Originally posted by P_508: quote: As for your question, why do you need to please anyone? Do you feel you have to? Being polite, non-confrontational and peaceful have nothing to do with ‘compromising’ one’s faith. Yes, there is pressure being put on Muslims to dilute their faith. But to be honest, most Muslims probably do need to loosen up and drop much of the rhetoric anyway. Most of what UK Muslims ‘believe’ are reactionary ideas based on correct grievances (does not make the ideas right, see). Brother Fear Allah, I really thing you are drugging yourself to the danger zone... You can compromise something that is man made, and policies and rules written by men, Not the instructions of Allah, Allah damned Jews in his Quran, he send them prophets they deny them.. they are damned by Allah and by damning people.. so please dont tell me loosen up.. and yes Hindus are idol-worshippers, they are as a fact, so where is the mistake there.. Christians eat pigs and you are what you eat, Jewish are damned nothing worse than that.. so infidel is doomed unless Allah mercy touches them... so everything about Islam is clear like the noon sun.. no need to compromise or too loosen up about... I would say the words of the Suddies the Saudi sheikh in any stage and on any TV show.. Allah is who he deserve to be feared and no one else... PEace Saaxib, this is basic stuff and you are being very emotional in your approach. I refuse to believe that your knowledge is that lacking and minimal. That you choose to remember all the instances where Allah curses the Jews, Christians and Idol worshipers yet cant be balanced enough to remember a single occasion where Allah encourages us to be just and fair to all these people! It is the total and utter conviction you and your like have when issuing such verdicts that shocks me, saaxib! Fine, maybe you are right after all. How about you preach to us all and show us the errors of our ways. I choose to follow your interpretation, saaxib. But the scraps and tiny morsels of Islam that I know tell me that I should be good to the non-believers and should call them to the way of Allah with good words and deeds. You, by sticking to one interpretation of our faith, obviously are privy to more information and better interpretations. Don’t leave us in the dark, saaxib. If trying to be just to Christians, Hindus and Jews is wrong, I don’t want to carry on with this wrong. Please enlighten me and show me the errors of my way. Fariid, Yes you are right. From where I’m standing, the members and representatives of the Muslim Council of the UK are adhering to and following the British political system. They try to always be ‘politically correct’ and, for the most part, use left wing (rarely right wing, though they’re closer to our ideology) ideas to further the Islamic cause in Britain. Now, I’m not saying that Islam should be confined to the mosque and that it should be limited to the spiritual (though you’ve got to admit that not many Muslims are unenthusiastic about the idea of ‘only on a Friday’). Islam is political indeed, but based on what rules, Fariid?

OG-Moti, Arr waxaga wa gardaro dee! Who wrote that dictionary? Ma Muslim bu aha mese gaaal? Who do you think a gaaal would class as an infidel? Why is that an insult to you anyway? The examples I gave you were more sufficient, saaxib. You just want to lash out at someone. Fine, go argue with those that write dictionaries and sit and gossip about conspiracy theories while the world leaves you behind. OG Girl, There was nothing wrong with what Zulfa said. I was surprised that a national newspaper had actually reported such trivial news. That’s all. اما من ناحية قولة الاه! ما بس خلاص يا جماعه..هوا احنا اصلا نعر٠نقول حاجه تانيه غير الاه Ùˆ شويه كلام Ùارغ عن مؤامرات وحاجات بدون ادله... اللهجه المصريه ما Ùيش احسن منها

^^^ P508, Let me give you an example: If I had a fight with you, would it be reasonable and manly for me to spend all of my time worrying about what you’re going to do next or the ‘evil’ plans you’re concocting for me? Worse still, if you and I were enemies, would it be manly if all I bothered with was the size of your nose, or how fat you are or if you lived in Cambodia? I’m sure you’ll agree that it’s petty and unmanly for two men to throw such silly insults at each other, right? Why then do you care what insults the West throws your way? Does it matter that much to you if someone said you had a big nose or you were fat? Now, have some REAL pride in your faith and people and try not to be swayed by nonsense like some trivial words in a dictionary. Waa sheeko dumar and the whole Islamic world has become nothing but sheeko dumar these days. It’s two extremes; either sit back and calaacil or over do it and go blow up innocent people. Trust me saaxib, there is a middle ground. Take a step back and don’t let the weepers and wailers persuade you to fall into this girly type of calaacil about Muslims and Islam. I shall not comment on how Allah will view me, you or even the real infidel. What I do or don’t do does not matter when it comes to Allah’s mercy. Never be under the mistaken impression that this is an equal relationship and that as long as you ‘adhere’ you’re going to get what you want. It’s nothing to do with your or my deeds and everything to do with raxmat rabak, saaxib. Remember that as you start sabre rattling and thinking whatever mad ideas you have will please Allah. Pray for Mercy, saaxib. Mercy for us all, here and later.

Originally posted by FARIID: On the other hand when each of the Muslims was asked about something, they were always doing a very hard juggling act of trying to please two very different audiences. They wanted to appear ‘moderate’ and ‘tolerant’ to non-Muslims but this posse the danger of being seen to compromise their Islamic values by fellow Muslims. I sure wouldn't want to be in their shoes. A good example was when he pressed Dr bari about inviting Sheikh Sudaisi on the opening of the East London Muslim Center despite him 'having utter contempt for Jews and Christians and having called Hindus idol worshipers- apparently this is uncalled for - '. Well you can imagine he is lost for words. He can't ostracise sh. Sudaisi because he knows he is right and his fellow Muslims won't take that lightly but he can't also condone what is attributed to the sheikh because the 'sun and 'Daily Mail' will be on his case the whole week. He will be labelled 'preacher of hate', 'extremist' and all sorts of adjectives. I’m not sure how you managed to read that whole transcript, Farid. It was aggressive, pointless and very dull. Only the fact that it related to Islam is what sustained me through all that meaningless rhetoric. The Muslim Council of Britain comes across as some sort of political organisation (mostly through the actions of those that work for it) and when they’re put to the test, they time and again prove what a shabby political organisation they are. Having said that, I do feel sorry for these brothers, it can’t be easy to seek peace and try to stick to your principles (wrong principles if you ask me – politicians should join political parties not Islamic organisations). As for the Saudi Sheikh, it’s probably true that he (and many other Scholars) use terms such as pigs, monkeys and idol-worshippers to describe Jews, Christians and Hindus. However, these same scholars (excluding the odd one here and there of course) also speak about the tolerance of Islam and how the proof of history is on our side when it comes to tolerance and peaceful co-existence. Is it possible that they should hold these two conflicting views at the same time? The point that the producers of Panorama miss (and more worryingly, many Muslims too) is that this Sheikh and the many others that view Israel with utter contempt do so because Israel is the enemy. Zionism is the enemy. Those that fight Muslims are the enemy. NOT ordinary Jews and Christians (or Hindus) that neither fight Islam nor encourage the hatred of Islam. Many such Jews and Christians live in the West, in Israel and even in India. As for your question, why do you need to please anyone? Do you feel you have to? Being polite, non-confrontational and peaceful have nothing to do with ‘compromising’ one’s faith. Yes, there is pressure being put on Muslims to dilute their faith. But to be honest, most Muslims probably do need to loosen up and drop much of the rhetoric anyway. Most of what UK Muslims ‘believe’ are reactionary ideas based on correct grievances (does not make the ideas right, see). Panorama transcript

Originally posted by Zulfa: Og, I read that in Al Ittihad Newspaper. If it was against the 'Jews' that dictionary would've been ereased from the world by now for publishng Anti-semitic descriptions. Bs shngoool el3arab ragdah fel 3asal. zzzzzzzz noom el3awafi inshallah Allah y9l7 7alna bs ما ضاع حق وراءه مطالب، بس عشان إحنا ضيعنا أشياء أهمـ بتعتقدين ÙÙŠ أحد بيسمع لجمعيات الدÙاع عن العرب This was on a national newspaper? Really? One hopes that it was on one of those ‘gossip’ columns and not given half a page or put in a prominent section. Such stories are petty. Though one has to wonder at the mindset that goes scouring dictionaries and the like to find offence! The unending quest to find fault and reinforce the fact that Muslims (Arabs) are disliked by the West is really nauseating. This is petty, small-minded and cheap. We have become (as a Muslim world) very self-centred, inferior and reactionary. What’s even more galling is that we use such nonsense to ‘open’ each other’s eyes to the ‘evil’ of the West and the ‘reality’ on the ground. Delusional is not strong enough a word to use here. Maybe if I added self-indulgent naval gazers, eh!

That was a great read. Thanks OG. Khayr, I can rewrite this piece with simpler words and easy to follow sentences, but I wont. I can’t help being mischievous; it’s a bad habit of mine, saaxib. You need to rise above the mischief and try to decipher the points being made. I believe that the vast majority of people on this site have the ability to read (when they’re in a good mood) but I also KNOW that most are too excitable and forget all the basic rules of reading the minute they come across something remotely provocative. In your case Khayer, you’re acting like the man who when his sister came crying and wailing to tell him that his father has died, started shouting at her and telling her to stop crying. Furthermore, when his brother came and calmly told him the same news, he got upset and accused the brother of not caring for their dead father! Regardless of the way the news was related, the father, of course, remains dead. That I scream when dealing with any topic or appear indifferent in my style should not really matter, what matters is the point I’m making. I hope you were calm enough when reading these words and now know the point being made. I wont be surprised if you don’t. I also wont be flabbergasted if our precious Haddad comes out in your defence and exposes me yet again with the unanswerable question “How do you know that his father is dead?â€

Originally posted by Rahima: quote: There is nothing wrong with growing a beard and shortening one's trousers! When has that become an insult? As I was thinking! No. Sadly, you were not (thinking), Rahima. In order for one to ‘think’ one has to absorb the information, process it, understand it, compare it to past experiences and knowledge and finally either arrive at new knowledge or nothing at all. Imagine having dirty clothes and needing to have them washed. We live at a time where we use powerful washing machines and super efficient detergents. Nowadays, all you have to do to clean your clothes is to drop them in a washing machine and press a button. This works for all kinds of fabrics and clothes. Just press a button. The process is more or less the same as thinking. In go the clothes, the programmed washing machine processes them and we finally take them out nice and clean. This automatic method though, is ok with dirty clothes but a complete tragedy when applied to ideas. Wholesale processing is no good here. Only a hand wash will do. One needs to do the washing with one’s own hands and see the stains with one’s own eyes (and clear them away). A pre-programmed washing machine, as you’re aware, misses a lot. Now, let us get back to our issue and ‘think’. Got your bucket ready? Let us begin: You and FF decided that the mere mention of long beards and short trousers constitutes an insult! You both, one assumes, were in a hurry and were not in the mood for a hand wash. Never fear, I’ll personally do the washing here, you just sit and keep me company. Neither short trousers nor long beards are an insult. Insulting the brother was not my intention. My intention was to shame him into working on his manners. Here comes the slow hand wash: A man with a long beard and short trousers, by custom, is usually a mullah (or do you prefer the word wadaad). A wadaad that displays no manners is nothing but a pseudo-wadaad. NOW RINSE. A pseudo-wadaad that really has good intentions (but his knowledge lets him down) need not worry about superficial issues such as long beards and short trousers, those can come later. First he needs to work on his manners and approach. RINSE AGAIN. The above is nothing new and one expects most people to already know. However, when people fall into the bad habit of being hasty and never spending the time to think things through, such simple everyday thoughts become gems of wisdom. Many would berate me for repeating myself or wasting my time on stating the obvious. However, when it comes to my beloved Mullahs, I just can’t help myself. By acting the way they do, they’ve taken on a responsibility that they should be fully capable and able to meet. None of us are infallible of course. Yet, many a shabby Mullah will act as if they are. Now, if I was acting in such a way I’ll at least excuse my actions by arguing that I’ve never pretended to be a Mullah of any sort and hardly ever dealt out verses and ahadeeth. Still, if I ever were to do so, I would make damn sure that I understood every verse and hadeeth that I utter before spitting it out in the public domain and misleading others.

Originally posted by Khayr: Salaamz, From Abu Hurairah from the prophet (salallahu caliyhe wasilm): The Believer is Simple, Generous (noble in character)and the sinner is Cunning, Cowarldy) PLEASE WATCH THE TONE OF THE AUTHOR AND THE UNDERLYING THEME BEHIND THE POST If only more heads were scratched rather than beards stroked, if only... NGONGE, WHAT IS THE UNDERLYING THEME HERE??? Fi Amanillah The underlying theme was, bad habits, saaxib. Having read your post, and apart from knowing it’s nothing but the usual mechanical reactionary type of response, I’m also led to think that you either suffer from bad habits or you’re privy to divine knowledge, saaxib. What could it be? Are you quoting the hadeeth for the fun of it or is there an ‘underlying theme’ here too? Who is the sinner and who is the believer? Brother, before you lengthen your beard, shorten your trousers and fill the air with the praise of the almighty, you need to work on your manners. If you’ve bothered to read my post with a clear mind and an honest intention, you would have understood that I am criticising your kind of person. Sprinkling your posts with the odd hadeeth or random verse just for the sake of it is a very bad habit, saaxib. Mudantii haweenka, The answers you seek are all in the original post. Read it again and again. To read in haste is yet another bad habit.

Originally posted by Rafalution 25/5/05: Collective outbreaks of despicable habits are more dangerous on the other hand. These can apply to any area of human existence and would usually be rejected by the more reasonable members of that society. A random example would be the prevalent tradition of plagiarism and abuse of intellectual property in the cyber world. Countless people reject such a bad habit, yet the simpletons carry on. The damage such carelessness and ignorance would cause (if left unchecked) is immeasurable. Who can tell what Faarax wrote and what Plato wrote? Who can stop half-wits from claiming the words of prophets as their own? Who protects your own words? When one is doing a research paper for example there will innevitably be a sentence here and a paragraph there to further illustrate or drive home a certain point/argument. Can this be classed as 'plagiarism'? I have a feeling your refering more towards those who mis-quote to prove their point rather than students doing essays. It has been a while since I last had to follow any academic procedures when writing. It is very possible that things have changed nowadays. In my days, we used to provide a bibliography of all the sources used and clearly attribute all quotes and “borrowed†words. Plagiarism is when you post an article, poem or story without acknowledging the original source (some people do it on purpose while others do it because they don’t know any better). OG Heh. I was expecting you to direct me to all the juicy websites with the Umawi triangle. I’ve been looking for similar websites for months and still can’t find any.

Bad habits don’t all appear at once. They gradually creep up on one. First you find that you’re mixing with newer, cooler and more exciting friends. You then find that one of those friends is slightly ‘eccentric’ in his/her ways. Finally, with time and constant company, you steadily become as eccentric as that friend. From the nice young man who falls into the wrong crowd and ends up becoming a drug addict, to the sweet girl that gobbles up recreational pills, these habits always have a starting point that, if not arrested at source, will grow and grow until it becomes too late to do anything about. Of a lesser significance, yet no less irritation, are the physical habits that one picks up. Teenagers would dress in accordance to the customs of the ‘clique’. Young girls will adopt trendy facial expressions (usually the sucking of the teeth or a scowl) and, even grown up women will, sometimes, invite one to ‘talk to the hand’! Such are the habits of the riffraff. Still, clever, well brought up and ‘cultured’ people find such vulgar acts fascinating! Why? Again, one assumes that such habits are progressively acquired and are not the norm. When one speaks, hears or reads about habits, it’s invariably done in the context of ethics and morals. If it’s said that one has a drinking habit, the likelihood is that the speaker is referring to the harmful life style that person leads and the negative impact such a bad habit has on his/her life and morality. He/she is drunk, how could he/she know right from wrong? Likewise, when a parent refers to his/her child developing bad habits. The said child, whilst not becoming a mass murderer or habitual rapist, has probably picked up irritating manners such as endless tantrums, rudeness and stubbornness. Unlike any of the previous examples, when one is faced with such deterioration in a child’s behaviour, one has to lay the finger of blame on the parents - With all the others; it’s really the individual that is to blame. Single instances of ‘bad habits’ can be and are, usually, easily ignored and its instigators shunned by society. How many murderers are you friends with? Rapists? Thieves? Troublemakers? Foul-mouthed people? Collective outbreaks of despicable habits are more dangerous on the other hand. These can apply to any area of human existence and would usually be rejected by the more reasonable members of that society. A random example would be the prevalent tradition of plagiarism and abuse of intellectual property in the cyber world. Countless people reject such a bad habit, yet the simpletons carry on. The damage such carelessness and ignorance would cause (if left unchecked) is immeasurable. Who can tell what Faarax wrote and what Plato wrote? Who can stop half-wits from claiming the words of prophets as their own? Who protects your own words? Some of these habits come out of nowhere and spread so quickly that by the time society has decided they’re bad, everyone has already adopted them. An example of these would be weddings and how they change from being mixed weddings, single-sex weddings or no weddings at all to cheap weddings, average weddings and finally, eight star hotel weddings. Like thousands of migrating birds painting a picture on the horizon, these styles of weddings are embraced, dropped and adopted again by almost the whole society (rich and poor)! In each of these cases (and the million others that I chose to omit) one can see a clear pattern, a noticeable decline and a visible turning point when such habits start to take hold. One can also see how (almost all) these habits can cause moral decay and contribute to the bending and infringement on already established ethics and laws. One can’t expect any moral clarity from a society of drunks, or heroine addicts, or even Khat addicts! One, naturally, would think twice before approaching a tongue clicking, teeth sucking and face scowling teenager. One cannot believe the words of a plagiarist. Though all these habits are easily taken on and usually very tempting, this still remains an issue of ethics, rules and principles. These are not as easily acquired as bad habits. These require thinking, ruminating and, at times, a sacrifice or two. However, once these principles, rules and ethics are reached and set in place, one will still have to keep on nurturing them, upholding them and defending them against negligence and the advance of bad habits. Religion is not immune to bad habits. In fact, a religion with creaky foundations is the nucleus of all bad habits; sporadic and patchy knowledge invites bad habits. Nonetheless, many of the worst offenders cite religion as the pantheon of all good habits! Many seem to believe that no good habits existed before the revelation of their own faith! A Christian would quote Jesus, a Jew Moses and (many of our fellow) Muslims habitually bore us with tales of Islamic good deeds. More often than not, these stories are out of context or incomplete. The reason? BAD HABITS. The problem is not with the stories as such; the problem is with the narrators. Using stories as examples has been used in all divine revelations. The almighty deems the use of stories and tales favorable and noteworthy. Who are we to question the almighty? The prophets of God have also used stories to illustrate their points and the pious people that followed them used stories about them (the prophets) to illustrate their points too. The telling of stories to encourage goodness and discourage evil has become a habit. However, this was not a bad habit. After all, each story had a moral. The storytellers of today use them to lend weight and piousness to their work but display no morals in the stories they tell. Worse still, the stories are regularly sprinkled with sayings of prophets and verses from holy books, therefore compounding the misdeeds. The good (and godly) habit of storytelling became a very bad habit, hence one’s reluctance to cite a story or verse in support of one’s argument here. Are good habits limited to religious folks? Can non-believers have good habits? Read this verse from a poem written decades before the message of Islam was revealed. تعيرنا انا قليل عديدنا Ùقلت لها ان الكرام قليل ما قل من كانت بقاياه مثلنا شباب تساعي للعلي وكهول ما ضرنا انا قليل وجارنا عزيز وجار الاكثرين ذليل She scoffed at our small number. I said that honourable men are few. We do not mind our small number when (as a result) our neighbour is treated well. This is not so with the neighbour of those who are large in number. The non-believing poet is eulogising the generosity and good virtues of his tribe. Thus it’s clear that good habits were not an Islamic invention. On the contrary, Islam compliments and complements such good manners (sadly, one was forced to state the obvious here). To stay with the poetic theme, here is Jareer (an Umawi poet) ‘insulting’ one of his archrivals (they were Al Farazdaq & Al Akhtal) with these choice words: ما سرني ان امي من بني اسد وان لي كل يوم ال٠دينار قوم اذا استنبح الاضيا٠كلبهم قالوا لامهم بولي علي النار I would never rejoice if my mother were of Bani Asad And I was gifted with a daily thousand dinars These (Bani Asad) are people, that when the appearance of a stranger in their horizon provokes their dog into barking Would ask their mother to urinate on the fire Here, he’s insulting the bad habits of that rival tribe. They’re not good to their guests (which is why they quickly try to douse the fire so that the guest would not see their tents at night), they’re stingy (not offering the guest any food or place to sleep) and they have no respect for their own mothers (asking her to extinguish the fire with her own urine). There are countless pre-Islamic poems and verses written on the subject of bad habits, mostly disparaging such habits and vilifying their holders. Dishonesty, impertinence, anger, haste, fraudulence, tediousness and a dozen other vile habits are mocked and ridiculed. The old non-believers despised them; the sporadically learned Muslims embrace them! How could one get over such bad habits? Would prayers help? Would choosing good friends do it? How about completely adhering to a faith and following its tenants to the letter, would that do it? Perhaps threats are the best way of stopping the spread of bad habits! Could the perpetual threats of hell and eternal damnation do it? Maybe there is no such thing as bad habits and it’s all relative! Do you have bad habits? What is your worst habit? If only more heads were scratched rather than beards stroked, if only...

ÙÙŠ مسرحيه شغاله هنا

Brother Ngonge, By accusing me of slander (unless of course you can proof that what I said is false or that the sheikh never made such comments, which I doubt very much judging by your limited knowledge about the sheikh), you have ironically enough uttered that which you have accused me of doing, and made an undeniable defamatory slander against my person. Don’t worry; you don’t need to apologies for that. My dear irate brother if you would only stop and pay attention to etiquette and manners you really would get far. You are the one who started casting aspersions on Dr Badawi‘s person and knowledge, you have not provided any proof, and therefore it is nothing but (unless you can provide us with some hasty proof of course) slander. You see, I can also claim that Dr Badawi is a great magician: I saw him make a pig fly. I saw it with my own eyes. You have to trust me on this. If you say that he can’t make pigs fly, you’ll have to bring proof of what you say or apologise for implying that I’m a liar. Saaxib, you really need to rid yourself of the Waxa la Yedhi mentality. If you have no proof, don't make the accusation in public. I’m not sure in what part of the world you live in, but we (various Muslim communities in the UK) have collectively rejected this man long time ago. All the mosques that I’ve been in the city I live in, have all unanimously agreed on the baseless pretences in which this ‘fatwa’ is based upon. All the Muslim sisters groups in the UK have condemned this so called ‘fatwa’, and since this was a ‘fatwa’ only meant for the Muslims in the UK, and they (Muslims in the UK) have overwhelmingly rejected it, no one is asking for anyone’s permission here. I live in the UK and have been here for a long time. I'm not aware of anyone rejecting this man (was it you and four of your mullah mates?). The sisters groups you speak of all said they respected the Dr but chose not to follow his fatwa (they did not reject his fatwa - scroll up and read some of the links I posted. We back on the "Waxa la yedhi"? All praise is due to Allah, who made our religion not a religion of blind following of a so called “grand muftiâ€, like some other religions, where all final authority rests upon the rabbi, clergy or pope, that we are now free from prosecutions and being burned at the stable (even if some may wish to do with me here), but had been a reality for many of the above mentioned religions. Think of Bishop Pothinus and his followers who dissented against Pope Elutherus, think of Iranaeus who refused to follow the Pope, think of Leonidas, Origen, Diodorus, Pamphilus, Donatus, Arius, Eusebius, Lewis Hetzer, Michael Servatus, Francis Davidis, Faustus Socinus, John Biddle, etc. “He helped Joshua fight the battle of Jericho, he helped Daniel get out the lion's den, he helped Gilligan get off the island†- Coming to America. If you go on and keep defending men you don’t know, with no eye for the truth whatsoever (as you care more about winning arguments, otherwise you would have showed some restrains in your absolute judgements of condemning those who’ve questioned this man’s religious reasoning based on the Qur’aan and Sunnah, and you’d not have dismissed everything inconvenient to your “crusade†as all lies), then all praise is due to Allah, who didn’t give you the power the “church†used to have. Oh, dry your eyes out, son. Provide proof for your slander and stop this business of winning arguments. For an argument to be won or lost, the other side has to know the rules of the game, you don't. For clarity to all those who are supporting this ‘fatwa’ based on the “pork in the dessert†analogy, here’s something for you: When a sister is in danger and is at gunpoint or she is unable to cross the street because of hiding snipers, then NO fatwa is needed, the sister can REMOVE her xijaab as she wishes, she is FREE to choose and Dr Badawi shouldn’t flatter himself to believe that his ‘fatwa’ is needed to safe lives. Are you starting to issue your own fatwas now, saaxib? Where is your DALEEL (you like that word? I know you new Mullahs love to sprinkle your speech with Arabic words from time to time). Please don’t mix religion with your personal opinion or preferences and defend this man, but rather side with the truth and ask your self the validity of his religious reasoning. If you are incapable to do so, then ask someone with knowledge and find the truth that way. All I was trying here was to give you some insight in to the issue by presenting to you a valid objections and each time from a different angle which will be a lot easier for some of us to digest, besides that; I hate repeating myself. Warya, I’m lost with you now. One minute you say don’t listen to Dr Badwi and the next you say if we’re not sure we should go and ask someone with knowledge! Is there a list of designated Mullahs we can ask or should we come to you? The real worry is that many people would hear all this “praise be to Allah “ of yours and on the strength of that alone, find themselves falling for your nonsense. Oh, and what nonsense it is! A little knowledge is indeed a dangerous thing. I’ve reached now at a stage where the best course of action is to retire from this discussion of “fan-clubs†and hooliganism, which does more harm than good. I dare say that this was the most sensible thing you’ve ever written. I hope you stick by your words. The mocking, derision and sneering is all done on purpose. None of this is personal though. I know I’m blowing a bust balloon, I know I am.

Heh. There is no paranoia, saaxib. Your questions were leading questions, that’s all. As for the distinction between resistance and violence (terror), no need to waffle on about Israel, America or China and how they work. What’s important is that you and I know there is a difference. Do you know if a difference exists, saaxib? OG, I fully understand your position and can even imagine how your thought process went. If this is the conclusion you reached and you’re happy with, so be it. You already know I strongly disagree with it, but I appreciate that such a position does exist and can understand the justifications for it. My moral principles, reasoning and even instinct compel me to oppose such a view however. I believe my position to be the true one and I’m trying very hard to advance it. Nevertheless, in your case and those that hold a similar position to you, I already know I can’t make you see my point of view. I’m saddened by the thought but I also know I’ll have to reluctantly accept it. My relentless repetition, harrying and constant harassment is reserved for those that keep a foot in each camp and blissfully believe they’ve taken a moral stance on the issue. I’m not enjoying this at all. PS I don’t hate one-lines. Some one-liners are great and worth a million words. The typical SOL online though is not one of those. It’s ok in that Troll thread (even I went and left them a line of my own there). But, those that leave pointless one-lines in topics such as this one are being immensely ignorant (IMHO). Fortunately, we have not had many of those yet.

^^^Are you going to apply some rules to this fight? Or, are you going to use Hamurabi’s immortal edict of ‘an eye for an eye’? Your anger and need to resist oppression has to have some thought and logic behind it, saaxib. When Malik Al Shabaaz was spouting all that nonsense, his thought process, nay his entire ideology was that the white man was the devil and there was nothing immoral about killing the devil, by any means necessary. He later on changed his mind (when he was introduced to true Islam, surprisingly enough). What ideology do you use to justify your angry stance? Ps No, I'm not a sujui.

Originally posted by Viking: NGONGE, A few questions I hope you can answer... 1) What do you think of the regimes in Muslim countries? 2) Is there currently any single Muslim country you can point at as an example for others to follow? 3) What kind of government do you support, a theocratic govt or a secular govt like i.e. Tunisia? 4) Do you think violence perpetuated by Muslims can come to an end while their lands are still occupied by foreign forces? Do you think the violence can be stopped while the people are being oppressed by despotic leaders who get support from other nations? Nicely worked out bunch of leading questions there, Viking. Oh well, I’ll answer anyway and see where this is taking us! For question ONE: the answer is that I don’t really think much of these regimes (from an Islamic perspective). The response for question TWO: is NO, again from an Islamic perspective. Question THREE is slightly more complex but I’ll stick my neck out here and say theocratic (of course my understanding of the word might be different than yours). Question FOUR leaves me with no room for manoeuvre really. You seem to have given me the answer in the question already and whatever conflicting reply I give, I already know it will not meet with your approval! Still, NO I don’t think violence perpetuated by Muslims will come to an end while their lands are still occupied by foreign forces. Shall we play the game of words again and try to separate acts of violence (terror) and those of resistance? I don’t think resistance will or should stop. I also don’t think violence (terror) will stop either; I think it should stop of course. I don’t think the violence (terror) can be stopped while people are being oppressed by despotic leaders, etc, etc... There, I’ve indulged you and, apart from the tiny bits where I could not resist the temptation to be naughty, I believe most of my replies would agree with your preset agenda. You do of course realise that your questions reek of a desperate attempt of trying to defend decadent moral positions by appealing to the emotions and implying that the feelings of oppression validate all wrongdoings! This brings us sliding back to square one again.

Oh look! A line! :rolleyes:

Xiin & Stoic, That’s quite a question you’ve thrown my way. Nonetheless, I suppose I dug my own grave there and it’s time I lay in it. You both of course realise (I hope) that pointing out a problem does not also require being ready with a solution. What solutions do I have, you ask! I’m assuming that (for the sake of argument) you finally agree this problem exists and that such a malice runs deep in Muslim circles. The simple solution is to excise this mind-set. Call me arrogant, call me conceited or even sanctimonies, but people in general are easily led. Had there been a campaign or culture of strongly denouncing terrorist acts, the chances of people like Bin Laden being able to recruit anyone would have been very small. The reason why he can find volunteers to help him out is the lack of condemnation and the nonchalant way his whole movement is being viewed by most Muslims. You see, people are paying the usual lip service and saying that what he and his fellow terrorists are doing is wrong but there is no evidence of real anger or strong condemnation! Compare and contrast this to Salaman Rushdie’s case! There, the anger was very visible, the rage was hardly containable and people were falling over themselves trying to denounce the heretic! Even the recent Dr Badawi fatwa, have you seen the initial reaction to that? Have you seen the anger and accusing fingers (even though the fatwa is probably legitimate and acceptable)? With Bin Laden, most scholars denounce him and call his group Khawaraj, yet with every atrocity he commits, there is hardly a cry, condemnation or disapproval from the usually protective Muslims! The scholars say that he’s distorting our faith but people nod and carry on talking about cause and effect. Stoic, the divisions that exist among Muslims do not mean that all those groups condone terrorism, they don’t. As far as I’m aware, most of these groups (Salafi, Ahalu El Sunna, etc) are against terrorism. They have their own differences but they don’t all disagree on this issue. For now, the only solution is to spread awareness and ensure that the average layman understands the seriousness of this situation. Imams should be aware of the feelings of their mosque regulars (samples of which can be found in this here site). They need to moderate their words so as they don’t unwittingly encourage the ever-angry youth into the bosom of Bin Laden. The Imams need not submit their khutba’s to anyone, one assumes they are actually qualified for the job they do. As for reaching the ONE-BILLION Muslims, well, unlike our predecessors in the early days of Islam, we do have the benefit of having the magical power of modern media at our disposal. Reaching people is the least of our problems. Only when people start to view the actions of Bin Laden and his ilk in the same light they would view a Salman Rushdie, Irshad Manji and the various other deviants would we start to have a proper solution to this problem and reform Islam. Less anger and more thought should be the message. PS Stoic, Islam has always been a moderate faith. Only recently with ignorance and pandering to Western tastes and labels has the moderate part of Islam become something to recoil from.

Thanks Juma It is not their fault that some aroused youth set him-self off and killed innocent lives. Or is it really? This business of recasting the teachings of Qur’an and laying the blame in the wrong doors is not going to fly. As respected as you are, you seem to have missed the point in a major way. No body has so far condoned or rejoiced innocent killings. But you raised the bar for some lives and lowered for others. Your litmus test is unfairly applied, saaxiib. See the big picture; terrorism is always terrorism irrespective of who and how. Xiin, I raised the bar for some morals and lowered it for others (not lives). You and me are Muslims; we should be concerned with Muslim problems, weaknesses and indifference. You say that you don’t condone or rejoice for such bombings (well done you) yet you go on to compare types of “terrorismâ€! Why? I’m saying to you what business is American terrorism/ war and how it is conducted to you? Why are you so bothered about the morality of their actions? Would you agree with their invasion of Iraq if it were done in a nice and acceptable way? You see, I doubt that you would. The way the Bush administration reaches its goals and moral positions, the way they decide to deal with the world and they way they conduct war should not be compared to the way Muslims would do any of these things. We believe our faith is superior, don’t we? To make matters worse, we also believe that terrorist acts that are carried out by so-called Muslims are wrong. But, we still apply Bush’s logic when trying to rationalise such acts; cause and effect it is. I’m picking on this unconcerned attitude of yours that stubbornly focuses on the false notion of “cause and effect†– false because it does not matter to us as Muslims who denounce acts of terror. Moreover, I’m questioning your use of the word “few†when talking about raging Mullahs and angry youth. What does few mean? We are talking of the entire Muslim Ummah here, saaxib. If it were a handful, I’ll agree that we can ignore them, but few? On the issue of the mosques and Imams, why could they not stop these angry youth from getting angrier? Are they not our guiders? Why not denounce the deviants amongst us? To be fair to most Imams and scholars, in the past few years, many of them have started to condemn impotent anger and preach patience and adherence to Islamic principles (in spite of all provocation). Yet, the reactionary mentality still remains. Yet, the ineffective rage is always present. Yet, denials are endless. I was watching an interview with the main leader of mosques in Birmingham UK. He denounced terrorism and the London bombing but said that he does not believe that Muslims were behind the bombing! Despite being shown photos, despite watching interviews with the families of the bombers and despite knowing their names he still maintained that he does not believe anyone related to Islam was behind these bombings (he was not saying this to distance Islam from such horrible acts, he was saying it because he believed there was some conspiracy theory afoot). I bet if one had argued with this guy and pushed a bit with more facts and examples, he’ll finally concede that there might be “a few†Muslims that carry out such acts. Alas, you’ll never see it in his words or demeanour that “a few†are a few too many. Saaxib, the issue is not that complex. The issue is very simple but we Muslims always find ways to complicate it. The knee-jerk reactionaries are hijacking your and my faith (I would not dignify them with the title fanatics). They’re the ones starting riots in Pakistan, the ones killing film directors in Holland, the ones blowing up civilians in Egypt and Iraq. They’re Muslim and they’re (I hope you’ll agree) wrong. Now, instead of wasting your time arguing the dead-end issue of cause and effect, wouldn’t be better if you concentrated on the enemy within? We all already KNOW the enemy without; we spent 30 years talking about the enemy without. Enough already.

This is really not fair. Not fair at all. I don’t like to keep pulling people up for talking rubbish but when the issues are as momentous as these, I’m left with no choice. Salafi, I also have my reservation about this ‘fatwa’. Like I already said at the start of this thread, I would not encourage my womenfolk to follow it. Yet, at the same time, I refuse to dismiss it (extreme or not). For me to dismiss his fatwa as flawed, I’ll have to question his ability and knowledge. I’ve looked at his CV, looked at his history and education and even noticed that respected sites like Islamonline seek his fatwas from time to time. Other than the written words of brother Shams-el-Deen above, I have not heard or read of any Muslim scholars advising us not to listen to Dr Badawi. Now, whilst I’m not calling Shams-el-Deen a liar, I trust that he’ll understand why I can’t possibly take his words as truth with no proof (what he wrote above is, for the time being, nothing but slander). Brothers (and sensible sisters) when replying to these topics don’t go for winning the argument alone, go for the correct argument. Try to be straight with yourselves. Read your words again and again and see if you’re not just being angry and arguing obvious points. Salafi, I read on the “net†that Sheikh Albani was not really much of a Sheikh. Some of the sites and articles dedicated to his slander were very well written and highly convincing. They, like you’re doing above, question his credentials and say that he did not have Ijaazah! Should I fall for their words or should I keep on searching and looking until I find something concrete that proves their correctness or otherwise. Common sense of course, will also dictate that I hold my tongue while in doubt instead of casting aspersions. Can Dr Badawi or can he not issue fatwas about Hijab? Is his method wrong? Who says? If it’s only you that says this (and this is to all that doubt the Dr), are you more qualified than him? If not, don’t you think you’re doing him, us and yourself a disservice by this casual way of dealing with the issue? Below is a letter he sent to the Times Newspaper: Letters to the Editor August 10, 2005 Advice on the hijab FROM THE CHAIRMAN OF THE COUNCIL OF MOSQUES AND IMAMS Sir, You suggest (leading article, August 5) that in publishing the advice to women to shed the hijab if they feared assault my colleagues and I “regrettably helped to further the notion that the headscarf is a symbol of hateâ€. I agree that it would have been better to have communicated this matter privately but we felt that those who prey on vulnerable women are not short of encouragement and, other women having sought similar advice, that the issue was of intense debate within the Muslim community. Our aim was simply to allay the anxiety of young Muslim women who are torn between their sense of religious obligation and their need for security. ZAKI BADAWI Muslim College Ealing, London Source

** Closes eyes and forces self to write one line ** Err, erm, but what about THE CHAT ROOM? ** Can't help it ** Now that this site has a chartroom these topics should all be started there, wouldn't you agree?

Zeph, Lately, your contributions to the site seem to have tripled. I might be exaggerating but, in the past three days alone, I think you must have at least posted fifty new posts! Is something the matter? It is a well-known scientific fact that when people start acting out of the ordinary there is something usually irking them! What irks you, dear? What is driving you to join the one-line brigade? Why are you not in the chat room? If you prefer not to reply in public, you can always send me a pm. I’m all ears. If, however, nothing is the matter and you’re just being your usual fluffy self. Can you please stop this tedious one-line circus and take your harem to the chat room instead. That’s what it was designed for, you know. :mad: PS I trust that you will hold your harem back when they come baying for my blood. You know I’ve got nothing but love for you, dear.

Edit: I surrender I surrender Salaaam. Salaaam. Salaaaam.

Xiin, What new light does this article shed, saaxib? The writer there seems to be pressing all the right buttons for those wanting to ignore reality, but intellectual and moral stances he does not present. I’m quite disappointed with myself here. Having spent a whole month arguing on this topic, I at least assumed that some of you would be able to see the simplicity of such arguments and will halt the pointless quoting of westernised points of view. If your anger about Iraq, Palestine, Chechnya and Kashmir is one borne out of Islamic brotherhood and solidarity, your moral argument and positions should follow the same line. There really is no room for mixing and matching your views. You can reject all these wars from an Islamic viewpoint and argue, fight for and discuss the plight of Muslims everywhere. You can also play the excuse game, the cause and effect one. However, and I’m repeating myself here, you can’t mix the two. The cause and effect position has no moral value whatsoever. It relies on and tries to explain everything on the basis of revenge and vengeance. It tries to excuse all transgressions and blame them on those (transgressions) that preceded them. How far back can one go though? Iraq invaded Kuwait (it’s Iraq’s fault). Kuwait (and Saudi Arabia) asked the West to help them in the war with Iraq (it’s Q8’s fault). The West defeated Iraq and took the opportunity to plant some soldiers in the Gulf countries (it’s the West’s fault). Bin Laden started blowing up Saudi Arabia as a protest to the presence of American soldiers in Saudi Arabia (it’s Bin Laden’s fault). Cause and effect? Bin Laden started blowing up other countries in protest at those soldiers. Cause and effect? Bin Laden blew up New York (Let us blame it on Israel for a change)! Bush invaded Afghanistan as a result of that (or so he says). Cause and effect? Bush invades Iraq too and tries to link it to the terrorists (cause and effect?). The idea of liberating the Muslim world and introducing democracy gathers pace. Cause and effect? Who started what and where? Shall we go further back? Is Palestine the cause of this conflict? Shall we see the “cause and effect†of that problem? Lets not. It’s a long story and we’ll only end up blaming it all on the Sherrif of Maca anyway. Though I indulged you in this cause and consequence game of yours, I still feel that you’re missing the whole point here, saaxib. This is a dangerous game that legitimises every abhorrent wrong just because the enemy has also adopted the same tactics. But, the enemy did not even adopt such tactics! The enemy fought a war! Yes, it was more powerful. Yes, it had better equipment. Yes, it cheated and lied. But, it still fought a war. The terrorists are not fighting a war. Theirs’ is an illegitimate campaign of disruption and terror (the writer in your article misses the point about martyrdom when he attempts to compare these terrorists to the Jews and Christians unhappy about wrongs done to Jews and Christians). Let us leave all of this and go back to the title of your thread: “Blaming the mosques for the sins of governmentsâ€! The mosques are our Islamic media. They’re the places where we pick up the new Islamic vibes, viewpoints and positions on various issues. These mosques have spent the past thirty years lamenting the state of the Muslim world and angrily beseeching Allah for help to defeat the non-believing transgressors. The Ulama and Imams might have not envisaged a retaliation such as the one carried out by Bin Laden and his ilk, however, if you spend most of your time feeding the anger and fuelling the already over excitable Muslims, don’t be surprised when you end up producing vile murderers like Bin Laden and his followers. There are plenty out there that adopt “pride†as their only rule in life. Everything else has to fit in round that. Religious principles, moral values and decency are all good concepts as long as they don’t tarnish one’s pride, however, once they do they’re expediently discarded. Sadly, our mosques are full of such individuals. Many argue from a position of anger and hurt pride. The Ulama and Imams either don’t realise it or are as angry and shortsighted as their followers. Those that do notice it and preach against it are ignored because there is always another Imam/scholar ready to preach the message of hate and twist the knife deeper into our already wounded pride. Does his impotent rage make a difference? Is it a case of spreading awareness? Could we really be more aware than what we are? Ah! Why do I bother? Nothing I say shall penetrate your fortified walls of cause and effect...

^^^ Now, now, let us not play with words (this is the domain of the hypocrites, saaxib). Denounce the fatwa if that’s your fancy, no need to “give it a makeoverâ€. If you give it a makeover, it will become a brand new fatwa, you see (meaning that you didn’t think the first fatwa valid). In this here case, you’re not choosing to ignore the fatwa, you’re choosing to question its validity and its issuer’s qualifications. Such are grave insinuations and should not be made lightly. You hint at “credentialsâ€, what are they? Why do you not explain them in great detail with examples (and even anecdotes if possible) so that none of those reading your words are in any doubt? I repeat, there is a world of a difference between choosing to ignore a fatwa and setting out to question its legitimacy. The first option is open to all; the second need only be tackled by those that (don’t pass out Haddad ) come laden with proofs and sound refutations. Read the Dr’s words again: "If hijab becomes a reason of harm for Muslim women in Britain at this time , then I tell them to take it off so that they would not be recognized and consequently attacked," said Egyptian-born Badawi. (See above for Source) Here are some more words. The obtuse amongst us are free to start burning effigies and starting a satisfied riot over the word “progressive†in the text there. Dr Badawi, who is seen as a progressive Muslim leader who advocates integration, warned that "a woman wearing the hijab... could suffer aggression from irresponsible elements". " In the present tense situation, with the rise of attacks on Muslims, we advise Muslim women who fear being attacked physically or verbally to remove their hijab so as not to be identified by those hostile to Muslims. " The hijab was designed to identify women as Muslim and thus protect them from molestation, he said, so if it led to harassment it ought not to be worn. "Dress is meant to protect from harm, not to invite it," he added. Dr Badawi said he had sought to clarify the situation after being approached by a concerned woman. His ruling did not mean that women should not wear the headscarf, but simply gave them the choice to remove it if they felt threatened, he said. Source Yet another Mufti, yet another source

ومن البلية عذل من لا يرعوي عن جهله وخطاب من لا ÙŠÙهم