The Revealed Texts ( Quraan and Sunnah) contradict the application of Jahiliyah term on Muslim societies who reject the application of Shariah Law, adopt Secular Law, loyal to entities other than Allah, espouse beliefs alien to Islam and tolerate social indecency in public! Please provide the Revealed texts that support this statement. The Proper things to say when we find the above phenomena, is to say, these actions are Jahili, but the people who do it remain in Islam fold according to revealed Texts (Quraan and Sunnah) This statement suggests that we should remove the crime from the criminal. Imagine suggesting theft as an abstract concept hanging in the air which makes the thief technically innocent! The Salaf of the Ummah are in consensus that if anyone commits an action that is in the Kufr category, that the person becomes a kafir, regardless if he claims his actions halaal or not, because the fact that the person is not repenting from his deeds is sufficient to prove that he considers his actions or words to be halaal. Because iimaan ( belief) and Kufr are abstracts, we detect their existence through their fruits; actions or words, so whenever an action that is deemed to be iimaan is done, the we say that person is Mumin, according to the Hadeeth that if a man is seen praying regularly in the Masjid, we should become his witnesses that he is a believer, likewise, if a person commits an action that has no other explanation other than being a blatant disregard of our faith, then that person is what he has said or does, we should not separate the crime from the criminal. In conclusion, if a person does an action that is Nifaaq, or kufr, then he becomes either a Munafiq or a kafir due to his actions, because iimaan is qowl and camal, deeds and words, and the words are further divided to words of the mouth, which require to be verified by actions, according to the Hadeeth, that iimaan is something in the heart, verified by deeds. The existence of secular laws does not make the whole society pagans This statement is true. By extension, neither does the existence of Shariah Law make whole society that lives under it a Muslim. Only those who accept Secular Laws, or prefer it than Shariah, or legislate according to Secular Laws, defend validity of Secular Laws by making it halal through the “Official Authorities”, only those are the ones the verses of Quraan are addressing as Mushrikeen. He ( Prophet SAWS) 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 Another Red Herring! The Prophet SAWS was the head of the Islamic System, the leader, General, Teacher and Guardian. This was the Ideal society that have risen for Mankind, yet, he warned some of his companions from reverting back to Jahiliyah by using derogatory racial slurs. He warned the companion by telling him(“You are a man with a Jahili Trait “), meaning that the companion, was A Muslim but did not get rid of a Jahili trait when he came to Islam. His warning meant, that if part of Jahiliyyah is found in a Muslim, it can overtake him and can be fully Jahiliyyah, Allah SWT says in Al Imran " They were closer to Kufr that day than Iman". Another area of your confusion arises in your limited knowledge of the relationship of principle of Sovereignty and Tawheed which most Nomads who have read my threads have mastered; below is the concept. SOVEREIGNTY" Sovereignty is defined as "supreme authority within a territory" Its attributes/qualities: 1. Authority with Absolute Power ( No other power is greater than it) 2. Self dependent Authority, not by virtue of others 3. Irresistible Authority whose wishes must be obeyed by force. 4. Authority whose power controls its Domain. Some of the attributes of Sovereignty: 1.( Absoluteness), Immune to any law, above law, no one escapes its law. 2. Supremacy, no other authority is higher than it. 3. Unity, the only authority to reckon with. 4. Originality, its orginal in its existence, has not borrowed its exisitence from another Sovereign, nor is continuation of another. 5. Non Transferable Authority, no one can take it away, it will never become legitimate if anyone else claims it. 6. An Authority that is always right, since it sets the criteria of what is right and what is wrong. Now what is Deity is Islam:? Allah in Surah Ikhlas desribed Himself as: 1. SINGULAR ( AXAD), single 2. SAMAD , Everything Absolutely depend on Him, He Absolutely Depends on Himself ALONE. SAMAD has the Follwing Variations: 3. PROVIDER OF PROTECTION 4. RESCUER ( in times of distress) 5. Highest authority, no one scapes from His Jurisdiction and Sovreighnty. 6. Leadership. ( ZACIIM UL QOWM) 7. Anything one follows, even desires are called ilaah in Quraan. Thus SOVEREGNTY aka (SAMAD) is a Devine trait and those who excercise it unwittingly claim Deity like Pharoah of Egypt. So, Sovereignty and Democracy are two faces of the same coin, Sovereignty being the legal face while Democracy is the political face. So following Democracy is following someone who claims to be a GOD. While following Allah is following the TRUE GOD. Allah teaches us to say to people of the Book ( Jews and Christians who adopted polytheism : "let us strive to agree to converge to a common ground : That we do not worship other than Allah in any form, that we do not make associate with him other Sovereigns, and further that some of us should not take others for Lords (vested with Sovereignty)." If they turn away, then say: Be witness that we are MUSLIMS, (those who have willingly surrerndered to Allah's sovereignty)" Therefore man should not worhsip man, by giving him a Devine Character, instead man should follow His creator, because a " A problem is not solved at the level it was created" Albert Einstein. (Please don't respond until I am done) To Be Continued.....................................

Allah taught us to respect and seek forgiveness for our brethren who preceded us in faith, by saying: : “And those who came after them say: "Our Lord! Forgive us and our brethren who have preceded us in Faith, and put not in our hearts any hatred against those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed full of kindness, Most Merciful. (Surah Al Hashr, V10) Because if we don’t pray for them and fail to honor their efforts in comfort, there is a good chance we will say the following in utter discomfort: “Every time a new nation enters hell, it curses its sister nation (that went before), until they will be gathered all together in the Fire.” (Surah . Araf v38) About Islamic Revivalist Movements, eNuri wrote this Paragraph on a thread Titled: What Attracts Somalis to Salafiyah: “The early breed of Islamic revivalist movements represented fragments of the total picture of Islam, each one of them focused on a single aspect of Islam, claiming that their version is the only way to salvation. So, a wide array of movements came to life in the Muslim world, beginning with the Jamaat Islamiyah of Pakistan, inspiring the Ikhwan of Egypt, which gave birth to many subgroups like the Hizb Al Tahrir whose forte was the reestablishment of the dead Caliphate. Salafiya as a movement stressed the necessity that the means to the reestablishment of Islam begins with strict following of the Sunnah literally meaning METHOD of the Prophet, factors that helped Islam to be established in the first time are the only factors that can revive Islam again, Salafiyah focused on authenticity of the Prophets sayings and deeds, and the understanding of the first generation of the companions and their followers ( Taabiciin) Thus, Salafiyyah movement attracted the youth in Somalia after their realization that other Islamic movements for social and political change where lacking the iBOK dimension ( Islamic Body Of Knowledge), and hence it became a back to the basics movement focusing on the knowledge aspect of the Faith as the safest way for reaching salvation.” 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. Ukhti Al Ghaliyah, If you see Islam as a System, with interdependent components that function in a well structured process to realize a common objective, your confusion will go away. Like Our Prophet SAWS gave many metaphorical examples in his hadeeths, 1. Islam like a house, prayer being the center Pillar of this house, the pillars of Islam and Iman forming the structure, the peak or roof of being Jihad in Allah’s cause. The purpose of which is to realize eternal dwelling in another house of happiness. 2. Believers are like building blocks, they hold one another in process of spreading Islam to mankind and bearing the pain of this endeavor to gain an eternal life of contentment. Whether you know it or not, that is where the ideas you are defending come from. This statement is a distraction from the central question, it’s another red herring. It doesn’t matter who asked the same question before me, or who wrote a book about the topic and came to a conclusion, what is important in this debate is to answer the Question: If a “Muslim” Society willingly adopts a secular Law, making lawful what Allah made unlawful, giving their loyalty to non believers instead of the believers, tolerating indecency in public, and believing in concepts that are detrimental to the Tawheed principle, which are the same manifestations of the First Jahiliyah Society of Qureish in Makkah, can that Society be called Jaahili, if not, apart from being in a different time, what gives it such encompassing exceptionalism? Again, a Jahili System does not mean that everyone living within the boundary of the System is Jahili, nor does it mean that anyone who lives within an Islamic System is a Muslim, when we talk about a System, we are talking about the framework, and components have a different benchmark which is outside of the scope of this discussion. 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 So what you are saying is this: Hakimiyyah is part of Tawheed Principle This is True, Deductively, by rejecting Hakimiyyah of Allah, the opposite of Tawheed which happens to be Shirk (polytheism) takes place and this Shirk is of the severe type as its in contempt of Allah’s Sovereign Law which deserves the harshest of warnings in Holy Quraan and the harshest punishment in Akhirah. ( Paraphrasing) If People decide to use manmade laws and reject Allah’s Law, they are still Muslims who are surrendering to Allah, and calling them Jahili is inconsistent with Islamic teachings. Because no matter what Muslims do or believe, they will always remain Muslims! This statement is in blatant contradiction of the previous statement that conforms Hakimiyyah to be an integral component of Tawheed Principle. Even the Murjia’h, who claimed that deeds don’t compromise a person’s Islam, did not go this far, but Extreme Murji'ah is here and kicking in the 21th Century.

What exactly does manifesting all the elements of Jaahiliyyah entail? ……….. It has to first be proven that such a society exists before its peculiar case can be examined. This is my own question posed in this thread that you are bouncing back at me! Focus on this question more as you suggested above Ukhti, it’s the key of unraveling the unnecessary mystery you are surrounding around this topic. At the beginning of this thread, I have defined the linguistic meaning of Jahiliyyah, and then I applied four of its main manifestations in Beliefs ( Aqeedah), Legislation, Loyalty and Social norms on the First Jahiliyah of Qureish, all from the Holy Quraan. I have also showed the Hadeeth of Prophet Muhammd SAWS prophesied that clearly predicted that “Muslims”will follow the ways of the people of the book in every way. And then tied a verse in Quraan in which Allah asked: Do they ( People of the Book) want the Xukum ( Law) of Jahiliyah? So, if Jews and Christians have adopted the Jahiliyyah Xukum, and “Muslims” are predicted to follow them in every way, it does not take rocket science to tie these parts for a wholesome answer, I leave it as an exercise for you. Hint: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck! 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, Misquote Alert: Not quite that way ukhtii al Ghalya: My central question was not about Shariah Law, Shariah Law is one of the components of Islam as a System that emanated from the Sovereignty of Allah SWT and delivered by His Last Messenger Muhammad SAWS. My central question was; If we find a “Muslim” society that does not adhere to “Islam as a Whole System” comprising of Beliefs, Law, Loyalty and Social Norms, which are the same four manifestations Allah described the Qureish tribe, a Jahili Society that vehemently opposed the message of nascent Islam ( Linguistically: The Jayhala Fire Moving Stick), Can we safely call such a society no matter where its found a Jahili Society! (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. “Islam a System not in place” is the right quote, which is different than your narrow Shariah Not in Place component based response. You write: These ideas are not from the realm of 'ilm and the scholars. This statement is too vague. Which discipline of Cilm (Knowledge) are you referring to? And what is the boundary of this “Realm” of the “Scholars” There is no substance in these words. 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. This statement is loaded with a lot of uncalled prejudice as well as unguarded sweeping blanket statements. Words are meant to convey meanings, and here are what your words convey: 1. Islam is NOT a SYSTEM and the Idea that Islam is a System is not based on authentic Islamic teachings by “Known” Scholars. 2. “Islamic Teachings” are exclusively reserved for the “Scholars” who say Islam is not a System. 3. Islamic Revivalists are the only ones to believe that Islam is a System, which it’s not. 4. “Islam as a System” is the “Mantra” of the Islamic Revivalist Movements of the 20th Century. These statements show either one of the following or some: 1. An ignorance of what a System means 2. A lack of appreciation of the role of Islamic Revivalist Movements after the collapse of the last weak Islamic Caliphate in 1924. 3. A Lack of understanding of the Islamic Knowledge Body known as Maqaasidul Shariica or the moral of Shariah. First: Let us define a System as per selections of Merriam-Webster and Americana Dictionaries 1. a form of social, economic, or political organization or practice 2. an organized set of doctrines, ideas, or principles usually intended to explain the arrangement or working of a systematic whole 3. an organized or established procedure 4. Aggregation of things when combined can form an integral or complex whole. Islam is composed of the following main categories: 1. Five Pillars of Islam ( Al Cibaadaat) 2. Six Pillars of Faith ( Al Caqaaed) 3. Economic and Business System ( Al Mucaamalaat) 4. Judicial System ( Al Xukm Wal Qadaa) 5. Loyalty System ( Al Walaa Wal Baraa) 6. Ethics System ( Akhlaaq) Which shows that Islam fits the above definition of a system. Secondly: About Muslim Revivalist Movements Your trivialization of the contributions of the Islamic Revivalist Movements echoes a cross between the secular narratives that “Islam should be a religion like all other religions confined to worship houses” as well as the Sufi narrative of “Islam as a Spiritual Religion only” Thanks to the painstaking efforts of the Revivalist movements at the turn of the 20th Century right after the collapse of the Ottoman Caliphate, today, you are a living testament of their effort of spreading Islamic knowledge. If you can see farther than they did, or can catch an error or two in their approach or literature, it’s because they’ve made the distance shorter for you, and for that alone, they deserve your respect even if some of their sources were not as authentic as the ones we use today (Thanks To Sheikh Albany, Rahimahulah and others).

Ukhti Warmoog writes: 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? The fundamental Question: (If “Muslim Societies” accept the Sovereignty of other than Allah in their belief system, if they replace Islamic Sharia with Secular Law, If their Loyalty is for the Clan and Nation States instead of Allah and if their social ethics accept permissive behavior in public) which are the same four manifestations of the first Jaahiliyyah, can we safely call such a society a Jahili Society. That question was not answered by any of your sources to the best of my comprehension. If I missed it, please be kind enough to highlight the to-the-point answer of my question. 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. OK, I accept the change; please post the “Particular verses” of Quran and Hadeeth cited in Q& A Fatwa to validate your point. This is very crucial to my next response. 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, Now that we have agreed that “scholars” Ijtihad is different than “Raw Facts”, nevertheless, you still maintain that any known scholar’s Ijtihad is more reliable than an unknown Muslim’s Ijtihad that relies only on Quran and Sunnah as his sources. This point of view might be correct under an Islamic State when the Islamic Fatwa Body is enjoying independence and is not coming under any secular authority. However in the present circumstances, if being “known by the general public ” is a precondition of being right on Islamic issues, this will imply that the very people that need to be delivered and guided along with their “Officials” will be the ones to endorse, appoint and legitimize their own scholars so to be “known Scholars”. This is the slippery slope that led the Christian world to amend their faith many times over to align it with the follower’s wishes. Ali Radiya Allahu Anhu Said. “Know the Xaqq ( Truth) you will know its people, NOT the other way around. Allah SWT says about Scholars of Children of Israel “ Yalwoona alsinatahum bil kitaabi) Societies need to adapt to Islam’s template, Changing the essence of Islam to fit people’s passing “needs” is the same pit that our Judeo Christian cousins have fallen in and can’t find a way out, and as the Prophet SAWS have predicted, “Muslims” are bent on following them to a rat’s hole. Gross generalization, don’t contribute to healthy debate. To say, the “Scholars” have agreed on an issue, we need first to sample a wide array of diverse “scholars” opinions including dissident Scholars that are demonized by the official Media. It is not correct to selectively pick and choose few scholars with the same opinion on the issue, and then interpret this as an Ijmaa (Consensus) of all the “Scholars”. Ukhtii, Al Kareemah, Not all of the Scholars have agreed on what you are claiming, and great many silent scholars have no place in a world dominated by secular authorities that appoint the very “scholars” that you claim to have agreed on this issue. Every single publicly cited scholar should have ceded a certain compromise to the authorities that granted him the license to practice as official clergyman vested with Fatwa privilege.. Nevertheless, these scholars have contributed a lot to the ever expanding circle of Islamic revival, although at times they are put in a dilemma, between saying-it-as-it-is, or being politically correct. It is this politically correctness with the noblest of intentions that at times compromise the wholesomeness of the Message of Islam that Allah SWT inspired His Messenger to tell people to take Islam as a Whole, or leave it as a Whole. In circumstances such as these, the best way we can chart our way to meet Allah SWT is to at least choose our destination if we have failed to choose our present situation. Let us be honest to ourselves first, to Allah and to the public that might be misled with over simplification of issues of dire consequences to their eventual confrontation with their past deeds and false beliefs in front an impartial judge, first of which is the clarification of the aqeedah and tawheed. Also My Dear Sister, Serious issues like these are not a copy and paste exercise, if you don’t have a good command of the Arabic language and grammar, a thorough study of the Tafseer of Quraan, the science of hadeeth, the Seerah, and above all, the Islamic Fiqh in detail, your opinions will be very weak to defend. The scholars' explanations have been laid out and they are clear. I will now focus on your argument. Its not clear to me Ukhtii. The first thing that needed to be established is: where on earth is such a case to be found? If there is no place on earth where my hypothesis will hold true, say so and save yourself the trouble of defending a nonexistent problem. However, if there is the likelihood of finding such “pockets” of societies as you have admitted previously in this thread, then at least, stick to your first stance of accepting the existence “mini-Jahili” pockets here and there, while subscribing to your idea that there is no Universal jahili phenomenon on earth since Prophet Muhammad’s SAWS advent which implies that the universal System in place to be Islam. And I am sure that you may not accept that either To Be Contiuned............

Baarakallahu Feeke, Ukhti Al Ghaalya Jazakellahu Kheiran for taking the time for responding to some of my questions ( while some are still pending), though not to my satisfaction . Allah SWT says in Surah Al Nisaa v59 - 62 59- O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger (Muhammad ), and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority. (And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger , if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for final determination. 60 - Have you seen those (hyprocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you, and they wish to go for judgment (in their disputes) to the Taghut (false judges, etc.) while they have been ordered to reject them. But Shaitan (Satan) wishes to lead them far astray. 61- And when it is said to them: Come to what Allah has sent down and to the Messenger (Muhammad)," you (Muhammad ) see the hypocrites turn away from you (Muhammad ) with aversion. 62 - How then, when a catastrophe befalls them because of what their hands have sent forth, they come to you swearing by Allah, We meant no more than goodwill and conciliation!" Ukhti Al Ghaliya Think about these verses deeply, specially in relation to the fact that humans, like myself, you and the "Scholars" are prone to errors of judgment and the importance to make the Holy Quraana and the Sunnah our common reference point if a dispute arises between believers. Also, think about the following situation: 1. How do we know that the "Scholars" have lost the way? because unless we have a common measure of the path and the destination, any road will seem right? InshaAllah, I will come back with my modest response of your response in a detailed way. Muxibbukum fillah Nur

Warmoog Writes: 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 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. Please show the Specific Verse in Quraan and Riwaayah of Hadeeth that supports this distinction.. 1) Jaahiliyyah is of two types: Universal and Restricted (or Absolute and Partial) True in Historical Context only that is. If any scholar have ruled out any other context for this term, please produce their proof from Quraan and Sunnah as you have said. 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) Where did it exist? Was it limited to Arabia, or was it global. And What was the time span it existed? I mean was it open ended till Prophet Adam’s time, or did it end just before a Prophet’s time like Ibrahim, Musa, Issa and so on? Answers to these questions will help you understand the complexity of the issue and the need for looking at it from different contextual perspectives. 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 To say something is impermissible, without a clear revealed instruction or Hadeeth as well as legitimate Qiyaas and Ijmaac, is in itself impermissible and very grave in Allah’s judgement . Allah SWT says in Surah Naxl, verse 117 in Holy Quraan. And say not concerning that which your tongues put forth falsely: "This is lawful and this is forbidden," so as to invent lies against Allah. Verily, those who invent lies against Allah will never prosper. As I have provided before in the Hadeeth, The Prophet SAWS prophesied that Muslims will follow the ways of the People of the Book in every way. The fact some Muslims will always exist, does not sufficiently answer the question that I have raised. For the following reasons: 1. Islam is a system and it came to abolish another system Allah named Jahiliyah. Jahiliyyah in Holy Quraan was mentioned in four verses as manifestations of the Jahili System before the appearance of Prophet Muhammad SAWS. The Islamic system is composed of the whole set of pillars of Iman and Islam, both aqeedah related, and Transactions related, in the form of revealed information foremost of which is the central concept of Tawheed Absolute Unity and Sovereignty of Allah SWT that only can be satisfied by a solid belief ( Iman), and commandments in the form of( Do and Don’t) that can be satisfied by obedience and execution. Conversely, The Jahili System is well described in the Quraan (four manifestations) and the Hadeeth. From the perspective of a System, wherever it’s found as a whole, it sufficiently paints that society as a Jaahili society. The two systems as a whole with all of their components are like day and night, they do not coexist in the same place, but aspects of each of them can be found in the opposite system. Some of the aspects of the Jahili system can be found in a Muslim society, and some of the aspects of Islam can be found in a Jahili Society. Appearance of Jaahliyyah as a System signifies the absence of Islam as a System ( Individual practice of Islam or Jahiliyyah is not in this scope) a) It would mean there is no true source of Divine Guidance in the world, as in the pre-Islamic age Not True: The planet has never been without a Divine guidance at any point in time since Adam and Eve' s creation. Allah says in Surah Fatir Verse 24: Verily! We have sent you with the truth, a bearer of glad tidings, and a Warner. And there never was a nation but a Warner had passed among them. b) It would contradict Allah's promise to preserve Islam (e.g. Surah al-Hijr 15:9) Not True again: The promise of preservation is for the Holy Quraan, Not Islam as a System. The term Dhiker in Tafseer means the Holy Quraan. c) It would contradict the hadiths that say some Muslims will always adhere to the truth Not True: Even during the First Jahilyyah, There were followers of Islam’s last version (Judaism, Christianity and the faith of Ibrahim, Khadijah’s uncles is an example of this category) d) It would contradict the way term was applied by the Prophet (may peace and blessings be upon him) Please share with us : 1. How did the Prophet SAWS used this term 2. If any usage of this term in any other way is Haraam and its Proof from Quraan and Sunnah 3. If this usage restriction rule can be applied at all other terms the Prophet SAWS has used a) Some of the characteristics of Jaahiliyyah can be used to describe certain people, groups, or lands A society can be deemed Jaahili if all the characteristics of the Jahili system are apparent. Their land is never described as Jaahili, because Jaahiliyyah as a System reflects behavior of a single component ( Person) or an entire system (Society, Nation, Clan), Land is not part of the Jahiliyyah system, all land, belongs to Allah and Allah encouraged believers under persecution by Jahiliyyah System in Makkah to migrate to His wider lands ( Ardullahi al waasica) 5) It is impermissible to describe whole Muslim societies or all Muslim societies as 'jaahili' True: In this debate we are only concerned about societies that display all Jaahili System manifestations in Aqeedah, Law, Loyalty and Akhlaaq norms. 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. I wouldn’t call it facts, it would be more prudent to call Ijtihaad of some scholars, which unfortunately are not backed up by solid proofs from Quraan and Sunnah as you have said in your prelude. The Hukm factor that was added to the equation is out of place Please show its proper place or CONTEXT as you have evaded so far. The meaning of Absolute/Universal Jaahiliyyah was erroneously redefined. To limit Jaahiliyah to historical context alone may seem comfortable as it wipes our hands of the daunting task of re-establishing Islam in societies that have inherited the letter of the message but lost the morals that differentiated Islam’s system from the Jahili system, the modern re-emergence of the Jaahili system with vengeance in “Muslim” societies to the point that all of the manifestations of the pre-Islamic Jaahiliyyah are a common place is a stark realization of Prophet Muhammad’s prediction that Muslims will follow the people of the Book who Allah SWT asked: Are they yearning for the Jaahili Xukum or Law? And Who is better than Allah as a legislator? . Today, like the people of the Book, "Muslims" are yearning for the same Jaahili Xukum aka Democracy / Secularism. Muslims are not better than the people of the book, if they collectively fail to establish Islam as Allah SWT mandated, they will revert back to Jaahiliyyah as other nations before us have done. Allah SWT says in Surah Muminoon Verse 44: Then We sent Our Messengers in succession, every time there came to a nation their Messenger, they denied him, so We made them follow one another (to destruction), and We made them as Ahadith (the true stories for mankind to learn a lesson from them). So away with a people who believe not. Lastly, Allah SWT advises Muslim women in Surah: Al Axzaab Verse 32. ……. and do not display yourselves like that of the First Jaahiliyyah! Some of the Mufasireen have said that there will be another Jaahiliyyah after Isalm, which will be the Second coming of the Jahiliyyah system. Linguistically speaking, Imagine a newly weds couple trying to safeguard their marriage and the wife is reminding her husband not to make the same mistake he made in his first marriage! I hope this analogy helps. Conclusion: Jaahilyyah is a System and a State of Affairs in Which Allah’s guidance is not being followed fully, specially the Aqeedah aspect. Selected following of Islam is worse in Allah’s eye than an out right rejection of Islam all together, and that is why Allah SWT was angry with the people of the Book: In Surah Al Baqarah, V 85 Allah SW says: After this, it is you who kill one another and drive out a party of you from their homes, assist (their enemies) against them, in sin and transgression. And if they come to you as captives, you ransom them, although their expulsion was forbidden to you. Then do you believe in a part of the Scripture and reject the rest? Then what is the recompense of those who do so among you, except disgrace in the life of this world, and on the Day of Resurrection they shall be consigned to the most grievous torment. And Allah is not unaware of what you do. Wa Allahu Aclam. Nur

There's No Way To Tell Which Muslims Seek To Do Us Harm Letter to the editor Not Satire - The following item is printed in the Gainesville Times letter to the editor section and is posted here with the question, Is this representative of American mainstream opinion? May 18, 2011 "Gainesville Times" -- Kudos to the Delta pilot who refused to fly with the two Muslims aboard for a Memphis to Charlotte flight May 6. One of the Muslims removed from the flight, Masudur Rahman, claimed "It's racism and bias because of our religion" rather than a concern for the safety of the American travelers on board. He further stated, "If they understood Islam, they wouldn't do this." If "they" understood Islam and acted appropriately, there would be no Muslims in this country. It is ridiculous for Americans to have to be fearful of flying with members of the Islamic religion whose most militant sect, al-Qaida, is responsible for most of the terroristic acts against the U.S. partly in response to our continued endowment of Israeli aggression against the P.L.O. Had the original pilots of the planes used in the attacks on the Twin Towers and the Pentagon refused to fly with armed Muslims aboard, there would have been no Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. There are apparently many faces of the Muslims who are anti-American, from those who carried out 9/11 to the fire breathing members of al-Qaida who oppose us in the Mideast. It is impossible to distinguish between Muslims who are anti-American and just waiting for a chance to do us harm, and those who are merely pursuing their religious beliefs in this country. The only way to be sure and safe is to exclude them all. Such action would not constitute bias or racism against a particular nationality just because they may be different from us, or the condemnation of a specific religion because it differs from our beliefs but the action is necessary to create conditions in which it is safe to live without a constant fear of terrorism. The enemy is within us or waiting to come in, not in Iraq, Afghanistan or Pakistan where we have squandered trillions of dollars (which make up a sizable percentage of our 14 trillions of dollar-plus federal deficit) and thousands of American lives. To sum it up, we have to get out of the Mideast and get the Muslims out of the U.S. Jim Scharnagel Gainesville

Why Mainstream Media Refuses to Report the West's Shocking New Colonialism By Anthony Wile May 16, 2011 "The Daily Bell" -- To ask the question is to answer it. The Western mainstream media seems entirely controlled and beholden to globalist interests emanating in part from the City of London. Reports and exposes of neo-colonialism are not likely to find a place on the front pages of the great dailies and weeklies of the old-line press – nor even on websites controlled by it. There is another answer, too, that I will provide at the end of this article. It is simple and blunt. Thus you may skip the article if you want. Or you may read on ... Democracy is said to be on the rise in the Middle East, yet all democracy is evidently not created equal. Democratic movements in Egypt and Tunisia are said to have won out. Yet similar movements in Bahrain, Yemen and Saudi Arabia – inconvenient by Western standards – are neither encouraged nor widely reported. This makes sense only when one realizes the truth about what is going on. The world's great, intergenerational banking families have embarked on a new spate of colonialism to disenfranchise their enemies and empower their allies. Those regimes in developing countries that endorse power-elite goals will be allowed to function. Otherwise they will be destabilized. Hardly a whisper regarding what is evidently and obviously a deliberate policy of "neo-colonialism" has been heard from the West's mainstream media. Thus it was with interest that I read an article in yesterday's online version of The Hindu, India's "national newspaper" entitled The Manufacture of Consensus and Legitimacy. Author M.S. Prabhakara deals with many of the issues raised in these electronic pages in the past few weeks. Prabhakara has pretty much figured it out – as we have over the past few months. He believes the recent conflicts in the Middle East and Africa raise important questions about the limits of national sovereignty, as United Nations resolutions were used to justify invasions into both Libya and the Ivory Coast. Here's some more from the article: Foreign armed intervention to save the people from their own governments and leaders became inevitable. The question who decides that there is indeed a mass uprising that is being repressed with such violence by the very state that is supposed to protect its people becomes irrelevant in an environment where the media and 'civil society' exert enormous influence in moulding national and international opinion, and something else called R2P. And thereby hangs a tale. This new and evolving doctrine that has legitimised foreign intervention to remove leaders like Qadhafi on the ground that they have become 'enemies of the people' was crafted through an 'international consensus' during the 2005 UN World Summit and has come to be known as the International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect (R2P, in the jargon of the new language order). This consensus was manufactured by NGOs networking with the United Nations and other national and international human rights organisations. The Preamble [to the R2P doctrine] drips with moral commitment to protect the 'people' against their own governments, even if these were to be elected governments. It also raises many questions. For instance, the mechanisms built in democratic polities to remove elected governments that have become oppressive are not even taken into consideration because the state and its elected representatives have become corrupt beyond redemption, unlike the 'civil society' that is axiomatically seen as immaculate, unstained. The key point raised in the article is that "above all, this very 'international community' now entrusted with the 'responsibility to assist the states in fulfilling this responsibility,' to protect their population from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and ethnic cleansing, has itself waged war against their own people, committed genocides." And, yes, this is the critical issue. Prabhakara catches the heart of it: "Put simply, instrumentalities such as the R2P [we've reported on this previously, along with the under-the-radar abrogation of the Peace of Westphalia] devised by the 'international community,' like the ongoing demeaning of the democratic political process in India by positing against it 'non-political politics,' are yet another weapon being crafted to assist the relentless process of recolonisation under way in many formerly colonised countries." What Prabhakara doesn't cover – perhaps there is a limit to what can be discussed in one article – is the larger distortion of elite rhetoric when it comes to the new neocolonialism. In Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Yemen, the West, Western elites more and more are justifying torture, illicit imprisonment and outright murder. The decline of civil society is not just rhetorical. Saudi Arabian troops have murdered and maimed hundreds of civilians at home and in Bahrain with the West's implicit blessing. The myth of al-Qaeda, at least initially an American invention, has been enlarged and elaborated on until the nonsensical War on Terror itself has taken on mythical proportions. Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, only a few months ago a dependable Western ally, is suddenly a marked man; NATO bombs his residences with impunity, kills one of his sons and three of his grandchildren and hardly bothers to apologize. Neocolonialism's New Brutality is evident everywhere. American troops invade Pakistan to attack the residence of a faux bin Laden, and kill, wound or capture whoever unfortunately resides there and then the country's leaders trumpet the raid as a great American achievement. The mind-bending spectacle of Western leaders celebrating the cold-blooded murder ("tapping") of a man who probably died years ago was only exceeded by the next wave of deliberate rhetoric that claimed that "unusual interrogations" – torture – helped reveal his location. It is all evil and deliberate – a media promotion featuring a complex interweaving of violent dominant and sub-dominant social themes. The world's single super-power has, as Dick Cheney reportedly suggested it should, moved toward the Dark Side, and is taking much of the world with it. Celebrations of killing, justifications of torture, the imposition of the hallmarks of a police state at home and the support of neo-colonialism abroad all inform us that America is changing for the worse. Yes, it is chilling. When America lies, its allies lie, too. When American leaders tell deliberate untruths and treat human lives as if they are entertainment in so-called snuff-films, those who live in the shadow of the world's super-mono-power are left to mumble in unison or face the consequences. It goes for the media too, of course. These days, instead of celebrating businessmen, America's mainstream media mostly lionizes the military class – its brilliant generals and intrepid warriors. Instead of profiles of entrepreneurs, the media is filled with stories about America's overseas combatants and courageous soldiers. Such soldiers are courageous but they are also killing others and maiming themselves for what might be considered very questionable objectives. Two terrible wars and incessant, unnecessary spending have virtually bankrupted the US. Yet war continues, poisoning the land with depleted uranium and killing women and children who get caught in the crossfire or bombed by misguided drone attacks. Those who oppose them in America seem helpless to stop the violence that is being projected in their name. America's leaders are pressing Iraq to allow American troops to stay in the country in great numbers. In Afghanistan, troop drawdowns have been pushed back from 2012 to 2014 and now beyond. But the main issue – the most astonishing and unheralded even of the unfolding 21st century – is the West's sudden expansion of neo-colonialism and the accompaniment savage, reprehensible rhetoric by its leaders, especially in America, Britain and France. Afghanistan and Iraq were just an appetizer after all. To me it seems obvious. Just as with the Gutenberg Press long ago, the elites have lost control of the ability to control society via fear-based promotions because of what we have taken to calling the Internet Reformation. The elites, therefore, are evidently and obviously doing what they can to combat this reformation – this awakening – by causing economic turmoil and military confrontations. Both tactics have as their goal increased world domination; but these are the bluntest of tools. To watch them being applied by Western leaders is to be astounded by the ability of those who lead the most civilized of societies to endorse the most uncivil and brutal acts. Here is the answer I promised at the beginning of the article: We seem to be led, unfortunately, by beasts. Is that harsh? Anthony Wile is an author, columnist, media commentator and entrepreneur focused on developing projects that promote the general advancement of free-market thinking concepts. He is the chief editor of the popular free-market oriented news site, TheDailyBell.com. Mr. Wile is the Executive Director of The Foundation for the Advancement of Free-Market Thinking – a non-profit Liechtenstein-based foundation. His most popular book, High Alert, is now in its third edition and available in several languages. Other notable books written by Mr. Wile include The Liberation of Flockhead (2002) and The Value of Gold (2002). Copyright © 2011 The Daily Bell

Creating the bin Laden Reality By Paul Craig Roberts May 14, 2011 ICH-- -- -I have heard one dozen times today (May 13) from media that the US killed Osama Bin Laden in Pakistan. I heard it three times from National Public Radio, twice from the BBC, and from every TV and radio station I encountered, even those stations that play the rock and roll music of the 1950s and 1960s. The killing of bin Laden has now entered the legends of our time and, no doubt, the history books. The US government that told us that Saddam Hussein had “weapons of mass destruction” and “al Qaeda connections” and that Iran has nuclear missiles that require the US to ring Russia with anti-ballistic missile systems, finally told us the truth for once. Obama found Osama and had him murdered, apparently unarmed in his underwear, defended not by al Qaeda, “the best trained, most dangerous vicious killers on the planet,” but by two unarmed women. As I offered previously, if you believe this, I have a bridge in Brooklyn that I can let you have for a cheap price. The government has created another reality for us proles. We won again. Us white hats got the black hat, just like in the western movie. Fantasy is better than fact, and us good guys are on a roll. It makes everybody happy, even those who have lost their jobs, their houses, their pensions. So, who’s the next black hat? The military/security complex cannot do without a bad guy, or the budget could be cut and billions of dollars in profits would go missing. Without someone for Americans to hate, the show can’t go on. Homeland Security says the next black hat will be “domestic extremists.” The CIA says it will be the next al Qaeda leader, bin Laden’s replacement, who will terrorize us white hats for killing bin Laden. The neocon brownshirts say it is Pakistan, who hid bin Laden from us, thus protecting him from justice being done. Hillary says it is China, and as the US economy continues its collapse, more and more fingers will point at China. Airport Security will pat down more babies, feel more genitals, and radiate more air travelers. But without bin Laden, we will feel safer and more secure, which is counterproductive for the military/security complex. Obama has made a fundamental mistake. He has killed Emanuel Goldstein (bin Laden), the hate figure who justified the trillions of dollars we have blown trying to get him. Once Homeland Security, the CIA, and the White House decide who the new hate figure is to be, we will be off and running again. It took 10 years to get bin Laden. This proves that all those security experts who say that the war will last for 30 years might be underestimating the necessary commitment. If it takes 10 years each to find and murder the next two leaders, we are faced with conflict that lasts across generations. As I wrote previously, bin Laden’s killing serves so many different agendas that even those who don’t believe the story have hooked their wagon to it. Al Qaeda itself can no longer take credit for acts of terrorism without declaring that it was to avenge bin Laden. The bin Laden story is now set in stone, immune from fact. Global Research has provided us with bin Laden’s last known interview, which appeared in a Pakistan newspaper on September 28, 2001 and was translated and made available to the West by the BBC World Monitoring Service on September 29, 2001. In the interview, bin Laden says: “I have already said that I am not involved in the 11 September attacks in the United States. . . . Whoever committed the act of 11 September are not the friends of the American people. I have already said that we are against the American system, not against its people, whereas in these attacks the common American people have been killed. . . .The Western media is unleashing such a baseless propaganda, which makes us surprised, but it reflects on what is in their hearts and gradually they themselves become captive of this propaganda. . . . Terror is the most dreaded weapon in the modern age and the Western media is mercilessly using it against its own people.” But who would believe a demonized bin Laden when to do so requires them to disbelieve George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and the Western media? We all know, don’t we, that in America the government always has the best interest of ordinary people at heart and always tells them the truth. If you don’t believe this, you are anti-American.

Lazie You can post your thoughts now. Sorry if it was closed, please stay focused on the issue under discussion. Its about Osama and the government account of his death. Nur

Nomads I am starting this thread in the hopes that I clarify ambiguities that have been raised in the the Thread of Celebrations of the Prophet Muhammad's Mowlid ( Birthday Celebration ) in Norway by the Somali Community there. The controversy surrounding the Mowlid, is part of a larger debate about the shariah permissibility of introducing new ways or new content of worship to the existing body of confirmed Islamic Sharia sanctioned rituals and activities. In the coming days, InshAllah I will lay the linguistic and shariah contexts of the Bidcah concept in order to put to rest the major issue of innovation in faith matters, and later to apply the findings on the specific topic of the Mowlid ( Prophet's Birthday Celebration, or the Muslim Christmas!) InshaAllah, I will prepare a write up ( e-Nuri Simplified Piece for Nomads) on the following Topics: 1. Definition of Bidcah: a. Lexical meaning of Bidcah b. Judicial Application of Bidcah ( Shariah) Selected Modern Examples Of Bidcah: a. Lexical Bidcah b. Judicial Bidcah ( Shariah) Additional Types of Bidcah The Proofs of Prohibition of Bidcah; ( Quraan and Sunnah ) The Levels of Bidcah Is There a Good Bidcah ? Clarifying ambiguities in the following confusing sources: 1. Prophet Muhammad's saying " He who starts a good Bidcah, is rewarded for it as well as for those who practice it" 3. The Claim of Al Izz Ibn Abdu Salam and His Student, Al Qarafi that Bidcah is subject to the Five Shariah Classifications. 2. Caliph Omar Ibnul Khattab's statement ( A Good Bidcah!) 4. Mix up between the concept of Masaalix Al Mursalah and Bidac 5. Using the Caliphs originated religious activities as a proof that some Bidac are acceptable 6. The Potential of Tremendous Dangers of Bidcah on Islamic faith a. Introducing Changes in Islam Like Christianity and Judaism have done to theirs ( As Predicted B Hadeeth) b. More Bidac Mean More Changes, More changes mean More Divisions in Islam c. Popular Bidac among lay people today "What was not part of the Deen ( Beliefs+Deeds) in the beginning, shouldn't be part of the Deen Today" Imam Malik Nur 2011 e-Nuri Aqeedah Vigils EVERY Introduction of a new religious activity is a Bidcah ( Innovation) EVERY Bidcah ( Innovation) is a Divergence From The Straight Path EVERY Divergence from Straight Path Leads To Hell Fire

Nomads I have started a new thread on these SOL Islam boards in the hopes that I clarify ambiguities that have been raised in the the Thread of Celebrations of the Prophet Muhammad's Mowlid ( Birthday Celebration ) in Norway by the Somali Community there. The controversy surrounding the Mowlid, is part of a larger debate about the shariah permissibility of introducing new ways or new content of worship to the existing body of confirmed Islamic Sharia sanctioned rituals and activities. In the coming days, InshAllah I will lay the linguistic and shariah contexts of the Bidcah concept in order to put to rest the major issue of innovation in faith matters, and later to apply the findings on the specific topic of the Mowlid ( Prophet's Birthday Celebration, or the Muslim Christmas!) InshaAllah, I will prepare a write up ( e-Nuri Simplified Piece for Nomads) on the following Topics: 1. Definition of Bidcah: a. Lexical meaning of Bidcah b. Judicial Application of Bidcah ( Shariah) Selected Modern Examples Of Bidcah: a. Lexical Bidcah b. Judicial Bidcah ( Shariah) Additional Types of Bidcah The Proofs of Prohibition of Bidcah; ( Quraan and Sunnah ) The Levels of Bidcah Is There a Good Bidcah ? Clarifying ambiguities in the following confusing sources: 1. Prophet Muhammad's saying " He who starts a good Bidcah, is rewarded for it as well as for those who practice it" 3. The Claim of Al Izz Ibn Abdu Salam and His Student, Al Qarafi that Bidcah is subject to the Five Shariah Classifications. 2. Caliph Omar Ibnul Khattab's statement ( A Good Bidcah!) 4. Mix up between the concept of Masaalix Al Mursalah and Bidac 5. Using the Caliphs originated religious activities as a proof that some Bidac are acceptable 6. The Potential of Tremendous Dangers of Bidcah on Islamic faith a. Introducing Changes in Islam Like Christianity and Judaism have done to theirs ( As Predicted B Hadeeth) b. More Bidac Mean More Changes, More changes mean More Divisions in Islam c. Popular Bidac among lay people today Nur 2011 e-Nuri Aqeedah Vigils EVERY Innovation is a Bidcah EVERY Bidcah is a Divergence From The Straight Path EVERY Divergence from Straight Path Leads To Hell Fire

First Context: They agree on it being an innovation, but they disagree on its legality as a celebration Second Context: They have differences of opinion on the general concept of innovation in Islam Classification Of Bidca; 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) The above is in the Lexical Context only ( Lughah), Not (Istilaax Sharci) InshAllah, I will come back with a detailed explanation of the above. Nur

Lazie G You mean you are a Neo- Conservative? Pro Christian fundamentalism? But anti-Liberal? Pro Family? Anti Qowmu Loot? Pro Life? But Anti Abortion? Pro Zionist? But anti Islam? Pro- Government 911 Narrative, But anti Truthers? Pro Obama, But Anti Osama, Pro- African Leadership of America, But Anti Birthers? Pro Somali? But Anti- Arab? An answer to your questions will depend on the context, I mean, are we Two Muslims discussing to work for a common cause. Are we working for Islam? or are you working for the West and I am working For Islam looking to find a common ground? Are you working For the good of Somalia, regardless of any Faith? or are you working for the interests of the West more than the Interests of Somalia and Islam? Please clarify your real position to get a real answer for your questions in order to help me with the direction I should steer the discussion and InshaAllah I will satisfy all your questions. Praying Allah For You Guidance Nur

.............I had dinner in Berkeley recently with my friend Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, an Islamic scholar and the co-founder of Zaytuna College, who has watched the steady deterioration of Muslims’ civil rights since the 2001 attacks. He argues that the stereotypes employed against Muslims mirror, with a different iconography and language, the Cold War Red-baiting that dismantled the militant labor movement and ended all serious challenges to unfettered corporate capitalism. The Red-baiting disempowered a dissident segment of American society and legalized its persecution. Red-baiting turned socialists, anarchists, populists, communists and radicals, who relentlessly challenged the orthodoxies of the permanent war economy and assault on civil liberties, into pariahs and scapegoats. It worked once. It could work again. The portrayal of Muslims as mortal enemies serves the interests of the expanding security state and the war industry, which consume half of all federal discretionary spending. The “Muslim threat” propagates the culture of fear and ensures our political passivity. Yusuf calls the attacks on American Muslim leadership and Islamic charities “Swiftboating,” in reference to the right-wing smearing of John Kerry’s war record when the senator was running for president in 2004. Create doubt in people’s minds about the allegiances of Muslim leaders and you effectively undermine the entire community. He says these caricatures of Muslims as evil terrorists become effective tools in justifying the ongoing occupations and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the proxy wars in Yemen and Pakistan, and the suspension of basic civil liberties at home. Israel, as well as its supporters in the United States, routinely employs the same racist cant to excuse Israeli war crimes and deny the legitimate rights of Palestinians. Nazi portrayals of Jews, Yusuf points out, bear a disturbing resemblance to modern portrayals of Muslims. The goal that some of these demagogues have, he said, especially in a time of economic collapse, is to divert widespread rage toward Muslims, just as the leadership of Serbia diverted rage toward Muslims and Croats when that nation’s economy collapsed. “I was completely humiliated by one of these Homeland Security officials at the San Francisco Airport recently,” Yusuf told me. “He knew who I was. He got more and more antagonistic. He searched all my things. It was one question after another. ‘Who were you visiting?’ he asked. ‘Where were you?’ It was done in front of my wife and children. He would not let up. We had somebody else’s bag who was traveling with us and who had just gone through security. He said, looking at the bag, ‘What kind of a name is that, Hussani?’ I said, ‘It is an American name.’ He looked at me and said: ‘Don’t get smart with me. You’re a big-shot guy. You’re not ******. You know exactly what I mean. What is that? Is it an Arab name?’ I said, ‘Look, it could be many, many nationalities.’ ‘Well,’ he said, ‘I’m asking you about this one.’ He was talking to me like this. After about 30 minutes of this, and I don’t know why I was putting up with this, I guess I was hoping each time would be the last, I finally said, ‘You can arrest me. You can do whatever you want. But I’m not answering another one of these inane questions.’ He tossed my passport at me and said, ‘Have a nice day.’ And I am wondering, did he just go through one of these training seminars?" Yusuf filed a complaint with his senator and the Homeland Security Department. Homeland Security officials told him they would investigate the matter, and that if he could notify them in advance they would escort him through the airport security line. “But,” he said, “the problem with that approach is it essentially turns us into a Third World country where influential people are treated well, but others suffer the brunt of a regime’s brutality if they are suspect. That’s what happens when I go to counties in the Arab world. They meet me at the airport. I get treated like a VIP. But then Gulam, the little greengrocer from Peshawar, who came here as a refugee 15 years ago from the Afghani war, he gets treated like crap, because he doesn’t have friends or influence. Our creed is supposed to be ‘Liberty and justice for all’ and that’s all I want." Yusuf tells Muslims in the United States that they should attempt to understand those who readily embrace these stereotypes. “We can’t demonize those who attend rallies where they demonize us, because in the end the people who attend these rallies are also victims,” he said. “They are victims of these demagogues with bully pulpits. People are scared. They are losing their jobs. Their mortgages have gone into foreclosure. They are angry. Demagogues always arise in these situations to use and direct anger. The Muslim community is just an easy target.”

Your Taxes Fund Anti-Muslim Hatred I had dinner in Berkeley recently with my friend Sheikh Hamza Yusuf, an Islamic scholar and the co-founder of Zaytuna College, who has watched the steady deterioration of Muslims’ civil rights since the 2001 attacks. He argues that the stereotypes employed against Muslims mirror, with a different iconography and language, the Cold War Red-baiting that dismantled the militant labor movement and ended all serious challenges to unfettered corporate capitalism. The Red-baiting disempowered a dissident segment of American society and legalized its persecution. Red-baiting turned socialists, anarchists, populists, communists and radicals, who relentlessly challenged the orthodoxies of the permanent war economy and assault on civil liberties, into pariahs and scapegoats. It worked once. It could work again. The portrayal of Muslims as mortal enemies serves the interests of the expanding security state and the war industry, which consume half of all federal discretionary spending. The “Muslim threat” propagates the culture of fear and ensures our political passivity. Yusuf calls the attacks on American Muslim leadership and Islamic charities “Swiftboating,” in reference to the right-wing smearing of John Kerry’s war record when the senator was running for president in 2004. Create doubt in people’s minds about the allegiances of Muslim leaders and you effectively undermine the entire community. He says these caricatures of Muslims as evil terrorists become effective tools in justifying the ongoing occupations and wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the proxy wars in Yemen and Pakistan, and the suspension of basic civil liberties at home. Israel, as well as its supporters in the United States, routinely employs the same racist cant to excuse Israeli war crimes and deny the legitimate rights of Palestinians. Nazi portrayals of Jews, Yusuf points out, bear a disturbing resemblance to modern portrayals of Muslims. The goal that some of these demagogues have, he said, especially in a time of economic collapse, is to divert widespread rage toward Muslims, just as the leadership of Serbia diverted rage toward Muslims and Croats when that nation’s economy collapsed. “I was completely humiliated by one of these Homeland Security officials at the San Francisco Airport recently,” Yusuf told me. “He knew who I was. He got more and more antagonistic. He searched all my things. It was one question after another. ‘Who were you visiting?’ he asked. ‘Where were you?’ It was done in front of my wife and children. He would not let up. We had somebody else’s bag who was traveling with us and who had just gone through security. He said, looking at the bag, ‘What kind of a name is that, Hussani?’ I said, ‘It is an American name.’ He looked at me and said: ‘Don’t get smart with me. You’re a big-shot guy. You’re not ******. You know exactly what I mean. What is that? Is it an Arab name?’ I said, ‘Look, it could be many, many nationalities.’ ‘Well,’ he said, ‘I’m asking you about this one.’ He was talking to me like this. After about 30 minutes of this, and I don’t know why I was putting up with this, I guess I was hoping each time would be the last, I finally said, ‘You can arrest me. You can do whatever you want. But I’m not answering another one of these inane questions.’ He tossed my passport at me and said, ‘Have a nice day.’ And I am wondering, did he just go through one of these training seminars?" Yusuf filed a complaint with his senator and the Homeland Security Department. Homeland Security officials told him they would investigate the matter, and that if he could notify them in advance they would escort him through the airport security line. “But,” he said, “the problem with that approach is it essentially turns us into a Third World country where influential people are treated well, but others suffer the brunt of a regime’s brutality if they are suspect. That’s what happens when I go to counties in the Arab world. They meet me at the airport. I get treated like a VIP. But then Gulam, the little greengrocer from Peshawar, who came here as a refugee 15 years ago from the Afghani war, he gets treated like crap, because he doesn’t have friends or influence. Our creed is supposed to be ‘Liberty and justice for all’ and that’s all I want." Yusuf tells Muslims in the United States that they should attempt to understand those who readily embrace these stereotypes. “We can’t demonize those who attend rallies where they demonize us, because in the end the people who attend these rallies are also victims,” he said. “They are victims of these demagogues with bully pulpits. People are scared. They are losing their jobs. Their mortgages have gone into foreclosure. They are angry. Demagogues always arise in these situations to use and direct anger. The Muslim community is just an easy target.”

Your Taxes Fund Anti-Muslim Hatred By Chris Hedges May 09, 2011 "Truthdig" -- News personalities, politicians, self-appointed experts on the Muslim world, and law enforcement and intelligence officials, as well as the Christian right, have successfully demonized Muslims in the United States since the attacks of 2001. It is acceptable to say things openly about Muslims that could never be said about any other ethnic group. And as the economy continues to unravel, as we face the possibility of revenge attacks by Islamic extremists, perhaps on American soil, the plight of Muslims is beginning to mirror that of targeted ethnic minority groups on the eve of the war in the former Yugoslavia, or Jews in the dying days of the Weimar Republic. The major candidates for the Republican nomination for the presidency, including Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann, Herman Cain, Newt Gingrich and Mike Huckabee, along with television personalities such as Bill Maher, routinely employ hate talk against Muslims as a way to attract votes or viewers. Right-wing radio and cable news, including Christian radio and television, along with websites such as Jihad Watch and FrontPage, spew toxic filth about Muslims over the airwaves and the Internet. But perhaps most ominously—as pointed out in “Manufacturing the Muslim Menace,” a report by Political Research Associates—a cadre of right-wing institutions that peddle themselves as counterterrorism specialists and experts on the Muslim world has been indoctrinating thousands of police, intelligence and military personnel in nationwide seminars. These seminars, run by organizations such as Security Solutions International, The Centre for Counterintelligence and Security Studies, and International Counter-Terrorism Officers Association, embrace gross and distorted stereotypes and propagate wild conspiracy theories. And much of this indoctrination within the law enforcement community is funded under two grant programs for training—the State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative—which made $1.67 billion available to states in 2010. The seminars preach that Islam is a terrorist religion, that an Islamic “fifth column” or “stealth jihad” is subverting the United States from within, that mainstream American Muslims have ties to terrorist groups, that Muslims use litigation, free speech and other legal means (something the trainers have nicknamed “Lawfare”) to advance the subversive Muslim agenda and that the goal of Muslims in the United States is to replace the Constitution with Islamic or Shariah law. “You would not expect a Democratic administration to fund right-wing groups,” Thom Cincotta, a civil liberties attorney and the author of the Political Research Associates report, told me, “and yet we continue to have hard-right, Islamophobic speakers and companies being paid taxpayer dollars to promote racist doctrines that undermine U.S. national security policy concerning Islam and the Muslim world. Policy expert after policy expert point out that framing our counterterrorism efforts as a war against Islam is a recipe for building increased resentment among Muslims, as well as a potent recruiting tool for those who would like to carry out violent attacks against us. This kind of demonizing breaks down communication between law enforcement agents and Muslim communities, which have proven to be strong allies in the rare instances of domestic extremism. Not only does it threaten to erode basic civil liberties, it threatens freedom of expression and freedom of worship.” The effects of this campaign of racial hatred are being felt throughout the Muslim community. Those with Muslim names are routinely harassed at airports, and many who wear traditional Muslim dress report mounting cases of verbal and sometimes physical abuse. Muslim children endure taunts in schools. Muslims complain of intrusive surveillance, unconstitutional profiling and frequent mistreatment by law enforcement. The practice of Islam, especially in its traditional forms, is now viewed by many as a sign of criminal intent. And with the rise of the surveillance and security state—we now have 854,000 people working in our domestic security apparatus and 800,000 more employed as police and emergency personnel—national law is being turned into an instrument of overt repression against a religious minority. Those making war on Islam are ignorant of the practices and beliefs of the world’s 1.3 billion Muslims. The Muslim community is not a monolith. It is composed of numerous ethnic, national, cultural and racial groups that often have little in common and in some cases are antagonistic. Of the some 6 million Muslims in the United States, only 5 to 10 percent define themselves as religious. And those groups that express political versions of Islam—the Jamaat al-Islamiyya out of South Asia and the Salafis—are a tiny and marginalized minority. The poison of this rhetoric was on display a few days ago when a trustee of City University of New York blocked the playwright Tony Kushner, who is Jewish, from receiving an honorary doctorate because of Kushner’s criticism of Israel’s treatment of the Palestinians. The trustee, Jeffrey S. Wiesenfeld, labeling Kushner “an extremist,” told The New York Times that the Palestinians “who worship death for their children are not human.” To Be Continued Below.........

Lazie G To be fair, you have to tune to opposing channels, here is a different account of the Breaking News Nur

Lazie G Still waiting for you to drop by ( Alive) for your interview at my ? Nur

Akhi Al Miskin Waxaad Qortay: "Laakiin akhiyow in uu sheekhu dhintay sanado badan ka hor xoogaa way igu yara adagtahay in aan rumaysto. Waayo taas waxay keenaysaa, dad badani in ay been noo sheegeen wakhti aad u dheer. Ka sokow reer galbeedka oo aynu u baranay beentooda aan dhamaadka lahayn, ayaga marnaba inay run sheegaan kama filayo, laakiin what about walaalada halganka sheekha kula jiray hadalkooda xagee la gayn? Ama dadka ku dhawaa sheekha? May warkan mar hore noo soo gudbiyaan walaalada muslimiinta ee sheekha ku dhawaa?" Walaal, arrintan waa arrin ay ku jirto makri aad u weyn sidii Allah noogu sheegay Quraanka ( Makran Kubbaraa), ama ( Wa In kaana Makruhum Li Tazuula Minhul Jibaal). Walaal, arrintan waxaa ka dambeeya durriyadii raggii Nabi Yusuf Ceelka ku riday, oo dabadeed, ayagoo is oohinaya aabbahood u keenay qamiiskii nabi Yusuf oo dhiig leh, laakin illoobay iney jeexaan si uu ugu ekaado in waraabe uu Yusuf cunay, markaasuu aabbahood Yacquub yidhi, " Waxaan la yaabbanahay, xaliimnimada waraabihii ( wolf) cunay Yusuf, qamiiskiisii ilkahiisa meelna ugama jeexin!" Akhi, Riwaayaddan, waxaa ka soo shaqeeyay rag aad u karti iyo maal badan, oo ku takhasusay sida beenta runta loogu ekeysiiyo. Video-gii ugu horreyay oy soo saareen wuxuu u ekaa . maxaa yeelay Allah ma hagaajiyo camalka mufsidiinta. Dad badan ayaa Osama looga dhigay maqaar saar ay daba kaceen ayagoo la xadhiidha rag la lunshay, laakin lama hayo ilaa hadda, qof si hubaal ah usoo sheegay inuu Sheeikhu si qumaati ah usoo arkay. Laakin, dad badan baa aaminsan inuu noolaa, haddana la dilay oo labaduba ay tahay riwaayaddii loogu talagalay in laga gaadho danihii hadba waqtigeeda laga lahaa. Nur

Akhi Miskiin Waxaad i warsatay: 1: Ma waxaad qabtaa in uusan Sheekh Osama gabigiisuba jirin? Jawaab: Maya Akhi, wuu Jiri Jirey, wexeyna u badan tahay, inuu waa hore dhintay. 2. Yacni uu yahay "jaajuus" ay reer galbeedku sameeyeen si ay wadamada muslimiinta u dhacaan? Maya, Akhi, Sheikhu wuxuu ka mid ahaa dhallinyaradii 70 yadii lagu hoday dagaalkii Afghanistan, oo loo tusay in yahay Jahaadlala galayo cadoga Islamka iyo Krishtaanka oo labadaba ay Shuuciyadda Soviet union u tahay cadow mushtarak ah. 3. sida dadka qaar qabaan in uuba CIA-da u shaqaynayey? Walaal, CIA uma shaqeyneynin, Allah ayuu u shaqeynaayay , laakin isku dan bey noqdeen markey la jahaadayay Ruushka Afghanistan. Lakin markii dagaalku dhamaaday, bey kala dan noqdeen. 4. Mise waxaad leedahay, sheekhu wuu jiray, laakiin mar horuu dhintay, reer galbeedkuna arintan way qariyeen, si ay cudurdaar ugu noqoto oo wadamada muslimiinta u sii xalaalaystaan ayagoo ku gabanaya "the war on terro" or "the search for Osama"? Haa walaalle, Waxaa la hubiyay inuu Shiikhuu aad u bukooday markuu ka soo laabtay Sudan, oo kalyihiisu ay daciifeen oo la keenay Isbidaalka Mareykanka Dubai ku yaalla, oo ay xataa saraakil CIA ah ku soo booqatay Isbadaalkaas 2001 gii, dabadeedna takhtarkiis, Sanjib Gupta uu sheegay inuu gaadhay heerkii ugu liitay oo ussan fileyn inuu muddo dheer sii noolan karo, asagoo sii qaatay markuu ka tagay Dubai, labo makiinad oo Dialysis ah, inkastoo takhaatiirtu sheegtay in boqolkii 90 ay dhintaan dadka cudurkan qaba 10 sanadood gudahoo haddey helaan meel nadiif ah iyo takhaatiir ka warheysa. labadaas oo uusan helin Shiikha markuu u dhoofay Afghanistan. Waxaa laga yaabaa inuu markuu waddankaas tagay la dilay sidey sheegtay Benazir Bhuto, ama inuu sikii i dhintay, lakin waxa laga duubay oo cajalado ah waxaa la soo xaqiijiyay iney kulligood ay been ahaayees markii culimada baarta video ga ay baareen. Mareykanku dantiisa wexey gashey inuu ninkan ka dhigto sababta uu ku xalaaleystay dagaallada farahabadan iyo sirdoonka uu wax walbo ku ogaaday si uu u hormariyo danahiisa dhaqaalha oo u badan batroolks waddamada Islaamka, laakin, aad buu ugu qasaaray dhaqaalo ahaan, taasoo lama filaan ku noqotay. Hadda, wexy u soo shaac bixiyeen geeridiisa baqitaan ay ka baqeen in mawjadda kacaanka ah ee ka socda waddamada carabta ah ay qaataan mabda Sheikha, ooy ku weeciyaan Cilmaaaniyadda. Wallahu Aclam Nur

Great reminder Polanyi Bro. There is no doubt that events in our life can take a sharp turn to put us in trouble, emotional stress and pain, or in unforeseen dilemmas, to correct things, we turn to all the tricks in our sleeves, when exhausted, we desperately turn to family and friends, and when we give up and think that its the end, an unexpected help comes from nowhere, for a reason, because, we have previously accounted for Allah in our dealings , and now that when no one else can help us, he is there for us, our real Waliyy ( Friend and Protector), at times, problems and hardships in our life are a blessing in disguise, a gentle reminder from Allah, to count Him in, in our life and to Count On Him, truly Tawheed in Practice! Nur

Journey In Time From Mecca Village to The Modern Global Village Nur

Lazie Girl 1. Why did the US and Pakistan who must have known where he was not lay hands on him sooner? His huge mansion in which he resided for six years was located only few kilometers away from Pakistan Military Academy. 2. Why was May 1, 2011 chosen for the operation? 3. And why did US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tie it in with the Arab uprising? She said "history would record that bin Laden’s death had come at a time when peoples in the Middle East and North Africa were rejecting the extremist narrative and were standing up for freedom and democracy while Obama's adviser Brennan echoed her message by saying "“I would hope that the people of the Middle East will understand that the time for terror is over.” Nur

"I know its that time of the year when you retreat back to the cave but you have left many questions unanswered and I would much prefer that we clean house before your retreat, what do you say?" You mean clean cave? Cave location : North Nuristan Valley. Better be with a Mahram and in Full Hijab if you are looking for an interview. Nur