slavery in any way comparable to slavery as we think of it, or for that matter that a Caliphate, regardless of whether you find it agreeable or not, is not a theocracy. A theocracy is a government where a clergy are the civil rulers and the policies made are considered divinely inspired. A Caliphate on the other hand does not entail a divinely chosen ruler but rather one who is elected and who rules using Islamic principles. A Caliph is not infallible nor divinely inspired and he is held accountable for his actions in this life. I take no issue with him criticising the concept of a Caliphate if he wants but it would be nice if he did it properly.

5)Their name is hilarious and couldn’t be more ironic

No, not the fact that they are named after a guy called ‘William Quilliam.’ Rather the irony that Quilliam have taken their name from a man who according to them would be a rampant extremist! William Quilliam himself was a British convert to Islam who supported the very antithesis of the Quilliam foundation; an Islamic state! William Quilliam also condemned British foreign policy in other countries prior to WWI on the grounds that they were ‘crusading with the pretext that they were civilizing the world! He even went as far as to say that Muslims were forbidden to even give a ‘piece of bread or drink of water’ to those participating in wars against Muslims in the Sudan! The Quilliam foundation naming themselves after William Quilliam is rather like the KKK calling themselves ‘The Malcolm X foundation’, or the American government calling themselves the Bin Laden institute…oh wait…

I suspect that by now, the Quilliam foundation are aware of the irony of their poorly chosen name, and are keeping it quiet (changing your name because your namesake doesn’t fit the bill is rather embarrassing) but we can remind them. Often.

6)They help propagate alarmist ‘anti Jihad’ stories

One would think that an anti-extremist organisation would be especially vigilant to false narratives and scaremongering stories which could give rise to extremism. One would also think that they would be opposed to extremism in all shapes, sizes, colours and religions. A genuine anti-extremist organisation would; so naturally Quilliam has no qualms with both propagating stories which are proven false, nor does it take issue with cosying up to other extremists. For much more articulate accounts of how Quilliam has consistently done this then I could give, please see the links below.

Quilliam helps propagate the false rumour that Muslims are privileged with cheap football seats!

Maajid Nawaz declares that Muslims find respect and tolerance for others reprehensible

Quilliam continues to work with Ex leader of the EDL Tommy Robinson while Robinson maintains alliance with Robert Spencer and Pamela Geller (two genocidal anti Muslim lunatics)

Quilliam continues to defend Tommy Robinson after Robinson goes on numerous anti Muslim and racist (yes racist; I know Islam isnt a race blahblahblah, just read the tweets and make up your mind) tirades

7) They love and are loved by Islamophobes

The company someone keeps tells you a lot. Few if any Muslim organisations support the Quilliam Foundation, but there are several hard-line Islamophobes (a term which both they and Maajid Nawaaz deny actually exists), who take to them, and are shown similar love in turn. Take Bill Maher for instance who is a great fan of the Quilliam Foundation and thinks the head of the Quilliam foundation ‘should be awarded a medal.’ Loonwatch.com sums up Bill Maher perfectly:

Bill Maher, a self-proclaimed “9/11 Liberal” fits the above description. He has a history of Islamophobia and anti-Arab racism, claiming falsely that Islam and Muslims are: uniquely more violent than practitioners of other faiths, the Bible is less violent than the Qur’an, there are “too many Mohammads” in the West and he is fearful they will “takeover,” Arab men (who he interchanges with Muslims) are all horrible to women, and women cannot vote in 19 out of 22 Arab states. Maher is also a staunch supporter of Obama’s drone assassination program and is on record defending Geert Wilders.

But it gets worse, neo-atheist Sam Harris supports the Quilliam foundation too. Some of Sam Harris’ lovely views include: support for torture; support for ‘The Dutch Hitler’ Geert Wilders; racial profiling and ‘war against Islam’ (which sounds more palatable then ‘the war on practising Muslims,’ which of course is exactly what he means). For those unacquainted with Sam Harris and Bill Maher and are masochistic enough not to keep it that way, observe as Glenn Greenwald discusses and dissects both Bill Maher and Sam Harris. Continuing with the latter of Quilliams supporters, Harris goes onto say:

It is not enough for moderate Muslims to say “not in our name.” They must now police their own communities. They must offer unreserved assistance to western governments in locating the extremists in their midst. They must tolerate, advocate, and even practice ethnic profiling”

”Islam is undeniably a religion of conquest. The only future devout Muslims can envisageas Muslims—is one in which all infidels have been converted to Islam, politically subjugated, or killed”

Imagine if Sam Harris was instead a Muslim Imam named Shamir Haroon who said:

”Christianity is undeniably a religion of conquest. The only future devout Christians can envisage—as Christians—is one in which all Muslims have been converted to Christianity, politically subjugated, or killed”

Such a lunatic would be considered as credible as Anjem Choudary (the Muslim version of Fred Phelps from the Westboro Baptist Church), yet thousands of atheists mash their lips on Harris’ feet, heralding him as a heroic savour of free thought and human progress! Given Sam Harris’ views and that Sam Harris deems the Quilliam foundation suitable for his monetary aid; what does this suggest about the Quilliam foundation?

The list of Neocons, liberal extremists and anti Muslim bigots who love the Quilliam foundation goes on including:

-The aforementioned Ayaan Hirsi Ali who has shown sympathy for terrorist Anders Breivik and is on record saying that Islam needs to be crushed

– The neocon extremist Douglas Murray who unambiguously stated that ‘conditions must be made harder for Muslims in Europe’; imagine if he was a British Imam called Dawood Medhi who argued that ‘conditions must be made harder for Jews in Europe!’

-‘Student Rights’ (an anti-Islam and anti-Palestinian organisation which does not actually contain any students and has been exposed by ‘real student rights’ here). ‘Student Rights’ have even gone as far as promoting promoting material written by the American anti-Muslim propagandist Pamela Geller, whom the British Government’s Home Office has subsequently banned from entering the UK.

-The neocon and Islamophobic Henry Jackson society who Quilliam are in direct collaboration with.

Yet Quilliam still expects the Muslim community to give them credibility and ‘reform itself’ according to their wants? Right.

So what should we do?

I know what not to do; attack them, insult them, call them Kafir, hypocrites, the lot. Even my first point above was not ‘proving’ that Maajid Nawaaz is not a Muslim (God knows what’s in his heart) but rather that he’s been purposefully giving (or allowing) the impression that he is not one. The fact that aggression and ill manners are forbidden in Islam aside, nothing validates a person or makes them feel important then being given death threats! Giving an Islamophobe death threats is like giving a ‘rudeboy’ an ASBO; it’s a badge of honour. Why not instead, be generous enough to give them the same proposal that they give to the Muslim community; that they reform themselves (for the record, I do think the Muslim community has much reforming to do and that we do need to shed some common but so called Islamic paradigms; but Quilliam and their ilk aren’t the people to show us how to do it; I also take issue with the word ‘reform’ when it comes to Islam; the term has too much loaded baggage). Sure they can keep focussing on Islamic extremism; but just as many young Muslims blame *everything* Muslims do that is ‘bad’ on foreign policy and colonialism, Quilliam should step it up and realise just how large the role played by foreign policy is. This article What Really Radicalises Muslims (1) would be a good place to pick up from.

If Quilliam wants to be considered anti-extremist, it should stop siding with extremists! The likes of Sam Harris, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, Student Rights et al are proven anti-Muslim bigots. If a Muslim said half the inflammatory things they do about non-Muslims, Quilliam would be all over them like a rash. Quilliam could also do with actually reading some Islamic scholarship before claiming that genocidal lunatics like ISIL have any Islamic grounds whatsoever for their depraved actions. Finally, they could do some research into their own much vaunted worldview; secular liberalism. Secular liberalism is not a default human position which is beyond question (according to Maajid; no idea should be beyond question, though of course he generally says this with reference to Islam), nor is its history sunshine and roses either. Some of John Grays critiques of liberalism and humanism would be a start.

Oh and one more thing we can do; share this article. A lot. My writing is nothing special but the accumulation of facts which I’ve gathered highlighting the inconsistencies and problems with the Quilliam foundation are pretty salient. So please share this.

Assalamualaikum and have a wonderful day

(1) The aforementioned article is an absolute must read (I didn’t write it!) for anyone interested in…funnily enough…what actually radicalises young Muslims. The author even considered like likes of the Quilliam Foundation to be one such factor as shown below:

Enemy Mine: Pretending that people like Ayan Hirsan Ali or the Quilliam Foundation are spokespeople for or impartial critics of Islam

This is much like getting Anjam Chaudhry or the North Korean Ministry of Information to represent American foreign policy on Sky News. And then taking them seriously.

Muslims can see it for what it is – caricaturing and the journalistic equivalent of ‘blackface’, and it makes them angry. And yes, do dumb stuff.

It also shows how badly out of touch with their Muslim compatriots other people in the UK sometimes are: virtually no practising British Muslim, including myself, is particularly confident of what religion Majid Nawaaz and most other members of Quillium are – though they may indeed be Muslims. They themselves often make deliberate provocations to make the Muslim community think that they are in fact closet non-Muslims and are using their self proclaimed Islamic identity as a shield against accusations of Islamophobia and thus get away with saying things that even the British press wouldn’t tolerate from a non-Muslim. Liberal Democrats and the media, by using such people, who are nearly universally reviled and seen as extremists, turncoats and traitors by the Muslim community are sending out a dangerous message to them.

Another writer compared poor sartorially challenged Majid Nawaaz to the character of Stephen, played by Samuel L. Jackson in the movie ‘Django Unchained’. But this was nonsense – Majid Nawaaz makes ‘Stephen’ look like Malcolm X.

Ayan Hirsan Ali merely represents an even more extreme evolution or perhaps even ‘apotheosis’ of the tendency, discussed above, to make the actions of some Muslims representative of the whole faith (a procedure nonetheless considered unconscionable in the case of the adherents of ‘Western Civilization’ though). It is merely generalising the unverifiable experiences of one person to all Muslims and likewise with her complaints. 

An entirely consistent rejoinder to Ayan Hirsan Ali would be finding a young English girl who was horribly sexually abused by her family and then ran away to Pakistan, embraced Fundamentalist Islam, studied at a Russian university (where Vladamir Putin personally paid her tuition and gave her Judo lessons) and then married an Afghan mullah at a ceremony officiated by Kim Jong Un. In Iran. And then getting her to do the speaking circuit around the world, lecturing about how hard Western Civilization sucked because she was abused by her uncle and did not get over it until she accepted Islam and ran away from the civilization that was indifferent to her suffering, in fact facilitated it, in fact facilitated the suffering of all women, and then saying offensive stuff about the Holocaust to offend Europeans as much as possible (as Hirsan Ali and her supporters go out of their way to do with Islam, the Prophet SAW and the Quran).

We would be rightly incandescent with rage at such a performance. But yet this is exactly what we expect young European Muslims to put up with.

174 thoughts on “What Everyone Needs to Know About the ‘Anti Extremist’ Quilliam Foundation

  1. Nice post. The great danger of the Quilliam Foundation and the like is that they get portrayed as being representative of “moderate Islam” and all actual Muslims (who represent actual mainstream and moderate Islam) end up getting portrayed as extremists.

  2. Salam alaykum,

    As far as I understand it, if someone says that he is “almost an ex-Muslim”, then basically he is an apostate anyway [for certain reasons which are explained by the scholars]. So then basically what we have then is an apostate leading what is called a “moderate Islamic movement” – seems to be the recycling of ways in which the Westerners of yesteryear psychologically got rid of the Native Americans on the American continent – of course in addition to real physical violence as well.

    • ^
      Regarding the above, I am saying the above supposing that this is what the person actually said or holds. There are other positions that may be held by Nawaaz, and these have to be considered separately.

      • Indeed. re “almost an ex muslim” maajid was “accused” of being one but didnt deny it. I dont think Quilliam claim to be an Islamic movement but maajid does claim to b a Muslim at tiimes.

        Thanksfor reading my article pls share as much as u can!

  3. Dear Adil,

    I have not read the article in full, but one thing I think we must do is to pose the above scenarios to real Shuyuukh of Aqeedah to see how they respond – I am certain someone making fun of Islam or of his being a Muslim are grounds for having formally left the religion already [unfortunately it is quite common in our day and age, when people do leave Islam like drinking water, I cannot blame one person and leave the rest out].

  4. Salam Alaykum,

    There is also the thing I mentioned to brother “mmmlcru” previously and will mention it again in here: The institutions such as the above are what people are calling “atheist Muslims” (a total oxymoron) – in this toxic climate we must go for discussing the basic fundamental basis of Islamic ideology

    …for the ones who wish to hear of course, most simply assume their cosmology to be true and consider attacking before anything else, but we must show that Islamic ideology is inherently different at some root level and why we are convinced we are correct and they are wrong- besides, most non-Muslims seem to understand this difference quite well, which is why they call for “Muslims to stop calling the Quran the truth and to become reasonable”; in this very toxic climate I do not expect that simply explaining the principles of “Hanafi Usool” will do the trick at all for many Muslims under ideological siege, since the opposition throughly hates Hanafi Usool also (whatever that may mean for different people. I am sure some of the positions that Shaykh Atabek holds would also be held as “criminally prosecutable” either now or in the very near future, since we are facing something that is not really considering Islam as an opponent to be negotiated with, but rather to be totally destroyed.

    • Like I said, Maajid says ‘I am a Muslim’ or ‘Islam is my faith’ every now and again, but this just seems like a hollow disclaimer which we states before his alarmist rhetoric about ‘Islamism,’ where he demonises every Muslim who doesnt openly ”assert secular liberalism.” Also why would a Muslim encourage others to leave Islam?!

      • As-Salamu Alaykum brother,

        I don’t understand how you can say Christians are going to Heaven for example? I hear that some Muslims claim this because of the verse in Surah Baqarah (I’m sure you know what I’m talking about), that mentions the Jews as well as others, however this seems to contradict Verse 5:72 for instance: “They have certainly disbelieved who say, “Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary” while the Messiah has said, “O Children of Israel, worship Allah, my Lord and your Lord.” Indeed, he who associates others with Allah – Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.”

        Some also like to point to the verse about there being no other religion other than Islam, this is then responded to by saying it means ‘submission’, and I’m guessing because of this response that seems good people get confused.

    • From the article: “Any desire to impose any religion over any people, whether by law or war, is inherently a repugnant idea. And we rightly did away with theocracies in Europe a long time ago.”

      Imposing laws is what systems of governance are known for. Is Maajid an Anarchist?

  5. Whether you agree with them or not, genuine Islamic liberals/critical traditionalists are generally quite easy to distinguish from attention seekers and media entrepreneurs like Maajid, Irshad Manji and Asra Nomani. The genuine ones will have predominantly muslim following and get almost no attention from non-muslim media. The others will get plenty of attention from non-muslim media and have predominantly non-muslim following.

    • “genuine Islamic liberals/critical traditionalists”

      First time I’ve seen it termed this way.

      No thanks to some self-proclaimed liberals/secularists, it seems nowadays any Muslim who expresses any ‘liberal’ or “not-so-harsh” view often gets dumped into the liberalism/Secularism basket as well. When you show them proof from the Hanafi madhab, they respond by saying, it’s not the view of the other 3 schools, or they contextualize it and say “that ideal state no longer exists… we have a lot more irreligious Muslims, or liberalism is threatening peoples iman and therefore we must be harsh so they don’t go astray”… or something along those lines.

      Judging by a brief survey I’ve done in the recent past of comments/likes/followers of religious personalities on Facebook, there may not be that many critical traditionalists. Perhaps because the literalist-leaning views are easier to intellectually digest? Has this been the norm for the last 1300 years? I certainly hope not but Jonathan Brown does seem to make a good case for it in his book Misquoting Muhammad. I guess lying for the sake of God is ok… I mean as long as people don’t renegade like ISIS, AQ, Boko Haram, Batman, Superman, or X-Men… or maybe state violence is preferred over the vigilante kind… I mean with so many references to past Muslim warriors/ empirical conquests, and empires in lectures, it seems some Muslims (HT, ISOC, and some Deobandis) prefer we unite as an Islamicate and become better Muslims so we can continue where the Umayyads left off (or take over the role of world police from the U.S. and co.)… yearly expansionist, and interventionist wars for expanding the Abode of Islam (a.k.a liberating the oppressed from external and self-injustice)… it apparently has the weight of ijma or majority view with a few exceptions. You may say well “that was the norm of the time” or “everyone was killing each other back then”… so I ask you, have the injustices, or state of war (however you define that) by the ‘other’ really stopped? [Yes mmmclmru the expansionist jihad thing is still bugging me… books on Islamic just war theory with references from 14th century or earlier ulema would be appreciated].

      In all honesty, it’s hard for me to distinguish ‘modernist’ or views rooted in ‘liberalism/secularism’ from ‘traditionalist’ views… especially when you hear words like consensus, mushur opinion and things like “stick with the community”, or God will not allow the community to go astray.

      • “I guess lying for the sake of God is ok”

        I think you mean for the sake of social cohesion. In any case, the issue of the use of “noble lies”, legal fictions and dual discourses in Islamic intellectual history, is something that should be made more well known. It might actually be one of the most important issues in a critical understanding of the history.

      • I see where you are coming from Manny and clearly you are thinking. You have made some incredibly perceptive and genuine observations. Thus no doubt, you will rightly be troubled.

        I totally agree with you that it is virtually impossible to distinguish the truth: anyone who actually takes the mainstream position of classical Maturidi or A’shari or God forbid Mu’tazzilite Islam is instantly savaged as inauthentic or a secularist (and in the last case a kaafir) etc. This is simply due to the huge disparity in wealth and political licence between Wahhabi states like Saudi, Qatar and UAE vis-a-vis the rest of the Muslim world. It is the same reason most people in Europe are inexorably becoming more right wing and racist: it is because the very media they are surrounded in and their cultural motifs are moulding them into that. But you see the utter refusal to address Wahhabism and self criticism by Muslims, perennially using the ‘We are under siege, we must unite and cover up our flaws and mistakes’ arguement. One dawah carrier, a particularly foul sex pest, (like most of them sadly are), told me that we are not to self criticise (i.e improve) because we ‘must not fight in a burning house’. But who set the house on fire in the first place?

        But here is part of the problem: you mention Jonathan Brown is an Salafist. Barn door, clear as day. But no-one clocks it. In fact, most Muslims are convinced at least in some part that the marginal and novel formulation of Islam that constitutes Salafo-Wahhabism is indeed the real Islam. Kufaar are more than happy to let them persist in thinking so. Brown’s latest book is full of proof but people think he is doing them a favour by ‘explaining’, for example, wife beating in the Quran. But as a Salafi, he is actually hamstringing you whilst ‘helping’ you: he wrote a whole chapter on wife beating without mentioning that Zamakhshiri and Qurtubi don’t accept that meaning in the Quran in the first place. He will insist on taking the positions of the Four Schools on apostasy through the Ahle Hadith (who made takfir on the heads of those schools in many cases) and thus assuring you that ‘all’ of them ask for thinking of apostates. The he presents ‘his’ analysis, which frankly is irrelevant. The fact is, he will tell yo the positions of the schools through only the traditionalists (and Kharijites BTW). Surprise, surprise, they all agree with the traditionalists. But the senior-most student of Abu Hanifa narrates through a reliable chain that Abu Hanifa denies killing of apostates. But that student is not liked by muhaditheen therefore Jonathan Brown has spared you the trouble of knowing his view. Even though it is the correct one and accepted by the usooli Hanafis. But with everyone, even photogenic white guys like Brown out to mess with you, how will you without knowing all of this already get to the truth?

        The reason he failed to mention it [wife beating or apostasy or stoning] is not because he does not know but because he presumably does not want you to know. Answers and Islam have to come from certain ‘approved’ sources and viewpoints. As an Ikhwaani Salafi, he is doing the approval.

        Since we are detached from our Islamic history by he dual facts of post-colonialism and Wahhabism/Salafism, we are unable to see people like him for what he is. He includes a lengthy and boring hagiography of Shah Wali Allah and in fact allows this person and not Tabari or Ibn Khaldun to give us an account of Islamic history etc. As a white guy with a PhD, he knows people will defer to his ‘knowledge’. He’s not a bad guy, he just has an angle. Everyone has an angle. As soon as you forget that, you’re in trouble

        But at the end of the day, all people like Brown have – it is just the ability to read (selected) books in Arabic and then regurgitate them to a poorly informed audience. And who made that audience poorly informed? Idoelogically biased ‘educators’ like Brown, and his less articulate Salafist brethren.

        Traditionalist views are not ‘easier to digest’ at all: they are just easier to digest for people like Brown. The fact that he leaves the telling of history to a traditionalist as opposed to Western or Islamic historians despite being a historian himself is proof enough of that. Brown is a modern day Muhaditheen.

        Literalist views are not easier to digest intellectually either – unless you think God riding on goats, The Prophet committing kufr (as per the Satanic Verses incident – graded ‘Sahih’ by traditionalists and Ibn Taymiyya of whom Brown’s ‘hero’ Shah Wali Allah wrote a biography in praise) makes things ‘easy’. Literalism is rather a substitute for intellect, and an inconsistent one at that – they fail to take far too much literally to be consistent – such as denying Allah’s ‘breathing’ and forgetfulness, also mentioned in the Quran (‘On that day we will forget them as they forgot us’, I paraphrase) but insisting on his being ‘on’ the throne and his hands and feet etc.

        Why are you asking about if the Ummayads were authentic or the Abassids for that matter? They did expansionist wars, yes. And made religious excuses for some of them. Ummayids raped the women of the Sahabah and the Yazidis went around killing the last surviving babies of the Prophets’ house. Was that for expanding the abode of Islam too? Abassids tortured Malik and killed Abu Hanifa and God knows how many other Muslims they killed. Many traditionalists from Imam Zuhri and others apparently supported them. Why do you need a book to tell you whether this was in the name of Islam or not? Do we think raping the women of Ahlul Bayt as the Yazidis did was also in the name of Islam? Of course not.

        I can give you books but anyone who takes books, even the Quran as a substitute for his brain and morality will surely go astray, as you already know. The Quran commands use of the intellect and reason and morality first.

        If consensus is such a proof then ask Jonathan Brown and Ahle Hadith why their own Imam, Imam Ahmad, denied there is any such thing as consensus at all. We can’t have it both ways. And is consensus and the opinions of fulans and narrations a proof for non-Muslims too? Does consensus become a proof only when you become Muslim then is it? Shall we follow the consensus on evolution? Or is it only in religious things?

        I accept consensus because it is alluded to at least in Quran but depends consensus of who.

        So if the proof of consensus is an ahad hadith but the Quran says the majority are wrong and we will be misguided if we follow them then we have a problem. But Saudi petro-dollars have persuaded everyone that Ahad is certainty and ‘no-one’ questioned this. Rather, no-one accepted this.

        Brown wants to assure all of you that ‘non-one’ used to question the Age of Aisha at marriage. That’s true – but not for the reason Brown wants you to think – that everyone accepted the hadith. Rather no-one knew of it and if they did were not apt to take ahad narrations at face value anyway. And tabari DID ignore that narration. But Muhaditheen like Brown have a problem with Tabari so he will ‘help’ you out by not mentioning that either…

        At the end of the day, you have to ask if whatever is being narrated makes sense to you. If we don’t and accept nonsense because it is ‘ijma’ or ‘mashoor’ then how are we different from anyone else who does that i.e. some non-Muslims.

        Argument from authority is not even used by God himself in the Quran – when the angels questioned him he could have just said ‘I’m God, shut the hell up’. Rather he explains and demonstrates. But the ‘Imams’ don’t need to do this?

        You are completely right, all of these groups, Deos, Salafis, HT, Ikhawaan etc are just messing up and destroying Islam in their own way and at the end of the day their dream is not the eradication of poverty or the perfection of human nature but rather civilizational revenge and supplanting the US as those who have the monopoly and ‘right’ to oppress. What of it? Didn’t the Quran say the majority would be wrong?

        Shafi, Malik, Abu Hanifa, Al Ghazzali and all of the other guys – none of these guys are guaranteed Paradise. Any of them can make a mistake and all of them need to be in fear of Hellfire. We can take their help but we cannot delegate our thinking to them. Being protected from Hellfire is the sole claim of the Prophets and a few others who are promised that.

        Bukhari narrates that there is no revenge on Muslims for killing non-Muslims. Shafi and Co followed that it seems. They are grossly mistaken. What of it? I am a layman and I say that. So what? It is not in Quran nor did Prophet (SAW) say it. Abu Hanifa rejected this hadith and he is right but if he had accepted it he too would be right. If all of them accepted it then they would ALL be wrong. So? Quran and intellect both make it clear that killing people is wrong and equally wrong.

        Al Ghazzali went so far as to say that anyone who follows Muhammad blindly is the same as a pagan or non believer. So what about the fatwas of fulans and ijmas and mashoors and Ummayads and political wars and campaigns?

        So I am not having a go at you, rather I understand your frustration – but if the real message of Islam was out there and undamaged, we would not be in this mess. Allah promised only to protect Quran, not ‘Islam’. People forget that.

        This is a most helpful book, I think it will help you understand the plight of modern Muslims and Islam and help you clearly delineate the distinction, which is impossible for most of us with all of the crap we are exposed to, between ‘Traditional or classical Islam’, ‘Salafism/Wahhabism,’ and ‘Modernism’, It certainly helped me. I think it is the most useful book for Muslims in the English language period [that I have read – although Jeffrey Lang and Gai Eaton also ‘nailed it’, but the problem seems to have become even worse since then]:

        http://www.amazon.co.uk/Reasoning-God-Reclaiming-Shari-Modern/dp/0742552322/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1425341945&sr=8-1&keywords=reasoning+with+God

        This upcoming book will also be one of the few that clarifies things from what I have read.

        http://www.avicennaacademy.com/mustalah-book/

        A useful antidote to intellectual gymnastics and highly selective answers about domestic violence in the Quran which actually looks at what traditional jurists said and at what God said instead of trying to shoe horn in ahad narrations and selected muhaditheens opinions:

        Click to access DV-Fatwa-Online-Version.pdf

        As for the just war theory, it is in the Quran. Anyone and everyone who made an usool against that is wrong and anyone who writes a book to justify those mistakes will also be wrong.

        Many people tried to argue with God. And they all lost.

    • Exactly. I couldnt agree more. The likes of Asra Nomani, Zuhdi Jasser and Maajid Nawaaz are basically the Muslim equivalent of ‘useful Jews,’ who persecuted other Jews; they are more anti Islam then even their non Muslim right wing counterparts, and know sod all about Islam. As I described above, the vast majority of maajids fans are hardcore Islamophobes (but according to maajid, Islamophobia doesnt exist; I cant think of anyone else who claims that who isnt an anti Muslim nutbag)

      • “and know sod all about Islam.”

        It’s not just lack of knowledge, some of them come across as potentially mentally ill, especially Manji and Nomani. Manji’s been repeating the same rhyming soundbites for over 10 years. There’s something wrong there.

      • Salam, I dont understand how can popular christians of today go to heaven?

        The Quran says: They have certainly disbelieved who say, ” Allah is the Messiah, the son of Mary” while the Messiah has said, “O Children of Israel, worship Allah , my Lord and your Lord.” Indeed, he who associates others with Allah – Allah has forbidden him Paradise, and his refuge is the Fire. And there are not for the wrongdoers any helpers.

    • “he wrote a whole chapter on wife beating without mentioning that Zamakhshiri and Qurtubi don’t accept that meaning in the Quran in the first place.”

      “But the senior-most student of Abu Hanifa narrates through a reliable chain that Abu Hanifa denies killing of apostates.”

      Would it be possible to get some citations on those? Not doubting, would just like for future reference.

  6. Thanks!

    I gave the link to the whole Domestic Violence book in English – it’s in there, e.g page 12. It is only a short book!

    As for apostasy – this is thorough.

    The clarification of the different narrations attributed to Abu Hanifa involves a manuscript analysis that even this guy hasn’t done. I can send you some scans but there is no point unless you will be able to use them! It is also narrated by Imam Samarkandi in his book on the chapter covering this issue. Perhaps illustratively, this book is also strangely ‘not published’ even in Arabic. Curious eh? Not sure what Imam Samarkandi’s own position is though.

    In any case, the position of Imam Maturidi and Abu Hanifa (as well as Asharis like Razis and Al Ghazzali is 1) We are not infallible 2) If it does not make sense then do not believe it.

    So the best thing is to watch for example the video above, and then ask if killing apostates makes sense to you. If it doesn’t, senior students of Abu Hanifa or Abu Hanifa himself don’t add anything to that certainty. Why I say this is because this is a general principle.

    • “The clarification of the different narrations attributed to Abu Hanifa involves a manuscript analysis that even this guy hasn’t done. I can send you some scans but there is no point unless you will be able to use them! It is also narrated by Imam Samarkandi in his book on the chapter covering this issue.”

      That’s okay but can you tell me the name of the Hanafi(s) who attributed the narration to Abu Hanifa, and also the name of the book by Imam Samarkandi where this is mentioned?

      Thanks

      • You posted another comment with some links but it appears to have been deleted.

        Could you possibly re – post?

      • It is mentioned in various books, not just of Imam Samarkandi but all of the chains are to two people – Imam Muhammad narrating that Abu Hanifa said that male apostates should be killed and Nazam the other Mu’tazzilite student of Abu Hanifa saying that he denies it.

        Obviously due to people inveterate hatred of Mu’tazzila, most modern day Hanafis go with the narration of Imam Muhammad but he was not exactly free to speak since he was serving in the administration of Harun Al Rashid and this was after the assassination of Abu Hanifa himself by more or less the same regime.

        There is not much point going into more detail unless you want to chase up the manuscripts – they all cite Nazam as the source for this opinion of Abu Hanifa anyway. You can watch the video and see which one you agree with, Nazam or Imam Muhammad (though resorting to argument from authority instead of clear logical poofs in the issue of killing people to me is exceedingly unacceptable).

      • It is attributed to him by Abu Ishaq Ibrahim An Nazam (d.845), that’s where all of the scholars get it from. He is the seniormost student of Abu Hanifa.

      • “It is attributed to him by Abu Ishaq Ibrahim An Nazam (d.845), that’s where all of the scholars get it from. He is the seniormost student of Abu Hanifa.”

        According to Wikipedia he was born nearly 10 yrs after Abu Hanifa died.

      • Btw, in Misquoting Muhammad, Brown states:

        ‘No compulsion in religion’ (2: 256) was a Qur’anic command revealed in Medina when a child from one of the Muslim families who had been educated in the town’s Jewish schools decided to depart with the Jewish tribe being expelled from Medina. His distraught parents were told by God and the Prophet in this verse that they could not compel their son to stay.

        Anyone know what the source of this is? It also opposes death penalty for apostasy.

      • “It is mentioned in various books, not just of Imam Samarkandi but all of the chains are to two people – Imam Muhammad narrating that Abu Hanifa said that male apostates should be killed and Nazam the other Mu’tazzilite student of Abu Hanifa saying that he denies it.

        Obviously due to people inveterate hatred of Mu’tazzila, most modern day Hanafis go with the narration of Imam Muhammad but he was not exactly free to speak since he was serving in the administration of Harun Al Rashid and this was after the assassination of Abu Hanifa himself by more or less the same regime.”

        It seems to me the political context is the most often neglected factor in analyzing historical state rulings.

        From one aspect, it seems some rulings exemplify a lack of foresight on some past scholars… especially when they didn’t clarify the context their rulings applied under… maybe they thought they’d always be in a state of war? [But saying that would be politically incorrect :)]

        From another aspect, perhaps some Qadi’s were just in the pockets of the rulers. The author of the book The Impossible State: Islam, Politics, and Modernity’s Moral Predicament, tried to argue that separation of powers (between the different offices of government) was more possible under Islamic governance than under contemporary secular ones. He did a farily good job in arguing the case but one problematic feature in the model of the past I noted was that the rulers picked the Qadi’s. Since power is known to corrupt (and have corrupted many), It’s very possible (maybe a no-brainer) that many rulers just picked the Qadi’s who would serve their agenda. So it’s very possible some rulings actually came from the mind of the ruler and not the Qadi… or the judiciary. If we were to qualify the extent of political deviation by the hadith in regards to what would come after the Rashidun i.e. monarchs, tyrants etc., we would end up with the majority of politcal rulings as problematic… but maybe that hadith is more of a warning, or does not extend to the rulings of the Qadi’s. [That’s politically incorrect as well so can’t say that either :)]

        From another angle, the Muslims were always in a state of war… although not often a result of their own actions. They were definitely fighting each other a lot more than fighting expansionist wars. The expansionist wars however did bring in fake Muslims (Muslims who converted for ulterior motives), and a lot of uneducated new Muslims… who probably stayed uneducated for a really long time [just look at how many of us are un-educated right now (including myself)… despite technological advancements and all the free-time we have – ok my confusion is probably because of too much information too fast and not properly processing it]. A lot of the expansion happened before the formulation of the main madhabs, creed schools, and hadith collections were compiled. In addition, prior to the formation of the aforementioned, Muslims governed many non-Muslim majority areas… so they had to implement laws like, no swords for minorities, no public display of crosses, Christians need to shave their head so they can be distinguished from the Muslims… and apostasy is punishable by death. All of these rules… or threats, may have been applied (although not desired) to avert rebellion (and some to know who to apply Islamic law on). When super powers conquer through offensive violence, they get an influx of immigrants from countries they conquer… so they have to create terrorism related laws (which often take away civil liberties), a form of apostasy law… because of threats posed by the new citizens (although modern terrorism laws are stupid because the majority of Muslims living in western countries really really hate violence in general). [This explanation works :)]

      • Bro, Wikipedia is not one of the sources of Hanafi madhab. Did ‘Wikipedia’ give a source for that information?

        You have probably looked up the wrong Nazam. Or I have.

  7. Ortega: “I think you mean for the sake of social cohesion. In any case, the issue of the use of “noble lies”, legal fictions and dual discourses in Islamic intellectual history, is something that should be made more well known. It might actually be one of the most important issues in a critical understanding of the history.”

    Yes that’s what I meant and I agree it or they are very important issues. I say they because in my understanding, the “noble lies” part relates to, or at least in-part relates to, the injection of known forged or very weak hadith into supporting arguments/nasiha without informing the lay-audience of the potential or verified in-authenticity of the hadith(s) citied e.g. the hadith equating the slightest form of Riba with incest, or ‘People are asleep , and when they die they awaken.’ The dual discourses part relates to what appears to be competing traditions. In my experience, the latter is often less apparent partly because of the former or in other words, competing hadith are rarely addressed, let alone given light, when an argument is being put forth/nasiha given.

    Anyhow, in regards to my comment:
    “Perhaps because the literalist-leaning views are easier to intellectually digest? Has this been the norm for the last 1300 years? I certainly hope not but Jonathan Brown does seem to make a good case for it in his book Misquoting Muhammad. I guess lying for the sake of God is ok…”

    It was reactionary. The book does not give the simplistic idea that literalist-leaning views amongst the ulema have generally been the norm for the last 1300 years. It actually does attempt to portray the diversity of thought between the schools.
    Mmmclmru: “But here is part of the problem: you mention Jonathan Brown is an Salafist. Barn door, clear as day…”
    I don’t think he is Salafist… no fist-length beard, or pants below the ankles for example, which are common traits of most Salafists (although not limited to them). Maybe what constitutes a Salafist from your perspective is broader than mine. Actually, from the perspective of some, he may even be considered a ‘modernist’ i.e. those who:

    a) present opinions never held before by SELECT* ulema (*ulema who have met certain academic and religio-moral requirements, who lived in pre-colonial times, and how have been given ijaza to X by ulema who’ve been given ijaza to X through an un-broken chain connected back to the Prophet S.A.W.)
    b) present ‘minority’ or ‘extinct’ (from extinct madhab) views from past ulema to support their arguments

    For example:
    1. the negative way in which he describes expansionism i.e. it seemingly requires from one angle a ‘modernist- (b) and (a)’ objection (b – rejection of consensus by Ibn Hanbal, a – Abdu/Rida rejection of expansionism as fardh-kifayah)
    2. presenting Ali Goma’s fatawa on apostasy-execution in a way that makes it appear as legitimate contemporary/modern opposition to the traditional mashur/ijma view of apostasy-execution – ‘modernist – (a)’ objection
    3. the seemingly supportive way in which he presents woman-led prayer – ‘modernist-(b)’ objection
    4. the seemingly supportive way in which he presents woman leaders in politics – ‘modernist-(b)’ objection
    5. presenting Tantawi’s fatawa on child-marriage in a way to make it appear as a legitimate contemporary/modern ‘work-around’ towards the ‘problem’ of large age gaps in marriage (child-marriage) – ‘modernist-(a)’ objection

    Allahu alam.

    I will comment on the rest later iA.

      • lol you’re right. Salafism is not limited to beards and shortening trousers… but many staunch adherents to Salafism often consider those without beards (or at least fist length beards), and shortened trousers as open fasiqs (some to the extent it is or almost is kufr). In addition to the above, Jonathan Browns next book is entitled “JUSTIFYING SECULAR JUSTICE: The Edited Text of Jalal al-Din Davani’s Treatise on Mazalim Courts”. I can’t imagine any Salaifist entitling a book in such a way… I think it would be considered blasphemous from the perspective of many of them. If he actually intends to “Justify Secular Justice”, he may be putting forth arguments in favor of opening the doors of Ijtihad (or limited Ijtihad)… or a greater appeal to first principles… which is in-line with the likes of Khaled Abou El Fadl, and Tariq Ramadhan in my understanding. Allahu alam.

        mmmclmru: “Anyone who actually takes the mainstream position of classical Maturidi or A’shari or God forbid Mu’tazzilite Islam is instantly savaged as inauthentic or a secularist.. ”

        “…most Muslims are convinced at least in some part that the marginal and novel formulation of Islam that constitutes Salafo-Wahhabism is indeed the real Islam. Mainstream position of classical Maturidi or A’shari or God forbid Mu’tazzilite Islam is instantly savaged as inauthentic or a secularist (and in the last case a kaafir) etc”

        “…Abu Hanifa denies killing of apostates. But that student is not liked by muhaditheen therefore Jonathan Brown has spared you the trouble of knowing his view”

        This is really important for lay-people like me. With apostasy-killing for example, Jonathan Brown, Khaled Abou El Fadl, Tariq Ramadhan indirectly support the “marginal and novel formulation of Islam that constitutes Salafo-Wahhabism” IS and HAS indeed been the real Islam on some issues when:
        -they don’t cite (or MISS) classical Maturidi or A’Shari positions, or
        -don’t adequately prove the opposing view has been the normative view

        Perhaps Brown to a greater extent than Fadl, and Ramadhan… at least at this point. When they do that, they seem to indicate that it is only through ‘first principles’ that modern challenges can be addressed. It requires breaking from the consensus culture, formulating rulings APPARENTLY never formulated before, or recalling rulings that APPARENTLY have always been considered to be MINORITY opinions.

        I think lay-people like me have a really hard time accepting appeals to so-called minority opinions, or ‘first principles’ (which includes but not limited to appeals to maslaha and or urf), because we’ve been brain-washed as a result of being exposed to the more unsavory outcomes e.g. Progressive Muslims, Quran-only Muslims, ISIS, AQ, HT, Salafo-Wahhabism.

        FYI, I’m somewhat familiar with Fadl… I’ve read his book “The Place of Tolerance in Islam”, and part of “Rebellion & Violence in Islamic Law”. I’ve also watched several of his Youtube videos and read many of his articles. I’m interested in reading more of his works but I stopped and got ‘scared’ after reading these:
        -http://www.mereislam.info/2007/04/khaled-abou-el-fadl-i-followthe.htmlI
        -http://www.livingislam.org/o/ftnw_e.html

        I’m also somewhat familiar with the works of Gai Eaton as well, and other pernnialists like Frith Schuon, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, but stopped reading their works and got scared after reading this: http://masud.co.uk/on-the-validity-of-all-religions-in-the-thought-of-ibn-al-arabi-and-emir-abd-al-qadir-a-letter-to-abd-al-matin/

        I really appreciate your feedback. Thanks again

      • Look, I sympathise. You are confused. Most people are confused nowadays, it’s tough.

        But the thing about confusion is if you act on it, you only have yourself to blame. And you are acting on it. You also seem to want to delegate your thinking to someone else. But at the same time still be intellectual. That’s just not possible.

        If you got ‘scared’ and stopped reading stuff, especially after blatant misquote in which Al Fadl said he followed the Mu’tazzila in the issue of God not compelling humans to commit evil (which is what all Matruridis believe anyway) and then this means that he is automatically a ‘Mutazzila’ (and so what if he is? Are they kaafir or something according to you? Al Gahzalli and Razi say no and so do the Maturidis. Salafis are the ones with the problem. And of course, people like Brown to whom anthropomorphism is seemingly no problem but Mutazzila – God forbid!) then you have made up your mind and are also, if I am blunt, somewhat naive.

        I guess there are lots of people out there ‘scared’ to read the Quran too. I doubt that’s going to be a good excuse before God but hey, what do I know!

        To be honest, I’m not sure I really know what you are on about: You say you don’t know but you know enough to get ‘scared’ based on those links and stop researching. But how do you know to trust those links?

        So if you stop reading stuff and thinking for yourself because some people on the web who you don’t know from Joe Bloggs told you to then maybe you should just do taqleed to them. Also, if you ACTUALLY read the work of El Fadl and Eaton, Nasr etc and still think they are deviants, then fine and you have your answer right there.

      • Confused?… guilty as charged!

        Yes Brown did portray the Mutazzila as super-heretics. Maybe he’s more Ikhwaani-salafi than salafi-wahabist? All this terminology reminds me of Edward Said’s criticism of Sam Huntington’s Clash of Civilizations (and by my estimate; Islam and Secularism by Syed Naquib al-Attas… maybe to a lesser degree). He basically said the real clash is that of definitions… and not of civilizations (but that clash isn’t new).

        I don’t think El Fadl, Eaton, and Nasr are deviants in general but they each have an ‘angle’… like Brown, or anyone else. El Fadl, the Mu’tazili angle, Eaton and Nasr, the perennial philosophy angle. Both those angles are apparently deviant according to my delegation to people with bigger brains than I 🙂

        I had to re-read what I wrote a few hundred times before I understood what I was trying to get at… and I’m still not sure. I think I was trying to imply everyone is a Mu’tazilite\aka modernist in some way… i.e. they have to use reason to explain away things they don’t find reasonable… at the end of the day it’s all dogma. [Btw, I recommend this blog: https://primaquran.wordpress.com/. I found some very interesting articles there. It’s where the elves turned orch go… i mean traditionalists turned Mu’tazilite go [Ok really bad joke I know]. But it seriously, it does have some good articles.]

        I’m confused… so it’s not possible for me to have made up my mind. I’ll probably run back to whence I came… the cozy spot under the bridge… errr in the cave. Ok ok… not the time for jokes. But really, although I think I will probably jump back into the stands because when I do jump into the playing field, everyone gets confused and don’t know whose team I’m on (a result of my own confusions). Thanks for taking the time out to respond though… I really appreciate it. I have learned quite a bit from your articles and comments.

      • “Both those angles are apparently deviant according to my delegation to people with bigger brains than I”

        Aye, but what is deviant? According to what standard is deviance measured?

        And what is kufr anyway? Or at least – what definition of it makes the most sense to you?

      • “Deviation” means that something differs from that what it should be. For example a scientist who does not use scientific principles for research is a deviant from science. But this term is not used in science and philosophy because it is associated with dogmatics. Therefore you are objecting the term. But you should know as Muslims we have no problems with the term. There is an Islamic dogma anyway like in every religion. That means there is an actual true Islamic belief. Who deviates from it is a deviate. Very simple.

        Manny is totally right. Someone who has a position that goes against the Sunni Islamic position is a deviate. If the listed people have the supposed beliefs then they are deviates. But I have not studied the opinions of the mentioned people so I cannot judge them.

        Regarding the Kufr-issue: Some deviations constitute Kufr. Without explaining this in general because it can be complicated, I will list some examples. Believing that the Qur’an is created is a deviation that does not constitute disbelief. Believing that the letters and sound of the Qur’an are not created is disbelief. Believing that Christians and Jews and others do not have to become Muslims is kufr. Believing that Allah is a body is Kufr.
        It would be good to systemize these examples.

        Abu Mansur al Maturidi, about whom in recent times many hear about, confirmed the Hadith that the Qadariyya are the Zoroastrians of the Muslim nations in his Kitab at-Tawhid. He says that this refers to the Mu’tazilah. So don’t come with this questions again.

      • Hold on.

        I’ll decide who comes with what questions on here.

        According to Maturidis, free will and predestination issue is more or less what Mu’tazzila said. And what Asharis say is jabbar according to them.
        So there is free will according to them.

        And Maturidi hardly ever qoutes hadith to prove aqeeda points. So where did you get it from? Also, I want to know where you attained this high level of Central Asian Arabic to read Kitab ut Tawhid. Nearly all scholars I know are unable to understand it. So?

        You shouldn’t just sit there and say ‘blah is kufr’, ‘fulan is kaafir’. Don’t you know that ignorance is considered an excuse in Maturidism?

        So since you are such a huge expert in kufr and Maturidi and Arabic, please teach us:

        What is Maturidis’ definition of ‘Islam’ and ‘Muslim’? It is in ‘Kitab ut Tawhid’. Make sure to translate it for me so that I can benefit too.

        And so are Al Ghazzali and Razi are kaafir for saying that Jews and Christians and polytheists who didn’t hear message properly go to paradise?

        So please check your behaviour: there is no such thing as speaking about these issues without giving the deatils.

  8. @muslimtheology

    I know that your comment is directed to a Muslim pal of yours, but since you are implicitly attacking Christians here (implicitly calling them associators) I feel entitled to respond.

    You say « I hear that some Muslims claim this because of the verse in Surah Baqarah (I’m sure you know what I’m talking about), that mentions the Jews as well as others »
    Why didn’t you go straight to the verse (2.62), rather than remaining satisfied with hearsay from « Some Muslims » ?
    I guess it’s because you don’t like the content of the verse. You make it sound as though this verse was unclear, and as though « (Good) Christians go to Heaven » was only an « interpretation » of verse 2.62.  

    On the other hand you make a big deal of verse 5.72. Let me ask you a few questions :

    1. If the verse is about Christians (according to you), how come the verse says « Children of Israel » which would seem to indicate Jews rather than Christians ? This is also true of the surrounding context of the verse.
    2. Let us admit your interpretation that it is about Christians. Do you think that it is about all Christians ?
    3. The verse is about those who say, « Allah is the Messiah », so the exact translation in plain English would be, « God is the Messiah » or « God is Jesus ». To substantiate your claim, could you quote Christian theological  
    texts saying those exact expressions ? I don’t want « The messiah is God » or « Jesus is God », because word order is important  in English and besides you said you didn’t like interpretation (it makes « good people get confused » as you say).

    Clear verses have priority over unclear verses.

    • It is very nice from you that you like Islam and defend it. But you should know some fundamental principles about Islam to understand this topic.

      1. Whether someone will go to hell or not depends on God’s Will. God will not punish anyone without reason since Justice is part of His existence. But God can decide not to punish someone even if it would be rightful.
      2. Someone who is a disbeliever deserves a punishment. Whether a disbeliever will actually get punished depends on God’s Will (Point 1).
      3. God’s Will in this issue is known from the Qur’an. The Qur’an says that disbelievers will go to hell.

      4. A person is a disbeliever if disbelief is committed. There are to types of disbelief interesting in this issue:
      1. Disbelief in fundamentals.
      2. Disbelief in God’s Will.
      The first is about issues that do not depend on God’s Will. Fundamentals are concerning the basic existence of God. This is acknowledging His existence and respecting Him. No information is needed about this since it bases on fundamental rational thinking and nature. God’s Words are informing us about this of course. But they are not needed to establish the proof. They are needed as guidance and are seen as a mercy.
      Regarding God’s Will, God can command and wish different things. A person can therefore only disbelieve in God’s Will after being informed about it. Disbelief in God’s Will only matters after belief in fundamentals is established.

      5. We do not need God’s Words in order to know who is a disbeliever and who is not. We can judge people as disbelievers based on the fundamentals of Religion. God may inform us about who is a disbeliever for sure. But by knowing the convictions of a person we can know about their verdict without God’s Words.

      So the question whether Christians are going to hell is answered by the question whether they are disbelievers or not. The Qur’an talks about Christians as disbelievers but this could be objected like you did. I do not think that this objection is right but you should know that according to the principles of Islam I have written about above we do not need the Qur’an to say anything about Christians. Most religions are not mentioned in the Qur’an but we can still judge them.
      Even if your claim that the word order matters, which indeed may have substantial background, is to be accepted it would not change the problem. We do not need the Qur’an to tell us that for example the belief “Jesus is God” is disbelief. The Christian theology goes against the fundamentals of Islam which are known through the whole Qur’an and of course through rational theology, not by single verses.

      But there is one issue where we need information from God. That is whether the message of the Prophet is for all mankind or just specific tribes. This is cleared by the Qur’an as widely known and thus the question whether the message of the Prophet is conceivable and obligatory to accept is cleared too.

      The ‘good Christians’ mentioned in the Qur’an are those who did not have any disbelief in the fundamentals. That means in this case that they did not have any impossible or insulting beliefs regarding God. There were and are some Christian groups who may fulfill this and there were and are individual Christians who fulfill this.
      These ‘good Christians’ lose this notion after refusing to accept the message of the Prophet that has been brought to them in the correct manner. But note that those Christians who adhere to standard Christian theologies have not been ‘good Christians’ according to the Qur’an at all. For someone who disbelieves in God as per type 1 everything else does not matter.

  9. The quran says to kill apostates on one page, and on the other it says there should be no compulsion in religion. This is called a contradiction, and there are lots more.

    • You should note that the Quran does not contain an explicit command to kill apostates. It is deduced indirectly from the Quran and seen in the practice of early Muslims and the Prophet. Therefore many Muslims do not believe in death penalty for apostasy.
      The other thing is whether the punishment goes against the verse “There is no compulsion in religion”. An apparent meaning of this verse is that nobody should be forced to believe because belief bases on conviction. A conviction cannot be forced upon someone. It is naturally not possible and therefore not allowed. But apostates are not forced to believe in Islam anyway. Nobody wants someone to confess Islam while not actually believing. That is not the reason for the punishment. It is everyone’s free choice to believe whatever one wants. But there can be legal consequences for belief, in this case death. Many might choose life under hipocrisy over death but that is another problem and there is no real conflict between apostate-killing and “no compulsion in religion”.

      Most Quranic exegetes have understood the verse like “no compulsion in religion except for apostates and Arab pagans”. So they solved the contradiction that may arise by simply saying that it is not general but for a specific group. Some said it is only for Jews, Christians and Zorostrasians while others said for all but the mentioned apostates and Arab pagans.

      Al Maturidi said that everything Islam requires from belief and action is objectively acceptable and the compulsion refers to no one has to force oneself to Islamic belief and practices. He uses the verse “We have not made you any difficulty in religion” (Al Hajj 78). According to Maturidi the ‘compulsion’ has nothing to do with some people forcing other people and therefore cannot be taken as proof against apostasy-killing.

      So you see three interpretations of the verse and none of them is in contradiction with the Islamic law for apostates. By the way, the first interpretation is from the Mu’tazilah, the second is from the majority of Islamic scholars and the third is that of Imam Al-Maturidi. I personally find the first one the most convincing one.

      • 1) Can you show me this ‘indirect deduction’ for killing apostates from the Quran (whatever that means, my understanding was that ‘deduction’ has to be direct. Also, from the ‘practice’ of the Prophet. Please show me where he killed apostates and also your mashoor or muttawatir proof that Prophet ‘did’ this, since you just claimed that Prophet did something, now I want to see the evidence. And if the evidence is an ahad narration, then I want you to be consistent and accept all of the ahad narrations as what Prophet did, including committing kufr in Satanic Verses incident which is also ‘sahih’ and ‘ahad’. I am sorry, I don’t want to be disrespectful, but I am sick and tired of people taking narrations and telling people that for sure ‘Prophet did this’.

        2) In Hanafi school it is not allowed to give death penalty based on stuff like ‘indirect deduction’ or anything else. Death penalty has to be based on Quran and Muttawatir. And there is no muttawatir hadith about any death penalty for anything. This is the exact problem Muslims are facing today and in the past – and why we have morons like ISIS and Wahhabis: Muslims are not careful about killing whereas in Quran that is the biggest thing and the reason Angels questioned God about mankind inheriting the Earth.

        3) Where is the reference from Maturidi and which copy of his Tafseer did you use? You must have awesome Arabic of the Central Asian style to be able to understand Maturidi directly. I can’t even understand his books most of the time. Today, I know hardly one person who can read the works of Maturidi and understand them. From Usooli point of view, killing of apostates cvan never be justified by Hanafis so it is odd that Maturidi said that.

        4) So God is stupid according to you and commentators: he wants to say ‘no compulsion in religion EXCEPT FOR MECCAN PAGANS AND APOSTATES’ but he failed to say that in his ‘clear’ and ‘easy to understand and remember’ Quran. Perhaps God needs an editor. Maybe we should all apostate rather than worshipping such a God. And if this verse is not clear but rather ‘ambiguous’ and needs to be cleared up by commentators, then what is NOT ambiguous in Quran? Maybe ‘One’ means ‘three’ after all in Quran then. If according to you killing someone for changing their religion is not ‘compulsion’ then if that makes sense then what is left? Threatening to kill someone is not ‘compulsion’. Leaving Islam is not ‘changing’ religion. So do we just change all the meanings of the words? Later on you are telling people about rationality and how God can be known rationally. Yet you are saying there is no real conflict between ‘no compulsion’ and killing and that killing and compulsion are not linked. This is sophistry.

        5) You said that there were three opinions. Says who? Did you check all of the commentaries and also do you have some proof that we have to follow the commentaries? Anyway, most of the commentaries on Quran are by Mu’tazzila and Shia. Did you study them all and distil these three for us? It is just something you heard from Imams and Moulana’s isn’t it? Same with the Mu’tazzila opinion – was is Kufi, Basran or other Mu’tazzila? Which of their books did you get ‘their’ opinion from?

      • 1. Regarding the Prophet and the Caliphs we do not have mutawatir Hadiths according to this definition. But the Ijmaa consensus of all scholars and Madhhabs makes this practice mutawatir. I agree that ahad Hadith are not a strong proof or no proof at all but the practice is transmitted through other means.
        So I follow what the majority of scholars says in matters of Fiqh. It is impossible that for example the Hanafi scholars called for unjust killings. There is no Taqlid in belief but in Fiqh-Islamic law blind following is obligatory for most people.

        3. I agree that Maturidis book Kitab al Tawhid is very hard to understand. But I did not have big problems with the Tafsir.

        4./5. When I read different Tafsirs I always read the “no compulsion but…”-explanation. But I personally always understood it as “belief bases on conviction and cannot be forced”. The emphasis lies on ‘cannot’. It is simply impossible to force someone to believe. The reason behind the killing is not forcing someone to believe but for other legal reasons.
        Then I read Maturidis Tafsir. He say it means “religious rules and beliefs are not accepted by forcing oneself but through appreciating that they are reasonable and not unbearable”.
        Razi mentions the Mutazilah opinion which I think is more or less what my understanding is. I also saw it in Zamakhsharis Tafsir. We should note that Maturidi does not take ‘compulsion’ as forcing at all. I hope you can explain if I have a wrong understanding about these Tafsirs.

      • I am afraid you are talking rubbish and making up your own madhab. Stop confusing people and saying things on behalf of Islam without any knowledge. You made me annoyed now.

        Initially I was giving you the benefit of the doubt and thought you were an honest person. I am pretty sure now you posted here before under different names with this kind of nonsense.

        So for the readers, first of all, even Al Azhar now has the official position now that killing apostates is not allowed – due to insufficient proof from Islamic sources. I advise you all to go and see their account of their stance.

        There is no such thing as ‘Muttawatir of Ijma or consensus’. Utterly foolish comment. Go and study the basics first before talking about killing people. Disgusting – you don’t even know about what ‘Muttawatir’ or ‘ijma’ means and yet you are insisting on killing. This is what makes people hate Muslims. Just like US and NATO – always ready to kill at any bullshit excuse. The practice is transmitted by ‘other means’. Nonsense. Are they Muttawatir? It is all in books which are not even as strong as the ahad hadith – books of history and those written by scholars who worked for Ummayad and Abassis who used to go around killing sahabah and scholars. If that’s reliable or Muttawatir for you then go ahead. None of those books are muttawatir (or even ahad or Sahih most of the time). Anyway, there is simply no such thing as the muttawatir you mentioned. That is actually what Salafis try to call Muttawatir.

        Majority is not the same thing as Ijma. Ijma means consensus of all of the valid groups, and Imam Ahmad does not even accept Ijma at all and says there is ‘no such thing’ so how is there Ijma of Imams? Go and study the rules of Ijma and what it is before talking about killing. Who taught you that killing comes under fiqh and not aqeeda? Go and find that person and tell him or her that they are stupid. Anyway, if you are happy to follow someone in fiqh up to killing people then you have mental problems and are so dumb that you can’t see the difference between following someone in how to wash for prayer and killing. So Islamophobes were right about us: we are mental.

        There is no such thing as ‘following the majority of scholars’ or looking at Four madhabs and saying ‘Oh Malik and Shafi and Ahmad said X but Abu Hanifa said Y so that’s three against one so we follow X’. No madhab says that – it’s what Salafis do actually. You just made up your own madhab like I said. When you publish the rules of this madhab with mustalah of hadith, aqeeda, usool of fiqh and tafseer, epistemology etc send it to me and I will review it.

        Until then don’t take whatever you like and pin it on Islam and pretend to speak for it.

      • Also, go and kill people because the tafseer told you to. Who needs the Quran, since you read a few tafsirs by infallible Imams. That’s fine. God can’t be clear. Give everyone a good reason to doubt Islam and then kill them for doing so. So when God says ‘no compulsion’ he means something else and we need to add ‘except…’ even though he didn’t say it. Then why criticise Jews and Christians for adding and deleting from the Bible? When he mentions Tawheed he probably also means something else too. Lets just worship the scholars then since they are so much more knowledgeable and worthy to be followed than God.

      • Sorry, I don’t want to provoke anyone. Let me just explain what I think about following scholars. For me Abu Hanifah and the other scholars saying that apostates have to be killed is sufficient as proof. Their using a ‘ahad’ Hadith makes the Hadith Mutawatir or the content of the Hadith.
        I agree with you that there is no blind following in belief but in law there is and it totally makes sense because belief and fiqh are two different things.

        What do you say about Maturidis opinion about the no compulsion? Did I get it right?

  10. I’ve just realized that I forgot to mention a rather remarkable fact concerning that verse 5.72 discussed above.

    The Four Gospels have an amazing combination of agreements and disagreements between them, that has eluded all the attempts at a comprehensive explanation so far.

    The same phenomenon appears in the way the Qur’an speaks about Christianity. It speaks a lot about Christians, but always in an elliptic and enigmatic manner, it generally describes Christianity in non-Christian terms, to the opposite of the “word-for-word scientific quote” that we modern people are used to.

    This verse 5.72 is an exception : it has Jesus saying “My Lord and your Lord”, an expression which for once might be a seen as an exact translation from something that appears in the Bible. Now, it is a classical Christian argument that this expression suggests that God is Lord (or “Father”, or “Provider” if you please) to Jesus in a different way than he is to other people, else Jesus would simply have said “Our Father” as in the Lord’s Prayer (this is consistent with the fact that Jesus is never reported to have said that prayer himself).

    I am not sure that this grammatical point also works in Arabic, I’d have to ask a quranic Arabic expert for that.

  11. @NinjaTurtle

    1. Where do you get this « fundamental » stuff from ? I’ve read several classifications of kufr (such as this one : http://sunnahonline.com/library/beliefs-and-methodology/87-types-of-kufr-disbelief) and they are nothing like what you describe. Until proved otherwise, this dichotomy fundamentals/God’s Will is merely your opinion (or the opinion of your group within Islam) and not a belief common to all Muslims (or even to all Sunnis). Who gave you the authority to decide what’s « fundamental » and what’s not in Islam ?

    2. Your claim that some pieces of information in the Qur’an are « not needed », yet constitute « guidance » is a roundabout way of saying that this guidance is only needed by people with less knowledge than you.
    This is fine if you can show your authority/credentials/ijazah. Otherwise it’s just arrogance.

    3. The fact that « word order matters » in English is not « my claim », it’s an established fact accepted by all English grammarians, and you are making yourself rather ridiculous by seeming to deny it.

    4. Despite my former clarification about the ambiguity between « all Christians / some Christians », you persist in always saying « Christians » in a vague way, refusing to clarify. Typical example by you :
    « The Qur’an talks about Christians as disbelievers »

    5. You claim that « The ‘good Christians’ mentioned in the Qur’an are those who did not have any disbelief in the fundamentals. That means in this case that they did not have any impossible or insulting beliefs regarding God. »
    This is not what verse 5.72 says at all, so what you’re trying to do here is to abrogate this verse.
    On what grounds are you abrogating it ? You speak in an extremely vague way about « the whole Qur’an not single verses ». Be a little more specific please

    • 1. This what I am saying is based on classical Islamic theology. The classification I have shown bases on something relevant for this discussion.
      Every sane person has some responsibility regarding belief and deeds. We know from religious sources that the belief in God (that what I called fundamental) is rationally conceivable and therefore obligatory. There is no excuse for disbelief in the fundamentals of God’s existence. Not being informed is not an excuse. When one man asked the Prophet about his (the man’s) father who was a pagan and died before the message of the Prophet, he said “Your father is in hell”. This principle is established by many proofs from the Qur’an and Hadith.

      2. The Qur’an is needed as guidance and information. As point 1. shows we know it is not needed in fundamentals.

      3. I said it may have basis. But for me it looks as literalist apologetics to excuse disbelief.

      4. The Qur’an just says ‘Christians’. But of course it means specific beliefs of specific groups. But this does not matter too because as I said disbelief is known through rational and Qur’anic principles. If it was like you suggest we could only do Takfir on a specific person who is mentioned in the Qur’an. This is a very literalist approach.
      There are many Christian branches and the Qur’an talks about only one or some of them. We look at a specific theology itself and judge it. We do not need specific verses about a group.

      5. You have to understand the previous points.

      Summarized: We know what disbelief is based on either the Qur’an (as a whole) or rational theology. Based on this we can say which Christian is a disbeliever and which not without the specific verses in the Qur’an that mention ‘Christians’.

      Our Islamic (Sunni) approach is based on rational thinking and the basic message of the Qur’an and the basic message of the Prophet and not single verses and single Hadith. Single verses and single Hadith are used by Salafis and modernists as proofs the whole time. For example Salafis will use single verses or Hadith to prove Christians are disbelievers and modernists may use them to prove the opposite.

      • Very interesting points by both of you. I am not criticising Ninja Turtle but it is just my comments based on some things he said. It is just general and not meant to attack him but maybe something for all of us to think about.

        Ninja Turtle, I think you are mixing up A’sharism. Maturidism and everything else a bit here: this principle of intellect is established from Quran alone, nothing is mentioned about it in hadith – so lets not think that intellect is mentioned in hadith – all of those hadith were rejected by muhaditheen: muhaditheen are proud of saying, like Ibn Qayyum that there is ‘not a single hadith about the intellect’.

        And aren’t you misquoting that hadith about the pagan man approaching Muhammad PBUH? It says ‘your father AND my father are both in Hellfire’ doesn’t it? We don’t accept that the Prophet’s parents are kaafir and it is rejected in Maturidi aqeeda at least.

        The man’s father was a pagan, not an atheist. Why was he in Hell? For polytheism then and not ‘disbelief’ in God. So now according to you, there is a clear intellectual proof available to all non-educated people of God’s existence and unity and God will make sure they live long enough to find that proof and will not be influenced by their surrounding society. Maturdi actually disagrees with you (as he says the persons ability to find the truth is influenced by his lifespan, level of intelligence and society) and so does Qadi Khan, another giant of Maturidi creed (in fact Qadi Khan says that anyone without message will go to Paradise, even if he dies as a disbeliever. Maturidi also allows disbelievers into Paradise). Anyway, that is a big topic and it is also why today’s Salafi influenced ‘Sunnis’ did not translate a single book of Imam Maturidis. You already showed good knowledge by saying single hadith don’t prove anything. So why did you use it to prove something so controversial then?

        Also, all of those proofs that Goid is not a body or incarnates are known by intellect too. So does it mean the Wahhabis and Mujassims (anthropomorphists) who deny them will also go to Hell? Why not mention them and only worry about ‘disbelievers’? If not recognising the ‘necessary’ attributes of God is kufr then why is this only be applied to ‘disbelievers’? What about the Muslims who say God has a place and a body? If God has a body, then what is wrong with any type of Christianity?

        As for deeds, it is again only Maturidis who say that right and wrong is discoverable by the intellect.

        Like many Muslims, you are perhaps abusing ‘rational theology’ a bit;

        ”Our Islamic (Sunni) approach is based on rational thinking…”

        If rational proof is a basis for rejecting people’s belief without Quranic proof as you say, then show me which group (Ashari. Maturidi, Salafi etc) reject ahad hadith if it clashes with intellect or reason. Only Mu’tazzila and some Hanafis have this principle. Since they do not even give the intellect the right to judge ahad hadith, are you seriously saying they gave it permission in bigger matters? Go and reject something or judge hadith by ‘rational thinking’ in front of Sunni scholars today and see what happens. They will all call you heretic immedeately. So I am not denying that you are honest, but lets not pretend that ‘Sunnis’ today take intellect as a proof (even though Quran says to do that). Actually the biggest groups that claims to do that today are Sh’ia.

        Basically, with most Muslims, ‘intellectual proof’ is something which is used against non-Muslims and never within the religion. Sad but true.

        So above you were telling us to decide issue of apostasy by opinions of commentators or scholars. Now you are saying intellect is king. You have to be consistent. If intellect is a proof, it is a proof in everything, if it isn’t, then it isn’t. We can’t say that in real life 2+4=4 but in hadith or tafseer it can be 5 or that ‘compulsion’ can mean ‘freedom’ because scholars said so. So lets be clear: if intellect judges even Quran (by deciding if it is word of God), then how is it that ijma or qiyas or opinions or ahad or mashoor can go against intellect? If that is your position then fine but only Hanafis (early ones) and Mu’tazzila say that. Don’t just use the word ‘rational’ for something Islamic scholars do even if it is irrational like saying that ‘compulsion’ is not there by killing: ‘rational’ has it’s own conditions set out clearly in Quran.

      • I did not quote the actual Hadith because of this issue. An explanation would be needed otherwise. The Prophet’s parents are saved although they have been guilty of Shirk. They are a special case as the parents of the Prophet. The Prophet wanted to make a strong point with mentioning his father too.The fundamental issue matters and not the exception of the Prophet’s parents. That is every Mushrik is guilty even though the message has not reached him or her. That is the Maturidi position according to my knowledge and many Asharis shared it too. I am not informed about the interpretation of Maturidis position you mentioned. Where can I read about it?
        And you are right that this Hadith would not be enough. I just used it as a nice example. There are other more general proofs.

        Shirk and atheism are both disbelief in God. The proof of Allah’s existence answers Shirk and atheism in a very similar way. I agree that Tajsim is kufr and no exceptions should be made. Both Christians and Mujassim are disbelievers for very similar reasons. I always use this argument when discussing with Salafis who believe in Tajsim. There is this quote from Fudayl ibn Iyyad in Imam Bukharis Khalq Af’aal-Ibad that says: “When a Jahmi says to you “I do not believe in a God that moves”, tell him “I believe in a God who does whatever He wishes””. By using this principle and replacing ‘Jahmi’ with ‘Christian’ and ‘moves’ with ‘becomes man’ or ‘has a son’ one could excuse the disbelief of Christians.

        If a Hadith goes clearly against the belief in Allah (Tawhid) it will be rejected. But I think most Hadiths are interpreted the false way and that is the problem. When understood in the right context and with further information most problematic Hadiths can be explained. For example it is the filthy mind that understands Allah’s descending in the night as Him moving to some place in the universe.

  12. And that’s totally stupid. How can God make an ‘exception’ for the Prophet’s parents and make it fine for them to commit shirk? You just destroyed justice of God by that rubbish comment. Stop talking garbage please.

    You said they are ‘saved’ but the Prophet allegedly says in the hadith that his father is in Hell. Nonsense.

    There is no such thing as ‘exception’. We don’t accept that Prophet’s parents were kaafir IN THE FIRST PLACE you complete marshmallow.

    What is the proof of them being kaafir? It is just ahad hadith you fool. We don’t take ahad into aqeeda and it is aqeeda issue. Anyway, making takfir of Prophet’s parents by ahad is moronic.

  13. @NinjaTurtle, you said : “The proof of Allah’s existence answers Shirk and atheism in a very similar way.”

    What “proof of Allah’s existence” are you referring to ? This is first time I see Christians equated with atheists.

    • Christians are valued to some extent in Islam for their connection with the Bible and Jesus. But this is only a legal thing. In belief Christians are worse than atheists because of the insults against God.

      The proof I am talking about is the only rational proof of God. It is known as the cosmological argument.

      • @NinjaTurtle
        “Christians are valued to some extent in Islam for their connection with the Bible and Jesus. But this is only a legal thing. In belief Christians are worse than atheists because of the insults against God.”

        Nice example of insulting everyone at the same time. Besides Christianity, you are also insulting Islam for implying that its law (“legal things”) does not pay much attention to “insults againts God”.

        “The proof I am talking about is the only rational proof of God. It is known as the cosmological argument.”

        Cosmological argument which is familiar and used by several Christians such as William Craig.

      • You are implying that insults to God should be punished with death or what should “paying more attention to insults of God mean”?
        Islam allows certain groups of disbelievers to live. It is agreed upon that Christians have the right since they are mentioned in the Qur’an (9:27) together with Jews. Regarding non-Judeo-Christians the Persian religion is allowed too according to all schools because Umar ibn Khattab practiced it. The Hanafi and Maliki school allows all disbelievers to live while the Shafii and Hanbali do not. They only accept the mentioned. That is why IS eliminated the Yazidis. They do not follow Hanafi or Maliki positions. This of course does not legitimate the rape of Yazidi women.

        The cosmological argument is THE argument for proving the existence of God. It is the basis of any physical and philosophical thinking that is consistent and rational. William Craig is a great theologian. His views on God are very near to the actual Islamic rational belief. He also showed to be a true believer and not someone who breaks down before Liberalism in the controversy over the Canaanites.
        But Craig is of course a Trinitarian and Trinity goes against the cosmological argument. God becoming man or having a son makes the most important point of the argument void. This is that God is timeless, not in space, almighty, immaterial, eternal etc.. Only then the argument works. Otherwise the existence of a God would not be necessary but the same as the universe having the God-part itself. So yes Salafis, atheists and Christians come from the same initial problem. But their rights in an Islamic state might be or are different.

  14. I see this as an apology for ISIS. No doubt you are that same mental guy who posts crap here previously and was banned before. What is this now, the third time you are getting banned?
    Almost as bad, you called William Lane Craig a ‘great theologian’.
    You are also dishonest, misquote hadith, refuse to answer points and have your own madhab, which is actually garbage.
    You are quite sociopathic as a brief review of your comments reveals.
    Banned (again).
    Please try not to rape and kill anyone, or at least one hopes they manage to rape and kill you first.

    • But OK, I don’t even want to discuss with you anymore. We simply disagree and there is no good in further discussing.

      My last words are: I hope they come to London too.

  15. So I was spot on that you are an ISIS supporter and sociopath. Profiled like a punk!
    Thanks for showing my readers my skills in moron identification.
    I hope they come for your mum.

  16. Hello everyone
    I’m new here but I have read post on this page and I really like this website as it shows a rational side of Islam. That being said what is your view on hell? Is it eternal or does everyone gain the grace of God? I’m asking because eternal hell sometime makes me lean toward non-religous philosophical theism(not atheism as I believe that God can be proven rationally through philosophical arguments such as those made by St. Thomas Aquinas and atheism entails eternal oblivion which is something that has really freaked me out since I was a little kid). I’m asking because it bothers me when people say non-muslims go to hell and only muslims go to heaven as I have many non-muslim friends who I cherish, and eternal punishment for me does not make much sense if God is all forgiving. Any help with this?
    Thanks and God bless.

  17. Hello everyone
    I’m new here but I have read post on this page and I really like this website as it shows a rational side of Islam. That being said what is your view on hell? Is it eternal or does everyone gain the grace of God? I’m asking because eternal hell sometime makes me lean toward non-religous philosophical theism(not atheism as I believe that God can be proven rationally through philosophical arguments such as those made by St. Thomas Aquinas and atheism entails eternal oblivion which is something that has really freaked me out since I was a little kid). I’m asking because it bothers me when people say non-muslims go to hell and only muslims go to heaven as I have many non-muslim friends who I cherish, and eternal punishment for me does not make much sense if God is all forgiving. Any help with this?
    Thanks in advance and God bless.

    • Thanks a lot.

      So first of all, non-Muslims going to Hell is just rubbish which is spammed by ignorant Muslims and their Imams (most of them today). It is a big topic but we need to look at the opinion of Imam Maturidi and Qadi Khan to find the strongest position on this issue. Definitely the positions of Salafis and most Muslims today are nonsense and will cause a big doubt in the minds of Muslims (and any honest person). This idea that people have that a guy has a wet dream or a girl has her period and now suddenly they are ‘accountable’ and will go to Hell if they don’t follow Islam is definitely wrong, even if some big Imams held it.

      As far as Maturidi aqeeda goes, a person first needs to be mature, that does not mean puberty but intellectual maturity. Abu Hanifa says 18 years or older before you are even mature. Then he needs sufficient lifespan, inclination and information to find out the truth about God, what is the true religion etc. Realistically, most people will not have that and you can’t judge a guy who is an illiterate Nepalese farmer the same as Aristotle. So according to Maturidi, God will judge people on how honest they were according to the information in front of them and their moral sense. So if a persons ‘best guess’ about God was that he did not exist then even that person can go to Paradise as long as that was the best evidence he had in front of him. For example, this angry man shaped object in or above the heavens who is the ‘God’ of salafis. You can’t really expect people to believe in that. Likewise, in Maturidi aqeeda ignorance is an excuse, so if you believe wrong things about God like salafis and many Muslims and non-Muslims, he will let you off as long as you were honestly uninformed and ignorant.

      So there will be people who are non-Muslim and maybe even didn’t believe in God who will nonetheless go straight to Paradise. That is because the definitions we have today from people about what is ‘Islam’ and ‘Muslim’ are not matching with what Maturidi (and others) said. Also, definition of ‘Muslim’, ‘Iman’ and ‘Islam’ is confused these days. So can someone who died as a polytheist go to Paradise according to Maturidi and Qadi Khan? As far as I can see, yes – as long as they did their best with the limited time and evidence they had to try and recognise God.

      Likewise though, if you go around killing people for being a certain race or whatever, you will get judged for that as according to Maturidis, you can know right and wrong without God telling you. It is a big topic and it is for this reason, that the anti-rational and puritanical groups do not like the teachings of the real Imams such as Maturidi and like to conceal them – they do not publish his books (despite most Muslims ‘following’ his creed). However, you find even the most aimless books of people like Ibn Taymiyya translated.

      As for Hell being eternal, that is a big question and needs an answer to the question of how ‘long’ is eternity i.e whether time has an end too. Furthermore, if we make Hell temporary then why is paradise permanent? It is a bit unjust that finite acts can result in infinite reward if they are good but finite punishment if they are bad. Also, for me, that would mean that it is better to not be too worried about Hell since no matter how long you are in there, you will end up in Paradise and since Paradise is infinite, you will be in there for the same amount of time (i.e infinity) as everyone else and any number compared to infinity is basically nothing, so you only spent a minuscule time in Hell comparatively (so 50 million years in Hell for example compared to infinity years in paradise = 0). Thus, Hitler and Muhammed, when all is said and done, end up in Paradise for infinity number of years. Doesn’t seem fair either. It is not an easy issue but we can explore it more if you want.

      Famously, Ibn Taymiyya denies that hell is eternal but then it seems he says these people will disappear – which as you very intelligently statued, oblivion or non-existence is worse than Hell. There are some Mu’tazzila/Hanafi scholars who also seem to deny eternality of hell as well though, fro the early period of Islam. I don’t know their reasoning though.

      Hopefully you know that Aquinas’ arguments are traceable to Aristotle through Plotinus and Ibn Sina. They are not really his own. He even went so far as to say that ‘everything Ibn Sina says is right‘ so he had a lot of knowledge of the Muslim rational philosophers and theologians like Ibn Sina.

      • Thanks mmmclmru this helps a lot. I would still like to know more about the eternal Hell issue. I get what you mean with the Hitler Muhammad thing, but it still strikes me as a little disturbing that someone say who drank alchohol and had pre-maritial sex for a long time but was a decent person overall would end up in Hell forever like Hitler who was a genocidal maniac. I do know the source of Aquinas’s arguments and I’m currently studying the philosophy and metaphysics behind them to further understand them. Have you looked at the Sufi view of hell which for me I find plausible.

      • Who said you go to Hell forever for drinking alcohol (first of all, some Muslims don’t even consider that to be a major sin at all) and having pre-marital sex? Aren’t you just repeating Salafis say? Who said even adultery is equal to murder or you will go to Hell at all for these types of things let alone forever?

        I just explained that even a person who does not believe in God at all can go straight to Paradise according to the largest theological school in Islam so how come you are worried about sex?

        Eating pork, having sex of any kind, drinking alcohol, none of that is sinful for non-Muslims anyway. Sins are judged only for people who believe in that. It’s like saying that non-Muslims will be judged for not praying five times a day and be sinful for it. You aren’t accounted for anything you don’t know. As I said, ignorance is even an excuse in BELIEF let alone practising.

        There are lots of views of Hell amongst Sufis I think. And amongst theologians so I’m not sure.

  18. @mmmclmru
    “Aquinas’ arguments are traceable to Aristotle through Plotinus and Ibn Sina. They are not really his own. He even went so far as to say that ‘everything Ibn Sina says is right‘ so he had a lot of knowledge of the Muslim rational philosophers and theologians like Ibn Sina.”

    That’s a rather misleading thing to say.

    Aquinas certainly did not approve of Ibn Sina or anyone being Muslim! Aquinas’ feat is to have reconciliated Christian philosophy with Aristotle’s philosophy. On the other hand, Aquinas’ philosophy and Muslim philosophy are like oil and water – they never mix, except perhaps at the very beginning, in the proofs of existence of God. Even in that regard, I doubt that Aquinas’ formulation (as expounded in Part 1,Chapter 13 of Summa Contra Gentes http://dhspriory.org/thomas/ContraGentiles1.htm#13) is only a copy of Ibn Sina’s.

    99% of Aquinas’ philosophy is about Catholic Christology, which you Muslims would classify as ghuluw and/or shirk.

    Conversely, from the point of view of Aquinas’ philosophy many parts of Islamic aqeeda would appear as corrupted monotheism, and confused semi-polytheism. Take for example the item that “The attributes of the Creator are not Him Himself”.
    According to Aquinas and the Catholic Church, if you say for example that God’s attribute of truth does not coincide with God, then you are implying that God is not 100% true by Himself, that he has to “fetch” truth out of Himself so to speak, and this denies the Perfection/Infinity/Oneness of God. This is why we Christians say things like “God is Love” (in the sense that “God and His Love are one”), which infallibly provokes angry accusations of shirk from Muslims.

    • His arguments for the existence of God are neo-platonic and unoriginal as I’m sure you know. Obviously he is Catholic and not Muslim, I’m not talking about his theology. The guy was mentioning Aquinas’ argument for the existence of God. These are indeed unoriginal and not Aquinas’, nor probably Ibn Sina’s which is why I mentioned Plotinus and they can be traced further back still.

      He did also make that bold statement about Ibn Sina. Obviously he didn’t mean it literally but he did say it and had access to these types of books.

      I don’t think he reconciled Christian theology with the Peripatetic school. As for Christian PHILOSOPHY, well yes but that is only because Christian philosophy is largely imported from that school (like Islamic philosophy). If you mean he reconciled Christian theology and derived it from Aristotelian thought, I would be somewhat sceptical of this personally. Maybe because in my thinking Aquinas’ was not a very original thinker, same goes for many Muslim theologians.

      • The issue of the attributes of God is not as you say. It is a big topic. Mu’tazzila for example say that God knows by knowledge and it is part of Him not detached or co-eternal nor ‘neither Him nor not Him’ as some people say [i.e there is no attribute of knowledge, God knows from his essence is what I think they mean]. Most of the other schools are often taking from them in creedal issues.

        I don’t think Aquinas’ has any good arguments against Islamic Aqeeda (I don’t remember him addressing any at least) nor would a thinker like him consider Islam to be confused polytheism nor corrupted monotheism. I don’t see how at least. Anyway, he did not reply systematically to the Muslim guys like Ibn Sina who mentioned these issues despite knowing about them did he? Also, Ibn Rushd is there too, before Aquinas and was popular at the time so he didn’t reply back to him either so I don’t think he had that kind of view or at least he missed his chance to articulate it. Unless I’m wrong of course!

  19. @Kareem “it still strikes me as a little disturbing that someone say who drank alchohol and had pre-maritial sex for a long time but was a decent person overall”

    The key question to be asked is : did he / does he repent ? How does he view all this at his time of death ?

  20. I have seen many Muslims trying to bring up medieval Islamic scholars to prove that Islam is not extremist. But after looking closer into the beliefs of these so-called moderate traditional scholars we always see that they were not much different than today’s extremists.
    Regarding the happenings in Paris, I’m aware that classical Islamic scholars were not in favor of indiscriminate killings of disbelievers. But would they consider these killings as murders or simply as breaking the formal rules of Islamic war? Murder of a non-Muslim is not a real murder but a mere violation of the given nature like killing an animal without reason. That is what I know from all these classical medieval Islamic teachings. I fear that Muslims who use them to disprove extremists will end up being confronted with the not so bright teachings of their beloved anti-extremist scholars.
    That is therefore not the solution for Islamism. In order to solve the problem of Islamism Muslims have to stop venerating Muhammad too much and clearly dismiss the idea that the Quran is unconditionally true.

    You should not try to explain theological problems with supposed opinions of some scholars like this famous Maturidi or this for me unkown Qadi Khan. I really doubt that anyone from orthodox scholars held such opinions. Maybe the mentioned Ibn Sina but he was not accepted by the orthodox traditionalists. And what were Ibn Sina’s opinions on killing apostates, stoning, Jihad, Islamic State etc.? Does someone know? One can be both a rationalist philosopher and a mass murderer (or a supporter of it at least) at the same time. The Catholic Church has indeed examples of this like the also mentioned Thomas Aquinas. I think as a rationalist one is even more likely to support violence since one’s thoughts are deemed rational and those who are denying them are thus idiots who deserve death even more. So rationalist interpretation of religion isn’t the solution too 🙂

    • Yeah you see, since you don’t know who Qadi Khan is that’s already a big problem in terms of you telling us to ignore the Quran and such. Qadi Khan is a big deal in Maturidi Creed and Hanafi school in general. And that is the most popular and oldest school. So if you don’t even know who these scholars are, then its a bit fresh to be ‘sure’ that Muslims won’t like their opinions. Anyway, that issue is discussed here:https://asharisassemble.com/2015/07/05/many-muslim-leaders-denounce-isis-out-of-convenience-not-conviction/ and it shows that you didn’t fully understand classical Islam and nor Quran.

      So basically you would be very happy is Salafism, which is given a very easy ride by Western governments:http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/aug/31/combat-terror-end-support-saudi-arabia-dictatorships-fundamentalism, was indeed ‘Islam’. That is the whole game of Islam and religion haters anyway: they would love it if Wahhabism and Co were the real Islam and that would give them an easy target. The problem is that Salafism is a largely colonial enterprise and its main purveyors are largely supported by non-Muslims as well as Muslims. You are brazen enough to say that the solution for Islamism (which according to you is the cause of the Paris killings – but why mention only Paris though, is it since only dead white/European people matter, bombings in Beirut and thousands killed in bombings in Iraq this year – no big deal. No need to mention it?) is to get rid of Islam (i.e Quran and Muhammad). How convenient.

      So the solution for the inappropriate Iraq war and the global financial situation and stuff I don’t like is to get rid of secularism/free market capitalism/democracy and anything else I don’t like is it? Silly.

      Are you another person who considers him or herself a ‘free thinker’ but can’t see beyond their nose. We don’t have any ayats of the Quran calling for murder and demeaning the life of non-Muslims at all, but you would like us to throw out the very thing that is telling Muslims that non-Muslims lives are equal and valuable. So it makes me think your commitment to damaging Islam is the mainstay and the Paris issue is an excuse. All of those hadiths which are attributed to Muhammad were rejected in the classical period by Muslims by using Quran. No one asked you to follow Ibn Sina or anyone else. Quran says to follow evidence and the intellect. But according to you lets throw that out. Yes many (not all though) of the Islamic scholars said dumb things just like you said – so why don’t you suggest throwing that out instead of Quran and Muhammad (PBUH)? Illogical non sequitor. Some Christians, Muslims, atheists, Hindus, Jews, Communists etc said dumb stuff in the past. So we judge the ideas and how consistent they are with the source they claim to come from. Otherwise you can dismiss anything based on anything.

      You are also quite insulting and imply that Muslims need the ‘scholars’ to tell them when something is right and wrong and they are incapable of seeing for themselves if killing people is wrong. You nauseate me with this insinuation.

      In the issue of ISIS, we don’t really have theological problems so much as Western governments and Turkey and Saudi arming and supporting ISIS when they were called the ‘Free Syrian Army’. You can read about the ‘theological nature’ of the problem in articles like this and many others:http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/11/16/why-states-of-emergency-and-extreme-security-measures-wont-stop-isis/

      • And what does this Qadi Khan say about killing apostates, stoning, Jihad etc.? And did he really say this what you are attributing to him and Maturidi? Maturidi is known as one of the major orthodox Sunni theologians. I really doubt he said this about non-Muslims. I know from experience that all these claims made about medieval theologians are misunderstandings or taking out of context. All of them would be extremists from today’s perspective just like Thomas Aquinas. I am not making baseless differentiation between Christianity, Islam and Judaism. From a secular perspective they are mostly the same.

      • And why is religion to be judged based on ‘medieval’ theologians anyway? Just because it would be convenient for you if Muslims were to defend and be characterised by the often erroneous views of theologians and doctors of law instead of the Quran? How should we characterise your ideology then?

        Doubt all you want. First explain the ‘secular perspective’ and what it says about…anything before putting us on show trials please.
        You wanted to get rid of the Quran. And Muhammad. But neither of these called for stoning adulterers or killing apostates etc. So again, a bit fresh – you demand that we accept these based on the ‘medieval’ scholars and then ask me to explain them away by reference to other ‘medieval’ scholars. All the while, you don’t need to be held to any standards or account, all the while accounting others. Chauvinistic.
        Anyone can play that game – secularists are all to explain and to be held to account for the comments and actions of Robespierre or at least Rousseau. Atheists are all represented by Chairman Mao, find me some Stalinists who were in favour of freedom of religion etc.

        It’s just a convenient McGuffin for you – when irreligious people do bad things its due to 1) politics 2) war 3) history n’ stuff 4) shit happens 5) they did it because of ‘x’ but not due to their atheism/secularism/capitalism/fascism/insert whichever ideology or secular faith you wish to defend here. However, when religious people do something bad it’s DEFINITELY because of their religion and we need to reform it (in your definition, get rid of it). That’s just silly.

        So just how you with your ‘secular perspective’ do not lie awake worrying about The Terror in Revolutionary France, Muslims aren’t lying awake worrying about scholar X from the 9th century (which let’s face it, was a long time before some of the famous secular cock ups) said about stoning adulterers. However, unlike secularists, I do have some kind of system of falsifiability: if the Quran or a certain Muttawatir hadith attests to something problematic, then I have to explain it or leave Islam (as a secularist, we can see you are not really keen to explain anything and just want to be in your ivory tower judging everything else).

        The problem you have is that you wanted to get rid of the Quran and Muhammad and neither of these said to stone adulterers nor kill apostates (I really don’t know what you mean by ‘jihad’ anyway). In the article I showed you, it made it clear that the majority orientation in Islam, the Hanafi-Maturidis (who had all of the big empires in Islamic history, from the Samaninds to the Ottoman) does not accept the world view of Wahhabis/Salafists. For example, it is explicit in the Hanafi school that the death penalty cannot be applied based on anything other than Quranic level proof. Wahhabis disagree. Please ask them and the Western governments that support them why.

        Of course, many classical scholars had different and wrong opinions and these were often harsh and murderous, as was addressed in the article – which maybe you didn’t read. But Muslims are supposed to use their brain and moral sense. You insult us by insinuating that we cannot tell right or wrong without a scholars opinion. Only you secularists are capable of that eh? How rude.

        And even if we are that stupid, we can test these scholars opinions using the Quran and none of them (the crazy ones) match up with the Quran. First find me in the Quran (which you wanted rid of), apostasy killing, ‘jihad’ or stoning of anything let alone adulterers and then we can have a discussion. As for scholars, in 1500 years, you can find all kinds of people saying anything. Hell, in only 200 years of secularism you guys have managed to talk so much crap that it’s already worse than religious people.
        It would suit me very much if I could pigeonhole all secularists and atheists like the Jacobins or Communists, as you would like to portray religion or Islam according to the most erroneous statements of scholars. But life isn’t that simple. You have to engage with the ideas and the ideas of Islam are the Quran, and it is still the Quran and can be understood regardless of Qadi Khan or Maturidi.

        So worry about the Quran and not those guys.

        Just as I worry about separation of church and state and not Robespierre and Co.

      • There are two different perspectives I have regarding religion. The first one is a secular political one. There I don’t care what different religions actually say. It’s not important what Jesus or Muhammad imagined their religions to be like. The only thing that matters is whether they will affect me as an atheist person and the secular society. So from this perspective I don’t care whether the Quran says ‘kill ’em all’ or not as long Muslims don’t do it. I also don’t care how Muslims explain the problematic verses or narrations away from the ‘bad’ meanings. It can be far-fetched just like the explanations Christians and Jews have to stop following their ‘bad’ texts. I know that as long as Christianity mattered most of Old Testaments ‘Shariah’ was implemented. Today they say New Testament abolished Old Testament. That is bullshit of course. It were the secular and progressive minded thinkers and leaders who abolished the Old Testament. But as I said, from the secular political perspective this does not interest. The only thing that matters is that they explained it away and will never ever take it literally again. That’s my wish for Muslims too. You may have a good approach to do this.

        You said I would like Muslims to be extremists or Salafists. That’s not true. I don’t want anyone to be this. I want religious people to reform their religion so that it accommodates to our time just like Christianity did (more or less). But what I actually said brings me to the next perspective. That’s what I as a person interested in religious studies and history think what real Islam is. Then I say that the extremists are the nearest group to original Islam in many issues. I don’t think that any Islamic group today is 100% right regarding what Islam is. That is my conviction based on my studies.

        You say the Quran does not say kill apostates. That is true but Muhammad said it. Now you can come and say the Hadith is not authentic. But then I have to ask you who before you said the same? Show me one orthodox scholar who was not for this. The same goes for stoning to death, Jihad…
        You may say as you already did ‘Who cares for what scholars said?’. Maybe nobody should care for what scholars said but isn’t it weird that in the 1400 years of Islam nobody saw what you see? Why did it need someone living and probably being raised in the UK of modern times to see that the clear Quran tells us this? Maybe the point I’m trying to make is no actual proof but it is at least something to think about.

        I started to comment when you tried to prove that non-Muslims are not going to hell in most cases with the opinion of some orthodox Sunni scholars. I told you that I’m quite sure they didn’t believe this actually but there must be a misunderstanding. So you said who cares for what they say and that would be fine for me. But then you said this:

        “In the article I showed you, it made it clear that the majority orientation in Islam, the Hanafi-Maturidis (who had all of the big empires in Islamic history, from the Samaninds to the Ottoman) does not accept the world view of Wahhabis/Salafists. For example, it is explicit in the Hanafi school that the death penalty cannot be applied based on anything other than Quranic level proof. Wahhabis disagree. ”

        You wanted to make a point by showing that your sect is not ‘evil’ like the bloody extremist Wahhabis/Salafists. You even mentioned the Ottomans as an example of this. Didn’t the Ottomans do Jihad (conquering non-Muslim lands), kill apostates, stone to death etc.? You are using the Ottomans who did many things ISIS does today against those like ISIS. This is extremely dishonest. And yes, the Ottomans did not go around killing civilian people like ISIS but I don’t claim that Islam allows or call for such indiscriminate attacks on civilians.

        And what is it with this Hanafi school you belong to? The Hanafi school is one of the four Sunni schools of law and they all agree on killing apostates, Jihad, stoning etc.. You are using sectarian arguments like ‘we the good Hanafis’ and ‘they the evil Wahhabis’. This is also practiced by Shiites against Sunnis while Iran was the first Muslim country to introduce Shariah after the big breakdown of the Islamic empires. Or Protestants saying it were the Catholics who did all the bad stuff while their founders like Luther called for Inquisitions, extincting Jews etc..
        So the sectarian game is not working for me. I don’t accept Christians telling me their religion is ‘better’ than Islam nor will I accept your claim ‘Hanafis’ are better than ‘Wahhabis’. There are theological differences between all these groups but in the issues I talk about they are all the same.

  21. @mmmclmru

    Thanks for your feedback.

    1. You say that the issue of the attributes of God is not as I claimed,
    but since I said several things in relation to this, I don’t know which
    it is you’re correcting me about :

    – Do you agree/disagree/have no opinion that ““The attributes of the Creator are not Him Himself” is indeed part of Islamic aqeeda
    – Do you agree/disagree/have no opinion that saying things like “God is Love” (fluently said by Christians) is not permissible according to said aqeeda

    2. You are absolutely correct that St. Thomas did not and would not have described
    Islamic aqeeda the way I do ; I somewhat misleadingly more or less attributed to St.
    Thomas ideas that, though inspired by St. Thomas’s work, are not his. Thanks for correcting me

    3. You mistranslated a bit the “attribute of knowledge” stuff, didn’t you ? Because you wrote that God’s knowledge is “part of Him”, now I think we can agree that
    God is absolutely simple, is not composed and has no parts. Btw, how do you say “attribute” in Arabic

    4. St. Thomas’ quote that “philosophy is the maidservant of theology” is well-known.
    Philosophy is only a tool. One sees that at work in his Summa. And he wrote a Summa
    Theologica but no “Summa Philosophica”.

    Philosophy outside the fold of theology is a very dangerous thing indeed. Hegelian dialectics combined with false messianism has produced justification for mass murder and oppression, still in use today

    5. I still think your quote of St. Thomas to be highly dubious, if only because
    of the following quote and a few others like it where St Thomas argues against Avicenna :

    [BEGIN QUOTE]
    Summa Contra Gentes, Chapter 13 : Arguments in proof of the existence of God, 7.
    Nor is it an objection to this argument if one might say that, when something is held to move itself, a part of it cannot be at rest; or, again, if one might say that a part is not subject to rest or motion except accidentally, which is the unfounded argument of Avicenna.

    [END QUOTE]

    So by now I’m quite curious to know where you got your quote from 🙂

    • The only place I have seen that quote is from Sayyed Hossein Nasr’s ‘Three Muslim Sages‘. He doesn’t give a reference and I don’t see it mentioned elsewhere. My point is that in philosophy (as opposed to theology), Aquinas is by necessity dependent on Averroes (‘The Commentator’) and Avicenna to tell him about Aristotle (‘The Teacher’, which is what he was also called in Arabic, or rather ‘the first teacher’). He doesn’t have a choice in this since that is all that is available to him – Latin translations of glosses by Ibn Rushd and Co. Likewise, the Muslim philosophers are largely indebted to the Greek Neoplatonists such as Proclus and Plotinus. In this respect both Aquinas and the Muslim philosophers are not very ‘original’ most of the time (I mentioned this because the questioner was crediting Aquinas, as many Muslims do with their own scholars, for arguments for the existence of God, which had in fact been furnished by earlier philosophers, or at least have an earlier providence). So take the issue about motion that you mention – Avicenna is merely supporting Aristotle and defending him against the attacks of the atomists. Most likely Aquinas wouldn’t know that as he would not have the works of Aristotle to hand and much of the time – Muslims and others mistook books such as ‘The Philosophy of Aristotle’ by Neo-Platonists to have been authored by Aristotle himself. But those guys didn’t know that (and neither did anyone until much more recently).

      The ‘Attributes’ of God are often referred to as ‘sifat‘ of Allah in Arabic. You are right that my choice of words was horrendous: what I mean is that Mu’tazzila denied any such thing as an attribute called ‘knowledge ‘ of God, they do not consider the attributes to have any ‘separate’ existence so if God knows, it is by his essence not something added to that. Unless I have understood them wrong. ‘God is absolutely simple, is not composed and has no parts‘ as you said and I agree completely with that (and so would the Mu’tazzila and many Maturidis and some As’harites). Saying God is a compound, a body or something is co-eternal with him is disbelief according to all Muslims. Except Wahhabis.

      Much of the discussion about God’s attributes is confused in Islam: so a popular manual (Aqaid Nasafi) does say that God’s attributes are neither Him, nor not Him, which is a complete fudge and incoherent. The there are a large number of people who have not addressed this sufficiently at all and still talk about producing works of Kalaam or Aqeeda (speculative theology and Creed) such as many Hadith scholars and Salafis/Wahhabis today.

      So regarding your question, there cannot be any co-eternal attributes of God so in this the Mu’tazzilite view (which is also the view of many others who don’t want to admit that it is from the Mu’tazzilites) is correct as far as I understand. As for saying ‘God is love’ then the same problem is there: then God is justice, God is creator and so the same problem is there with regards to attributes. So saying God is love from his essence would define God as being love. Or a compund of love and other things. Whence we are back to the same problem, as I see it. So Muslims would not say God ‘is’ love or any other thing like ‘justice’ or ‘eternal’ as a complete description of Him, and His essence cannot be known. But it is a very big issue. Probably I am simplifying. So perhaps it would be better to say ‘God is loving’ as a a partial description but to explain God as love would be wrong I suppose.

      Here is an A’sharite talking about these issues against Wahhabis, it might interest you (but is only tangentially related):https://sunnianswers.wordpress.com/?s=attributes

      I am not saying that you have caricatured Muslim theology though because as I said, most Muslims talk about these things in a most unsatisfactory way. And that is usually deliberate to mislead or hide their confusion. I am no expert but I disagree with anything such as a co-eternal attribute distinct from God and statements like the one in Aqiad Nasafi.

  22. @mmmclmru

    You said : “Saying God (…) something is co-eternal with him is disbelief according to all Muslims. Except Wahhabis.”

    So, the Qur’an is not co-eternal with Allah ? What about the beginning of surah 43 (Pickthall translation) :

    Ha. Mim.
    By the Scripture which maketh plain,
    Lo! We have appointed it a Lecture, in Arabic that haply ye may understand.
    And Lo! in the Source of Decrees, which We possess, it is indeed sublime, decisive.

    Isn’t that “Source of Decrees” (and hence the Qur’an) co-eternal with Allah ?

  23. Of course if something is co-eternal with God and is not God then that is a second God isn’t it?

    All that ayat says is that God possess the Quran. In another Ayats he is the possessor of all that is in the Heavens and the earth etc. There is nowhere in the Quran or even Sunnah where the Quran is even called eternal let alone co-eternal with God.

    That which is the speech of God is uncreated as God is unchanging (this is why Avicenna and others talk about creation by emanation) and without letter or sound. But the Quran we have is obviously created.

    BTW, according to the Hanbalis and Ahmad, even the Quran we have was uncreated, so that was the issue between them and the Mu’tazzila and Imam Bukhari (on the other side). Anyway, they were wrong and again what Mu’tazzila say is what Muslims say anyway now without knowing it: so Quran as a book or recitation is obviously not an attribute of God or eternal. Speech/ Kalaam or Knowledge of God from which the Quran may have in some way been derived or be a temporal representation of is eternal and according to Mu’tazzila would be from the essence of God, so in their usage, there is no such thing as an attribute of ‘knowledge’, it is all from his essence, if that makes sense.

    So if by ‘Quran’ we mean the knowledge or speech or dialogue of God, it is eternal like his knowledge. But what we have here (paper, ink, sounds) is not an attribute of God nor God.

    If Quran is co-eternal with God then the same has to be said about all communication between God and man and the earlier scriptures. etc

  24. It is the same as the discussion of the Attributes of God such as Speech, Knowledge, Life etc. So if there is an attribute of God called ‘Quran’ or rather ‘speech’ then the same thing as the attributes applies or we end up with same problem as with attributes we mentioned above.

  25. @Eraser

    “Today they say New Testament abolished Old Testament. That is bullshit of course. ”

    Ephesians, 2.13-15 But now in Christ Jesus, you, who some time were afar off, are made nigh by the blood of Christ. For he is our peace, who hath made both one, and breaking down the middle wall of partition, the enmities in his flesh. Making void the law of commandments contained in decrees: that he might make the two in himself into one new man, making peace

    “The only thing that matters is that they explained it away”

    Hmm. In my view, the persons doing the explaining away are the ones who spout ready-made opinions about a subject while expressing contempt and lack of interest for it at the same time, not the ones who spend their lives studying it.

    “That is my conviction based on my studies.”

    Thank you for that excellent laugh! Obviously, we can’t ask you how/where …

    “You said I would like Muslims to be extremists or Salafists. That’s not true.”

    Well, you certainly believe the Salafis when it suits you, as shown by that other quote of yours : “You say the Quran does not say kill apostates. That is true but Muhammad said it..”

    “This is extremely dishonest. And yes, the Ottomans did not go around killing civilian people like ISIS but I don’t claim that Islam allows or call for such indiscriminate attacks on civilians.”

    Yet you insist on blaming Islam for ISIS. You even said that you were not interested in knowing exactly what Muhammad/Qur’an thought/said about that kind of stuff. Honesty and consistency indeed.

    “You are using sectarian arguments like ‘we the good Hanafis’ and ‘they the evil Wahhabis’.”

    mmmclmru has provided you rational evidence supporting the claim that Hanafis are better than Wahhabis, some of which was acknowledged by you (“the Quran does not say kill apostates. That is true”). Good Hanafis vs. evil Wahhabis is a conclusion in mmmclmru’s thought process, not an hypothesis or argument (or so I think ; mmmclmru can correct that one if needed).

    • You are a person living in the 21st century. The same case for your Muslim friend. When I want to know what Christianity or Islam is more likely to be I’ll look at what theologians before secular influence said and not listen to you.

      Hanafis are not ‘better’ than Wahhabis. I said this is sectarian because it has no basis. Most things Wahhabists do today Hanafis have done and they have it in their books just like all other Sunnis. If he wants to only follow the Quran without Hadith and scholars it will be OK. But he has to stop mentioning his sect then.

      And I’m not blaming Islam for Paris attacks but I am blaming Islam for killing apostates, Jihad, stoning…. I’m blaming Hanafis, Wahhabis, Shiites, Shafiis, Malikis, Hanbalis and so on for it. They agree on this just like your Christian ancestors agreed on it.

  26. @Eraser

    “You are a person living in the 21st century. The same case for your Muslim friend. When I want to know what Christianity or Islam is more likely to be I’ll look at what theologians before secular influence said and not listen to you.”

    As far as I know, you live in the 21st century too, so you’re equally disqualified as we are to understand theologians-before-secular-influence. Did you notice my quote from Ephesians 2 was from a theologian-before-secular-influence ?

    “And I’m not blaming Islam for Paris attacks”

    Hmm. You did something mighty close to that then : I remember your quote “Regarding the happenings in Paris, I’m aware that classical Islamic scholars were not in favor of indiscriminate killings of disbelievers. But would they consider these killings as murders or simply as breaking the formal rules of Islamic war? Murder of a non-Muslim is not a real murder but a mere violation of the given nature like killing an animal without reason.”

    Also, it is not true that ISIS terrorism today is directed exclusively towards non-Muslims.

    ” I’m blaming Hanafis, Wahhabis, Shiites, Shafiis, Malikis, Hanbalis and so on for it. They agree on this just like your Christian ancestors ”

    Just like the wonderful people who made your beloved mass secularism possible.
    The “necessary sacrifices” as they used to say, and still do.

  27. Regarding the “good Hanbali vs. bad Wahhabi” stuff : I heard Hamza Yusuf saying in
    a video that “There is no such thing as collective takfir in Islam. It must be individual”

    What if a Muslim reaches the conclusion that Abd El Wahhab’s doctrine is kufr ? He can
    only declare takfir on Abd El Wahhab himself, but not make a “collective takfir” on
    all Wahhabis ? Looks rather impractical and strange to me.

    In Catholicism, we excommunicate doctrines rather than people, so the excommunication of Luther automatically entails the excommunication of all Lutherans.

    • This is an excellent point: doctrines are considered heretical, but in Maturidi creed, ignorance is considered and excuse, even for not being Muslim, and so thus certainly within Islam. So although we anathematise the doctrine and the followers, we don’t say they are non-Muslim as they are ignorant in the main, but if they understand and articulate it and promote it, then they are judged as heretics. But we are consistent and extend the same leeway to non-Muslims.

      So takfir on doctrines yes, but no collective takfir. Impractical, maybe!

  28. You should know that what you said about free will is not a light statement. It destroys the integrity of the Sunni schools of theology. Furthermore it destroys the clean belief of Allah’s All-Mightiness what is more important. Please give sources for this.

    In Kitab ut-Tawhid there is a chapter about this Hadith. Of course this Hadith is not used as proof that Qadariyya are bad. Why the belief of the Qadariyya is false is explained before. In this chapter Maturidi just explained what the Qadariyya have in common with the Zoroastrians and he confirmed that this refers to the Mu’tazila.

    I have not read the whole book only some chapters like this and the titles of the chapters. Maturidi Aqidah is known through scholars like Nasafi. If there is a discrepancy between Nasafi and Maturidi you know about then you are obliged to inform us about it. It would be a big issue and I do not understand how you can say it like it is nothing. It destroys our Islamic integrity and also our whole proofs for Allah’s excistence.

    “And so are Al Ghazzali and Razi are kaafir for saying that Jews and Christians and polytheists who didn’t hear message properly go to paradise?”

    I would like to talk about this issue and excusing for ignorance later because the first topic is very important.

    And please excuse me if I sounded harsh before and now. It is only that the things I hear here are totally alien to me. We are following the same schools but saying the exactly antithetical things. So I would like to clear this up of course without offending. Sorry again.

    • So first of all, you are replying in the wrong thread aren’t you?

      Second: ‘It destroys our Islamic integrity and also our whole proofs for Allah’s existence

      How?

      Next ‘You should know that what you said about free will is not a light statement. It destroys the integrity of the Sunni schools of theology. Furthermore it destroys the clean belief of Allah’s All-Mightiness what is more important

      Another over the top statement. Again, how?

      There is free will according to Maturidis. If not, the YOU just destroyed justice of Allah – he’s making us do things then punishing us for them. As for Nasafi, there are many places where he over simplifies and gives his own ideas. Most of Islamic ‘commentaries’ are like this. For example, Imam Maturidi denied that there was Black Magic done on the Prophet. But later on they covered that up.

      First study these talks by a Maturidi on Free Will and then comment:

  29. From the videos I learned what the opinion is. It may be a semantic problem but from what I see now it is not the opinion I follow.

    Regardless of that I have to say again that such a difference between Asharis and Maturidis would be scandalous since nobody knows about it. There is this famous list of around 10 issues where they differ and free will is never mentioned among them. Wherever the truth lies it stays a big discovery.
    What would be even more scandalous is that all Maturidite scholars like Nasafi held a differing opinion from Maturidi without mentioning this. This displays the scholars of Ahlu Sunnah as totally ignorant and sorry for repeating it but it really destroys the integrity of Ahlu Sunnah.

    But of course nothing should be ruled out without researching it. Especially we have to note that Imam Maturidis book Tawhid was and is not very widespread. So I will have to read the whole chapters about this topic to see where the truth lies.

    I say that I will accept whatever the truth is regarding Maturidis opinion. But I also say that I will not change my opinion on free will because I formed my belief about this on proofs and not on blind following. So I will reject Maturidi if he really has this opinion.

    We will see then.

    • The list of differences you’re referring to is probably the one authored by Tāj al-Dīn al-Subkī. It enumerates 13 differences, calls 7 of them lafzi, and 6 of them ma’nawi. Later on, however, an Ottoman Hanafi scholar named Kamāl al-Dīn al-Bayāḍī conducted another comparison. Rudolph Ulrich relates in his book:

      “What he discovered was a cause for suspicion and led to the following, by no means euphoric, judgment: The reoccurring statement that the contradictions between al-Ashʿarī and al-Māturīdī are merely linguistic (lafẓī) is a complete delusion (wahm), and wishful thinking on the part of such commentators. In reality the disagreement is based on matters of content (maʿnawī)—and indeed, as he pedantically documents, occurs not regarding a few issues, but actually fifty problems of the most diverse themes and types. Ultimately, however, al-Bayāḍī does not wish to be a mischief- maker in the midst of all the willingness to compromise and reconcile. This is because, according to his conceptualization, civil order among the Sunnīs is more important than emphasizing respective particularities which could possibly lead to social strife. He thus abates himself, adding that these fifty problems still only deal with minutiae. This gives him the room to impart a maxim which is of decided import; namely, that both theological schools must mutually respect one another and do not have the right to dismiss or defame the other as heretical (tabdīʿ).”

      But even then, as Ulrich later states:

      “He [al-Bayāḍī] intended to present the differences between al-Ashʿarī and al-Māturīdī, for which he assembled a list of up to fifty points of contention; however he does not actually describe the teachings of the two theologians, but rather talking points that came up later between their two eponymically named schools. This is clear right from the beginning, when he shows no knowledge of any difference between the two scholars in regard to the physical world.”

      Abū l-Muʿīn al-Nasafī’s Tabṣirat al-Adilla 1/310-372 apparently documents some of the early debate between the two schools.

      • Yeah, dude, it isn’t rocket science: if you want to know the differences between any two things, study them both and compare. So study A’shari aqeeda from Juwayni, Ghazzali or Razi or today from Al Bouti and then Maturidi aqeeda from his book.

        Then you will see. Ulrich is honest but by quoting Subki etc al you get is blind adherence to what he said, which will also be partisan.

    • So you are either 1) Mu’tazzila as you decide by intellect and even worse your own opinion 2) Mujtahid Mutlaq and set up your own school of Aqeeda – remember to publish it so we can all follow you, and 3) Contradicting yourself since you say you accept ‘Maturidi’ but you don’t:

      ‘I say that I will accept whatever the truth is regarding Maturidis opinion. But I also say that I will not change my opinion on free will because I formed my belief about this on proofs and not on blind following. So I will reject Maturidi if he really has this opinion’.

      People will laugh at you if you say stuff like this. Plus, you never gave us any proofs, because you don’t have any. Even the greatest scholars such as Ghazzali and Razi could not reply back to Maturidis stance so do you think you can? Show me your proofs and if you can beat me then try to beat Maturidi.

      So you reject Maturidi and make up your own school of aqeeda that you like and then also you decide what will destroy Ahlus Sunnah according to yourself. So you are either Mu’tazzila or Salafi. Since you hate Mu’tazzila so much then probably you will become attracted to Salafis.

      • I said I will research this issue. The issue is what Imam Maturidi believed. As I am no blind follower of him in creed I will not change my belief because of him. When I said i follow Maturidi creed then this means I follow that what I though to be Maturidi creed based on the Maturidi scholars like Nasafi, Taftazani and the books attributed to Abu Hanifah. If it turns out that this creed which I am convinced of (not by blind following) is not the same as that of Abu Mansur al Maturidi I will admit this. But I will not change my belief to a belief that I consider to be false.

        My research will take about two months. After this I will present everything.
        And I do not have to make a new school. This is already the school of the latter Maturidis and Asharis anyway.

        Regarding Shaykh Atabek Shukurov, I watched another video from him that makes me seriously doubt his credibility: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cdRpOPUJT3g
        I have seen many people arguing for many different things. But that a person uses so stupid arguments in such a confident manner is new to me. Listening to this was torture. This person is absolutely disgusting. May Allah beware us from this fitnah.

        What is your position on apostasy? If it is the same then I really doubt that we should have any further debate about any topic.

      • I have a better idea! How about I BAN you for being a moron who waffles and lies and doesn’t address any points and makes up principles as he goes along. See, problem solved!

        You call people stupid, challenged maturidi etc but you don’t have any argument proof or text for your garbage. We heard you ‘checking’ Kitaab ut Tawhid before (without any references or proof that you can read it/translate it).

        LOL ‘Latter’ Asharis and Maturidis. So modernists then, since we have some EVEN LATER ones now!

        You know what we call people like you? ‘Ash-Salafi’

  30. With each passing day, the comments on this website become ever more outrageous. Rather than engage in open ended discussions about topics that need to be clarified, people are just waffling with pure ignorance, espousing their own thinking, promoting Salafism etc. Adab and etiquette, it seems, is becoming a lost ethic of people in a post modern society (as they’d call it to sound clever, be on par with Western thought etc.)
    I find it amazing that mmmclmru even bothers to reply to such answers

    Education is supposed to make you humble, not arrogant.

    • What did I claim? I said that Maturidi compared the Mu’tazilah to Zoroastrians in Kitab al-Tawhid and that he has a chapter about this. Should I give the page number or translate it?

      Regarding the issue of free will I said in all humbleness that I do not know what Maturidi says about it for sure. And therefore I am going to research it. What do you want me to do? To accept blindly what you and your scholar said without any references from Maturidi either?

      You should fear God the All-Mighty mmmclmru and fanboy bediuzzamansaidnursi123.

      • I didn’t name anyone nor did I single anyone out. I’m just stating what is observed by anyone and everyone who visits this website. So why you are so upset I’m not so sure.

        “What did I claim? I said that Maturidi compared the Mu’tazilah to Zoroastrians in Kitab al-Tawhid and that he has a chapter about this. Should I give the page number or translate it?”

        First of all, I’ve not even bothered to see what you’ve written and discussed with mmmclmru. It’s such an advanced topic. And I don’t intend to get involved with it.

        “What do you want me to do? To accept blindly what you and your scholar said without any references from Maturidi either?”

        You see, I don’t know much about Maturidi and Aqeeda to be perfectly honest. This is why I don’t comment because it’s a matter I have little knowledge of. I didn’t tell you accept what scholars say blindly so do not accuse me of that. You sound angry for some reason…

        “You should fear God the All-Mighty mmmclmru and fanboy bediuzzamansaidnursi123”

        Who says I don’t? Who are you to judge? If anything, its you who needs to fear Allah and shut that pathetic thing you call a mouth.

      • @Purani

        “Regarding the issue of free will I said in all humbleness that I do not know what Maturidi says about it for sure. ”

        On the contrary, you said that “what you said about free will is not a light statement. It destroys the integrity of the Sunni schools of theology. Furthermore it destroys the clean belief of Allah’s All-Mightiness what is more important” (and failed to provide any evidence for that claim)

    • You are blaming me for not wanting to follow blindly what Maturidi believed although there is no blind following in Aqidah. But there is blind following in Fiqh. Maturidi clearly said that apostates have to be killed and that there is stoning for adultery. If you want references I can bring them.

      • So why not bring them? You keep threatening to LOL. Why wait till after you got banned to bring references?!

        And who said Maturidi didn’t support stoning anyway? He’s man like anyone else. We don’t have infallible Imams like some Shia bothers (though Shia only have seven or twelve infallible Imams, sunnis have HUNDREDS that they treat the same way).

        So God is willing to be questioned by Angels and Satan, but scholars have to be followed? Let’s pray to them as well then!

      • I will repeat: I have not singled not anyone else out. Stop your incessant moaning about it.

        “Regarding the issue of free will I said in all humbleness that I do not know what Maturidi says about it for sure. ”

        Right, you damage the integrity of one of the two theological schools of Sunni Islam by issuing such a dumb statement on free will. Clearly, you are indulging in matters way out of your depth.

        “Maturidi clearly said that apostates have to be killed and that there is stoning for adultery. If you want references I can bring them.”

        So if you are not sure on one maturidi related matter, why on earth should we trust you on other Maturidi related matters? Stop waffling, its only doing you harm. It’s not fair on other innocent people who want to learn. Aqeedah is a massive and sensitive topic that cannot be espoused by ignorant people.

        I’m surprised mmmclmru hasn’t blocked you for doing so.

      • I DID block this idiot last night!

        Look, these people are spammers, they keep telling you they are going to bring references and after waiting for ages you will get something from some book by Nasafi or some weird ‘Maturidi’ text by some hadith scholar from the 17th century. Then you will spend a month looking that up etc. Just look at the article about black Magic and the Prophet to see how much irrelevant crap they bring https://asharisassemble.com/2016/01/04/how-muslim-scholars-are-destroying-islam/ – they brought proof of ‘Maturidi’ position from Salafis and Asharis as well as God knows who else. It was shameless, but people got confused. They can’t read the Arabic of Maturidi – it is extremely difficult and you need to know that Central Asian Philosophical style – most of the Western Orientalist don’t even have that skill. So you can forget about Muslims. I remember Montgomery Watt lamenting that ‘Kitaab ut Tawhid‘ had not even been put into a critical edition, let alone translated. That was more than 20 years ago. And I don’t know many Muslims who have Arabic knowledge of Watt, Rosenthal etc

        And I never said anything about stoning and Maturidi – if you recall, my points against stoning were purely rational and based on hadith that anyone can look up and decide for themselves. If I had a quote from Maturidi, I would have said that. I did name a list of scholars and even said this is only for those DUMB PEOPLE who decide whether or not to kill someone based on what scholars say OR for honest people who want to look up their detailed arguments (before I present a detailed article). Then this Purani guy goes around telling everyone that Imam Samarkandi never said that he was against stoning blah waffle blah…but there are loads of guys called ‘Imam’ Samarkandi. The problems with these ‘Purani’ guys is that they are told about a small spectrum of scholars, they can read a bit of Arabic and they think the world is theirs. So I mentioned the scholars because they will say, as they do with the issue of the age of Aisha, that ‘no one said this before, it is due to pressure from the West blah blah‘ (not that there is anything wrong with that anyway: if the West is pressing for answers so what? If we can’t answer that’s our problem), so I gave them some top pre-modern scholars who did say it. But what can I do if he is too stupid to know the difference between Abu Layth Samarkandi and Aluddin Samarkandi?

        And after all that, these Salafi oriented guys have given themselves a way out: ‘well, if we disagree with Maturidi we will reject it based on our ‘aql” (= whims = salafis). But in Fiqh you have to do taqleed according to them: my question – where did they get that from? Is it in ‘Quran and Sunnah’? And they claim to be Hanafis – but Abu Hanifa said explicitly that even one man can be right (it is in famous books such as ‘Al Muheet Al Burhani‘ etc. Don’t worry, they never study any aqeeda or fiqh books anyway) and everyone else wrong – it depends on the strength of his proof not the number of ‘voters’. Anything they don’t like from Abu Hanfia, they ‘forget’ (like how they ‘forget’ that his son was a Mutazzilite). And anyway – they claim apostasy killing and Adultery stoning is/was in Quran…so what is and is not in Quran is not an aqeeda issue then is it? And abrogation – is that under fiqh and not aqeeda too? So it is just inconsistent garbage. A clever atheist would start at adultery and just use that to destroy their faith and make them apostate. Lucky for them the aggressive atheists do not study properly.

        Anyway, level of proof for aqeeda issues and killing issues is identical for Maturidis – it has to be Muttawatir. Jassas and all of the guys who set up Usool of Fiqh and Mustalah Hadith were explicit on that (though ‘Ash-Salafis’ ‘forgot’ that too). So Maturidi has to folow his own principle and if he doesn’t, he said we are free to take him up on it anyway.

        So whether rajm (stoning) is an aqeeda (creed) or fiqh (jurisprudence) issue, proof has to be Muttawatir according to mutamat (main position of Hanafis). My question: where is this proof? None of the hadith are above ‘mashoor‘. I dare anyone to prove otherwise.

        Also, just my personal prejudiced comment: most of the people who are so passionate about stoning or punishing sexual transgressors are in absolutely no danger of having sex with a member of the opposite sex in a halal or haraam way, let alone cheating on them. Unless it is raping Yazidi girls etc. So just my subjective opinion, but I always wonder why the most sexually inactive people are so worried about these issues. Sadly, Freudian psychology is no longer popular, so I don’t think we will get an answer. But people obsess over that thing which they cannot have, and sadly for many Muslims, nowadays it is sex.

      • Thanks for your fantastic explanations, they’ve really clarified a lot of issues that many people will have coming onto this website

        You mention Maturidi’s Kitab Al Tawhid. Will there ever be an English translation (and commentary) of it? I’m aware that there is a repliable manuscript of it in England…

      • He just wanted to jump from topic to topic – he knows that the position on free will is famous, so now he wants to talk about apostasy and adultery which is more ambiguous in Maturidis ‘Tafsir‘. Just look up in ‘The Study Quran‘ what they said about the copy of Maturidis tafsir that these guys use. You will laugh. They said no one has even read it properly yet. This Purani guy is on some ‘Da Vinci Code’ level.

  31. That’s precisely the issue here: you addressed me alongside mmmclmru. I don’t understand why you did so because I’ve not took part in your discussions and nor will I bother to do so. My reminder was on etiquette for ALL parties commenting on this website, it wasn’t just restricted to you and some other individuals. Adab allows a free flowing discussion without causing behaviour to step out of line. And there are some people that need to seriously consider what comments they are making on certain topics and how they are presenting themselves.

    “So I see three issues I talked about:

    1. Maturidi on Mu’tazilah being like Zoroastrians
    2. Maturidi on free will
    3. Maturidi on killing apostates

    I can prove 1 and 3. I will have to research 2.”

    Well go on then, “prove” your points. Stop being theoretical and actually produce something

    • Yeah, I deleted it because he STILL didn’t bring it. Even though I know the adultery one IS there even in the published manuscript. So just time wasting while he goes and gets help.

      Anyway, no one denied that Maturidi said stoning. So what? Maturidi is wrong. And? If Maturidi says 2 plus 2 is 7 I won’t start justifying it. Futhermore, Maturidi himself says no death penalty without Mass transmission. So which is his position then?

      All these guys used to write under duress and threat of assassination by rulers and Muhaditheen as well. I will give the details in my article. It will be a big fight with all of alleged ‘Ahlus Sunnah’ groups such as Salafis, Brelwis and Deobandis. So we will see.

  32. Aslamu’Alaykum mmmclmru and everyone else,

    I’ve keep hearing from Hanafis (mainly Deobandis but also other groups) that Imam Abu Hanifa did prescribe the death penalty for apostasy: the male is to be executed and the female is to be held in solitary confinement until she renounces her apostasy. Other things I’m told are things like the niqab is waajib and that stoning is a definite punishment for certain crimes.

    I’ve just been told these things but I’m never told where this information is coming from (for example, the book is never referenced). I don’t know Arabic, Persian, Urdu etc. but I’m constantly been given English translations. And obviously, the scholar (Usually from the Sub continent) can never, ever be questioned because you’re a “layman, you don’t have the authority to do so.” Etc. Etc.

    The point I am trying to make here is that this undoubtedly leaves a lot of Muslims confused especially because the majority espouse the Hanafi way (Sunni and even Shia). Learning Hanafi principles, and the Muslim education in the West, are a tragic example to our condition because they are never taught it or taught it properly.
    And also because a lot of Islamaphobes will use these pronouncements against ALL Muslims as it “represents” their entire religion as they say.

    • I am also very interested in seeing sources for Abu Hanifa saying that execution for apostasy and adultery is not to be applied, and I have seen the claim for either crime multiple times on this blog.

      As for the niqab issue, there’s a section on it in Avicenna Academy’s book on principles for testing hadith.

      • I totally understand your points but the prevailing view amongst Muslim groups of whatever sect today seem to be pushing towards strict Legalism – basically punishing everything that they deem to be breaking the Law. I mean, there is very little room to allow different interpretations to be expressed. Otherwise, you’re denounced as a heretic. They will only show you what they want you to see from their point of view.
        Sad times for Muslim academics…

        I am also interested in looking at a general overview of Imam Abu Hanifa’s rulings and judgement but at present, there are few places in the UK to do that in a honest manner (Avicenna Academy an exception of course)

        Lots of young Muslims can easily be mislead simply by not knowing any Arabic, Urdu etc. and just take English translations as a definitive source. It’s why groups like Daesh constantly use English in their propaganda to attract youngsters. Salafis are also known for heavily tampering with texts.

  33. And I almost forget

    Jazak’Allah mmmclmru, Sutter Cane and neutralminstrel for your info regarding the upcoming translation of Imam Maturidi’s work. It’s amazing how long it’s taken for this to happen considering it is such a vital text to Sunni Islam as a whole yet somehow sidelined.

    On a brighter note, here are two theological texts by Imam Tahāwī and Imam Sanussi translated by Shaykh Abu Adam. They are the best introductions to Sunni theology in my opinion and not controversial at all.

    Click to access Al-Tahawi.pdf

    Click to access sanusicreed-abuadam.pdf

  34. “Lots of young Muslims can easily be mislead simply by not knowing any Arabic, Urdu etc. and just take English translations as a definitive source. It’s why groups like Daesh constantly use English in their propaganda to attract youngsters. Salafis are also known for heavily tampering with texts.”

    Qur’an 2.79 “Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, “This is from Allah,” that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby.”

    • Obviously, that verse is referring specifically to the Qur’an but nonetheless I’m sure people will get your point.

      Like in the past but more prominent nowadays, people are literally selling their religion for their own gain. Salafis can publish large amounts of literature and sell it for a profit – never caring to think if it’s doing any harm to the believer or Islam. Or they can mislead youngsters purposefully as long as it’s for the “Deen” as they say and cause the whole world and Muslims unnecessary problems.
      Others groups can just be downright lazy with teaching the religion properly = frustration for the young ones = More susceptible to extremism in any forms in later life.

      90% of Mosques and Islamic institutions in the West don’t really have a proper curriculum to teach. There’s no formal grading to set standards (not that it’s required but no grading = no incentive to improve the standards – my own personal opinion). Absolutely anyone can be a teacher regardless of their knowledge, age, understanding etc. Usually, the leadership are mainly immigrants who have settled for a while in the West. Now they are out of touch with the more educated youth (in secular sciences) who’ve grown up in a secular Western society. So there’s a clash of interests between Imams and the youth. Extremism becomes an attractive option eventually.
      Arabic most certainly isn’t taught properly despite the overwhelming benefits it brings by learning it at an early age. Social sciences such as History, Spiritual Psychology, Literature etc. are practically never covered. If so it’s often romanticised to paint a rosy past of actual scholarship. destroyed by the evil West through colonialism. Regardless of what the West did, why are we not reviving these dead sciences in the present?
      Sufism is being preached through words only: its very rare to see proper Sufis being active in promoting the proper values that the discipline requires. Hisham Kabbani is a notable exception.
      Lessons on theology effectively turn in Aqeeda Wars once you get past the basic stage; Sunni vs Shia, Sunnis vs Wahhabis/Salafis, Barelvis vs Deobandis etc. Asharism and Maturidism really aren’t covered and when they are, its like hearing a footnote from a book. So rather than learning an intellectual defence of the faith, you’re imparted with religious zeal. Your best examples can be found on Daesh Propaganda videos despite the fact that they themselves don’t know Arabic or even bother to read the Qur’an (but shhh, just kill anything in sight! God will reward you for that says radical scholar X who has shut down his intellect.). This is also where I should mention that certain Quranic verses (the ones that can be severely be misinterpreted by Salafis via anthropomorphism), controversial Hadith, certain scholar rulings on issues such as apostasy, adultery etc. are never discussed at all. It’s precisely the reason why when a Muslim eventually does encounter these issues, they will either:

      A) Become confused and eventually apostasise after receiving unsatisfying answers
      B) Wholeheartedly accept the issue in question without adequate explanation = Potential disbelief and adopt radical views in the long term
      C) Seek and gain adequate explanations by people who possess the actual knowledge.
      D) Try and forget the issue as if doesn’t exist = Constant doubts

      There are very few institutions that can provide a solid grounding in Islam in the West, but even less in dealing with the Modern World. It’s a living tradition that traces all the way back to the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ. Nowadays its been reduced to “Do this, its compulsory, Do not do that, its haram”. Sooner or later, people are just not going to care. They will either become full on Secularists or adopt the extremist path to further reinforce the secualr, liberal arguments towards religions in general.
      A major shift in thinking is needed across the Muslim World but at present, It’s hard to see it happening. Certainly, Muslims could do with another Al Ghazali right now.

      PS sorry I wrote too much. This website provides an outlet to vent my feelings for the Ummah.

      • Yes you wrote much but there is absolutely no meaning. These are just your “thoughts”. You say how bad others are but you don’t tell us what is right. Should we reject something that appears to be the truth because it goes against Human Rights? Should we accept non-Muslims as not being kuffar?

  35. Aslamu’Alaykum anyone and everyone

    Can anyone recommend a scholarly work on the Mu’tazilites? As someone who has a vested interested in history, I’m interested in an objective look at this sect and how it’s impacted Islamic thought in the early centuries of the faith.
    You have to remember, Asharism grew out of the Mu’tazila and Abul Hasan Al Ashari himself was a Mu’tazilite for a considerable amount of time before leaving the school to formulate one of the accepted theological schools of Sunni Islam.
    It’s also interesting to note how much they are constantly being bashed by present day Muslims: from the traditionalists to the Ultra Puritan Salafis/Wahhabis despite the school no longer enjoying popular status or having any large followings since say, the 1400s. So it’s quite strange to see such verbal attacks occurring on a frequent basis.

    So to repeat: Anyone got any recommendations? Jazak’Allah if you do. Academic study is something to be encouraged.

    • I am not aware of Asharis bashing the Mu’tazilah extensively. One reason why Salafis do is that Asharis and the Mu’tazilah agree on many points where Salafis disagree. So by attacking the Mu’tazilah they are attacking the Asharis too and they say that Asharis took their creed from the deviant Mu’tazilah.

      Another reason why Mu’tazilah might be attacked today is “rationalism”. Through that “rationalism” can be compromised as being deviant. Or the Mu’tazilah can be connected to modernism, liberalism etc..
      But of course this is totally inaccurate since the situation today is totally different. So people who are deemed to be like Mu’tazilah today are usually totally liberal and pacifist. The Mu’tazilah however were rationalist but not pacifist. Take the so-called Mihna as an example.
      They were just like the other sects. They were oppressed when the rulers were against their creed and they were the oppressors when the rulers were for them. That was the case for any sect only that some never achieved power.

      • I have heard, I repeat only heard, that the early Maturidis considered the Mu’tazila closer to them than the early asharites.

        The Mu’tazilites are constantly bashed by any group; be it Deobandis, Brelwis, Salafis etc. This is really confusing for an individual Muslim trying to learn because it basically makes the Mu’tazilites seem to be the worst thing ever that happened to Islam simply for using rationalism. But why the blood thirsty Khwariji or radical Ismailis never get mentioned? Baffling.
        Salafis attacking Mu’tazila is the code word for attacking Asharis + Maturidis.
        That being said, I don’t think many Muslims know what they are on about when they talk about rationalism. Being honest, I don’t even know really hence why I’m here to learn what I can.
        Some people just rehash arguments to sound legitimate on discussing Islamic matters that they have no knowledge of. Epistemology is a massive thing in Islamic theology because it defines what knowledge is and what knowledge isn’t. This is something the Salafis don’t regard at all.

        Of course, the sect did reach erroneous conclusions and cannot be deemed orthodox as far as Sunni Islam goes.

        “Or the Mu’tazilah can be connected to modernism, liberalism etc..”. Yes, I think that this relationship stems from Orientalism. Far too often, they will moan about how Islam ” lost” its tolerance and its open minded approach and then paint the Mu’tazilites as the upholders of reason and free thought. Usually, they do not even care to delve into Mu’tazila theology and just judge them by today’s, Western values and thinking (Liberalism, Secularism etc). So modern Muslims trying to reconcile their faith with Western lifestyle will unfortunately fall into the trap of accepting the Orientalists arguments.

        “Take the so-called Mihna as an example.”
        Imam Hanbal forgave his transgressors on his release from prison and actually by the next century, the tables turned and the Hanbalis persecuted the Mu’tazila. Just see the activities of Imam Baharabi – a favourite of the Salafis. The Mihna never really extended anywhere outside of what we would nowadays call Iraq so people are mistaken to believe that the Mu’tazila at one point controlled the thinking of the entire Muslim world.
        Interesting to note that the Mu’tazila generally tended to follow Hanafi Madhab which the extreme Hanbalis and modern day Salafis are quick play on and basically attack the school.

        “They were just like the other sects. They were oppressed when the rulers were against their creed and they were the oppressors when the rulers were for them.” History shows that. Power is enticing and people will do whatever they can to get it. Salafism needs to power to legitimise itself as a brand and by its stigmatised nature, will naturally play the role of the victim. But once it gets power, it will not tolerate anything other than itself and begin persecuting.

      • You are totally right that Muslim critics of Mu’tazilah often sound like they are bad because they put reason over revelation and narrations. But the Ashari and Maturidi Kalam scholars always highlighted that their view is rational. They did indeed hold the position that their view is logical and the Mu’tazilite one is not.
        The problem that many Muslims have is that they acknowledge that something is logical but they prefer text as truth. Something that is not logical cannot be true. Something being true but not logical is a paradox. So whether some opinion is logical or not (objectively), everyone who adopts it has to think that it is logical at least to get out of the apparent contradiction.

        But I personally don’t agree that Mu’tazilah are more often bashed that the Khawarij. Maybe you are witnessing this but I know that the term Khawarij/Khariji is used all the time for so-called “Takfiris” and IS. Nearly everyone who opposes IS calls them Khawarij from Barelvis to Salafis. Every group in Syria calls IS Khawarij and compares them with the historical ones. The Al-Qaidah groups do this likewise.

      • “But I personally don’t agree that Mu’tazilah are more often bashed that the Khawarij.” Your opinion is respected. I’m just telling from my personal educational experience. Once I was told about the Mu’tazila, the info I was given is that they were “rationalists”. That’s it. Never once was it explained to me why this was bad. (I was a young kid back then). So I never understood the constant bashing of them growing up. And neither was I told of Asharism or Maturidis. Fortunately, I found out by myself.

        The khwariji being bashed is a matter of convenience rather than conviction. I have to say, I never even heard of the term Khwarij until the recent events in Syria. Might be my ignorance but then again, I never relied on online websites to teach me about Islam prior to 2014.

  36. I would like to pray tribute at this place to the Martyrdom of Mumtaz Qadri yesterday.

    His love for the Prophet was bigger than his love for life and career. He had the opportunity and he took it. He took the opportunity indeed. May God bless his soul.

      • Mmmclmru, please delete Jutki’s comment posted above. It’s absolutely unwarranted. Whatever your personal views are regarding this man, this website is not the place to air it unless relevant (which it clearly isn’t).

    • So if a trusted mullah tells a man to commit blasphemy, and the man commits blasphemy while intending it to be for his religion, and is killed for it, is he a martyr? Surely “doing something for your religion and getting killed for it” does not automatically qualify you as a martyr, does it? So, what did he do and why is it praiseworthy?

      • I said something but this is not anything. Your argumentation is not valid. It is trying to make a situation look absurd with no basis.

        Why does the Mullah order blasphemy? Is it just to pretend to commit blasphemy outwardly or actual committing blasphemy? If the first then we would need to look closer to it. The second case makes no sense.
        But of course this “for the sake of religion” depends on what it is. It’s not anything.

    • The (imposter) mullah orders blasphemy because he wants to exert control over his followers.

      Yes, you said he did something. I’m saying that him doing ‘something’ in no way substantiates the claim that he is a martyr. So tell us what he did and why it is a praiseworthy deed in the first place, if it is indeed praiseworthy.

      • The deed is praiseworthy because of the intention behind it. The deed itself was maybe a minor offence. Some talk about vigilante justice and this would only be a small sin in such cases. But the term vigilante justice does not apply to this case anyway. That’s clear from Islamic Law. It could be called “vigilante Jihad” which is even a smaller sin.

    • You’re still evading the question of what he did. But it seems from your other comments that you think he killed an apostate.

      So, please bring proof that his victim was an apostate.

      • I did not try to evade the question. As you pointed out the explanation involves apostasy. That was my point the whole time. An apostate cannot be murdered. Killing him is another kind of sin if done illegally.

        Now you ask why Salman Taseer was an apostate. From your question I presume that you agree with the rulings I presented? If you don’t agree then the question is pointless since it would not matter whether he was an apostate or not.

        The first aspect of this question is what Mumtaz Qadri thought himself? He killed him because of an supposedly insulting statement to the Prophet. Before Taseer made this statement Qadri did not consider him an apostate. It was due to the statement. Qadri’s intention was totally sincere and therefore he is called a martyr. But he was not very learned about the issues I talk about like most scholar neither.

        So the second aspect is Taseer’s general apostasy. It’s a matter of understanding the basics of religious law. This understanding has been removed systematically from Muslims. But it can be read in the books I mentioned in this discussion.
        The correct understanding is the following: Every serviceperson or politician of an un-Islamic state is a disbeliever in the apparent ruling. Their apparent ruling is disbelief or apostasy. So even Mumtaz Qadri was an apostate from the apparent since he was a policeman. Of course ignorance is an excuse in many cases depending on the severity of disbelief. So most ordinary policemen are excused.
        Other beliefs or acts of apostasy cannot be excused by ignorance. This is the case for most party members like Taseer. There is no doubt in Taseer’s apostasy.

      • I forget to simply say that he was a secularist. A secularist is an apostate without debate anyway. So what’s the topic here?

    • “Every serviceperson or politician of an un-Islamic state is a disbeliever in the apparent ruling. Their apparent ruling is disbelief or apostasy.”

      So, just about every Grand Mufti for the last 150 years was an apostate worthy of death?

      “I forget to simply say that he was a secularist. A secularist is an apostate without debate anyway.”

      Labels don’t matter. What matters is what is said. And if he doesn’t commit open kufr, we consider him a Muslim.

      Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.

    • “The Muftis I know said the same. Others might have been excused because of ignorance and most were/are simply in denial of religion.”

      Way to avoid the question. Tell me, with a clear “yes” or “no”: are you ready to make takfir of 150 years of Grand Muftis?

      And again, if you can’t show his open kufr, you can’t make takfir of him.

    • “I mentioned above that there is no debate about the apostasy of this man. Who disagrees has to learn fundamental principles of religion.”

      Wait, are you saying that it’s fard to believe that Taseer was an apostate? Says who? You? Hizbis? ISIS? Funny how you can just come on here, say the most grave things, and just hand-wave the proof. If you want anyone here to believe you, then you better bring your proof. And no, the opinion of al-Shaybani is not “proof”.

      “No debate.” Well, my vision must be faulty, because I see a bunch.

      What’s more: I haven’t seen a single Mufti today say that working in the government of a non-Islamic nation today is an act of kufr. And you’d expect someone to say it unless they’re all a bunch of cowards.

  37. “He did something for the sake of religion and was killed because of this.”

    That “something” was killling someone.
    I presume doing simple things like being kind, merciful, honest, humble for the sake of religion means little to you (although these are so badly needed these days, but you wouldn’t notice that).
    Only killing (or worse) deserves to be called “something” by you. You are probably one of those people with no life whatsoever, and so bored to death that you have become completely insensitive to goodness.
    Idle hands are the devil’s workshop, as they say

    • Well, you are excluding while I accept all the mentioned acts as good too. If someone gets killed for “being kind, merciful, honest, humble for the sake of religion” I will accept it as martyrdom. So I have no problem here since you are the one who excludes.

  38. @jutki

    “The deed itself was maybe a minor offence.”
    “Maybe” is how you described it. Wow. Congratulations for demonstrating your expertise on this matter. And anyways, who are you to decide? Killing is a big matter in any case but you adopt a somewhat reductionist approach to the matter. It’s desensitising but unfortunately not surprising. This approach is widely adopted today much to the detriment to society.

    “Some talk about vigilante justice and this would only be a small sin in such cases.”
    Where’s the proof for your claim? It’s must be really pleasing to make claims like this but never have to back them up. How exactly do you class a sin as being small or big? How do the circumstances change the magnitude of the sin? And who exactly are the “Some” that talk about this justice? The Salafis/Wahhabis?
    You certainly create more questions than you do giving answers.

    “But the term vigilante justice does not apply to this case anyway. That’s clear from Islamic Law.”
    If it did not apply here, why mention it at all?

    “It could be called “vigilante Jihad” which is even a smaller sin.”
    Now you’re just making stuff up. You do great justice to the existence of this website as it tries to clear up what people like you come out with: Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. You make up a term and then seek to classify it according to your own methodology just like Salafis like to do.

    Do everyone a favour and take your reatrded spamming elsewhere.

    • What’s your problem Bediuzamin? If you have questions then ask them or discuss if you don’t agree. You don’t need this hostility if you are for sincere debate. I don’t like what many people say and it pisses me off but I stay calm so that we can talk. There is no good in hatred and demagogy.

      Regarding the first paragraph, what kind of sin killing is depends on the case. Killing a Muslim for instance is a major sin. The Qur’an says that a murderer of a Muslim is in eternal hell. The eternity is not literal but it aims to show a sever punishment.

      Regarding your killing of non-Muslims there are many nuances. In general the life of a human being is holy since it is a creation of God and even a special one. So destroying/killing a creation of God without reason is a sin in general whether it is an animal, human, plant etc..

      In order to kill a human legitimately an official way is needed. This way is specified by the law of religion. Because of the previously mentioned sanctification of life killing outside the official way is a sin. The question is how big this sin is depending on the killed person?
      There we have a distinction between Muslims, Dhimmis, Harbis under contract of security, Harbis and apostates. The order of listing represents the severity of sin of killing one of them. However an apostate is even more inferior. A Harbi has the chance to become a Dhimmi always. So killing a Harbi is still a murder while killing an apostate is merely a break of the law concerning the official way of killing. Killing an apostate can only be vigilante justice or “vigilante Jihad” which are both sins but in many cases minor ones. It’s not a murder.

      “And who exactly are the “Some” that talk about this justice? The Salafis/Wahhabis?”

      “Some” are nearly all who talk about this issue. So those talking about this issue are mostly Deobandis and Barelvis. I didn’t hear any Salafis talking about this. Seems like you have to mention Salafis and Wahhabis in every occasion. The dozens of thousands attendants of the funeral were Barelvis and ordinary Muslims. Most say it was vigilante justice and shouldn’t be done but his intention was right.

      I say it was not vigilante justice which exists in Islamic law as an offence but “vigilante Jihad” that exists in concept but maybe not the exact term. The reason for me saying this is because vigilante justice can only happen in a state where Islamic law is implemented. In states where there is no Islamic law we talk about Jihad i.e an act war. Acts of war have conditions and if they are not met it can be invalid or sinful. That’s the case for “vigilante Jihad”.

      “Now you’re just making stuff up. You do great justice to the existence of this website as it tries to clear up what people like you come out with: Nonsense. Absolute nonsense. You make up a term and then seek to classify it according to your own methodology just like Salafis like to do. ”

      Stop insulting. I am not talking bullshit here but presenting Islamic law. I learned this basically from Hanafi books and the Qur’an. If you want to learn you can start with Kitab al-Siyar al-Saghir from Muhammad Shaybani which is translated to English and available online. Siyar is the science of war. You can read it. There is also another book by Shaybani on this topic which is also commented upon by Sarakhsi. It’s all there and clear. If you only read English you can start with the first one.

      So I would like you to read it and then we can talk about it. God bless.

      • “What’s your problem Bediuzamin? If you have questions then ask them or discuss if you don’t agree. You don’t need this hostility if you are for sincere debate. I don’t like what many people say and it pisses me off but I stay calm so that we can talk. There is no good in hatred and demagogy.”

        We had a good discussion on the Mu’tazilites but you purposely posted a ridiculous comment that no doubt irked me. I don’t care whatever your personal views are but if they ain’t relevant, don’t air them on this website.

        “Regarding the first paragraph, what kind of sin killing is depends on the case. Killing a Muslim for instance is a major sin. The Qur’an says that a murderer of a Muslim is in eternal hell. The eternity is not literal but it aims to show a sever punishment.”

        First of all, cite the exact quotation from the Qur’an because it’s a serious matter that everyone needs to see. And that so called “apostate” you speak of (I do not agree with what that man said about the Prophet ﷺ) but nonetheless he openly was a Muslim and we are supposed to see him as that (per Al Tahāwī s statement in his Aqeedah work)

        “Regarding your killing of non-Muslims there are many nuances. In general the life of a human being is holy since it is a creation of God and even a special one. So destroying/killing a creation of God without reason is a sin in general whether it is an animal, human, plant etc..”

        Well if you read some of the intellectual works of the latest scholars commenting on Islam and the Modern World, you will find that they deplore how Muslims no longer adhere to this commandment. Extremists believe killing will achieve a high status in the sight of Allah. But crucially, they believe that killing non Muslims is the best thing ever. Period. Most Muslims don’t even care to look after the environment or seek to help in tackling worldwide issues. So although your point is relevant, it remains theoretical.

        “Killing an apostate can only be vigilante justice or “vigilante Jihad” which are both sins but in many cases minor ones. It’s not a murder.”
        I seriously ask you to consider what you are writing. This idea of “vigilante justice” is really stupid. Killing anyone, especially if it is done by a vigilante, is murder. Only a qualified judge can pass a ruling after a fair trial and only the legal officials can carry out the punishment. Clearly this did not happen in the case we are discussing.
        Now your logic makes me think. The Prophet ﷺ was constantly insulted and mocked in his years in Mecca. Yet never did he retaliate nor did he sanction “vigilante justice” after finally triumphing over the Meccan Quraysh. He preferred method was justice and forgiveness: characteristics that match the teachings of the Qur’an. It is actually a famous accusation of Orientalists that the Prophet ﷺ organised assassinations. If we Muslims cannot acquire these characteristics, then sadly we are doomed and it would be a failure on honouring the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ legacy.
        As well as this, the 3rd Rightly Guided Caliph, Uthman, was assassinated in 651 CE. Now the perpetrators were rebels who professed Islam but nonetheless they still went ahead and cold heartedly carried out what correlates quite nicely with your “vigilante justice”. Their actions were wrong but they believed Uthman was an innovator so they believed that they had the correct intention (which was erroneous much to their blinded egos). This is not to directly compare Caliph Uthman with Iqbal but just to show you how far ” vigilante justice” can get out of hand. Caliphs were assassinated in this way!

        “Seems like you have to mention Salafis and Wahhabis in every occasion.”
        Well these people hide behind Islam and carry out destructive actions that affect everyone, not just Muslims. All Islamists are linked to these groups. Therefore, I will mention them on every occasion necessary.

        “Most say it was vigilante justice and shouldn’t be done but his intention was right.”. But that’s the bone of the contention. If a person can take the law into his own hands, whose to stop others from doing so? It breeds chaos. It is up to the State to decide how justice but Pakistan, as many academics like to state, is in essence a flawed state. It cannot control its people or apply law justly. To quote Imam Razi (d.1209):

        “Justice is the axis of the prosperity of the world”. Wisdom indeed.

        “I say it was not vigilante justice which exists in Islamic law as an offence but “vigilante Jihad” that exists in concept but maybe not the exact term. The reason for me saying this is because vigilante justice can only happen in a state where Islamic law is implemented. In states where there is no Islamic law we talk about Jihad i.e an act war. Acts of war have conditions and if they are not met it can be invalid or sinful. That’s the case for “vigilante Jihad”.

        No not really. You’ve just made all that up. Show me reference to textbooks that espouse this idea of ” vigilante justice ” or at least allude to it.

        “I am not talking bullshit here but presenting Islamic law. I learned this basically from Hanafi books and the Qur’an. If you want to learn you can start with Kitab al-Siyar al-Saghir from Muhammad Shaybani which is translated to English and available online. Siyar is the science of war. You can read it. There is also another book by Shaybani on this topic which is also commented upon by Sarakhsi. It’s all there and clear. If you only read English you can start with the first one.”

        I’ll admit I haven’t studied Hanafi Law much but I will never, I repeat never, attempt to study classical texts on my own and without a teacher. It’s highly dangerous to the development of a Muslim. And I don’t you should recommend people to read texts on dealing with war independently. Sounds Salafi orientated thinking to me…

      • “First of all, cite the exact quotation from the Qur’an because it’s a serious matter that everyone needs to see. And that so called “apostate” you speak of (I do not agree with what that man said about the Prophet ﷺ) but nonetheless he openly was a Muslim and we are supposed to see him as that (per Al Tahāwī s statement in his Aqeedah work) ”

        I mentioned above that there is no debate about the apostasy of this man. Who disagrees has to learn fundamental principles of religion.

        “Well if you read some of the intellectual works of the latest scholars commenting on Islam and the Modern World, you will find that they deplore how Muslims no longer adhere to this commandment. Extremists believe killing will achieve a high status in the sight of Allah. But crucially, they believe that killing non Muslims is the best thing ever. Period. Most Muslims don’t even care to look after the environment or seek to help in tackling worldwide issues. So although your point is relevant, it remains theoretical. ”

        This is humanist ideology.

        Regarding my explanations about vigilante justice I am not sure if you understood what I meant. I said vigilante justice is a sin like “vigilante Jihad”. The second is simply doing a Jihad-action without the support of a state. Both of them are sins. In some cases they are bigger sins than in others. In this case where we have the killing of an apostate there is no sin in killing but vigilante action (maybe).

      • “Who disagrees has to learn fundamental principles of religion.”

        Well you’re the ultimate authority on this matter it seems so obviously we cannot argue against your thinking. I’m just not sure how well you know the fundamentals to indirectly ask people on this website to blindly follow your views…

        “This is humanist ideology.”

        What are you on about? I’m relaying what modern intellectual scholars who are genuinely concerned about for the conditions of Muslims and the Modern World and you just dismiss it as “humanist ideology”. You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Islam does have a humanistic aspect but it is not secular obviously. Islam, in comparison to other religions, quite arguably commands its adherents to take more care of animals and the environment in an explicit manner.
        But then again, you’re more concerned with apostates and aggressive in trying to persuade others to agree with your position.

        “Regarding my explanations about vigilante justice I am not sure if you understood what I meant. I said vigilante justice is a sin like “vigilante Jihad”. The second is simply doing a Jihad-action without the support of a state. Both of them are sins. In some cases they are bigger sins than in others. In this case where we have the killing of an apostate there is no sin in killing but vigilante action (maybe).”

        They were not explanations at all. They were your way of viewing things and you pretty much avoided every question people posed to you by merely rehashing your incoherent arguments. There is no such thing as “vigilante justice” and it can never be justified. It breaks any law. Terrorist groups would be applauding your comments because this thinking is what they convert into action.
        Essentially, you’re just waffling and you can never back up your points. Why don’t you ever produce the references rather than telling people to go look for it themselves?

        You’re comment was designed to be inflammatory hence why I did ask mmmclmru to delete it. Please do everyone a favour and stop sprouting your crap.

      • “Who disagrees has to learn fundamental principles of religion.”

        I did not formulate this very well. Of course you have your principles. But when I want to prove something to you it will not work since we are not judging things with the same principles. So we would have to agree in the principles first.
        For me it is so crystal clear that Salman Taseer was an apostate. But I admit that I will not be able to prove it to you since you have different principles.
        We can only present our views but there is no point in discussing them further.

        My principles in law issues are classical. I simply follow the rules that are written in the law books. If you don’t accept these classical books I will not be able to prove anything to you.

        And about principles of thinking and believing we differ even more fundamentally. Your approach is humanist-methaphysical while mine is supremacist-critical. I do not accept what you postulate as being morally wrong or right. I do not accept the modern age and it’s values.
        When you say you are not secularist it might be true from the apparent side. But your whole thinking is based on the secular indoctrination we have all gone through. Some have accepted it fully, some became Salafis and some tried to reconcile it with religion like you. Though Salafis are trying to reconcile much too.
        I was indoctrinated but I was able to come out of it. Like everyone I believed in democracy and “science” and my view on religion was influenced by this. But I started to think critically and emancipated myself from the indoctrination. You are not emancipated from it but you try to reconcile. Based on this philosophies and convictions you are building up religion.

        As an example we have the issue of apostasy. This punishment is against the basic modern humanist and secular principles. It is absolutely unacceptable. But instead of saying upholding the supremacy of religion in all aspects you are compromising. Since you say religion is rational (what is totally true) you could say someone who rejects it is irrational and an irrational person may deserve a punishment. You have absolutely no rational reason nor historical/textual basis to reject this punishment. You do it just because you don’t like to be called barbarians.

        The same goes with evolution. Instead of showing that the theory is not clearly proven and cannot be proven in any case from an empirical-critical perspective you just accept it because you don’t want to be called stupid or you feel intelligent by accepting it. Based on a theory about happenings in the past which is per se only a more or less probable reconstruction and not a fact you are denying clear verses from the Qur’an about the first Human. This is disgusting!!!

      • “I did not formulate this very well.”
        Damn right you didn’t. You can’t form a coherent response to anyone. Then you just repeat yourself to mask the problem.

        “But I admit that I will not be able to prove it to you since you have different principles.”

        Myself, neutralminstrel and even the Catholic Commentator all disagree with you. So clearly its you who has “different principles”. You, like many other people who comment on this website, have some weird obsession with apostates and Capital punishment. And you’re not going to stop talking crap until we submit to your views.

        “My principles in law issues are classical. I simply follow the rules that are written in the law books. If you don’t accept these classical books I will not be able to prove anything to you.”

        Waffling a load of nonsense isn’t getting you anywhere. I don’t reject classical texts but I don’t blindly follow something that I haven’t studied myself. It is my intention to study the Hanafi way properly and intensely at some point in the near future. Because you’re consumed by your ego, I cannot at all trust what you say. No one can. Especially because you can’t back up your points and just tell us to read for ourselves.

        “And about principles of thinking and believing we differ even more fundamentally. Your approach is humanist-methaphysical while mine is supremacist-critical. I do not accept what you postulate as being morally wrong or right. I do not accept the modern age and it’s values.
        When you say you are not secularist it might be true from the apparent side. But your whole thinking is based on the secular indoctrination we have all gone through. Some have accepted it fully, some became Salafis and some tried to reconcile it with religion like you. Though Salafis are trying to reconcile much too.”

        Yeah, now you’re just bullshitting here. “Your approach is humanist-methaphysical while mine is supremacist-critical.”. I’m guessing you didn’t think when you wrote that. It makes no sense at all. You yourself have gone through secular education
        You went all theoretical previously about how religion teaches people to care for life and suddenly you disregard that? Call it ” humanist ideology”? I’m guessing you must be chuffed into thinking you can write arguments yet delude yourself into thinking they are coherent.You’ve trapped yourself into believing that only your worldview is right and everyone has to agree with it. Exactly like the Salafis!

        “I was indoctrinated but I was able to come out of it. Like everyone I believed in democracy and “science” and my view on religion was influenced by this.”
        Hahaha you sound like Marxist when they talk about how the Proletariat should become class conscious as opposed to false class conscious. I suppose you’ve become conscious about…Democracy and Science. Like Al Qaeda, Isis, Hezbollah etc.

        “But I started to think critically and emancipated myself from the indoctrination. You are not emancipated from it but you try to reconcile. Based on this philosophies and convictions you are building up religion.”
        But exactly how is it that you have escaped this indoctrination? Many scholars have understood that Muslims are facing a massive crisis in the Modern World with all these ideologies and “-isms” being propagandisied. Now you’re somewhat claiming you’ve escaped this and have all the answers. Please do tell us what many scholars are currently struggling to fight.
        You clearly have managed to do the impossible and freed yourself from indoctrination. Unless you reject the efforts of those scholars because they are apostates for working in an “Unislamic nation” (which you do). Hey if you can guess the kind of person I am and what I’m Influenced by, I can just as easily call you extremist who is deluded.
        If anything, you’re as bad as an Isis supporter.

        “As an example we have the issue of apostasy. This punishment is against the basic modern humanist and secular principles. It is absolutely unacceptable.”
        Clearly you reject anything that this website has produced in tackling the issue of apostasy (no doubt because your an extremist who has “different principles”).
        Mmmclmru has gone through so much trouble to clarify the issue which you probably ignored. The Hanafis of Al Azhar in Egypt have made no capital punishment for Apostasy their official stance. All they all wrong? Are you willing to do Takfir on them?

        “You do it just because you don’t like to be called barbarians.” And you do it because you’re thinking its for the “Deen”. Deluded.

        “The same goes with evolution. Instead of showing that the theory is not clearly proven and cannot be proven in any case from an empirical-critical perspective you just accept it because you don’t want to be called stupid or you feel intelligent by accepting it. Based on a theory about happenings in the past which is per se only a more or less probable reconstruction and not a fact you are denying clear verses from the Qur’an about the first Human. This is disgusting!!!”

        Bravo, you’ve just committed intellectual suicide. You believe that I’m a Secularist (along with others) simply for rejecting punishment for Apostasy in this case. The ultimate proof! You don’t even know me yet your willing to make these sweeping statements. Proper extremist. You didn’t even respond to any of my previous comments such as the assassination of Caliph Uthman via “vigilante justice”.
        Are you going to make it Fard for people to make Takfeer on me and then call for “vigilante justice” against me?
        I don’t even accept human evolution but you just randomly assume I do. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you are so stupid in the way you present yourself. If you realise that people will not agree with you on your position, why continue to propagate it? Does it make you feel smart? You’re not a scholar simply because you read a few books. That’s not how it works. Therefore, you cannot issue a statement and then expect people to follow you so blindly.

        And all this bullshit you’re coming out with is “disgusting!!!”

      • So, your “principles” include doing taqlid of Kitabayn al-Siyar? Because that’s what it seems like, as you haven’t been able to substantiate any of your “this is from the fundamentals” bits. So, what is it? Have you studied it like other people have, shuruh and all, and asked different people from different schools for their proofs on their positions? Have you studied the positions of Siyar and seen how they measure up to the usul formulated by Karkhi, Sarakhsi, et al?

        As for this gigantic strawman you’ve propped up for yourself, “believing in science” and all, what the hell? Who said anyone here believes in evolution? Also what’s wrong with agreeing with evolution if you’re an occasionalist Ash’ari?

        Also, this accusation that one can only reject execution for apostasy if we reject critical interpretation of source texts – it is nonsense. I just think that one shouldn’t be able to kill another person based on an ahad hadith from a Kharijite.

        To me, it just seems like you are one of those reactionaries who are too afraid to use their own heads.

  39. @Jukti

    “I learned this basically from (…) and the Qur’an.”

    That’s the usual non-referenced bluff. For all we know, you might be a non-Muslim who’s never read any verse of the Qur’an. I can only repeat the verse I quoted a few times ago :

    2.79 “Therefore woe be unto those who write the Scripture with their hands and then say, “This is from Allah,” that they may purchase a small gain therewith. Woe unto them for that their hands have written, and woe unto them for that they earn thereby. “

  40. @Jukti

    “He killed him because of an supposedly insulting statement to the Prophet. Before Taseer made this statement Qadri did not consider him an apostate. It was due to the statement. Qadri’s intention was totally sincere and therefore he is called a martyr. ”

    You say “supposedly” insulting, you do not seem sure.
    Yet you seem sure that Qadri was “totally sincere”. How would you know that ? Have you met Qadri in person ? How did Qadri form his judgement about this “supposedly” insulting statement ?

    • I just wanted to avoid discussion about what the man stated. Therefore I said it was supposedly. For Qadri it was not supposedly but for sure.
      I know for sure what the man was (secularist apostate). I don’t need one particular statement to judge him.

      • @Jukti

        I just asked you evdience for all your claims about Qadri and you simply repeated those claims. So I repeat, how do you know that “Qadri’s intention was totally sincere “, “For Qadri it was not supposedly but for sure.” etc

  41. @mmmclmru

    “I’m going to go back and delete each and every one of your comments BTW, so enjoy!”

    That guy Jukti felt it coming, it seems. This is why in some of his last comments he suddenly switched from his usual superior tone to a hippy-style, syrupy feel-good talk congratulating everyone here for the participation. He tried to buy you off from deleting his comments by making you feel valued (“mmmclrmu. But where is he? I would like to see what he thinks.”)

    I’m glad it didn’t succeed!

    This last attempt at face-saving is especially pathetic given all the efforts he’s put before into making a show of being “anti-humanist”, of “not caring about what other people say about him” etc

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s