Anwar al Awlaki: Speaks the truth shames allying with the enemy

[Ibtisam]

Dedicated to the dude in Afgan and his defenders from the other thread. On a serious note, I hope brother Bokero reads this with open heart and mind. May Allah guide us and cure us of the disease of spying and oppressing out fellow brothers and sisters..

 

Imam Anwar Al Awlaki criticised Chowdhury and his Muslim students for 'allying' himself with the Western 'enemy', after Choudhry gave a speech in front of some top anti-terror officers, here is the speech, and below Al Awlaki's article taken from his blog.

 

Tawfique Chowdhury’s Alliance with the West

 

A few months ago I was approached by students of Shaykh Tawfique Chowdhury to teach some courses at al Kauthar institute. Since this was the first time I have heard of the institute or Shaykh Chowdhury I did some research on both. Yesterday someone posted on my blog an accusation that Shaykh Tawfique was a hypocrite which I promptly deleted. I then read the article that was linked to the post and was amazed by what I have read. Not knowing Shaykh Chowdhury personally, I find it shocking to hear such a statement coming from a person who is considered to be a man of knowledge. Because Shaykh Chowdhury is considered as such and is running an institute that is imparting knowledge to hundreds of students I deem it necessary to respond to his article as an advise to him and a warning to all those who consider themselves to be his students. There is also another reason. Since 9-11 and the active involvement of the US in defining what Islam means today there has been a gradual decline in the standard of walaa’ and baraa’, with many scholars and daees in the West lowering the bar further and further. But this letter represents one of the most blatant manifestations of this phenomenon. I will comment on parts of the article but you can read it in its entirety here:

 

The article is problematic from its title all the way to the end. The title is: “Muslim Scholars are the West’s natural allies in fighting terrorism”. He then opens as follows (with added emphasis):

 

quote:

---

As the Director-General of Mercy Mission and AlKauthar Institute, which now has over 14 instructors and over 50 courses running in 10 countries in 5 continents, the safety and travel convenience of the Institute’s instructors are serious considerations for me. We can prepare proficiently for the classes, market them, fill the class with hundreds of registered students, but a simple visa or entry issue into a country for an instructor can destroy all this good, and can destroy dawah organizations in the eyes of the unforgiving Muslim communities. Recently a couple of extremely well known speakers, very popular in the dawah scene around the world, were not allowed to come to Australia because they were accused of being ‘wahhabi’!

 

I am sure everyone realizes the systematic attempt by a variety of lobby groups these days to discredit Muslim speakers, daees and mashaikh in an attempt to close avenues of dawah by these people of knowledge. Scholars and speakers alike are being harmed and negatively portrayed in the media, wherein the underlying argument seems to be that Islam is the problem and so those who preach Islam are the main un-indicted co-conspirators in extremism and terrorism. Based on this, some categories of Muslims speakers and preachers are supported by anti-extremism programs and shown to be the more tolerant and acceptable versions of Islam and everyone else is portrayed as an aberrant wahhabi!

 

This dangerous escalation needs to be challenged.

An alternative argument that is the more logical and the more in conformity with reality must be presented, which is that Muslim scholars are natural allies of the West, specifically in fighting extremism and terrorism. Islam and its knowledge and education must be allowed to flourish if extremism is to be curtailed and removed.

 

Along these lines, I gave a talk at a dinner organized by the Muslim Council of Wales, which was attended by some of the nation’s top anti-terrorism chiefs and prevention of extremism experts. It was delivered in early December 2008 in the city of Cardiff, UK. My goal was to present the intellectual side of the argument that Muslim scholars should not be harmed in their work.”

What Shaykh Tawfique has done is protect dawa in exchange of tawhid. The institute and its instructors, and the spread of dawah have become more important than walaa’ and baraa’. This has become a serious and widespread problem. Scholars and daees giving direction to the ummah based on what they deem as maslaha (benefit) and not based on what Quran and sunnah state on the matter. So when you present a person with evidence from Quran and sunnah they simply brush it off and say that the maslaha determines otherwise. If maslaha has become such an important source of sharia that it has the power to abrogate textual evidence from Quran and Sunnah, why not appoint a council of shuyukh and have them tell us what to do and what not to do based on their infinite wisdom and understanding of “maslaha” and just forget about Quran and Sunnah altogether?

 

Ibn Masud (ra) says: The ones before you have perished because they followed what their scholars told them and left the Torah and the Gospel.

 

Hundreds of verses and hadith on Jihad are swept away because the maslaha determines that I protect my institute or my organization, and hundreds of verses and hadith on walaa’ and baraa’ are swept away because the maslaha of dawa determines that we engage and integrate with the kuffar. This is the same maslaha of dawa that Sayid Qutb referred to as being an idol that is worshiped besides Allah.

 

In every age since the dawn of history there has been a battle between truth and falsehood. The leaders of truth were the prophets and their followers and the leaders of falsehood were some of the kings and rulers along with their armies. Today the leaders of this war against the truth are the very same people Shaykh Tawfique has chosen to sit with. Not only that but he has the audacity to claim that Muslim scholars should be their allies!

 

Let’s assume for a moment that he is correct in his assessment that there are Muslim extremists and terrorists. Since when in our fourteen-hundred year history did Rasulullah, any Sahabi, or any scholar justify siding with the disbelievers against Muslims? That is if we assume that he is correct in saying that there is extremism and terrorism amongst Muslims. Well, as a matter of fact there are extremists among us but they are not the same people his audience, and probably he himself, have in mind. The Khawarij who are extremists are classified as such because Rasulullah said about them “they kill the Muslims and spare the disbelievers.” The audience you are speaking to care less about Muslims who kill Muslims. All what interests them is protecting Westerners and Western imperial interests. To them the mujahideen who are fighting against the invading soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan are terrorists, as well as the mujahideen fighting in Palestine against the Israelis, in Kashmir against India and in Chechnya against Russia. I am speaking the obvious here but unfortunately even the obvious needs to be clarified to the writer of such an article. I do not think anyone can argue that these anti-terrorism chiefs do consider the mujahideen as terrorists and I do not think any Muslim can argue that killing the occupying US and British soldiers along with their coalition is not an extremist act.

 

But they also have some others in mind too: The ones who are behind bombings in the West that kill civilians. This is an issue that cannot go beyond the boundaries of fiqh. Whether the author agrees with such operations or doesn’t this issue can never be an issue of aqeedah. So even if he believes that the perpetrators of such acts are wrong and have no basis in sharia, the most he can say about them is that they have followed an invalid ijtihad. But under no circumstances is he allowed to side with the disbelievers against these Muslims. If a Muslim kills each and every civilian disbeliever on the face of the earth he is still a Muslim and we cannot side with the disbelievers against him. On the other hand the issue that the author of the article is guilty of is not a matter of fiqh or ijtihad but a matter of kufr and emaan.

 

Choosing to ally one’s self with the enemies of Allah and His Messenger is nothing less than hypocrisy. Umar(ra) accused Hatib of being a hypocrite for something much smaller than what Tawfique has expressed and unless Tawfique himself has attended the battle of Badr then what he said is inexcusable.

 

Allah (swt) says:

“O you who have believed, do not take the Jews and the Christians as allies. They are [in fact] allies of one another. And whoever is an ally to them among you - then indeed, he is [one] of them. Indeed, Allah guides not the wrongdoing people.” [al Maidah 51]

 

But because there are some who were weak and had fear that the Christians and the Jews might bring harm on them they went to them and became their allies. Allah says about them:

“So you see those in whose hearts is disease [i.e. hypocrisy] hastening into [association with] them, saying, “We are afraid a misfortune may strike us.” But perhaps Allah will bring a conquest or a decision from Him, and they will become, over what they have been concealing within themselves, regretful.”[al Maidah 52]

 

They run towards America today because they fear them but when Allah brings His conquest and punishment on America these hypocrites will regret the position they took.

 

He then states:

And before some self-righteous individual paints my actions as being done in fear, know this: I did not deliver this lecture with nifaq and hypocrisy in my heart, rather with absolute izzah and honour and passion and conviction and arguing for our right to preach our pristine and pure religion.

 

He claims that he did not deliver this lecture with hypocrisy in his heart. If that is true then he should recant this article because it states otherwise. We do not judge by what is in the hearts. We judge by what is apparent. When al Abbass(ra), the uncle of Rasulullah(saaws), was taken as a POW at Badr he claimed that he was a Muslim. Rasulullah(saaws) said: “What is apparent to us is that you were against us.”

So we go by what is apparent and not by what is hidden in the hearts. Hypocrisy may not be in Shaykh Tawfique’s heart but this article is awash with it.

 

He then says that he did this with absolute izzah and honour. Seeking an alliance with an enemy that openly expresses interest in changing our religion, is guilty of massacres of Muslims, and violations of basic human rights in treating our prisoners, in order to protect dawa and to run an institute without hindering the visas of his instructors is an act of izza?! In fact there can be no honor in meeting with such people unless it is in one of either two settings: either to declare to them that they are a misguided lot of disbelievers whose actions would lead them to Hellfire or to meet them in the battlefield and send them to Hellfire.

 

But to meet them in order to advise them on how to win the “war on terror” and to request to be their ally and not to be mistaken as an “enemy” is the ultimate level of humiliation and disgrace especially when coming from a person who is honored with Islamic knowledge. Sacred Islamic knowledge needs to be honored and respected by the ones who carry it and should never be put to “use” in the service of these enemies of Islam. When the scholar of Bani Israel went to advise the “ant-terrorist chiefs” of his day against the terrorists of the day, Allah said about him:

 

And recite to them, the news of him to whom We gave [knowledge of] Our signs, but he detached himself from them; So Satan pursued him, and he became of the deviators.

And if We had willed, We could have elevated him thereby, but he adhered [instead] to the earth and followed his own desire. So his example is like that of the dog; if you chase him, he pants, or if you leave him, he [still] pants. That is the example of the people who denied Our signs. So relate the stories that perhaps they will give thought. [al-Araaf 175-176]

 

Allah has honored the scholars and raised them to a high status when they live by the word of Allah, but when they use the knowledge of Allah against what pleases Allah He humiliates them. The ultimate level of disgrace is to be likened to a dog. That is the analogy of the scholar who has used his knowledge in the service of the disbelievers.

 

“And he whom Allah humiliates - for him there is no bestower of honor.” [al-Hajj 18]

 

There is no honor in speaking to these “top” leaders and there is no honor in asking to be their ally. Allah (swt) says:

Give tidings to the hypocrites that there is for them a painful punishment. Those who take the disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Do they seek with them honor? But indeed, honor belongs to Allah entirely. [al-Nisa 138-139]

 

Shaykh Tawfique says:

Why not use these Muslim scholars that are credible in the eyes of the Muslim masses to achieve the common goal of prevention?

“Why not use?” Who is he talking to? Doesn’t he say this event “was attended by some of the nation’s top anti-terrorism chiefs and prevention of extremism experts”? So is he asking that these top anti-terrorism chiefs use scholars and use their credibility to fight against Muslims? Is this how cheap Islamic scholarship has become? Does he know who he is talking to? In case he doesn’t then let me explain it. He is talking to the ideological, and even genealogical, descendants of the Romans who were at war with the ummah since the time of Rasulullah(saaws) up until this very moment. He is talking to the ones who will be the ancestors of the ones who will march against us under eighty banners and fight al Mahdi and the Messenger of Allah Isa (as) at the end of time. Who is the great battle of al Malhama going to be fought against? Doesn’t the hadith state that it is the Romans? How can he propose an alliance with the very people who are a continuation of a relentless battle against Islam that has been waged for fourteen-hundred years and will carry on until the last of them join the Dajjal? What adds insult to injury is that this message is not directed at the common Joe among the masses of the Romans but to the nations top anti-terrorism chiefs, the Imams of Kufr of our modern times!

 

He goes on further to argue that we are not the enemy but we are the greatest ally:

 

By equating these Muslim scholars representing orthodox Islam with religious extremism, the war on terror will lose its greatest ally in this long drawn saga.

Shaykh Tawfique says that the West should use “independent” scholars for its war on terror. When asked what does he mean by “independent” he responded by mentioning a few criteria, one of which is that they should not be “paid or financially compensated in any way.”

 

But why is that? If these scholars are being “used” for the war on terror why not charge for their services? Why do it for free? The corrupt kings and presidents of the Muslim world realize that what they are doing for the West is a betrayal of their trust as leaders of the ummah so they are at least charging a price for it. Take the Yemeni government as an example. They have raked millions of dollars from the West and millions of petro-dollars from the gulf and used a fraction of it to built projects for the people with the rest of it going into building palaces for themselves, establishing a “bright” future for their children and stashing the rest into international bank accounts. Can’t the Green Zone Scholars savvy up and do the same? There is a Yemeni saying that goes: “Don’t be like the poor Jew who has no dunya and no Akhira”

If one is bent on selling his religion then he should charge as much as he can for it.

 

Shaykh Tawfique says:

For America, 7 years of fighting terror around the world and conflating orthodox Islam with fundamentalism and terrorism – with little progress – truly demonstrates that alienation of key allies in the ideological battle ground is a costly mistake. It is imperative that we avoid this mistake as we look for a fresh strategy to tackling terrorism and its challenges into the future. There should be an active attempt to identify scholars from the broad spectrum of Muslim groups that support the cause.

Shaykh Tawfique seems to be unhappy that America after 7 hears of fighting the war on terror is seeing little progress. I can only say that alhamdulillah that is the case! In fact I pray that America sees no progress at all. I pray that Allah destroys America and all its allies and the day that happens, and I assure you it will and sooner than you think, I will be very pleased. Pleased as every true believer should be pleased and as Sarah (as) was pleased when she heard that the angels will destroy the towns of the people of Lut. Allah says: “And his wife was standing and she smiled.” [Hud 71]

 

We will smile insha Allah when we see the destruction of the modern people of Lut.

But Shaykh Tawfique fails to recognize the reason why America is loosing in its war on terror. It is not because it has failed to identify scholars who will be their allies as he suggests, but it is because America is fighting against the Awliyaa of Allah and whoever fights against the Awliyaa of Allah is doomed. Rasulullah(saaws) says in the hadith qudusi: “Whoever fights my Awliyaa I will declare war against him.” Rasulullah(saaws) also says: “There will be a group of my ummah fighting for the truth and they will not be harmed by those who oppose them”. That is why America is loosing. And even if America would hire all the Green Zone Scholars it can and follow your “fresh” strategies it will still lose. It is the promise of Allah and His Messenger. Whoever is betting today on America is betting on the wrong horse.

 

Scholars need to proclaim the truth.

Rasulullah(saaws) says that the scholar who withholds knowledge will have his mouth masked with fire on the Day of Judgment. It is enough of a sin to withhold knowledge, but it is even worse to speak what is false. Knowledge honors its carrier but it comes with a price. If a person cannot pay that price of sacrifice and hardship then it is better for him to take off the cloak of scholarship and live as a laymen. That is better for him on the Day of Judgment.

Allah says:

 

Indeed, they who conceal what Allah has sent down of the Book and exchange it for a small price - those consume not into their bellies except the Fire. And Allah will not speak to them on the Day of Resurrection, nor will He purify them. And they will have a painful punishment. [al-Baqarah 174]

 

In the end I pray that Shaykh Tawfique would retract this statement and come back to the truth and be the man he once was.

 

Anwa Al Awlaki

Yemen

You can seeHere, chowdhury responses as AbuYusuf He does not say mush other than that he was misunderstood and will hold a private talk with is students, I hope he makes his clarification public, for he is someone who is respected by many. We shall wait and refer the issue back to the scholars Insha’Allah before we make any comments about him.

 

What is your take?? I'm jumping for joy that Chowdhury is forced to defend his position. I keep seeing so called scholars making all kinds of speechs and promises. I don't know how many of you watched Panorama THIS monday. Sponsored Islam, which as exposed by the researcher is a front for spying on the Muslims and data collection is taking over. We need to be clear on who is in what position and most importantly why they take that postion.

 

Somalis in the UK will have enemies curling out of their as*s soon as money hungry Somali individuals take our religion and broken community for a ride while we are in the spot light. I already spotted a few of those on the channel4 clip on Monday.

[N.O.R.F]

Who is Chaudhury?

[Ibtisam]

^Tawfique Chowdhury is the Director-General of Mercy Mission and AlKauthar Institute, A Median university graduate credited with vast Islamic knowledge and understanding, with a huge following. His lectures included "Victory is near" amongst many others.

[Ibtisam]

Here is BBC Panorama by Richard Watson which was aired on monday from BBC website.

 

Britain is once again searching for new answers to terrorism and radicalisation. We may not have had a major terrorist attack since the London bombings of July 2005 but the ideological battle against al-Qaeda is being lost at home.

 

Take the case of Nicky Reilly, a young man with Asperger's Syndrome who lived in Plymouth with his mother.

 

He was persuaded last year that he would join the ranks of the martyrs if he blew himself up in a packed family restaurant in Exeter.

 

Fortunately his bomb-making skills were poor, but what is worrying the security services is the intent - he had been convinced by as yet unknown hands that he was acting in the name of God.

 

Nicky Reilly, the gentle giant as he was known, had never stepped abroad but had been infected by al-Qaeda's ideology in Britain.

 

Existing policy

 

Recent demonstrations in London against Israeli attacks in Gaza are causing concern.

 

They have exposed the raw wounds of grievances felt by many Muslims about Britain's stance on Muslim affairs abroad.

 

Legitimate political dissent was exploited by a minority of violent extremists to bolster their hatred of Britain.

 

"Let's have a... war", one of them shouted as missiles were thrown at the police. From this pool, new terrorists may come.

 

So what action should the government take? They could continue with the existing policy called Preventing Violent Extremism.

 

This, as the title suggests, has been focused on those promoting violence.

 

Investigate them, place them under surveillance, prosecute or deport them, cut out the cancer of extremism and the threat will subside.

 

Well it has not proved as simple as that. Judging by the number of terrorist plots under investigation by MI5 - more than 200 - there is no shortage of young Muslims who are learning to view Britain with hatred.

 

When the policy was set in 2006 the government was scared of alienating people so it set the bar of what was "unacceptable" very high.

 

In other words, only those at the far end of the extremist spectrum were to be challenged.

 

'Lesser of two evils'

 

The flipside to this meant that those who denounced violence but who promoted intolerance and held offensive, anti-British views were tolerated.

 

More than this, some radicals were even courted as part of our counter-terrorism strategy. The idea was that so long as they denounced terror, other views would be ignored.

 

This was seen as the lesser of two evils - backing certain radicals even if they preached intolerance of homosexuals or women's rights was seen as a way of protecting Britain.

 

But this has been a dangerous path and shows little sign of working.

 

The radicals took much succour from engagement with the state. Advising the government or the police is an impressive calling card. They can claim their deeply conservative views about life in Britain are being endorsed.

 

This has helped make these views seem legitimate in the eyes of ordinary Muslim citizens and has added to the climate of Islamic conservatism in Britain today.

 

Take a walk in any city with a large Muslim population and you will see that second and third generation Muslims are far more conservative than their parents.

 

Ayesha, a young woman I interviewed for my Panorama film Muslim First, British Second, is an example.

 

She is a medical school graduate who defends those who preach intolerance of homosexuals.

 

In terms of her faith, she is also more conservative than her liberal parents, covering herself with the niqab against their wishes.

 

Forced to change

 

Those driving counter-terrorism policy believe the old policy has failed. As Panorama will reveal, the government is planning a new approach.

 

There will be much more emphasis on shared British values and those who preach intolerance will be shunned even if their views do not break the law.

 

And so the Preventing Violent Extremism policy will effectively change to Preventing Extremism.

 

This shift will be uncomfortable for the police - they do not police ideas or ideology unless they contravene the law.

 

But it is right that they should be careful about who they back and who they fund.

 

Likewise the government will be more open about criticising Islamic radicals who preach against shared democratic values but stay on the right side of the law.

 

The argument comes down to the use of public money. It certainly makes sense to sit down and talk with radicals, so long as they do not promote violence and are willing to act within the law.

 

For pragmatic reasons the police and counter-terrorism officers need lines of communication into radical communities.

 

Britain also has a long tradition of tolerating political dissent. But moderate Muslims argue using taxpayers' funds to support or endorse isolationist views makes little sense and the government is right to move against this now.

 

But this is a complex situation, the arguments are not black and white.

 

While cracking down on divisive preachers may make Britain more resilient to terrorism by creating a stronger sense of community cohesion, this is a 10 or 20-year plan.

 

Grand sociological aspirations may be desirable but in the shorter term the police and MI5 must worry about the next attack.

 

Given there is little evidence that the appetite for extremism is fading, the government has little choice but to try a new approach.

I could not find a link to post for people to watch, if someone can, it was called: Panorama: Muslim First, British Second it was aired on on BBC One on Monday, 16 February at 2030 GMT.

 

 

Watching it on monday, the government weye caadisten, new Islam sponsored by former CIA individuals, preached by people under the banner of "Muslims"

[Ms DD]

Journey thru hereafter by Tawfique Choudry

 

I honestly cant say much about this subject. But having listened to both and like their talks, I am in no position to side with anyone. It is just sad that the sheikhs have to air their difference like this. Cant they do it behind closed doors? we cant afford to divided like this. This rift reminds me of the one between sh Yusuf Estes and Sh Hamza Yusuf.

[Ibtisam]

MS DD, I'm paranoid about so many shikes and institutions, While I think lay people LIKE us should not take sides or insult either one, I do think that this issue needs to sloved in public. Many shikes in west, pressured by the media and fear of all the words being taken out of contexts have either excluded large sections of Islam, do not cover certain issues or paint pretty pictures of we are best friends with police and anti terror brigade who roles is to terrorize people based on their believe rather than any harm they did. It somehow has become acceptable to hear things such as my community is fully of terrorist youngsters, and I am modern liberal one. In this day and age we need our scholars to stop speaking in double tongues and speak the haaq as they know it, fearing Allah and only Allah. In the last few years I’ve come across:

1)The radical middle way

2)Democracy and cohesion institute

3)The government sponsored one

4)And few others I can’t remember now

 

I think we would benefit if the shikes had an open dialogue, I have nothing but respect for them, an open dialogue will clarify the lines for us in the west as to what position scholars really hold and what they say to please the western big brother, for all we know Chowdhury could've been speaking in codes. Sometimes I go to talks and I am left puzzled by Muslims who insist on pointing out the big GEEL in the room (so called Islamic terrorist) yet miss the elephant in the room (western terrorism) and oppression both in Western and none western world. I will start addressing Muslim terrorist once the bigger issue is addressed.

[Dhubad.]

Imam Anwar Awlaki in his hastiness also took the article and without checking with me or waiting to ask for clarification or advising me privately, wrote a refutation which he circulated on his list and put up on his blog. In that post, he insinuated a number of matters which are truly shocking to hear. If only he had been a bit more patient. If only he had checked with me first. If only he had advised me privately first. But Alas mankind was created hasty. May Allah forgive my brother and everyone else that commented on his site and continues to uphold the rash statements of the sheikh. I hold nothing against my brothers and sisters and wallahi I love them all everyone of them.

It is hard to take a side when the person accused of saying / doing things is clearly crying out that he was misunderstood and never intended to say such thing.

 

I think it would have been better if Imam Anwar Awlaki contacted him and discuss the issue privately before his refutation.

[Ibtisam]

^^AW Dubab and MS DD here is your answer as to why he did not

By: Anwar alAwlaki

1. Advice should be done in private?

For those who said that advice should be in private: well that is true if the sin is done in private. For example if I see person X smoking then I should not expose that sin as long as it was done in private and I should advise him in private. Yes, that is a very well established rule. We should make sitr of Muslims (conceal their mistakes). Rasulullah saaws said: Whoever conceals the private acts of his brother Allah will conceal his private acts on the Day of Judgment. However if I see person X delivering a khutbah and using the break between the two khutbah’s to take a smoke then he must be publicly advised because he had no reservations In making the sin public and because the people who saw him smoke on the minbar need to know that it was wrong to do so. Also when someone calls to a bida’a that needs to be refuted publicly. The protection of religion takes precedence over the individual. In this case Sh Tawfique has made his views public. He could have kept his meeting with that bunch of devils private but he went ahead and publicized it to a Muslim audience. The ideas in his article are dangerous and needed to be exposed for what they are. I have absolutely nothing against Sh Tawfique. In fact I should be grateful to him for jumping to my defense when some of his students on his forum at al Kauthar spoke against me. Sh Tawfique as I recall responded back and defended me in my absence so may Allah reward him (I tried checking his exact words but found that the thread has disappeard!).

Today in the West there is a growing “Celebrity Shaykh” culture, were many young brothers and sisters are willing to hand over their collars to Shuyukh to “guide” them to wherever the shaykh in his infinite wisdom sees fit. In such an environment the truth needs to be proclaimed and when a scholar or daee makes a mistake it needs to be pointed out and retracted. I do not see this celebrity Shaykh culture as being a healthy thing for anyone; not the students and not the shuyukh. We all make mistakes and when we do they need to be corrected and if we make them public they should be corrected in the public sphere.

 

2. I do not know what Sh Tawfique intentions are and should have given him 70 excuses:

 

As I mentioned in the beginning of my refutation this is a trend where the bar of walaa’ and baraa’ is being lowered by daees not only in the West but elsewhere to keep it within the boundaries of what is acceptable by the West. In other words we allow the West to define for us the rules of the game rather than abide by the boundaries set by Quran and Sunnah. There are many acts and words that should not have been said or done, but because the person at question may have an excuse no one has responded to them. However, in this particular situation the words spoken are inexcusable and therefore I responded to them. I have not dug into the intention of Shaykh Tawfique and it is not up to me or anyone to do so. I was simply responding to words that may be read by thousands and may deceive many. We judge people by their words and their actions not by what is in their hearts. We leave what is in the hearts to Allah. So for those who said I did not know the intentions of Sh Tawfique, well, you are right, I didn’t, and I didn’t need to.

Source

[Ibtisam]

I found Chowdhury other response and his promised to expand on this views, which is good news.

 

InshaAllah this will be the last post on this article and we can carry on discussion at a near future when I have more time to write a detailed part 2 to clarify how our terms of engagement should be.

 

1. No doubt, the points that I have made are clouded by people’s interpretation of the particular words that I have used to phrase them. Based on this, people have jumped to conclusions and yet others have read through my clarifications and understood what I intended in the article - and we hope for guidance for everyone.

 

2. Sh Anwar’s article on my piece is largely sensationalism and picking on wordings devoid of context - except for one important point which I believe is the core argument that I will address - that of maslahah of the dawah and the maqasidus-Shariah versus core principles of our deen such as wala and bara and tawheed. This is really the main issue - because categorically in no case was I ever suggesting that we ever work for anti-terror agencies, take funding from them, take our agenda from them, let them dictate our mandate, let them tell us what deen to follow and what not to, tell us who to work with and who not to, tell us what is extremism and what is not. Never at all. If we were to do that, we would cease to be independant and would loose all credibility. And if I knew of an individual who does that, then I would distance myself from him and would never work with him much the less associate with him. It is under these and similar conditions Yusuf alaihis salam cooperated with the non-Muslim government of his time.

 

3. Lastly, I urge everyone including myself to be objective in their criticism and to not draw conclusions on an individual. We may disagree on the manner of engagement of the authorities but that does not mean that anyone is a sell out or anyone has left being the people we once were. I would urge myself and everyone to be restrained in their choice of words and to be careful on the implications of our words on our brothers and sisters who know very little of what is going on.

 

Jazakallahulkhair and I will inshaAllah ponder deeply on what everyone has written and hope to carry on discussion of these points in the future when time permits.

 

Tawfique

Maybe we'll get some insight into the manner of engagement of the western authorities and the confusion felt by so many will be lifted as result.

[NGONGE]

Not sure how this lovers' tiff applies to Bokero and his work for the UN. Care to explain, Ibti?

[Ibtisam]

^^^Forget the guys, look at the issue. The issue is the role of a Muslim in this day and age with regards to siding against other Muslims. Whether is via the UN or government is neither here nor there, I already said in Bokero thread that the UN is part and parcel of spreading western ideology and practice in routing out other ideological forms of governments. I told him in his thread that I saw no difference between him and US/UK occupation. I think this dialogue will be useful to him.

[N.O.R.F]

Too much to read,,,

[NGONGE]

^^ PROVE it. Do not give me your opinion of what you think the UN is. Prove it is so, or stop issuing fatwas that are bigger than your head.

 

This lover's tiff does not deal with the issue at hand. Bokero's job (as I understand it) is to help reconstruction in Afghanistan. The siding against other Muslims is not a clear-cut case. If you think it is, PROVE IT. In fact, forget you, you don't know much. I want your two fighting sheikh's to prove it. I dare them to do it.

[N.O.R.F]

^I'm assuming you're talking to Ibti

[Ibtisam]

NGonge I will discuss Bokero's job with him, adigu move aside, simply because his job (AS you see it, might not be so, let him answer for himself, maaxad uu hoor boodisa? :confused: )

 

As for your dare to the shikes, it is irrelevant and insignificant, after all they were already having their discussion before you. Just watch and learn. :cool: