^ 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.

Mosque Shuns FBI Informant December 7, 2010 Al Jazeera FBI practices draw criticism as a former informant sues the bureau, raising further questions among American Muslims. Al Jazeera aired this report about Monteilh in 2009 The counter-terrorism practices of the FBI have once more been placed under the spotlight, as a former informant seeks legal action against the bureau, the Washington Post reported. A story first reported by Al Jazeera 16 months ago; the FBI informant attempted to infiltrate an Islamic community centre located in Irvine, California. Scaring Muslim worshippers to such an extent - with his talk of violent jihad - that they proceeded to take out a restraining order against him. However, the FBI claims its use of such informants has prevented a host of further attacks since the events of September 11, 2001. The latest case follows revelations that a man who tried to bomb a Christmas event in Portland, Oregon, did so not only whilst under FBI surveillance, but had been provided with fake explosives by its undercover agents. Making matters worse for the agency, Craig Monteilh, the convicted fraudster whom the FBI sent into the mosque to spy on its members, has gone public in suing the investigative agency. Yet its officials have said that they do not target Muslims - an argument that has long been taken with a dose of scepticism by Muslim communities across the length and breadth of the United States. The two cases are reviving criticisms over the government agency's apparent surveillance of Muslims in the US. Southern Californian Muslim community leaders have expressed outrage over the FBI's methods, saying it undermines any efforts to build trust. "The community feels betrayed," Shakeel Syed, the executive director of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California, told the Post. "They got a guy, a bona fide criminal, and obviously trained him and sent him to infiltrate mosques," Syed was quoted as saying. "And when things went sour, they ditched him and he got mad. It's like a soap opera, for God's sake." ........................................... Reported elsewhere: CAIR Representative Speaks about Extremism and Youth Entrapment 01/27/2011 Faiz Ahmed EWL News (...) Imam Walid spoke about how certain types of people are being targeted by the FBI for entrapment. " Muslim from poor backgrounds, from vulnerable groups, refugee communities, are being targeted. Somali Americans are most at risk " he said. Muslims are being brought into plots that they were not planning to be a part of, new Muslims, poor Muslims and young Muslims are being entrapped into these plots he explained. He also mentioned that the people who are being used as informants are Muslims and non-Muslims pretending to be Muslims. The Muslim who are being asked to act as informants are mainly people who are facing criminal liabilities, who are facing immigration issues, or financial issues .

Entrapped: FBI Targets Left-Out Youth of Color Linda Averill February 2011 Source: Socialism As U.S. wars in the Middle East drag on, the Obama Administration is in desperate need of an excuse to clamp down on dissent over U.S. foreign policy there. Enter the war on “homegrown terrorism.” In the 1950s, communists were the bogeymen used to justify the Cold War against the Soviet Union and a huge U.S. arms buildup. Today, the Department of Justice and FBI are waging a similar witch-hunt, only this time targeting primarily Arab Americans, Muslims, and young men of color. Socialists and anti-war rad-icals, especially in the pro-Palestinian solidarity movement, are also on the line. (See FBI widens witch-hunt.) In one recent example of this so-called war to root out domestic terrorists, FBI spooks “caught” Mohamed Mohamud, a 19-year-old Somali-American who, they claimed, almost bombed a tree-lighting ceremony in Oregon. In late November, media blared the news that FBI agents had saved thousands of Portlanders from death. But as details emerged, public shock turned to anger. Not only had agents provided the teen the fake bomb, they had groomed him in the plot for months. Said Saba Ahmed, whose brother grew up with Mohamud, “This guy has been framed really badly.” Dig deeper and the FBI’s repressive political aims and racist methods surface. In a campaign reminiscent of how the government trampled the civil rights of Japanese-Americans during World War II, the FBI is today sending provocateurs into Muslim and Arab American communities, to create terrorist plots where none exist. The aim of this witch-hunt is to whip up fear and support for the phony war on terror, demonize and marginalize communities with ties to the Middle East, and silence all criticism of U.S. war aims, especially its backing of Israeli imperialism. The war at home. With direction from the U.S. Department of Justice and Attorney General Eric Holder, the FBI is dumping tax dollars into a vast domestic spy network. In addition to eavesdropping, raiding homes of anti-war activists, and engaging in other unconstitutional acts, the FBI is sending provocateurs into Muslim and Arab American communities to find young men who can be lured into misdeeds — often using offers of money and goods. In Irvine, Calif., one operative was so aggressive in his methods that leaders of a Mosque sought a restraining order to keep him away. Another case in December involved Antonio Martinez (also called Muhammad Hussain), a 21-year-old construction worker in Baltimore. Agents provided Martinez with an SUV and fake bomb, as well as months of coaching. In Newburgh, N.Y., four young Black men, all ex-prisoners in their twenties, were lured into a fake bomb plot by an FBI informant who used offers of jobs, food, help with medical bills, and more. The men now face life in prison. At trial, their overburdened defense attorneys argued the FBI entrapped them. But courts, no matter how outrageous FBI methods, are ruling harshly, thanks to the bipartisan anti-terror hype and hysteria. Other cases, including the Fort Dix Five and Liberty City Seven, follow similar patterns, where paid provocateurs target men of color, mostly young, poor and disenfranchised as a result of their economic, religious, and/or immigration status. At one recent forum in New York City to discuss this growing trend, Alicia McWilliams, aunt of a Newburgh Four defendant, summarized the FBI’s modus operandi: “They pick the most vulnerable county in the state. Where there’s no jobs, where there’s no training. Newburgh is where the unskilled live. You can’t tell me these individuals masterminded anything.” Red Scare redux. Under President Obama, liberal and progressive organizations have too often excused the administration’s attacks on civil liberties. But as the Department of Homeland Security escalates police state measures (airport full body scans, ICE raids, etc.), opposition is heating up. This is especially true in Muslim and Arab communities and the anti-war movement, where the FBI has focused its fire. To boost support for repressive policies, Attorney General Holder is striving to convince the public that domestic terrorists really are lurking everywhere. Not to be outdone, Republicans intend to kick the witch-hunt into overdrive. New York’s Rep. Peter King, new chair for the U.S. House Committee on Homeland Security, plans to hold hearings on the “radicalization of Muslims” and “homegrown terrorism.” This grandstanding fuels bigotry and real attacks against Muslims and Arab Americans. While the FBI trolls “jihad” chat rooms, the Minutemen, Nazis, Sarah Palin, and Fox News talk of shooting their opponents — and sometimes do, or inspire others, such as Arizona shooter Jared Loughner. Democrats and Republicans mouth concern over this rightwing violence. But the test is whether they speak up and defend those under attack. Shortly after the agency sensationalized its capture of Mohamud in Portland, a mosque the teen attended in nearby Corvallis was torched in retribution. Arsons, vandalism, Koran burnings and hate rallies are becoming common. But this kind of terrorism is ignored or whitewashed by the FBI. Resistance is growing. Clearly, these attacks won’t be going away any time soon. But government dirty tactics are also creating a breed of activists who are not easily intimidated. This is good news. In Oregon, residents quickly organized a vigil to show their support for the Muslim community. Later, Portlanders spoke against establishing a Joint Terrorism Task Force there. In New York, Arab Americans, Muslims, and civil rights groups have organized forums to educate about FBI entrapment. Lamis Deek, of the National Lawyers Guild and Al-Awda NY, characterized the attacks as a threat that imperils everyone’s constitutional rights, and called for a collective defense. Across the U.S., student groups involved in Palestinian solidarity work signed a letter condemning the FBI raids and grand jury summons against anti-war socialists in the Midwest. And in several cities, defense committees are helping victims of FBI entrapment. Readers can learn about these efforts through Project SALAM, Support and Legal Advocacy for Muslims, at www.projectsalam.org. As Obama and both major parties ratchet up repression, the best response is an aggressive and radical offense that educates about who the real terrorists are — the U.S. and global capitalist ruling class.

The news story about Bin Laden's alleged assassination this month, which <a href="http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=24669 " target="_blank">fall apart within its first week, is indeed a farce. It shows how little the US government and its mouthpieces in the media think of the public they are supposed to serve. They are trying to feed people lies that even a child can see through. The evidence that has amassed over the past decade indicates that Bin Laden died many years ago, most likely in 2001. Numerous government and intelligence officials and heads of state both in and outside the US have confirmed it. The CIA unit that was dedicated to tracking and capturing him was in fact <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/washington/04intel.html " target="_blank">closed in 2005. Former CIA officials also admitted to filming at least one fake video tape of Bin Laden. This was someone who has had a virtual existence since 2001 because we only hear of 'him' through questionable video and audio recordings provided by shady Zionist sources. It has been proven the 'Al-Qaeda' tapes are pre-recorded, staged (sometimes with terrible ), and digitally manipulated. If we care to search for the truth, there are many books and articles that dismantle the fiction of the war of terror. The reality is--and this should be well-known to us by now--9/11 was a false flag operation and 'Al-Qaeda' does not exist, though the myth of it, created and kept alive by intelligence agencies, is used to further the objectives of the imperialist powers' elites. The question now is what agenda(s) does the (very belated) announcement of Bin Laden's death serve and how will it be used in the future? The reactions to the story are something else. Some Muslims have welcomed the alleged assassination and others are eulogizing him. Either way, they have seem to have blindly accepted the story as truth, which indicates that some of us are still stuck in the propaganda matrix. One can only hope the sloppy handling and obvious falseness of this story will give some people enough of a jolt to wake them up.

Nomads, as I mentioned, the scholars have differences of opinion on the mawlid. They agree on it being an innovation, but they disagree on its legality as a celebration. They have differences of opinion on the general concept of innovation in Islam, not just the mawlid, and it stems from their interpretations of the Principles of Fiqh. The details are perhaps better suited for another discussion, but we can simply note that they have different understandings of the concept of bid'ah and varying methodologies for dealing with it. Their opinions on the mawlid have generally been of three types, which were all mentioned in the fatwa on page one: - some considered it disliked - a few considered it prohibited - some considered it permissible (if it is kept within the parameters of the Shari'ah) All of these opinions have been held by well-reputed scholars and evidence from the revealed texts can be used to support each view. Moreover, the divergence in the scholars' views on the concept of innovation goes beyond this one subject and beyond the issues of today. It existed before the mawlid was invented, before the scholars of our time were born, and before the modern movements that were mentioned in the thread came into being. We should take that into account and not be quick to cast aspersions on anyone, especially senior scholars, when they hold an opinion we may not agree with. The video clip of the event in Norway showed one of the attendees calling the celebration 'waajib'. Some of the other speakers also appeared to have had misconceptions about those who do not celebrate the mawlid. The fatwa serves to remind people of the strict conditions that must be met--i.e., that the mawlid is not an act of worship nor a legitimate Sunnah and cannot be intended as such and that the gatherings must be conducted in a way that complies with the Shari'ah--in order for the act to be within the limits of what could be considered permissible. It also reminds people that those who do not celebrate the mawlid avoid it for their own legitimate reasons, meaning people should respect each other's views. Sheikh Bin Bayyah did not say anything new on the subject, but he made a meaningful attempt to bridge rifts and engender better relations between Muslims. I hope that is not lost on us. Let us also remember that when an act is said to be permissible, it is a neutral and indifferent ruling. It is neither recommended nor discouraged and it is not considered to bring either reward or punishment in itself. It is the intention for doing the act and the way it is done that might bring reward or punishment. So the intention and the actions that follow it must also be permissible, otherwise the ruling can change to disliked or prohibited. When someone participates in a mawlid gathering thinking it is a compulsory part of the religion or a legitimate act of worship, it becomes prohibited to them because that is an innovation in belief and worship. When the gathering consists of unlawful activities, it becomes prohibited then too and in that case, avoiding it would become compulsory. This is part of the reason some of the scholars frown upon the prevalent mawlid practices. Not because there is something inherently wrong with the concept of celebrating the Prophet's birth, life, and legacy (may peace and blessings be upon him), but because they do not want something that would otherwise be permissible to be treated like it is 'waajib'. They do not want laypeople to imbue with extra meanings and ritualize it or cross the line in other ways with their behaviour--by setting aside a specific date for it, putting an inordinate amount of effort into gathering people, missing real duties like prayer while taking part in it, and so on. Our deen is orderly and it requires that our intentions and actions be kept within their proper proportions and limits. People have to mindful of this and extremely careful. Al-Miskiin;713026 wrote: Mawliidku waa cibaado, qofkii xusa nabiga ajar buu Allah ka filayaa. Qaacidada fiqhiguna waa asal ahaan cibaadadu waa XAARAAM!, wait wait, let me finish, Cibaadadu waa xaaraam ilaa wixii nas(daliil, proof) ku yimid mooyaane. That means, wax alle wixii aanaan daliil cad u haynin, oo aanan nabigiii(salallahu alayhi wasalam) laga keenin waa xaaraan. This is certainly true when it comes to people who think the mawlid celebration is an act of worship. Is that the belief and intention of everyone who takes part in it? To be fair, we cannot assume it is. We should keep in mind that there isn't a cookie-cutter formula for how people observe the mawlid. It varies widely according to local customs, which can change over time. The kind of activities we associate with it based our sociocultural background are not necessarily reflective of how everyone observes it, so there is a need to make some distinction between the concept of the mawlid and the ways people observe it at particular places and times. Having read the thread again, I think it would help if nomads were more specific about what they are defending or opposing. If you are a proponent of the mawlid, are you defending mawlid celebrations in general or particular types of gatherings? If you oppose it, are you objecting to the excesses of the prevalent customs or do you reject the very concept of a mawlid gathering as an 'innovation', irrespective of its quality and form?

Origin of All Goodness – Ibn al-Qayyim al-Jawziyyah Translated from Kitab al Fawai’d Publisher: Dar al-Kitab al-'Arabi, Tahqiq by Dr M. Al-Iskandarani Source: Maqasid Press Imam Ibn al Qayyim al Jawziyyah wrote: The foundation of all goodness is to know that whatever Allah wills, will be, and whatever He does not will, will not be. Thereafter you will be certain that hasanat (good actions) are blessings from Him (Allah), and you will thank Him and appeal to Him not to cut you off from it. You will know that sins are from His punishment and forsaking so you will invoke Him to protect you from it and not to leave you on your own in doing good and bad deeds. The Gnostics are all in agreement that origin of all goodness is through the tawfiq of Allah to the 'abd (servant), and the origin of all evil is His forsaking of His servant. They are all in agreement that Tawfiq is when He does not leave you on your own, and forsaking is when He abandons you and leaves you on your own devices. So if the origin of all goodness is through tawfiq which is in the hands of Allah not in the hands of the servant; therefore its key is supplication, resorting to Allah, and sincere hope and fear of Him. Whenever the servant is given this key; He desires to welcome him, and whenever He diverts him from the key, the door to goodness remains open without him. Amir al-Mu'mineen Umar Ibn Al-Khattab said. "I do not care for the response of my supplication, but I care for the supplication, if I am inspired to supplication then the answer is with it". According to the level of intention of the servant, his determination, his purpose and his desire in the matter, He (Allah) will aid and grant him success. Therefore the aid from Allah descends to the servants according to the level of their determination, their firmness, their desire and their fear (of him). Abandoning (of Allah) also descends upon them according to that. Allah is the most prudent of all judges and the best knower of all those who know. He grants tawfiq (success) in the most suitable places for them, and forsaking in its suitable times, and He is the most Knowledgeable, the most Wise. No one has been abandoned except because he has deserted being thankful, neglecting to resort to Him and supplicating to Him. No one has been victorious through the will of Allah and His aid except by being thankful, and sincerely resorting to Him and supplicating to Him. And the basis of all that is patience; and its place in iman is on the same level of the head is to the body; if the head is cut off then the body will not remain.

This is an issue over which the scholars disagree. It is best to learn about the history of the mawlid and the different scholarly views on it in order to formulate an informed opinion and make informed decisions. There is one fact that no one can argue with. The concept of celebrating annual birthdays and anniversaries is foreign to Islam. It is not prescribed by the Quran and Sunnah and it was not practised by the Prophet (may peace and blessings be upon him) and his Companions, nor the generations immediately after them, nor anyone else in the Muslim world during the first four centuries of Islam. There has never been any dispute among the scholars, irrespective of whether they approve or disapprove of it, that this celebration is an innovation in Islam. What they disagree on is the question of its permissibility; whether or not there is good in it and whether there is such a thing as a good religious innovation. The subject seems to often be addressed in a very one-sided manner by laypeople and scholars alike. The most balanced explanation and ruling I have come across is that of Sheikh Abdullah bin Bayyah (hafidullah), who made an admirable effort to address the concerns of both sides and bring people closer together. On Celebrating The Prophet’s Birthday ﷺ – Shaykh Abdullah Bin Bayyah WebbTranslators | February 17, 2010 2:55 pm Answered by Dr. Abdullah bin Bayyah | Translated by Suhaib Webb Source: SuhaibWebb.com Background: The celebration of the birthday of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) is an issue of controversy amongst the scholars. Thus, there were some who considered it a disliked innovation, a few even saying it reached the level of prohibition, and there were others who considered it a praiseworthy innovation. This difference is traced back to a divergence concerning the division of innovation (bid’ah). Some scholars recognized the validity of such innovations and this was, primarily, the school of Imam Al-Shafi’i (May Allah have mercy upon him) and the head of this thought was Al-’Izzi Adin Abdul Salam (May Allah have mercy upon him). In addition, Imam Al-Qarafi (May Allah have mercy upon him) who was a Maliki, carried this same opinion, giving it great attention , explaining it in an exhaustive manner. In his discussion Al-Qarafi (ra) expanded the concept of innovation to included innovations that were commendable, highly recommended, obligatory and a disliked nature. Thus, he divided innovation into five parts: (obligatory, recommended, permissible, disliked and forbidden). There were some scholars who failed to accept this division contending that, “Any innovation, if it appears, then it is repulsive in nature.” They did this by restricting the statement of ‘Umar (ra), regarding the tarawih prayers, “This is a good innovation” to its linguistic meaning. There was a large body of scholars who held this opinion such as Taqi al-Din Ahmad Ibn Taymiyyah, Al-Shatibi, in his book Al-’Itisam, and many scholars from the Maliki and Hanbali schools (may Allah have mercy upon all of them). Finally, there were scholars who wrote in support of celebrating the Mawlid such as Al-Suyuti (May Allah have mercy upon him) and, at the same time, there were others who wrote against it. Thus, in my opinion, there is no need to drag this discussion out, nor continue to argue about it any longer. The Ruling: Whoever wants to celebrate the Prophet’s (sa) birthday should celebrate it and avoid doing any action contrary to Islamic Law. This act should be done with an intention that it is not a sunna nor an obligatory act. If these conditions are observed, and one is careful not to contradict Islamic Law, out of sincere love for the Prophet (Peace and blessing of Allah upon him), then, Allah willing, there is nothing wrong with this action and this person will be rewarded. Commenting on this, the Shaykh of Islam Ibn Taymiyyah (May Allah have mercy upon him) said, “Indeed, such a person will be rewarded because of his intention.” Likewise, for the one who shuns this celebration, seeking to cling to the sunna out of fear of falling into innovation, then this person will also be rewarded, Allah willing. It is important to note that this is not a big issue. Nor is it necessary to give it more attention then it deserves. The Methodology: Our attention towards this issue is directed towards uniting the Muslims and curbing these differences. We base this understanding on facilitation (for both sides) and ease. This ease is not founded on an empty premise, but is referenced directly back to the Quran, traditions of the Prophet (sa), the fundamental objectives of Islamic law, and the order of the Prophet (sa) to work towards unity between others. If a contentious issue arises pertaining to a matter, we exercise great consideration and respect for both sides. This consideration is not simply an act of being overly accommodative, as some contend, or attacking those who hold weak opinions. But, this respect and consideration for differences is guided by the fact that both opinions are based on proofs from Islamic Law. In some regards these proofs are clear, and in other regards the opposite holds true. Thus, some (scholars) have provided evidences for these acts’ legitimacy, and others hold proofs for the opposite. In conclusion, our stance is that both are on goodness, Allah willing, as long as this act is not mixed with some type of evil and the intention is correct. Allah knows best. In the video clip, when Yasir Qadhi says the mawlid began in Khorasan around 620s Hijri, he is talking about when it was first initiated as a government-sponsored celebration in Sunni lands. In the Muslim world in general, the earliest recorded celebration took place in Cairo, Egypt, in 517 H (1123 CE) during the Fatimid Dynasty. At that time, Egypt was ruled by Ismaili Shi'as and the mawlid al-nabi was one of numerous Shi'i festivals they sponsored in commemoration of the Ahl al-Bayt. That is how it began as an official public celebration. The earliest recorded public celebration of a similar kind took place in Sunni lands about a century later (in Khorasan during the 600s, as he mentioned). There are more details in a piece he has on MuslimMatters entitled 'The Birth-Date of the Prophet and the History of the Mawlid'.

Yaa Tahay, You began this thread by issuing a fatwa and went on to make tafkeer of a Muslim without any legitimate reason whatsoever, as far as anyone can tell. If your aim was to convey the message that Muslims should take Allah alone as Judge and rule by what He has revealed, you defeated your own point by taking it upon yourself to redefine what constitutes belief and disbelief in Islam and by passing verdicts who is or is not a Muslim according to your own narrow view, as opposed what Allah has revealed. My advice to you and everyone else, including myself, is to fear Allah subhaanahu wa ta'aala and to not talk about His religion without knowledge. Do not let the alias and false of sense of anonymity carry you away. Allah is the Ever-Present Witness to all we say and do. And shenanigans will not be tolerated here, insha'Allah. To the nomads who tried to advise the brother, thank you. This thread is now closed.

(continued from the above) So there is still in this ummah a good and blessed group that is following the guidance of the Qur’aan and Sunnah and is far removed from the Jaahiliyyah of the past or present. Hence I think that using the word “Jaahiliyyah” to refer to the twentieth century is exaggeration, because this may give the impression that all of Islam has deviated completely from Tawheed and sincerity in worshipping Allaah alone. So this century – the twentieth century – has become like the time of Jaahiliyyah in which the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was sent to bring them forth from darkness into light. In that case, this usage in general terms should be limited to the kuffaar first, those of whom Allaah says (interpretation of the meaning): “Fight against those who (1) believe not in Allaah, (2) nor in the Last Day, (3) nor forbid that which has been forbidden by Allaah and His Messenger (Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم), (4) and those who acknowledge not the religion of truth (i.e. Islam) among the people of the Scripture (Jews and Christians), until they pay the Jizyah with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued” [al-Tawbah 9:29]. Describing the twentieth century as Jaahiliyyah can only be applied to non-Muslims who do not follow the Qur’aan and Sunnah. But using it in general terms may imply that there is no goodness left in the Muslims, and this is contrary to what has been explained above in the ahaadeeth of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), who said that there would remain a group of this ummah that would adhere to the truth, such as the hadeeth in which he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Islam began as something strange and will go back to being something strange so glad tidings to the strangers.” They said: Who are they, O Messenger of Allaah? There are several versions of this hadeeth, in some of which the Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) described the strangers as: “The ones who will revive what the people neglect of my Sunnah after I am gone.” According to another report he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “They are people who are righteous and few in number among many people and those who disobey them will be more than those who obey them.” Hence it is not permissible to use this description (Jaahiliyyah) in general terms to refer to the current era, because among them – praise be to Allaah – there are some good ones who still adhere to the guidance of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) and his Sunnah, and it will continue like that until the Hour begins. Moreover, in the words of Sayyid Qutub – may Allaah have mercy on him – and in some of his books there is that which makes the researcher think that he may have been somewhat over-zealous in the way in which he explained Islam to people. Perhaps his excuse for doing so may be that he was writing in a literary style. With regard to some matters of fiqh, such as when he spoke about workers in his book al-‘Adaalah al-Ijtimaa’iyyah (Social Justice), he started to write about Tawheed, and with phrases all of which are strongly worded and instill in the hearts of believers confidence in their religion and faith. In that sense he did indeed renew the call of Islam in the hearts of the youth. Even if we feel sometimes that he said some things which indicate that he did not have the time to examine thoroughly some of the issues that he wrote about, in brief we may say that using this word (Jaahiliyyah) to describe the modern age in sweeping terms is not free from some element of exaggeration which leads to undermining the group that is still prevailing and adhering to the truth. And this is all that I have to say about this matter. End quote. Mu’jam al-Manaahi al-Lafziyyah (p. 212-215). 3. Shaykh Saalih ibn Fawzaan al-Fawzaan (may Allaah preserve him) was asked: Is it permissible to use the word Jaahiliyyah with reference to contemporary Muslim societies? He replied: Jaahiliyyah in general terms ended with the coming of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), so it is not permissible to apply this word to Muslim societies in general terms. As for applying some of its characteristics to describe certain individuals, or some groups, or some societies, that is acceptable and permissible. The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said to one of his Sahaabah: “You are a man in whom there is some Jaahiliyyah.” And he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “There are four matters of Jaahiliyyah in my ummah that they will not give up: pride in one’s forefathers, slandering lineages, seeking rain by the stars and wailing.” Al-Ajwabah al-Mufeedah ‘an As’ilah al-Manaahij al-Jadeedah (86, question no. 31). Thirdly: It is not permissible for the Muslim to regard Muslim societies with a sense of arrogance or to look down on them. That includes regarding all of them as ignorant, deviant and doomed. It was narrated that Abu Hurayrah (may Allaah be pleased with him) said: The Messenger of Allaah (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “If a man says ‘the people are doomed,’ he is the one who caused their doom.” Narrated by Muslim (2623). Imam Ibn ‘Abd al-Barr (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: What this refers to, according to the scholars, is when a man says this by way of looking down on them and showing contempt towards them, and expressing self-admiration. But if he says that out of sorrow and regret, and out of fear for them because of what he sees of their reprehensible actions, then he is not one of those referred to in this hadeeth. The difference between the two is that in the first case the speaker is pleased with himself and admires himself, and he is envious of those who are above him and scornful of those who are below him, whereas in the second case he is scolding and rebuking himself and is not pleased with himself. Al-Tamheed (21/242). And Allaah knows best.

Brother, I'm trying to help you avert a serious mistake, but you are rushing headlong into it. Did you read the source I linked above? It contains very relevant information. I'm pasting it here so please read it, then review what we have discussed so far and let me know if your position is still the same afterwards. Islam-Q&A: Fatwa No. 103660 Is it permissible to use the word Jaahiliyyah to refer to societies after the time of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), whether they are kaafir or Muslim societies?. Praise be to Allaah. Firstly: The word Jaahiliyyah is used to refer to the period before the coming of the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him). It refers to two things that are combined in this period: jahl (ignorance) and jahaalah (foolishness). The word Jaahiliyyah is a blameworthy word. Ignorance and foolishness together are sufficient for a person to disavow himself of them, even if he has these attributes, and knowledge and guidance are sufficient for a person to feel proud of, if he has these attributes, and even if he does not. In al-Mu’jam al-Waseet (1/300) it says: Jaahiliyyah refers to the ways of the Arabs before Islam, namely foolishness and misguidance. End quote. Al-Haafiz Ibn Hajar (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: Jaahiliyyah refers to that which came before Islam. Fath al-Baari (10/468). Al-Mannaawi (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: Jaahiliyyah refers to the time before the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was sent; they called it that because of the extent of their ignorance. Fayd al-Qadeer (1/462). Shaykh Muhammad ibn Saalih al-‘Uthaymeen (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: What is meant by Jaahiliyyah is the time before the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) was sent, because at that time the people’s ignorance was great; it included ignorance both of the rights of Allaah and the rights of His slaves. Al-Qawl al-Mufeed ‘ala Kitaab al-Tawheed (2/146); Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (10/ p. 601). And he said: Wailing is an act of Jaahiliyyah which inevitably continues to exist among this ummah, although it is something that belongs to the Jaahiliyyah, either because of ignorance which is the opposite of knowledge, or because of foolishness which is the opposite of wisdom. Al-Qawl al-Mufeed ‘ala Kitaab al-Tawheed (2/149); Majmoo’ Fataawa al-Shaykh Ibn ‘Uthaymeen (10/p. 603). Secondly: Allaah sent His Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) with guidance and the religion of truth, and Allaah filled the world with light because of him, and brought people forth from darkness into light. By means of him, Allaah dispelled the darkness of ignorance and kufr. With his coming, the era of Jaahiliyyah ended, but has ignorance disappeared from all places and all eras? Of course not. Hence it is not permissible to describe all societies as ignorant after his coming (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), but we cannot say that all societies are free of ignorance either. Some societies are still living in the depths of Jaahiliyyah, so they are not free of this attribute. But the societies on which the light of Islam has shone cannot be described in these terms, and even if they are falling short in some aspects of Islam they cannot be described as jaahili. The scholars are agreed on this point. 1. Shaykh al-Islam Ibn Taymiyah (may Allaah have mercy on him) said: Before the sending of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) the people were in a state of Jaahiliyyah or ignorance. Their words and actions had either been invented for them by one who was ignorant or they were done by one who was ignorant. Similarly, everything that was contrary to the message brought by the Messengers, namely Judaism and Christianity, was Jaahiliyyah. That was Jaahiliyyah in the general sense. But after the coming of the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), it may exist in one place and not another – as it exists in the lands of the kuffaar – and it may exist in one person and not another; a man is in state of Jaahiliyyah before he becomes Muslim, even if he lives in a Muslim land. But in general terms of time, there is no Jaahiliyyah after the coming of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), because among his ummah there is a group which will continue to prevail and follow the truth until the Hour begins. In specific terms, Jaahiliyyah may appear in some Muslim lands, and in many Muslim individuals, as the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “Four things among my ummah are of the Jaahiliyyah” and he said to Abu Dharr: “You are a man in whom there is some Jaahiliyyah” and so on. And he said in this hadeeth: “Someone who tries to follow a jaahili way after becoming Muslim.” This refers to Jaahiliyyah in general, specific type of Jaahiliyyah, Judaism, Christianity, Magianism, Sabianism. idolatry, or a combination of all or some of these or a way that is adopted some of these jaahili religions, because all of them are innovated and were abrogated and became Jaahiliyyah with the coming of Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him); although the word Jaahiliyyah is usually used to refer to the Arabs and their former ways, the meaning is still the same. Iqtida’ al-Siraat al-Mustaqeem (p. 78, 79) 2. Explaining what is wrong with the phrase “The Jahiliyyah of the twentieth century”, Shaykh Bakr Abu Zayd (may Allaah preserve him) said: The great scholar al-Albaani said that this phrase involves exaggeration and overlooking the fact that Islam prevailed over all other religions. In Hayaat al-Albaani (the Life of al-Albaani) it says: The phrase “The Jaahiliyyah of the twentieth century” in al-Albaani’s opinion: Question: The daa’iyah Sayyid Qutub (may Allaah have mercy on him) used a phrase that is often repeated in some Islamic schools of thought of which he is the figurehead, namely “The Jaahiliyyah of the twentieth century”. How precise and correct is this phrase? To what extent does it correspond to the Jaahiliyyah of ancient times in your opinion? Al-Albaani replied: Praise be to Allaah and blessings and peace be upon the Messenger of Allaah and his family and companions and those who followed him after that. What I think is that this phrase, “The Jaahiliyyah of the twentieth century”, is not free of exaggeration about the current century – the twentieth century. The fact that Islam is alive in this century, even though it has been infiltrated by things that are not part of it, means that we cannot say that this century is like the first Jaahiliyyah of old. We know that what is meant by the first Jaahiliyyah is the Arabs only: they were idolaters, they were clearly misguided, and it applies to the religions that existed around the Arabs, namely Judaism and Christianity, which are distorted religions. Therefore, at that time there was no pure religion left that had not been changed and altered. Undoubtedly describing that era as Jaahiliyyah is correct. But that is not the case in the present era, because Allaah blessed the Arabs first, then the rest of mankind, by sending to them Muhammad (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him), the Seal of the Prophets, to whom He revealed the religion of Islam, which is the final religion, and Allaah has promised to preserve this religion as He says (interpretation of the meaning): “Verily, We, it is We Who have sent down the Dhikr (i.e. the Qur’aan) and surely, We will guard it (from corruption)” [al-Hijr 15:9]. His Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told us that the Muslim ummah, although it would be faced with some deviation as befell the nations before it, he said: “You will certainly follow the ways of those who came before you hand span by hand span, cubit by cubit, to the extent that if they entered the hole of a lizard, you will enter it too.” We said: “O Messenger of Allaah, (do you mean) the Jews and the Christians?” He said: “Who else?” I say, Although the Messenger (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) told us that the Muslims would deviate to a large extent and they would imitate the Jews and Christians in that deviation, at the same time he (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) also gave his followers the glad tidings that they would continue to follow the line that he drew for them. He (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) said: “My ummah will divide into seventy-three sects, all of whom will be in Hell except one.” They said: What is it, O Messenger of Allaah? He said: “It is the jamaa’ah (main body of the Muslims)” and according to another report he said: “It is the group that follows the same path as me and my companions.” The Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) confirmed that when he said in a hadeeth the authenticity of which is agreed upon: “A group of my ummah will continue to prevail adhering to the truth and they will not be harmed by those who oppose them, until the decree of Allaah comes to pass.”

Nur, what you deduced is not quite what I would say, but I will give an answer in my own words. I hope you have first understood that the lexical definition you provided above conveys a sense of what the term Jaahiliyyah means, but does not convey how it is applied. That is where the technical definition is useful and it is not based off my own thoughts, but based on the accepted view among the scholars. (The word 'scholars' in my post above is actually a link to a source containing some of their explanations on this matter.) It is good practice to provide both the lexical and technical definitions when they are available and in this particular case, knowing how to properly apply the term is crucial because it carries grave implications if it is misapplied. The reason I did not directly address the question in your original post is because the way it is formulated is flawed. Quoting verses of the Quran which talk about pre-Islamic Arabia and its pagan society and then saying let us apply those verses to modern Muslim societies in a general way is basically an invitation to take them out of context. The line of reasoning you are using only leads the reader to make a false general comparison between pre-Islamic pagan society and modern Muslim societies, and it is due to a mistaken pre-conclusion on your part that such a broad comparison is valid, even though you did not actually establish its validity. The validity of it cannot be established because the full conditions of the pre-Islamic age existed only during that particular time. There is no real basis upon which to draw a general, overarching correlation between what existed before the advent of Islam and what came after it, or what exists now, especially when it comes to societies that have accepted Islam. Jaahili society was a non-Muslim society. Muslim societies are Muslim societies, and the scholars make it very clear that it is impermissible and unacceptable to label them as 'Jaahili' in a general way. It would have the meaning of saying, implicitly or explicitly, that they are non-Muslim societies. Brother, I hope that clarifies things now. If we want to be mindful of what is correct and Islamically permissible, we should know how this term is used and we should be willing to use it properly. Again, there is a huge difference between saying that there are certain aspects of ignorance among Muslims in a specific, restricted way and sweepingly labelling a whole Muslim society or, worse, all modern Muslim societies as 'Jaahili'. The latter would be a serious misuse of the term and it is not something that can be taken lightly. I hope you give this matter careful thought and consult the right scholarly sources before venturing any further.