Find a fatwa: in response to my piece ab…

aziz 11:04 am on November 19, 2009 | 58 Permalink | Reply
Tags: al wala wal bara (3), muslim soldiers (2)

Find a fatwa: in response to my piece about muslim soldiers, Umar quotes a few fatwas that are most emphatically against muslims serving in the “kuffar” army. He asks whether anyone can find examples of fatwas of the opposing view. I’m curious myself, I assume there certainly are (and that Umar will immediately find fault with the messenger – but thats what we all do when their message is not to our liking). What are the pro-serving fatwas?

My position was not to take sides on teh issue but rather to point out that a muslim can make a reasonable reading of Qur’anic verses to justify the argument that they can serve. Umar’s examples of fatwas invoke unrelated verses and are more of the al wala wal bara variety.

Incidentally, the comment thread at Umar’s post has a fantastic first comment which (tellingly) goes unanswered, as well as this later comment which (like my post) also touches on the hypocrisy of tose who would invoke al wala wal bara but yet remain living in the West. On that score, at least, no one can accuse Anwar al Awlaki of being a hypocrite. What is the excuse of muslims like Umar or the shayks he invokes?

Willow 12:07 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink | Reply

I will not attempt to analyze the fiqh involved in either argument–pro-military service or anti-military service–but I resent the fact that military service is being used as a litmus test for loyalty/belonging. Should we tell the Amish and the Quakers to pack up and leave too, Aziz? Have you ever served in the armed forces? Has anyone on this site? Why not, if war is so praiseworthy and so integral to being American?

There’s plenty of hypocrisy to go around here. The left spent 8 years trying to prove that you didn’t have to support the wars of attrition in Iraq and Afghanistan in order to be a patriot. Now it’s a loyalty test.

There is no doubt that Hasan committed a grave crime. But if he felt so conflicted about the army’s mandate–to the point of severe psychological distress–he had no business being in the military in the first place. There are plenty of other ways to serve the country.

By your logic, Aziz, your willingness to fight against America if called by your religious leaders should be a litmus test of your faith as a Muslim. Is it?
- aziz 12:13 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink | Reply
  
  hmm. a loyalty test? a litmust test? read again. I am pretty confident I’ve made no such claim or argument – quite the reverse, I am defending the choice of an individual muslim to serve, in teh face of accusations of disloyalty to Ummah from Umar and others who fail to acknowledge that the interpretation of these verses is not a closed matter.
  
  As I was pretty clear in my post, if you are inclined to serve, you can interpret the verses (which specifically relate to killing other muslims) accordingly. If you are not inclined to serve, you can interpret the verses accordingly. However to invoke al wala wal bara verses as proof you cant serve, then you are also making a case for why you cant live in the West. Its hypocrisy for muslims like Umar to live in the West yet invoke al wala wal bara to harangue those musim soldiers who have chosen to serve as “traitors to Islam” (as Awlaki put it).
  
  am quite surprised you interpreted my post in this way. If I used the words “loyalty test” anywhere in my poost it will come as quite a surprise to me.
  - Willow 12:34 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    
    When you said “…on the hypocrisy of tose who would invoke al wala wal bara but yet remain living in the West” I assumed you meant specifically as it regards military service. Umar’s post does not discuss al wala wal bara in any broader context.
    
    If you meant that anyone who invokes al wala wal bara as a reason to shun the society in which they live, then I agree with you–it’s nonsensical and hypocritical to stay. But I assumed the discussion was limited to military issues.
    - aziz 12:42 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink | Reply
      
      just to be clear, theres no possible reading of my post that I see which makes an accusation that muslims must “prove” their loyalty through military service.
      
      That said, I AM saying that someone who invokes al wala wal bara* specifically to argue that muslims must not serve in the military, are being hypocrites if they reside in the west. the point here is that the hypocrisy is in applying AAWB to denigrate someone else’s military service but not to their own residence in Western society.
      
      In my post, I make it clear that you CAN interpret Quranic verse to be hostile to service. But you can interpret verse as permittimg it as well. The point: its open to interpretation Unlike Umar I am not laying down one perspecctive as Haq. In many ways his argument and the fatwas he quotes are a form of takfir.
      
      *AAWB henceforth. typing that phrase is giving me RSI
- aziz 12:15 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink | Reply
  
  By your logic, Aziz, your willingness to fight against America if called by your religious leaders should be a litmus test of your faith as a Muslim. Is it?
  
  No – (and its not my logic) – its a litmus test of my faith in my leaders. In this, we ordinary muslims can take inspiration from the military, which holds that “I was just following orders” is not a sufficient defense.
- shams 10:22 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink | Reply
  
  Dr. Hasan enlisted in 1988, and served * years. Medical school + psychiatric residency.
  
  A point of clarification, Hasan is a commissioned officer, as such, he is not enlisted, nor does he have an enlistment obligation. He has an active duty service obligation (ADSO) for his commissioning through ROTC and for medical school.
  
  He did enlist in the Army right out of High school in 1988 and served for eight years. I’m not sure of the details of his enlisted service, but since he graduated from Virginia Tech in 1997, my guess is he served for four years on active duty, then was enrolled in the simultaneous membership program (SMP) where he was enlisted in the National Guard or Reserves while also enrolled in ROTC. Upon graduation from college his ROTC commissioning service obligation would have been four years if he received a scholarship and three years if he had not. After receiving his bachelors degree he enrolled in medical school at the Uniformed Services Univesity of the Health Sciences (USUHS) where he recieved his medical education tuition free in addition to receiving a lieutenants salary.
  
  When he graduated from medical school in 2001 I understand he tried to get out of the Army after the 9/11 attacks, arguing that he had conscious objections against fighting fellow Muslims. My guess here is that he found little sympathy with this argument for the following reasons:
  
  1. He enlisted in the Army immediately after graduating from High School in 1988 and served as an enlisted soldier during the gulf war (I can’t find any information regarding whether he was deployed to the war zone or not).
  2. Some time after the war he chose to enroll in ROTC to seek a commission as an officer
  3. As has happened every time our volunteer force enters a war, several people suddenly become conscientious objectors just as they are being asked to actually make a sacrifice for the benefits they’ve receive from service
  4. It is somewhat common that some people join the military to get training at the government’s expense, and once they have completed it start trying to get out of the service often a claim of conscientious objector is presented in these cases
  5. Hassan claimed conscientious objector status under a particular condition, that he was opposed to fighting Muslims, the Army only recognizes two forms of objection, one is an objection to participating in all wars and a lesser claim of objecting to personally taking part in killing
  6. Hasan’s claim of conscientious objector did not meet the first test, and since he was serving in the Medical Corps, a branch where many conscientious objectors have historically served
  7. When he was commissioned, his oath included the phrase “I make this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion”
  
  To any seasoned observer it would have looked like he was trying to get over on the Army.
  Assuming that he actually petitioned for release as a conscientious objector, it is quite possible that his supervisors, especially the more recent ones, did not know that he had asked to get out of the Army, since soldiers tend to move often and most officers rotate through several jobs during each posting.
  
  As to why they didn’t put him out because of his performance, the Army tends to take the approach that even bad soldiers are redeemable, and puts a great deal of time and effort into trying to develop them personally and professionally. As a result there are policies that make it very difficult to put someone out of the service solely for poor performance, or odd behavior, even if that’s what the soldier wants. Most of the time, in the long run, the soldier responds positively to the developmental efforts, but unfortunately, at times we have people in the service who would have been dismissed long ago, had they been civilians working in the private sector, that the Army just can’t get rid of.
  
  The Grand Misadventure of the Manifest Destiny of Judeoxian Democracy in MENA aka the War on Terror, aka the War on al-Islam didn’t start until 2003.
  So Dr. Hasan would have had to be a clairvoyant to see that the US was going to be engaged in the wholesale slaughter of muslims, aka “democracy promotion” in Iraq.
  - shams 7:07 am on November 20, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    
    Part of the reason Hasan was refused a conscientious objector status was that he served in Gulf I.
    But Uncle Saddam and the Baathists were ostentatiosly NOT muslims….they were secular.
    So that likely didn’t present the same moral dilemma that the genocide of muslim citizens in Iraq presented.
    - shams 7:08 am on November 20, 2009 Permalink | Reply
      
      I think Dr. Hasan did see that coming….he began to try to get out immediately after 911.
    - shams 7:12 am on November 20, 2009 Permalink | Reply
      
      also too, the Kuwaitis WERE muslims, attacked by secular Baathists.
      So Dr. Major Hasan didnt have a moral problem in Gulf I.
  - shams 7:17 am on November 20, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    
    But if he felt so conflicted about the army’s mandate–to the point of severe psychological distress–he had no business being in the military in the first place.
    
    No willow….the military Hasan signed on to serve with in 1988 had little resemblance to the post-Bush military.
    I think we need to be honest at this point.
    Bush’s Gog/Magog War on Terror was REALLY a WEC war forced on al-Islam.
    When the American military mission morphed into “Onward Christian Soldiers” Hasan tried his best to get out.
    He couldn’t.
    - aziz 8:29 am on November 20, 2009 Permalink | Reply
      
      the military Hasan signed on to serve with in 1988 had little resemblance to the post-Bush military.
      
      I think this is a very good point.
- Conrad Barwa 11:56 pm on November 20, 2009 Permalink | Reply
  
  Have you ever served in the armed forces? Has anyone on this site?
  
  I have, but not in the Yankee army It is an interesting experience, on balance I think for major powers it is a good thing for their citizens to do some service, they can then get a real good look up close at what their states get up to in practise, in the more unpalatable areas.
Umar Lee 12:22 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink | Reply

the hypocrisy of tose who would invoke al wala wal bara but yet remain living in the West

There is an Islamic injunction about eating pork simply to survive if one is going to starve and there is nothing else to eat. That is not the same as saying that pork is somehow permissible. I was born here and have no place to go in the Muslim world at this time (different than those who come here from the Muslim world btw). Does that mean that it is now permissible to go and VOLUNTEER in the kufr army to go and fight Islam and the Muslims? Does the fact that I have no place to go mean that my being part of the Ummah is now permanently severed and that I should be a patriotic American that supports war against the establishment of Islam?? No it does not and the scholars have made this clear for many years. We are Muslim FIRST and there are MANY, MANY texts written on this issue.

The shaykhs I invoke live (or lived) in Muslim lands. So tell me Aziz. Since it is permissible to eat pork if one is going to starve, do we then extrapolate that and say that pork is halal at all times? So we can make me the issue or we can look at the proofs that were brought by the ulamaa from the Book of Allah and the Sunnah of His Messenger (saws) or we can just go on opinions and desires to say that we should assimilate completely and drop our deen

So many things have changed in the religion by the progressives since 9/11. We now have people saying that hijab is no longer wajib, it is permissible for women to travel without a mahram, shake hands with the opposite sex and even going to the white house to cozy up to gay Muslims.

They do all of this while pretending that the fatwas that I posted (which I reiterate are BEFORE 9/11) never even existed!! They feign shock and being appalled. I listen to these personalities on the radio as they say that Islam has always (??) accepted this type of neo-liberal, metrosexual type crap. We are seeing an Islam pushed in the US where a man is not allowed to be a man and when someone tries to counter it with proof from the Quran and Sunnah, then he is called an “extremist”.

Case in point: look at the shock and amazement that there was ever such a fatwa that said that it is NOT permissible to join the kaafir army. The original Islam has been whitewashed out of the public arena of the progressives and the media now presents a man like Eboo Patel as a “devout Muslim”.

Next we are going to see people saying that homosexuality is “normal”?
- aziz 12:51 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink | Reply
  
  thank you for replying. Im not really sure what relevance this debate has to homsexuality, so lets just focus on the matter at hand instead.
  
  The shaykhs I invoke live (or lived) in Muslim lands. So tell me Aziz. Since it is permissible to eat pork if one is going to starve, do we then extrapolate that and say that pork is halal at all times?
  
  I do not accept thevalidity of your analogy. Evading pork is easy. I do it and you do it. It is a minor matter of obeying the halal/haram injunction. Yes, if you are starving, then eat to live, but we are not starving.
  
  To eqate (as you seem to do, but correct me surely if I am wrong) “starving thus forced to eat pork” with residing in the West makes no sense to me. Residing in the West is a violation of AAWB, if you choose to interpret those verses in teh context of separating yourself from the kafireen. By your very residing in the West you are making a compromise – you are eating pork. Are you “starving” ?
  
  So we can make me the issue or we can look at the proofs that were brought by the ulamaa
  
  no these are not proofs. They are fatwa, judgements and interpretations. You provide fatwas to support your interpretation and Allah is surely pleased with your niyat and your yaqin. But these are not the end of debate. I humbly suggest that the shaykh who offers THIS fatwa after 9-11 is not one you can dismiss as a “progressive”:
  
  To sum up, it’s acceptable – God willing- for the Muslim American military personnel to partake in the fighting in the upcoming battles, against whomever, their country decides, has perpetrated terrorism against them. Keeping in mind to have the proper intention as explained earlier, so no doubts would be cast about their loyalty to their country, or to prevent harm to befall them as might be expected. This is in accordance with the Islamic jurisprudence rules which state that necessities dictate exceptions, as well as the rule that says one may endure a small harm to avoid a much greater harm.
  - Umar Lee 1:04 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    
    The pork analogy is valid because unlike many immigrants again - I HAVE NO OTHER PLACE TO GO.
    
    In the absence of anything else, I am stuck here until an opportunity to leave presents itself. This is far different from someone who CHOSE to come here and DOES have a place to return. Why is that difficult to understand? If you want to talk about a person that is NOT a convert with no place to go, then your point is valid. Or if there was a Muslim country with open borders, then your point would be valid. There is not and it is moot and a red herring.
    
    As for Qaradawi (called the howling dog by Sh Muqbil) then I heard that he took that fatwa back.
    
    But taking the fatwa at face value then we are saying that the concept of Ummah is now null and void now and that there is no universal brotherhood or concept of being Muslim first? That is a NEW concept.
    
    I don’t understand this rush to destroy the concept of Ummah and reduce us to a bunch of nationalities. I hope everyone here is familiar with the concept of nationalism and its disparaged status in Islam.
    
    I make it clear that you CAN interpret Quranic verse to be hostile to service. But you can interpret verse as permittimg it as well.
    
    So to sum up, religion is basically a joke and you can choose whatever your heart desires right? There is no principle involved anymore. I see
    - aziz 1:15 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink | Reply
      
      Do you mean to say truly intend to leave America if the opportunity arose? And you would do that based on your strength of belief in tehvalidity of AAWB as a concept?
      
      Then I am impressed. As I said, I respect strong yaqin and niyat. I dont doubt your resolve.
      
      However, to imply that qradawi’s fatwa (which is about a small harm in service of denying a greater good – you havent read the full fatwa nor appreciated the nuance of the argument. fatwas whihch are black and white are ones to distrust) is somehow a repudiation of the conceot of Ummah is to reduce Ummah to nothing more than a base tribal loyalty. In fact Qaradawi venerates Ummah in his fatwa by pointing out the greater harm caused by those acting in Islam’s name, like OBL. And it is to stop that abuse which validates a muslim’s choice to serve.
      
      No, you cannot pick and choose your religion, but you do have to decide on some set of interpretations and then accept them wherever they lead you. The very eistence of dueling fatwas proves that this is indeed an open question, unlike pork. I am sure that one fatwa-issuer may call another a “howling dog” (though such behavior amongst ulema is quite alarming) but that does not invalidate teh fatwa. A muslim who obeys a fatwa which differs from yours is not automatically a salad-bar muslim and you are not automatically the scion of faith. You are both on different paths, but at the end of the day you agree on the core.
    - bingregory 7:02 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink | Reply
      
      Lame. I Have No Other Place To Go = I consider the personal difficulties I may encounter in making Hijrah to be more important than following Allah’s command. What’s next, can’t make Jihad because the enemy didn’t put their neck directly under your sword?
      - Abu Noor 9:10 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink
        
        bingregory,
        
        As salaamu ‘alaykum,
        
        Do you believe hijrah is obligatory?
        
        Are you agreeing with Aziz that it is contradictory to believe it is wrong for a Muslim to serve in the U.S. military and that it could still be permissible to live here if it is the land of your birth?
        
        Salaam.
      - bingregory 9:50 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink
        
        wa alaykum salam,
        
        – Hijrah may become obligatory when it is not possible to practice Islam in the place where you live. I don’t think Americans are in that position.
        
        - Umar is agreeing with Aziz (“then your point is valid”) . My point is this: As muslims, we should be hard as nails on ourself and lenient towards our brothers. I find Umar’s sensitivity towards his own circumstances and the choices that flow from them to be in glaring contrast to his lack of respect for the choices that other muslims make based on their circumstances. The undertone that immigrants ought to pack up and leave to be good muslims and leave the US to the native born is also hard to miss.
      - Abu Noor 10:01 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink
        
        I tend to agree that Muslims can practice Islam in America but if there was a draft that could alter the equation a little bit…or maybe just make me think Muslims should resist the draft.
        
        I agree that Umar’s division is a bit simplistic and one cannot tell how much he has really investigated the opportunity to leave the country. Having known him for a little while, I can at least say that his commitment to Islam and willingness to sacrifice for the deen appear to be somewhat sincere, I agree that it would be better if he was a little more cautious in discussing others’ situations.
        
        I sympathize with what I think lies behind the argument against hijrah even if one has serious problems with the U.S. government which is that similar and perhaps worse problems are prevalent in most “Muslim countries.”
        
        In any event, I think I’ve basically concluded that my own view is that I was born in America and although I’m deeply uncomfortable with much of what the American gov does, staying here and being deeply uncomfortable and resistant to the gov is a perfectly fine option. I don’t accept those who would necessarily say we have to leave, but I equally don’t accept those who argue that if we stay, we have to go along with such and such.
        
        If I did decide I needed to make hijrah, and I couldn’t get into Ireland, could I come stay with you? With the size of your family you probably wouldn’t notice me (although if I brought my own wife and four kids it might be difficult.)
        
        Obviously you have the trump card in this discussion, akhee so I will not argue with you, although I benefit from your perspective.
      - Abu Noor 10:04 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink
        
        I’m sorry I dug myself a little bit into a hole on this last comment. As Muslims we shouldn’t really testify to the purity of anyone’s motives including our own as Allaah knows best…so that’s the only reason I started use weird language about Umar’s sincerity (’somewhat’) .
        
        To be clear, from what I’ve seen and know, Umar is completely sincere and I count that in his favor…of course Allah (swt) knows best about any of our hearts.
      - bingregory 10:12 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink
        
        You’re welcome in my home any time, akhi. Bring the kids.
        
        (For my part, I am also not questioning Umar’s sincerity. I only wish he had more compassion for us more imperfect servants.)
    - shams 7:25 am on November 20, 2009 Permalink | Reply
      
      Umar, my brother.
      What can I say but to invite you to follow the Caravan of Love?
      My Master says there are many paths.
      Would you crucify me like al-Hallaj for asserting that I am the Real?
      
      27. They asked her about love. She said, “Love came down from an eternity [azal] and passed over to eternity [abad]. It found no one in eighteen thousand worlds to take a single drink of it. It arrived at last to the real, and of him this expression remains: He loves them and they love him.”
      
      They said, “Do you see the one you worship?”
      
      She said, “If I did not see, I would not worship.”
      – Rabi’a al-Adiwyya
- aziz 12:57 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink | Reply
  
  also, you did not answer Mujahideen Ryder’s rather relevant comment on your poost. I am greatly interested in your response to him – and I think you should consider the fatwa I have provided above in your response.
  - Umar Lee 1:06 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    
    Kashif responded to MR in the comments. There have been many fatawa given on that matter as well. It is NOT permissible for the Muslims to fight against the Muslims. And BTW, these are NOT my opinions, but the opinions of SCHOLARS
    - Umar Lee 1:11 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink | Reply
      
      BTW, an Egyptian, Pakistani, or Libyan (or what have you) identity is NOT above the Muslim identity. We are Muslims FIRST and foremost.
      - aziz 1:16 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink
        
        well, i agree that we are muslims first. someone explain this to the leaders of these nations who take muslims to war against each other, please. the day that the muslim nations stop fighting between themselves is one in whihch the Ummah will truly be born.
    - Dan 1:33 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink | Reply
      
      “It is NOT permissible for the Muslims to fight against the Muslims.”
      
      Where were these scholars when the Taliban were killing other Muslims during their reign? Or is it absolutely permissible for an “Islamic army” to crack down on heretics, as the Taliban accused anyone else of doing, as long as Shariah is established?
    - bingregory 6:56 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink | Reply
      
      Muslim v. Muslim? No Problem! The first option is to paint the leader of the Muslims you’d like to slay as being in league with some well-known non-Muslim dictator. Thus, so and so is the running dog of Vladimir Putin, or the trained housecat of Hu Jintao, or the sanctified gerbil of Barack Obama.
      
      Another option is: Be The Insurgents. Any Islamic State/Muslim Country is of course a flawed Islamic State/Muslim Country, whereas any rebels not yet holding power have the potential to be perfect Muslims. Therefore, God is on the side of the insurgents.
      
      A last option that has historically been very effective is to declare the polity of the muslim region you want to slay to be kaffirs by virtue of misunderstanding or rejecting the true 3-in-1 Tawhid. No real Tawhid = not really muslims = Fire Away!
      
      QED, no wully burry required.
      - Abu Noor 9:14 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink
        
        Or in the alternative, be a soldier or policeman in a “Muslim country.” Then if the ruler tells you to, you can slaughter Muslims or torture them in prisons and you are just being a patriot. Plus, just keep saying anyone who opposes you is a “terrorist” or a “wahhabi” and not a true follower of the “traditional Muslim values” of (insert country name here) which have always endorsed tryanny, shirk, and most importantly music, gender mixing, and alcohol which are as everyone knows the hallmarks of any sophisticated civilization.
      - bingregory 10:08 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink
        
        Zing! What I think is funny though is the tendency we all have to try to parse out who is in the way of God in this or that conflict or situation, which smells a lot to me like the Marxist dialectic of the communists I (briefly) used to run with, rather than try to examine the problem in terms of what can be done to minimize the human suffering in practical terms.
  - Abdullah 1:42 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    
    salaam aleikum,
    
    anyone who thinks that serving in a Muslim army is any different or any less full of problems than serving in the American army simply needs to view these videos:
    
    Pakistani army interrogating “suspects”
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PwADGsP2338&feature=related
    
    Iraqi army being humiliated by U.S. Instructors:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3-hNQs93bE&feature=player_embedded#
    
    there is also the inconvenient little fact that Arab/Muslim armies are only good at killing their own people. In EVERY major military battle that Israel has fought against Arab armies they have won (with the recent exception of the “extremist” militia of Hizbullah in Lebanon). The same can be said of the Indian army (with half the “brave” Pakistani army surrendering in Bangladesh).
    
    Islam came to liberate people from this low level of tribalism and sectarianism.
johnpi 12:52 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink | Reply

Dropped out my post on this topic. You guys are having the better conversation and mine was redundant.
- aziz 12:55 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink | Reply
  
  what? why! i didnt see your post, maybe we posted at teh same time. you should have at least saved the text.
  - johnpi 1:08 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    
    Here was the meat of it:
    
    But what if the ‘Muslims’ in question are unjust rulers who ‘commit grave crimes against their own people’, killers and slaughterers spreading violent fitna, bidah and hirabah through Muslim-majority lands? Why presume such people are ‘Muslims’ and represent Islam? Obviously, I’m thinking of the Taliban here…
    
    Another writer pointed at the issue here.
    
    Political leaders like Nawaz Sharif and Imran Khan have no words of solace for those who have suffered at the hands of Islamic extremists. Their tears are reserved exclusively for the victims of Predator drones, even if they are those who committed grave crimes against their own people. Terrorism, by definition, is an act only the Americans can commit.
    
    The question, as I see it, is not about who carries a Muslim identity card and makes a conspicuous display of ritual and physical markers, but about who is committing grave crimes against Muslims and who is in a position to stop it.
Umar Lee 1:09 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink | Reply

If there is no Ummah and no binding interpretation of the Quran and Sunnah that is the divine interpretation then we have no Islam. The Salaf left us with what Islam is (and is not). It can’t be everything and all things simultaneously.

Why do I get the feeling that many people here would not care for many of the sahaabah if they met them
- Buzz 1:12 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink | Reply
  
  Why do I get the feeling that many people here would not care for many of the sahaabah if they met them
  
  That is called a sense of self-righteousness. It is a leg of the ego and should be avoided.
- Buzz 1:16 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink | Reply
  
  And the fact that you reject some scholars (such as Qaradawi) and sustain others makes you little more than someone who tears the Qur’an into shreds to sustain your argument.
  
  You should contact orgs overseas. Someone will take you. And if not, Homeland security might be able to help.
  
  In any case, you should find a home where you can fully participate instead of yapping these fiqh half truths (which is neither very convincing nor honorable).
  - Abdullah 2:08 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink | Reply
    
    Qwardawi also gave a fatwa in 1990 authorizing U.S. troops to invade Iraq (and “liberate” Kuwait). This was the so-called “Mecca Document”
    
    “Who is responsible for the presence of the kuffar in the holy lands of Islam? Evidently, those who invited them, the rulers of these countries, and the so-called Islamic “scholars” who authorised their invitation. The authorisation was given publicly in a formal document (called the Makkah Document) on the 10th October, 1990. Among the signatories were Syed Abul Hasan Nadwi, Yusuf al- Qaradawi, Shaikh Bin Baz, and Manna’ al-Qattan. Their argument was based mainly on an appeal to necessity whereby that which is nominally forbidden may be temporarily permitted, or whereby one may be temporarily excused from doing what is normally obligatory. The argument of necessity is plainly meaningless or unprincipled if the temporary allowance becomes permanent.
    - Buzz 2:44 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink | Reply
      
      “Muslim lands” in these scholars’ views are anywhere where muslims can practice their religion freely.
      
      To the stricter, more traditional muslims, their job, and the progressives, is to bridge the gap in fiqh rulings among scholars rather than ignore or attempt to invalidate those which conflict. imo
      - Buzz 2:50 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink
        
        Same as you would approach tafsir
      - Abdullah 3:09 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink
        
        By this standard, Napolean Bonaparte and his generals must have been “progressives” especially following his attempts to use Al Azhar to legitimize his conquest of Egypt as something “Islamic” and that Muslims serving in his armies was fard:
        
        Destroying and Rebuilding Islam in the Image of the West
      - Buzz 4:02 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink
        
        By the other standard, I am supposed to ask for bayat and pledge allegiance to who?
        Zardari? Karzai? Saddam Hussein? Hosni Mubarak? Qaddafi? Ahmadinejad?
        Who???
      - Abdullah 5:48 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink
        
        If your talking about a serious academic question, some evidences were/are presented in the following:
        1. Al Mawardi’s Al Ahkam al Sultaniyyah. Book IS available in English and covers details, and Islamic jurisprudence of who the ba’yah contract can be given to and under what terms.
        http://www.islamicbookstore.com/b3364.html
        
        2. Online write-up of the ba’yah contract and of who can be appointed a khilafah over Muslims and the method that can be used:
        http://www.caliphate.co.uk/files/method%20to%20appoint%20a%20khaleefah.pdf
        
        In short it rests on 3 principles:
        1. Sovereignty for Allah (swt).
        2. Authority for the Ummah
        3. Head of state has the ability to adopt
        
        None of the names you mentioned make it even past the first 2 criteria.
      - thabet 12:54 am on November 22, 2009 Permalink
        
        A member of Hizb ut-Tahrir?
        
        John and you should get along swimmingly
      - Omar 2:06 am on November 22, 2009 Permalink
        
        The only day I’ll take HT seriously is when they finally make baya’ to the king of Morocco.
      - Abdullah 11:57 am on November 22, 2009 Permalink
        
        2 things:
        
        1. Not HT, as it seems to have split into factions.
        2. Making ba’yah to the “King” of Morocco might be a bit of a problem, he has been known to be a homosexual for some time and has been accussed by many of trafficking in child sex slaves:
        
        http://www.radioislam.org/eng/homosexual-king-of-Morocco.htm
        
        Nothing new, since this guy’s father was known to be bisexual and died of AIDS before he ascended onto the throne.
      - Omar 1:22 pm on November 22, 2009 Permalink
        
        Okay. Then make bay’a to King Abdullah of Jordan.
        
        You do raise an interesting point, however. I’m unaware of anything that says the Caliph needs to be the best of character. Only that he be from the tribe of Quraysh.
      - Omar 1:26 pm on November 22, 2009 Permalink
        
        Just found some evidence. According the Shaykh G.F. Haddad, he says that it is agreed that the Caliph doesn’t have to be the best of character or of knowledge either.
        
        Source.
      - thabet 11:44 pm on November 22, 2009 Permalink
        
        he has been known to be a homosexual for some time and has been accussed by many of trafficking in child sex slaves
        
        You need to read your history a little closer.
      - Abdullah 12:15 am on November 23, 2009 Permalink
        
        I guess its a crime to call something by its proper name.
- aziz 1:18 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink | Reply
  
  how convenient. The fatwa you choose to accept make you a genuine follower of sahabaah, defender of Ummah, and true follower of QUran and divine. Anyone who disagrees with you by accepting fatwa you reject is a howling dog. I understand.
Umar Lee 1:31 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink | Reply

The problem I have with all of this is that people act like the scholars I have followed for almost 20 years do not exist and they are calling it “extreme”. That was back during the days of when Ibn Uthaymeen, Ibn Baz and Al-Albani were alive. People that many Muslims would prefer to write out of history as if they never existed and pretend that the new “interpretations” have always been the case. No wonder there is so much confusion
- shams 7:44 am on November 20, 2009 Permalink | Reply
  
  Brother Umar.
  One of my shayyks (who is an islamic scholar that writes for The Journal of Shi’a Islamic Studies says al-Islam is a process.
  Do you agree or disagree?
aziz 2:05 pm on November 19, 2009 Permalink | Reply

did I call your scholars extreme? if so, I apologise, but I do not think I did. I have respected your right to follow fatwa; it is you who do not reciprocate. I mean, come on, “howling dog” ?
bingregory 8:07 am on November 22, 2009 Permalink | Reply

Excellent commentary from Wang Daiyu on the issue.
- bingregory 8:09 am on November 22, 2009 Permalink | Reply
  
  Also, Aziz, how about Talk Islam accepting trackbacks? It would broaden the discussion.
- bingregory 8:11 am on November 22, 2009 Permalink | Reply
  
  Right, who needs trackbacks when the good brother is posting right to the front page? Just ignore me. *smacks forehead*