^ Pardon me, but I won't indulge you any further and I have already stated the reason why.

^ Brother, I used that video clip to make a point about blind prejudice. The point was/is that some people would reject a story when it's told by an orthodox Sunni--not only reject it, but go out of their way to offend that person and insult the spiritual tradition of Islam--yet if someone like Al-Awlaki told them the same story, they would probably swallow it whole. In case your question was directed at me, iman is a dynamic and divisible entity. But the discussion is about inner spiritual development ('Ilm ul-Ihsaan), not 'aqeedah, so we should stay on topic.

Khadafi and Coofle, I appreciate what you two said. The inner dimension of Islam is immensely fascinating and I love learning about it. It would be good to see more discussions of it on this forum. It's well-known that Sheikh Abdul-Qadir Jilani (rahimullah) was one of the great Muslims who were given the ability to perform extraordinary acts, but the story in the OP isn't an account of his wonders. It's an account of one of his struggles on the spiritual path and it's recorded in the many biographies of him. The Sheikh also wrote firsthand accounts of his struggles on the path in his own works: the story Gate of Poverty is one of them and it clearly addresses both the inner and outer dimensions of the struggle for spiritual transformation. In terms of its relevance to inner spiritual development, which is what the topic here is about, I think story in the OP can also be viewed as a warning about the ego traps along the spiritual path. A reminder that the ego doesn't suddenly become tame as soon as we experience our first spiritual awakening or realization, but that it cunningly reasserts itself in new ways in order to take over our new ideas/aspirations/experiences and keep us under its control. In other words, our spiritual journeys can turn into ego trips, if we're not careful. I marvel at the twisted logic of people who, on the one hand, would criticize spiritual aspirants for their esoteric interpretations and their propensity to look for deeper layers of meaning in things while, on the other hand, assuming that spiritual aspirants would always (and only) take stories like that in the OP literally. Let me rephrase that for the usual suspects. You ridicule people for thinking and perceiving the world differently than you do, yet you also assume that those same people think just like you do--and you ridicule them for that too! Do you not realize how perverse that is? Here is a little something that puts a revealing light on things. I googled a few of the keywords in the title of this thread and immediately found this video clip in which a certain speaker tells the story in the OP and cites a narration by Ibn Taymiyyah (rahimullah). Some of you may recognize the voice of the speaker, who happens to be Anwar Al-Awlaki. Hmmm. Now isn't that interesting? I find this hilariously ironic. 'Cause I'm sure that if a thread were started with that video or a telling of the same story from a similar speaker, the predictable and inane trolling and 'Sufi' bashing would not occur. It goes to show that some people look not at what is presented to them, but at who is presenting it, and they base their judgements and reactions on that alone. It goes to show that such people do not know how to think. May Allah guide them, and all of us, to that which benefits.

May Allah have mercy on Sheikh Cabdulqaadir. He was targeted for speaking the truth and defending Islam against those who trample upon it. The fact that he died on Yawmul Jumu'ah while praying in the house of Allah is a sign of a good end. I have tremendous respect for the way he spoke against the Kharijite fitnah of extremism in takfeer and wanton bloodshed. He had great courage and firmness despite his elderly age, health problems, and the dangers he faced. It says a lot about his faith and strength of character because Allah doesn't test people with more than they can handle. His name is the latest addition to a very long list of valuable Muslims who have been slain by the Dajjal's mindless minions as they try to turn our Deen on its head and destroy our nation. May Allah honour all of those who were unjustly cut down and grant them Jannah as martyrs. May He give their loved ones increased faith and steadfastness and make it easier for our nation to endure this trial with patience and perseverance. The critters who shed the Sheikh's blood (and that of countless others besides) think they can scare and demoralize believers with murders and bombings; they think they can silence the truth. But the remarkable thing is that attempts to silence those who speak the truth always backfire. When, as in this case and many others before it, people like Sheikh Cabdulqaadir are murdered while they are preoccupied with worship by the deviants whose falsehood and fundamental irreligiosity they spoke against, their deaths demonstrate and amplify the truth they spoke. The truth never dies. As much as I tell myself not to be surprised by anything they do, part of me is always appalled by just how evil and blood-thirsty the mercenaries of Al-CIA-da show themselves to be. They are blindly and witlessly beating a path to their doom and they will get what they deserve. Allah has exposed them. For those who have eyes--those who aren't spiritually deaf, dumb, and blind--it is as clear as day that the mercenaries of Al-CIA-da are at war with Islam and its adherents. The vile and putrid nature of what they represent has been laid bare for all to see and no tattered guise or paltry slogan can cover it up. May Allah further expose and humiliate them, may He turn their evil plots against them, and may He take revenge upon them in this world and the Hereafter. It's reassuring to know that the gunman was captured. May Allah reward the civilians who caught him and give them quick recoveries. We need more of that kind of fight and vigilance on the part of the common folk, especially when it comes to defending our people of knowledge.

You're welcome walaal. I don't know if it is a lack of good leaders or that Somalis are just difficult to lead, but our communities are too unorganized, too uninvolved, and we don't do enough to defend our rights. We hear about these cases when they hit the headlines, after gullible teens have been ensnared in criminal activity and arrested, and by then the damage has already been done. All the more reason to raise awareness and prevent the problems before they start. To correct my typo above, it was MI5, not MI6, that the VOA interviewees in the UK complained about. In 2009, there were other Somali brothers who spoke to the media about that agency's attempts to force them to serve as informants. The Independent wrote this feature article about them. It is inspiring to see the heroism from ordinary people who have the courage and integrity to resist the pressures that are placed on them.

Mucjisooyinka aan sannadkan arkay waxaa ka mid ah sidday Saado Cali Warsame ugu biirtay Barlamaanka. Waa maan guracan iyo garasho jaan...

Update: I heard a good news report that reminded me of this thread last week, so this is an update/referal for the folks who may have missed that report. The Friday before last (9/28/2012), as part of its Faaqidaadda Todobaadka segment, the Somali VOA aired a report about the intense suspicion and surveillance that Somalis have been under in recent years. It addressed the problems associated with traveling as Muslim in the post-9/11 atmosphere, but also revealed the way some people are hounded and harassed by intelligence agencies like MI6--targetted not because they have committed crimes, but because the agencies sought to pressure and coerce into them serving as informants. Several men in the UK and North America related their personal experiences. A lawyer also offered some tips at the end. Faaqidaadda: Dabagalka Soomaalida Qurbaha Their stories are a few drops in the bucket. A reminder of how crucial it is to know your rights, speak out, and get legal representation when you need it. There is sometimes a tendency to excessively particularize the problems Muslim communities face and treat them as though they are totally unique to us. But entrapment, profiling, and unwarranted spying effect and harm both Muslims and non-Muslims. Many nonviolent movements and activists, especially those of ethnic minorities and anti-capitalists, have long been targeted and they still are. The cases of the Cleveland 5 and the NATO 3 (see here and here) are recent examples. Being aware that the experiences of Muslims are part of a broader dynamic of eroding civil liberties and increasing state repression, which threatens everyone, is much more instructive and empowering than thinking that we are in the hot seat alone. The pamphlets below contain important informant on what to know and how to defend your rights. They are by CUNY C.L.E.A.R., a Muslim civil rights and legal advocacy project based at the City University of New York School of Law. Know Your Rights: What You Should Know About Informants (PDF) Know Your Rights: Flying While Muslim (PDF) Know Your Rights: Charitable Giving (PDF) Know Your Rights: What to Do in Interactions with Law Enforcement (PDF) The ACLU's Know Your Rights booklet is another one to check out, as are these two publications: Targeted and Entrapped: Manufacturing the "Homegrown Threat" in the United States (PDF) Victims of America's Dirty Wars: Tactics and Reason from COINTELPRO to the War on Terror in the United States (PDF)

Very informative. The article doesn't mention it, but I'm guessing higher vitamin D levels would also reduce the risk of diseases like osteoporosis. It seems to effect a lot of people among the Somali communities in the northern hemisphere, especially women. There were some studies a few years ago that linked a lack of sunlight to autism. The researchers looked at autism among the Somali communities in Minnesota and Stockholm, which both have high rates of the disease, and found that the common denominator was a lack of sunlight or vitamin D deficiency.

It is generally the lack of rain fall, droughts, climate change, and man-made factors like charcoal production that exacerbate the problem most. Without plant roots to keep the soil in place, desertification spreads. Coal from Somalia ended up in my house once, and the realization really disturbed me. Some of the beautiful plant species that used to be very common are dying out too. A vast number of galool trees were destroyed by charcoal production. In the coastal Guban areas of the north, where Berbera is located, the qudhac trees have also been found to be among those in decline. Archdemos, sometimes I have those same thoughts you expressed, but I take solace in the knowledge that there is Wisdom in everything Allah Wills. If we put our hopes in people, we are bound to be disappointed. But when we put our hopes in Allah, that can never happen. It then becomes easier to take everything in stride without becoming demoralized. We can also look at the glass as half-full as opposed to half-empty. Given the harsh environment Somalis inhabit and the self-destructive cycles they have been wallowing in for so long, it is a miracle they are not extinct.

This is quite an old story though. It happened in March. As usual, the man was vilifying Muslims to get media attention. He makes a living spreading hatred and fear of Muslims in Canada, but tries to make himself look like a vigilant liberal whistle-blower or the beleaguered victim of crazed, angry Muslims. Inkastoonay cidna dan ka lahayn. It is bad manners for a youth to pester an elderly person, especially one who is ill (as he was at the time), no matter who it is or how unlikable he may be. In this case, however, baroortu orgiga ka weyn.

Usama al-Safi is another noteworthy nasheed performer. He has a great voice and his songs contain only the duff. He and Sheikh Mishary Rashid al-Affasi are among my favourites.

Nur, brother my sole aim here is to convey the truth to the best of my ability. Whether or not it is found satisfactory is none of my concern because only Allah's guidance can open a person's heart to it. But if there is anything that is still unclear to you or if you have any questions, please let me know. We are required to call to Islam with sure and authentic knowledge based on its teachings and conveyed in the best manner possible. Let us remember Allah's command in the Quran: 'Say: "This is my way; I invite unto Allah with sure knowledge, I and whosoever follows me. And Glorified and Exalted be Allah. And I am not of the idolaters."' (Surah Yusuf 12:108) That is the Way of the Messenger (may peace and blessings be upon him) and those who follow him: to give da'wah with "sure knowledge, certainty and evidence, whether logical or religious". It has been specified in the books of da'wah, such as Sheikh 'Uthaymeen's The Provision of the Caller to Allah, that calling to Allah with sure knowledge entails three things, the first of which is sure knowledge in what one is inviting to. The thread question asks the reader if a whole Muslim society can be called 'jaahili' in general terms. The answer was, is, and always will be a categorical no: it is impermissible and there is no legitimate pretext or rationale that can justify the violation of that ruling. Since I bear a responsibility that most others here do not, I will be upfront in identifying the problem, which by now should be apparent. Your thread question invites the reader to make generalized takfeer of Muslim societies. A lot of things were strung together in an attempt to justify it and your statements--the way you put quotation marks around the words Muslim and Muslim societies in post 10, for instance--indicate that you already know the meaning and implications of the question, so there is no point in us being subtle or cryptic about it. At least now the reader also knows what those erroneous ideas that were identified mean, where they come from, why they are against Islamic teachings, and what kind of problems they have caused. Regarding your reminder about the Quran and Sunnah being the points of reference for resolving disputes, let us be very clear about one thing. Making generalized, unrestricted takfeer of Muslims (on the scale of whole societies no less) due to the mere presence of laws based on other than what Allah has revealed is not part of the creed of Ahlus Sunnah and there is no dispute about its impermissibility among Sunnis. Those who deem it permissible (and who rationalize it on the grounds that Hukm is for Allah alone) have their own separate creed. There is a dispute about the issue, but it is one between Ahlus Sunnah and people outside its fold. I hope you think about this carefully before your next post. This is your thread and the way you have thus far framed and steered the discussion is very much outside the limits of what is Islamically permissible. It needs to be brought (and kept) within the limits of what has been authentically deduced from the Quran and Sunnah and accepted by Ahlus Sunnah. That is all I've been saying. At this point, you can either continue along the same path or you can do your part to rectify the problem so this thread does not become a source of misguidance for people. More than once, statements of yours have come across as negativity towards the scholars, as if to tear them down or dismiss them, but I don't think we can pretend to be bigger authorities on this or any other subject. I ask that you please keep my emphasis on providing credible sources in mind from now on.

Nur;689676 wrote: Jaahiliyyah is like the night, its dark, its evil and the opposite to Islam in every sense which is the daylight. Nur;692146 wrote: We have to understand that Islam is a complete system which opposes another complete system aka Jaahiliyyah . Third, you said Jaahiliyyah is a 'complete system' which Islam came to replace because it is at odds with Islam in 'every sense'. That claim seems to be reflective of another flaw of Qutb's theory, which is its superficially dichotomous view of the world and its absolute rejectionist stance on Jaahiliyyah. It divides the world into a realm of evil and corruption (Jaahiliyyah) and a realm of good and justice (Islam) between which there can be no mixing. It is projects the idea that in order to build a truly Islamic society modeled after the first generation of Muslims, there should be no mixing or compromise with the jaahili society's beliefs, practices, laws, values, concepts, etc. That was the author's opinion. Some people have gone to extremes with a literal (re)interpretation of that opinion and it is what initially led Takfeer wal-Hijra to physically withdraw and isolate themselves from Muslim societies. We need only look at the way the Quran dealt with pre-Islamic Arabian society to notice that the Quran did not view it as a completely evil or corrupt society, nor treat it as a 'complete system' that had to be wholly uprooted and replaced with something entirely new. We know that Islam did not come as a new religion to begin with, but rather as the last of Allah's revelations, so it is concerned with reaffirming the previous revelations and preserving the continuity of the core message they all share. We also know there were remnants of the traditions of Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) in pre-Islamic Arabian society. This is why the Quran's attitude towards it was essentially one of reform and restoration. Some aspects of the pre-Islamic way of life were abolished, some were altered and continued, others were left unchanged and incorporated into the Shari'ah, and new practices were also introduced. The Quran took a nuanced and practical stance that sought to abolish or modify only those things that conflict with its values and objectives; everything else was either explicitly or implicitly approved and left in tact. So the absolute rejectionist stance--the idea that Jaahiliyyah is a 'complete system' and that it is completely evil or at odds with Islam in 'every sense'--has no basis in the Quran's view of societies and cultures. All societies have positive, negative, and neutral elements. Islam accommodates everything that is naturally positive or neutral, which is to say compatible with its principles and objectives. The wisdom of the Quran's approach in dealing with the predominantly pagan society of pre-Islamic Arabia is in glaring contrast to the compound ignorance displayed by those who view and treat Muslim societies as 'jaahili' societies (of disbelief/paganism) and who thus either isolate themselves or run around wrecking havoc because they think they have to establish Islam afresh, as if for the first time, in societies that have already accepted it and in which it already has deep roots. Nur;692146 wrote: We know this to be true since the Prophet SAWS talked about an era that would come later that Islam will be strange again like the early days of Makkah, and for that to happen, Jaahiliyyah must be fully established in a previously "Muslim" society. Fourth, the knowledge that Islam will return to being ghareeb and the idea that Muslim societies have 'fully reverted' to Jaahiliyyah, the latter of which is what Qutb's theory propounds, have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The first is from the Sunnah and the other is from a false theory that contradicts the revealed texts. That Islam will return to being strange is from the authentic statements of the Prophet (may peace and blessings be upon him) and the hadiths describe who the strangers are. There are many scholarly explanations of those narrations, but Al-Ghurabah, a translation of Ibn Rajab's treatise on the subject, is particularly thorough in case anyone wants to benefit from it. The strangers are explained as being those who will remain upon the Sunnah and rectify themselves or the people when/where there is corruption. As Sheikh Bin Baz's answer mentions, what makes them strange can have different meanings at different places and times (it may mean an increase in deviation in one place/time, negligence of da'wah at another place/time, people being distracted with worldly matters at another place/time, etc.). Their strangeness has to do with their being the most upright of people, a minority among humanity and among Muslims as well, but they will remain until the Day of Judgment. The hadiths and their explanations basically reassure the strangers because of the difficulties they will face, but they do not say or suggest that the rest of the Muslims will leave the fold of Islam. To paraphrase its translation, the explanation of the ghurabaa hadith in Majmu' al-Fataawa Ibn Taymiyyah (Vol. 18, pg. 291-305) mentions that the return of strangeness can have two possible meanings: (1) Islam will become afflicted with obscurity and weakness similar to when it began and this condition will differ from time to time and place to place, such that it may exist in a particular place or during a particular period of time and not another; or (2) there will be no Muslims at the end of the world, except for a very small number, and this will occur after the appearance of the Anti-Christ, Gog and Magog, and very close to when the gentle breeze will take the souls of the believers. Neither of those meanings corroborates Qutb's theory. As mentioned, that theory applies universality to Jaahiliiyyah and describes the Ummah as having been 'extinct' for centuries. The hadiths about the strangers are themselves proof of its falsity because they support the knowledge that part of the Ummah will always remain upon the truth, meaning there will be Restricted Jaahiliyyah until the Day of Judgment. In saying this, I have not addressed every statement of yours that I disagree with, only the main flaws in your argument. Misunderstandings of the concept of Jaahiliyyah have led some people far astray so, once again, my advice is that we all refer back to the scholars in order to gain a proper understanding of it.

Nur, I provided verifiable sources that explain the sound understanding of this concept among the people of knowledge. It seems you are arguing against what they have said based on nothing more than your own opinion and interpretations. Can you provide credible scholarly sources that support your stance? To be clear, when I said specific Quran verses and Ahadith, I meant specific as in particular (not specific as in the definitive rulings of the Shari'ah) and I was referring to those cited in the Islam QA fatwa. It goes without saying that even if the scholars' position is based on ijtihad, the opinions of unknown laypeople as such you and I are not on par with their deductions, especially when they agree on something, such as it being impermissible to call Muslim societies 'jaahili' in general terms. So if anyone of us wants to argue against their definitions and rulings, it is only reasonable to counter them with other scholarly sources that corroborate one's view. (Sources that clearly make an argument for your stance, not ones that say something vague or general which you would then interpret for the reader.) The scholars' explanations have been laid out and they are clear. I will now focus on your argument. Nur;689676 wrote: Can we then safely say that a society that displays all four manifestation of Jahiliyyah is a indeed a Jahili Society? Nur;692146 wrote: My question in this thread was examining the case when all of the elements of the Jaahiliyyah System are manifested in a modern society that claims to be "Muslim Society", we set out in this thread to verify such a claim in a scholarly way. That claim is obviously a forgone conclusion on your part and you have been trying to rationalize it, but you still have not established its validity. The first thing that needed to be established is: where on earth is such a case to be found? What Muslim society has all the elements of the Jaahiliyyah system you speak of? What exactly does manifesting all the elements of Jaahiliyyah entail? Is there a Muslim society today that has all the elements of its pre-Islamic past still in place? Or a Muslim society in which the Shari'ah is completely non-existent and something else has been put in its place as a total replacement? It has to first be proven that such a society exists before its peculiar case can be examined. Nur;692146 wrote: 2. Judicial ( Xukum): Any Period when Islam as a system is replaced by any other belief system with its own Laws, Culture, Allegiance, Social Norms etc. This further classified as: A. Absolute: When it is the only visible SYSTEM i. Person: Who is not a Muslim is Jaahiili ii. A Society : That has chosen to take a wholesome SYSTEM opposite to Islam as their System. B. Partial: When aspects of Jaahiliyyah is visible i. In a person ( Does not make him Jaahili) ii. In a Society ( Does not sufficiently make it Jaahil) Your argument revolves around two main points: (1) any (Muslim) society that does not adhere to the Shari'ah as a complete system is a 'jaahili' society, which is what you have been making a case for from the onset, and (2) any period of time during which the Shari'ah is not in place as a complete system is one of 'Absolute Jaahiliyyah', which you stated in your last two posts. These ideas are not from the realm of 'ilm and the scholars. They are from the realm of thought/idealogy and the revivalism of the 20th Century (and the saying that Islam is a 'system' is the revivalist mantra). They are false ideas that were popularized by some books of opinion and they have no basis in the authentic teachings of Islam. First, the concept of labeling Muslim societies as 'jaahili' in general, unrestricted terms and applying universality to Jaahiliyyah in the context of any period of time since the advent of Islam is false and heretical. It is rooted in the prison writings of Sayyid Qutb, particularly his tract Ma'alim fi al-Tariq (a.k.a. Milestones, 1964). That book lays out a doctrine centered on a theory of modern-day 'universal' Jaahiliyyah, through the lens of which all Muslim societies are viewed as having fallen into disbelief and paganism as a result of the Shari'ah not being in place as a complete system, and it presents guidelines for deposing the 'all-encompassing' Jaahiliyyah through revolutionary activity. Qutb's theory defines Jaahliyyah as "the worship of some people by others" (Milestones, SIME Journal Edition, pg. 116); it also defines the Jaahili society as "any society other than a Muslim society" and it says that "all societies existing in the world today are Jaahili" (pg. 74-75). It also says the Ummah "has been extinct for a few centuries" (pg. 3.). Whether you know it or not, that is where the ideas you are defending come from. That concept characterizes Muslim societies as pagan societies and justifies the wholesale takfeer of them. Even senior leaders and affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood, which the author was part of, have pointed that out (e.g. Fareed Abdulkhaliq, al-Qaradawi) and disassociated their organization from those ideas. Calling whole Muslim societies 'jaahili' has the meaning of justifying or making generalized takfeer of them. The Jaahiliyyah theory in effect does that to the entire Ummah. But even if people apply it on a smaller scale and use it to make judgments about particular Muslim societies or groups of people (as some have been known to do), it is still falsehood. The scholars' position on this subject has been delineated so one can easily see the baseless of that theory. It contravenes the sound understanding of the Quran and Sunnah, violates the rulings derived from them, and goes against the scholarly consensus. Second, the Hukm factor you mentioned is the rationale (al-Haakmiyyah) behind the Jaahiliyyah theory. The belief that rulings must be based on what Allah has revealed is part of the Tawheed so it is legitimate in itself, but in the context of that false theory or any other concept that is inconsistent with Islamic teachings, it is an invalid rationale. It is a case of the Tawheed being used to justify something that plainly contradicts the revealed texts. When Muslim societies are governed by entities with un-Islamic laws, the correct thing to say is that those specific un-Islamic laws are jaahili. Period. The existence of those laws does not remove people from the fold of Islam and it does not make that entire society a 'jaahili' society of disbelief or paganism. It does not mean that whole society is engaged in 'rebellion against the sovereignty of Allah', nor does it make the people 'pagans' who associate partners with Allah by obeying man-made laws, which is what the false Jaahiliyyah theory leads people to think. Some of the worse fitan that have erupted within the Ummah since the mid-20th Century--particularly the emergence of groups like Takfeer wal-Hijra, the spread of neo-Kharijite thought among other people/groups besides them, and the spread of violent political movements--are known to have their roots in ideas and methods that were derived from or influenced by that false doctrine of Jaahiliyyah. Many scholars have clarified the truth and refuted that concept (as well as the other errors in Qutb's writings) so there is no good reason to believe in, defend, or propagate those errors. The statements of the Prophet (may peace and blessings be upon him) demonstrate how the term Jaahiliyyah should be applied. He lived during a time when Islam had not spread beyond Arabia and he nonetheless applied the term in a restricted manner--e.g. in reference to specific statements or actions--and he did not use it in unrestricted or absolute terms unless he was referring to the period before the advent of Islam. What more does one need? Those who do the opposite of his example are people who oppose his approach, either out of ignorance or in favour of their own whims and opinions (as if they know better). That is the root of their problem and the remedy is to return to the Sunnah.

Some more clarifications are needed here. The fatwa was meant to show that the scholars makes an important distinction between the two types of Jaahiliyyah on the basis of specific Quran verses and Ahadith. The distinction comes with important rulings which govern how this term is applied and they are the key to understanding this concept. I agree the words general and specific are imprecise. General does not fully convey the pervasiveness of the pre-Islamic Jaahiliyyah. In Sheikh Fawzaan's Aqeedah at-Tawheed, the two types are referred to as Universal Jaahiliyyah and Restricted Jaahiliyyah, which in my view are more fitting. The terms used above, Absolute and Partial, are also more suitable. The fatwa is most useful in the way it presents what the scholars, past and present, have said on this subject and it shows that there are no major differences of opinion among them. They have generally said the same things in different words. Their definitions and rulings can be summed up as follows: 1) Jaahiliyyah is of two types: Universal and Restricted (or Absolute and Partial) 2) Universal Jaahiliyyah existed during the pre-Islamic age; it was ended by the mission of Prophet Muhammad (may peace and blessings be upon him) 3) It is impermissible to say there has been Universal Jaahiliyyah during any period of time since the advent of Islam or to apply universality to the term in reference to any period since then a) It would mean there is no true source of Divine Guidance in the world, as in the pre-Islamic age b) It would contradict Allah's promise to preserve Islam (e.g. Surah al-Hijr 15:9) c) It would contradict the hadiths that say some Muslims will always adhere to the truth d) It would contradict the way term was applied by the Prophet (may peace and blessings be upon him) 4) Restricted Jaahiliyyah will continue to exist until the Day of Judgment; it may appear in some lands, some groups, or some individuals a) Some of the characteristics of Jaahiliyyah can be used to describe certain people, groups, or lands b) The description has to be made specific and restricted by a condition Example: A Muslim person may be said to have an element of Jaahiliyyah in him/her, if the description rightfully applies to him/her; or a Muslim land may be said to have some aspects of Jaahiliyyah in it, as opposed to it being described as a 'jaahili' land in general terms. 5) It is impermissible to describe whole Muslim societies or all Muslim societies as 'jaahili' a) For all of the reasons mentioned in point 3 b) Only non-Muslim societies can be described as 'jaahili' in general terms c) It is also impermissible to look down on Muslim societies and show contempt towards them Those are the raw facts from what they have said. It needs to be reemphasized that in order to handle this subject properly in any discussion, the rulings on the usage of the term have to be followed. Knowing that Restricted Jaahiliyyah continues to exist and knowing it can appear in Muslim individuals, groups, or lands, we are required to address its manifestations in a specific and restricted way. It is impermissible to apply the term Jaahiliyyah in a general and unrestricted way to whole Muslim societies, the Ummah, or any period of time since the advent of Islam. As the fatwa stresses, "the scholars are agreed on this point" of it being impermissible to describe or view whole Muslim societies as 'jaahili'. Now some brief points of correction about the conclusion drawn above: part 1 is correct, but 2 is incorrect. The Hukm factor that was added to the equation is out of place and the meaning of Absolute/Universal Jaahiliyyah was erroneously redefined. It does not apply to a particular person or society in the context of our time or any period since the advent of Islam. It is when there is a general absence of a true source of Divine Guidance and it refers to the Jaahiliyyah of the pre-Islamic era, which ended and will not return. Here are the definitions and rulings as explained in Sheikh Fawzaan's book: Chapter 1.5: Jahiliyyah, Fisq, Dhalal, Riddah: Its Types and Rulings From "The Book of Tawheed" translated by Mahmood Muraad 1. Jahiliyyah: the state in which the Arabs were before Islam, during which they were ignorant of Allah, His Messengers and His laws, and were boastful of their ancestral nobility, arrogance, ruthlessness and the like. Jahiliyyah is ignorance, or lack of knowledge. Shaikh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyyah said: "He who does not know the truth possesses simple ignorance, but if he believes in other than the truth, his ignorance is compound. If he speaks against the truth knowingly or unknowingly, he is ignorant too. Having clarified this, people, were in an era of ignorance prior to the Mission of the Messenger of Allah (salallahu alaihe wa-sallam), for what they used to follow of utterances and deeds were invented by the ignorant and practices by the ignorant. Similarly, everything which contradicts which the Messengers brought, whether the Messages of Judaism, or Christianity, is considered as Jahiliyyah. Such was the universal Jahiliyyah. But after the Mission of the Messenger of Allah (salallahu alaihe wa-sallam), it is not more universal, rather Jahiliyyah may exist in one country or another. It also exists in the lands of infidels (non-Muslim countries). It may also exist in one person or another. For example, a man prior to his conversion to Islam, was in Jahiliyyah even though he lived in a Muslim country. But there is no universal, or absolute Jahiliyyah after the Mission of Muhammad (salallahu alaihe wa-sallam). There shall always be a victorious band of his Ummah (nation) adhering to the truth until the Final Hour. Restricted Jahiliyyah, one the other hand, may exist in some Muslims, and in many Muslims. The Messenger of Allah (salallahu alaihe wa-sallam) said: "There are four traits of Jahiliyyah in my Ummah." And he said to Abu Dharr: "You are a man, who possess a trace of Jahiliyyah." In brief, Jahiliyyah is derived from Jahl which is lack of knowledge and it is of two kinds: 1. Universal Jahiliyyah, which existed before the Mission of the Messenger (salallahu alaihe wa-sallam), and ended with it. 2. Restricted Jahiliyyah, which exists in some countries, cities or persons. Hence, it becomes clear the mistake of those who impute universal Jahiliyyah to this age referring to it as the Jahiliyyah of this century of the like. Whereas the correct statement to say is, 'the Jahiliyyah of some or most of the people of this century.' It is neither correct not permissible to impute universality to it, for universal Jahiliyyah was obliterated by the Mission of the Prophet (salallahu alaihe wa-sallam). This makes it abundantly clear that the age of Universal Jaahiliyyah ended and will not return. What exists now and will continue to exist until the Day of Judgment is Restricted Jaahiliyyah. We are required to address its manifestations accordingly; in specific and restricted terms. The scholars' position is pretty clear and straightforward. It has been presented and clarified so we have no excuse to ignore it. I will expand on the points of correction, insha'Allah.