Jahiliyyah!

[Nur]

Warmoog Writes:

 

Some more clarifications are needed here. The fatwa was meant to show that the scholars makes an important distinction between the two types of Jaahiliyyah on the basis of specific Quran verses and Ahadith. The distinction comes with important rulings which govern how this term is applied and they are the key to understanding this concept. I agree the words general and specific are imprecise. General does not fully convey the pervasiveness of the pre-Islamic Jaahiliyyah. In Sheikh Fawzaan's Aqeedah at-Tawheed, the two types are referred to as Universal Jaahiliyyah and Restricted Jaahiliyyah, which in my view are more fitting. The terms used above, Absolute and Partial, are also more suitable.

 

The fatwa was meant to show that the scholars makes an important distinction between the two types of Jaahiliyyah on the basis of specific Quran verses and Ahadith.

 

 

Please show the Specific Verse in Quraan and Riwaayah of Hadeeth that supports this distinction..

 

 

1) Jaahiliyyah is of two types: Universal and Restricted (or Absolute and Partial)

 

True in Historical Context only that is. If any scholar have ruled out any other context for this term, please produce their proof from Quraan and Sunnah as you have said.

 

2) Universal Jaahiliyyah existed during the pre-Islamic age; it was ended by the mission of Prophet Muhammad (may peace and blessings be upon him)

 

Where did it exist? Was it limited to Arabia, or was it global. And What was the time span it existed? I mean was it open ended till Prophet Adam’s time, or did it end just before a Prophet’s time like Ibrahim, Musa, Issa and so on?

 

Answers to these questions will help you understand the complexity of the issue and the need for looking at it from different contextual perspectives.

 

3) It is impermissible to say there has been Universal Jaahiliyyah during any period of time since the advent of Islam or to apply universality to the term in reference to any period since then

 

To say something is impermissible, without a clear revealed instruction or Hadeeth as well as legitimate Qiyaas and Ijmaac, is in itself impermissible and very grave in Allah’s judgement . Allah SWT says in Surah Naxl, verse 117 in Holy Quraan. And say not concerning that which your tongues put forth falsely: "This is lawful and this is forbidden," so as to invent lies against Allah. Verily, those who invent lies against Allah will never prosper.

 

As I have provided before in the Hadeeth, The Prophet SAWS prophesied that Muslims will follow the ways of the People of the Book in every way. The fact some Muslims will always exist, does not sufficiently answer the question that I have raised. For the following reasons:

 

1. Islam is a system and it came to abolish another system Allah named Jahiliyah.

 

Jahiliyyah in Holy Quraan was mentioned in four verses as manifestations of the Jahili System before the appearance of Prophet Muhammad SAWS.

The Islamic system is composed of the whole set of pillars of Iman and Islam, both aqeedah related, and Transactions related, in the form of revealed information foremost of which is the central concept of Tawheed Absolute Unity and Sovereignty of Allah SWT that only can be satisfied by a solid belief ( Iman), and commandments in the form of( Do and Don’t) that can be satisfied by obedience and execution.

 

Conversely, The Jahili System is well described in the Quraan (four manifestations) and the Hadeeth. From the perspective of a System, wherever it’s found as a whole, it sufficiently paints that society as a Jaahili society.

 

The two systems as a whole with all of their components are like day and night, they do not coexist in the same place, but aspects of each of them can be found in the opposite system. Some of the aspects of the Jahili system can be found in a Muslim society, and some of the aspects of Islam can be found in a Jahili Society. Appearance of Jaahliyyah as a System signifies the absence of Islam as a System ( Individual practice of Islam or Jahiliyyah is not in this scope)

 

a) It would mean there is no true source of Divine Guidance in the world, as in the pre-Islamic age

 

Not True: The planet has never been without a Divine guidance at any point in time since Adam and Eve' s creation. Allah says in Surah Fatir Verse 24: Verily! We have sent you with the truth, a bearer of glad tidings, and a Warner. And there never was a nation but a Warner had passed among them.

 

b) It would contradict Allah's promise to preserve Islam (e.g. Surah al-Hijr 15:9)

 

Not True again: The promise of preservation is for the Holy Quraan, Not Islam as a System. The term Dhiker in Tafseer means the Holy Quraan.

c) It would contradict the hadiths that say some Muslims will always adhere to the truth

 

Not True: Even during the First Jahilyyah, There were followers of Islam’s last version (Judaism, Christianity and the faith of Ibrahim, Khadijah’s uncles is an example of this category)

 

d) It would contradict the way term was applied by the Prophet (may peace and blessings be upon him)

Please share with us :

 

1. How did the Prophet SAWS used this term

2. If any usage of this term in any other way is Haraam and its Proof from Quraan and Sunnah

3. If this usage restriction rule can be applied at all other terms the Prophet SAWS has used

 

 

a) Some of the characteristics of Jaahiliyyah can be used to describe certain people, groups, or lands

 

A society can be deemed Jaahili if all the characteristics of the Jahili system are apparent. Their land is never described as Jaahili, because Jaahiliyyah as a System reflects behavior of a single component ( Person) or an entire system (Society, Nation, Clan), Land is not part of the Jahiliyyah system, all land, belongs to Allah and Allah encouraged believers under persecution by Jahiliyyah System in Makkah to migrate to His wider lands ( Ardullahi al waasica)

 

5) It is impermissible to describe whole Muslim societies or all Muslim societies as 'jaahili'

 

True: In this debate we are only concerned about societies that display all Jaahili System manifestations in Aqeedah, Law, Loyalty and Akhlaaq norms.

 

 

Those are the raw facts from what they have said. It needs to be reemphasized that in order to handle this subject properly in any discussion, the rulings on the usage of the term have to be followed.

 

I wouldn’t call it facts, it would be more prudent to call Ijtihaad of some scholars, which unfortunately are not backed up by solid proofs from Quraan and Sunnah as you have said in your prelude.

 

The Hukm factor that was added to the equation is out of place

 

Please show its proper place or CONTEXT as you have evaded so far.

The meaning of Absolute/Universal Jaahiliyyah was erroneously redefined.

 

To limit Jaahiliyah to historical context alone may seem comfortable as it wipes our hands of the daunting task of re-establishing Islam in societies that have inherited the letter of the message but lost the morals that differentiated Islam’s system from the Jahili system, the modern re-emergence of the Jaahili system with vengeance in “Muslim” societies to the point that all of the manifestations of the pre-Islamic Jaahiliyyah are a common place is a stark realization of Prophet Muhammad’s prediction that Muslims will follow the people of the Book who Allah SWT asked: Are they yearning for the Jaahili Xukum or Law? And Who is better than Allah as a legislator? . Today, like the people of the Book, "Muslims" are yearning for the same Jaahili Xukum aka Democracy / Secularism.

 

Muslims are not better than the people of the book, if they collectively fail to establish Islam as Allah SWT mandated, they will revert back to Jaahiliyyah as other nations before us have done. Allah SWT says in Surah Muminoon Verse 44: Then We sent Our Messengers in succession, every time there came to a nation their Messenger, they denied him, so We made them follow one another (to destruction), and We made them as Ahadith (the true stories for mankind to learn a lesson from them). So away with a people who believe not.

 

Lastly, Allah SWT advises Muslim women in Surah: Al Axzaab Verse 32. ……. and do not display yourselves like that of the First Jaahiliyyah!

 

Some of the Mufasireen have said that there will be another Jaahiliyyah after Isalm, which will be the Second coming of the Jahiliyyah system. Linguistically speaking, Imagine a newly weds couple trying to safeguard their marriage and the wife is reminding her husband not to make the same mistake he made in his first marriage! I hope this analogy helps.

 

Conclusion: Jaahilyyah is a System and a State of Affairs in Which Allah’s guidance is not being followed fully, specially the Aqeedah aspect. Selected following of Islam is worse in Allah’s eye than an out right rejection of Islam all together, and that is why Allah SWT was angry with the people of the Book: In Surah Al Baqarah, V 85 Allah SW says: After this, it is you who kill one another and drive out a party of you from their homes, assist (their enemies) against them, in sin and transgression. And if they come to you as captives, you ransom them, although their expulsion was forbidden to you. Then do you believe in a part of the Scripture and reject the rest? Then what is the recompense of those who do so among you, except disgrace in the life of this world, and on the Day of Resurrection they shall be consigned to the most grievous torment. And Allah is not unaware of what you do.

 

Wa Allahu Aclam.

 

Nur

[Warmoog]

Nur, I provided verifiable sources that explain the sound understanding of this concept among the people of knowledge. It seems you are arguing against what they have said based on nothing more than your own opinion and interpretations. Can you provide credible scholarly sources that support your stance?

 

To be clear, when I said specific Quran verses and Ahadith, I meant specific as in particular (not specific as in the definitive rulings of the Shari'ah) and I was referring to those cited in the Islam QA fatwa.

 

It goes without saying that even if the scholars' position is based on ijtihad, the opinions of unknown laypeople as such you and I are not on par with their deductions, especially when they agree on something, such as it being impermissible to call Muslim societies 'jaahili' in general terms. So if anyone of us wants to argue against their definitions and rulings, it is only reasonable to counter them with other scholarly sources that corroborate one's view. (Sources that clearly make an argument for your stance, not ones that say something vague or general which you would then interpret for the reader.)

 

The scholars' explanations have been laid out and they are clear. I will now focus on your argument.

 

Nur;689676 wrote:

Can we then safely say that a society that displays all four manifestation of

Jahiliyyah

is a indeed a

Jahili

Society?

Nur;692146 wrote:

My question in this thread was examining the case when all of the elements of the

Jaahiliyyah

System are manifested in a modern society that claims to be "Muslim Society", we set out in this thread to verify such a claim in a scholarly way.

That claim is obviously a forgone conclusion on your part and you have been trying to rationalize it, but you still have not established its validity. The first thing that needed to be established is: where on earth is such a case to be found? What Muslim society has all the elements of the Jaahiliyyah system you speak of? What exactly does manifesting all the elements of Jaahiliyyah entail? Is there a Muslim society today that has all the elements of its pre-Islamic past still in place? Or a Muslim society in which the Shari'ah is completely non-existent and something else has been put in its place as a total replacement? It has to first be proven that such a society exists before its peculiar case can be examined.

 

Nur;692146 wrote:

2.

Judicial ( Xukum): Any Period when Islam as a system is replaced by any other belief system with its own Laws, Culture, Allegiance, Social Norms etc.

This further classified as:

 

A. Absolute: When it is the only visible SYSTEM

i. Person: Who is not a Muslim is Jaahiili

ii.

A Society : That has chosen to take a wholesome SYSTEM opposite to Islam as their System.

 

B. Partial: When aspects of

Jaahiliyyah

is visible

i. In a person ( Does not make him Jaahili)

ii. In a Society ( Does not sufficiently make it Jaahil)

Your argument revolves around two main points: (1) any (Muslim) society that does not adhere to the Shari'ah as a complete system is a 'jaahili' society, which is what you have been making a case for from the onset, and (2) any period of time during which the Shari'ah is not in place as a complete system is one of 'Absolute Jaahiliyyah', which you stated in your last two posts. These ideas are not from the realm of 'ilm and the scholars. They are from the realm of thought/idealogy and the revivalism of the 20th Century (and the saying that Islam is a 'system' is the revivalist mantra). They are false ideas that were popularized by some books of opinion and they have no basis in the authentic teachings of Islam.

 

 

First, the concept of labeling Muslim societies as 'jaahili' in general, unrestricted terms and applying universality to Jaahiliyyah in the context of any period of time since the advent of Islam is false and heretical. It is rooted in the prison writings of Sayyid Qutb, particularly his tract Ma'alim fi al-Tariq (a.k.a. Milestones, 1964). That book lays out a doctrine centered on a theory of modern-day 'universal' Jaahiliyyah, through the lens of which all Muslim societies are viewed as having fallen into disbelief and paganism as a result of the Shari'ah not being in place as a complete system, and it presents guidelines for deposing the 'all-encompassing' Jaahiliyyah through revolutionary activity. Qutb's theory defines Jaahliyyah as "the worship of some people by others" (Milestones, SIME Journal Edition, pg. 116); it also defines the Jaahili society as "any society other than a Muslim society" and it says that "all societies existing in the world today are Jaahili" (pg. 74-75). It also says the Ummah "has been extinct for a few centuries" (pg. 3.).

 

Whether you know it or not, that is where the ideas you are defending come from. That concept characterizes Muslim societies as pagan societies and justifies the wholesale takfeer of them. Even senior leaders and affiliates of the Muslim Brotherhood, which the author was part of, have pointed that out (e.g. Fareed Abdulkhaliq, al-Qaradawi) and disassociated their organization from those ideas. Calling whole Muslim societies 'jaahili' has the meaning of justifying or making generalized takfeer of them. The Jaahiliyyah theory in effect does that to the entire Ummah. But even if people apply it on a smaller scale and use it to make judgments about particular Muslim societies or groups of people (as some have been known to do), it is still falsehood. The scholars' position on this subject has been delineated so one can easily see the baseless of that theory. It contravenes the sound understanding of the Quran and Sunnah, violates the rulings derived from them, and goes against the scholarly consensus.

 

 

Second, the Hukm factor you mentioned is the rationale (al-Haakmiyyah) behind the Jaahiliyyah theory. The belief that rulings must be based on what Allah has revealed is part of the Tawheed so it is legitimate in itself, but in the context of that false theory or any other concept that is inconsistent with Islamic teachings, it is an invalid rationale. It is a case of the Tawheed being used to justify something that plainly contradicts the revealed texts. When Muslim societies are governed by entities with un-Islamic laws, the correct thing to say is that those specific un-Islamic laws are jaahili. Period. The existence of those laws does not remove people from the fold of Islam and it does not make that entire society a 'jaahili' society of disbelief or paganism. It does not mean that whole society is engaged in 'rebellion against the sovereignty of Allah', nor does it make the people 'pagans' who associate partners with Allah by obeying man-made laws, which is what the false Jaahiliyyah theory leads people to think.

 

Some of the worse fitan that have erupted within the Ummah since the mid-20th Century--particularly the emergence of groups like Takfeer wal-Hijra, the spread of neo-Kharijite thought among other people/groups besides them, and the spread of violent political movements--are known to have their roots in ideas and methods that were derived from or influenced by that false doctrine of Jaahiliyyah. Many scholars have clarified the truth and refuted that concept (as well as the other errors in Qutb's writings) so there is no good reason to believe in, defend, or propagate those errors.

 

The statements of the Prophet (may peace and blessings be upon him) demonstrate how the term Jaahiliyyah should be applied. He lived during a time when Islam had not spread beyond Arabia and he nonetheless applied the term in a restricted manner--e.g. in reference to specific statements or actions--and he did not use it in unrestricted or absolute terms unless he was referring to the period before the advent of Islam. What more does one need? Those who do the opposite of his example are people who oppose his approach, either out of ignorance or in favour of their own whims and opinions (as if they know better). That is the root of their problem and the remedy is to return to the Sunnah.

[Warmoog]

Nur;689676 wrote:

Jaahiliyyah is like the night, its dark, its evil and the opposite to Islam in every sense which is the daylight.

Nur;692146 wrote:

We have to understand that Islam is a complete system which opposes another complete system aka

Jaahiliyyah

.

Third, you said Jaahiliyyah is a 'complete system' which Islam came to replace because it is at odds with Islam in 'every sense'. That claim seems to be reflective of another flaw of Qutb's theory, which is its superficially dichotomous view of the world and its absolute rejectionist stance on Jaahiliyyah. It divides the world into a realm of evil and corruption (Jaahiliyyah) and a realm of good and justice (Islam) between which there can be no mixing. It is projects the idea that in order to build a truly Islamic society modeled after the first generation of Muslims, there should be no mixing or compromise with the jaahili society's beliefs, practices, laws, values, concepts, etc. That was the author's opinion. Some people have gone to extremes with a literal (re)interpretation of that opinion and it is what initially led Takfeer wal-Hijra to physically withdraw and isolate themselves from Muslim societies.

 

We need only look at the way the Quran dealt with pre-Islamic Arabian society to notice that the Quran did not view it as a completely evil or corrupt society, nor treat it as a 'complete system' that had to be wholly uprooted and replaced with something entirely new. We know that Islam did not come as a new religion to begin with, but rather as the last of Allah's revelations, so it is concerned with reaffirming the previous revelations and preserving the continuity of the core message they all share. We also know there were remnants of the traditions of Prophet Abraham (peace be upon him) in pre-Islamic Arabian society.

 

This is why the Quran's attitude towards it was essentially one of reform and restoration. Some aspects of the pre-Islamic way of life were abolished, some were altered and continued, others were left unchanged and incorporated into the Shari'ah, and new practices were also introduced. The Quran took a nuanced and practical stance that sought to abolish or modify only those things that conflict with its values and objectives; everything else was either explicitly or implicitly approved and left in tact.

 

So the absolute rejectionist stance--the idea that Jaahiliyyah is a 'complete system' and that it is completely evil or at odds with Islam in 'every sense'--has no basis in the Quran's view of societies and cultures. All societies have positive, negative, and neutral elements. Islam accommodates everything that is naturally positive or neutral, which is to say compatible with its principles and objectives. The wisdom of the Quran's approach in dealing with the predominantly pagan society of pre-Islamic Arabia is in glaring contrast to the compound ignorance displayed by those who view and treat Muslim societies as 'jaahili' societies (of disbelief/paganism) and who thus either isolate themselves or run around wrecking havoc because they think they have to establish Islam afresh, as if for the first time, in societies that have already accepted it and in which it already has deep roots.

 

 

Nur;692146 wrote:

We know this to be true since the Prophet SAWS talked about an era that would come later that Islam will be strange again like the early days of Makkah, and for that to happen,

Jaahiliyyah

must be fully established in a previously

"Muslim"

society.

Fourth, the knowledge that Islam will return to being ghareeb and the idea that Muslim societies have 'fully reverted' to Jaahiliyyah, the latter of which is what Qutb's theory propounds, have absolutely nothing to do with each other. The first is from the Sunnah and the other is from a false theory that contradicts the revealed texts. That Islam will return to being strange is from the authentic statements of the Prophet (may peace and blessings be upon him) and the hadiths describe who the strangers are. There are many scholarly explanations of those narrations, but Al-Ghurabah, a translation of Ibn Rajab's treatise on the subject, is particularly thorough in case anyone wants to benefit from it.

 

The strangers are explained as being those who will remain upon the Sunnah and rectify themselves or the people when/where there is corruption. As Sheikh Bin Baz's answer mentions, what makes them strange can have different meanings at different places and times (it may mean an increase in deviation in one place/time, negligence of da'wah at another place/time, people being distracted with worldly matters at another place/time, etc.). Their strangeness has to do with their being the most upright of people, a minority among humanity and among Muslims as well, but they will remain until the Day of Judgment. The hadiths and their explanations basically reassure the strangers because of the difficulties they will face, but they do not say or suggest that the rest of the Muslims will leave the fold of Islam.

 

To paraphrase its translation, the explanation of the ghurabaa hadith in Majmu' al-Fataawa Ibn Taymiyyah (Vol. 18, pg. 291-305) mentions that the return of strangeness can have two possible meanings: (1) Islam will become afflicted with obscurity and weakness similar to when it began and this condition will differ from time to time and place to place, such that it may exist in a particular place or during a particular period of time and not another; or (2) there will be no Muslims at the end of the world, except for a very small number, and this will occur after the appearance of the Anti-Christ, Gog and Magog, and very close to when the gentle breeze will take the souls of the believers.

 

Neither of those meanings corroborates Qutb's theory. As mentioned, that theory applies universality to Jaahiliiyyah and describes the Ummah as having been 'extinct' for centuries. The hadiths about the strangers are themselves proof of its falsity because they support the knowledge that part of the Ummah will always remain upon the truth, meaning there will be Restricted Jaahiliyyah until the Day of Judgment.

 

In saying this, I have not addressed every statement of yours that I disagree with, only the main flaws in your argument. Misunderstandings of the concept of Jaahiliyyah have led some people far astray so, once again, my advice is that we all refer back to the scholars in order to gain a proper understanding of it.

[Che -Guevara]

^Well said!

[Nur]

Baarakallahu Feeke, Ukhti Al Ghaalya

 

Jazakellahu Kheiran for taking the time for responding to some of my questions ( while some are still pending), though not to my satisfaction .

 

Allah SWT says in Surah Al Nisaa v59 - 62

 

59- O you who believe! Obey Allah and obey the Messenger (Muhammad ), and those of you (Muslims) who are in authority. (And) if you differ in anything amongst yourselves, refer it to Allah and His Messenger , if you believe in Allah and in the Last Day. That is better and more suitable for final determination.

 

60 - Have you seen those (hyprocrites) who claim that they believe in that which has been sent down to you, and that which was sent down before you, and they wish to go for judgment (in their disputes) to the Taghut (false judges, etc.) while they have been ordered to reject them. But Shaitan (Satan) wishes to lead them far astray.

 

61- And when it is said to them: Come to what Allah has sent down and to the Messenger (Muhammad)," you (Muhammad ) see the hypocrites turn away from you (Muhammad ) with aversion.

 

62 - How then, when a catastrophe befalls them because of what their hands have sent forth, they come to you swearing by Allah, We meant no more than goodwill and conciliation!"

 

 

Ukhti Al Ghaliya

 

Think about these verses deeply, specially in relation to the fact that humans, like myself, you and the "Scholars" are prone to errors of judgment and the importance to make the Holy Quraana and the Sunnah our common reference point if a dispute arises between believers.

 

Also, think about the following situation:

 

1. How do we know that the "Scholars" have lost the way? because unless we have a common measure of the path and the destination, any road will seem right?

 

InshaAllah, I will come back with my modest response of your response in a detailed way.

 

Muxibbukum fillah

 

 

Nur

[Warmoog]

Nur, brother my sole aim here is to convey the truth to the best of my ability. Whether or not it is found satisfactory is none of my concern because only Allah's guidance can open a person's heart to it. But if there is anything that is still unclear to you or if you have any questions, please let me know.

 

We are required to call to Islam with sure and authentic knowledge based on its teachings and conveyed in the best manner possible. Let us remember Allah's command in the Quran:

 

'Say: "This is my way; I invite unto Allah with sure knowledge, I and whosoever follows me. And Glorified and Exalted be Allah. And I am not of the idolaters."'

(Surah Yusuf 12:108)

 

That is the Way of the Messenger (may peace and blessings be upon him) and those who follow him: to give da'wah with "sure knowledge, certainty and evidence, whether logical or religious". It has been specified in the books of da'wah, such as Sheikh 'Uthaymeen's The Provision of the Caller to Allah, that calling to Allah with sure knowledge entails three things, the first of which is sure knowledge in what one is inviting to.

 

The thread question asks the reader if a whole Muslim society can be called 'jaahili' in general terms. The answer was, is, and always will be a categorical no: it is impermissible and there is no legitimate pretext or rationale that can justify the violation of that ruling. Since I bear a responsibility that most others here do not, I will be upfront in identifying the problem, which by now should be apparent.

 

Your thread question invites the reader to make generalized takfeer of Muslim societies. A lot of things were strung together in an attempt to justify it and your statements--the way you put quotation marks around the words Muslim and Muslim societies in post 10, for instance--indicate that you already know the meaning and implications of the question, so there is no point in us being subtle or cryptic about it. At least now the reader also knows what those erroneous ideas that were identified mean, where they come from, why they are against Islamic teachings, and what kind of problems they have caused.

 

Regarding your reminder about the Quran and Sunnah being the points of reference for resolving disputes, let us be very clear about one thing. Making generalized, unrestricted takfeer of Muslims (on the scale of whole societies no less) due to the mere presence of laws based on other than what Allah has revealed is not part of the creed of Ahlus Sunnah and there is no dispute about its impermissibility among Sunnis. Those who deem it permissible (and who rationalize it on the grounds that Hukm is for Allah alone) have their own separate creed. There is a dispute about the issue, but it is one between Ahlus Sunnah and people outside its fold. I hope you think about this carefully before your next post.

 

This is your thread and the way you have thus far framed and steered the discussion is very much outside the limits of what is Islamically permissible. It needs to be brought (and kept) within the limits of what has been authentically deduced from the Quran and Sunnah and accepted by Ahlus Sunnah. That is all I've been saying. At this point, you can either continue along the same path or you can do your part to rectify the problem so this thread does not become a source of misguidance for people.

 

More than once, statements of yours have come across as negativity towards the scholars, as if to tear them down or dismiss them, but I don't think we can pretend to be bigger authorities on this or any other subject. I ask that you please keep my emphasis on providing credible sources in mind from now on.

[Nur]

Ukhti Warmoog writes:

 

Nur, I provided verifiable sources that explain the sound understanding of this concept among the people of knowledge. It seems you are arguing against what they have said based on nothing more than your own opinion and interpretations. Can you provide credible scholarly sources that support your stance?

 

The fundamental Question: (If “Muslim Societies” accept the Sovereignty of other than Allah in their belief system, if they replace Islamic Sharia with Secular Law, If their Loyalty is for the Clan and Nation States instead of Allah and if their social ethics accept permissive behavior in public) which are the same four manifestations of the first Jaahiliyyah, can we safely call such a society a Jahili Society. That question was not answered by any of your sources to the best of my comprehension. If I missed it, please be kind enough to highlight the to-the-point answer of my question.

 

To be clear, when I said specific Quran verses and Ahadith, I meant specific as in particular (not specific as in the definitive rulings of the Shari'ah) and I was referring to those cited in the Islam QA fatwa.

 

OK, I accept the change; please post the “Particular verses” of Quran and Hadeeth cited in Q& A Fatwa to validate your point. This is very crucial to my next response.

 

It goes without saying that even if the scholars' position is based on ijtihad, the opinions of unknown laypeople as such you and I are not on par with their deductions,

 

Now that we have agreed that “scholars” Ijtihad is different than “Raw Facts”, nevertheless, you still maintain that any known scholar’s Ijtihad is more reliable than an unknown Muslim’s Ijtihad that relies only on Quran and Sunnah as his sources. This point of view might be correct under an Islamic State when the Islamic Fatwa Body is enjoying independence and is not coming under any secular authority. However in the present circumstances, if being “known by the general public ” is a precondition of being right on Islamic issues, this will imply that the very people that need to be delivered and guided along with their “Officials” will be the ones to endorse, appoint and legitimize their own scholars so to be “known Scholars”. This is the slippery slope that led the Christian world to amend their faith many times over to align it with the follower’s wishes. Ali Radiya Allahu Anhu Said. “Know the Xaqq ( Truth) you will know its people, NOT the other way around. Allah SWT says about Scholars of Children of Israel “ Yalwoona alsinatahum bil kitaabi)

 

Societies need to adapt to Islam’s template, Changing the essence of Islam to fit people’s passing “needs” is the same pit that our Judeo Christian cousins have fallen in and can’t find a way out, and as the Prophet SAWS have predicted, “Muslims” are bent on following them to a rat’s hole.

Gross generalization, don’t contribute to healthy debate. To say, the “Scholars” have agreed on an issue, we need first to sample a wide array of diverse “scholars” opinions including dissident Scholars that are demonized by the official Media. It is not correct to selectively pick and choose few scholars with the same opinion on the issue, and then interpret this as an Ijmaa (Consensus) of all the “Scholars”.

 

Ukhtii, Al Kareemah, Not all of the Scholars have agreed on what you are claiming, and great many silent scholars have no place in a world dominated by secular authorities that appoint the very “scholars” that you claim to have agreed on this issue. Every single publicly cited scholar should have ceded a certain compromise to the authorities that granted him the license to practice as official clergyman vested with Fatwa privilege.. Nevertheless, these scholars have contributed a lot to the ever expanding circle of Islamic revival, although at times they are put in a dilemma, between saying-it-as-it-is, or being politically correct. It is this politically correctness with the noblest of intentions that at times compromise the wholesomeness of the Message of Islam that Allah SWT inspired His Messenger to tell people to take Islam as a Whole, or leave it as a Whole. In circumstances such as these, the best way we can chart our way to meet Allah SWT is to at least choose our destination if we have failed to choose our present situation. Let us be honest to ourselves first, to Allah and to the public that might be misled with over simplification of issues of dire consequences to their eventual confrontation with their past deeds and false beliefs in front an impartial judge, first of which is the clarification of the aqeedah and tawheed. Also My Dear Sister, Serious issues like these are not a copy and paste exercise, if you don’t have a good command of the Arabic language and grammar, a thorough study of the Tafseer of Quraan, the science of hadeeth, the Seerah, and above all, the Islamic Fiqh in detail, your opinions will be very weak to defend.

 

 

The scholars' explanations have been laid out and they are clear. I will now focus on your argument.

 

Its not clear to me Ukhtii.

 

 

 

The first thing that needed to be established is: where on earth is such a case to be found?

 

If there is no place on earth where my hypothesis will hold true, say so and save yourself the trouble of defending a nonexistent problem. However, if there is the likelihood of finding such “pockets” of societies as you have admitted previously in this thread, then at least, stick to your first stance of accepting the existence “mini-Jahili” pockets here and there, while subscribing to your idea that there is no Universal jahili phenomenon on earth since Prophet Muhammad’s SAWS advent which implies that the universal System in place to be Islam. And I am sure that you may not accept that either

 

To Be Contiuned............

[Nur]

What exactly does manifesting all the elements of Jaahiliyyah entail? ……….. It has to first be proven that such a society exists before its peculiar case can be examined.

 

 

This is my own question posed in this thread that you are bouncing back at me! Focus on this question more as you suggested above Ukhti, it’s the key of unraveling the unnecessary mystery you are surrounding around this topic. At the beginning of this thread, I have defined the linguistic meaning of Jahiliyyah, and then I applied four of its main manifestations in Beliefs ( Aqeedah), Legislation, Loyalty and Social norms on the First Jahiliyah of Qureish, all from the Holy Quraan. I have also showed the Hadeeth of Prophet Muhammd SAWS prophesied that clearly predicted that “Muslims”will follow the ways of the people of the book in every way. And then tied a verse in Quraan in which Allah asked: Do they ( People of the Book) want the Xukum ( Law) of Jahiliyah? So, if Jews and Christians have adopted the Jahiliyyah Xukum, and “Muslims” are predicted to follow them in every way, it does not take rocket science to tie these parts for a wholesome answer, I leave it as an exercise for you. Hint: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, it’s probably a duck!

 

Your argument revolves around two main points: (1) any (Muslim) society that does not adhere to the Shari'ah as a complete system is a 'jaahili' society, which is what you have been making a case for from the onset,

 

Misquote Alert: Not quite that way ukhtii al Ghalya: My central question was not about Shariah Law, Shariah Law is one of the components of Islam as a System that emanated from the Sovereignty of Allah SWT and delivered by His Last Messenger Muhammad SAWS. My central question was; If we find a “Muslim” society that does not adhere to “Islam as a Whole System” comprising of Beliefs, Law, Loyalty and Social Norms, which are the same four manifestations Allah described the Qureish tribe, a Jahili Society that vehemently opposed the message of nascent Islam ( Linguistically: The Jayhala Fire Moving Stick), Can we safely call such a society no matter where its found a Jahili Society!

 

(2) any period of time during which the Shari'ah is not in place as a complete system is one of 'Absolute Jaahiliyyah', which you stated in your last two posts.

 

“Islam a System not in place” is the right quote, which is different than your narrow Shariah Not in Place component based response.

 

You write:

 

These ideas are not from the realm of 'ilm and the scholars.

 

This statement is too vague. Which discipline of Cilm (Knowledge) are you referring to? And what is the boundary of this “Realm” of the “Scholars” There is no substance in these words.

 

They are from the realm of thought/idealogy and the revivalism of the 20th Century (and the saying that Islam is a 'system' is the revivalist mantra). They are false ideas that were popularized by some books of opinion and they have no basis in the authentic teachings of Islam.

 

This statement is loaded with a lot of uncalled prejudice as well as unguarded sweeping blanket statements. Words are meant to convey meanings, and here are what your words convey:

 

1. Islam is NOT a SYSTEM and the Idea that Islam is a System is not based on authentic Islamic teachings by “Known” Scholars.

2. “Islamic Teachings” are exclusively reserved for the “Scholars” who say Islam is not a System.

3. Islamic Revivalists are the only ones to believe that Islam is a System, which it’s not.

4. “Islam as a System” is the “Mantra” of the Islamic Revivalist Movements of the 20th Century.

 

These statements show either one of the following or some:

 

1. An ignorance of what a System means

2. A lack of appreciation of the role of Islamic Revivalist Movements after the collapse of the last weak Islamic Caliphate in 1924.

3. A Lack of understanding of the Islamic Knowledge Body known as Maqaasidul Shariica or the moral of Shariah.

 

First: Let us define a System as per selections of Merriam-Webster and Americana Dictionaries

 

1. a form of social, economic, or political organization or practice

2. an organized set of doctrines, ideas, or principles usually intended to explain the arrangement or working of a systematic whole

3. an organized or established procedure

4. Aggregation of things when combined can form an integral or complex whole.

 

 

Islam is composed of the following main categories:

 

1. Five Pillars of Islam ( Al Cibaadaat)

2. Six Pillars of Faith ( Al Caqaaed)

3. Economic and Business System ( Al Mucaamalaat)

4. Judicial System ( Al Xukm Wal Qadaa)

5. Loyalty System ( Al Walaa Wal Baraa)

6. Ethics System ( Akhlaaq)

 

Which shows that Islam fits the above definition of a system.

 

Secondly: About Muslim Revivalist Movements

 

Your trivialization of the contributions of the Islamic Revivalist Movements echoes a cross between the secular narratives that “Islam should be a religion like all other religions confined to worship houses” as well as the Sufi narrative of “Islam as a Spiritual Religion only”

Thanks to the painstaking efforts of the Revivalist movements at the turn of the 20th Century right after the collapse of the Ottoman Caliphate, today, you are a living testament of their effort of spreading Islamic knowledge. If you can see farther than they did, or can catch an error or two in their approach or literature, it’s because they’ve made the distance shorter for you, and for that alone, they deserve your respect even if some of their sources were not as authentic as the ones we use today (Thanks To Sheikh Albany, Rahimahulah and others).

[Nur]

Allah taught us to respect and seek forgiveness for our brethren who preceded us in faith, by saying: : “And those who came after them say: "Our Lord! Forgive us and our brethren who have preceded us in Faith, and put not in our hearts any hatred against those who have believed. Our Lord! You are indeed full of kindness, Most Merciful. (Surah Al Hashr, V10)

 

Because if we don’t pray for them and fail to honor their efforts in comfort, there is a good chance we will say the following in utter discomfort: “Every time a new nation enters hell, it curses its sister nation (that went before), until they will be gathered all together in the Fire.” (Surah . Araf v38)

About Islamic Revivalist Movements, eNuri wrote this Paragraph on a thread Titled: What Attracts Somalis to Salafiyah:

 

“The early breed of Islamic revivalist movements represented fragments of the total picture of Islam, each one of them focused on a single aspect of Islam, claiming that their version is the only way to salvation. So, a wide array of movements came to life in the Muslim world, beginning with the Jamaat Islamiyah of Pakistan, inspiring the Ikhwan of Egypt, which gave birth to many subgroups like the Hizb Al Tahrir whose forte was the reestablishment of the dead Caliphate.

 

Salafiya as a movement stressed the necessity that the means to the reestablishment of Islam begins with strict following of the Sunnah literally meaning METHOD of the Prophet, factors that helped Islam to be established in the first time are the only factors that can revive Islam again, Salafiyah focused on authenticity of the Prophets sayings and deeds, and the understanding of the first generation of the companions and their followers ( Taabiciin)

 

Thus, Salafiyyah movement attracted the youth in Somalia after their realization that other Islamic movements for social and political change where lacking the iBOK dimension ( Islamic Body Of Knowledge), and hence it became a back to the basics movement focusing on the knowledge aspect of the Faith as the safest way for reaching salvation.”

 

First, the concept of labeling Muslim societies as 'jaahili' in general, unrestricted terms and applying universality to Jaahiliyyah in the context of any period of time since the advent of Islam is false and heretical.

 

Ukhti Al Ghaliyah, If you see Islam as a System, with interdependent components that function in a well structured process to realize a common objective, your confusion will go away. Like Our Prophet SAWS gave many metaphorical examples in his hadeeths,

 

1. Islam like a house, prayer being the center Pillar of this house, the pillars of Islam and Iman forming the structure, the peak or roof of being Jihad in Allah’s cause. The purpose of which is to realize eternal dwelling in another house of happiness.

2. Believers are like building blocks, they hold one another in process of spreading Islam to mankind and bearing the pain of this endeavor to gain an eternal life of contentment.

 

 

Whether you know it or not, that is where the ideas you are defending come from.

 

This statement is a distraction from the central question, it’s another red herring. It doesn’t matter who asked the same question before me, or who wrote a book about the topic and came to a conclusion, what is important in this debate is to answer the Question: If a “Muslim” Society willingly adopts a secular Law, making lawful what Allah made unlawful, giving their loyalty to non believers instead of the believers, tolerating indecency in public, and believing in concepts that are detrimental to the Tawheed principle, which are the same manifestations of the First Jahiliyah Society of Qureish in Makkah, can that Society be called Jaahili, if not, apart from being in a different time, what gives it such encompassing exceptionalism?

Again, a Jahili System does not mean that everyone living within the boundary of the System is Jahili, nor does it mean that anyone who lives within an Islamic System is a Muslim, when we talk about a System, we are talking about the framework, and components have a different benchmark which is outside of the scope of this discussion.

 

The belief that rulings must be based on what Allah has revealed is part of the Tawheed so it is legitimate in itself. but in the context of that false theory or any other concept that is inconsistent with Islamic teachings, it is an invalid rationale. It is a case of the Tawheed being used to justify something that plainly contradicts the revealed texts

 

So what you are saying is this:

 

Hakimiyyah is part of Tawheed Principle

 

This is True, Deductively, by rejecting Hakimiyyah of Allah, the opposite of Tawheed which happens to be Shirk (polytheism) takes place and this Shirk is of the severe type as its in contempt of Allah’s Sovereign Law which deserves the harshest of warnings in Holy Quraan and the harshest punishment in Akhirah.

 

( Paraphrasing) If People decide to use manmade laws and reject Allah’s Law, they are still Muslims who are surrendering to Allah, and calling them Jahili is inconsistent with Islamic teachings. Because no matter what Muslims do or believe, they will always remain Muslims!

 

This statement is in blatant contradiction of the previous statement that conforms Hakimiyyah to be an integral component of Tawheed Principle. Even the Murjia’h, who claimed that deeds don’t compromise a person’s Islam, did not go this far, but Extreme Murji'ah is here and kicking in the 21th Century.

[Nur]

The Revealed Texts ( Quraan and Sunnah) contradict the application of Jahiliyah term on Muslim societies who reject the application of Shariah Law, adopt Secular Law, loyal to entities other than Allah, espouse beliefs alien to Islam and tolerate social indecency in public!

 

Please provide the Revealed texts that support this statement.

 

The Proper things to say when we find the above phenomena, is to say, these actions are Jahili, but the people who do it remain in Islam fold according to revealed Texts (Quraan and Sunnah)

 

This statement suggests that we should remove the crime from the criminal. Imagine suggesting theft as an abstract concept hanging in the air which makes the thief technically innocent!

 

The Salaf of the Ummah are in consensus that if anyone commits an action that is in the Kufr category, that the person becomes a kafir, regardless if he claims his actions halaal or not, because the fact that the person is not repenting from his deeds is sufficient to prove that he considers his actions or words to be halaal. Because iimaan ( belief) and Kufr are abstracts, we detect their existence through their fruits; actions or words, so whenever an action that is deemed to be iimaan is done, the we say that person is Mumin, according to the Hadeeth that if a man is seen praying regularly in the Masjid, we should become his witnesses that he is a believer, likewise, if a person commits an action that has no other explanation other than being a blatant disregard of our faith, then that person is what he has said or does, we should not separate the crime from the criminal.

 

In conclusion, if a person does an action that is Nifaaq, or kufr, then he becomes either a Munafiq or a kafir due to his actions, because iimaan is qowl and camal, deeds and words, and the words are further divided to words of the mouth, which require to be verified by actions, according to the Hadeeth, that iimaan is something in the heart, verified by deeds.

 

 

The existence of secular laws does not make the whole society pagans

 

This statement is true. By extension, neither does the existence of Shariah Law make whole society that lives under it a Muslim. Only those who accept Secular Laws, or prefer it than Shariah, or legislate according to Secular Laws, defend validity of Secular Laws by making it halal through the “Official Authorities”, only those are the ones the verses of Quraan are addressing as Mushrikeen.

 

He ( Prophet SAWS) lived during a time when Islam had not spread beyond Arabia and he nonetheless applied the term in a restricted manner--e.g. in reference to specific statements or actions--and he did not use it in unrestricted or absolute terms unless he was referring to the period before the advent of Islam

 

Another Red Herring! The Prophet SAWS was the head of the Islamic System, the leader, General, Teacher and Guardian. This was the Ideal society that have risen for Mankind, yet, he warned some of his companions from reverting back to Jahiliyah by using derogatory racial slurs. He warned the companion by telling him(“You are a man with a Jahili Trait “), meaning that the companion, was A Muslim but did not get rid of a Jahili trait when he came to Islam. His warning meant, that if part of Jahiliyyah is found in a Muslim, it can overtake him and can be fully Jahiliyyah, Allah SWT says in Al Imran " They were closer to Kufr that day than Iman".

 

 

Another area of your confusion arises in your limited knowledge of the relationship of principle of Sovereignty and Tawheed which most Nomads who have read my threads have mastered; below is the concept.

 

SOVEREIGNTY"

 

Sovereignty is defined as "supreme authority within a territory"

 

Its attributes/qualities:

 

1. Authority with Absolute Power ( No other power is greater than it)

2. Self dependent Authority, not by virtue of others

3. Irresistible Authority whose wishes must be obeyed by force.

4. Authority whose power controls its Domain.

 

Some of the attributes of Sovereignty:

 

1.( Absoluteness), Immune to any law, above law, no one escapes its law.

 

2. Supremacy, no other authority is higher than it.

 

3. Unity, the only authority to reckon with.

 

4. Originality, its orginal in its existence, has not borrowed its exisitence from another Sovereign, nor is continuation of another.

 

5. Non Transferable Authority, no one can take it away, it will never become legitimate if anyone else claims it.

 

6. An Authority that is always right, since it sets the criteria of what is right and what is wrong.

 

 

Now what is Deity is Islam:?

 

Allah in Surah Ikhlas desribed Himself as:

 

1. SINGULAR ( AXAD), single

2. SAMAD , Everything Absolutely depend on Him, He Absolutely Depends on Himself ALONE.

 

SAMAD has the Follwing Variations:

 

3. PROVIDER OF PROTECTION

4. RESCUER ( in times of distress)

5. Highest authority, no one scapes from His Jurisdiction and Sovreighnty.

6. Leadership. ( ZACIIM UL QOWM)

7. Anything one follows, even desires are called ilaah in Quraan.

 

Thus SOVEREGNTY aka (SAMAD) is a Devine trait and those who excercise it unwittingly claim Deity like Pharoah of Egypt.

 

So, Sovereignty and Democracy are two faces of the same coin, Sovereignty being the legal face while Democracy is the political face.

 

So following Democracy is following someone who claims to be a GOD. While following Allah is following the TRUE GOD.

 

Allah teaches us to say to people of the Book ( Jews and Christians who adopted polytheism : "let us strive to agree to converge to a common ground : That we do not worship other than Allah in any form, that we do not make associate with him other Sovereigns, and further that some of us should not take others for Lords (vested with Sovereignty)." If they turn away, then say: Be witness that we are MUSLIMS, (those who have willingly surrerndered to Allah's sovereignty)"

 

Therefore man should not worhsip man, by giving him a Devine Character, instead man should follow His creator, because a " A problem is not solved at the level it was created" Albert Einstein.

 

 

(Please don't respond until I am done)

 

To Be Continued.....................................

[Nur]

Ukhti Al Ghalya

 

After reading your responses, I have sensed that some basic Aqeedah issues remain unclear to you, and its important before wearing the mantle of defender of the Deen to pay close attention to the foundations upon which Islam is based on. Here at eNuri I have tried my best to simplify the mystery surrounding the Tawheed principle, please read in order to uncover the subtleties that are shrouding your judgment. Below is a response I wrote to a sister who was worried about the conflict between her actions and beliefs;

 

Am I A Munafiq?

 

Well, that is a difficult question, first let us learn the relationship between iimaan, sin and kufr to see where nifaaq belongs.

 

 

1. No Soul will go to Jannah which is not a Muslim(a)

 

2. No one can be Muslim without Shahaada (Tawxiid)

 

3. Shahaada is information, we are required to believe in and bear witness thereof.

 

4. The test to see if we indeed believe in information represented by the Shahaada are our deeds:

 

So our faith is composed of a

 

A. set of Information we are required to believe.

 

B. Set of Commands we are ordered to obey

 

The extent of your belief in the information that our Prophet SAWS delivered is measured by the extent of orders that we obey.

 

In other words, our obedience to the orders of Allah, is a reflection of our belief in the information delivered to us.

 

So , Islam is composed of a two sets:

 

A) A set of information to be believed in, like Allah, Jannah, angels, etc .

 

B) A set of orders to abide with, such as Prayers, (Salat), Fasting, Upholding Justice, etc .

 

The orders are subdivided in to two categories:

 

1.Orders to do something

2.Orders to stay away from doing something

 

If Allah orders us to do something, and we fail to comply, the reason could be:

 

a. We do not believe in the information

b. We believe in it but we are arrogant

c. We are MENTALLY CHALLENGED

 

If (a) that is clear kufr

If (b) That is also kufr, the type of Sheitan

If © We may be the same case like a crazy person, Mentally Challenged, no responsibility.

 

If we are ordered to stay away from something, and we do not, we have the following scenario:

 

a. We do not believe in the information b. We are arrogant

c. We can not resist temptation

d. We are MENTALLY CHALLENGED

 

All but case © are covered above.

 

If case © is the situation, then that is called disobedience (Sin)(Macsiyah) and it is what Adam and Eve , (Hawaa) aleyhimaa assalaam have committed. It does not make one a kaafir by itself. ( The Khawaarij are the only to claim that a sin can make one a Kafir )

 

To generalize the above.

 

If a person does something he is ordered not to do, the driver is more likely weakness against temptation, and that person is not a kaafir, this is the case of Adam and Eve, Aleyhimaa assalaam .

 

If a person refuses to do something he is ordered to do, the driver of his action is more likely arrogance, like the case of Sheitan .

 

Now we visit a new territory:

 

There is a principle for detecting iiman ( Faith) levels developed by Sheikh Ibn Taymiyah. Called (Talaazumul Dhaahir wal Baatin )( Synregy of the Apparent actions of a person with the Hidden Motives within the consciousness )

 

I will simplify it for you again.

 

The inside beliefs and the outward actions of a person are always working in harmony. Except when an outside disturbance influences that person attention. When as a result, the outwardly actions of that person projects and acts contrary of what is supposed to be inside .

 

Meaning.

 

In Systems Science, when we input a signal into a balanced system, we observe an output that reflects the shape of the original signal output + the function of the signal that operated on the system.

 

In the absence of outside disturbance, we can always predict the output. But when an outside element disturbs the system, the output will not be predictable.

 

A person who is a kaafir therefore will normally act as a kaafir. Sabeelul kaafireen

 

And a person who is a muslim will always act like a Muslim. Sabeelul Mumineen

 

In general, if you leave anyone alone, what he/she does is reflecting what they believe . But the minute that person feels that he/she is being observed, that feeling will somewhat effect the action of that person.

 

An example is when you catch a child making funny faces on a mirror the child will immediately alter his behaviour to an acceptable manner. This is called conforming.

 

So, when a Kaafir lives with Muslims, he may act like Muslim, to avoid problems. He is called a Munaafiq .

 

And a Muslim who lives with Kufaar may at times act like kuffar, to avoid problems. He is called Mukrah .

 

Now, a Somali Nomad who lives in Somalia, USA or Europe, is free to practice his faith, so if that person does not practice, or he acts contrary to his faiths tenets, his actions are an indicators of what is missing in his heart. In this case the actions or their absence are an indictor of the iimaan inside that person.

 

However a Muslim who lives in tyranny, his actions may not be indicator of his belief. Because, if this person practices his faith, he is afraid for his life. As a result this person conceals his faith portraying himself as non Muslim, when in effect he fully believes his faith and is willing tp practise it to the fullest if he was not afraid. His fear, though could be justifiable or may be unjustifiable, in which case he is in grave error.

 

Allah says : Are they same he who spends all his nights praying and prostrating, alert for aakhirah, and the one who is in darkness..............................."

Nasalu Allaha al caafiyah. Aamin

 

 

Walllahu aclam.

 

 

2000 Nurtel Communications Old Edition

Paradise is Possible Summer Campaign

[Nur]

Nomads

 

This topic remains open, I have yet to post the response to the last part of Sister Warmoog's argument and conclude this topic with thought provoking conclusion inshaAllah.

 

 

Baarakallahhu Feekum

 

 

Nur

[Manahel.fatima]

Thank GOD i found some one who i shere to discuss issues. other wise on each and every forum i got my self banned.

[Nur]

Continuation of TOPIC

 

Warmoog sis writes:

 

Second, the Hukm factor you mentioned is the rationale (al-Haakmiyyah) behind the Jaahiliyyah theory. The belief that rulings must be based on what Allah has revealed is part of the Tawheed so it is legitimate in itself, .

 

So are you suggesting that its not legitimate with respect of application to modern secular nation states who have adopted Democracy or other forms of legislation?

 

Here is your response: "but in the context of that false theory or any other concept that is inconsistent with Islamic teachings, it is an invalid rationale"

 

When did we agree that Jaahiliyyah is a Theory? its Allah's word, its a fact, not theory. If you mean its rationale of its applicability to modern societies as a theory, I have addressed it above. Islamic teachings have to be consistent withTAWHEED, NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND, as TAWHEED is the blue print, the DNA of all Islamic teachings. Are you suggesting by any chance that we rewrite the TAWHEED principle to match modern Islamic interpretation? Here we go again, in bed with our Judeo Christian cousins who have changed their TAWHEED to become TRINITY, and still insist that its MONOTHEISM, " But the THREE GODS ARE ONE" Go figure how they ended up with such a warped logic.

 

 

You write:

 

"It is a case of the Tawheed being used to justify something that plainly contradicts the revealed texts."

 

Please kindly show the verses in Quraan that show a contradiction of what I said and wrote in these threads and TAWHEED, and I promise to change my views.

 

 

You write:

 

"When Muslim societies are governed by entities with un-Islamic laws, the correct thing to say is that those specific un-Islamic laws are jaahili"

 

If the Laws governing a society is Jaahili, then what proof from Quraan and Sunnah do you you have that indemnifies them from such collective crime?

 

 

You write:

 

"The existence of those laws does not remove people from the fold of Islam and it does not make that entire society a 'jaahili' society of disbelief or paganism.

 

True, like I have said in last post, but again, Kufr is of several types, Kufr of disbelief is just one manifestation, the other type of kufr is the Kufr of Enaad, ( Stubbornness, insisting on Allah's disobedience at all costs,) which is similar to Satan's Kufr, since he did not have problem with disbelief.

 

In Quraan we have Qowm Caad, who claimed Superiority who challenged Allah by saying "Who is more powerful than us?", and Qowm Thamud, whom Allah guided, but who, instead of Allah's guidance, preferred Camaa and Dalalah ( Blindness and Going against Allah's guidance ) than Hudaa. Does this ring a bell today?

 

 

You write:

 

"It does not mean that whole society is engaged in 'rebellion against the sovereignty of Allah', nor does it make the people 'pagans' who associate partners with Allah by obeying man-made laws, which is what the false Jaahiliyyah theory leads people to think.

 

Does obedience to wrong commands make a society Jahili?

 

Again, let us refer to Holy Quraan about Qowm Caad's followers:

 

59. Such were 'Ad (people). They rejected the Ayat (proofs, evidences, verses, lessons, signs, revelations, etc.) of their Lord and disobeyed His Messengers, and followed the command of every proud obstinate (oppressor of the truth, from their leaders).

60 زAnd they were pursued by a curse in this world and (so they will be) on the Day of Resurrection. No doubt! Verily, 'Ad committed KUFR against their Lord. So away with 'Ad, the people of Hud.

 

 

 

 

......................................................................................................To be continued

[Manahel.fatima]

JAZAKLLAH.. lots of informative data here.. seems i need lots of time for it.