Is It Permissible to join a Kaafir Army? A response, well sort of

Let me clearly state a few notable facts that I hope will guide those that may come to this blog with critical commentary as a result of the inevitable ruckus my post may create:

1.  I am NOT a Scholar of Islam, nor have I ever claimed to be, I’m just a friendly neighborhood American Muslim giving my opinions.

2.  By disagreeing with any fellow Muslim on any issue relating to our Deen it is merely a disagreement, nothing against that brother or sister directly as a person, just a respectful disagreement

Now that the particulars are out the way, please be mindful of point number 1. as much of the criticism will be related to the perceived, assumed, or accused “scholarship” that many may attribute to me, and I don’t want anyone to be confused as to where I’m coming from.

So I found a little gem on facebook an article written by a sincere brother Umar Lee, whom I have enjoyed reading over the years, entitled “Is It Permissible To Join A Kaafir Army?” this article was being heralded by many gotcha types who used his writing as proof about who Muslims “really” are and the “threat” we supposedly pose to “ordinary” Americans.

Given the method of dissemination, the author, and the title of the post, I was immediately intrigued and decided to further investigate as I did not appreciate Brother Umar being used as a tool against Muslims, as I seriously doubted that it would be the intention of brother Umar Lee to add to any hostilities against Muslims in the West.

His post is being promoted by some non-Muslims as if he is one of those “I used to be a Muslim” types, slamming Islam, which is far from the truth.

Be that as it may, once I actually read the post in question, I decided to write a pseudo-response because I have to admit Umar’s post and some of the pats on the back he received in the commentary from some of his readers touched a nerve with me on many levels.

So I decided it would be prudent and respectful to avoid an intense back and forth on his site and instead point out what issues he raised that I disagree with and why.

Now back to point 1. because I am not a scholar, this post will be devoid of any direct Qur’anic or Hadith exegesis, tafsir, etc.  if there are those who support or are against my positions that want to supply texts and commentary feel free to do so as it’s a very rare case that I reject any commentary.

Since I am not a scholar and this is a very serious topic, I would rather give my blunt opinion which is of course based on my understanding of the texts, but not in a way that would appear that I’m either deliberately or out of gross negligence or ignorance misrepresenting either the Qur’an or Hadith.  Now that the “disclaimer” is out of the way:

I would like to start out by addressing one of my main disagreements and it concerns the title that refers to the US Military as a “Kaafir Army”

I have to admit that assessment of the US Military alone struck me as over the top.  I know in some Muslim circles it has become cliche’ to call everything they disagree with as Kaafir, but I believe we have to be more intelligent about usage of that term and what it implies.

First of all, I don’t believe that everyone and everything that doesn’t fit within my Muslim worldview is automatically Kaafir.  As I understand it, Kaafir describes a person that is either one who denies the Oneness of God, or one prevents the knowledge about the truth of the Oneness of God to be shared.  Maybe I’m wrong, but if the Qur’an gives the very specific title to Christians and Jews as “People of the Book” then at least on the surface, barring that Christians and Jews don’t believe in the Oneness of God, then they cannot by definition be Kaafir.  If this is in fact the case, since the US has a population in which 75% of the citizens identify themselves as Christian, then that would also mean that by definition the majority of the US is not Kaafir.  Once you factor in how many citizens in the remaining 25% are Jews and Muslims, then the population of those who can seriously be considered actual Kaafirs living within US is minimal.  So if we were to use these rough estimates as a guide, statistically speaking, if the US raises an Army and it has of course, then we would have to accept  that by definition, given the numbers, it is highly unlikely that the Army could seriously be considered a “Kaafir Army” for a myriad of reasons chief among them being that the majority of soldiers are not Kaafirs but “People of the Book” but also, the mission of the US Military is not to promote the denial of the Oneness of God and not to prevent the free worship thereof.  This is why I think the title is a little too sensationalized for my taste.

Now to concerning the Arabic word and theological term “Kaafir”,  this one word has become so common place in some Muslim circles to identify anyone and anything that disagrees or rejects a particular Muslim worldview that it has become nothing more than a trifling attempt to disparage, name-call, and levy a barrage of accusations and insults.  This word has come to define an acceptable means to slur, label, or defame, doing such should have no place within Islamic belief, thought, or practice as it’s a deplorable means to an end that should be rejected for being against the basic decency and civility encouraged of Muslims in their interactions with others regardless of background.

Of course the US engages in activities and many of her citizens engage in practices that are often against the norms, beliefs, and traditions, of Muslims, however, that alone does not necessarily make them Kaafir, but a myriad of other things which we have terms for.  Most can be identified simply as sinners and maybe even guilty of shirk neither of which identify a person or entity automatically as Kaafir.

It is my belief that some Muslims use the slur “Kaafir” in this manner instead of the term “sinner” because “Kaafir” hides the individual hypocrisy of the accuser veiled in language and theology in a way the term “sinner” could not.

If one were to accuse another of being a sinner their hypocrisy would become manifest as many are guilty of sin in some form or another.  The term “sinner” has a way of equalizing the field of the accuser and the accused humanizing each in a way “Kaafir” cannot.  Using loaded and lofty terms to judge others gives the accuser the means by which to dehumanize the accused vocally and it becomes easier not to see another human being but an “other” unworthy of compassion or respect in any form.  It’s easier to give criticism of this nature and seriousness when the accused is looked at through the prism of inferiority.

Another issue I had with the brother’s posting and the commentary that followed, was the manufactured issue that somehow having US citizenship is in direct competition or should be seen as separate from one’s faith.  It was alleged that many Muslims in the US value their citizenship above Islam…

I believe it almost impossible to address this issue seriously without addressing the cultural background and or perspectives of those who allege such things as I believe that culture does affect religious ideology and points of view.  As such, my perspective on this issue reflects my background as a Black man in America, who’s origin and roots in this nation extend several centuries to those Africans who first arrived here in chains as slaves.  This background shapes my perspective rooted in the pride I have as a descendant of those very slaves who by the sweat of their brow, immense pain, and unbelievable suffering still with faith in their God many of whom called Him Allah (swt), helped build this nation brick, by brick, in more ways than one.  While I will spare my readers the history lesson, know that my pride in being an American has a lot to do with the history of this nation and the role my ancestors played in it’s creation.  To me, who I am and what I believe are not mutually exclusive.  I know that it was the belief in God that sustained my ancestors in their sojourn in this nation.  I know that faith is rooted firmly in my culture and people.  Our pride in our homeland is tempered by our reliance and faith in God.  My pride in the title “American” stems from all these things and therefore, it’s near impossible for me to distinguish my faith from the land in which God has blessed my people to strive in.

Maybe the targets of these types of commentary are Muslims who are either 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. generation Muslims who originate from “Muslim” countries, I don’t know.  But what I do know as far as I’m concerned, is that my acceptance of Islam as my faith, did not automatically disconnect me from the country of my origin, I did not receive an official membership card, t-shirt, or baseball cap that officially identified and recognized me as a universal citizen of the “Muslim World” with the right to live or travel to any Muslim country of my choosing.

In fact, as I understand it, in most Muslim countries my black butt would be ran out of there so fast and for so many reasons too numerous to discuss in this particular post, that it’s almost too ridiculous to consider the possibility of visiting the “Muslim World” let alone calling it my home.

It is an illusion to suggest that outside the confines of the nation in which you are born and raised that there exists this Muslim World that embraces any who claim the title of Muslim.  The very post in which I am responding is proof of that.  It’s not real and it does not exist period, it’s a fantasy that Muslims tell themselves in order to stroke the ego and ignore the realities of our 1.3 billion member divided community.  Racism, Tribalism, and a myriad of isms’ are huge issues within the Muslim community so much so that even in the United States Mosques are often segregated as a result.

We can deny it and pretend it’s not there, but try being the African American Muslim and go into a majority Arab, South Asian, and  even  some AFRICAN Mosques.  Note the way you are treated then go to a majority African American Mosque and note the way your treated and then get back to me about this Ummah that exists that is more important to maintain a tie to than the nation in which your forefathers built on their backs by the whip?

I just can not buy into this line of thinking.  Maybe it is my cultural reality and worldview. Islam is my way of life, not a way to govern my loyalty to this piece of land or that, all of which belongs to God.  Islam determines how I see Our Creator and by which means I submit. How I talk, how I live, how I eat, etc. all are governed by Islam.  What I don’t happen to see or agree with is that Islam determines what countries I should be a citizen of or which countries I should deny outright.

When I hear one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty, and justice for all, I just happen to believe that those are Islamic principles, maybe  I’m just an ignorant black convert as some will dismissively suggest.

I’m just not feeling this line of arguments and what they imply, I’m not Arab, Pakistani, Somali, etc.  this is my country, my nation, and where I practice Islam, I have no ties or desires for any other place, and if you happen to live in America and do have these ideas and desires, then to be quite frank, no one is making you stay here, if it’s so great in the “Muslim World” I’m certain you can go there.  Just saying…

A very specific question that was asked I also felt deserved a response of sorts:

It is permissible to join an army that calls for the men to shave their beards, salute the kufr flag and judge by other than what Allah revealed?

This one series questions summarize why I mentioned the cultural issues that run rampant within the Ummah and which I believe govern for the most part, this entire discussion.

What in the world does having a beard or not have to do with being a Muslim?  Islam originates with the Originator, it has been in existence since God has been in existence, it has no beginning and no end.  How people dress, groom, etc. has no bearing on one’s soul, especially over one’s heart and actions.  I wouldn’t care if your beard touched the floor, you can be just as much a sinner as someone who waxes all their hair!  It’s just ridiculous, defies all logic, and highlights one of the huge problems within our community.  If we can’t accept people based on their hearts and actions, and only care about their outward appearance, then we are in more trouble than we think, and sadly this is the modus operandi of many Muslims today.

These unfortunate ideas are wonderfully exhibited in this illogical chain of argument that suggests that due to US Military grooming standards requiring men to shave that this is proof of their “Kaafir” nature.  I have to laugh to stop from crying, because many Muslims think like this even if your not in the Military.  There are those who will judge this or that brother based on whether or not they have a beard.  Go into some of the aforementioned Mosques without a beard or not dressed in various others’ cultural garb, and tell them your Muslim and see how they look at you.  Decide to dress and look like the country of YOUR birth and they will often accuse you of not being Muslim in some shape or another, as If God really cares how much hair we have or our style of clothing outside of being half-naked!

On the entire “Kufr” flag thing, I already gave my opinion on the usage of this word, but let me reiterate here that a flag is a thing not a person, so it can’t be “Kufr”.  Now if we are stating this to loosely mean the people in the nation by which the flag represents, then I maintain my original argument, if want to talk about the principles in which the flag represents, then I challenge the critics to explain how the principles of America are against the principles of Islam.

That would be a more meaningful discussion than loosely looking at a flag and calling it Kufr.  I’m really curious what Muslims who share this opinion think about the flags of countries such as I don’t know, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Sudan, Egypt, etc. you know all those predominantly Muslim countries where the streets overflow with milk and honey.

As far as the last part of the questioning that mentions “Judging by other than what Allah (swt) revealed”, this is a topic within a topic…, within a topic…, which I doubt any Muslim would seriously want to tackle the task of going into that at length, especially when no two Muslims barely agree on the same interpretation of “that which Allah (swt) revealed” let alone how to apply that in the legal sense.

Let’s not dumb down the discussion by loosely affiliating anything seen “American” as automatically Kufr, once again, I have to add, that no one is making those Muslims who hold these opinions that happen to live in the US stay here.  Feel free to go to non-Kufr lands, is wish you good luck on your quest.

The final question to which I feel compelled to address is:

If a group of Muslims in Mecca attacked the United States and the US Army wanted to retaliate by taking the haram, would it still be permissible to join the kufr army?

This question in my opinion, was stated as a “gotcha” question that’s very ridiculous when you actually think about it.  Call me uncle Tom, Kaffir appeasing Muslim, etc. I really don’t care.

However, I do believe that experience often trumps shouting from behind a keyboard about things one has no real life clue about.  There is nothing, zero, nada, in any official policy, directive, etc. from the DOD or any Federal Institution that I have been apart of or experienced, that states that it is the mission of the US to attack Muslims or Islam.  Even in those countries where the US does have troops, agents, etc. rightly or wrongly, the US goes through great pains to try to respect cultural sensibilities and minimize the deaths of innocents overall.

The US is also the NUMBER ONE provider of funds to “Muslim Countries” in terms of aid.  When earthquakes, tsunamis, etc. strike Muslim countries, the first country to ordinarily donate funds and give aid both federally and through private citizens is the US, not oil rich and other wealthy Muslim nations, but the good ole “Kaffir” US.

Even if terrorists, extremists, etc. were to attack the US from Mecca, using past and recent history as a guide, aside from the rhetoric of some Americans, in that situation were it to theoretically occur, the US would not glass Mecca, assault it, etc.  the US would most likely risk civil war within the US first, before making such a move as it deliberated and fought within the White House and Congress the best way to retaliate without having a US boot enter Mecca.  The US would most likely practically beg Saudi Arabia and neighboring countries to go to Mecca on their behalf since they are Muslim before it would even consider fighting in Mecca, let alone Saudi Arabia.  We all know this to be true, so let’s stop with the sensationalism.

For all the military might the US has, it would rather risk the lives of it’s volunteer citizens in countries all over the world hostile to the US justifiably or not.  The US at the troop level gives its soldiers lengthy cultural training classes, spends billions of dollars trying to improve the quality of life of the countries we are at war with, and when incidents do occur, the military often will throws it’s own troops whom they trained to kill under the bus, to gain the respect of, and to ease tensions within Muslim countries.

What we never seem to discuss when we are bashing the “Kufr” Army is that the US could just do as the Romans did or any other militarily superior country did in centuries past and just totally disregard the beliefs, practices, etc. of the nations they are at war with and just do what they want.  The US could save it’s manpower and save billions of dollars and just nuke Muslim countries into submission if that’s what it really wanted as so many are quick to suggest, and there really wouldn’t be anything anyone save God could do about it.

America could just do a proper invasion and insurgent pacifying operation that included killing everyone first regardless, until there were no threats.  I mean it’s not outside the US capabilities.  HOWEVER, do we see that?  No, what we see is Americans trying their best to fight for a cause, again rightfully, or wrongfully, that has nothing to do with Islam or Muslims as a whole, even though those they are fighting against happen to well at least claim to be Muslim, all the while allowing US kids to go without food, education, healthcare, etc. as it spends billions of dollars trying to ensure others around the world get these things.  Again, maybe it’s cultural perspective, because I’m not buying it.

Is it lawful/permissible for Muslims to join the US Armed Forces and by extension any of her federal agencies? I will leave that up to the scholars who are mostly mute on this issue save those who are in many cases from countries where it’s easier to criticize the US than it is to criticize their own regimes, that too I will leave for another discussion.

What I will say it what I have since becoming a Muslim to all who have emailed me or asked me in some other fashion the very same thing:  Go with your individual heart.  If you feel that it’s not a good idea for any reason, don’t join, it’s a volunteer force and no one is begging or forcing you.  If however, you feel that the principles in which these services and their various and diverse missions stand for and believe are similar to your own, than feel free.

Personally, I see the US and the US Military as a force for good overall.  If I were ever in a briefing, discussion, etc. where the expressed idea and intention was to destroy Muslims for being Muslim or Islam, I would have turned by chevrons in and in my civilian capacity resigned from my position.  However, I have never come across such and I doubt I ever will.  What I do see and have seen is a country with principles that closely mirror what I believe are in keeping with the highest principles of Islam, that recognize God and our choice to serve Him, that recognize service to humanity in a myriad of ways as amicable and good traits, that seek to protect and defend the weak against tyranny and oppression, that seek to give aid to those who are in need, and much, much, more.  These are the principles our the US Military, these are the principles of Americans in general.  Of course, we are not perfect, and I’m certain the critics are not either, many of whom ironically live in the very country that gives them the freedom to call America “Kufr” and quite frankly I can think of no other country I would rather live in, practice my faith, and raise my family, regardless of the which religious box the majority of the inhabitants check in their census.

If America was so evil and so “Kufr” then why do so many come here?  Why not go to your home countries and change the conditions there?  Why not fight for those things you care about and be willing to sacrifice your lives to establish those beliefs, as we Americans did?

The truth is, Muslims have no one to blame but the reflection in the mirror.  “Our” countries are some of the most un-Islamic countries on the planet, yet the majority of the inhabitants claim Islam as their religion.  “We” are a bunch of hypocrites.

Articles such as the one I am commenting on reflect the condition in which I openly criticize, where we find it much easier to call others “Kufr” but never criticize the very countries in which Muslims live that have way more in common with the term “Kufr” than America.

A wise man once said you can judge a people by the condition in which you find their women.

Do I need to return fire and begin a discourse on the status of women in Islam versus that which we see everyday in Muslim countries?

Do I need to begin a discourse on the rights of minorities in Islam versus that which we see everyday in Muslim countries?

What about the poor, the orphan, or the wayfarer?

What about education and access basic human rights?

In truth, what I really want to say to my brothers and sisters pointing the finger at the US and throwing around terms like “Kufr” toward America and Americans, to be blunt in a non-PC manner utilizing the street vernacular common in my culture and really not caring what my readers think, is “negro please”.

Only in America and countries similar can you enjoy the freedoms necessary to practice our faith according to the various interpretations that we have, and have those beliefs and practices protected by law.

Only in America and countries similar can you enjoy the freedoms necessary to act out your choices and preferences such as whether or not you wear a beard or not, study or belong to various schools of thought or not, etc. and have the freedom to openly criticize the Government, it’s leaders, and institutions, etc. all at the same time, also protected by the law.

Only in America and countries similar are these rights not only expected but guaranteed and for those things you don’t like, there are processes in place to change them by peaceful means at the ballot.

Only in America and countries similar, can you expect those who you will readily call “Kufr” to volunteer and if necessary die in the process to not only protect your right to say and believe whatever you want about them, but cheerfully do so, all the while as you enjoy your nice home, education, cable TV, etc.

The irony of the entire thing is that in the big scheme of things, the so-called “Kufr” do more universally for Muslims, than Muslims do for themselves.  Don’t believe me?  Watch what happens the next time there is a natural disaster in a Muslim country.

See who’s the first to promise billions in aid, send relief, troops, etc. to help and then see how many Muslim countries do the same and/or in the same degree.  I guarantee you, when the dust settles, America will still be criticized and no one will say a word against the Muslim countries.

So in the end, maybe I didn’t answer any of the questions that were raised, maybe I didn’t justify one way or the other whether or not it is permissible to join a Kaafir Army, and to be perfectly honest I don’t care.  But since we want to raise “serious” issues, let’s raise them, let’s come to the table and truly discuss the reality of what’s going on and not hide behind sensationalism or catchy rhetoric.  Let’s discuss if we are truly wanting to discuss, and evolve beyond unbecoming name-calling and insults.  Read the commentary on brother Umar Lee’s blog regarding this question, and you will see what I mean, everything from insulting other Muslim’s directly such as “the white Sheik” to whole-heartedly throwing Muslims who think like me under the proverbial bus as Uncle Tom’s and worse insinuating that our Islam is any less than theirs.

In the end, Allah (swt) Knows Best,

May Allah (swt) guide the Ummah in these difficult times,

Advertisements

25 Comments

  1. I was wondering what your thoughts were on this article? You seemed to answer them pointedly and directly. In the original article, I had some truly strong feelings with the statement that Umar Lee made about it being OK to join the “Kaafir Army”  “– unless your work can bring some benefits to the Muslims, such as giving information and secrets of the kaafirs to the Muslims so as to help the Muslims, or if your work is purely da’wah, such as giving khutbahs and leading prayers for the Muslims in the kaafir army whilst also advising them to avoid any work that will strengthen the kaafirs” .
    In my uneducated opinion, this is exactly what keeps us divided.

    Reply

  2. Brother, here is clarification on the issue of the status of Christians and Jews in Islam. Please read it and pay attention to the proofs they are bringing from the Quran and Sunnah. Shaykh Ibn Baz was one of the most prominent scholars of the 20th century and is still highly respected even now as an authority on Islam.
    From Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, 4/32, 33
    The Shaykh (may Allaah have mercy on him) said:
    The Jews and Christians are both kaafirs and mushrikeen. They are kaafirs because they deny the truth and reject it. And they are mushrikeen because they worship someone other than Allaah.
    Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
    “And the Jews say: ‘Uzair (Ezra) is the son of Allaah, and the Christians say: Messiah is the son of Allaah. That is their saying with their mouths, resembling the saying of those who disbelieved aforetime. Allaah’s Curse be on them, how they are deluded away from the truth!
    31. They (Jews and Christians) took their rabbis and their monks to be their lords besides Allaah (by obeying them in things which they made lawful or unlawful according to their own desires without being ordered by Allaah), and (they also took as their Lord) Messiah, son of Maryam (Mary), while they (Jews and Christians) were commanded [in the Tawraat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] to worship none but One Ilaah (God — Allaah) Laa ilaaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He). Praise and glory be to Him (far above is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)”
    [al-Tawbah 9:30, 31]
    Here they are described as mushrikeen. In Soorat al-Bayyinah they are described as kaafirs, as Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
    “Those who disbelieve from among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians) and Al‑Mushrikoon, were not going to leave (their disbelief) until there came to them clear evidence”
    [al-Bayyinah 98:1]
    It is most likely that the people of the Book are included among the mushrikeen, men and women alike, when this word is used in general terms. because the kuffaar are undoubtedly mushrikeen. Hence they are forbidden to enter al-Masjid al-Haraam, because Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning):
    “O you who believe (in Allaah’s Oneness and in His Messenger Muhammad)! Verily, the Mushrikoon (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allaah, and in the Message of Muhammad) are Najasun (impure). So let them not come near Al‑Masjid Al-Haraam (at Makkah) after this year”
    [al-Tawbah 9:28]
    If the People of the Book did not come under the general heading of mushrikeen, then this verse would not apply to them, and Allaah would not have referred to the beliefs of the Jews and Christians in Soorat Baraa’ah (al-Tawbah) where He says (interpretation of the meaning):
    “they (Jews and Christians) were commanded [in the Tawraat (Torah) and the Injeel (Gospel)] to worship none but One Ilaah (God — Allaah) Laa ilaaha illa Huwa (none has the right to be worshipped but He). Praise and glory be to Him (far above is He) from having the partners they associate (with Him)”
    [al-Tawbah 9:31]
    So they are all described as mushrikeen, because the Jews said that ‘Uzayr is the son of God and the Christians said that the Messiah is the son of God; and because they took their priests and rabbis as lords instead of Allaah. All of this is the worst form of shirk. And there are many similar verses. End quote.
    Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn Baaz, 4/274

    Reply

  3. “Kaffir”—-
    I am also not a scholar—(I would describe myself as an average muslim.)
    You wrote—“As I understand it, Kaafir describes a person that is either one who denies the Oneness of God, or one prevents the knowledge about the truth of the Oneness of God to be shared.”I agree with you —-interestingly— (according to my research)the usage of this word has changed over time.  According to Toshihiko Isutzu, (Arabic words are made out of root words—much like Hebrew) the root word for “Kafir” gives us the meaning “ungrateful”—thus the word kaffir has within it, the connotation of someone who rejects Guidance because they are ungrateful for it—but that also implies that they would have to have knowledge of this guidance to reject it. That is why, the Meccans before the “Revelation” were called “Jahiliya” (ignorant) rather than “Kaffir”.  Later, the word “Kaffir” was used as an insult between Muslims as they were debating various points of doctrine—because of the “understanding” that one has to “know”/understand something before rejecting it—thus the word applied most aptly to Muslims. This got to a stage where the word degenrated to a point where it had no meaning or value. At this time some Muslim scholars felt that the word needed to be defined. (Al-Gazzali—?) They used the methods of Jurisprudence(fiqh) to define it–and it was used in the sense of “law”–because that was were it was most useful at that time period—(more specifically, in defining the laws of treason). Today, the word is used indiscriminately. —-But in the Quran—it has a specific meaning.
    —One of the points we have to remember is that only God can judge who is a “believer”(momeneen), an “unbeliever”(Kafirun) or a” hypocrite”(munafiqeen) because only he knows what is in our hearts. The criteria given in the Quran should be used, not for judging others, but for judging ourselves.
    (We human beings have been created with potential. Guidance is given so that we can best fulfill the potential (noble purpose) for which we were created.)

    Reply

    1. Assalaamu alaykum,
      some scholars (like the ones yuo have taken this understanding from) are not worthy of the name.
      Allah uses the term Kafir in the Quran as already pointed out in the comments here.
      Rasoolullah (saws) also referred to Jews and Christians as Kuffar (as in the treaty of Medina).
      assalaamu alaykum,
      Abu Abdillah

      Reply

  4. It is permissible to join an army that calls for the men to shave their beards, salute the kufr flag and judge by other than what Allah revealed?

    I don’t think it is a valid question.  You are a free man.  Why do you need permission?

    This whole thread seems psychologically perverse to me.  Why do you enslave yourself to what someone else says you should or should not do?

    Who is the creator of the universe to tell you what to do?  Does he own you?  You are free.

    And if the (fictional) creator of the univserse does not own you, then why follow the dictates of his self-appointed spokesman?
    Isn’t it better to rely on principals and intelligence to liver your life, rather than rules?
    I have heard that “Islam” means submission.

    Sounds like it to me.  I think you are being mind controlled.  But then again, I think that that mind control is what religion is for.

    Reply

  5. Comment from Ibn Hazm Al Andalusi (RH)
    “As for your query about the fitnah with which the people are afflicted due to their indifference to the worsening political situation, we are now its victims and subject to its test. We seek Allah’s security from it. This is an evil fitnah in which religious norms are being destroyed, save for those who are protected by Allah. Its description needs a lengthy exposition. However, in the main it is that rulers of every city and fortress throughout al-Andalus of these days, from the begginning to the end, are enemies of Allah and His Messenger and are perpetuators of corruption (fasad) in the land. All that you see openly is that Muslims’ properties are being robbed and taken away. It is due to such rulers’ oppression. They permit their soldiers to commit highway robberies in the areas under their control. They have levied jizyah and exercise tax even upon Muslims. They have appointed Jews as their tax-lords to collect jizyah and other taxes from the Muslims. They make excuses for the necessity of such un-Islamic taxes and to make legitimate what has been prohibited by Allah. Their sole end is to perpetuate their rule and impose their laws by replacing the laws of Allah. Also do not be deceived by the behaviour of the evil-doing self-claimed religeous leaders who are wolves disguised in sheeps` clothing they adorn the evils of these evil-doers [rulers] with their own wickedness and support the rulers in their transgressions. By God, had these rulers seen that their rule would continue by worshipping the cross, they would have done so without hesitation. We see them that now they seek help from the Christians, make the Christians masters over Muslim men, women and children. They send Muslims as captives to their Christian masters, hand the Muslims’ lands over to the Christians willingly where the symbols of Islam are being replaced by the symbols of Christianity. “

    Reply

  6. Assalaamu alaykum,
    Here is a well thought out article on the issue by a UK brother., Abdul Aziz ibn Myatt.
    I can only hope robert and those like you read it as I have posted this sort of info before for you to read and take in but you seem to have ignored it and continued posting such rubbish as this, even when daleel is brought to you.
    How can you claim to only be a lay person and not know any better when evidence is brought to you but you put it one side and continue to follow your own ration and whims and desires in such posts?
    Assalaamu alaykum,
    Abu Abdillah

    Takfir, Ignorance, and Aiding the Kuffar
    Bismillah Ar-Rahman Ar-Raheem

    All Praise and All Thanks are for Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala to whom we shall all return to be judged on The Last Day.

    “From each and every direction He has the power to deliver misfortune to you – to sow confusion and dissension among you. Thus do We reveal our Signs, that you might understand them.” 6:65 Interpretation of Meaning

    What is Takfir?

    Takfir is declaring an individual, previously known to be or considered to be Muslim, to be a kaffir, an unbeliever. Takfir can also be declared upon a group. Thus, the individual or group are no longer part of the Ummah.

    Caution Regarding Takfir:

    Takfir is a serious issue, since it was authentically reported that the Prophet (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said:

    “If someone accuses someone of Fusuq or Kufr, such an accusation will be returned to be upon he [who so accused] if that accusation is false.” Narrated Abu Dhar. Bukhari: Vol 8, Book 73, number 71

    Thus, for such a declaration, there must be proof. According to Sheikh ul-Islam Ibn Taimiyyah (Rahimullah):

    “The person will only be outside Islam when there is no doubt because there is proof against him.” [Majamu Al-Fatwa 12, 467.]

    Furthermore, for a Muslim to become a kaffir, it is agreed that the person either commits one of the acts which expels the Muslim from the Ummah – such as mocking the Prophet (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) – or that the person must have chosen kufr (refer to al-Qurtubi: al-Jamia li Ahkamul Quran, 7/6128) in which case if a Muslim of little or no knowledge does something out of ignorance then that Muslim does not become a kaffir, for Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala says:

    “There shall be the Mercy of Allah upon those who err from ignorance if they, and swiftly, regret such error.” 4:17 Interpretation of Meaning

    Thus, if a Muslim we know makes some mistake, or errs, then Adab Al-Islam requires us – gently and with humility (and if possible in private) – to draw the attention of that Muslim to such a mistake or error. It was reported that the Prophet (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam) said:

    “There is no Believer who does not make an error sometimes, or who does not make some mistake which they persist in and do not abandon until they leave this world. For, in truth, the Believer was created to be frequently tried and tested: someone who often regrets (then) forgets, again. But when corrected, they correct themselves.” Reported by at-Tabarani in al-Mujamul Kabir (no. 11,810); hasan.

    Issues Regarding Takfir – Aiding the Kuffar:

    1) For takfir to be declared, the nullifiers of Islam must be known. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala says:

    “Allah does not lead a people astray after His guidance has been given until He makes clear to them wherein error lies.” 9: 115 Interpretation of Meaning

    Sheikh Muhammad ibn Abdul Wahab – Rahimahullah – gathered ten actions that negate one’s Islam (Nawaqid ul-Ashr), the eighth one of which states: “Assisting the disbelievers (against the believers) (Mudhaharatul Mushrikeen) and supporting them against the believers is one of the actions that negates of one’s Islam…” Thus, it is generally and widely known that one of these nullifiers of one’s Islam is supporting, aiding or allying with the kuffar against the Muslims. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala says:

    “Obey, follow and give allegiance only to that brought to you from your Sustainer, and do not obey, nor follow nor give allegiance to those who are Awliya’ besides Him.” 7:3 Interpretation of Meaning

    “You will not find any people who believe in Allah and the Last Day, making friendship with and loving those who oppose Allah and His Messenger (salla Allahu ‘alayhi wa sallam), even if they are their fathers or their sons or their kindred…” 58:22 Interpretation of the meaning

    In addition, as Sheikh Abdullah ibn Humaid said:

    “Whoever expresses Tawalli towards the disbelievers (Tawalli Kuffar) and supports and helps them against the believers, then such constitutes apostasy by one’s (proceeding) actions. It is obligatory to apply the rules of apostasy upon such a person as is proved by The Book, the Sunnah and the consensus of the scholars.” Ad-Durrar 15/479

    Furthermore, Sheikh Abdul Latif bin Abdur Rahman bin Hassan Aal-Sheikh said:

    “Whomsoever helps the disbelievers or brings them to the country of Ahl Al-Islam, then that person is clearly an apostate.” Ad-Durrar 8/326

    Also, as Sheikh Safar bin ‘Abdir-Rahmaan al-Hawaali said:

    “Aiding the Non-Muslims over Muslims – no matter which form of aid or co-operation it be, even if it is merely in speech – this is clear Kufr and sheer hypocrisy. The one who does this has perpetrated one of the actions which negates Islam, as has been specifically stated by the Imams of the Dawah and others, and such a person is not a believer in the Aqeedah of al-Wala and al-Bara.”

    Thus, we should be in no doubt that if a Muslim chooses to aid, ally themselves with, the kuffar against the Muslims then they have negated their Islam.

    2) Since we judge someone by what is apparent, it is apparent that if a Muslim joins the Armed Forces or the Police of the kuffar, and wears the uniform of the kuffar, then they have sworn allegiance to the kuffar and/or to some Taghut of the kuffar – such as a President, some nation-State, or some kaffir leader – since such allegiance is a necessary part of joining and belonging to such kaffir organizations. In addition, a Muslim pledges thereby to uphold the fallible manufactured laws of the kuffar and to obey the kuffar.

    Thus, by doing such things the person in question has made a knowing and willing choice, for they know and accept that such kaffir organizations have aided and do aid the kuffar over and above Muslims; that they place and value kaffir manufactured laws above Shariah, and have imprisoned Muslims, invaded and occupied Muslim lands; killed and tortured and humiliated Muslims. Furthermore, for a Muslim, allegiance, submission and obedience can only be to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala, for that is Eeman, which is manifest by:

    “Those who believe in Allah and His Messenger, who are steadfast, and who strive with their wealth and their lives for the Way of Allah.” 49:15 Interpretation of Meaning

    However, instead of only striving for the Way of Allah, to raise the Word of Allah, those individuals who ally themselves with the kuffar are striving in the way of the kuffar, for the Taghut of the kuffar, in order to establish the Taghut of the kuffar – such as “democracy” and the nation-State and the implementation of manufactured kaffir laws in place of Shariah. Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala says:

    “Allah is the Wali of those who believe: from darkness, He leads them into the light, while those do not believe have, as their Wali, their Taghut so that they are led from light into darkness. For them, there is the Fire, where they shall dwell forever.” 2: 257 Interpretation of Meaning

    “Those who believe, fight in the Cause of Allah, and those who disbelieve, fight in the cause of Taghut. So therefore fight against those friends of Shaitaan.” 4: 76 Interpretation of Meaning

    “Their way is to refer matters to a Taghut. ” 4:60 Interpretation of Meaning

    3) Thus, we can state that takfir can – and should – be made upon those who have given their allegiance to the organizations of the kuffar, for these organizations are based upon Tawagheet and are striving through force, or persuasion, or both, to have people submit to such Tawagheet, just as such organizations demand loyalty to such Tawagheet, judge by such Tawagheet, and just as they are striving against Deen Al-Islam and Muslims who, in obedience to Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala, refuse to bow down to and accept such Tawagheet.

    “The words of your Rabb are complete, perfect – manifesting truth, justice, and nothing shall ever abrogate them.” 6:115 Interpretation of Meaning

    May Allah Subhanahu wa Ta’ala protect us from all forms of Al-asabiyyah Al-Jahiliyyah, forgive us for our mistakes, and guide us to and keep us on the Right Path.

    Abdul-Aziz ibn Myatt
    1 Safar 1428

    Reply

  7. Just my thoughts……
    The Quran is nuanced and requires sophisticated thinking. IMO, it is a mistake for Muslims to approach the Quran with a simplistic mind because one can miss its depth. As the Quran itself says—take the time to contemplate on what it is saying so we can grow in understanding and knowledge.  The Quran defines “Kaffir” and it does NOT mean all Non-Muslims(as in —those who follow the teachings of Prophet Muhammed pbuh).  As already explained—a “Muslim” in the Quran is “one who submits (to God)”.  The Quran says God has given guidance to ALL of mankind (not just Christians, Jews and those who follow the teachings of Prophet Muhammed (pbuh). A  “kaffir” is someone who rejects guidance—and “Guidance” are the wisdom teachings that give us ethics, morality, goodness. —–it is from universal wisdom that Fiqh(Jurisprudence) is derived and as has already been explained—-Jurisprudence is NOT static—was never intended to be static since its inception. Embedded within Fiqh are the pratices of Ijtihad,  Ijma(Consensus), Shura(Consultation), and Istislah(Public interest).  (Ijtihad=an excersise of using intellectual faculties to comprehend new situations and find solutions for them.)
    Since the Quran is for “all times” —Ijtihad is an important part (and practice) in  relating to the Quran.
    It may be useful to know the historical applications, the context and definitions of the words” kaffir “and “muslim” used in Jurisprudence but it should not limit our understanding.—Nor should we confuse definitions used for purposes of Jurisprudence with the definitions of the same words used in the Quran (–which has its own definitions/explanations in the text itself.)
    Democracy?—The first 4 Caliphs were ELECTED—not quite the modern democracy we have today—but the seeds of it have been there in Islam from the biginning. In fact Prophet Muhammed(pbuh) was also chosen(elected) by the people of Medina(Yathrib).

    Reply

  8. Just thought I would add….If the morality or ethics of a war are in question—-free citizens/soldiers have a right to protest or not engage in such a war—something like this was more or less established at the Nurenburg trials. —-I will have to read up on it again  for the exact nuance…….

    Reply

  9. Abu Bakr as Saddiq appointed by Rasoolullah (saws) to lead salaat in his absence and was supported by Umar ibn al Khattab.
    Umar was appointed by Abu Bakr as Saddiq as his successor.
    Uthman ibn Affan was appointed after a Shura of 6 notable Muslims appointed by Umar ibn al Khattab.
    Ali was chosen by general Shura to try to end the fitnah of the assassination of Uthman by the Shi’a.
    In every case the process of chosing the khalif is either by selection by the previous khalif or a process of Shura.
    Now Shura is not democracy, everyone’s say is not worth the same and not everyone gets a voice.
    As well as this whomever is appointed as head of the Shura makes the final decision in any case and does not have to go with the majority as in a democracy.
    Democracy gives sovereignty to man, Shura on the other hand is bound by the Quran and Sunnah so therefore there leaves sovereignty in the hands of Allah as commanded in Surah Yusuf.
    So there are crucial differences between Shura and democracy that some people have tried to brush under the carpet.

    Reply

  10. Exactly,

    In Islam the Sovereign authority belongs only to our almighty creator, never to man.

    Allah states in Surah Yusuf that he alone has the right to legislate. Yet democracy says that right can be given by the people.

    The one who sets himself up as a legislator has set himself up as a partner besides Allah and those who vote for him are committing shirk towards him.

    Allah clearly states…

    “O you who believe, obey Allaah and obey His Messenger, and the people in authority among you. And if you dispute over anything, refer it to Allaah and His Messenger if you really believe in Allaah and the Last Day, that is best in terms of consequences.” (4:59)

    So if you really believe you will have no other way of judging right or wrong but Islam.

    “Do you not see those who allege to believe in what is revealed to you and what was revealed before you? They desire to seek judgment from the Taghat, although they are commanded to disbelieve in it, and Satan desires to lead them far astray.” (4:60)

    Here Allah states those that differ with this are really disbelievers, even though they may claim otherwise.
    It is question of who knows best what is for man, man himself or his maker and master.

    Reply

  11. and whoever did not judge by what Allah revealed, those are they that are the unbelievers
    Surah Maeda, ayat 44

    Every government recognised today, with little flags and little borders drawn up by people minded men in suits yes. Everyone of them.

    But there are places where Allah’s law has either been made high and is the only law of the land or it is in the process of going that way. Southern Somalia being an example of the first and the Afghan / Pakistan border regions being a work in progress.

    Reply

    1. I wouldn’t look at Somalia or any country in the Afghan region as model examples of what you espouse, call me ignorant, but I don’t quite think that’s what Allah (swt) intended for mankind…

      Reply

  12. Democracy is government for the people, by the people, off the people. The sovereignty, the right of rule is their’s to give to those amongst them to rule for them in their interests.

    So the people want to make beastiality halal, in democracy they can do so. It sounds laughable doesn’t it? who would do such a thing? But a hundred years ago people would have said the same thing about homosexuality.

    So democracy is fundementally opposed to Islam and Allah’s system of law on earth – The Shariah.

    In the Shariah government is chosen not by the people, though they can be consulted but each person’s word is not worth the same and the amir of the shura can still go against everyone else, the consultation is exactly that, it is not binding.

    Once a ruler is chosen he does not run the country for the people, but for Allah, putting his law first whether the people like it or not and knowing that what he has is a trust from Allah which he will be held accountable for.

    The Muslims in the West and America in particular have been misled to by government stooges draped in the clothes of Imams who hide aspects of Islam from you.

    Robert, you seem to have put your cart before your horse.

    We are meant to take our views from the Quran and Sunnah and the understanding of that from the righteous scholars,but you instead seem to already have ideas on life and what you want Islam to be and chosen rulings and evidence that fits in with that.

    So rather than changing yourself too much to fit into Islam, you are trying to change Islam to suit your own views.

    This is how you come across to me. I might be wrong, but I know that is a dangerous path to go down as I was once there myself.

    I would make excuses on freemixing, saying “not mixing is just cultural, it is the culture of the arabs and pathans and is nothing to do with Islam.”

    I would then look for articles and scholars who agreed with my viewpoint and ignored everything else, laughing at and poking fun at the ignorant cultural Muslims who followed such rules.

    Robert, I think sometimes we as reverts tend to look at other cultures and see their jahiliyyah so easily little realising we also have jahiliyyah in our own culture, our own ideas and behaviours which we must cut out if we are to move on in our journey into Islam.

    Reply

    1. I will plainly state this without getting too deep into the subject.  If Allah (swt) did not desire choice and freewill for mankind, He would have made us as the angels.
      As far as taking views and then seeking rulings to justify them, that is what 99% of Muslims do, with the exception the some do accept the validity of other’s claims from time to time.  The issue is the question of “righteous scholars” outside of Allah (swt) pointing out who those men and women are, what is happening is that Muslims are picking and choosing who to listen to based on their predetermined ideas, case in point the comment about the “white sheik” that was said in a dismissive tone mainly because they value their scholars over others and those scholars they selected out of thousands just happen to reside in Saudi Arabia which in my humble opinion is not the shining example of Islamic living.
      On the issue of “mixing” as an example that was not what I was referring to, however it is to be noted that I do believe in itjihad and I do believe in analyzing the texts to seek out the principle of the argument and not the literal texts.  Modesty I believe, has to be adapted to the culture and societal norms, if the idea is to not promote fornication, draw attention, etc. and keep equitable dealings between the sexes as the norm, than every culture has a way to address that.  The rulings that follow should reflect these unique circumstances.  Islam is for all times and all peoples not everybody adopt the Middle Eastern way of doing things, doesn’t work like that.
      One last thing about Shariah.  It’s not a static document sitting somewhere like the Constitution.  It’s a system of governance based on the Qur’an and Sunnah.  That’s where the concept of Allah (swt) plays into the entire debate as the Qur’an is obviously the word of Allah (swt).  However, it takes MAN to interpret, legislate, and enact laws based on the two and decide for the countrymen.  These men are fallible and the laws vary from place to place.  Allah (swt) is not sending down Gabriel or some other angel and writing the laws for men to govern themselves, no we are picking and choosing our leader by a myriad of means and tasking them with interpreting the Qur’an and Sunnah and creating laws based off that premise for man to follow.  I don’t see how that is fundamentally opposed to Democracy, with the exception that in most Muslim countries we have despots, dictators, and other lowly characters, who look and talk like the part but oppress the people in the name of Islam and of course Shariah.
      In that case I would definitely agree that the two systems are opposite, because leaders here are elected to do the will of the people, whereas in most Muslim countries leaders are selected, force themselves into power, etc. to do the will of themselves. 

      Reply

  13. “Democracy is government for the people, by the people, of the people.” There are actually many definitions/practices of democracy—I personally prefer the American one (at least as expressed in words—if not in practice) because I think it best exemplifies the Islamic concept of Khalifa (trusteeship/stewardship) .
    From Tawheed comes the idea of equality—all human beings are equal before God. All of us are responsible for our intentions and actions and therefore the responsibility of tusteeship of all of God’s creations on earth rests with all human beings (regardless of religious labels—Allah(swt) is God of all mankind).  If we are all equal—no one person or group has a right to be “superior” to another/rule over another. This implies that the responsibility of leadership is a trusteeship given by the people to their leader….which is the principle on which “democracy” is founded on. 

    We human beings have been blessed with intelligence and free-will—with that comes the responsibilty of “Khalifa”(trusteeship). It is upto us to figure out how best this should be carried out.

    (—by the way–our degree of socio-political responsibilty will necessarily be dependent upon the degree of free-choice we have in a given community/nation.)
     
    “In the Qur’an, the Arabic words for caliph (khalifah) and caliphate (khilafah) have a different meaning. These terms in the Qur’an have the more general meaning of steward and stewardship or trustee and trusteeship. In this way, Adam, as the first human, is identified as God’s caliph or steward on earth (2:30). Muhammad is instructed to remind humans that God made them the caliphs (stewards or trustees) of the earth (6:165). In this way, in the Qur’an, the term caliphate refers to the broad responsibilities of humans to be the stewards of God’s creation” –Esposito and Voll

    Reply

  14. A few things that popped out at me, firstly, interesting that Abu Abdillah played right in to “susac’s” hands, someone who clearly seems to have no love for Islam and Muslims, by saying “yeah, that’s what Islam is”.  And Abu Abdillah, I kindly ask that if “all governments in the world are Haram”, except for of course parts of Afghanistan and Southern Somaalia, than perhaps if you don’t have the means to move there yourself, than perhaps a fund raising event should be scheduled wherein donations are solicited so that you and anyone else who so chooses, can migrate to the place that they think best exemplifies and practices “true Islam” and leave the rest of us “kafirs” alone.  Though methinks that most people who take the “democracy is haram”, etc., argument, are quite happy to benefit from said democracy, and may not be in a mad rush to move to said Islamic country after all. 

    Also, I heard a story last week about Al-Shabab in Somalia stoning a woman to death for committing zina, while her boyfriend only got lashes?  And you’re telling me, and Umar said via his blog, that they represent “true Islam”, or I should say an attempt to head in that direction, etc.?  OK, correct me if I’m wrong, but stoning is only reserved for those who have previously been married, and shouldn’t it apply to both the man and the woman, and not just the woman?  So, assuming that the girl and her boyfriend were both never married, shouldn’t they both have been lashed?  Explain to me, then, why the girl was stoned to death while the boyfriend was left to live?  Or, is this just evil Western propaganda by the BBC World Service?

    Also, another point that occurred to me is, short of the direct revelation from Allah himself, via Gibril, to the Prophet Muhammad (peace be upon him), everything else is subject to error and interpretation.  That is why, if a schoalr is right in a fatwa or judgment that they make, they get a double reward, yet even if they are wrong, they are still rewarded once?  So assuming that, it could be possible that everyone making the rulings could be wrong?  And that one is being rewarded for the attempted of making the ruling and not necessarily whether or not they were right?  Of course, if they happen to be right, they get the extra reward.  I’m not saying they are, and I think that for some matters like the obligatory nature of prayer, for example, ijtihad is closed.  Yet for other issues, for a qualified person, the doors are indeed open. 
    But I don’t think that Somalia or Afghanistan are places where Islam or the sharia is “attempted”  especially when women are having acid thrown in thier faces for daring to go to school (even though seeking knowledge is incumbent on all Muslims including women, at least I thought so anyway).  And I most certainly don’t want to live in places where my chances of dying at the hands of another Muslim either by having acid thrown in my face, or dying in a bomb blast simply because I happened to be at a mosque or a market or just out somewhere. 

    At least I can get an eucation here in the “kafir West”, where if I were in Afghanistan say, at one time, I’d have to secretly go to school in someone’s basement because the “Islamic authorities” deemed education haram for women.  And if safety was an issue, as some have given for the reason why schooling was banned for girls and women, than tell me why peopel couldn’t guard the schools?  Or guard the girls and women walking to school?  Why deny them education altogether, and why continue to throw acid in their faces now for going to school? Methinks it’s not about “the respect of women” or about “education” or “safety” or any of those things but power and control purely and simply. 

    As a Muslim I’d hate to live in the kind of “Islamic government” that the likes of Umar Lee and Abu Abdillah envision, especially when the Prophet and His Companions, people that all of us should strive to emulate are “just straight up killers” to them, although perhaps me and Robert would not last long in such a government for they’d probably declare us kafir, which makes our blood halal, then kill us and claim whatever possessions we had as some kinda war booty?

    But I just find it funny that the opinions that Abu Abdillah espouses, while supposedly “speaking the truth” from his end, also play right into the Islamophobes hands!  And I find Umar’s subsequent posts a bit unnerving and perhaps I shouldn’t even be reading them as some government agency is probably spying on me and will have me locked up and declared an extremist for reading said posts wonder if Umar Lee and Abu Abdillah will wax poetical then about how “good of a Muslim I was” or how “nonviolent I was” then, or is it only reserved for scholars and people they deem to be worthy?  Seriously, though, I find this whole discussion interesting, to say the least, and I’ll go now since I’ve already written a book.  It’s just sad that people will ignore the complexity of Islamic history and juris prudence for what a mere handful of scholars who can’t even criticize their own governments say.  And it really displays their ignornace and lack of knowledge, as well as playing into the hands of those who hate Islam to boot.  As I’ve always said, the extremist Muslims, in their zealousness and belief that they and only they are right, will hurt the Muslims worse than any Islamphobe ever could.  And that’s sad given how much these sorts of people talk about how much they want Islam to rule, etc. 

    Reply

  15. Stoning—Is NOT “Islamic” but Judaic—comes from the Torah not the Quran.—-But then, that is what Robert has been trying to say all along—-that there is much improvement we Muslims must do —if we weren’t so busy defending ourselves—we might get to it too. Constructive/intelligent criticism can be a force for good—but destructive/ignorant criticism helps no one.

    However, Americans also fall into the “we are right” mode. Particularly when they go around saying things such as “America is a force for good…”etc.—-Which it rarely is (as far as its foreign policy is concerned). There is much improvement Americans can also make concerning their government and its policies. American foreign policy has sometimes, been based on plundering the rescources of other nations—with the result of propping up corrupt and despotic regimes instead of “democratic” ones that actually care about the people and nation they are serving. Yes America does “give” aid/money—but it often comes with “strings attached”. —Ofcourse such foreign policy strategies are not confined to America alone—but—in a free country—People of conscience do have a responsibilty to monitor the ethical/moral aspect of  policies that are done in their name by their governments. —My apologies if I have been insensitive in any way.

    Abu Abdillah brings up many interesting points for debate—the main one being—how do we understand our Islam in the 21st century……I think such discussions are much needed.—hopefully, such discussions will avoid the “we are right/you are wrong” mode of thinking on both sides.

    Reply

  16. Abu said:
    In Islam the Sovereign authority belongs only to our almighty creator, never to man.
    This ideology is fundamentally anti-American, anti-democracy, and anti-enlightenment.  The tenants of the enlightenment are sovereign rights reside in each and every individual and that only man gets to make laws, because society is a social contract in which all individuals agree to participate. 
     
    Allah clearly states…
    “O you who believe, obey Allaah and obey His Messenger, and the people in authority among you. And if you dispute over anything, refer it to Allaah and His Messenger if you really believe in Allaah and the Last Day, that is best in terms of consequences.” (4:59)
    Allah can take a flying leap – I am the sovereign of myself.   This sort of BS is EXACTLY why we have a separation of church and state- it protects the state from religious ideologues who want to use Allah as a sock puppet for political ends.  It also protects religions from government interference.  When one religion takes control of a government, all non-believers become second class citizens.  This also why tolerance is practiced in the west – humans have the right to believe whatever ridiculous nonsense they want to, but they have to obey the laws of the land no matter what their god tells them to do.  If they don’t like it, they can use the mechanisms of democracy to change the law.  This process is subject to the constitution, NOT the holy book.  In addition, the Judiciary is responsible for interpreting the law so that the will of the majority does not violate the civil rights of the majority.
    What this means is that EVEN IF everyone else in the country became Muslim tomorrow, they would not be allowed to impose the will of Allah upon me, because my civil rights TRUMP the will of Allah.
    And it’s a good thing too.  Your god is batshit.
     
     “Do you not see those who allege to believe in what is revealed to you and what was revealed before you? They desire to seek judgment from the Taghat, although they are commanded to disbelieve in it, and Satan desires to lead them far astray.” (4:60)
    Satan can also take a flying leap.  Like I said.  Batshit.
     
    Here Allah states those that differ with this are really disbelievers, even though they may claim otherwise.
    It is question of who knows best what is for man, man himself or his maker and master.

    While this is clearly a rhetorical question, I’ll answer it – clearly the answer is man himself.  I know that the desert religions like to rely heavily on family ties as a way of hijacking your reasoning and your emotional responses, so let’s just go with that.  God is “the father” right?  Well, my real father (much like the Allah of the old testament that the Quran plagiarizes so well), is a moody, capricious  jerk, who feels that the fact that he “made” me somehow gives him authority in my life.  When I was a child, this was true enough, but as I have grown into a man, I have come to realize that he is a limited being and that often my judgment is better than his.  This is especially true for situations relating to my own life.
    What this quote of your is really saying is that Allah OWNS you.  You are his slave.  He is your master.  I have no master.  I am a free man.  I really don’t know why you “people of faith” crave slavery, abasement and submission so well.  But I do know that if it comes down to the “will of Allah” or my civil rights, I am quite ready to kill to defend my rights against the likes of your god.
    And Robert swore an oath to help me.
    That must be quite a painful dilemma for you Robert.
    “Allah the father” doesn’t even leave you the dignity of growing up.  Not only that but you get to be his slave for all eternity OR you get to burn in hell for all eternity!  Some choice.   What a sadist!
     
    wouldn’t look at Somalia or any country in the Afghan region as model examples of what you espouse, call me ignorant, but I don’t quite think that’s what Allah (swt) intended for mankind…
     
    You know Robert, when you say “call me ignorant” what it sounds like to me is that you are acknowledging your uncertainty.  This really warms my heart.  Uncertainty is an important part of reason.  The thing is, I think you are still making a mistake though.  What this sentence implies to me is that you are announcing your provisional knowledge, as if to wait for a more learned authority to correct you and to reveal the truth.  I think that this is a mistake.
    There are basically two ways of knowing the truth: 
    1)     You can either find it out yourself – that is to say you can do the work and go out into the world to find the answer.
    OR
    2)    You can wait around for an authority to reveal the truth to you.
     
    What your statement says to me is that you are questioning, but that your mind is still enslaved by the belief that there is a truth that has been specially revealed to one special authority.  Why on earth would you believe that the words of Muhammad are more true than oh, say, Steven Hawking?  At least Steven Hawking can show his work!
    No, what you are really looking for with this statement is a way to reconcile your idea of an all loving god with the totalitarian rageams and civil wars his followers create.  Of course the easy answer is “well they aren’t following the teachings correctly” but then, if the society Islam creates is so hard to make, then what good are the teachings anyway?
    It would be nice if you could find some way to reconcile the subjugation and slavery that is your religion with the respect for human rights embodied in the constitution you are sworn to protect.
    The problem is, Abu is right.  They are mutually exclusive.  They were designed to be mutually exclusive.  The enlightenment is man’s first real attempt at civilization:  Secular government that respects the rights and dignity of the individual.  It HAD to be secular.  Allah is too dangerous a sock puppet for any ruler to wield.
    Like I said before – fear of Islam is NOT irrational.  Islamaphobia is not a valid term.
     

    Reply

  17. Perhaps some may find this interesting……..
    God is “the father” right? — Wrong!—-In Judeo-Islam. God is One, INDIVISIBLE (Shema=Judaism, Tawheed=Islam). God is neither Male nor Female–that he is addressed in the male gender in the Quran and Torah is because of the limitation of language.  Judaism and Islam both have “principles of law” in religion (Halaka=Judaism, Sharia=Islam)—for example–the concept—“innocent until proven guilty” comes from religious “Law”(Both Judaism and Islam). (Judeo-Islam does not have concept of “original sin” therefore human beings are “inherently good”)
    I am a free man—I suppose definitions of “free man” might be subjective–Buddhism and Eastern thought feel that “true freedom” comes when human nature is aligned with the Divine. —for then we are truly free of “ego” and the misery and sufferring that comes with it. In Islam, the five pillars are a means of attaining “freedom” from ego, thus, one could say, that a Muslim attains freedom in his act of “submission to God” or Islam.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s