Who are the Muslim Moderates (Neo-Mods) ?

[NGONGE]

^^^^ Thanks brother. That was a much more interesting reading than the article above. I don’t know if he’s what you think he is. He could very easily be an ordinary person venting his (understandable) frustration and anger at the state of the Muslim world today. His amateurish attacks on the scholars lead me to believe so. I seriously doubt if he belongs to any particular “groupâ€.

 

 

I’m glad you’ve clarified the point about the “fatwa†on Osama Bin Laden’s acts being made two years prior to the September 2001 “incident†(regardless of the argument of whether he was behind those attacks or not).

 

It really doesn’t matter if I see eye to eye with the Salafi’s, Hezb Ut Tahrir or Jamacat Ut Tableegh. I would still read their articles and seriously think them over if they were well written and accompanied with proofs of how they’ve reached their conclusions. The “political†trash above (with the utmost respect to the sister who posted it of course) is an affront to any zealous Muslim’s intelligence.

[Viking]

Islam is not about monarchy and I don't think that our scholars should fight to defend the Saudi monarch. Alas, the relationship between the 'ulama in Saudi Arabia reminds one of the Sasanians with their Zoroastrian clergy men, their symbiotic realtionship is very striking to say the least. Islam's future is in abandoning these kinds of liaisons between religious leaders and gluttonous monarchs (including the khaliji type of sheikhs' or Egyptian style secular presidents). The borders that the colonialists drew seem to have been carved on the minds of many Muslims today and their unity is destroyed because of that. The goal should be to unify the Ummah and seeking one leader just like it was during the time of the Khalifas. No matter how far we may seem to achieving this goal today, surely anyone who is against the concept is fighting against the unity of Muslims worldwide.

[OG_Girl]

Off the topic ...I am wondering how brother Salafi jumped from NO where when some one almost touched his favored Sheikhs In kingdom ..waaaw sounds he was playing hide and seek

 

Ok, let me say before we point finger to OBL if he is bad or good what happened about " innocent till prove guilt"? or that doesn't apply to him cause our beloved Salafia in Saudia say he is an evil??

 

There is no prove Al-Qaeda did 9-11 and here he is strongly denied any role in the attacks...!!

 

The BBC published Bin Laden's statement of denial in which he said:

 

"I was not involved in the September 11 attacks in the United States nor did I have knowledge of the attacks. There exists a government within a government within the United States. The United States should try to trace the perpetrators of these attacks within itself; to the people who want to make the present century a century of conflict between Islam and Christianity. That secret government must be asked as to who carried out the attacks....The American system is totally in control of the Jews, whose first priority is Israel, not the United States. " (15)

 

How some of us just blidly say he did or call him an evil when they see what these Americans doing to us ? this is disgusting from some one quoting Quraan and ahadeth :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

 

Salam

[Rahima]

Firstly, this is not a discussion on the credentials of Usamah. Sure he has shortcomings and sure scholars have spoken up against him with respect to certain things, but the issue still remains, we cannot hand out our brother (which he is, unless of course any of us are branding him a kafir) a guilty verdict because certain governments have dictated it to serve their purposes. The point still is, you do not require the command of a khalif to wage a defensive jihad (which certain Muslims seem to disagree with Usaama on)- which is the point the article was making with respect to Usama.

 

Like I said, it all depends on the scholar you quote. Pro-Saudi royal family scholars are very harsh on Usama, whilst the anti-Saudi royal family Salafi scholars are more understanding (although they criticize him also).

 

He resorted to attacking scholars and institutions without saying who he is and what he represents.

I don’t see what difference it makes, his points are more than legitimate. Although I have not read the full fatwa myself, according to every article (authored by Muslims and non-Muslims alike) the shaykh ordered that Muslim girls to adhere to the new law, the French ban on the xijaab. It seems like a unanimous issue to me and deserved to be rebuked, in the full sense of the word.

 

Secondly, Islam does not prohibit us from questioning the stance of the scholars-only Allah and his blessed prophet are beyond such questioning.

 

I don’t see why there would be any pre-occupation on what this man stands for, the bottom line is that without overanalyzing the piece, he is pretty much right- or is their a disagreement on that?

 

Had he made mention of particular scholars, it would only have turned things ugly. This is a method which was employed by the prophet anyway, to speak generally to get a point across (unless you tell the person directly).

 

Salafi,

 

On the piece supposedly stated by Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Hadi al-Madkhali, you may of have noticed brother that certain people were making claims against Usama, not that he said those things himself.

 

Sure enough, the scholars have reprimanded him on certain issues, (they themselves disagree with one another on issues), but it does not mean that what was said is factual.

 

Also, Shaykh ibn Baz (Rahimuallah) was pro-Saudi Royal family (or am I wrong?). Shaykh Ibn Baz issued the fatwa to allow the American troops to station themselves in the Arabian Peninsula although that is against Islam (Shaykh Al-Bani was extremely opposed to that). I am sure that Ibn Baz did all of this for he believed it was for the greater good, as a scholar of Islam there is no other explanation-but at the end of the day when it comes to politics we need to keep this in mind.

 

I don’t want to get into this really, for I love all the shuyuukh, but some have erred on certain matters and we must keep this in mind instead of taking on board every last thing which they said like it is the Qur’an. And more importantly, with all his faults, who knows, the actions of Usama may be accepted by Allah. We do not need to demonize him. Even the scholars who oppose “suicide†bombings make duca that those who have done so have their action accepted by Allah and hope that they are regarded as shuhadaa’.

 

With all due respect, spubs are overly preoccupied with labelling every Muslim under the sun a deviant. Even with the Salafi manhaj, they sub-divide those who inshallah adhere to it. We have bigger issues!

[Rahima]

OG-Girl, JZK for the quote sister.

 

Islam teaches that we give our fellow brethren in faith the benefit of the doubt (even if they have countless faults).

[OG_Girl]

I totally agree. We can't be with our enemy against our brothers in Islam whatever disagreements we have with them.

 

Salam

[NGONGE]

Secondly, Islam does not prohibit us from questioning the stance of the scholars-only Allah and his blessed prophet are beyond such questioning.

 

I don’t see why there would be any pre-occupation on what this man stands for, the bottom line is that without overanalyzing the piece, he is pretty much right- or is their a disagreement on that?

 

Had he made mention of particular scholars, it would only have turned things ugly. This is a method which was employed by the prophet anyway, to speak generally to get a point across (unless you tell the person directly).

There is a difference between questioning the scholars and attacking them without providing a very clear explanation that’s laden with proofs and sound argument to show why you’re attacking them. You yourself are doing the same thing here! I could get all pedantic and ask you to keep providing me with proofs for every point you make until I’m sure of what you’re talking about (you’ll probably refuse). However, I don’t pay attention to your fleeting fatwas because this is a discussion forum and it’s not always possible to expect everyone to back their arguments with evidence and proof. The case of the article above is different. The man made very serious accusations against the scholars and even if he was correct in every word he wrote he still didn’t follow the correct method when discussing such issues. Surely you can see that, sister? What if we got another article attacking Islam itself and following the same “logical†style? Would you agree with it because it made sense to you?

 

Look at the Salafi’s for example, they’ll attack other scholars but they will not do it in the method this man did. They’ll make sure they cover every angle to drive their point home. They’ll go as far as praying for forgiveness for these guys that they so despise.

 

I don’t want to preach here but the defence of such shabby articles is alarming.

 

PS

The Osama Bin Laden comment was in relation to the author’s assertion that the scholars only reacted after the September 2001 events. It was not in relation to his guilt or innocence

[Rahima]

Brother, I don’t think I made any unjustified comments against any scholar. If you speak about the fatwa made by Shaykh Ibn Baz with respect to the first gulf-war, that is a fact (I just assumed most were aware of the fatwa). I was addressing salafi-online on the issue for I assume he will know what I am referring to.

 

As for the article, the author did not attack any scholar’s brother; he made generalized comments against the Muslims- at least that is how I perceived the piece.

 

Anyway we all look at issues from different perspectives; some would believe it is a good read that hit home, others not so good.

 

As for the Usama comments, it was with respect to the post made by brother Salafi_online concerning the remark of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Hadi al-Madkhali.

[Salafi_Online]

As for the Usama comments, it was with respect to the post made by brother Salafi_online concerning the remark of Shaykh Muhammad Ibn Hadi al-Madkhali.

Sister what are you talking about?!? did u even take the time to read what Bin baaz actually had to say about OSama? im not sure if you can read Arabic, but in that portion its not just bin baaz who speaks out, its many scholars all upon the same train of thought,

 

 

This Gulf war ploy has become your scapegoat and is not going to work this time, as i have mention many times Albani and others did not agree with Bin baaz(though it was not just him) on the issue of seeking the assistance of the Kufar, I agreed with you, however they are scholars they have the capability and credentials to do so, however the door is not open to mere Juhala, those who are not scholars let alone student of Ilm, specially when there are no scholars from the Kibar Ulama critizing his fatwah! the fatwah was issued 1420(ah)(1999) now its 1424 after hijra! YEt not a single scholar from the kibar said Bin Baaz erorred as far as i know And Allah knows best!

 

As for Spubs, sister By Allah coming from an avid read, i have never read an article where Spubs attacks anyone without the consent or a Scholar preceding them, This is an unfair attack and a slander of brothers who have tried their utmost to hold fast to the speech and work of the Ulama, these brothers who have expelled many doubts that have enter the salafi manhaj, Sister I have tremendous respect for you so if know of any articles where Spubs or their sisters have attacked an individual or groups without a scholar preceding them, then please show me and i will be the first one to abandon their articles! please do not hind behind empty slogans , I have never attacked an individual or groups, except that the scholars not to mention the KIbar Scholars preceded my contentions!

 

this idea of who is pro Saudi Gov and who is not, all comes back to who u think is a scholar and who is not!

 

What do you mean by Pro Saudi GOv, do you know the implications of these words, does Bin Baaz support his GOverment no matter what it is?!? in other words he's "goverment Scholar"

 

Bin Baaz is far and free from such label(rahimullah), he was a man who was doing his job, a Man who followed the Shariyah upon baseerah

 

this is what our beloved brother Nur had to say about the late Shaykh:

 

(3)Bin Baaz

 

certainly the most Rabbani scholar of our times, the most caring for the Ummah going through the worst fitnah in our times, Bin Bazz will be remenbered as the most balanced overall Alim of our times, a tower of knowledge who learned under Sheikh Ibn Ibrahim, the last Mufti of the Diyaar, who taught him the most pure of the aqeedah of Ahlul Sunnah wal jamaacah, The man had a baseerah far better than the vision of many present day scholars. May Allah accept his work and intentions for the Ummah.

 

Not to mention Dr Saleh Saleh would agree with my positions!

[Reality Check]

Originally posted by OG_Girl:

I totally agree. We can't be with our enemy against our brothers in Islam whatever disagreements we have with them.

 

Salam

So I am going to assume that you are saying that Osama is our brother and we should follow what ever he is doing because he claims to be muslim, even though his actions are purely political?

 

 

I'm sorry, but that's a load of crock!

[Baashi]

The author hit the nail on the head, methinks. The author commented what he perceived to be a very troubling trend of learned and enlightened Muslims trying very hard to “reconcile the irreconcilableâ€! To his credit, he cited two names of scholars, the nature of their edict, the events that led to its issuance, and the context in which these edicts were supposedly issued. Clearly, this article is not a scholarly paper. It is not meant to be, I think, as it does not have all the characteristics of such paper (direct primary references of the edict he has spoken out against). Rather it is merely a commentary on the state of the “umah†and the emergence of new bread of scholars. And boy! was he on the mark!

 

As far as the substance of the article is concerned, I think most of the posters agreed that the author has not made erroneous factual assumptions on the existence of Muslim apologists and radical reformists, and of the consistent and relentless effort made by the foreign powers to influence in the school curriculums in “targeted†Islamic nations to pursue an evil agenda of reforming Islam and what not. Obviously, there are governments who are cooperating with them. He also was right in pointing out of the so called “moderate†scholars who consistently come down with edicts preferred by the secular authorities they serve under.

 

Ngonge, for instance, took issue with the author's credentials. Granted he didn’t submit it to his readers. But that doesn’t diminish the validity of the concerns he delineated in the article. Surely, he doesn’t have to hold a degree from ivy-league Islamic institutes in order to comment on the issues of the day. Skeptics should get hold of the said edicts and see for themselves if indeed it is what the author seems to make of them. We do know the name of the scholars and the subject in which they issued the edict for, don’t we?

 

Finally, it is readers responsibility to check the facts of any opinion and there are many of them. You don’t just swallow anything that’s thrown at you regardless whether the author reveals his credentials or not. He could be the dean of Azhar and the same time be wrong. That doesn’t mean any whim can issue an edict but the emphasis here is “double-checking†the said facts in any writing. If this particular one has erroneous facts, we haven’t seen critics raise it - not that I checked but still critic have to be objective in their criticism.

[NGONGE]

^^^^ I beg to differ, saaxib. He made serious accusations against the scholars of Islam. He might have mentioned a couple of names and briefly mentioned their “errorsâ€. However, his “political†analysis of the issue included people such as the Saudi Scholars, Al Sistani of Iraq and more or less every other Muslim scholar! He might have not mentioned them by name but the criteria he set would certainly include them all.

 

You and I could say his words hit the nail right on the head but you and I are not scholars and do not have all their knowledge and reasons for making these “errors†readily available to us. Like I said, if he was talking about kings and presidents then his article would be perfectly legitimate. However, when you’re going to criticise (not question) the scholars of Islam, you do have to say who you are and what gives you the authority to do so.

 

As for the reader verifying the “factsâ€, again I don’t concur with you on that point either. He who raises the issue is obligated to provide the evidence if he expects his piece to be taken seriously.

 

You see, if this guy and others can write such trash and be treated as serious “commentators†on Islamic issues and get away with attacking the people of knowledge, they’ll soon start using the same “perfectly logical†method to issue their own fatwas.

 

I believe my criticism of this piece is more than objective. For if I agreed to the “message†of this person on the strength of this shabby article, I’d have no scholars to seek knowledge from. They’ll all be lackeys, opportunists, apologists and therefore dishonest!

[Baashi]

^I see! Trash that I wouldn’t call it perhaps “flawed†but not trash. Well, let’s disagree on who checks the facts of the information we are bombarded daily whether it social, political, or religious commentary. You seem to be distorting author’s intent as well as his take on the subject of “reforming†Islam (oxymoron, right?) He is coming from that angle. Reading your post it seems as if he questioned Muslim scholars - all of them! Not true. There are instances where I disagree with what he had to say but overall he is on the mark as far as the need of reforming Islam and those who champion such efforts is concerned.

 

In any case, I see what you’re saying here and I must concede he has thrown few punches at unnamed Muslim scholar. Nevertheless, he got it right on the big picture and that’s one of a hek of observation sxb.

[Viking]

However, when you’re going to criticise (not question) the scholars of Islam,

you do have to say who you are and what gives you the authority to do so.

NGONGE,

Are you claiming that scholars are untouchables in the sense that a non-scholar cannot critisize their decisions? What support do you have in the Quran and Hadith that a person needs some sort of "authority" in order to critisize fatwas given by scholars? Hell, I've heard that Napoleon had some scholars in Al-Azhar declare him to be the long awaited Mahdi...what level of education do I need to have so that I can disregard and critisize such ********* ?

[Rahima]

Sister what are you talking about?!?

The point that apparanetly Usama is guilty of all that he is accused of. If I committed a crime today, got busted and then attributed it to you, is it correct then for Baashi to assume that you are automatically guilty? People make claims and so far I have not seen any clear proofs that Usama is guilty of the crimes he is accused of. I give my fellow brother (with all his flaws, God only knows that our flaws are far worse) the benefit of the doubt. He has not admitted to them and there is no proof of it than heresay.

 

did u even take the time to read what Bin baaz actually had to say about OSama? im not sure if you can read Arabic, but in that portion its not just bin baaz who speaks out, its many scholars all upon the same train of thought,

I read that a few years back brother and I am well and clear about the position of the scholars on Usama, but I am also well and aware they have not declared him a kafir and therefore is a Muslim, for me in this war which seemingly is between Usama vs. the west, I know where my loyalties lie-this was my point and on that I agreed with the author.

 

The Prophet (salAllaahu `alayhe wa sallam) said: “A Muslim is the brother of a (another) Muslim; he does not oppress him and nor does he hand him over (to the enemy).â€

 

And his (salAllaahu `alayhe wa sallam) saying: “Assist your (Muslim) brother if he is the oppressor or the oppressed.†It was asked:

"O Messenger of Allaah: (we understand about) assisting him when he is oppressed, so how do we assist him when he is the oppressor?" He (salAllaahu `alayhe wa sallam) said:

“Restrain him from oppressing (anyone), for that is assisting your (Muslim) brother.â€

 

I disagreed with scholars who opposed Usama’s war on the west for the reasoning that he can not command a defensive jihad because of the absence of a khalif-this is absurd. Regardless of the existence of a khalifa, we are to defend ourselves and Usama at the very least has this right.

 

As for the “gulf-war ploy†brother I was only highlighting one small point (don't over analyse the whole thing), the scholars can make a mistake, it is for this reason that Rasuallah stated that if they are correct they receive two rewards and if they err they receive one. It’s almost like you think the scholars are infallible, do you even acknowledge that they can be wrong? As a salafi, I’m sure you acknowledge that Abu Hanifa made mistakes with respect to some fiqh issues (which we attribute to many reasons), so why not the scholars of our lifetime?

 

Please brother, don’t try and get us into a debate concerning the validity of scholars, I am not questioning that whatsoever, so need to put on the white in shinning armour act . As stated I love them all, I respect them all and most importantly never would I say they stated anything out of malice for Islam or Muslims, rather I justify some points that they have erred on because of their love for peace and to avoid disaster to the followers of the religion of Allah.

 

Ibn Baz generally supported his government on such issues, just like cuthaymian and a few others. Let us get one thing clear; I am not saying that they supported their government in acts of kufr, no subxanallah of course not. But many a times, like the gulf-war issue, they backed the government (which allow me to remind you, you agree upon also). I take a stance where I think the best of the situation and therefore believe wholeheartedly that they felt they were diverting a greater problem. Supporting ones government akhi is not necessarily an evil thing, you seem to have me confused with the rat bags who believe shaykh ibn baz sold out ($$ literally) his religion and the Muslims. I don’t take this stance and I am pretty sure you and I probably love him the same and I do not disagree with any of what Nur said (trust me, he knows that also ).

 

I am not questioning the credentials of these scholars, nor am I attacking them; I’m just saying that they can make a mistake-which is what Islam teaches, No?

 

So please, let us not resort to insults, because I am insulted that you could even suggest that I have said anything wrong against one of the greatest scholars of our lifetime, Shaykh ibn Baz (Raximuallah). Really brother, all discussions aside, i did not appreciate that.

 

Not to mention Dr Saleh Saleh would agree with my positions!

You stance on ibn Baz? I disagreed where? For me to say that any scholar has made a mistake on any issue does not necessarily translate to loss of respect or the questioning of his credentials. You can still say that you disagree with someone and still hold them in high regard and love them for the sake of Allah. Learn to differentiate that akhi-it comes in very hand in the mannerisms of disagreement.

 

As for SPUBS, they seem to be a tad confused on that concept. I was also once upon a time an avid reader, until I began to realize that they made me have ill feelings towards my fellow brother based on simple matters. As far as I know, they are located in the west; we are not in a land of scholars where we can concentrate on refutations. Here akhi, people hardly know the kalima, so of what benefit is it to label this person and that person a qutubi or khawaarij (do you know that bad nicknames are xaraam? saying that hebal hebal al-khaariji). It’s one thing to advice your brother on certain mistakes that they make, but a totally different thing to tarnish (mind you so harshly) their name. Like I said, there are bigger issues to tackle. That is my opinion of not just SPUBS, but a few others.

 

Anyway, let’s not turn this into a tennis match, the bottom line is I respect and love all the scholars, but I acknowledge that they can make mistakes and disagree with another. Usama is a Muslim and with all his flaws deserves my loyalty more than Bush and Blair, and Spubs should be concentrating on far more important subjects than discrediting fellow Muslims.